Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Worst Killers of the Troubles
Options
Comments
-
Where was the mandate for the 1916 rising, which led to the liberation of 26 of the 32 counties of Ireland? Do you have a problem with that particular physical force republicanism?For me, anyone who endorses physical force as a means to an end needs to ask the question, from where does the authority to so act come? In a normal democratic state, the police and army have such authority because they are answerable to the elected leaders of that state and hence the people. You can make an argument for physical force if the will of the majority is being denied, as happens in South Africa under apartheid, or if a minority is being beaten down, as happened with Catholics in NI at the beginning of the troubles. The problem I had with physical force republicanism, the PIRA in particular, is that they engaged in such activities right up to the mid 1990s, all the while claiming to represent me (as they implicitly did by asserting that the army council of the IRA were the legitimate government of ALL Ireland). All this time, the people of the republic regularly had fair and free elections and for a time, Sinn Fein fielded candidates, and these rarely succeeded in getting more than a miniscule vote, let alone a majority which might have given them a mandate of sorts to act on our behalf. In short, they did not have authority ever to act for us. They would rebuff this argument by telling us that our state was illegitimate, that our government was a puppet of London, that essentially we were not competent to determine how and by whom we were to be ruled. Ironically, all the while, they would lambast imperial Britain!0 -
I think it is legitimate to ask from whence came their mandate. It appears that the people of Dublin were less than supportive in the immediate aftermath and that attitude might have remained if the leaders had not been executed. In any case, you are evading my essential question. How can anybody claim to have authority to represent a people without a mandate from the people? If you ever do succeed in establishing your 32 county socialist republic then would you have any grounds for criticizing someone who declares: "the true will of the Irish people is to embrace fascism / capitalism / monster raving loonyism" and raises a militia to bring such a state about?Where was the mandate for the 1916 rising, which led to the liberation of 26 of the 32 counties of Ireland? Do you have a problem with that particular physical force republicanism?0 -
For me, anyone who endorses physical force as a means to an end needs to ask the question, from where does the authority to so act come? In a normal democratic state, the police and army have such authority because they are answerable to the elected leaders of that state and hence the people.
The authority to act comes from the act itself. Physical force in and of itself is the assertion of authority - whether by an individual, group or state.
You know, you mention "the people". "The people" (ie, Irish citizens) is a relative and arbitrary body defined by the state. The use of force to define this body precedes "the people's" mandate. Force gives definition to what you refer to as "the people".
In short, the state, through its use of violence and physical force, gains authority and mandate through the use of force itself. Not from the democratic process or "the people", whatever that is. These notions confuse the situation.You can make an argument for physical force if the will of the majority is being denied,
As with above. Majority is relative - not absolute. To Russians, Chechans are the minority. To Chechans, they are the majority.
You will get nowhere unless this is understood.
Majority, minority, legality, illigality are all subjective - not absolutes.
This is why the saying "One mans freedom fighter is another mans terrorist" rings true.
Judge the paramiltaries not on the criteria you set out.they did not have authority ever to act for us.
Which, if you believe so, is true to you. They had support, and those who directly participated, and they had differening views to you. That in itself gave them 'authority'.
You cant discuss this unless you look beyond the cul de sac terms of "majority", "Irish people", "minority", "democracy".They would rebuff this argument by telling us that our state was illegitimate, that our government was a puppet of London,
Notice the subjectivity in your post. "Our". "Us".
There is also "them". "Your" government means little to "them". Who is wrong, who is right?
I dont think that can be answerd by merely stating numbers plucked to suit "your" position.0 -
The authority to act comes from the act itself. Physical force in and of itself is the assertion of authority - whether by an individual, group or state.
You know, you mention "the people". "The people" (ie, Irish citizens) is a relative and arbitrary body defined by the state. The use of force to define this body precedes "the people's" mandate. Force gives definition to what you refer to as "the people".
In short, the state, through its use of violence and physical force, gains authority and mandate through the use of force itself. Not from the democratic process or "the people", whatever that is. These notions confuse the situation.
As with above. Majority is relative - not absolute. To Russians, Chechans are the minority. To Chechans, they are the majority.
