jump to navigation

What you want to say – 11th May 2016 May 11, 2016

Posted by WorldbyStorm in Uncategorized.
trackback

As always, following on Dr. X’s suggestion, it’s all yours, “announcements, general discussion, whatever you choose”, feel free.

Comments»

1. sonofstan - May 11, 2016
2. tinder - May 11, 2016

just now, weds., c.9.55 p.m., i encountered two Lovely men, clearing a sewer. at Farronsheen roundabout, waterford city.
it was the “Council” who had called them. i looked down, and it is a , Minimum of 8ft. down, and the circumference, c.4ft.
yet, waterford city council liaiase with the private security firms to monitor any ‘one’ individual.

Like

3. CL - May 12, 2016

“Senior members of Sinn Féin have in recent weeks continued to promote a discredited historical narrative which has also been used by white supremacist groups in the US to attack and denigrate the African-American experience of slavery.”
http://www.irishtimes.com/news/politics/sinn-f%C3%A9in-not-allowing-facts-derail-good-irish-slaves-yarn-1.2644397

Like

Alibaba - May 12, 2016

I take it for granted that the media are out to vilify Sinn Féin and Gerry Adams in particular. That said, concerning his comments about slaves and so forth, is Adams plain ignorant or what is going on here?

By Adams’ own admission the n word on Twitter was a “silly and stupid” mistake. He apologised and so I thought — fair dues. But then he went on to say he had been “paralleling the experiences of the Irish, not just in recent times but through the penal days when the Irish were sold as slaves, through the Cromwellian period”. This could be taken to mean “I’m sorry, but not really sorry because …”. It is stupid and gratuitous and bad history all round.

And just because white supremacists have hijacked these types of statements by republicans doesn’t mean that the original wrong did not happen. Of course some Irish people were complicit in slavery: but far more were abolitionists.

Apparently, as with many Irish republicans, Adams was exaggerated in his historical facts as background for what he said. This should be stopped.

Like

WorldbyStorm - May 12, 2016

What’s curious though is that the motivations are entirely opposite. SF etc are trying to in a sense emphasise – however ineptly or inappositely – solidarity and commonality of experiences, white supremacists the opposite. I don’t think motivations are unimportant (and few would find it unreasonable that NICRA etc explicitly made common cause with African Americans in the 1960s where the similarities were much greater, though still I would argue not entirely the same). That said I do agree that it would make a lot of sense if there was a some quiet by SF etc on the subject. It’s lose lose and however well-meaning the two situations aren’t comparable enough to sustain the point being made.

Like

Brian Hanley - May 12, 2016

‘Of course some Irish people were complicit in slavery: but far more were abolitionists.’
Well, there’s a topic for debate right there. The biggest Irish community in the world (outside Ireland) in the 1840s-60s were in the United States and every work on the subject of American slavery would suggest that the majority of the Irish there were hostile to abolitionism. When Daniel O’Connell backed abolition it destroyed the Repeal movement in the U.S.

Like

oconnorlysaght - May 15, 2016

I think that a majority of the pre-Civil War Irish Americans were pro-slavery, or at least anti-Black. This was a/. because they were in competition with Black free labour and b/ because the general feeling of their environment was, albeit decreasingly, anti-Abolitionist. This last factor was shown in the Civil War, when the Irish on both sides went with the flow and, accordingly, more Irish fought for the Union than against it. There are descriptions of Irish Union soldiers marching to ‘John’s Brown Body’ a song in honour of a man whom most of them would have considered in his life time to be a dangerous terrorist.

Like

CL - May 15, 2016

Increasing support for the abolitionists and for emancipation led to anxiety among New York’s white proslavery supporters of the Democratic Party, particularly the Irish….
The rioters’ targets initially included only military and governmental buildings, symbols of the unfairness of the draft…. But by afternoon of the first day, some of the rioters had turned to attacks on black people, and on things symbolic of black political, economic, and social power
http://www.press.uchicago.edu/Misc/Chicago/317749.html

Like

Alibaba - May 15, 2016

Frederick Douglass, the famed anti-slavery campaigner said this about his trip to Ireland:”“I only claim,” he confided to an associate midway through the tour, “to be a man of one idea.” Indeed, challenged during a lecture to explain why the subordination of Ireland’s poor to English interests might also warrant use of the term slavery, he answered, “that if slavery existed here, it ought to be put down.” But, he insisted, “there was nothing like American slavery on the soil on which he now stood”’. Sinn Féin: take note.

