jump to navigation

The Left Archive: “The Workers’ Party: Its Evolution and Its future: A Critique” Eoin Ó Murchú of the Communist Party of Ireland February 4, 2008

Posted by WorldbyStorm in Communist Party of Ireland, Irish Left Online Document Archive.


A guest Left Archive post from John O’Neill of the Irish Socialist Network [their excellent site is here]


Communist Party of Ireland
Eoin Ó Murchú The Workers’ Party: Its Evolution and Its Future: A Critique

(Scanned from Irish Socialist Review, September 1982)

This is a lengthy (26 pages) article written by Eoin O’Murchú former Ard Comhairle member of ‘Official’ Sinn Fein and editor of their newspaper “The United Irishman”. He defected to the Communist Party after a leadership struggle possibly around the time he was replaced as Editor of the ‘UI’ and went on to hold the post of General Secretary of the Communist Party of Ireland. He resigned from the CPI although why and when I am unsure.

This article is interesting in part, particularly as he was on the A/C (Ard Comhairle – party executive) and outlines some of the strategy, policy and directional struggles that took place within OSF/SFWP. However it should be remembered that O’Murchu is writing the article from a CPI perspective and his conclusions would have had to coincide with the overall analysis of that Party. He gives certain people a positive mention like Cathal Goulding and Tomás MacGiolla but it is obvious that he had little time for Seamus Costello and Eamon Smullen with Garland somewhere ‘in between’ in his estimation.

Goulding’s speech at Bodenstown in 1967 is identified as the first shift in orientation from traditional physical force republicanism and The Irish Industrial Revolution as the departure from traditional Marxist analysis. On the PIRA, O’Murchu argues that the Officials made a disastrous error of judgement in refusing to either criticise or respond to any PIRA statements thus lending credibility to accusations they made about the Officials. The attempt by the PIRA to wipe out the OIRA in 1972 is seen as the event that brought about a “propaganda offensive that they have never since refrained from.”

As all of these events were before my involvement and the fact that I was never an Ard Comhairle member I cannot really verify any of them. Hopefully some others who contribute to the site are older and can recall some of the internal ideological disputes referred to.

I would also mention that when I asked people in the WP about O’Murchu the overall impression I was given was that he was quiet, intelligent and arrogant and people felt that he had ‘risen through the ranks’ too hastily (possibly with assistance from Goulding?) He had (rightly) argued that internal education was essential to the Party but it is alleged that he wanted potential members to sit an exam before being accepted as full members!

I hope the publication of this article generates an intense intelligent debate that Cedar Lounge is renowned for. All typo’s are down to me and my scanner.


1. Garibaldy - February 4, 2008

What strikes me most about this analysis is the similarities it bears to the hostile analysis of what happened in the 1960s. Goulding, Garland, Mac Giolla, and also people like O’Hagan, were/are unable to think for themselves and end up being led by the nose. It’s a little difficult to believe if you know the people involved.

The tone of the article backs up, it seems to me, the description John was given – these people are theoretical illiterates unlike us in the CP (the same attitude as one finds in both BICO and historical writings in people like Patterson).

It’s interesting too that a decade later, the language of 1972 is acceptd uncritically – for example references to the Orange anything were and are less them helpful, even if they are meant to refer to Stormont and the upper classes.

I’d also guess that while there certainly was some tension between people within The WP to say that there was a split between republicans and the industrial type is several steps too far. I also note relative to a recent discussion here that this refers to WP members describing the Irish Industrial Revolution as a discussion document.

Overall then I’d say this is a better-informed version of how the history of The WP is seen by rivals on the outside. It will be interesting to see if the forthcoming book can move beyond the mislead leadership story contained here.


2. WorldbyStorm - February 4, 2008

A fascinating document John. It’s extremely comprehensive – and very long and hence tricky to try to sum up. A couple of initial thoughts strike me. I wonder was O Murchu in part or whole one of those who shaped the later approach of the CPI to the WP? Secondly I tend to agree, to a point, about his term “Half Armed Struggle”… but only to a point. Thirdly, how many went with O Murchu to CPI? Anyone know? And did any return? Fourth, I agree with him to some degree that the INLA split did lead to something of a break with militarism in the ranks, but that was arguably in the broader party and not necessarily within a core (which O M does reference).

Garibaldy, I’m not as concerned as you are by the statements to ‘Orange’. In a context where the ruling party was viscerally linked to the OO, where there was very much a sectarian face to that state, I think it’s reasonable, but perhaps not as nuanced as we might like.

