Sinn Fein=Socialist??

marco murphy

Voipjunkie wrote:

During O'Bradaighs leadership of PSF he brought forward the Eire Nua proposals which was for a Federal Democratic Socialist Ireland as far as I know RSF still stand for a Federal Democratic Socialist Ireland.

Eire Nua proposals are mad, even wishing for the capital to be established in Athlone.

Voipjunkie

Poblachtach wrote:

Eire Nua proposals are mad, even wishing for the capital to be established in Athlone.

Irrelevant the point was that it was allegedly to create a Socialist Ireland yet people here are suggesting that the PSF OSF split was a right left split this makes no sense when the part they claim was the right element was proposing a
Socialist Republic.

Jackie laughlin

How many times must the archive footage of grateful Catholics/nationalists serving tea to British soldiers be shown on TV before the myth of SFIRA protection is dispelled?


Of course people in deprived areas support the IRA vigilantes because they tackle thieves, drug dealers, joyriders, anti-social behaviour. That is a measure of Garda failure.

stovelid

Without being pedantic, you're both assigning motives to the army deployment based on ideology. In the first instance, the army was deployed because the civil forces were overrun.

That it was mostly Catholics were under attack or that the civil forces were an adjunct to a sectarian state probably wasn't factored into it at that stage.

brianthebard wrote:

Why do you say this? It is accepted knowledge that the army was deployed to protect the Catholic populations of Belfast and Derry.

Raskolnikov

Jackie laughlin wrote:

How many times must the archive footage of grateful Catholics/nationalists serving tea to British soldiers be shown on TV before the myth of SFIRA protection is dispelled?

Or the grateful wee Jackeens, cheering British troops coming to quell the 1916 Rising. :rolleyes:

I'm sorry, but you've got some of the most lop-sided argument out of any poster on Politics.

stovelid

Why the left right split thing comes up is probably not because of the envisioned Ireland but the method of engagement.

PSF wished to engage the British and defend catholic areas against Loyalists.

The soon-to-be- OSF thinking was the then nascent idea that any armed action against the protestant working class (even justified action against Loyalists /UDR whatever) was counter productive in the long run as the British were not the main problem, the alienation of protestant /catholic working classes were.

This is an idea (seeking consensus with protestants ) that PSF have only come around to themselves in the last 10 years.

TBH, SF thinking on the Socialist state is understandably wooly (almost a default anti imperialist setting) because - as others have noted - political ideas were in the main only corollary to the 'national struggle' and this is why you had many differing ideologies under the nationalist roof.

As for SF support in working class areas in the south, I can personally attest (I was brought up in West Tallaght) that it seems to be a combination of canny (and sincere) groundwork and the anti establishment aura that still lingers around the party, post-troubles.

Voipjunkie wrote:

Irrelevant the point was that it was allegedly to create a Socialist Ireland yet people here are suggesting that the PSF OSF split was a right left split this makes no sense

brianthebard

stovelid wrote:

Without being pedantic, you're both assigning motives to the army deployment based on ideology. In the first instance, the army was deployed because the civil forces were overrun.

That it was mostly Catholics were under attack or that the civil forces were an adjunct to a sectarian state probably wasn't factored into it at that stage.

How can you say that? What source do you have to back up these claims? I can quote Prof. Comerford on this matter.

csk

brianthebard wrote:

How can you say that? What source do you have to back up these claims? I can quote Prof. Comerford on this matter.

What is Prof. Comerford's quote ? Can you quote any primary sources such as the British Governemnt as to why the Army was sent in ?

stovelid

More to the point, how did he juggle making crucial military decisions on behalf of the British government with an academic career?

brianthebard wrote:

How can you say that? What source do you have to back up these claims? I can quote Prof. Comerford on this matter.

brianthebard

stovelid wrote:

More to the point, how did he juggle making crucial military decisions on behalf of the British government with an academic career?

You complain about my "ideology" being behind the information I give, then you merely replace it with your own. Prof. Comerford is a respected historian and has written extensively on Irish history. Look him up, it shouldn't be too hard. All your doing is countering what I'm saying with "no its not".

stovelid

I don't think I have a particular ideological bias as regards the North. Not along protestant /catholic/British/Irish lines anyway.