In May 1863, speaking in Brooklyn, he observed, “I am told that the Irish element in this country is exceedingly strong, and that that element will never allow coloured men to stand upon an equal political footing with white men. I am pointed to the terrible outrages committed from time to time by Irishmen upon negroes. The mobs at Detroit, Chicago, Cincinnati, and New York are cited as proving the unconquerable aversion of the Irish toward the coloured race.” Even so, to the end of his life, Douglass fondly remembered his 1840s lecture tour of Ireland and the welcoming reception he had been accorded. And though many Irish-Americans often opposed his civil rights efforts, he also viewed the Irish, in both Ireland and America, as a persecuted people. He even saw parallels between their plight and that of African Americans. Indeed, throughout his career, Douglass often invoked Daniel O’Connell and his struggles on behalf of Ireland as a cautionary tale for African Americans and, more broadly, the United States.’

http://www.irishtimes.com/culture/books/frederick-douglass-s-irish-odyssey-1.2084550

It could be said that the Irish in Ireland were more pro-abolitionism. The Irish in the US were more ambivalent. Remember they were there as interlopers: slavery was legal and constitutional, and both the Catholic Church and the Democratic party supported it. The US Irish were told not to rock the boat. And there was a class dimension. especially as alleged in the link above “White workers compared their value unfavorably to that of southern slaves” and the Irish were involved in attacks on the blacks.

Like

Jim Monaghan - May 15, 2016

A forgotten Irish hero of abolitionism https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_D._Webb

Like

tinder - May 16, 2016

aaac’me herelook, look, “th irish were sold as slaves”.

Wil someone, evvrr, put Cromwell in perspective.

ok, Cromwell, sailed over, to here.

but, Cromwell, was, the First? Republican???

yeaa, Cromwell???

Like

4. gendjinn - May 12, 2016
5. Starkadder - May 12, 2016

George Zimmerman is selling the gun he used to murder Trayvon Martin , calling it “your opportunity to own a piece of American history” and is going to use the money to fight Black Lives Matter:

http://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2016/may/12/george-zimmerman-trayvon-martin-gun-auction

Disgusted. I wonder will Zimmerman next be selling the fan used to beat Emmett Till to death or the rope used to strangle Leo Frank?

Like

Starkadder - May 12, 2016

Update : The gun has been removed from sale:

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-36281438

Like

6. roddy - May 12, 2016

RTE tonight had to issue an apology to Danny Morrison for comments made by Miriam O’Callaghan during the last leaders debate prior to the election.Hope he takes them to the cleaners.

Liked by 1 person

WorldbyStorm - May 12, 2016

Good. It was the least he deserved.

Like

7. Philip Ferguson - May 13, 2016

Would be great if people from here could make it to the March for Connolly, Dublin, Saturday, May 14, assembling at 2pm at the Wolfe Tone monument in Stephen’s Green.

Like

8. Jolly Red Giant - May 15, 2016

I see that SF members are now embarking on a campaign of attacking Paul Murphy for receiving legal aid in the criminal case he faces with 18 other Jobstown defendants

Like

tinder - May 16, 2016

hv not readthe proceeding comments. but JRG u r prescient.

Like

9. roddy - May 15, 2016

zzzzzzzzzzzzz!

Like

Jolly Red Giant - May 15, 2016

I am sure the Shinners would love to see Paul Murphy convicted and jailed so that he would be removed as a TD and they’d get another crack at a by-election in DSW.

Like

Phil F - May 16, 2016

They were pissed off with the southern results and now they’ve got the assembly results to be pissed off about too.

They’re used to getting their own way and the Adams’ strategy being up, up and up.

They may have reached their peak in the north and, having failed to overtake Fianna Fail in February, they may not have much further up to go in the south.

All those Trots to their left, life just got harder for New Sinn Fein.

Like

WorldbyStorm - May 16, 2016

JRG I’m going to say this once and once only. I think your pattern of comments on here in relation to SF typifies an entirely sectarian and partisan approach. I’ve noted before that you make accusations of political attacks that occur elsewhere which have nothing to do with the thrust of discussions on this site (and which can’t be verified either).

But this is a further step into the sectarian and partisan where you’re essentially making deeply negative assumptions based on nothing in order to cast another party in a particularly bad light. It’s also rather and one would hope uncharacteristically stupid given we cannot know if that is the case, no one has said it (and in any event SF like the SP did before it like all political parties would take an opportunity if presented to them).

This isn’t what the CLR is about, it’s not constructive, it’s not even critique and God knows SF should be put under the microscope like all left of Labour forces, that’s for sure.