I agree with you though that the idea that Goulding et al were just mislead is a nonsense. They drove the project themselves…


3. Garibaldy - February 4, 2008


Very astute comments. I don’t know precise numbers of people who left (or even when Ó Murchú went exactly) but I can think of around half a dozen people between Dublin and Belfast around the mid to late 70s, and I’m sure there were more. The CP approached some people I know to join who were WP members. Some also went the other way.

As for what was driving CP attitudes towards The WP, I’d say it was primarily the north. Even today, I think it’s fair to say, the CP has never quite sorted out its attitude, with differences of opinion (primarily between elements in the north and elements in Dublin) over the nature of the Troubles, and the attitudes that ought to be taken. Which makes this criticism of others for not being able to think in a theoretically sophisticated enough fashion about the north somewhat ironic.

On the break with militarism. This is a complicated question. My own feeling is that the leadership (though not anywhere near as high a proportion of the membership) had essentially decided on a political organisation before 1969 but that the outbreak of the Troubles delayed the move, and perhaps made some people think – temporarily – there might have been a case for retaining a movement as opposed to a party. But wasn’t the IRSP split precisely because that had already been rejected in favour of politics alone, rather than the cause of that decision?

I understand why people used the language of the Orange junta or whatever in the early and middle 1970s, but I think by 1982 the damaging nature of it was clear, and best dropped. Whereas I got the impression from Ó Murchú’s discussion that he thought it still had a place. Perhaps I am wrong.


4. WorldbyStorm - February 4, 2008

Garibaldy, that’s really telling. I think I’ve said before that in some ways the WP and CPI were very very similar, but in others you’d hardly find more different organisations.

I’d agree with you that it must have been the North that was the sticking point.

I’d see it very slightly differently vis a vis the break with militarism. I think there were two aspects (which again O M touches on) that drove this dynamic. Yes, as you rightly say, some thought it was time to drop militarism, but then once violence flared up there were many who genuinely thought a revolutionary situation might develop and this probably kept things going for a considerable length of time (for example, had Aldershot gone differently, or indeed had Ranger Best not been murdered, I think it’s fair to say a ceasefire would have taken longer). And added to that was a Leninist conception of the vanguard, in this instance a trained and armed vanguard (actually, that’s pretty much a Connollyite conception too… not that I’d expect E. Gilmore to reintroduce an ICA 😉 ), so pacificism wasn’t part of the party’s makeup at all and the idea was that a revolutionary force would have recourse to that particular tool should the need arise. That certainly was my experience in the 1980s from talking to comrades.

No, I don’t think you’re wrong, but I do think that there were political aspects of Stormont 1 that made it particularly unpleasant and it’s understandable people would feel strongly about it (the civil rights struggle was expressly *against* Stormont 1). And after all, 1972 was just barely a decade after it was prorogued.

Can’t disagree with you as regards theoretical incoherence on the part of the CPI on this issue!!! Although in fairness they did take an anti-violence line…


5. Garibaldy - February 4, 2008

I agree that if certain events had gone slightly differently, the ceasefire would have been delayed. Although I’ve always thought that the Ranger Best thing was an excuse rather than the cause of the ceasefire – i.e. an opportunity was spotted and taken. On the vanguard thing, I’d look at that differently. If you look at the Garland Bodenstown thing quoted, revolution is viewed as the very end of a long process of political development among the people of Ireland, and as the product of mass action. Very different than having an open military wing carrying out actions during periods of normal activity. In that sense, the position was moving towards the normal communist one. Ultimately revolution might well be necessary, but normal politics in the interim.

1982 was a decade after the end of Stormont. That’s both a short and a long time. Given the number of deaths, and the increase in sectarianism, never mind the fact Stormont was gone, I think the world was a radically different one than it had been. Perhaps it was that a focus on British imperialism as the problem meant it looked more the same as that had not changed.

Formally the CP has always taken an anti-violence line, at least in the north. But many of its members have been much more ambiguous, praising those carrying it out as the leading anti-imperialist force etc.


6. WorldbyStorm - February 4, 2008

Yeah, I think you’re right about Best. Ah, yes, I take your point re vanguard, I meant a prepared army, not an active or offensive one…

Re the CP, I still think they had/have a much better line than the SWP. Obviously 😉


7. Garibaldy - February 4, 2008

Hee hee. Not saying much.