Saying that the army were exclusively deployed either to prop up Stormont or to save Catholics does.

I merely said that the British (Labour) government initially deployed the army because the civil authorities could not maintain order in a section of the United Kingdom (stated as fact, not ideological emphasis).

All other theories display an ideological bias which is natural. I'm at a loss to see why this is a controversial thing to say.

For example, a minority of protestants were also burned out of their homes in 1969. Does this mean that the Army were there just to help Catholics and not Protestants?

For example, if the primary purpose of deployment was to prop up Stormont, why was indefinite direct rule applied immediately afterwards?

I haven't read the academic you quote but why display his name like some kind of argument quelling, omniscient final word on the matter? Academics can have an agenda too.

brianthebard wrote:

You complain about my "ideology" being behind the information I give, then you merely replace it with your own. Prof. Comerford is a respected historian and has written extensively on Irish history. Look him up, it shouldn't be too hard. All your doing is countering what I'm saying with "no its not".

FTA69

Stovelid is correct, you can quote Prof Comerford (whoever he is) til the cows come home, the fact remains that troops were deployed "in aid of the civil power", that was the phrase which was used. Considering that "civil power" was a Unionist government who was using the police to quell Nationalists, how could the Brits be used to protect Nationalist areas? Nationalists through the medium of the IRA protected themselves.

How many times must the archive footage of grateful Catholics/nationalists serving tea to British soldiers be shown on TV before the myth of SFIRA protection is dispelled?

http://www.writingsonthewall.net/media/bloodysunday.gif

Will they be showing this on TV too when we discuss the concept of "myths"?

Jackie laughlin

FTA,
The phrase "in aid of the civil power" may have been used but the fact remains that British soldiers were used to protect Catholic areas from loyalist mobs because law ard order had broken down. I can phrase that more to your taste, "because the sectarian Crown forces within Northern Ireland were unwilling to do so."

Ras,
Thank you for the compliment. It has taken me time to get to and face the truth of modern Irish history. You are quite right: the 1916 rising was deeply unpopular in Dublin. This strikes me as understandable, given that the city centre was ruined and there were civilian casualties including children. Public opinion turned when the British stupidly dragged out executions over weeks.

brianthebard

Ah I see what ye were implying. I have no bias or ideological interest in the north, but thanks. In any case I've discovered that SF are not really socialist at all, which still leaves me puzzled as to why people refer to them as such. Oh well.

FTA69

The phrase "in aid of the civil power" may have been used but the fact remains that British soldiers were used to protect Catholic areas from loyalist mobs

They were in their arses, by 1971 they curfewed the Falls Road and killed 7 people while they ransacked people's homes. Later on in that year they were smashing in Nationalist doors and dragging them off to Long Kesh without trial. Then we had Bloody Sunday in January 1972. The Brits were deployed here to pacify the place, not to protect Nationalists.

Jackie laughlin

Pacifying the place and protecting Catholics are not mutually exclusive. The fact remains that British troops protected Catholics. Now, there's no way of underestimating British military stupidity. Once they were deployed in the North and having won the suppport of nationalists, they blew it. Having been attacked by SFIRA, they went booting in the doors of innocent Catholics in search of terrorists and guns. SFIRA step in as protectors. Murdering thugs they certainly are but SFIRA are excellent tacticians who use people mercilessly.

FTA69

Sorry, you're wrong again jackie, the Falls Road Curfew was before the IRA ever engaged the British Army.

Jackie laughlin

FTA, Hardly "again" as I've not been wrong in any of our exchanges. However, I may have to bow to your superior knowledge on this question but you'll have to argue for your proposition that without provocation the British army imposed a curfew and went about persecuting catholics. The British army have a history of bloody, inappropriate, ill-conceived reaction but it falls short of the insanity you suggest.

FTA69

Hardly "again" as I've not been wrong in any of our exchanges

1) You said the IRA marched at the head of a United Ireland rally in Dublin when they didn't.

2) You alleged that the majority of those killed by the IRA were civilians, which is untrue.

3) You alleged that the majority of Catholic civilians who died were killed by the IRA, when it was actually Loyalist paramilitaries and the British Army.

However, I may have to bow to your superior knowledge on this question but you'll have to argue for your proposition that without provocation the British army imposed a curfew and went about persecuting catholics.

They had minor manouveres in Nationalist areas, but bear in mind it was the Provisional IRA which stopped the Short Strand area being overrun by Loyalist mobs in 1969, and from that moment on they were identified by many as the protectors of the Nationalist community. Arms were used at this period solely for defensive purposes, the IRA only engaged the Brits in 1971, after internment and the Falls Road Curfew where the Brits systematically ransacked the area looking for weapons. They also managed to kill 7 locals by gunfire and knocking them down with Saracens. They indeed faced rioters, since the early days but their baton charges, shootings, rubber bullets and mass arrests quickly alienated them from the Nationalist populace.

As I said, it was Nationalists who were engaging in insurgency and as such it was toward them that the British Army was directed. It is also quite naieve to portray the Nationalist working class as dupes manipulated and presided over by Republicans, the fact remains that the Republican Movement was an organic organisation and the ties between that movement (whether it be provos, INLA or whatever) and the community were and are deep and complex.

Jackie laughlin

Threads are being crossed here.

1) A troup of jack-booted, uniformed, marching soldiers who were clearly members of a private army, or pretending to be, marched at the head of the Make Partition History march in Dublin last year. You insist they were not members of the IRA.

2) It depends on how you categorise the victims. On another thread I've conceded that roughly a third of IRA casualties were British soldiers. The substantial point is that the IRA's incoherent blood lust has killed hundreds of people including police, ordinary workers, rival pseudo-republicans, anyone the IRA deems a spy, etc.

3) Again, this is a matter of how the count is done. The substantial point is that the incoherent blood lust has resulted in the so-called defenders of the "Catholic/nationalist community" murdering hundreds of Catholics, more than any ONE other armed grouping.

Catholics/nationalists were seeking civil rights until the IRA tried to mount an insurrection.

So, the British were looking for guns. At least you've given them an excuse for their stupid, thuggish behaviour which managed to lose their Catholic support.

You can hardly call me naive when you choose to portray provos, INLA etc. as springing organically from "their" communities. Leaving aside their internecine killings over who will be top dogs in the estates, the pseudo-republican thugs were and are a scourge on this country.

In moving material from another thread into here, you conspicuously fail to move in your attempt to whitewash the Le Mon bombing, which I chose as an example of an outrage whose perpetrators, commanders and associates should be brought to justice. Anyone with a shred of self respect would inform.

FTA69

A troup of jack-booted, uniformed, marching soldiers who were clearly members of a private army

As I said colour parties no longer represent the IRA, half the people in thsoe colour parties wouldn't knock the fluff off a cappuccino.

On another thread I've conceded that roughly a third of IRA casualties were British soldiers.

And another third were UDR and RUC, ie armed combatants.

The substantial point is that the IRA's incoherent blood lust has killed hundreds of people including police, ordinary workers, rival pseudo-republicans, anyone the IRA deems a spy, etc.

In other words they killed people in the course of a political conflict which you admit yourself was brought about by the brutality of the Brits and Loyalists in the late 60s. It was once said that revolutionary situations are rarely created by revolutionaries but the idiocy and brutality of governments. You definitely had such a situation in Ireland.

murdering hundreds of Catholics, more than any ONE other armed grouping.

Again skewed, the fact remains Loyalist paramilitaries killed the majority of civilians.

Catholics/nationalists were seeking civil rights until the IRA tried to mount an insurrection.

yes but how did the IRA gain support for this? They gained support as a result of the RUC batoning protestors and Stormont introducing internment. The concept of Civil Rights marches was destroyed by the British Army on 30 January 1972.

You can hardly call me naive when you choose to portray provos, INLA etc. as springing organically from "their" communities.

Well like it or not they did, most were ordinary young people who grew up in a political climate which often forced them to take sides. The same situation is replicated all over the world ie Palestine, South Africa etc. They were unpaid volunteers who relied on their communities to hide them, provide them with intelligence, mind arms etc etc. And bear in mind, Republicans retain political support in the same areas where the IRA were active, and not just in the north either.

fail to move in your attempt to whitewash the Le Mon bombing,

I'm not attempting to whitewash anything, I have no problem stating it was a tragedy, but it was an accident and such accidents occur during political conflict. La Mon is regretted within the Republican Movement, of course the bogus notion of the IRA intending to kill eleven people on purpose would be much easier to slot into your obviously skewed view of the situation.

LordSutch

Are the Shinners socialist? I dont give a fig ......................

Just so long as they dont get into Government down here.

marco murphy

1) A troup of jack-booted, uniformed, marching soldiers who were clearly members of a private army, or pretending to be, marched at the head of the Make Partition History march in Dublin last year. You insist they were not members of the IRA.

As a member of over two colour parties I can safely say that Iam not an IRA member.

Jackie laughlin

This is going nowhere. The nitpicking attempts to characterise SFIRA as a movement with coherent aims or as a defence force are ridiculous. "Defenders" who murder their own people; "soldiers" with no objective; "opponents of British rule" gagging to enter Stormont; "colour parties" who dress up to give the impression that they are IRA. It's a horror-filled fantasy world.

By the way there's a good question about the Agate murder in Derry in the News and Media section. It was another example of murder unconnected with any objective.

The LeMon bombing was not an accident. "Volunteers" mixed paint with fuel, added explosives and a charge and fixed these devices to a restaurant. These were wicked anti-personnel bombs. The explosion blew the burning fuel through the building and the paint made the burning adhere to the victims. The dead were charred and the wounded were left with horrific burns. The design worked perfectly. Who were these "volunteers"? Who was their commander? When will they appear in the dock?

You might help me with something. In a post on Boards quite some time ago it was claimed that Gerry Adams had said that he would sue anyone who said he was ever a member of the IRA. I've not been able to locate this statement. Did he make it?

FTA69

The nitpicking attempts to characterise SFIRA as a movement with coherent aims or as a defence force are ridiculous

It does have aims, it seeks Irish unity and a tenuous aspiration to socialism. Whether its strategy is going to achieve that is another thing.

"opponents of British rule" gagging to enter Stormont;

Ha ha, for once I agree with you jackie, that is a contradiction in the Provisional strategy. (In my opinion). I am not a supporter of Sinn Féin by any means, and feel no obligation to defend them.

The explosion blew the burning fuel through the building and the paint made the burning adhere to the victims

Without wanting to go into too much detail, anti-personnell devices usually contain solid shrapnel, not paint. Paint, washing up liquid etc are usually to aid the setting fire to static structures.

You might help me with something. In a post on Boards quite some time ago it was claimed that Gerry Adams had said that he would sue anyone who said he was ever a member of the IRA. I've not been able to locate this statement. Did he make it?

I doubt it, litigation usually depends on the concept of defemation, and Republicans don't see IRA membership as something to be ashamed of.

Jackie laughlin

SFIRA have been magnificent in making "Irish unity" impossible for at least another couple of generations. I'm tempted to comment on their "socialism" but I've said it all before.

Many anti-personnel bombs rely on burning. They were widely used by the US in Viet Nam and SFIRA developed their home-made version.

Why then does Gerry Adams deny IRA membership when most historians agree that he was a member and represented them at negotiations with the British?

FTA69

Many anti-personnel bombs rely on burning. They were widely used by the US in Viet Nam

Agent Orange wasn't anti-personnell, it was used to clear tracts of jungle in which the Viet Cong were hiding. Anti-personnell devices utilise such items as ball-bearings and nine-inch nails in the grooves in corrogated cardboard.

Why then does Gerry Adams deny IRA membership when most historians agree that he was a member and represented them at negotiations with the British?

Haven't a clue, personally Adams wouldn't be a beacon of truth for me either.

Jackie laughlin

Agent Orange was a defolient. Napalm was anti-personnel.

Chakar

I'm actually wondering myself where do SF stand? All I really have to go on is where SF came from ideologically speaking as a Marxist party in terms of democratic socialism.

Can anybody put them in context with the other Irish political parties?

Of course I'll never vote for them in principle.

brianthebard

Well they aren't as socialist as the socialist party, but they appear to be more socialist than the labour party (which isn't hard at this stage). As I've said before I find socialism and nationalism irreconcible, not because it may add up to fascism, although that is a (slim) possibility, but because Marx explicitly says that the state must fall away.