There’s fair comment, there’s comment appropriate and relevant to an issue and then there’s sectarian and partisan sniping. I think you’ve crossed the line. Any more of this and you face a banning.

Like

CMK - May 16, 2016

This is an example of the nonsense that SF public representatives (Cllr Sarah Holland) are putting up about the AAA.

SF intent on persisting with that venerable Irish tradition of zoning flood plains as residential and then calling protestors as ‘clowns with megaphones’.

FF in the days of the brown envelope couldn’t have put it better.

‘Today the AAA apparently intend to hold a protest outside of South Dublin Council in support of re-zoning land to stop any development on it at Baldonnell. I will be supporting the retention of the zoning on these lands which have been zoned Industrial for years.

There is currently an application to build on these lands at Baldonell with An Bord Pleanála that will see 820 jobs come in to the County in the warehousing and logistics area which will benefit places with high unemployment such as Tallaght and Clondalkin. The investment will bring in €30 million in wages per year which will have a considerable multiplier effect, will see €2.5m in building levy’s accrue to the council and on average an increase of €0.5m in rates that can be spent improving services for people living in SDCC.
The reason that the AAA are opposing this is because the area has been identified as a slight flood risk (1 in 100 years it could flood to 10cm because of a man made flood plain), but the developer of these lands intends to build flood retention tanks that brings the risk to zero (An Bord Pleanála will make the call if this is the case). It’s my position that no business chooses to locate in an area and put in €30.m of investment in order to have their business flood. I am quite happy to see An Bord Pleanála make a decision on this and think we should do all we can to bring these jobs to SDCC. Murphy on the other hand thinks the solution to the problem is to stand outside with a megaphone shouting at the other 37 Councillors who will make this decision. We will make our decisions based on the best interest of the people we represent and not because we are being shouted at by a bunch of clowns with megaphones.’

Like

WorldbyStorm - May 16, 2016

I genuinely could care less CMK, first because this is to my eyes the usual rough and tumble of political activity, secondly because AAA etc aren’t exactly known for being shy and retiring flowers themselves when it comes to such matter’s (indeed I recall one press release during the election which was completely wrong followed by a ‘correction’ which compounded the error, which when this was pointed out had someone from presumably that quarter implicitly threaten those who had been misrepresented. That was during an election campaign when the stakes and newsworthiness were more substantial. This isn’t), thirdly because someone criticising AAA or SF in the general course of things simply isn’t of any particular interest. And it adds nothing to this site. Got to say I find the shock horror expressed deeply unconvincing as if its only a problem when SF or whoever are critical…

Liked by 1 person

WorldbyStorm - May 16, 2016

And by the way that still doesn’t address JRGs absurd and partisan musings about the motivations of SFers…

Like

WorldbyStorm - May 16, 2016

And finally I don’t mean the can’t care less as a dig against you personally but Jesus this is Irish left politics and people getting heated comes with the territory. Just we don’t need to go over the top on this site. Also a sense of proportion is needed too, duri g the period where Clarke Daly as a TD while still in the SP was getting some media attacks I was told entirely seriously by various people that this was the worst media attacks in Irish political history which came as surprising news to anyone who was in SF or the WP across the years.

Like

Jolly Red Giant - May 17, 2016

The case being taken against Paul Murphy and the other Jobstown defendants is the most serious direct attack on the right of working class people to engage in organised opposition to the state since the 1930s.

The charges being laid against the Jobstown defendants are the most direct attack on the right to protest against the state – again since the 1930s.

The purpose of these charges is to send a message to working class communities and to the trade union movement that opposition to austerity and neo-liberalism will not be tolerated and that those who oppose such policies will be dealt with using the state apparatus.

Since the beginning of the recent anti-water charges campaign SF members have engaged in a vindictive campaign against those organising the boycott and in particular against the Socialist Party and the AAA. This markedly increased during and after the DSW by-election and reached a highpoint in the rabid reaction to SF failing to unseat Joan Burton in Dublin West.

The latest vindicitive attacks on Paul Murphy on various social media platforms are just another example of this and demonstrate the apolitical nature of the approach of SF and the nature of a political party that encourages it members and supporters to behave in such a fashion.

For SF the target is to undermine the Socialist Party and the AAA in whatever way necessary – precisely because SF are vulnerable on the question of their approach to austerity and their political (parliamentary) targets are threatened by being outflanked on the left.

