Friday, March 21, 2008
éirígí: armed struggle is a tactic, not a principle…
Mick Hall has an interesting quote from a Northern Irish member of éirígí, a relatively recent phenomenon in Republican politics, which seems to have surfaced in Dublin much before organising in Belfast:
“The party defends the right of any people who are subjected to imperialist occupation to use whatever means they deem necessary to remove that occupation. However, we do believe that the elevation of military struggle to a principle as opposed to a revolutionary tactic has retarded the development of the republican project. The policy of militarism encourages elitism and stifles the initiative of our communities. Pursuing a military strategy at all costs also divorces the struggle from ever-changing contexts and hence, our ability to capitalize on them.”
Mick Fealty @ 11:25 PM
Henry,
btw. great to see you back, your contributions were missed.
Posted by on Mar 22, 2008 @ 05:36 PMIs there any intention by Éirgí to field candidates in any parliamentary or local council elections north or south in the near future.
Posted by on Mar 22, 2008 @ 05:47 PMMark,
The vast majority of Irish people, north and south have consistently rejected socialism at the ballot box. National re-unification is a tall order but a 32 county socialist republic is pie in the sky. You can criticise SF all you want for embracing ‘real politik’ (in the north at least) but you have no viable alternative to offer.
Posted by on Mar 22, 2008 @ 06:05 PMPicador,
I’m a socialist, the ballot box and/or others’ politics can’t change that. And I haven’t criticised anything, people are perfectly entitled to change.
Posted by on Mar 22, 2008 @ 06:25 PMPicador
There you go again, who gets to decide what is viable or not, you. In 1939 a majority in the UK would have said it was pie in the sky to believe there could ever be a welfare state, NHS, state owned coal mines, railways etc, ten years later it all became a reality. In 1975 when ever Thatcher said electric, gas and railways should and would be privatized people said, it will never happen, to think that is pie in the sky.
Just because you cannot foresee such change, does not make it an impossibility beyond your closed mind. The reason the more thoughtful people on the right belittle socialists and our ideas is not because they believe those who advocate these things are crackpots etc, but because they understand from history that when change comes it comes rapidly and I do not just mean revolutionary change here. People can be very fickle politically and can change their minds extremely quickly and for all sorts or reasons.
I have absolutely no doubt [if you are old enough] you would have said ten years ago that it was pie in the sky to ever imagine that Paisley and McG would be holding hands whilst administering a British administration.
.
Posted by on Mar 22, 2008 @ 06:39 PMYes entitled to change, but change for the better? What do you have in mind Mark that would make a large enough cohort vote for change in favour of ‘socialism’ or something that is supposed to be that?
Posted by on Mar 22, 2008 @ 06:40 PMMe personally? Next to nothing. I’ll continue to do as my conscience dictates and support every project I believe has a chance of contributing to radical change and creating a focus on people over capital. It may seem like ‘pie in the sky’ to you, that certainly won’t deter me and many others from pursuing our ideals and when a radical left, former communist, party can build mass support and become the people’s choice in, an admittedly small, European country I retain hopes for similar here.
Posted by on Mar 22, 2008 @ 06:52 PMI agree with you such discussions need to take place but if Republicans are seeing the aim of a 32 County Socialist Republic as questionable they need to be examining a lot more than just opinions on armed struggle.
You do not have to be a socialist to be a republican. Did you never hear of Billy McKee?
Posted by on Mar 22, 2008 @ 07:02 PMMalcolm, the socialist role was relatively small but it was significant in the sense that it put nationalists and unionists at each others throats ie they helped unleash the mobs.
They also moved the Irish government into nimby mode. Goulding and friends had to go but what was left behind was much worse, the embryonic PRM.
Posted by on Mar 22, 2008 @ 07:11 PMUntil éirígí takes a decision to field candidates in elections especially local council elections.
It will be an irritant to those who érígí believe either oppose socialism or politicains who have failed to live up to their perceieved socialist credentials, rather than being a realistic socialist alternative throughout Ireland .
Posted by on Mar 22, 2008 @ 07:13 PMPicador,
You could have mentioned Gerry McGeough also. For me and many others Catholicism is of little interest and was never part of any stated Republican aims and I certainly wouldn’t question McKee or McGeough’s commitment to a united Ireland. If you are suggesting Socialism was a tactic not a principle I’d be interested in knowing to whom or what you are referring because it was/is certainly a stated objective of pretty much every Republican group.
Posted by on Mar 22, 2008 @ 07:24 PMCSP, should some of that anger not also be directed at those in the pan-nationalist family, including the Irish Catholic hierarchy, who promoted a form of self-imposed apartheid, a ‘society within a society’?
“NICRA may have been the creation of the republicans but it was there because of a real need.”
I’d have emphasised the socialist as distinct from the ‘Catholic Ireland’ side of the republican family. Liam O Comain points out that Hume was reluctant to get too close to NICRA and the Catholic Church turned to Hume to protect its own interests.
I’ve put forward my own thoughts on compromise but I don’t see any unionists or nationalists prepared to give it a go. They both appear to have an all or nothing streak deeply ingrained.
Posted by on Mar 22, 2008 @ 07:26 PMMark
Do you have to be a socialist to be a republican?
Do you have to be non-sectarian to be a republican?Posted by on Mar 22, 2008 @ 07:57 PMPicador,
I’m not going to define anyone else. To me all three are important and interlinked. If you are trying to present a case for them being unconnected, as you’ve done earlier, that’s up to you.
Posted by on Mar 22, 2008 @ 08:17 PMMark,
You’re a hard man to pin down.
I believe that non-sectarianism is more integral to republicanism than socialism ever will be (modern socialism hadn’t been invented in the days of Wolfe Tone). Of course non-sectarianism has received little more than lip service amongst certain sections of republicanism in not so distant times thus “retarding the development of the republican project”. Will eírígí be any different in this regard?
Posted by on Mar 22, 2008 @ 09:07 PMPicador,
I’m not trying to resist being pinned down. For me, the three and inextricably linked - Republicanism, Socialism and anti-sectarianism - personally I feel Republicanism should automatically mean the other two values. That’s me though and I’m certainly not going to say McKee or McGeough or FF or the SDLP or anyone else that wants to declare themselves Republican isn’t. What it should mean is that those people/groups examine what Republicanism means to them and others then decide if their actions and beliefs are really compatible.
Now you’ve asked a good question, is it essential to be a socialist to be a Republican. To me both the Irish and international definition of Republicanism make the equality thing an absolute must. If others think equality can be guaranteed for all without socialism or equality isn’t a principle of Republicanism I’d be interested to hear the logic.
Posted by on Mar 22, 2008 @ 09:29 PMSocalist republics tend not to have had a very good reputation - the phrase ‘some are more equal than others spring to mind’. I’m thinking of the USSR, the DDR, Romania, China, North Korea, Cuba.
Democracy to me would be another cardinal principal of republicanism. Many modern countries have a republican system which while not perfect do not imprison the opposition in gulags. I’m thinking of France, the United States, Germany, Italy, Portugal, Turkey, Mexico, etc. Most, if not all, of these countries have had socialist governments at one time ot another but the key is that they have a high-degree of democracy where an unpopular régime can be turned out of office. While I’m sure it’s realtively easy to find flaws in each of the countries I have mentioned as far as I’m aware none have denied their citizens the right to a free vote, the right to travel, etc.
So, yes of course you can be a socialist and a republican but no, you don’t have to be a socialist to be a republican.
I am also convinced that any attempt to resume “armed struggle” in Ireland will unleash the genie of sectarianism and for that reason alone “armed struggle” should be rejected out of hand. The Irish people have voted overwhlemingly for the institutions that are now in place (however imperfect they may be) and only elitist, anti-democratic forces would seek to overturn this arrangement. Republicans/nationalists should seek a majority in the six-county parliament before seeking constitutional change. They must do this by attempting to build consensus with their historic opponents, no matter how difficult that may seem. It is the hard way (harder perhaps than recourse to arms) but it is the only way.
Posted by on Mar 22, 2008 @ 10:08 PMPicador,
Scarey bogey man stuff. Countries are doing pretty well with socialism of varying hues - Brazil, Venezuela and Cyprus - especially now America’s eye is shifted from destroying them to wars for oil and they don’t need to bastardise themselves due to a threat of destruction.
On the the GFA you have two of the governing parties that have as a declared principle bringing a united Ireland about.
If those on the inside see it as a temporary structure, surely those on the outside are entitled to openly work for its downfall?
As for the ‘armed struggle’ stuff that’s just baby-eater demonisation on a power with the ‘dissident’ tag.
Declaring there is only one way, one path, one option is more oppressive than anything being suggested by republican socialists.
Posted by on Mar 22, 2008 @ 10:34 PMMark,
All the countries I metioned were / are self-proclaimed socialist (or “people’s democratic republics"). As you say scarey bogey-man stuff.
Lula da Silva of Brazil is democratically elected. Chavez of Venezuela (who fancies himself as the new Castro) was recently rebuffed by the elctorate when he tried to push through constitutional amendments strenghtening his already firm grip on power. And Cyprus’s new president only took office last week, in part because he has adopted a more concilitory approach to the north (ironic).
As for the ‘armed struggle’ stuff that’s just baby-eater demonisation on a power with the ‘dissident’ tag.
So why was the guy from eírígí talking about it? Are they thinking of starting a military wing!?
Declaring there is only one way, one path, one option is more oppressive than anything being suggested by republican socialists.
Stand for elections and win then. Hint - you won’t get far with talk about “military struggle” and “revolution”. Just don’t take up the gun if you lose, thank you very much!
Posted by on Mar 22, 2008 @ 11:16 PM“Chavez of Venezuela (who fancies himself as the new Castro) was recently rebuffed by the elctorate when he tried to push through constitutional amendments strenghtening his already firm grip on power.”
But the BIG difference is that Chavez accepted and stood by the result of the referendum when the US and their allies called him a dictator. A dictator would have ignored the referendum results, would s/he have not.
Chavez, as a democrat, accepted the result.
Would George Bush???? Or the EU on the new treaty???
Posted by on Mar 23, 2008 @ 03:10 AMVenezuala,
Chavez accepted b/c the people pushed back. He’s a dictator, just not yet a good one.
Yes, Bush would accept the result.
I’m afraid I’ve got to agree on the EU treaty!
Posted by on Mar 23, 2008 @ 03:21 AMWhat was that about Bush contesting all the “chads” to ensure he won? Florida? where he wasn’t expected to win?
Glad you accept the point about the EU treaty, though.
Posted by on Mar 23, 2008 @ 03:40 AMBrendan Mac Cionnaith .... David Highland ....Dominic mc glinchey ....Alec Mc Crory ....Rab Jackson .... Geraldine Dougan .... Bernard Fox and Bernadette Mc Aliskey
Mark
Forgive me but wow, what an inspirational collection of names, often from 70’s and 80’s and some of whom have been in more republican movements than you could shake a stick at and now you think their time has come (again).
Why am i so reminded of the lines from Monty Python’s Life of Brian
Brian: Messiah? I am NOT the Messiah!
Arthur: I say you are Lord, and I should know. I’ve followed a few.Onward to the future!
Posted by on Mar 23, 2008 @ 09:04 AMCynic, Devlin’s from the 60s.
Liam Baxter, Bernadette Devlin, Michael Farrell, Eamonn McCann and Cyril Toman
Whatever happened to their colleague, Mary Leneghan? ;)
Posted by on Mar 23, 2008 @ 11:31 AM(Charles) Chavez accepted b/c the people pushed back. He’s a dictator, just not yet a good one.
Yes, Bush would accept the result.
I’m afraid I’ve got to agree on the EU treaty!
-------
Like most intelligent politicians Chavez blinked when the people pushed back, but, I think that the jury is still out on whether or not he is a dictator.
Moreover, Bush ignored the results of a referendum of sorts in 2000, which he lost by 500,000 votes, doesn’t make him a dictator - but it does prove that he doesn’t a damn about the “will of the people” and thus not a democrat.Posted by on Mar 23, 2008 @ 02:52 PM
