Are there any republicans that aren't socialists?

[32]

To the poster who dubs himself 'bobbysands1981'.


Mo chara, Bobby Sands himself was a socialist. If you have read his many writings you will know that his belief was that a United Ireland was worth absolutely nothing if it wasn't socialist. In my days in SF (early 1980's till mid 90's) I met many entrenched nationalists whose simple political analysis was to shove the 26 county regime into the 6 counties.

Seamus Costello, when interviewed in, I think, 1976, was asked what the main differences were between the IRSM and PSF. His answer was that he felt that PSF would settle for a united Ireland without any social change, and that this was at variance with republican ideals.

Before anyone throws their toys out of the pram, I can back up the above references with appropriate texts. I'm not in a position to fish them out right now.

So, in answer to the thread title, there are those who consider themselves 'republican', but who have distorted this concept drastically. (Merle Haggard argues this extremely well). To my mind, republicanism is a vehicle for socialism.

[popper]

Actually Brendan O'Leary and John McGarry specifically noted PSF deliberately played down "socialist" and
"Marxist" rhetoric in the US, to avoid antagonizing Irish American sympathizers (Explaining Northern Ireland,
pg. 441).

"Gerry, you want us to give money to a....SOCIALIST organization? Get lost, you goddam commie!!"

Is that a quote. As I said, Noraid was a fkn IRA fund raising organisation, not a student debating society. They were also far more in tune with what was going on in Ireland and within the republican movement than either yourself or Brendan O'Leary.

Oh, and Brendan O'Leary

[zakalwe]

The only thing that unites us is our belief in an independent self governing united irish nation.

That's a bit of a problem isn't it. I used to vote for Sinn Fein during the peace process to encourage them and to oppose attempts to exclude them. But what's to vote for now? They are all over the place on policy but the PC and hard left attitudes are there in spades. It's off-putting.

Are you suggesting that SF has created the PC industry in Ireland? Then they're doing well for a party with zero power in the south. Imo, the growth of the PC industry in Ireland has gone hand in hand with economic and immigration policy. I'd go as far as to say that the PC industry underpins the underlying laissez-faire attitude of the governing parties with respect to fragmentation and marginalisation of traditional social structures in favour of individualism, some might say selfishism. Without coherent social references every person is an island unto themselves. Forget about collective bargaining for wages, better working conditions or even living conditions. Social consensus is only been seen to be workable once a profitable solution is found; quite often with a few profiting and usually with enactment of laws from above which are deemed by the "expert" governing elite to be for the general good without input from those most affected. The PC industry has done its job in highlighting every tiny minority concern while ignoring the larger implications on social cohension. The PC industry's rise and funding has, imo, been well orchestrated and is only beginning. I believe there is a new attack on white Irish people who have the gall to send their offspring to Irish language schools. What will these evil white Irish people do next?

By the way what coherent policies of the present governing parties do you admire? Imo they tell us one thing and do the opposite, or in most cases do whatever the hell they like.

so its all Dell and Microsoft's fault?

[rockyracoon]

so its all Dell and Microsoft's fault?

[Ireland2007]

IIRC, Pat Walsh, a Northern Ireland historian, wrote a book in 1994 called "Irish Republicanism and Socialism",a book
purporting to demolish Irish republicanism's claim to be left-wing and socialist. I haven't read the
book, but a commentator on it said: Walsh argued that Arthur Griffith, Scelig, Brian O’Higgins and Sean South were more representative of Irish republicanism in the 20th century than James Connolly, Peadar O’Donnell or Liam Mellows.

http://www.indymedia.ie/article/80451

I remember one pro-Unionist poster on the soc.culture.celtic group approvingly and repeatedly quoting the book to
show the innate evil of all Irish Republican movements, so it was probably aimed at the anti-Republican
and "revisionist" movements in Ireland. Has anyone here read it?

I had it a few weeks ago when I was doing a bit of research for university (and I intend on getting it again in the next week). I only really concentrated on one chapter of it but flicked through more of it. From what I recall he cites examples of when the Dáil called for republicans to become disinvolved in agrarian and industrial action during the Tan War as it took attention and resources away from the military campaign. I didn't really have time to look at the chapters on republicanism during the 70s and 80s but I recall examples such as Sinn Féin members refusing to canvass for IRSM prisoners during the hungerstrikes as one example... Though I'd have to give it all a closer read.

Personally I've always believed the grassroots of the movement to be 'more' socialist that the leaders throughout the years.

[Starkadder]

To the Gerry McGeough fan and Nigerian hater: Brendan O'Leary has forgotten more about
Northern Ireland than you will ever know.

[Starkadder]

IIRC, Pat Walsh, a Northern Ireland historian, wrote a book in 1994 called "Irish Republicanism and Socialism",a book
purporting to demolish Irish republicanism's claim to be left-wing and socialist. I haven't read the
book, but a commentator on it said: Walsh argued that Arthur Griffith, Scelig, Brian O’Higgins and Sean South were more representative of Irish republicanism in the 20th century than James Connolly, Peadar O’Donnell or Liam Mellows.

http://www.indymedia.ie/article/80451

I remember one pro-Unionist poster on the soc.culture.celtic group approvingly and repeatedly quoting the book to
show the innate evil of all Irish Republican movements, so it was probably aimed at the anti-Republican
and "revisionist" movements in Ireland. Has anyone here read it?

I had it a few weeks ago when I was doing a bit of research for university (and I intend on getting it again in the next week). I only really concentrated on one chapter of it but flicked through more of it. From what I recall he cites examples of when the Dáil called for republicans to become disinvolved in agrarian and industrial action during the Tan War as it took attention and resources away from the military campaign. I didn't really have time to look at the chapters on republicanism during the 70s and 80s but I recall examples such as Sinn Féin members refusing to canvass for IRSM prisoners during the hungerstrikes as one example... Though I'd have to give it all a closer read.

Personally I've always believed the grassroots of the movement to be 'more' socialist that the leaders throughout the years.

I'd say you're correct. The leaders would have been more cynical and pragmatic. There's some good information
in D.R. O'Connor Lysaght's "The Story of the Limerick Soviet" about how the 1919 strike embarrassed
the more conservative nationalist leaders.

[Zyklon B]

To the poster who dubs himself 'bobbysands1981'.


Mo chara, Bobby Sands himself was a socialist. If you have read his many writings you will know that his belief was that a United Ireland was worth absolutely nothing if it wasn't socialist. In my days in SF (early 1980's till mid 90's) I met many entrenched nationalists whose simple political analysis was to shove the 26 county regime into the 6 counties.

Bobby Sands' writings and adherence to his views do not determine whether one is a Republican or not. Besides, Sands was extremely religious and prayed to an icon of the Virgin Mary daily. Surely that wouldn't befit today's 'left' republicans of Sinn Féin, would it? Would Sands have supported abortion? Gay marriage?

So, in answer to the thread title, there are those who consider themselves 'republican', but who have distorted this concept drastically. (Merle Haggard argues this extremely well). To my mind, republicanism is a vehicle for socialism.

Indeed. To your mind. You know, Cathal Goulding considered himself a Republican, so did Eoghan Harris. Simple question: who was more of a Republican: Goudling or Seán Mac Stiofán? Harris or Ivor Bell?

Dan Keating wasn't a socialist. Was he not a Republican? Or does the great Dan Keating not conform to your idealised left-wing vision of what Republicanism should be? Are you more of a Republican than Dan Keating was??

[Bogwarrior]

There are some aspects of Socialism I would support such as free medical aid to the elderly and sick, unemployed etc. I'd also support nationalising Irish natural resources etc.
There are also some aspects of Capitalism i would be supportive of, such as rewarding the hard worker, private home ownership etc and prodding the lumpen proletariat out of the doldrums. When I seize power someday I will differentiate between the genuine needy and the workshy dosser who lives between the pub and the bookies.Mind you "prodding the lumpen proletariat" is also a Communist trait.
I really don't believe the Irish psyche is built for Socialism in it's purest form (as in China etc) and would only work on paper here and not in practice.
I once described myself here as a Capitalist with a conscience, hellping the old, disabled, and vulnerable whilst also promoting and promting those with ambition, and I believe that best describes where I am today.
These are my views only and most certainly not those of the majority of 32CSM members or supporters.

[merle haggard]

...and continuing through to the Dáil we have today.

no , that was a product of British legislation , not the 1916 proclamation . The 1916 procalmation made clear national sovereignty was inalienable and indefeasible . The free state constitution , which was never put to the people and again was a product of westminster legisaltion made clear no such thing existed . Totally contradictory , no ideological link whatsover to the 2 positions

We have national sovereignty, self determination and democracy.

no we dont , Britian claims national sovereignty over part of our natuonal territory , negating all of the above

Everyone on the island gets a say in how they are to be ruled.

they had a say when their mps were in westminster . It still did not amount to national sovereignty and national self determination and national democracy , and it still doesnt

The bit about society not being run in the interests of the people is true though.

of course its true . Any idea why ?

Its demands were that the Irish people have freedom to make their own decisions, and they have

.

no no no their demands were much more than being allowed to make decisions , read the bloody thing and stop making up your own version

You cannot say they are free and then reject their free decision when you don't like it.

they dont have a free decision , their decison is framed within the limits of British constitutionality which denies Irish national sosveregnty by force

Even if the British have been tampering with the process, institutionaling sectarianism, dividing people etc...we still all have a free vote and are ultimately responsible for partitioning ourselves.

[/quote]

no , you have a vote but not a free one . Your vote in your own country is limited by British constitutionality , British parliamentary activity in Ireland and British military activity in Ireland