Furthermore, it demonstrates the SF are willing to parrot and promote the agenda of the right-wing and the elites because it suits their own political agenda in this instance – and not for the first time – irrespective of the consequences for working class communities and the fight against austerity.

Like

WorldbyStorm - May 17, 2016

Let me paraphrase the above for you.
What you are saying is that PM’s case is an existential one for the working class. That SF in daring to criticise the SP or its reps on any even unrelated issue is by extension implicitly attacking the working class.

Therefore to criticise *you* is to criticise the SP or PM and by extension the working class.

Complete crock and it is beneath contempt that to evade an issue on this site of your continual sniping at political rivals which at the least lowers the standard of interactions on this site, an issue with literally no connection to any of the situation regarding PM etc you would seek to present this in the way that you do.

Like

Jolly Red Giant - May 17, 2016

WbS – you are being facetious.

The first point of note is that Paul Murphy is but one defendant among a large number and just happens to be the most high profile one.

Secondly – the attempt by the state to charge and attempt to convict the Jobstown defendants on indictment for a crime that carries a sentence of up to life imprisonment, is a direct attack on the right to protest and the right to organise.

Third point – I have zero problem with anyone making a political criticism of Paul Murphy, the Socialist Party, the AAA or myself. I do have a problem with a political party that claims to be on the left and actively encourages its members and supporters to engage in a campaign of personal vilification of members of the SP and the AAA – simply because they are 1. smarting at not getting the people they expected to elected and 2. because SF are worried about being outflanked on the left.

As for ‘sniping’ – you can call it what you want – but the Shinners who frequent this site should not be simply let off with condoning these actions – as has repeatedly happened on here.

Like

WorldbyStorm - May 17, 2016

“WbS – you are being facetious.”

No I’m not, that’s the logic of what you’ve said, otherwise why bring PM etc into the discussion at all. What has that got to do with your consistent pattern of partisan political sniping on this site. What does any of the other ‘points of note’ got to do either, other than the usual bluster as you attempt to defend the indefensible (and ironically complain about what others do when you’ve been one of the most persistent offenders in terms of extravagant rhetorical exponents of vilification I’ve ever had the displeasure of having to encounter)?

Finally, you don’t do the ‘sniping’ in response to what is said here. Look back across your comments. You do it as you see fit, simple shit stirring.

You’re trying to cloak your own actions in the garb of others. And it’s fairly abysmal.

Like

10. roddy - May 16, 2016

yawn

Like

11. CL - May 16, 2016

“Until a few weeks ago, it looked like the Republican convention in Cleveland would be chaotic. With each passing Trump endorsement, it inches closer to becoming a coronation. Moreover, if Mr Trump’s people take control of the theatrics, it could be a ratings triumph.”
https://next.ft.com/content/251d6654-1902-11e6-b197-a4af20d5575e

Like

12. Phil F - May 16, 2016

On the assault on Constance Markievicz, as fact-free as it is malicious: https://theirishrevolution.wordpress.com/2016/05/16/the-assault-on-markievicz-as-fact-free-as-it-is-malicious/

Like

Dr. X - May 16, 2016

Frankly, with self-appointed friends like the genocide deniers of the Irish Political Review, Countess M. doesn’t need enemies.

Like

Dr. X - May 16, 2016

Though having now read the piece, it’s not bad.

Like

Phil F - May 17, 2016

I know IPR has some strange, to put it diplomatically, views. But I put aside my prejudices and read the Manus O Riordan piece and thought it was excellent. One thing these people do really well is meticulous research that takes apart various anti-republican propagandists masquerading as pure-minded seekers of historical fact.

It’s tedious work, but it needs to be done and, if this was all they did, I think we should be grateful. (Unfortunately, it isn’t all they do; but it’s the part of what they do that I’m interested in.)

One of the things that always gets me about the revisionist historians is how, to put it kindly, they take a casual attitude to facts, evidence, quotes and so on – the base of historical research and writing.

The other day I happened to be flicking through a recent book on 1916 and, literally within seconds, I came across an example where the author had *totally misrepresented* what two other historians had said. He used them as the endnote reference for a claim he made, but when I checked their book (which I happen to own), not only did they say no such thing, they said *the opposite*.

One day someone should take on the project of methodically going through some of the key revisionists’ work and checking their references. I’d lay money that there would be quite a pile of references which didn’t say what the revisionists claim, which were ripped out of context and which failed to mention more weighty/credible counter-evidence.

Like

Dr. X - May 17, 2016

I’d lay money on that too. Let’s not forget though that revision is the normal activity of historians: as new generations come up, they change the historical debates around them, and the reinterpret the past accordingly. It’s when contemporary problems lead to the politicization of such debates that the trouble begins.