8. Garibaldy - February 4, 2008

Actually, the SWP couldn’t make up its mind either, now that I think about it.


9. ejh - February 5, 2008

Style note: the term “excellent” should never be used to describe websites, blogs, fanzines or books, since it’s come to be used so often that it’s lost any meaning.

Carry on.


10. Ed Hayes - February 6, 2008

Related point; I don’t have them anymore but if someone has ‘Where we Stand’ (1984?) or ‘Socialists, republicans and the armed struggle’ (1991) both from SWM you would get some idea of the shifting positions.


11. Redking - February 6, 2008

Also on the SWM’s shifts-these can be charted in Eamonn McCann’s various editions of “War and an Irish Town”-the 1974 and 1980s editions fairly supportive of the Provos, the mid 90s post ceasefire one critical of them.


12. Ed Hayes - February 6, 2008

Indeed they can, though I would say that the 1974 edition is quite critical, the 1980 edition v. supportive and the 1993 edition (pre-ceasefire) critical again. Thats in intros and final chapters though. The main body of text is the same in them all.


13. WorldbyStorm - February 6, 2008

Yes, the path of the SWP and associated members over the decades has never been easy. We can perhaps reasonably judge that support has been withdrawn as revolutionary rhetoric and violence have simultaneously subsided. But surely that’s substitutionism by any other name?


14. Garibaldy - February 7, 2008

Support has ebbed and flowed depending – like a lot of SWP positions – on what seemed most likely to garner more members at that particular time, rather than any coherent analysis. What is interesting now is to see Mc Cann, who has made cogent criticisms of the GFA arrangements on the grounds of sectarianism, ally himself with some of the most reactionary and bigoted terroristic elements in Derry. Again – after all these years. Astonishing.

What is almost equally astonishing was to see the SP write to Caitríona Ruane et al on the recent strike and quote Bobby Sands’ socialism. This from a group that consistently and correctly identified sectarianism and terrorism perpetrated by Sands and others (let’s not forget he was arrested for an attack on a Protestant business) as massive impediments to progressive politics in NI. Incredibly cynical.

The fact that we now have peace and the leftist rhetoric has thrown a lot of groups into disarray. They are torn between sticking to their original arguments, and chasing those disaffected by what they see as PSF pursuing an insufficiently revolutionary agenda. However, the criticism boils down to an insufficiently nationalist agenda, and so they are trying to make a silk purse out of a sow’s ear. Any serious recruitment from disffected nationalists will only cause them problems further down the line.


15. Redking - February 7, 2008

Interesting that McCann burned his bridges with most of the left fairly early on. I’ve always thought the problem with Eamonn McCann was Eamonn McCann! If you know what I mean…

I know his relations with the WP have at times been abrasive-and when he tried to join the Irps even they refused him membership.He is a national figure (one of the few on the Left) mostly because of his lively journalism-the times I’ve seen him speaking publically I’ve been impressed by his top drawer oratorical skills. But as you say the volte faces etc-astonishing.

The SP-I’m surprised at that-but I note from a recentl WP newsletter that the SP attended the last NI WP Regional Conference so I wonder what’s going on-maybe cynicism as you say.


16. ejh - February 7, 2008

A list of leftists and leftist groups whose poistions on the North had not changed substantially over the last 35 years would not take long to compile.


17. Garibaldy - February 7, 2008

Adjustments are one thing EJH. But totally flip-flops are quite another.


18. John O'Neill - February 7, 2008

I got a copy of a recent ‘Look Left’ magazine of the WP and it mentioned they had a speaker from the Iraqi Communist Party at the recent Ard Fheis. Are they not involved in the US puppet Government in Iraq? If so, this indicates a significant shift in the traditional WP position of supporting anti imperialist struggles in the Middle East.


19. ejh - February 7, 2008

Well, one comrade’s flip-flop is another’s reassessment in the light of changing circumstances….


20. Garibaldy - February 7, 2008


That’s true. But there are limits to what is an adjustment of policy/strategy within expounded principles, and ending up like Harris or BICO.

