Sligo RSM New Blogspot

starbelgrade

EuskalHerria wrote: »

How can you strive or hope for a socialist Ireland when part of the Island is still occupied by a capitalist imperialist force? The yearning for a socialist Ireland cannot be seperated from the goal of a united Ireland.

That's the most ridiculous statement I've read in a long time. How do you suggest we do this... "kick the brits out"?

guinnessdrinker

starbelgrade wrote: »

That may be so, but my point is, is that the North is essentially neither Irish or British, but a mix of both countries people, politics & religions. Regardless of what passports they carry, both sides are from Northern Ireland.

I think I see where you are coming from SB but when you said that the idea of united Ireland was finished when we as a country voted to ammend articles 2 and 3, my point was that this was not the case at all because basically the old articles 2 and 3 were counter productive.

EuskalHerria

starbelgrade wrote: »

That's the most ridiculous statement I've read in a long time. How do you suggest we do this... "kick the brits out"?

How is that a ridiculous statement? How can there be a socialist Ireland when there is an imperialist force on the island protecting the interests of capitalism?

EuskalHerria

darealtulip wrote: »

Why not? As an outsider I really don't understand this statement. Does socialistm has to be world domination? Why could Ireland not be socialist without the North? Again I'm an outsider and don't have anything to do with the issue of the North. But this sounds a bit strange to me.

Do you see yourself as a part of Europe or not? (last question out of interest and nothing to do with the first one)

And were do you stand on religion? (again just out of interest)

To strive for a socialist Ireland while acknoledging partition in Ireland is impossible. As I just replied, there cannot be a socialist Ireland while there is an imperialst force in Ireland that is protecting the interest of capitalism.

My opinion on religion is a personal one as it should be. There is no party position on it if thats what you are asking and I would hope that no party would have a postion on religion. Personally politics and religion should overlap as little as possible. For me persoanlly this is not an issue as I am agnositc.

starbelgrade

guinnessdrinker wrote: »

I think I see where you are coming from SB but when you said that the idea of united Ireland was finished when we as a country voted to ammend articles 2 and 3, my point was that this was not the case at all because basically the old articles 2 and 3 were counter productive.

Fair enough!

starbelgrade

EuskalHerria wrote: »

To strive for a socialist Ireland while acknoledging partition in Ireland is impossible. As I just replied, there cannot be a socialist Ireland while there is an imperialst force in Ireland that is protecting the interest of capitalism.

And exactly how do you expect this to change? You can't simply kick out the Unionists - they were born in the North & have as much right to live there & voice their opinions as everyone else. You can't turn back time & re-write the history books.

darealtulip

EuskalHerria wrote: »

To strive for a socialist Ireland while acknoledging partition in Ireland is impossible. As I just replied, there cannot be a socialist Ireland while there is an imperialst force in Ireland that is protecting the interest of capitalism.

My opinion on religion is a personal one as it should be. There is no party position on it if thats what you are asking and I would hope that no party would have a postion on religion. Personally politics and religion should overlap as little as possible. For me persoanlly this is not an issue as I am agnositc.

Thanks, I ment party politics on religion.

But does it not imply that if you can't have a Ireland with part of it socialist and part not, you can't have a socialist Ireland if the rest of Europe is not? Not picking a argument just don't understand why that bit of territory is so important to a socialist believe.

Where do you stand on Europe then (party again)? Thanks again for explaining.

starbelgrade

darealtulip wrote: »

Thanks, I ment party politics on religion.

But does it not imply that if you can't have a Ireland with part of it socialist and part not, you can't have a socialist Ireland if the rest of Europe is not? Not picking a argument just don't understand why that bit of territory is so important to a socialist believe.

Ireland can have whatever political system it wants, if the people elect for it... it does matter if it's conservatism, socialism, or capitalism or whatever.

The same applies to the North. It is an absurd statement to say that there could not be a socialist government in the south whilst there is "an imperialst force in Ireland that is protecting the interest of capitalism".

It's absolute guff.

And state control has very little to do with liberty. Just look at Cuba.

EuskalHerria

starbelgrade wrote: »

And exactly how do you expect this to change? You can't simply kick out the Unionists - they were born in the North & have as much right to live there & voice their opinions as everyone else. You can't turn back time & re-write the history books.

I think you have many misguided views on republican socialism. We need to engage with the unionist working class and realise that the old ways of tribalism and reactionary politics have failed. There has been much work done by the RSM in the north to engage with unionist and while not giving them any falsehoods about our politics and wanting a socialist republic, trying while engaging with them to show the benifits of a socialist republic.

Essentially republican socialism aims to unite the working class, regardless of being unionist or nationalist and show them the benifits of social equality within a socialism.

darealtulip

I still don't get why you have to include the North in your socialist believes. Why is a piece of land so important to your socialist believe? Why not Europe then? I really don't understand what a ideoligy has to do with territory.

I really try to understand your point of view. Why can you not (when or if you get elected) have a socialist state upto the border? Or why stop by the North?

sorry to ask over and over again.I am an outsider and probaly don't understand something about this but I really would like to know this.

EuskalHerria

darealtulip wrote: »

Thanks, I ment party politics on religion.

But does it not imply that if you can't have a Ireland with part of it socialist and part not, you can't have a socialist Ireland if the rest of Europe is not? Not picking a argument just don't understand why that bit of territory is so important to a socialist believe.

Where do you stand on Europe then (party again)? Thanks again for explaining.

I see what you are saying. The aim of introducing a socialist system is obviously something that is a global issue as it is an alternative to the system of exploitation that exists today. Ultimately though while there may be solidarity with many groups internationally, the focus must surely be at home. My personal view on Europe and globally is that there are groups that should rightly focus on developing the idea of socialism in their respective country while obviously maintaining that international solidarity for the global development of socialism. This is all personal opinion of course.

The reason that the issue of the north is so important is because the British simple, have no and have never had any claim to the north. Unlike what starbelgrade has said it is not merely an issue of "kicking the Brits out" or "moving the unionists" off the land they have lived on for 800 years. Republican socialism aims to have unionists converted into realising that their is one common enemy in the capitalist system that is exploiting both the unionist and nationalist working classes.

darealtulip

I do understand a bit about the brits etc since my wife scottish. What if they were a independent state like scotland wants to be (well some of them anyway)?

Would that be a option in your opinion or does it have to be 1 state/republic?

Thanks for trying to explain anyway. Lots of questions and no opinion, sorry!

starbelgrade

EuskalHerria wrote: »

The reason that the issue of the north is so important is because the British simple, have no and have never had any claim to the north. Unlike what starbelgrade has said it is not merely an issue of "kicking the Brits out" or "moving the unionists" off the land they have lived on for 800 years. Republican socialism aims to have unionists converted into realising that their is one common enemy in the capitalist system that is exploiting both the unionist and nationalist working classes.

Why do the 6 counties HAVE to be part of this revolution?

starbelgrade

darealtulip wrote: »

Thanks for trying to explain anyway. Lots of questions and no opinion, sorry!

Questions are as much needed as answers.

EuskalHerria

starbelgrade wrote: »

Why do the 6 counties HAVE to be part of this revolution?

Why should it be excluded? Explain to me what claim britain has on Irish soil?

EuskalHerria

darealtulip wrote: »

I do understand a bit about the brits etc since my wife scottish. What if they were a independent state like scotland wants to be (well some of them anyway)?

Would that be a option in your opinion or does it have to be 1 state/republic?

Thanks for trying to explain anyway. Lots of questions and no opinion, sorry!

In a way that is a bit more relative to our beloved dutchy:D Imagine if the Germans had invaded Holland and Rotterdam was then claimed as german soil because of plantation and settlement that occured over hundreds of years, would you feel that rotterdam is part of Holland or Germany?

starbelgrade

EuskalHerria wrote: »

Why should it be excluded? Explain to me what claim britain has on Irish soil?

None. I've just torn up the history books.

EuskalHerria

starbelgrade wrote: »

None. I've just torn up the history books.

If they were printed by folens then its a good start. Did you know that the original founder of folens books and printing press was a Nazi who fled to Ireland?

Look chara I am not on here to do the impossible of recruiting you, the thread was to highlight our new blog and the thread has completely deviated away from that. If there are any more similar questions please start another thread and direct me towards it and I will happily answer any questions you have.

(after saturday i'm afraid as I am beginning the long journey to cork for the Rovers game friday, tommorow and won't be near the t-internet):)

darealtulip

EuskalHerria wrote: »

In a way that is a bit more relative to our beloved dutchy:D Imagine if the Germans had invaded Holland and Rotterdam was then claimed as german soil because of plantation and settlement that occured over hundreds of years, would you feel that rotterdam is part of Holland or Germany?

As a matter of fact it happend the other way about, the germans lost soil to france and belgium (the ones I know for sure). Our history is different because we had more invaders and were invaders ourself. We had Spain, France and Germany invading our territory.

As you say it is more relative to us. I do understand (thanks to scottish wife and friends) that the brits invaded these parts. What I still don't understand why it needs to be united with the republic, could a independend state not be a solution? As you see the dutchness roots deep in me (compromise is key in the lowlands!):D

Ps good for some to go to Cork! I'm waiting for a baby to come so no away matches for me:(

darealtulip

starbelgrade wrote: »

Questions are as much needed as answers.

Thanks. As I said before it is hard for us to comprohend. We are a nation of compromise and there are not many people in the Netherlands claiming land etc. Maybe only for an independent Rotterdam!:D

bobcar61

This has come to an end,what was wanted to be said has been said in the first page or two and now the thread has derailed.
Locked(also at the OP request)