Like

oconnorlysaght - May 17, 2016

To the best of my knowledge, Manus O’Riordan is no more an anti-semite than the Chief Rabbi. I am not so sure about the company he keeps; its members have shown a political chameleon-like quality almost equivalent to that of E.Harris.

Like

Dr. X - May 17, 2016

To oconnorlysaght: by “genocide deniers” above I was thinking of IPR/Aubane’s stance on the events of 1994 in Rwanda.

The present regime in Rwanda has undoubtedly sought, for over two decades now, to exploit those events for its own political benefit: but that doesn’t justify their claim that the genocide in Rwanda of that year did not occur.

Whether they will take it to the next level and deny the Big One (you know the one I mean), well nothing would surprise where that bizarre cult is concerned.

Like

Ed - May 17, 2016

Haven’t they thrown their oar in over the Armenian genocide as well?

Like

Dr. X - May 17, 2016

I wouldn’t be at all surprised. This is not politics, this is some peculiar pathology. People like that are the enemy.

Like

Jolly Red Giant - May 17, 2016

Markievicz has an undeserved reputation among those on the Left.

As Minister for Labour she, on more than one occasion, attempted to use the IRA to break strikes and suppress workplace soviets.

Furthermore, she repeatedly warned of the prospect that ‘Labour will swamp Sinn Fein’ and argued that the nationalist movment needed to take measures to ensure that this would not happen.

There is clear documentary evidence for her approach during the War of Independence and the fact that she had abandoned the labour movment in preference for nationalism.

Like

Dr. X - May 17, 2016

If I recall Ferriter’s book, though, didn’t she try and sound the alarm over the sudden rise of infanticide during the Tan war (I mean women pregnant out of wedlock killing their kids, as a result of (if I remember Ferriter correctly) poverty and social dislocation)?

Liked by 1 person

oconnorlysaght - May 17, 2016

Probably, had she stayed in the organised Labour movement, she would not have been in the revolution after 1916. Remember, Connolly’s ‘heirs’ preferred to remain aloof from that struggle whilst damping down rank and file attempts to keep the red flag flying.

Liked by 1 person

Starkadder - May 17, 2016

“Haven’t they thrown their oar in over the Armenian genocide as well?”

Yes. Dr. Pat Walsh who writes for the Athol Books publications is on record as saying there was no
genocide of Armenians in 1915, and the responsibility
for the deaths of the Armenians in that period is
really the fault of the Allied Powers:

“The Ottomans had no objective interest in creating
an Armenian ‘genocide’….If the deaths of Armenians are seen as ‘genocide’ the powers that were most responsible for it were Britain and Russia (and to
a lesser degree France). In the interests of destroying Germany and conquering the Ottoman territories they made the Ottoman State an impossible place for Armenians to live in the space of a few months after they had lived in it peacefully for centuries.”

Quoted in “The Events of 1915 in Eastern Anatolia
in the Context of Britain’s Great War on the Ottoman Empire , Pat Walsh, “Irish Foreign Affairs” Magazine,
June 2012.

This February, Walsh published on his
blog an extraordinarily vitrolic attack on Stefan Ihrig, author of the book ‘Justifying Genocide: Germany and the Armenians from Bismarck to Hitler’ by Stefan Ihrig..’

Walsh attacks the book and says about Ihrig: “the man is deranged and unbalanced by guilt.”

(donotlink doesn’t seem to be working, but a search will
find it).

Like

Phil F - May 18, 2016

Her reputation on the left is based on her whole political record not on some things she did in her very brief stint as minister of Labour. Moreover, her role as minister of Labour was a bit more complex. Sometimes she supported workers’ struggles and sometimes she didn’t.

To understand her role at that time it is necessary to understand how she was trapped in a pan-nationalist movement. There was no revolutionary socialist movement as such that could act as an alternative. Indeed, this was a fate that befell all the ICA women. Once Connolly was gone they were stuck with the choice of where to go and they chose Sinn Fein, which is understandable in the context of the time.

Markievicz was the key founder of the first republican paramilitary organisation of the 20th century (the Fianna), a leading figure in the first militant women’s organisation in the 20th century (Inghinidhe), a founder and leader of Europe’s first workers’ militia (the ICA), she played a prominent role in the lockout, a prominent role in the Rising and was Connolly’s ‘ghost’, was imprisoned three times (twice by the Brits, once by the Free State), and for the bulk of the time she was politically active championed workers’ struggles.

JRG, you should be lucky to lead such a life.

Unfortunately, your hostility to republicanism keeps getting in the way of what might otherwise be some fair criticisms of *some* of her actions.

Like

Phil F - May 19, 2016

JRG says: “Markievicz has an undeserved reputation among those on the Left.”

But, on the other hand, she never issued over 30,000 redundancy notices to Liverpool council workers in the 1980s or opposed the five demands of the hunger strikers.

And now I will move on.

Like

CMK - May 19, 2016

‘But, on the other hand, she never issued over 30,000 redundancy notices to Liverpool council workers in the 1980s’

A line beloved of Joan Burton……

Liked by 1 person

Jolly Red Giant - May 19, 2016

Markievicz abandoned the labour movement to side with the nationalist movement that was openly hostile to labour. She wasn’t trapped – she made a conscious decision.

It is also utterly false to claim that there was no revolutionary socialist movement – while it did not have an organised political vehicle on the scale of Sinn Fein, the outlook of particularly the ITGWU industrial organisers but also other union organisers was most certainly revolutionary.

There is a false assumption that the revolutionary left was Connolly and when he was executed that was the end. The reality is that by 1916 and before the execution of Connolly, the labour movement was at its lowest point since possibly the 1870s when the first general unions began to organise – by 1919 it was at its highest point ever in the history of the island.

There were several revolutionary socialist organisations – the most prominent being the Revolutionary Socialist Party which was launched in the immediate aftermath of the Limerick Soviet by ITGWU industrial organisers. The RSP grew rapidly in, among other places, Belfast where it would regularly hold meetings of 400+ in east Belfast. When the pogroms started the first hall to be burnt down by loyalists was the labour hall in east Belfast used by the RSP.

Last point Phil F – I agree that you should look at the totality of the role of an individual or organisation. While 30,000 redundancy notices were issued not one single worker lost their job. In contrast – Markievicz supported the use of the Republican Courts and the use of the IRA to break strikes – she repeatedly threatened to use the IRA to suppress workplace soviets – she supported the efforts of Collins to break the trade union movement along sectarian lines and the threat to shoot union members who resisted this plan – she supported the actual suppression of the soviets during the civil war by the anti-treaty IRA etc.

Markievicz should be viewed in the totality of her work – she supported the workers movement during the lock-out, participated in the ICA but then abandoned the labour movement and became openly hostile (and she wasn’t the only republican to do this). The demands of the labour movement were fine as long as they didn’t interfere with nationalism. As is always the refrain of republicanism and nationalism – labour must wait.

Just briefly on O’CL’s comment – not all the ‘heirs’ preferred to remain aloof – if they had the ITGWU would not have gone from 5,000 members in 1916 to 120,000 by 1920.

Like

13. roddy - May 16, 2016

By the way my “yawn” was in response to JRG!

Like

Phil F - May 20, 2016

I was going to move on but a quick response to JRG. On March 9 you produced ‘evidence’ of Markievicz’s misdeeds. But it wasn’t really evidence of what you claimed. For instance, one thing was a message by the cabinet she was told to pass on. I don’t think she should have, but she was messenger rather than deviser. JRG, you tend to over-egg what you say about Markievicz.

I agree with you that republicans have often adopted a ‘Labour must wait’ position, but the anti-republican left have equally often adopted a kind of militant gas-and-water socialism that ignores the national question.

Moreover, there are plenty of republicans who have never argued that ‘Labour must wait’, including Connolly (who was a Marxist and therefore a socialist-republican), Republican Congress, the Officials at the time of the 1969-70 split, the IRSP, and more recently the RNU and eirigi. Recently the 32s came out for a socialist republic as well.

Meanwhile your comrades across the water have a long record of capitulating to British (esp English) nationalism – when the british troops first went into the six counties they opposed tat but very quickly lost their nerve and opposed campaigns for troops out. I was in the LPYS at the time of the British war with Argentina over the Falklands and your comrades *totally opposed* demanding the withdrawal of the British forces. They want to unionise the imperialist armed forces rather than demand their withdrawal. I was also in the LPYS at the time of the 1980/81 hunger strikes and I was a member of the AUEW. In meeting after meeting your comrades denounced the hunger strikers and opposed motions in support of the five demands. The CWI in Britain and Ireland simply invert the crappy nationalist ‘Labour Must Wait’ position and end up with trade unionist rater than revolutionary anti-capitalist politics. When confronted with *British* imperialism, they fold. That’s as bad as – in fact even worse than – folding when confronted with bourgeois nationalism.

Not to mention economic nationalism of the sort promoted by No2EU (in which the SP in Britain played a leading role) or TUSC (its electoral front) which is opposed to the demand for open borders/no immigration controls in Britain.

And, of course, issuing mass redundancy notices to workers is *not* a way to fight redundancies!

Lastly, your inveterate anti-republicanism continually blinds you to the fact that republicanism has played a radicalising role in Irish history. Kieran Allen is right in his book on ‘1916’ that the Rising and republicanism in Irish history has had a positive impact and that, without it, Ireland would be a much more passive society.

As someone who lives in a country with no revolutionary tradition of any kind, I can only agree totally with Kieran and say ‘hear, hear!’ (And, no, I’m not usually an SWP/PBPA supporter.)

And now I really must move on as I have a load of work-work to do.

Phil F

Like

Jolly Red Giant - May 20, 2016

Well, well, – nearly every urban myth about the Militant rolled into one post.

I may have a little time over the weekend to respond to both the stuff about Markievicz (and left organisations mentioned) – and the nonsense about the CWI (then again I may decide that all of this nonsense has been answered repeatedly in the past – but that doesn’t stop those hostile to the CWI constantly hauling it out, as demonstrated with the sh*te about the redundancy notices in Liverpool.

Like

oconnorlysaght - May 20, 2016

I will wait, albeit not with bated breath, for our jolly red friend to answer Phil F’s points about his comrades in Britain.
For my part, I will concentrate on Markievicz. Yes, ideally she should have formed a socialist republican party when she left clink in 1917. Perhaps, had such a party existed then she would have joined it. I t did not and she considered she had to choose between adhering to the official labour movement, whose leaders were agreed in keeping out of the national struggle and concentrating on TU work and a snidgin of socialist propaganda on the side and joining a revitalised activist movement aimed at overthrowing the colonial state in favour of an independent one with votes for women.
Yes, there were plenty of people joining unions who were open to Connolly’s ideas, and a number of workers who were already moving in that direction. They had no political body to guide them, except for a few months in Belfast, where the full force of British law and Orange bigotry was used to crush it before it spread. Elsewhere, syndicalist ideas and the growth of unionisation encouraged socialist republicans to trust their official leaders.
It should be added that these leaders were no better than Markievicz (who had an excuse, at least, that she had got herself into a bourgeois government, albeit a revolutionary one). They betrayed the Limerick Soviet and the striking automobile drivers and, in 1922, Foran invited the IRA to drive the workers out of the Mallow soviet mills. A few months later, he and O’Brien were purging the ITGWU of over-militant officials. Markievicz was no Rosa Luxemburg, but she was more honest than those fakirs.

Like

Dr. X - May 20, 2016

“They had no political body to guide them, except for a few months in Belfast, where the full force of British law and Orange bigotry was used to crush it before it spread.”

I’d like to know more about this bit of the story. Got anymore info or links?

Like

oconnorlysaght - May 20, 2016

The story of the Revolutionary Socialist Party of Ireland is somewhat vague. Jrg has given us a faire summary. One of its leaders was Simon Greenspon of the Electrical Trade Union who had been imprisoned for his role in the great engineering strike, another was Sean O’Hagan (Jack Hedley), later active in organising soviet occupations and a third was Selma Sigerson (Kate Coyle) an able pamphleteer. After some successes (mentioned by JRG), the authorities arrested them and, though Sigerson got off, the party was never the same again. Whether it existed in fact when its former meeting hall was burnt is unclear.

Like

14. fergal - May 16, 2016

The fg, ff and indos government- is it a ff/fg plot to undermine the indos? When the next election happens the indos will get whacked a la the labour party, greens, and pds?and then it’s back to business as usual a two and a half party system?

Like

WorldbyStorm - May 16, 2016

I was wondering the same, is it like the X-Files, keep your friends close but your enemies closer still?

Like

fergal - May 17, 2016

Here’s more of it World- http://www.irishtimes.com/news/social-affairs/td-walks-out-after-michael-noonan-called-vulture-lover-1.2651023- if only Durkan and Byrne could become even a little bit offended with our current housing crisis

Like

WorldbyStorm - May 17, 2016

But hey, that doesn’t affect them or theirs. Why should they care?

