Proud to be a Communist

[Republican-Socialist]

Im suggesting that Volunteers should be both intellectuals and fighters - as Lenin put it.

Well i don't know any socialist who would, every soldier a politician, every poltiician a soldier is how ta power put it I believe. The point is though that politics must lead the way and arms must follow when they are productive in struggle, arms should not just be implemented all the time and under all conditions. the prevailing conditions are so important. For instance in ireland at the moment, republican socialism as a political entity is in such a bad state, that armed actions are pointless. A republican socialist movement must have a strong presence in every county, armed action by a tiny sect that could not possibly lead any revolution is useless...a revolutionary movement must be built naiton wide.

[Garibaldy]

Thats a different question. All Im saying is that both Lynch and Lenin thought that an armed force was needed in the front line of any revolution. I agree with that.

That fact doesn't mean the two are compatible. In fact they are coming at things from a completely different point of view.

[Garibaldy]

Yes, she took a fair few with her aswell over this and her analysis was correct, the military wing had overtaken its true role,it should have been subordinate to the party, as Ta,Costello and Bernadette advocated, but the militarists wanted the army to lead the way which seems to be what cael suggests as the way forward. It is not. Politics must lead the struggle, and an armed wing may be used,like lenin and costello would suggest, at an oppertune moment under the right conditions which are created by the political side, to further the workers struggle. Arms will not create the conditions for politics, politics must lead the struggle and arms used if necessary to further that struggle in the right situation

My understanding though was that McAliskey had left before 1977, when Costello was overwhelmingly the dominant figure. If the position was the wrong way round, surely that was his fault, as well as other people like White? They were the most influential figures, and they shaped the movement (although of course even a movement seems to me to be against Lenin's vision).

[Cael]

Cael, I think that changing the structure of the organisation into a Leninist model of a political party and changing the name to The Workers' Party would be a very funny way of hiding a commitment to socialism. As for raising class consciousness, well the newspapers, magazines, pamphlets all dedicated to that suggest that you might be underestimating people's commitment to that.

I'm not really sure what you mean when you say that the opportunist trend started in the 1960s. It was hardly an easy or an uncontentious thing to begin the socialist transformation of the movement.

The WP never followed a Leninist model. It followed the opportunist, economist model that Lenin spent years demonising. The name "Worker's Party" is the very epitome of opportunism. It tries to latch on to the trade union ideology and completely deny Marxism.


The Republican Congress was a much more honest and much more important attempt to bring Socialism into the RM. The RC was open and honest in its analysis. You may say that it was defeated by the Catholic conservatives in the IRA - yes it was. But the RC today is an inspiration for those of us who want to set Republicanism on a solid Marxist foundation, while the WP is a source of shame and embarrassment.

[Republican-Socialist]

My understanding though was that McAliskey had left before 1977, when Costello was overwhelmingly the dominant figure. If the position was the wrong way round, surely that was his fault, as well as other people like White? They were the most influential figures, and they shaped the movement (although of course even a movement seems to me to be against Lenin's vision).

Yeah thats true, but it certainly wasn't the strategy costello advocated, he would have agreed with mcaliskey but the militarists ha forced the movement to degenerate. Like when billy mcmillan got shot, Belfast was acting independently and totally against the wishes of costello, unfortunately he paid the price for the disgrace that belfast became. Attempts were made to rectify this situation,when belfast was dissolved and everyone having to reply again as individuals to get the ********************e out, its unfortunate how things played out.

Would you address the point that the sticks neglected an armed confrontation with imperialism for economism. I believe the politics that the IRSP was founded on was the correct analysis. Progressing both struggles together.

[Cael]

That fact doesn't mean the two are compatible. In fact they are coming at things from a completely different point of view.

If something is correct, it is the same from whatever point of view you want to take.

[Cael]

Yeah thats true, but it certainly wasn't the strategy costello advocated, he would have agreed with mcaliskey but the militarists ha forced the movement to degenerate. Like when billy mcmillan got shot, Belfast was acting independently and totally against the wishes of costello, unfortunately he paid the price for the disgrace that belfast became. Attempts were made to rectify this situation,when belfast was dissolved and everyone having to reply again as individuals to get the ********************e out, its unfortunate how things played out.

Would you address the point that the sticks neglected an armed confrontation with imperialism for economism. I believe the politics that the IRSP was founded on was the correct analysis. Progressing both struggles together.

You know there is a difference between the concepts "militarist" and "sociopath."

[Republican-Socialist]

The WP never followed a Leninist model. It followed the opportunist, economist model that Lenin spent years demonising. The name "Worker's Party" is the very epitome of opportunism. It tries to latch on to the trade union ideology and completely deny Marxism.


The Republican Congress was a much more honest and much more important attempt to bring Socialism into the RM. The RC was open and honest in its analysis. You may say that it was defeated by the Catholic conservatives in the IRA - yes it was. But the RC today is an inspiration for those of us who want to set Republicanism on a solid Marxist foundation, while the WP is a source of shame and embarrassment.

Their name was oppertunist? Ah now come on that is ridiculous in the extreme. A party fighting for the interests of the workers calling itself the workers party ,god forbid.

Its very easy to criticise, lets evaluate RSF's contribution to republican socialism shall we?? Oh and the CIRA that great marxist vanguard that isnt even communist? WHy do you support them, I dare say if you evaluate them properly the WP will look incomparably better then those dinosaur nationalists

[Cael]

Well i don't know any socialist who would, every soldier a politician, every poltiician a soldier is how ta power put it I believe. The point is though that politics must lead the way and arms must follow when they are productive in struggle, arms should not just be implemented all the time and under all conditions. the prevailing conditions are so important. For instance in ireland at the moment, republican socialism as a political entity is in such a bad state, that armed actions are pointless. A republican socialist movement must have a strong presence in every county, armed action by a tiny sect that could not possibly lead any revolution is useless...a revolutionary movement must be built naiton wide.

The only armed actions that are needed today are expropriations. Expropriations are not pointless - that are absolutely essential.

[Garibaldy]

The WP never followed a Leninist model. It followed the opportunist, economist model that Lenin spent years demonising. The name "Worker's Party" is the very epitome of opportunism. It tries to latch on to the trade union ideology and completely deny Marxism.


The Republican Congress was a much more honest and much more important attempt to bring Socialism into the RM. The RC was open and honest in its analysis. You may say that it was defeated by the Catholic conservatives in the IRA - yes it was. But the RC today is an inspiration for those of us who want to set Republicanism on a solid Marxist foundation, while the WP is a source of shame and embarrassment.

Republican Socialist has already responded to this, and I'd agree with what he said. How calling yourself The Workers' Party is trying to be economist I don't understand. I think you are being contrary here for the sake of it rather than attempting reasoned criticism. Calling yourself The Workers' Party in Ireland in 1982 was harldy likely to be the most populist move ever.