You will get nowhere unless this is understood.
Majority, minority, legality, illigality are all subjective - not absolutes.
This is why the saying "One mans freedom fighter is another mans terrorist" rings true.
Judge the paramiltaries not on the criteria you set out.
Which, if you believe so, is true to you. They had support, and those who directly participated, and they had differening views to you. That in itself gave them 'authority'.
You cant discuss this unless you look beyond the cul de sac terms of "majority", "Irish people", "minority", "democracy".
Notice the subjectivity in your post. "Our". "Us".
There is also "them". "Your" government means little to "them". Who is wrong, who is right?
I dont think that can be answerd by merely stating numbers plucked to suit "your" position.
That was the most desperate and futile example of linguistic and philosophical gymnastics I have ever heard. That is ridiculous.0 -
Moderators???? ^^^0
-
Advertisement
-
I see. So presumably you agree that those who acted to beat down the Catholics in the 1960s did so with authority? Or that Bush had authority to go to Iraq? think it was clear that I was talking about moral authority.The authority to act comes from the act itself. Physical force in and of itself is the assertion of authority - whether by an individual, group or state.You know, you mention "the people". "The people" (ie, Irish citizens) is a relative and arbitrary body defined by the state. The use of force to define this body precedes "the people's" mandate. Force gives definition to what you refer to as "the people".
The IRA claimed to be the government of Ireland, all 32 counties of it. No matter how you cut and dice it, they did not have support from the people. In the North alone, in the South alone or perhaps most importantly, on the island as a whole.
Again. Bush, Iraq.In short, the state, through its use of violence and physical force, gains authority and mandate through the use of force itself.0 -
'Gangsterism' exists in all organisations - including the Gardai and Free State Army.
We shouldnt judge an entire institution on the actions and gangsterism of a minority. Paramilitaries are no exception to this.
The discuission on the disbandment of the INLA should focus on the future, not the past. It had/has a potential role in the class struggle. That seems to have been overlooked in my view.
What's this Free State Army you speak of?0 -
I see. So presumably you agree that those who acted to beat down the Catholics in the 1960s did so with authority? Or that Bush had authority to go to Iraq? think it was clear that I was talking about moral authority.
Without defending those particular actions, it must be said that there were those who believed morally, and still do, that going to Iraq and beating down catholics was 'correct' - or just.
So the question for this particular discussion is what the criteria in which we should judge whether paramilitaries, or states, in our view, have the legitimate right to use that authority?The IRA claimed to be the government of Ireland, all 32 counties of it. No matter how you cut and dice it, they did not have support from the people. In the North alone, in the South alone or perhaps most importantly, on the island as a whole.
Have you not grasped the point I was trying to make. You are using an arbitrary body of people to whom agree with you, to suit your own position.
You cant do that. RSF/CIRA can do just the same thing, and its just not an argument. It doesnt cut it.
If I am to argue in favour of the INLA, I wont say "all our supporters" support it" and therefore I am, and they, are correct.
You see?
I wont do that. I havnt done that.
I will substantiate my position based on other criteria.0 -
Poccington wrote: »What's this Free State Army you speak of?
The Irish Defence forces, an appendage of the Irish Free State, which were established by winning the Irish Civil war with arms and support from Britain.
The Republican paramilitaries, and in the main their views, are the continuation of that conflict.0 -
How does the public discontent after the execution of the leaders of the rebellion justify the rebellion? There was no contemporary mandate for physical force republicanism at that time. Following your logic, you should not glorify the past actions of Irish rebels who helped liberate the country.I think it is legitimate to ask from whence came their mandate. It appears that the people of Dublin were less than supportive in the immediate aftermath and that attitude might have remained if the leaders had not been executed.
Theoretically, it's impossible, but in reality, not having a mandate hasn't been an issue. The Irish Declaration of Independence claimed the allegiance of all Irish men and women, without their consultation. It was a secret and exclusively organised event.In any case, you are evading my essential question. How can anybody claim to have authority to represent a people without a mandate from the people? If you ever do succeed in establishing your 32 county socialist republic then would you have any grounds for criticizing someone who declares: "the true will of the Irish people is to embrace fascism / capitalism / monster raving loonyism" and raises a militia to bring such a state about?
From the Proclamation:
If you agree with the actions of the IRB, IRA and ICA in the early 1900s, you cannot condemn the PIRA for not having a mandate. The Good Friday Agreement underlined that the PIRA no longer had a mandate and they subsequently relinquished to the desire of the people.[font=Verdana, Arial, Helvetta]We declare the right of the people of Ireland to the ownership of Ireland, and to the unfettered control of Irish destinies, to be sovereign and indefeasible.
[...]
[/font][font=Verdana, Arial, Helvetta]The Irish Republic is entitled to, and hereby claims, the allegiance of every Irishman and Irishwoman.
[/font]0 -
Advertisement
-
How does the public discontent after the execution of the leaders of the rebellion justify the rebellion? There was no contemporary mandate for physical force republicanism at that time. Following your logic, you should not glorify the past actions of Irish rebels who helped liberate the country.
I guess I am not being clear! Yes I do think there is a major problem justifying the actions of the rebels of 1916 even if I have benefited from them (for the sake of argument I will set aside the possibility that liberation would have come anyway). To get back to my pal George W., if by some means a normal democracy somehow emerges in Iraq and millions in future generations benefit, will this vindicate the actions of Bush? This is the end justifies the means argument.0 -
Who knows? However, the goal of Bush's invasion is unclear, so the comparison isn't quite the same. The stated goal of the IRA was Irish rule for Irish people and that's what was achieved in the South.I guess I am not being clear! Yes I do think there is a major problem justifying the actions of the rebels of 1916 even if I have benefited from them (for the sake of argument I will set aside the possibility that liberation would have come anyway). To get back to my pal George W., if by some means a normal democracy somehow emerges in Iraq and millions in future generations benefit, will this vindicate the actions of Bush? This is the end justifies the means argument.0 -
I guess I am not being clear! Yes I do think there is a major problem justifying the actions of the rebels of 1916 even if I have benefited from them (for the sake of argument I will set aside the possibility that liberation would have come anyway). To get back to my pal George W., if by some means a normal democracy somehow emerges in Iraq and millions in future generations benefit, will this vindicate the actions of Bush? This is the end justifies the means argument.
But what are you, an anarchist?
The state uses physical force every second of every day. Does the fact that the over 5,000 people who die from preventable causes in this country, in part due to the states enforcement of property and wealth ownership, not justify the states enforcement of property ownership and wealth?
Isnt that a question. If the state does not enforce it, you might have social chaos or revolution. If it does, people die. Its also one of those "end justifies the means" arguments you mention.
So what is the point you want to make?
That the ends dont justify the means?
What is the alternative so? - anarchism?0 -
PIRA declared that they represented the people of Ireland. So there is no arbitrariness. It is a matter of looking to see if the people they claim to represent gave them a mandate and has nothing to do with the people who happen to agree with me. And they did not give a mandate.Have you not grasped the point I was trying to make. You are using an arbitrary body of people to whom agree with you, to suit your own position.0 -
The stated goal of the Irish people was Irish rule for Irish people and that's what was achieved in the South.
Ah well now, here is a problem. The notion of the Irish people stating anything is meaningless unless you accept democracy, i.e. unless you are prepared to listen to and abide by what the people say. The vast majority of the Irish people stated clearly and often that they did not back physical force republicanism as a means of unification. And they were ignored.0 -
PIRA declared that they represented the people of Ireland. So there is no arbitrariness. It is a matter of looking to see if the people they claim to represent gave them a mandate and has nothing to do with the people who happen to agree with me. And they did not give a mandate.
You make a fair point. It is questionable whether that was the nature of their claim. They are not stupid, afterall.
RSF claim to be the legitimate government of Ireland and derive what they see as their mandate from an election in 1918 I believe. I would presume this was the position of the PRM.
Its not a case of them claiming their representational mandate from the Irish electorate, but rather, they derived the mandate from a previous election and historical circumstances, and claim to fight in the interests of the Irish people.
There is a difference here.
If I claim to do something in the interests (or even, if you wish, representing the interests) of the working class - which the INLA have pursued, it does not necessarily follow that they need agreement from that class to act. It is a belief based upon a political theory which they believe objectively explains society - irrespective of its actors views.0 -
TBH, I am not sure what all this is about. I am simply making the case for when it is and isn't justified to use violence to achieve a political end. And I suggest that it cannot be justified when a group purport to represent a people but those people had an opportunity to provide a mandate to that group but declined. If the government choose to act in a way that is contrary to the mandate that the people gave them then the people can dismiss them at the following general election.But what are you, an anarchist?
The state uses physical force every second of every day. Does the fact that the over 5,000 people who die from preventable causes in this country, in part due to the states enforcement of property and wealth ownership, not justify the states enforcement of property ownership and wealth?
Isnt that a question. If the state does not enforce it, you might have social chaos or revolution. If it does, people die. Its also one of those "end justifies the means" arguments you mention.
So what is the point you want to make?
That the ends dont justify the means?
What is the alternative so? - anarchism?0 -
Perhaps this is the unbridgeable gap between us. I say as a democrat, that you absolutely do need agreement from any group before you can claim to act on their behalf.If I claim to do something in the interests (or even, if you wish, representing the interests) of the working class - which the INLA have pursued, it does not necessarily follow that they need agreement from that class to act.0 -
That was actually a typo. Apologies. I meant the stated goal of the IRA et. al. in reference to what we were talking about - that being the 1916 rebellion. The majority of the Irish people didn't state that they wanted independence when that happened, so the IRA acted without a mandate and under British Law the IRA were nothing more than traitors.Ah well now, here is a problem. The notion of the Irish people stating anything is meaningless unless you accept democracy, i.e. unless you are prepared to listen to and abide by what the people say. The vast majority of the Irish people stated clearly and often that they did not back physical force republicanism as a means of unification. And they were ignored.
Incidentally, the PIRA have since yielded to the desire of the people of the island of Ireland.0 -
Perhaps this is the unbridgeable gap between us. I say as a democrat, that you absolutely do need agreement from any group before you can claim to act on their behalf.
So if me and a few mates decide we are a group and reject the state and its laws, and its claim to represent us, thats alright?
Indeed, if I decide sending troops through Shannon is not representing me and many others, we therefore have, what? The right to secede from the Irish state and establish our own? - or must we "work within" confines, defined by a state which no longer represents us?
Can you see the double edge of using relative and arbitrary definitions/bodies to support an argument?
It is for this reason, that talk of democratic mandates and support by "the Irish people" cannot be used as an argument against why we believe the institution of the INLA is legitimate, illigitimate, right, or wrong.
Now to fast forward here. As a socialist/communist, I view capitalism as an inhumane system which is incapable of progressing society, or solving social, global and environmental problems. I can argue these points alone, without reference to who supports what. They are free standing.
There are freestanding arguments for supporting the Irish capitalist state. None of which have to do with numbers.
You might believe that state violence is progressive, functional, or whatever.
The INLA do not. Its a political/ideological clash, in which talk of democracy and arbitrary numbers has no place.
If you want to discuss this, its a question of discussing whether the INLA has a progressive role in society. Whether their political objectives are progressive, or not.
Substance! - not rhetorical ideological smokescreens about democracy.0 -
Advertisement
-
TBH, I am not sure what all this is about. I am simply making the case for when it is and isn't justified to use violence to achieve a political end. And I suggest that it cannot be justified when a group purport to represent a people but those people had an opportunity to provide a mandate to that group but declined. If the government choose to act in a way that is contrary to the mandate that the people gave them then the people can dismiss them at the following general election.
See my previous post.
In order to discuss this, as I have said, the criteria needs to be changed and outlined. Understand the relative nature of what you are using to legitimate and enforce your argument.0 -
So if me and a few mates decide we are a group and reject the state and its laws, and its claim to represent us, thats alright?
That does not follow from what I said. To say that a government needs backing from the people means they require majority not unanimous backing. There will always be some who may fundamentally reject the government, indeed many consider to be quite healthy in a democracy. But if they are democrats, they must accept the will of the majority.
There is a fundamental flaw in the logic you use to draw inferences from what I said to what you deduce. I say the government must have a mandate from the people to have authority. You deduce that if a minority does not support the government they have authority to cede from the state. I think everything else in your post follows from this false deduction.
I am assuming of course that you accept democracy. Perhaps you do not? And it is no “rhetorical ideological smokescreen”. It is simply about letting the people decide how and by whom they want to be ruled.0 -
You seem to be making much the same point that I am, namely that there are problems justifying the actions of the 1916 rebels because they lacked a mandate. And this is not some pretty academic argument. If we forgive them the transgression of not having a mandate then anyone can subsequent invoke violence to achieve a political end and argue that future generations will appreciate their efforts. Some of us suspect that this is precisely what some republican groups have done even if they do claim that their authority stems from the first Dail and not 1916.That was actually a typo. Apologies. I meant the stated goal of the IRA et. al. in reference to what we were talking about - that being the 1916 rebellion. The majority of the Irish people didn't state that they wanted independence when that happened, so the IRA acted without a mandate and under British Law the IRA were nothing more than traitors.
Incidentally, the PIRA have since yielded to the desire of the people of the island of Ireland.
I do accept that the republican movement is moving towards being fully constitutional. But I don't think they are there yet.Incidentally, the PIRA have since yielded to the desire of the people of the island0 -
That does not follow from what I said. To say that a government needs backing from the people means they require majority not unanimous backing.
But it is a majority as defined by the state. So in essence, the state legitimates itself.
What is "the majority"? How is it defined?There will always be some who may fundamentally reject the government, indeed many consider to be quite healthy in a democracy. But if they are democrats, they must accept the will of the majority.
But if those who reject the representation of the state consider and define themselves to be the majority, are they not democrats?
Or must they define themselves as by what the state who they oppose representation assigns to them?There is a fundamental flaw in the logic you use to draw inferences from what I said to what you deduce. I say the government must have a mandate from the people to have authority. You deduce that if a minority does not support the government they have authority to cede from the state. I think everything else in your post follows from this false deduction.
There is no flaw in the argument I put forth. I asked you whether they should secede from the Irish state. I never gave an opinion as to whether X group should or shouldnt. I asked you something which follows from your assertion.I am assuming of course that you accept democracy. Perhaps you do not?
What do you mean by democracy? - you mean as defined by the capitalist state, its electoral system, definitions and limits?
Ill tell you what I support. I support action. Action which I view to be progressive and in the interests of the broader society.
If that means, oh, say, Limerick (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=js0FR8GkBEo) establishing its own social and economic system to the benefit of its defined population - despite an outside state, democratic or otherwise, declaring it undemocratic - then I dont care.
Action. Material and social change. Substance! - is what matters. Not endless nonsense about subordinating to an arbitrary body and relative restrictions and limits - which happens to suit those who define them - ie, the existing state and status quo. Its empty.And it is no “rhetorical ideological smokescreen”. It is simply about letting the people decide how and by whom they want to be ruled.
What people?
Are me and my mates not people?
Are we not a self assigned group?
Or must your state, to whom we reject, assign our designation and definition?0 -
So if all this is relative, and it's fair enough for (to continue your analogy) Limerick to secede and establish itself, and it's okay for armed groups to legitimise themselves by force, and Limerick were to create their own army, then if the rest of the Republic of Ireland disagree and refuse to recognise Limerick's autonomy and crush it by overwhelming military force, then would that also be fair enough? Seeing as the majority is self-defining, for want of a better term.0
-
But it is a majority as defined by the state. So in essence, the state legitimates itself.
What is "the majority"? How is it defined?
Presumably you don’t think “the greater number” will do as a definition? I don’t know what you have in mind when you talk about the state defining a majority? I suspect you realize that your political viewpoint would have miniscule backing in these parts, so you must play down the merits of popular support. And you employ a rather familiar device whereby you dabble in pseudo-philosophical arguments about the nature and meaning of democracy.
See aboveBut if those who reject the representation of the state consider and define themselves to be the majority, are they not democrats?
Or must they define themselves as by what the state who they oppose representation assigns to them?
But it doesn’t follow from my assertion. That was my point.I asked you something which follows from your assertion.
Again see above.What do you mean by democracy? - you mean as defined by the capitalist state, its electoral system, definitions and limits?
And what if others support action which may be very different to the actions you have in mind but which they envisage would be in the interests of society, or perhaps in the interests of something else. How do you proceed? Who decides what actions are to be taken and how are the decisions taken? You can either attempt to reach a census (effectively democracy) or an individual or group can, on the basis of strength, impose their view on all.Ill tell you what I support. I support action. Action which I view to be progressive and in the interests of the broader society.0 -
It wasn't me! wrote: »So if all this is relative, and it's fair enough for (to continue your analogy) Limerick to secede and establish itself, and it's okay for armed groups to legitimise themselves by force, and Limerick were to create their own army, then if the rest of the Republic of Ireland disagree and refuse to recognise Limerick's autonomy and crush it by overwhelming military force, then would that also be fair enough? Seeing as the majority is self-defining, for want of a better term.
Yes, you are correct.
As I said, its subjective. To those supporting the irish state, fantastic. To those supporting the Limerick state, disaster - oppressive.
So what I am saying is - unless we discuss the actual merits and substance of the INLA, and the irish state, then there is really no intelligent discussion happening here.
We could talk all day long about "my people", and "democratic mandates".
It avoids the issue entirely. I think you can grasp that.0 -
Yes, you are correct.
As I said, its subjective. To those supporting the irish state, fantastic. To those supporting the Limerick state, disaster - oppressive.
So what I am saying is - unless we discuss the actual merits and substance of the INLA, and the irish state, then there is really no intelligent discussion happening here.
We could talk all day long about "my people", and "democratic mandates".
It avoids the issue entirely. I think you can grasp that.
Unless one assumes that a mandate is crucial to their having any merit or substance, in case it is the issue.0 -
Presumably you don’t think “the greater number” will do as a definition? I don’t know what you have in mind when you talk about the state defining a majority? I suspect you realize that your political viewpoint would have miniscule backing in these parts, so you must play down the merits of popular support. And you employ a rather familiar device whereby you dabble in pseudo-philosophical arguments about the nature and meaning of democracy.
Well if "greater number" is the definition, bring on China. Whatever China says, we should do it. Or indeed Britain. They are of "greater numbers" after all, and you seem to bow down to that.
Look, I already explained.
In order to define "majority" and "minority", you first need to establish a body of people to derive those terms. Now what defines the "body of people"?
What keeps me part of what you call "the people"?
The state does. I am a subject of the state, and if I and others disagree, thats what the prisons and guns are for.
The state perpetuates itself. Its violence creates its own mandate.But it doesn’t follow from my assertion. That was my point.
It does follow. You said:
"Perhaps this is the unbridgeable gap between us. I say as a democrat, that you absolutely do need agreement from any group before you can claim to act on their behalf."
Now I asked you whether its ok for a state to assert itself over a self assigned group who oppose state representation? - seeing as they constitute themselves as a majority and are thus 'democrats'.And what if others support action which may be very different to the actions you have in mind but which they envisage would be in the interests of society, or perhaps in the interests of something else.
I would support using physical force to further what i view to be for the best, against those who you mention.
The substance of what is best must be debated. Is it capitalism? is it white pride? is it socialism?
At the moment capitalism has the monopoly on violence and so it asserts its authority. To further my views, that authority must be subverted.Who decides what actions are to be taken and how are the decisions taken? You can either attempt to reach a census (effectively democracy) or an individual or group can, on the basis of strength, impose their view on all.
The capitalist state imposes its views on those who disagree.
Socialism, I envisage, is a democratic process. One where force is used when it infringes, or has the potential to inftringe on the individual. Anarchism or communism, if you wish. It solves the dilema I have outlined with the removal of the state.0 -
Advertisement
-
It wasn't me! wrote: »Unless one assumes that a mandate is crucial to their having any merit or substance, in case it is the issue.
Im not entirely sure of the point you are making here. Could you rephrase it?0
This discussion has been closed.
Advertisement