Like

15. Michael Carley - May 16, 2016

It might not be right to judge before reading it, but the signs are not good on this one:

It’s 1914 and Liam Mannion is forced into exile for a crime he didn’t commit. He flees Balbriggan, the only home he has ever known and travels to England, where he enlists and endures the torment of trench warfare in France. Five years later he’s back in England, a changed man, living in the shadow of his battlefield memories. Liam finds work in a Manchester cotton mill but prejudice and illness soon see him destitute. Starving and desperate, he enlists in a new military force heading to Ireland – the Black and Tans – and is posted to the very town he fled as a youth.

Like

WorldbyStorm - May 16, 2016

It looks… interesting. Not necessarily in a good way.

Like

Starkadder - May 16, 2016

“It’s 1914 and Liam Mannion is forced into exile for a crime he didn’t commit.”

Liam didn’t wipe his fingerprints off the safe door.

I’m here all week.🙂

Like

EWI - May 17, 2016

This ahistorical shit (to coin a phrase) even has a second sequel, apparently:

It’s 1921, and LIAM MANNION is embroiled in the murky world of informers and spies; the IRA has announced a truce, and the British and Irish leaderships are taking their first tentative steps toward signing a treaty.

Liam and his fiancee, KATE, are tasked with finding republican rotten apples, some of whom are intent on foiling the fledgling peace talks. For Kate, the Brigade Intelligence Officer, that means asking awkward questions of trusted allies – questions that reveal a traitor. For Liam, it means travelling to London and collaborating with the British police to find a killer.

As the search unfolds, a devastating revelation from Liam’s past will make the hunt more personal–and deadly–than even he could imagine.

Like

16. roddy - May 16, 2016

Whist searching a house he meets a red haired cailin and they instantly fall for each other.She’s fed up with “all this hate” and asks for Liam’s help in stopping her fanatical IRA brother. An arms dump is found and at the same time a nosy neighbour spots the two of them “coortin” on a secluded beach .News of their liason reaches Tom Barry who promptly shoots the pair of them and leaves their bodies on the road to Kilmichael to lure even more “tans to their doom” Her fanatical brother finally realises the error of his ways but alas too late and boards a ship for America ,never wanting to see “this god forsaken country again” and leaving “all this hate” behind him.!

Liked by 1 person

Michael Carley - May 16, 2016

You forgot the scene where he throws down his rifle and keeps his fists by his side:

“I’ll not fight you!” he shouts, “There’s been enough hate.”

Like

Starkadder - May 17, 2016

Actually, reading the reviews of “Tan”, it seems it isn’t a
celebration of the Dúchrónaigh.

I’m afraid there would probably be a market for such a novel
though. After all, there were numerous war novels about
heroic Confederates, not to mention lots of ghastly pro-Imperialist adventure novels (G. A. Henty, “Sanders
of the River”, etc.).

Like

sonofstan - May 17, 2016

‘Gone with the Wind that Shakes the Barley’

Liked by 3 people

17. Phil F - May 17, 2016

Sounds like a Sebastian Barry novel!

Frankly, I prefer Maeve Binchey. More insight into the human condition!

Like

18. fergal - May 17, 2016

Anybody here catch Noonan on the news at 1pm? He was commenting on FF’s upcoming bill to give the Central Bank power to limit variable interest rates charged by banks.
Noonan stated that they’re were ‘constitutional concerns’ and the Investec(!!!) brought a paper out on this a week ago saying so and that many legal people would agree with them.
What in the name of god is the Minister of Finance doing citing Investec? Can he not get his own legal advice? Are there no constitutional concerns over homelessness?

Liked by 1 person

WorldbyStorm - May 17, 2016

It’s crazy stuff. Was he caught on the hop? Just didn’t have a ready answer? Yet that doesn’t seem likely. Got to say there’s more than a whiff of making it up as they go along about this crew.

Like

19. yourcousin - May 17, 2016

Guy Clark has passed. One of the great singer song writers. RIP

Like

sonofstan - May 18, 2016

A giant alright.

I remember him walking on stage at the Olympia, up to the mic, hamming a confused face and going, ‘is it the stage or is it it me that’s leaning?’ ( the stage there is raked)

Old No 1 was a huge record for me.

Liked by 1 person

20. Phil F - May 19, 2016

An excellent singer-songwriter. Sad to hear he’s gone.

Phil F

Like

21. Joe Mooney - May 20, 2016

Hey Ho ! Lets Go ! 40 years of the Ramones

And just to prove they have ‘made it’ , they were even on the Simpsons :

http://www.rollingstone.com/music/news/ramones-debut-lp-10-things-you-didnt-know-20160204

Like


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 )

Twitter picture

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

Facebook photo

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

Google+ photo

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

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: