Worst Killers of the Troubles

lugha

S-Murph wrote: »

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.

Perhaps, if China had free and fair elections. And a democratic mandate is necessary, it is not sufficient for authority. Think Hitler.

S-Murph wrote: »

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."

I clarified that needing agreement means needing agreement from a majority.

S-Murph wrote: »

The substance of what is best must be debated. Is it capitalism? is it white pride? is it socialism?

Debated with whom? Who is entitled to have an input into this debate? Don't you now have the same problem that you insist I have in that you must define who may participate?

S-Murph

lugha wrote: »

Perhaps, if China had free and fair elections.

Well that says it all for me. I wont agrue with you any further.

It think that it is disgusting to believe minorities, because they are lesser in number, and despite their unique cultural or social characteristics, should be subservient to those of greater number. Very sad indeed that you believe this.

I clarified that needing agreement means needing agreement from a majority.

You clarified nothing. Any group can define themselves as the majority, and therefore, become democrats.

Debated with whom? Who is entitled to have an input into this debate? Don't you now have the same problem that you insist I have in that you must define who may participate?

What are you doing now, but 'debating'?

People can use discussions, like this, to shape their views and, if they want, take action to change society. Anyone can do that. Which views are implemented, well thats down to physical force in the end, depending on what is set out. If the ideas ring through, others will join and the support base grows making physical force more effective.

Physical force and being able to assert authority (and thus an ideological view), is the goal. At the moment, the capitalist state has a hegemony on the mechanisms of violence, and so other ideological views which conflict, cannot be implemented.

OldJay

Attempting to justify the violent actions of these people is just utterly sad and trite.

It wasn't me!

S-Murph wrote: »

Im not entirely sure of the point you are making here. Could you rephrase it?

You want to ignore the fact that they don't have any popular mandate for their actions and discuss their substance and merit as they legitimise themselves, in your eyes, by violence. I would assert that having a popular mandate is crucial to their having substance and merit, and it is that mandate that gives them legitimacy, not violent acts. Violence is not self-legitimising. You agreed that the state's extra firepower would legitimise its crushing of Limerick in the secession analogy we debated earlier, yet you argue against the state's use of what you term "violence", and what I call the forces of law and order, in order to establish its authority day to day. There's a great logical gap there.

lugha

Well I guess I am going to have my closing remarks as well.

S-Murph wrote: »

It think that it is disgusting to believe minorities, because they are lesser in number, and despite their unique cultural or social characteristics, should be subservient to those of greater number. Very sad indeed that you believe this.

That is just the way you spin what I say. I argue for democracy, it is for the people to decide. There can be no justification for those with a minority view to use violence to impose that view on the majority. They must seek to build support for your view from the people. But of course if you are a communist, that presents something of a problem. The vast majority of the people utterly reject communism so you engage in petty arguments about the nature or definition of majority to circumvent this rather inconvenient fact. As you well know, if you ever did succeed in establishing communism, the state (or whatever you would call it) would be absolutely brutal in maintaining such a regime. Have you forgotten how such regimes were maintained in Eastern Europe? The might that you see being used to maintain capitalism is nothing in comparison. When the Berlin wall stood, nobody was stopped from travelling East to embrace the communist utopia. Those who lived in the East but favoured Western values were butchered if they attempted to travel West. In 1989 the people of Europe spoke loudly and clearly. You don’t like what they say so you refuse to listen.

S-Murph

Justind wrote: »

Attempting to justify the violent actions of these people is just utterly sad and trite.

Attempting to justify the mass violence and terror of the state, and indeed global capitalism, is very sad indeed.

S-Murph

It wasn't me! wrote: »

You want to ignore the fact that they don't have any popular mandate for their actions and discuss their substance and merit as they legitimise themselves, in your eyes, by violence. I would assert that having a popular mandate is crucial to their having substance and merit, and it is that mandate that gives them legitimacy, not violent acts. Violence is not self-legitimising. we debated earlier, yet you argue against the state's use of what you term "violence", and what I call the forces of law and order, in order to establish its authority day to day. There's a great logical gap there.

Whats 'popular'? - define it, without reference to a body of people defined by violence. and also, to which are not chosen top suit your ends.

Violence is self legitimating. It is self legitimating because human actors carry it out. People believe their actions are legitimate and so commit murder, terrorism, intervention, confinement, restraint, suppression, oppression.


You cant judge the legitamacy of violence based upon how many people support it. Thats a non-argument.

You agreed that the state's extra firepower would legitimise its crushing of Limerick in the secession analogy

I didnt say anything of the sort. I am trying to explain that it is subjective. To those who established the soviet, it certainly would not be legitimate, to those who dont, it would.

You cant "win" this argument by stating which was more popular, or which had more people supporting it, as each violent entity defined and legitimates itself.

S-Murph

lugha wrote: »

Well I guess I am going to have my closing remarks as well.





That is just the way you spin what I say. I argue for democracy, it is for the people to decide. There can be no justification for those with a minority view to use violence to impose that view on the majority. They must seek to build support for your view from the people. But of course if you are a communist, that presents something of a problem. The vast majority of the people utterly reject communism so you engage in petty arguments about the nature or definition of majority to circumvent this rather inconvenient fact. As you well know, if you ever did succeed in establishing communism, the state (or whatever you would call it) would be absolutely brutal in maintaining such a regime. Have you forgotten how such regimes were maintained in Eastern Europe? The might that you see being used to maintain capitalism is nothing in comparison. When the Berlin wall stood, nobody was stopped from travelling East to embrace the communist utopia. Those who lived in the East but favoured Western values were butchered if they attempted to travel West. In 1989 the people of Europe spoke loudly and clearly. You don’t like what they say so you refuse to listen.

Look, your circular cul-de sac logic will be just that. Never ending. Its full of empty and arbitrary definitions which suit your purposes.

Your position is not objective on this basis. Any terrorist group or bunch of serial killers could use your argument as I have demonstrated.

lugha

S-Murph wrote: »

Look, your circular cul-de sac logic will be just that. Never ending. Its full of empty and arbitrary definitions which suit your purposes.

In relation to communsim in the Rep of Ireland, can you tell me how many votes communists got in total in the last general election and compare that to the number got by right leaning parties. I'm sure you will find that the latter group are considerably more numerous. Hence I assert that the vast majority reject communism. There is nothing arbitrary about it. All you have to be able to do is count. Can you provide me with an argument based on anything you like, election results or otherwise, that there is any real or any appetite for communism in Ireland?

walshb

Paisley definitely springs to mind. A bit like Charles Manson, though Manson never actually killed, he influenced and coerced others to.

OldJay

S-Murph wrote: »

Attempting to justify the . . . hypocritically blahdy-blah . . . etc . . . etc

And again, with good old moral relativism.
Considering the entire island voted on what to compromise in return for a peaceful settlement, the delusion of these murderers and their apologists is shown up even more.

Get this. The island of Ireland doesn't want your deluded types killing in its name. The people have spoken. Listen to them for a friggin change

FTA69

S-Murph wrote: »

Build a bridge. Tomorrows issue will be the X factor.

It still doesn't detract from the fact that the INLA brand has become absolutely negative and retrograde in the eyes of most working people in the south, if you think that that's going to go away all of a sudden you're fairly mistaken.

If the organisation can be reorganised to take a more political direction, there is no reason why that image cannot change. Peoples perceptions are not absolute, they change. Because they have a bad image right now dosnt mean they should throw in their hat.

True, but I doubt if the INLA is ever going to be viewed as a positive force amongst the southern working-class, and it is highly doubtful that that perception will change as a result of INLA actions. As I said, the only way the RSM is going to be in any way relevant is if it concentrates purely on political activism as opposed to faceless paramilitarism.

Oh ha ha so funny.

I'm deadly serious. The INLA holds itself up as the successor of the Irish Citizen Army, a group there to defend the interests of the working class. And then their leader in the capital city was nothing more than a criminal involving himself in all sorts of sh*t. That whole episode led to a number of young people being incarcerated as a result of Duffy's power trip, and for years the IRSM told us Duffy was a grand fella who was a victim of media character assasination. So I'm not being funny, that whole episode made a complete and utter mockery of many of the INLA's founding principles and current position.

Armed action dosnt just 'happen' when we want it. The point in having an army is that the tactic is availible and optional, when needed. Without an army, the tactic is not availible - even when the moment comes.

There needs to be certain conditions in place in order for a successful armed campaign to be prosecuted, those don't exist at present and it is highly unlikely that those conditions will be created as a result of a small group seeking to use armed struggle as a catalyst. Republicans need to exit this mindset where we view a movement as solely consisting of a party/army model.

So what "the present moment" is dosnt matter. Besides that, I disagree. I think there are plenty of situations right now where armed intervention could be used where peaceful political struggle has failed.

Like where? Those groups prosecuting an armed campaign at the moment are simply practising propaganda of the deed, i.e shooting someone and seeing if they can mix it up a bit. Similarly I can't see some sort of neo-TUAS strategy building any sort of platform for Irish Republicans either.

No, I think that would be the last thing on my mind. Armed action can be used to back up the class struggle - not just to kneecap dealers. Thats a traditionalist approach you are taking.

I wasn't suggesting that Republicans should set themselves up as a police force, nor do I think kneecapping dealers solves that particular problem. What I was saying was that the only time I can see armed actions being feasible is in cases of direct defence of the Republican movement in the case of an attack by drug-dealers or other such elements.

Thats what the IRSP is there for. All emphasis should be placed on building the political base. That, however, does not mean disbanding the army.

But surely it is fair to say that the INLA and its actions has actually hampered the growth of the IRSP in many respects?

S-Murph

lugha wrote: »

In relation to communsim in the Rep of Ireland, can you tell me how many votes communists got in total in the last general election and compare that to the number got by right leaning parties. I'm sure you will find that the latter group are considerably more numerous. Hence I assert that the vast majority reject communism. There is nothing arbitrary about it. All you have to be able to do is count. Can you provide me with an argument based on anything you like, election results or otherwise, that there is any real or any appetite for communism in Ireland?

You assume that communists seek to make changes within the framework established by the bourgeois state - ie. elections, citizenship, 'numbers'. You have rehashed the same circular argument with different wording. We reject your social constructs as they serve your position.

So I wont continue in that direction.

It is the case that the Irish state enforces and implements through coercion an ideological viewpoint.

It says Farmer joe "owns" a piece of this earth. As if his right were absolute and established by means other than violence.

An individual has no absolute right in this regard, such rights are established through violence to the exclusion of others.

What you are doing is establishing social constructs to suit and back up your ideological position.

Well we can all do that. Its very easy.

S-Murph

Justind wrote: »

And again, with good old moral relativism.
Considering the entire island voted on what to compromise in return for a peaceful settlement, the delusion of these murderers and their apologists is shown up even more.

Get this. The island of Ireland doesn't want your deluded types killing in its name. The people have spoken. Listen to them for a friggin change

How convenient of you to select an arbitrary body of people to suit your and the status quo's position.

We can all do that.

S-Murph

FTA69 wrote: »

S-Murph wrote: »

It still doesn't detract from the fact that the INLA brand has become absolutely negative and retrograde in the eyes of most working people in the south, if you think that that's going to go away all of a sudden you're fairly mistaken.

It will take work. Its not as big a problem as you make it out to be. Members and supporters are all normal people, not madmen. Those who know us recognise that. Its about getting 'ourselves' and the movement out there.

True, but I doubt if the INLA is ever going to be viewed as a positive force amongst the southern working-class, and it is highly doubtful that that perception will change as a result of INLA actions. As I said, the only way the RSM is going to be in any way relevant is if it concentrates purely on political activism as opposed to faceless paramilitarism.

Is this the same working class who vote in the establishment parties time and time again?

You know what, I dont care what these people think. Those who are politically conscious, and know us, will see who we are and what we represent. We wont change our politics and tactical options to suit people who have alternate establisment positions.

I'm deadly serious. The INLA holds itself up as the successor of the Irish Citizen Army, a group there to defend the interests of the working class. And then their leader in the capital city was nothing more than a criminal involving himself in all sorts of sh*t. That whole episode led to a number of young people being incarcerated as a result of Duffy's power trip, and for years the IRSM told us Duffy was a grand fella who was a victim of media character assasination. So I'm not being funny, that whole episode made a complete and utter mockery of many of the INLA's founding principles and current position.

You are right. But the IRSM no longer hold those views of Duffy. It is unfortunate that such elements get involved, as they do with every institution.

There needs to be certain conditions in place in order for a successful armed campaign to be prosecuted, those don't exist at present and it is highly unlikely that those conditions will be created as a result of a small group seeking to use armed struggle as a catalyst. Republicans need to exit this mindset where we view a movement as solely consisting of a party/army model.

Its not a question of armed struggle. Armed struggle has failed there is no doubt about it. But the options of arms are not limited to "fighting the brits" and imperialism. Arms can be used tactically.

Like where? Those groups prosecuting an armed campaign at the moment are simply practising propaganda of the deed, i.e shooting someone and seeing if they can mix it up a bit. Similarly I can't see some sort of neo-TUAS strategy building any sort of platform for Irish Republicans either.

Im not going to say where on this forum. In Ireland there are situations where they could be used where political struggle has failed.

I wasn't suggesting that Republicans should set themselves up as a police force, nor do I think kneecapping dealers solves that particular problem. What I was saying was that the only time I can see armed actions being feasible is in cases of direct defence of the Republican movement in the case of an attack by drug-dealers or other such elements.

And what about direct action?

Or is the tactic of direct action to be ruled out of the class struggle?

But surely it is fair to say that the INLA and its actions has actually hampered the growth of the IRSP in many respects?

Up until now quite possibly. Thats why I propose changing the organisations role in the movement.

OldJay

S-Murph wrote: »

How convenient of you to select an arbitrary body of people to suit your and the status quo's position.

We can all do that.

If you're for an all-Ireland unification then you consider all of Ireland. Its that simple. You can't cherry-pick in a "conveniently" hypocritical and to be quite frank, idiotic manner. You lose any credibility you might aspire to having. Not surprising however. The view you espouse is the norm for apologists of these deluded whacko fringe groups ignorant of what people around them actually want.

FTA69

It will take work. Its not as big a problem as you make it out to be. Members and supporters are all normal people, not madmen. Those who know us recognise that. Its about getting 'ourselves' and the movement out there.

I know that, but the fact remains that if you want to succeed in building a viable political vehicle then you need a certain "brand" as well, and the INLA "brand" is generally wrecked beyond repair.

Is this the same working class who vote in the establishment parties time and time again?

Nonsense, if you're going to disown every element of the working class who votes for Sinn Féin or Labour or whatever then you'll be left with a very small constituancy indeed. As Bernadette McAliskey said recently enough, "the people have a right to abandon the party, the party has no right to abandon the people". The fact is that working class people generally have little other option. The reason they don't support the likes of the IRSP is because Republicans have yet to provide a political alternative backed up with work on the ground; although I believe Éirigi have the potential to become a very strong vehicle in the future.

You know what, I dont care what these people think.

Well you'd want to start caring, because if you aren't in anyway relevant on the issues that affect working-class people you won't get anywhere at all.

We wont change our politics and tactical options to suit people who have alternate establisment positions.

Nobody is saying to move to the centre and engage in reformist politics, that's what Sinn Féin explicitly did in 2007 and it was the beginning of their terminal political decline. Tactically however, Republicans need to cop on a small bit and realise that paramilitarism and militarism and its practice is redundant and has simply led to fiasco after fiasco. Republican groups today are micro, a complete irrelevance. That needs to change.

Im not going to say where on this forum. In Ireland there are situations where they could be used where political struggle has failed.

I can't see many avenues for that occurring myself.

And what about direct action?

Or is the tactic of direct action to be ruled out of the class struggle?

Direct action doesn't necessarily need to revolve around arms and clandestine armed groups. For instance the protests and occupation around Shell to Sea (which I participated in to a degree) where a great example of direct action where arms weren't employed. Similarly where the Thomas Cook and Waterford Crystal workers occupied those respective factories. In my opinon that sort of direct action worked a lot more in their favour than shooting someone.

Up until now quite possibly. Thats why I propose changing the organisations role in the movement.

As far as I'm aware the INLA has said it won't decommission or disband.

S-Murph

Justind wrote: »

If you're for an all-Ireland unification then you consider all of Ireland. Its that simple. You can't cherry-pick in a "conveniently" hypocritical and to be quite frank, idiotic manner. You lose any credibility you might aspire to having. Not surprising however. The view you espouse is the norm for apologists of these deluded whacko fringe groups ignorant of what people around them actually want.

Its not hypocritical because you do not know my reasons for 'selecting' that group.

And even if you did know my reasons, they would be no less valid than yours - and thats my point. Your numbers dont mean f all to me.

If you want to argue your position, argue the constructivity of your violence, not how many support it.

Diogenes

According the CAIN database the greatest killer of the troubles were republican paramilitary groups.

Diogenes

S-Murph wrote: »

Its not hypocritical because you do not know my reasons for 'selecting' that group.

And even if you did know my reasons, they would be no less valid than yours - and thats my point. Your numbers dont mean f all to me.

If you want to argue your position, argue the constructivity of your violence, not how many support it.

Ah so to be clear, you support a fringe paramilitary group that lacks real support and ignores the fact that the overwhelming majority of people both north and south have empathetically voted in huge numbers to reject paramilitary groups?

lugha

S-Murph wrote: »

You assume that communists seek to make changes within the framework established by the bourgeois state ..... We reject your social constructs as they serve your position.

Of course I would say you reject these social constructs because they so clearly illustrates that you are attempting to impose something on the people (yes I know, I know, "what people?", "that just your convenient definition ... " etc. etc.) that they do not want.
But for the sake of argument let us set aside my social constructs. On what basis do you assert communism as a worthy political framework? Have you any evidence of any kind, in any social framework, that it reflects the will of the people? Are some people more equal than others and in a position to make decisions that the lower orders are not competent to do?

S-Murph

FTA69 wrote: »

I know that, but the fact remains that if you want to succeed in building a viable political vehicle then you need a certain "brand" as well, and the INLA "brand" is generally wrecked beyond repair.

So is the "brand" of communism and socialism.

But so what?

When, or if, the ideas an practice of socialism/communism reach people/become relavent to their material situation, we envisage people's views will change.

Similarly, the movement has been lacking political emphasis, work and impact for god knows how long now. When this emphasis is placed as I am sure is planned, gradually, bit by bit, people will be won over.

As I say, views are not absolute. 99.9% of people in Dublin dont even know party members. Their views come from the rags. That wont change, what will is the direct physical relationship the party/movement has with people, irrespective of whether the INLA exists or not.

Nonsense, if you're going to disown every element of the working class who votes for Sinn Féin or Labour or whatever then you'll be left with a very small constituancy indeed.

But sure if you are going to drop your politics to suit the views of people now, you will be left with exactly what Sinn Fein, Labour and Finna Fail have.

Its not about disowning them. We have a Marxist analysis and we attampt to change society in what we view as objectivley in their interest. If our constituency is small, then so be it. We wont change our beliefs, or ourselves, to increase that constituency. We want to change them, not let them change us.

The fact is that working class people generally have little other option. The reason they don't support the likes of the IRSP is because Republicans have yet to provide a political alternative backed up with work on the ground; although I believe Éirigi have the potential to become a very strong vehicle in the future.

There are various reasons, far beyond what you mention, as to why the working class dont support socialism. Cultural hegemony, for example.

All we can do is "agitate, organize and educate". This is something the IRSM has been lacking for some time. Hopefully that will change. It does not necessarily follow that the army must disband to do this.

Well you'd want to start caring, because if you aren't in anyway relevant on the issues that affect working-class people you won't get anywhere at all.

Socialism, and revolution is relevent to the issues of the people. They dont know that though. Thats not entirely the lefts/our fault.

We have always been relevent. How we make that clear is what all of us must establish to achieve our goals.

Nobody is saying to move to the centre and engage in reformist politics, that's what Sinn Féin explicitly did in 2007 and it was the beginning of their terminal political decline. Tactically however, Republicans need to cop on a small bit and realise that paramilitarism and militarism and its practice is redundant and has simply led to fiasco after fiasco. Republican groups today are micro, a complete irrelevance. That needs to change.

Militarism is an entirely different issue. There is nothing militaristic about recognising why a marxist revolutionary organisation should have at its disposal the use of trained physical force. Thats not militarism, thats practicality.

If Fianna Fail and Fine Gael voters dont understand that - tough. We seek to prove ourselves and our revolutionary ideas correct, not capitulate to their mislead views and preconceptions.

I can't see many avenues for that occurring myself.

No? well thats you. I wont discuss what i think should be demolished or attacked on this forum.

Direct action doesn't necessarily need to revolve around arms and clandestine armed groups. For instance the protests and occupation around Shell to Sea (which I participated in to a degree) where a great example of direct action where arms weren't employed. Similarly where the Thomas Cook and Waterford Crystal workers occupied those respective factories. In my opinon that sort of direct action worked a lot more in their favour than shooting someone.

You are selecting a particualar type of direct action, suited to a particular situation. Again, see my previous comment. If you cant see how methods beyond those you mention are useful, well thats you then.

As far as I'm aware the INLA has said it won't decommission or disband.

Well its not clear at the moment. To bring them down the road of the sticks is a mistake in my view - ie, they didnt decomission or disband.

Thats really not the issue.

S-Murph

Diogenes wrote: »

Ah so to be clear, you support a fringe paramilitary group that lacks real support and ignores the fact that the overwhelming majority of people both north and south have empathetically voted in huge numbers to reject paramilitary groups?

They have mass popular support. The people are behind them. The majority totally support them. What are you on about.

Again (x100), we can all select arbitrary definitions to suit our own ends.

Diogenes

S-Murph wrote: »

They have mass popular support. The people are behind them. The majority totally support them. What are you on about.

Again (x100), we can all select arbitrary definitions to suit our own ends.

You're being farcical now. I can cite the overwhelming majority that voted for the good Friday agreement, where can you draw evidence to support your claims?

S-Murph

lugha wrote: »

Of course I would say you reject these social constructs because they so clearly illustrates that you are attempting to impose something on the people (yes I know, I know, "what people?", "that just your convenient definition ... " etc. etc.) that they do not want.
But for the sake of argument let us set aside my social constructs. On what basis do you assert communism as a worthy political framework? Have you any evidence of any kind, in any social framework, that it reflects the will of the people? Are some people more equal than others and in a position to make decisions that the lower orders are not competent to do?

I believe the rational allocation of resources is the logical solution to social problems. Market allocation has failed in so many ways to address social and environmental issues.

Hunger, for example. There is plenty of supply, yet people starve. Homelesseness/waiting lists. Again, plenty of houses, yet these problems remain. Climate change. The market cannot account for externalities and so leaving the market to its own is a road to ruin.

If we intelligently plan where we direct resources, rather than letting an irrational and ignorant market decide, I think thats a step forward.

Its not contentious to say capitalism, and its resource distribution, creates many social problems.

S-Murph

Diogenes wrote: »

You're being farcical now. I can cite the overwhelming majority that voted for the good Friday agreement, where can you draw evidence to support your claims?

Ard fheis decisions. The overwhelming majority of the people, the masses, support the INLA. Ard fheis are open and transparent to those who participate.

Diogenes

S-Murph wrote: »

Ard fheis decisions. The overwhelming majority of the people, the masses, support the INLA. Ard fheis are open and transparent to those who participate.

Thats inane. You really think thatthe millions of people who didn't turn up to the IRSP Ard Fheis, gave their tact support to a paramilitary organisation?

S-Murph

Diogenes wrote: »

Thats inane. You really think thatthe millions of people who didn't turn up to the IRSP Ard Fheis, gave their tact support to a paramilitary organisation?

I dont care about what numbers you pluck from the air to suit your agenda.

Infact ill do just the same here:

The overwhelming majority, the people, have popular support for the INLA.

Diogenes

S-Murph wrote: »

Its not contentious to say capitalism, and its resource distribution, creates many social problems.

While the resource distribution of Marxist societies like during the "great leap forward" or the "5 year plan" never resulted in social problems or the worst famines of the 20th century. Oh no wait they did.

S-Murph

Diogenes wrote: »

While the resource distribution of Marxist societies like during the "great leap forward" or the "5 year plan" never resulted in social problems or the worst famines of the 20th century. Oh no wait they did.

Bizzare that you call them Marxist

What about that tyrannical democratic regime in North Korea?

Surely democracy has failed too if we go according to shallow labels.