On John’s comments, a number of clarifications.
The conference addressed by the Iraqi CP was not the Ard Fheis, but the Northern Regional Conference. This is not a decision making-body, but a discussion forum for progressive elements within NI. Part of its purpose since its inception has been to allow members and supporters to hear speakers from a range of political positions, and to encourage dialogue between different parties and groups. So there have been UUP, SDLP, Alliance, Labour (including this year Jon Cruddas MP, who won the largest number of votes for deputy leader in the recent contest) etc. There was supposed to be a CPI speaker, but he was compelled to withdraw for another meeting. Needless to say, being invited to speak at this conference does not mean an endorsement of a speaker’s political position.

As for the Iraqi CP specifically. The purpose of inviting them was to hear their analysis of the situation within Iraq, in regards to the occupation, religious violence, the control of natural resources, and national sovereignty etc.

Their position is this. They opposed the war, and they oppose the occupation while taking up the seats reserved for them in government. They took up those seats in order to try and build a more secular and democratic regime than might otherwise have occurred – Afghanistan being a lesson here I guess of the type of religious regime that might emerge even under foreign domination. They do not themselves engage in armed resistance but do not condemn those who mount attacks on foreign troops. However, they are resolutely opposed both to Islamist ideology and sectarian violence on the grounds (and this should sound familiar) that it is the ordinary people of Iraq suffering, and that it will only weaken any chance of national uniyt and progressive politics.

People can accept or reject their logic. It is vital for the international communist and workers’ parties that they do not attempt to interfere in the internal affairs of other countries. The maintenance of fraternal relations does not depend on absolute agreement. Nor should it. Internationalism is at the core of WP politics, with strong links maintained within the EU and further afield, including in Palestine, Iraq, Iran and other places in the Middle East.

The WP’s position on imperialism and Iraq is perfectly clear. Opposition to the war, opposition to the occupation, opposition to the theft of natural resources, and opposition to the dilution of Iraqi national sovereignty. Opposition also to ideogies that threaten democracy, secularism and unity among workers.


21. WorldbyStorm - February 7, 2008

To be honest Garibaldy I think the ICP have a perfectly valid stance for a secular non-sectarian party to take.


22. Garibaldy - February 8, 2008

I’d certainly be inclined to agree. But John O’Neill was suggesting that in having the Iraqi CP speak, it represented an endorsement. Whereas my point was that it’s not for any party outside Iraq to decide what they should do any more than it was for, say, the French CP to dictate WP attitudes to the Troubles. So I left out mu opinion so as not to muddy the waters.


23. John O'Neill - February 13, 2008

Garabaldi says “This is not a decision making-body, but a discussion forum for progressive elements within NI. Part of its purpose since its inception has been to allow members and supporters to hear speakers from a range of political positions, and to encourage dialogue between different parties and groups. So there have been UUP, SDLP, Alliance, Labour”

Fair enough, I stand corrected on the conference, but I can’t buy your point that the Iraqi CP, no matter how well intentioned its aims partaking in a government set up by the occupying powers who’s sole aim has been to plunder the country. Any party involved in the government of Iraq only gives legitimacy to the Imperialist invader.

I also don’t buy that Parties cannot comment or analyse developments on the left outside of their respective countries. The left in Ireland have critiqued leftist developments from Scotland to Venezuela rightly or wrongly.

I am also strange that any self professed Marxist party would see any value in dialoguing with “progressive elements” such as the UUP, SDLP, Alliance and (UK?) Labour. It all sounds very ‘cosy’ but on what basis are they progressive? All are bourgeois Parties and have nothing in common with the stated aims of the WP. Where’s the class politics?


24. John O'Neill - February 13, 2008

whoops! last para should start I also find it strange…..


25. Garibaldy - February 13, 2008

My original quote should have been UUP, SDLP, Alliance, Labour speakers but I left the speakers bit out by accident. The parties themselves are not progressive but elements within them are. Why are some elements of the bourgeois parties progressive in NI? Quite simply, because sectarianism is the core issue facing NI society, and some elements within those parties are opposed to it. It was all the more important during the Troubles that all those opposed to the sectarian murder of workers (and let’s not forget that the numbers of middle class people killed were tiny) acted in concert where possible. And in the new dispensation, with the instutionalisation of sectarian headcounts in the Assembly, cooperation remains key. Sectarianism is a class issue as it is overwhelmingly workers who suffer because of it.

On the broader question of cooperating with bourgeois parties, or elements within them, I’d have thought that, especially in the current climate of a very weak left, the answer was obvious. If someone wants to defend (or in the south establish!) a health system and defend public services, or oppose the Lisbon treaty, or democratise and secularise the state, then I see no problem whatsoever with working with them without demanding that they sign up completely to everything I believe in. If I thought like that, I’d join an ultra-left sect. And I’d be very suprised if that wasn’t your attitude to cooperation too John.

The class politics therefore to me runs through everything discussed above. What is in the best interests of workers now, and in the long term? To break down sectarianism, and to defend public services, and promote democracy and secularism. When these are secured and the left has revitalised itself, a move to a more traditional set of demands will meet with more success instead of resulting in being labelled as out of touch with reality.

On the Iraqi thing. It’s not a matter of not adopting critical positions towards the policies of others as such, but a matter of not saying that if you don’t share our analysis of events in your country then you have put yourself outside the communist and workers’ movement and we won’t talk to you. That isn’t helpful. They are the people on the ground dealing with the situation. As I said above, personally I’d be inclined to accept the validity of their analysis when dealing with the fait accompli of the occupation and the existence of a government regardless of whether they are in it or not. At a time when a constitution is being remade and there is a serious risk of it being religiously-dominated, I can understand there desire to be involved. I can also understand why people think they are in the wrong. I still think it is important to give people here a chance to hear what they say.


26. Mark P - February 13, 2008

Garibaldy: Your reference to a letter from the SP in comment number 14 is misleading in the extreme and leaves the context in which it was written out entirely.

The background to the letter was that striking classroom assistants had protested outside Ruane’s office. Some of them carried placards comparing Ruane to Thatcher.

The SF response was to try and throw mud by claiming that it was a grievous insult to the memories of Sands and other hunger strikers to compare strike breaking Sinn Fein Ministers to Thatcher. This was unfortunately, in a West Belfast context, a point that had to be answered.

The letter was written in response to this red herring and one of the points it made was that Sands claimed to be a socialist and that attacking workers on strike was hardly compatible with socialism. The letter very carefully and deliberately did not describe Sands as a socialist, but merely pointed out that he claimed to be one, which is, for the purposes of undermining SF’s attacks, what matters here.

The other point it made was that Thatcher would indeed have approved of Ruane and SF’s opposition to the strikers.

The Socialist Party has made no attempt whatsoever to recruit disillusioned provos by arguing that SF are insufficiently nationalist. Our criticisms of them remain that they are a firmly capitalist party and that they act to increase rather than decrease sectarian division.


27. CL - February 13, 2008

The O Murchu piece clearly shows the influence of the IIR and the acceptance of economic orthodoxy. What is amazing is how readily an allegedly revolutionary political organization, SFWP, accepted bourgeois economics. This ‘mid-Atlantic’, Anglo-American economics, is now the hegemonic ideology and the weakness of the Left is seen in its inability to contest it.


28. WorldbyStorm - February 14, 2008

CL, I’m curious, have your read the IIR?


29. Garibaldy - February 14, 2008


I don’t feel it was misleading. I do think it was cynical. The appeal to Sands is a very loaded one with certain connotations. I think it was a mistake.


It was more an argument that if capitalism produces its own gravediggers then perhaps more advanced capitalism might in the long run open opportunities for the development of working class politics. Rather than an acceptance of economic orthodoxy.


30. John O'Neill - February 14, 2008

Garabaldi – If the discussions were around sectarianism what was the outcome? What was achieved? Is there to be a broad campaign to be launched against sectarianism in cooperation with these Parties? If so I would welcome this as a positive development. But the UUP and, to a lesser extent, the SDLP wouldn’t be immune to sectarianism within their own ranks and supporters. So how does discussing the problem of sectarianism with progressive elements of the UUP or the SDLP forward the cause of eliminating sectarianism when they haven’t even got their own houses in order?

On the question of broad fronts, of course I agree that all left groups should involve themselves in campaigns and I believe that all the so called “ultra left sects” do to. (BTW ultra left is usually a Stalinist/Trotskyist derogatory term to describe other left groups).

Personally, I believe that the SWP, SP, CP, WP, etc. organisations are all part of the radical left and I have more in common with them than any bourgeoisie party, including Labour. For me they are all part of the way forward for Ireland because they engage in the struggle to politicise the working class, are class conscious organisations and all deserving the progressive label.

As for arguing for unrealistic or ‘revolutionary’ demands, you should take a look at the article here to see where going down the logic of a ‘realistic’ road can lead.


The left is indeed weak. There are a multitude of reasons for our weakness and the left could and should be discussing and seeking to develop strategies to move to a stronger position. But unfortunately this isn’t on the cards at the moment.

On Iraq – I think the future is bleak. It looks like as soon as the US imperialists withdraw, the constitution and everything else will that is tainted with US involvement will be jettisoned and there is a real possibility unfortunately of sectarian civil war. The Iraqi CP are not the only organisation opposed to sectarianism and fundamentalism. There are other Marxist Parties in Iraq that are on the ground and have taken different positions like the Worker Communist Party of Iraq http://www.wpiraq.net/english/ and their analysis of the ICP is; “In this new stage, the ICP has taken its clear and overt position alongside the Right forces in the society, beside the US and the Islamic and ethnocentric forces. It has no leftist or communist features.”


31. CL - February 14, 2008

WBS, yes I have read the IIR. I still it strange that a ‘marxist’ organization would produce such a document, and that it would have such an influence. It ignores so much other work in the marxist tradition, e.g. Sweezy and Baran and the Monthly Review, the work of Samir Amin, World System theory, and the great work of Walter Rodney. And it ignored Marx’s work on Ireland-Hazelkorn had taken some pains to show how Marx on Ireland was not quite marxist! An approach which accepts, and indeed promotes, the IDA’s views, the views of T.K. Whittaker and those of Sean Lemass is, I think, promoting economic orthodoxy. Perhaps its no accident that one of its authors later became an adviser to F.G. and to the Unionist Party. As well as its economic orthodoxy the IIR accepts the work of conventional, academic historians, although its use of vulgar marxist jargon does give it a patina of radicalism.


32. CL - February 14, 2008

Also the IIR is remarkably similar to the work of BICO’s Bill Warren and is quiet congruent with modern-day proponents of imperialism.


33. Fred - February 14, 2008

While I think the IIR had its purposes as a ideological document that could put fire in the belly and aid the dynamic of the SFWP I have to agree with some of CL criticisms, the document does clearly borrow from modernisation theory, and is strikingly unMarxist in many senses – it is a sign post on the way to where things like Harris and some to the former trot neo-cons would end up, that does not mean it is not a Leftwing document all it means is that it has strands if developed which bring it far from the Left towards the lonney right.


34. Starkadder - February 14, 2008

“Also the IIR is remarkably similar to the work of BICO’s Bill Warren and is quiet congruent with modern-day proponents of imperialism.”

That’s interesting, CL. Would those “modern-day proponents”
include right-wings like Niall Ferguson and Paul Johnson?

Both Bill Warren and Frank Furedi of the Revolutionary
Communist Party argued that the creation of a global capitalist
market were a necessary pre-requisite for the creation
of a socialist society. I would agree with CL that these
views (Harris,Warren,Furedi) would be compatible with
“economic orthodoxy”.


35. Ex CPI - May 22, 2008

Just a little point! As a former member of the CPI I would like to say that as far as I know Eoin was never Gen. Sec. Around 89-90 Red Mick Retired as Gen. Sec. and Jimmy Steward Took over than around 2001 Eugene McCartan got the Gen. Sec. post


36. WorldbyStorm - May 22, 2008

Ex CPI, I’m sure you’re right. What was his position then inside the CPI?


Jim Monaghan - January 12, 2019

Eoin was editor of the United Irishman. He was ousted from this. To the great satisifaction of many. I think to the satisifaction of what was the Garland/Costello axis. I may be mistaken on this.


37. Irish Left Archive: Republican Worker, Official Sinn Féin, 1976 « The Cedar Lounge Revolution - January 19, 2009

[…] it happens this is also mentioned here in the Left Archive in the Critique by Eoin O’Murchu of the Workers’ Party. For another […]


38. johnharper42@hotmail.com - November 4, 2012

I went to so called educating classes in Mornington County Meath
.The problem was they were asking folks with not much education to take on board policies,they could not even prounounce.O,Murochi and his ilk did not have much time for poor folk from belfast or Dublin its my way or the highway.As I think the Democratic left were the same,they were not involved in education.get powet,and we know power corrups and the formation of the labour party proves it.


39. Reed - March 2, 2016

Hi there! I could have sworn I’ve been to this web site before but after
looking at many of the posts I realized it’s
new to me. Anyhow, I’m definitely delighted I discovered it and I’ll be bookmarking it
and checking back often!


40. Brian Patterson - January 12, 2019

An astute analysis of the strengths and weaknesses of the Official Republican movement whose internal contradictions led to its ultimate irrelavence.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: