Soviet-Empire.com U.S.S.R. and communism historical discussion.
[ Active ]
[ Login ]
Log-in to remove these advertisements.

Do you support the IRA?

POST REPLY

Do you Support the IRA?

Yes
22
50%
No
18
41%
Other
4
9%
 
Total votes : 44
[+-]
User avatar
Soviet cogitations: 221
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 04 Feb 2013, 06:55
Ideology: Democratic Socialism
Pioneer
Post 05 Feb 2013, 02:40
As a person of a strong Irish background I fully support the Irish Republican Army and all that they do to fight imperialism in the land of Ireland. I am just wondering amongst all of you, what are your opinions on the IRA? I am talking about the IRA that was created in the 1960s to combat British Imperialism and the Segregation of Catholics in the North.
Image
Loz
[+-]
User avatar
Soviet cogitations: 11879
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 06 Dec 2009, 23:17
Philosophized
Post 05 Feb 2013, 02:43
No, it all quickly degenerated into terrorism and sectarian squabbles.
Soviet cogitations: 3448
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 26 Jun 2006, 15:59
Ideology: Other Leftist
Party Bureaucrat
Post 05 Feb 2013, 03:30
The Provisional movement was one big sectarian Frag. Their tactics only reinforced the division of the working class in the six counties along sectarian lines and prevented the formation of a united, anti-sectarian workers movement.
The moment one accepts the notion of 'totalitarianism', one is firmly locked within the liberal-democratic horizon. - Slavoj Žižek
Soviet cogitations: 56
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 14 May 2013, 19:04
Ideology: Maoist
Pioneer
Post 16 May 2013, 19:11
I support the IRA against British imperialism as long as they are socialist.
Soviet cogitations: 2407
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 01 Nov 2003, 13:17
Ideology: Other
Forum Commissar
Post 16 May 2013, 19:20
No

For those living outside the UK it might be easy to vote yes but if you have to be exposed to their idiocy and the danger they pose to innocent women and children you may have a different opinion. To be honest they do not have any reason to be conducting such attacks on British soil. The situation is not such that there is any justification for such violent armed struggle. Today they can solve the situation in Northern Ireland through non-violent means because there is currently political discussion taking place. The British are not actively oppressing the people there as far as I know either. It would be no less ridiculous than some Scottish nationalists using such means to advance their cause.

This is not to say that Ulster should be part of the UK but it is very stupid to do what such armed groups do.
[+-]
User avatar
Soviet cogitations: 139
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 21 Dec 2010, 21:39
Pioneer
Post 16 May 2013, 21:12
I do support the IRA, as the socialist reunification of Ireland is a great and just goal. I think the British occupation of the Northern part of Ireland justifies their armed struggle. Also I don't believe in these talks. It is a bit like it is in the case of Palestine: You can talk, of course, but Israel has never been prepared to give away the Palestinian territories, and neither has Britain regarding Northern Ireland. Though we mustn't deny that there are some splinter groups that are nothing but political sects and ordinary terrorists, I think the struggle of the IRA is totally justified.
User avatar
Soviet cogitations: 9
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 26 Jul 2013, 14:05
Ideology: Marxism-Leninism
New Comrade (Say hi & be nice to me!)
Post 26 Jul 2013, 14:27
I am a Brit my self, I support any resistance to British Imperialism socialist or not
Image
Soviet cogitations: 1128
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 30 Aug 2008, 18:12
Party Member
Post 27 Jul 2013, 13:30
No.

Blowing up civilians does not constitute anti-imperialism.

The wholoe idea of communist policy towards Northern Ireland should be based around facts on the ground, not empty principles. For example, if the entire UK and Northern Ireland had a socialist revolution, but the Republic of Ireland didn't, would you support handing Northern Ireland over to the Republic? At the same time, if Britain had a socialist revolution but it didn't extend to Northern Ireland then the communists should jettison it and leave it to its fate.
Soviet cogitations: 12389
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 18 Apr 2010, 04:44
Ideology: None
Philosophized
Post 27 Jul 2013, 14:14
I have to agree with Gred here. In other words, a no vote.

I would support any movement of Irish Communists to declare a Socialist state in the whole of Ireland. However, the IRA has really never been anything but simply nationalist and pro-Catholic.
Miss Strangelove: "You feed giants laxatives so goblins can mine their poop before the gnomes get to it."
[+-]
User avatar
Soviet cogitations: 3618
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 22 Oct 2004, 15:15
Ideology: Marxism-Leninism
Politburo
Post 28 Jul 2013, 10:26
Which IRA? There are several of them these days. And what about "fighting imperialism"? Most of them are decommissioned.

So I don't even know what people like Gred and Gulper here are talking about. Way to generalise a complex and fragmented movement, while the armed struggle is mostly historical anyway (except for a few dissident splinters). PI says that people would not vote yes if they lived in the UK, but what's the point of this "You don't live here, you have no idea!" rhetoric? When you're a Catholic in Northern Ireland, and you get Orange marches down your street every year, you might be more supportive of violent Republicanism even though you "live in the UK".

To be clear, terrorism is absolutely wrong, and bombings of civilians should be categorically condemned. But it's not as if all of sectarian violence in Northern Ireland was simply accidental, as if decisions made by successive British governments had nothing to do with it. Throughout this thread I haven't seen any mention of the repression of the civil rights movement (which led to the intensification of armed struggle), loyalist paramilitaries, the collusion with them by security forces, the parades issue, etc.

British leftists tend to look at the issue and pretend that there's nothing going on at all, that it's just some sectarian grievances by Catholics, and what has Britain got to do with it anyway, oh, and republican paramilitaries did bad things too! Without realising it, they are looking at the issue through a red-white-blue union flag lens. Sometimes they even act on it, like the trotskyist "Committee for a Workers International" who cooperated with the "left wing" of hardcore unionism, presenting them as "representatives of the protestant working class". These are Her Majesty's loyal revolutionary trotskyists.

I don't think the NI situation is directly comparable to Israel/Palestine, but one thing that cannot be denied is that, broadly speaking, the protestants were settlers used as part of a divide-and-conquer strategy. Nowadays, British imperialism no longer directly benefits economically from settling Northern Ireland, after all its position no longer depends on the amount of colonised territory that it holds, as it used to. However, they would hardly just want to give it away and allow a reunited Ireland either. Hence the current peace process, which is certainly better than open sectarian warfare, but will it really solve the underlying tensions? I doubt that.

The protestants in Northern Ireland have their own working class, with its own class interests. However, at the moment, they are being used to perpetuate the existing system. They are being mobilised to maintain the last vestiges of their supremacy and privileges: small provocations like the Orange parades through nationalist areas, the flying of the union flag in Belfast city hall, and larger issues like the maintenance of Northern Ireland as part of the UK. When the protestant working class of NI is bombarded with fear, uncertainty and doubt about demographic changes (catholic growth, protestant decline), nationalist violence, the loss of their privileges, etc., they will not be able to fight capitalism effectively. And as long as this keeps up, the peace process and all solutions to sectarian violence will only be temporary.

Unfortunately, certain sections of the British left encourage this, maybe because they have this populist and workerist conception that the current priorities of the protestant working class in Northern Ireland are part of class consciousness, rather than false consciousness, and so they turn a blind eye to some of the things outlined above. They should in fact argue that the weakening of British imperialism includes the undermining of its institutions. This will not lead to socialism in itself, but can still provide new opportunities, because they shatter the illusion that the system is stable, united and unbeatable. This can include things like Scottish independence or the end of Northern Ireland as a state that inherently promotes sectarianism.

Trying to convince the protestant working class of a socialist 32-county Ireland with civil rights for all denominations is not an easy position to take. It's difficult to convince people to give away privileges, and it's difficult to argue against people who have been taught all their lives that the NI situation is about "catholics vs protestants" and remind them of, for instance, the tradition of protestant republicans. It's far easier to turn a blind eye to union flag-waving and to pretend that the protestant workers have a long-term interest in maintaining their privileges within the sectarian statelet. But it must be done anyway, because all kinds of social gains and consciousness-building will be illusory if they ignore imperialism, if they ignore the nature of the state.
User avatar
Soviet cogitations: 172
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 28 Feb 2012, 16:12
Ideology: Left Communism
Pioneer
Post 03 Aug 2013, 16:59
No 14 wrote:
To be clear, terrorism is absolutely wrong, and bombings of civilians should be categorically condemned. But it's not as if all of sectarian violence in Northern Ireland was simply accidental, as if decisions made by successive British governments had nothing to do with it. Throughout this thread I haven't seen any mention of the repression of the civil rights movement (which led to the intensification of armed struggle), loyalist paramilitaries, the collusion with them by security forces, the parades issue, etc.


I won't join you in your blanket denunciation of terrorism: An on-principle condemnation of political violence is hardly Marxist: What's a revolution but the ultimate act of political violence, when a mass movement violently overthrows and liquidates a regime, smashing its elites, authorities and prominent supporters, ushering the rule of a new dominant class or class alliance (ie workers'-peasants' State, toiling masses coalition...)?

We can and should condemn the deliberate targeting of random civilians, we can debate the relative usefulness of a political-military strategy as opposed to a purely political or purely military struggle under certain conditions, whether or not a particular insurgent militia acts as an objetively progressive or reactionary force... But to buy into the ideology of counterterrorism is to buy into the ideology of counterrevolution.
Cm'on baby, eat the rich!!! - Motörhead
Soviet cogitations: 12
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 06 Jul 2013, 16:25
New Comrade (Say hi & be nice to me!)
Post 05 Aug 2013, 16:53
For the benefit of people who are not conversant with the details of the IRA's history, in 1970, the "old" IRA split into the pro-USSR Official IRA and the sectarian nationalist Provisional IRA, which latter was generally referred to as the IRA and conducted the bombing campaign against civilians. This split was very bitter and the wounds are still very raw. The Provisional IRA itself went onto suffer splintering, with notable splinter groups being the "Continuity" and "Real" IRA, both of which are still active albeit on a small scale. The Real IRA is chiefly infamous for the Omagh bombing in 1998 which was specifically targeted at innocent civilians, 29 of whom died. The Provisional and Official IRA are both defunct.


If by the "IRA" the former Provisional IRA is intended, of course no right-thinking socialist would have supported them. They were formed to advance nationalism in specific contradistinction to socialism. Their campaign of terror was obviously never going to lead to a united Ireland: governments simply do not relinquish territories because of irredentist terrorist campaigns, so it only succeeded in depriving thousands of families of their loved ones. Rather than being a campaign with a clear strategy, it was rather a symptom of the frustration of the Catholic working class, which suffered under Protestant rule in that statelet's sectarian political system, where religion and national identity rather than class are the main determinants of political allegiance. That it was the armed wing to defend the interests of a certain ethnic community rather than a grouping with any real goal was illustrated in the prolonged negotiations about arms decommissioning and peace, when Sinn Féin/IRA's main concerns were with dividing up power between Catholics and Protestants and cultural issues like parades, with little controversy over what one would have regarded as the crucial issue of the mechanics of calling a plebiscite on Irish unity.


Operating in that framework, the IRA guaranteed the continued division of the Northern Irish working class and sabotaged the possibility of class politics taking root.
[+-]
User avatar
Soviet cogitations: 3618
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 22 Oct 2004, 15:15
Ideology: Marxism-Leninism
Politburo
Post 29 Aug 2013, 13:06
KlassWar wrote:
I won't join you in your blanket denunciation of terrorism: An on-principle condemnation of political violence is hardly Marxist: What's a revolution but the ultimate act of political violence, when a mass movement violently overthrows and liquidates a regime, smashing its elites, authorities and prominent supporters, ushering the rule of a new dominant class or class alliance (ie workers'-peasants' State, toiling masses coalition...)?

We can and should condemn the deliberate targeting of random civilians, we can debate the relative usefulness of a political-military strategy as opposed to a purely political or purely military struggle under certain conditions, whether or not a particular insurgent militia acts as an objetively progressive or reactionary force... But to buy into the ideology of counterterrorism is to buy into the ideology of counterrevolution.


I think this is a difference of definitions. The way I see it, there is a difference between political or revolutionary violence in general, and terrorism. You are of course right about the former, but to me that doesn't translate into an approval of terrorism. Terrorism even differs from revolutionary terror (like the Red Terror), because the latter (while maybe too brutal) had a class basis, and were in a life-and-death civil war situation anyway.

Of course it's difficult to define an emotionally-loaded word like terrorism, but the point of rejecting the terrorism of the Provo campaign is its mass targeting of civilians based on the background that they were born into and could do nothing about, regardless of their class background, their actual role in the oppression by the sectarian statelet, and their own views on that. And as I explained in my previous post, even this denunciation is not entirely "blanket", but qualified by the concrete situation of Northern Ireland. Maybe this message did not come across entirely well in the paragraph that you quoted.
User avatar
Soviet cogitations: 238
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 12 Jun 2011, 15:14
Ideology: Marxism-Leninism
Pioneer
Post 08 Sep 2013, 17:38
First off, being that I am a resident, and citizen of the U.S.A., it should be understood that I do not feel comfortable overtly expressing sympathy with any armed group that might be classified as being a terrorist organization, lest the various American secret police agencies catch wind, and potentionally come after me. But with that being said I do support the reunification of Ireland, as an independent, and preferably also socialist republic, especially after watching the film, "The Wind That Shakes The Barley. But I actually am more so favorable towards the Irish National Liberation Army.With all that being said however, I feel that Trotsky was correct in condemning indivisual acts of terror.http://www.marxists.org/archive/trotsky/1911/11/tia09.htm So, anyway, I voted other.
User avatar
Soviet cogitations: 2
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 01 Nov 2013, 00:34
New Comrade (Say hi & be nice to me!)
Post 01 Nov 2013, 01:26
No because they murder and bomb innocents for a cause that's only supported by a minority. Eire, please outline this "strong Irish background". I'm from Dublin and I can tell you that supporting the IRA is viewed as being the most irresponsible stance you could take on the topic of reunification. Very few Irish people support the IRA and the Irish people who do get ridiculed, and rightfully so. We have nobody in the Dáil that supports the IRA. We have some who are suspected of being sympathetic towards their cause and that's why few trust them.

Eire, you're an American. This isn't just reflected by your country of origin and where you live now (both being in the US) but also by your ignorance in regard to the IRA's struggle against not only the British, but also the Republic of Ireland. Let the people of Northern Ireland decide whether or not they want join the Republic.
Soviet cogitations: 12389
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 18 Apr 2010, 04:44
Ideology: None
Philosophized
Post 01 Nov 2013, 06:01
So I take it you are Irish, Dan?

Also, welcome to SE. You should make a new thread in the Introduction section so people will recognize you when you post here. It can be a bit confusing sometimes with all these new names popping up out of nowhere!
Miss Strangelove: "You feed giants laxatives so goblins can mine their poop before the gnomes get to it."
User avatar
Soviet cogitations: 417
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 15 Nov 2012, 01:18
Komsomol
Post 01 Nov 2013, 13:54
Quote:
bomb innocents

Didn't they warn every time to give a chance to evacuate?

Quote:
Let the people of Northern Ireland decide whether or not they want join the Republic.

But half of NI are settlers.
Image
Soviet cogitations: 12389
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 18 Apr 2010, 04:44
Ideology: None
Philosophized
Post 01 Nov 2013, 14:09
sans-culotte wrote:
But half of NI are settlers.

Great-great-great grandchildren of settlers. Nowhere near remotely as recent as the wholesale Jewish occupation of "Israel" (or the Egyptian/Syrian occupation of "Palestine").
Miss Strangelove: "You feed giants laxatives so goblins can mine their poop before the gnomes get to it."
User avatar
Soviet cogitations: 417
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 15 Nov 2012, 01:18
Komsomol
Post 01 Nov 2013, 16:21
And they still behave like settlers... Forming death squads like the UDA to kill and terrorise native republicans, conspiring with foreign military and practising segregation.
Image
Soviet cogitations: 2407
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 01 Nov 2003, 13:17
Ideology: Other
Forum Commissar
Post 02 Nov 2013, 06:51
To be honest I do not know why the UK are holding onto Ulster. What is there for them there? The fanaticism of the settlers is annoying and completely out of tune with the rest of the UK. They are making problems for Britain. What is the actual point of maintaining this outpost in Ireland? Ulster is a part of Ireland therefore I do not see why Britain would have any desire to maintain it, seeing as it is not an integral part of Britain or necessary for national defense.
Alternative Display:
Mobile view
More Forums: The History Forum. The UK Politics Forum.
© 2000- Soviet-Empire.com. Privacy.