'To be a student and not a revolutionary is a contradiction!'

by Joanne McG Sun Sep 02, 2007 18:46

Im haeding to maynooth this year, look forward to joining

by Don. - YFG Mon Sep 03, 2007 12:11

As you can guess by my political affiliation, I've always been very judgemental of them. But they seem to be making progress in the North. You never know I could move them to third or second prefernce on my ballot paper next election, depending on how they handle the current attacks that are alledgedly from R.IRA, water tax and corporation tax. I see some 26 county reps from Sinn Fein changing thier tune from socialists to pro-business social democrats, that would somewhat appeal to me.

by Gan ainm Mon Sep 03, 2007 22:38

One of the founder members of Queens University republican society is approaching his tenth year in Jail as a result of being a revolutionary student.
Darren Mulholland who was charged with conspiracy to cause explosions in London in July 1998 was studying for a degree in astrophysics. He was a passionate student republican activist and remains commited to his revolutionary ideals today.
Republican students could do worse than to contact him, simply write to ; Darren Mulholland, republican prisoner, Portlaise gaol, County Laois,

by Sam Tue Sep 04, 2007 02:30

You say this about him: "...his tenth year in Jail as a result of being a revolutionary student."

What act of revolution did he perform to be in jail?
Nobody can be put in jail for merely thinking revolutionary thoughts.

by Reader Tue Sep 04, 2007 12:55

It's stated quite clearly above that "Darren Mulholland who was charged with conspiracy to cause explosions in London in July 1998 was studying for a degree in astrophysics".

by Sam Tue Sep 04, 2007 14:25

He was "...charged with conspiracy to cause explosions in London in July 1998". But being 'charged' with an offence is not a revolutionary act by the accused, it is merely a legal allegation by the prosecution.

So what was his 'revolutionary' action, then?

by Leon Tue Sep 04, 2007 15:04

What was revolutionary about conspiring to cause explosions. What made these planned actions revolutionary.

by Gan ainm Tue Sep 04, 2007 15:45

Darren was sentenced to 22 years for conspiracy to cause explosions in London. During the trial he refused to recognise that a criminal court had any duristiction over him.
If any of his critics here are commited enough to their political beliefs to put themselves at the risk of a 22 year sentence aged only twenty themselves then i suggest they write to Darren and question his commitment to revolutionary ideals.

by Gan ainm Tue Sep 04, 2007 15:53

Sorry folks!
I may have misread the nature of some of the above enquiries. If people are merely asking what was Darrens political backround then he was a republican (not ALF, luddite, C18 or anything mad).
I thought by mentioning he was a founder member of QUB Rep Soc that much would have been obvious.

by revolutionary x student Wed Sep 05, 2007 20:54

Gan Ainm, sorry, still don't get it. Being a militant nationalist does not a revolutionary make. If you need to be persuaded of this i suggest you look through the names of SF reps who have done time for violent offenses and take a look at their parliamentary votes, north and south, on economic and social issues. think you'll find that they tack more to the christian democrat line than any kind of revolutionary political trajectory. The fiasco of the last election for SF showed us that some of them still have a few 70s era slogans to trot out but they might as well be speaking backwards for all the sense that stuff makes. Beyond this and a rhetorical fetish for a united Ireland they dont seem to have any ideas that would actually transform life on the Island. Same with stickies who professed to be revolutionaries but who now have difficulty even living up to the tepid traditional positions of the Labour party. So what makes Darren a revolutionary? refusing to recognise the court doesn't cut it as the group to which he is affiliated has subsequently done so and not recognising courts is popular among nationalists of all stripes as well as among fascists and nazis.

Dont get me wrong, Darren is courageous and is paying a very big price for his commitments. But what was he doing on an operation like this post GFA? And if the offense happened before GFA why didnt he benefit from the amnesty. Perhaps he is from one of the even less revolutionary factions. Please clarify.

by Barry Thu Sep 06, 2007 00:15

He was on an operation because he opposed the foreign occupation of his country , although you probably dont regard opposition as such as revolutionary . He was on such an operation post GFA bevause post GFA Britian still occupies Ireland .
Anywhere else in the world youd be told to stand in the corner because you really do sound very stupid .

by Gan ainm Thu Sep 06, 2007 12:30

Darren Mulholland was clearly taking part in an operation aimed at opposing the British state presence in Ireland, now if people are trying to construct a new whacky train of thinking under which national liberation initiatives are not compatible with 'revolution' then please do it somewhere away from a persons appeal for others to write to a young man behind bars for the best years of his life.
Also in Portlaise are former republican students Liam Grogan and Tony Hyland, students could do worse than maintain contact with them also.

by RxS Thu Sep 06, 2007 20:04

Gan Ainm, the prisons are full of young people looking at the best years of their lives wither for the sake of the states theatre of justice. They are all tragic so try not to argue that we should not the debate the claims of some to be 'revolutionary' while other are just 'criminal'. That is supremely reactionary and conceited. if we are talking about revolution we must be also talking about a radical transformation of our ideas about justice and punishment, for revolutionaries all prisoners are hostages of capital.

you and Barry argue that Darren is a revolutionary because he stood in 'opposition' to the Brit presence in Ireland. That would make the establishment of the Irish free state a revolution which would be news to a lot of people. Do you really believe that exchanging one set of capitalist administrators for another is a revolution? If so you have an odd notion of what a revolution is. What sort of world was Darren fighting for? I respect those who fought against the orange state and for a more just deal for the minority in the north, even those who thought they were fighting for a united Ireland. But very few of them had any kind of revolutionary view. Especially post 70s. Many of them are narrow gauge Irish nationalists, catholic and conservative and deeply fearful and mistrustful of revolutionary politics. Martin Mcguinness is a funny looking revolutionary. But maybe we are just arguing semantics, Donald Rumsfeld promised a 'revolution in military affairs' which had nothing to do with liberation, Madonna is a 'revolutionary' as are lots of people who would definitely be on the wrong side of the barricades. Maybe you view anything to do with expelling the brits from Ireland as revolutionary making many of the departments in Stormont hotbeds of revolutionary action.

by Barry - 32 csm Thu Sep 06, 2007 22:20

The ownership of Ireland by the people of Ireland .
Firstly the free state was not created to get rid of the British , it was created by the British themselves and has srved their interests jolly well for almost a century . It was created as a direct result of British interference in Irish political affairs , and created under extreme military threat , undemocratically . As was Stormont . There are no Stormont departments for getting rid of British parliamentary activity in Ireland either , so i dont know what your on about there for the life of me .
Challenging colonialism in your own country is recognised as a revolutionary act virtually everywhere in the world and by all political persusasions , except of course the usual suspects among the Irish left . A colonised nation must acheive its national sovereignty, dignity and a fully functioning national democracy before it can even contemplate creating a dignified social society , because it requires dignity to do so . Acepting colonialism in your own country is neither dignified nor revolutionary , it must be opposed and most importantly rigorously challenged . You do neither , you argue we may as well accept it and the physical act of opposing it in your analysis isnt revolutionary at all .
Im sorry , thats a cop out and totally fucked up . No colonial power has the legitimate right to occupy any part of our nation , vilate our sovereignty and determine our futures as a people . They have no right to force their political vision and systems upon us .
Cop yourself on .

by :-) Thu Sep 06, 2007 22:34

I liked your quip about the dunce cap up the page. I never though the dunce cap made it to Ireland, for in truth the man after whom it was named featured on the 5 punt note for a few years & I reckon the dominant sway of Irish educational or pedagogic discipline was more for beating the silly names out of people then ostracising them in the corner under a higher maths cert cone.
Dun Scotus who was contemporary to the Catalan Ramon Llull (whom I mention a bit as the synchretic father of information systems) was of course one of the men granted the title "illuminatus" in the late medieval period. Some of his writing approaches a kind of 14th century proto-existentialism & those opposed to his views often found as nucleus another man who pops up in our commentators cleverclog references - Ockham of the "occam's razor" philosophical device ("entities ought not be multiplied beyond neccesity"). Ockham thus was a sort of 14th century empirical reductionist. Anyway Dun Scotus or Dun the Gael was ridiculed for his silliness by the English (of course) and the wizards cap came to be called "dunce".

Forgive that brief aside - but often readers might escape our running jokes & the sophistication of our millenial debates. Carry on - If the students are going to be revolutionary as befits our land of saints& scholars :: they need to know where they're coming from & what a dunce's hat is & how to shave with an occam razor or indeed how jew, muslim, non-believer, christian & carthar could find Lulianism equally tasty.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunce
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Occam's_Razor
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ramon_Llull

the dunce cap - if the cap fits wear it.

by RxS Thu Sep 06, 2007 23:33

We have heard these arguments many times Barry, nation first, then democracy, justice etc. just hang on lads and let the soldiers get the difficult stuff out of the way. Just like South Africa, Tunisia, Algeria, Morocco, Ireland! Do you really think northern nationalists are lacking in dignity due to the activities of Stormont or Westminister? You can speak of a dignity deficit in the West Bank or Gaza but Belfast, I dont think so.

You talk about colonialism and the imposition of systems etc and argue, correctly in my view, that the founding of the free state was not revolutionary but it did achieve some things you argue elsewhere are revolutionary, like our own parliamentary system etc. Im not arguing that the act of physically opposing colonialism cant be revolutionary, iM arguing that lots of people and groups who are not revolutionary physically oppose the imperialists. You can take the Bathists in Iraq, x iraqi military bosses now engaging the Americans physically and beating them. These guys are doing the right thing but they are not revolutionaries, they wont go about redistributing Iraq oil wealth to the poor, they have no program of remaking Iraq as a socialist paradise or anything like it. marginally better than the religious gangs but not very revolutionary. you seem to think that physical force nationalism is by definition revolutionary, i disagree. Youre 32 csm so you probably have a view that the provos were/are not revolutionaries proving my point.

by Barry - 32 csm Fri Sep 07, 2007 19:57

"used to be called stages theory, since discredited."

what in gods name are you on about ?

"We have heard these arguments many times Barry, nation first, then democracy, justice etc. just hang on lads and let the soldiers get the difficult stuff out of the way. Just like South Africa, Tunisia, Algeria, Morocco, Ireland!"

yFor a start you havent heard any such argument from myself or 32 csm so Im afraid this is pure nonsense youve made up , a strawman type of thing . You are dreadfully ignorant . 32 CSM identifies its objective and its strategy as one and the same thing , democracy at its maximum expression accross the entire nation . Colonial rule in Ireland depends primarily upon the restriction of democracy . Every republican leadership that made an alliance with British colonialism exercised the same anti democratic tendencies internally , whether from the left or right . Every constitutional nationalist party promotes the restriction of national democracy and the acceptance of anti democratic vetoes along with the British . Unionism demands it is isolated from the expression of national democracy .. Seperatism therefore must take the completely opposite stance and encourage democracy at its maximum expression , internally and externally , nationally and internationally

""Do you really think northern nationalists are lacking in dignity due to the activities of Stormont or Westminister?""

are you arguing its dignified to accept being ruled by foreign parliaments and puppet parliaments ?

"" You can speak of a dignity deficit in the West Bank or Gaza but Belfast, I dont think so. ""

Im assuming your on drugs or something . In the west bank and gaza they refuse to accept occupation despite the oppression they endure on a daily basis . They remain highly dignified despite their poverty . Take a drive through west belfast this evening and youll see all the indignity you can stomach . The alcohol , drugs and glue culture will be very much in your face . The youngsters urinating on public streets infront of passing families , the foul monosyllabic outbursts , the mindless thuggery and violence extended towards their neighbours . Public parks are often no go areas even during daylight thanks to the blue bag brigade . Its local community paper , funded by Britian , carries double page advertisements from every off license in the place , contributing to this undignified state of affairs . West Belfast is a very undignified place indeed these days , its a shit hole where dignity exists but keeps a very low profile .

""You talk about colonialism and the imposition of systems etc and argue, correctly in my view, that the founding of the free state was not revolutionary but it did achieve some things you argue elsewhere are revolutionary, like our own parliamentary system etc.""

Its not your own parliamentary system , its the one Britian decided for you that you will live under along with its constitutional restrictions upon nationaldemocracy . The eventual abolition of the oath to the crown doesnt change that fact . The acceptance of Britian framing the constitutional limits within its politics is the practice of British politics by that institution . That in itself entails a fundamental lack of democracy and national dignity .

"Im not arguing that the act of physically opposing colonialism cant be revolutionary, iM arguing that lots of people and groups who are not revolutionary physically oppose the imperialists. ""

while in Ireland lots of people who call themselves revolutionary have abjectly refused to take on imperialism and colonialism in their own country , and never will

""You can take the Bathists in Iraq, x iraqi military bosses now engaging the Americans physically and beating them. These guys are doing the right thing but they are not revolutionaries, they wont go about redistributing Iraq oil wealth to the poor, they have no program of remaking Iraq as a socialist paradise or anything like it. marginally better than the religious gangs but not very revolutionary. you seem to think that physical force nationalism is by definition revolutionary, i disagree. ""

Physical force nationalism in the face of colonialism is a revolutionary act . If following the defeat of colonialism and the establishment of national sovereignty the people accept being ruled by self enrighing and self perpetuating elite then they frankly deserve everything they get . If they choose to live in an undignified manner then they shall live in an undignified manner. But with the defeat of colonialism they get to make that choice .

"Youre 32 csm so you probably have a view that the provos were/are not revolutionaries proving my point."

the provos are reformist and not revolutionary . They once were , but no more . It doesnt prove any point . Only that its internal structures were profoundly undemocratic and that a colonised country has a culture of very low expectations .

by paul Fri Sep 07, 2007 23:32

were these three guys not the lads who were caught in london with lunch box bombs, setting them off in phoneboxs and furniture stores, the same guys who got that girl in trouble using her flat?

by RxS Tue Sep 11, 2007 20:25

"If following the defeat of colonialism and the establishment of national sovereignty the people accept being ruled by self enrighing and self perpetuating elite then they frankly deserve everything they get"

sounds like stages to me.

by Barry - 32 csm Wed Sep 12, 2007 02:54

Im sorry but thus far every last point you've made has been analysed , rebutted and discredited . Now you seem to be arguing against the argument that people who accept a lack of democracy fully deserve a self perpetuating undemocratic elite in return because that is all theyll get in return for their low expectations . Instead of explaining what your " stages theory" is you just keep repeating it like a mantra . It isnt the more well known Marxist stages theory , it isnt the workers party stages theory , it isnt any "stages theory" ive ever heard of during my time as a political activist so im afraid youll have to at least breifly explain and outline it to us before anyone can be expected to understand it .

Your largely unexplained and deeply unclear argument seems to be ( after some necessary guesswork and deciphering on my part ) that unless an anti colonial movement has some ideological check list in place beforehand that it is not revolutionary . The argument im making is that such an ideological check list is irrelevant unless internal grass roots democracy is embedded within the anti colonial movement . All betrayals have derived directly from an anti democratic leadership whatever its ideological hue , far left or right , and never from the grass roots themselves . Because the examples are clear even within our own society of todays doctrinaire marxists ( such as both Adams and Rabbitte long professed to be ) becoming tomorrows social democrats and slaves of corporatism . The leadership that argues for the abolition of all private property while amassing a property portfolio of their own in the background can only do this by the suppression of democracy within their own movement . Your argument seems to be that what the leadership commits to on paper beforehand is more important than what they commit to in practice . It ignores the simple fact that any gobshite can promise a revolutionary marxist utopia in the morning and come out with all the right rhetoric untill the moment of betrayal arrives and passes .

The "stages theory" of the marxist Workers Party argued that armed struggle waged within the colonial statelet of the north east and against the colonial power was counter revolutionary , and that salvation lay in "democratising" the colonial state first as a pre-emptive stage of the workers revolution . This would be done by concentrating on " bread and butter" issues rather than the central issue of national sovereignty . In this scenario unionists would stop being unionists and become marxists and unity would somehow evolve from a shared class consciousness . When in fact the converse happened and the marxists became pro-state crypto unionists .

This approach was little different save for rhetoric to the one argued for by the SDLP , who argued for "post nationalism" and that concentrating upon "bread and butter issues" whilst ignoring the central issue of sovereignty would foster unity , and that unionists would eventually stop being unionists and become nationalists . While in reality the nationalists whod abandoned sovereignty as a political platform became the strongest defenders of stormont and a British treaty that embedded partition and the unionist veto .

A hybrid of both rhetorical approaches was also later adopted by the very same sinn fein leadership that once called for the abolition of all private property and the establishment of a marxist republic . National sovereignty was confined to the big aspiration in the sky in favour of "bread and butter issues " , in the hope that unionists would stop being unionists and maybe perhaps not exercise the undemocratic veto that the British treaty the "marxists " had submitted to and then sought to enforce accross the grass roots . All political strategies ignored the central issue of national sovereignty and the simple fact that the suppression of national sovereignty and national democracy was the key to imperialist and colonial interests in Ireland , and therefore capitalism itself .

Unsuprisingly the colonialists themselves fully encouraged all such political strategies , enabling their adoption while sponsoring , rewarding and encouraging the strategies various proponents , favouring them and discarding them in turn once theyd served their usefulness to the colonialists purpose . The strategy the colonialist most certainly does not encourage is that of anti colonialism , defining the occupation as an actual occupation , and republican seperatism . Therefore it is the revolutionary route in a colonised and neo-colonial society .

In my opinion its the height of uselessness for self proclaimed revolutionary socialists whatever to sit back and complain about others supposed ideological shortcomings without practising themselves a politics that directly challenges colonialism . And i mean challenge colonialism as opposed to merely expressing ones disapproval about it the odd time , ticking the ideological checklist , rhetoric . Its a sterile exercise and often only adds to the national confusion the colonialist relies upon . To be revolutionary means to actually challenge and confront the existing system and seek to physcially rip it out by its roots . In our society , a colonised one , this entails challenging every aspect of the colonialist system in Ireland , not just its outwards symptoms but its inner core , the denial of national sovereignty and the subversion , destabilisation and fundmental limitations placed upon the practice of our national democracy by foreign interests with the assistance of native subordinates and lackeys . That is what the system itself relies upon and the suppression of national sovereignty is key to capitalisms continuing success in this regard . Unless one seeks to do this one is not a revolutionary in my opinion , progressive perhaps , well meaning but not revolutionary .
It is up to those who truly consider themselves revolutionary to challenge and confront as opposed to merely disapprove while insulating themselves from democratic revolution and retaining their respective ideological virginity . Retaining ones virginty is cold comfort to the fact youve avoided revolution because your ideological boxes were not ticked well in advance . Your politics must be put into practice and use and unless they are useful in challenging colonialism they are as useful as your virginity .

by RxS Wed Sep 12, 2007 23:05

not sure that Ive given an exposition of my politics here but thanks for your views on armchair revolutionaries who don't buy the revolutionary nationalism you espouse. You are suggesting, seemingly seriously, that physical opposition to the imperialists is revolutionary because it is democratic yet you admit that it is never democratic. Secret armies and their political front groups are never democratic. You could just as easily say that what the imperialists want is a vanguard armed group to overwhelm any grassroots movement that has revolutionary promise. And we've seen that happen more than once. The stagism that i referred to (everybody has one, trotsky, marx-engels, mao and as you point out many of our irish groups) is this bonkers idea of a democratic nationalist political movement paving the way for a society of equals that you seem to suggest is a serious program for transforming life on the Island. It ignores the fact that more than 75% of people on the island think that nationhood has been achieved.

"this entails challenging every aspect of the colonialist system in Ireland , not just its outwards symptoms but its inner core , the denial of national sovereignty and the subversion , destabilisation and fundmental limitations placed upon the practice of our national democracy by foreign interests with the assistance of native subordinates and lackeys . That is what the system itself relies upon and the suppression of national sovereignty is key to capitalisms continuing success in this regard . Unless one seeks to do this one is not a revolutionary in my opinion , progressive perhaps , well meaning but not revolutionary."

this is like something from the 1880's

I dont know what national sovereignty youre on about. This is the root of your politics, that national expression is somehow anathematic to capitalism, if we all just take cues from only those with our accent or music or region then we are somehow better innoculated against the virus of capitalist exploitation. Therefore to achieve any kind of value as a society we must first establish a fatherland, or in irelands case thanks to west brits like Yeats, a motherland. Its my belief that this is all fine and progressive and I FEEL better that the arch representative of the capitalists who run the country speaks with a Dublin accent rather than an English one though it makes NO difference.

i would like to know if you think Tony O reilly and Denis O Brien and Smurfit as exemplars of home grown capitalism need direction from outside the state about how to run things, you think they are working for bigger fish in perfidious ALBION? I dont and i think that if your revolutionary project is premised on achieving these totally romantic abstractions about sovereignty we wont be hearing much about 32csm in the years to come.

Earlier you lectured me about the appalling social reality of Belfast. I lived there throughout 2006 and found it a pretty awful version of a northern England town, great people but viscerally unhealthy, class ridden and boring. Also I found a fairly serious level of psychic and psychiatric damage as a result of the conflict, same in Derry which is like Mullingar with PTSD. You attribute the crushing level of alcoholism, random violence, sectarianism, racism and ignorance to a lack of dignity as a result of this lack of sovereignty and its probably part of it. But i see much the same stuff throughout Ireland in deprived neighborhoods as i see it in England and in the USA. Addiction, aggression, depression are not just symptoms of a lack of national self determination and Im not convinced enough of my grasp of the human soul or condition to put a meta analysis of political science on it as explanation. I envy your convictions about this stuff, i dont see Ireland as a perennial victim of imperialist colonisation, its part of the identity but its not the overarching ticket in 2007, not by a long shot. The irish are now a wealthy, conservative, increasingly introverted and smug nation who are happy to take their place at the table beside the imperialists, feeding from the globalised trough and benefiting from the hyper imiseration of the global majority. YOu see some other kind of Ireland that can be transformed for the better by the precision application of force ('physically rip it out by its roots...') and some kind of democratic nationalist revolutionary grass roots honest leader affair that makes us anew. Hope youre not planning on blowing up any post boxes like our pals in portlaoise to get there.

by Barry Thu Sep 13, 2007 03:24

A few posts up you argued that west Belfast was a highly dignified place , now you seem to be agreeing its an undignified shithole .
Secondly I never argued the case for physical armed force even once . I made the point that ones politics must directly challenge colonialism in a colonised society for them to be revolutionary , that they must not tolerate the concept of colonialism or anything less than political power to the people and them alone . And any politics which accepts colonialism in any form or dismisses it must be rejected as undemocratic . I also argued the point that democracy at its maximum expression must be not only the objective but the strategy of revolutionary political groups .
You are again making the case that colonialisms presence and the politics of its acceptance are irrelevant to the politics of the island . That is simply crazy .
You also argue that opposing the practice of colonialism in Ireland is like something out of the 1880s , when its colonialism itself thats out of the fucking 1880s . You are seriously arguing that to be a revolutionary ones politics must not challenge this because its old fashioned to be seen doing so ?
You are also arguing that national self determination , free from foreign imposed undemocratic vetoes and foreign dominion , foreign limitations on the practice and expression of a national democracy is irrelevant to democratic principles and practice . Where in the name of fuck , please tell us , does this leave the very principle of "power to the people" within revolutionary politics when you deem such a principle completely irrelevant in the face of foreign vetoes placed upon the people . The likes of Sir Tony OReilly is quite obviously in thrall to foreign interests as well his own capitalist interests . Much like fellow multi millionaire Lord Ballyedmund . OReillys media empire is a cheerleader for colonialism in Ireland

The vast majority of Irish people are not wealthy , that is a nonsense , and sit at no trough . The gap between rich and poor is immense . It is their own resources which have been appropriated by foreigners like Lord OXburgh and those firmly within the colonialist camp such as Lord OReilly . Britains next move in this age of global warming is to secure our water resources for themselves as well , again thanks to an undemocratic veto theyve insited on being a central point of our national political life .
There is nothing romantic at all about sovereignty , its a basic ingredient for political and personal dignity and in a colonial and post colonial society, a politics which does not strive for it in all its forms is not a revolutionary politic . Its a pose thats been learned from some book , a tactic of avoidance . Sovereignty is the peoples defence from colonialism , the defence of their national democracy , their resources and territory . In the age of globalisation and the resource wars of the 21st century national sovereignty is anathema to capitalist and imperialist interests , yet you deride it as romantic yeatsism . Thats just blinkered and childish .

The politics we in 32 csm argue for is a national political realignment along the principle of national democracy at its maximum expression . This involves in part the creation of a national forum with a rotating chair for all progressives with the issue of national sovereignty in all its forms , territorial , political , resources , neutrality etc being central to the practice of democratic politics . We do not argue for a good leader , we argue for the precise opposite , an empowered grass roots to do the leading . That is central to our politics and our own constitution . It is therefore up to progressives to bring their own positions to such a forum for democratic scrutiny , to challenge and be challenged in turn in a democratic fashion in an attempt to construct an alternative political process without foreign interference , foreign vetoes and the practice of a politics which perits such undemocratic notions . No political party can provide a blueprint , and we are not a political party , much less a front group for any armed organisation .

Im still dreadfully unclear as to what politics you actually espouse , whether its the one world ballsology of some anarchist sect , something youve read in a book or John Humes post nationalism . But what i do detect very clearly is the determination to stay well clear of politically challenging the political and physical practice of colonialism in the 21 st century . Therefore i detect no revolutionary basis to it , simply the politics of avoidance .

by rxs Thu Sep 13, 2007 05:09

"the denial of national sovereignty and the subversion , destabilisation and fundmental limitations placed upon the practice of our national democracy by foreign interests with the assistance of native subordinates and lackeys...suppression of national sovereignty is key to capitalisms continuing success ..."

You dont seem to distinguish between the political systems south and north at all. but anyway this paragraph refers to the kind of political economic forces that were used successfully in the 19th century by the colonists but its a joke to talk about this in reference to Ireland when the country, as a place for capitalist profit taking, is basically an offshore low tax bank for US corporations. But somehow I dont think thats the 'foreign interests' you're talking about.

THis is total crap about capitalism fearing sovereignty and having to repress it to make a buck. Its anachronistic and describes a world which no longer exists. As far as capital is concerned the state exists to keep the rabble in line. The day is long gone, if it ever existed, that capital should fear state power as some sort of sovereign expression of people power. You suspect some of my criticisms come from a book yet you repeat this mania about the contest between capital and sovereignty, it sounds like something the national front would come out with. Books might disabuse you a little of these fantasies.

Lord ox wha? What are you on about? O reilly is not busy carving up eirsatz for his 'foreign' pals on the queens list, hes busy making money and controlling the political scene in Ireland. Its not the brits or germans who gave him exploration rights on the western seaboard its fianna fail, nor is it the brits or belgians who encouraged denis o brien to gain control of almost all dublins commercial radio, no its a smart business move facilitated by the political class with whom denis is in business.

As to the wealth of the Irish, of course there are poor people in ireland and im sure they are well served by their defenders in 32csm but relatively speaking Ireland is a wealthy country, in the top ten globally by any measure. Because ireland is a rich country does not mean that everyone in ireland is rich. I dont think many indymedia readers think that everyone in America is loaded because they see madonna driving a fancy car.

And Belfast, I was arguing that the social maladies of the place are little different from those affecting marginalised communities throughout the developed world. Nothing unique about teenagers lying on the street covered in puke at 4 o clock on a friday. its depressing but hardly uncommon. And its no different on the shankhill, the veto wavers like to get totally fucked up all the time too.

by Bary - 32 csm Sat Sep 22, 2007 14:49

" lord Oxwho ?? wha??"

Before you start lecturing people on how British colonial practice is non existant in the south you really should bone up on the guy from the British Ministry of Defence who owns rather a lot of our gas resources

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/3815151.stm

Not only does he get billions in Irish gas without paying tax or royalties he can have you arrested for getting in his way , he knows in advance when pesky mayo farmers are about to be arrested and cheerfuly announced this to his shareholdes a few days before the rossport 5 were arrested. Your police force are currently acting as his private militia . They even treat elected tds as subversive for daring question his lordship When Oburgh , his ilk and his chums do this exact same stuff in africa and India its colonialism , but seemingly from your analysis because we are white and speak the mother tongue its not colonialism , A bourgouis , self centred analysis in my opinion ( we have moved on etc) . But then again you dont even know who he is . I suggest taking your head out of the book .

Shells actions are colonialism in practice . Colonialisms only purpose is capitalism . While the southern state was granted limited autonomy from Britain it was created by Britain to serve British interests . Which it has unceasingly done since Britain created it . When Britain withdrew its military from most of the 26 counties it left behind its civil servants and other assorted apparatchiks of the colonial system , along with a treaty which decreed these people must remain in their positions after mother had gone home . Which they did . And that decree was put there for a purpose , to serve the purpose of the people who created the litle state , the colonialists .And that is what your state was founded upon , a fundamental denial of national democracy . Your media , your security agencies are fully infiltrated by Britains military intelligence agencies , they instinctively and unwaveringly look the other way when Britain bombs Dublin , they destroy the evidence , pointedly ignore and even harass the victims when they speak . why do they do this ? For the crack ?
The Irish state makes no money at all from shells activities , even its native capitalists dont and wont , yet its police and media go out of their way to viciously suppress anyone who critices Shell , including elected TDs ? why do they do this ? for the crack or because fo who controls them ? and there is amplle evidence , not least from the fact Britian was put in control of them at Baldonnel airport in 74 , as to who ultimately controls them .
These transgressions , the undermining and violating of our democracy , the theft of our resources , the bombing of our towns and the occupation of our national territory are attacks on our sovereignty . It is colonialism in a modern context . Just as the decison by Bush and Blair to choose Ireland as the location for the post Iraq invasion carve up summit was colonialism , imperialism and an attack and insult to our national sovereignty . Just as Shannon and the fact Donald rumsfeld used our national territory to launch his war on Iraq was an attack on our sovereignty . They all require the suppression of national democracy in favour of coloialist and imperialist interests , the suppression of its very principle . This suppression is at the heart of the southern states political rationale and raison d'etre . Because it was put there quite deliberately by the people who created the southern state to serve their colonial interests . Which it has done , does and will continue to do untill it is confronted along with all other interests and mechanisms which have the purpose of denyong the Irish people their right to a national democracy and national sovereignty in whichever form .

The activities of people like Denis OBrien are merely symptoms and not the cause of an undemocratic society , the one that had to be created to serve colonialism and imperialism in Ireland . Such a state was founded upon the principle of denying power to the people , of subverting and violating democracy and national sovereignty , of co-ercing the Irish people into a constitutional state of affairs which imperialist interests view to their benefit and not the Irish peoples . Simply put Denis OBrien can bribe his way to wealth within such a system and in turn support that system . He cannot repeatedly bomb Dublin and get away with it and even dispose of the evidence , have others blamed and have the victims harassed the political police for 3 decades . Colonial interests in Ireland can do and are doing . Thats the difference between colonial interests and native capitalist interests , one is subserviant to the other. Therefore a society which must be run in the interests of all the Irish people must confront colonialism and imperialism and defend and assert its sovereignty . Its a simple concept and a simple equation , unless you believe such interests can co -exist . I certainly dont . If they cannot co-exist then there must be a confrontation between them , one interest must fall in the face of the other . Unless you believe there can be revolution without confrontation ? How can the interests of the Irish people as a whole prevail without confronting colonial interests in Ireland ?

and as regards " turning and turning" as you accused me of above , thats ridiculous . Again you are building up your own straw man , complaining that republican seperatism wont fit into whatever tracts or texts youve read and then accusing its failure to fit into predertimined european and asian texts to be unrevolutionary . All I can deduce from what youve wrtten is that youre suprised a revolutionary can be passionate or intense about a revolutionary project , when Ive pretty much been of the opinion its an essential requirement . As Fanon said , fervour is the weapon of choice of the impotent . He didnt say anything about just complaining about being disempowered , buying a dog on a string and sitting on the ditch harrumphing at someones old fashioned behind the timesness...( colonialism..in this day and age !!!)

I also made the point that republican seperatism has been subverted internally by undemocratic practices , not that it was inherently undemocratic as a concept or ideology to begin with . Where it undemocratic as an ideology there would be no need to subvert democracy within it . 32 CSM is not a front group for an armed group either . I doubt youve even met or spoken with one of its members , read its constitution or evaluated its strategy . Youve probably just read that in a book somewhwere :))

by Franks Sat Sep 22, 2007 18:35

In passing Lord Oxburgh retired from his position on the Shell board a couple of years ago.
O.K. Barry we have neo-liberal terms for oil and gas exploitation, and an environmentally harmful development, and a repressive police force. The difficulty I have in relating this to a lack of 'national sovereignty'/colonialism/British interferance is simply how does it account for the same or similar things happening in Britain. Who are the colonial overlords of Britain? Where is the foreign interferance there?

A further difficulty is if we can say the British state does the bidding of say a company like Shell (putting it simplistically), why shouldn't this be also the case of the Irish state, independantly of any British influence. Shell are qouted on at least 3 of the world's stock exchanges, one would imagine a significant proportion of Irish owned share holdings are in the company (incidentally Phoenix recently recommended buying Providence stock). The construction companies involved include Irish ones. The Corrib gas project was started by another, much smaller, company (Enterprise Energy Ireland). There are a number of Irish companies involved in oil and gas exploration (Providence, Finevara), including one owned in large part by a fairly significant figure in Irish society. Moreover a model of economic development which involves attracting and facilitating foreign capital has been predominant in Ireland since the 1950s, there are significant benefits in that, in terms of spin off industry, to vested interests in Ireland, whom the attraction of foreign capital is more significant to, than having Ireland to invest in is to any overseas holders of capital.

Also if the 26 counties has always been a neo-colony of Britain, going back to the Treaty, how do you account for the 1930s and 1940s (see for instance neutrality during world war 2).
Or indeed even earlier the first Dublin government played a role in the slow dismantling of the Commonwealth.

by Barry - 32 csm Sat Sep 29, 2007 14:21

The significant person in public life you refer to is Sir Anthony OReilly ,a British Lordand member of the British aristocracy regardless of his birthplace .

India and not Ireland is regarded as the catalyst for the loosening of constitutional ties between British commonwealth members . Except that is by Irish people .

Eire was as neutral in the 2nd world war as it is today in the colonialist war against Iraq, google the work of Eunan O'Halpin for the the links between Eire and British military intelligence and their activities south of the border from the 1930s onwards .

The nature of the southern states subserviant relationship with colonialism is best summed up by the complaint made by the southern militarys Lt Col John Morgan who claimed the Barron report into the Dublin Monghan bombings misrepresented his evidence and falsified statements which it attributed to him .

"Lt. Col. John Morgan told the Sunday Business Post that the report wrongly accords evidence to him and that no attempts were made to confirm statements with him prior to publication. This is despite a contention in the report that all interviewees were approached for confirmation.

Morgan alleges that the Barron report is riddled with inaccuracies and questionable terminology. He noted that the report refers to "mainland Britain" twice and pointed out that this was constitutionally inaccurate.

"For a report commissioned by, and submitted to, a sovereign government it contains subservient and constitutionally incorrect language" said Morgan

"This is all the more incomprehensible coming from a former Judge of the Supreme Court "

(Sunday Business Post, 11.1.2004).

Thats the attitude our current governemnt and leading constitutional law interpreters have to our relationship with the mother country , an offshore island of the mainland .

by Franks Sat Sep 29, 2007 17:45

Barry during the 1930s and 1940s there was a nationalist government in the 26 counties, there was an 'economic war' over land annuities, the Irish government was neutral during World War 2, albiet neutral pro-Allied (like the way Sweden was neutral and pro-Axis), and the Allied powers, in particularly Britain, were not impressed with this, note the fact they planned to invade "Eire", note also the fact we did not receive Marshall plan aid, the loosening of the constitutional ties between Commonwealth countries began *before* India became independant, the Second World War was actually more crucial than anything, but, this was ongoing in the 1920s and 1930s. Until the 1950s the Irish government was orientated to something of an autarkic economic policy, before it switched around to attracting foreign captial and entering a free trade area with Britain, and after that other European countries. Ironically as the country moved away from that situation it became less dependant on Britain, not more, as can be seen by trade relations - hitherto dominated by trade with Britain, no far more diverse. This history doesn't fit into a monochrome narrative of neo-colonialism.

Moving on to the issue of why are conditions in the Irish republic and in Britain similar, you say "because the same people are pulling the strings", this is actually a move away from an anaylsis someways cognisicant of social structures - ie lack of sovereignty/colonialism, to one that suggests problems are the result of there being bad people at the top, as replacing the people at the top has never seemed to have worked in any society I think we can conculde the issues to be discussed go a little deeper than that.

So do you think Britain is a neo-colony or suffers from a lack of national sovereignty, if you do, and if you concede that conditions in Ireland and Britain are similar, and hold that conditions in Ireland are down to colonialism/lack of national sovereignty, it follows that you do see Britain in such a way, why then do you refer to Britain as "the motherland". Clearly, according to your logic, it too is colonised.

Moreover when you look at the activities of the formerly Irish owned Atlantic Dawn in Africa, or Irish companies in Latin America (eg Smurfit, Fyfes), does it not there follow from your anaylsis that Ireland is a "mother country" and a coloniser.

On the otherhand it may not, maybe the owners are British, regardless of their birthplace, as with O'Reilly, it therefore begs the question
of why do you use terms like "irish" or "british" or "Ireland" or "Britain" and what these terms actually mean to you.

Moving on to the Dublin/Monaghan bombing - again is it not the case that the Irish establishment, or parts thereof, might have an interest in a cover up, independantly of any link with Britain.

Earlier you wrote: "Simply put Denis OBrien can bribe his way to wealth within such a system and in turn support that system . He cannot repeatedly bomb Dublin and get away with it and even dispose of the evidence , have others blamed and have the victims harassed the political police for 3 decades . Colonial interests in Ireland can do and are doing . Thats the difference between colonial interests and native capitalist interests , one is subserviant to the other. "

I would refer you to the cases in Italy (the strategy of tension) where parts of the Italian establishment were doing just that, including framing people - and then murdering them, for bombings which in fact had been carried out by parts of the Italian state. The Bologna railway station bombing in 1980 for instance, which was then the biggest "terrorist" atrocity in Europe, in terms of death toll.
Now either you argue that there was colonial interests to which these Italians were subordinate, or that they were in actual fact not Italians, or you concede that what you ascribe to a lack of national sovereignty is universal, in which case either everywhere is a colony, including the terrority of states that seem very independant, or that while the issues you identify are very real issues, the way in which you interpret them and ascribe causation doesn't actually get to the heart of what is going on, and, if you do not strike at the root, you risk replicating the actual causes of the problems in any future social change.

by Franks Sat Sep 29, 2007 17:57

For another example to you the small participation of the Irish state, via Shannon re-fuelling, in the war on Iraq, and subsequent occupation, is an example of "colonialism , imperialism and an attack and insult to our national sovereignty".

Right so the Irish state makes a very minor contribution to a war effort and it is all that, while the British state sends troops, its territory is used for bombing runs (RAF Fairford), it has actual bona fide American military bases, if the troops don't pitstop in Shannon, they do so in Scotland, and as one of the few countries to support the U.S. on this issue, it did provide a bit of diplomatic cover as well, Britain therefore must be the colony of colonies, maybe the mother of all colonies!!!??? ; )

What about Germany, the American soldiers bodies are transported back via Rammstein in Germany.

Wait a minute isn't the United States involved in that war too, who has them colonised?

by Barry Sat Sep 29, 2007 20:01

Britian itself is engaged in an imperialist war in its former colony of Iraq you fucking wanker . Eire isnt , it hasnt declared war on Iraq . Unlike germany Eire is not a member of NATO either . America Britian and Germany are members of a formal military alliance with strategic and geopolitical ambitions in the middle east .
The Irish state is subservient to foreign interest , Britain and America act in self interest .
For example , when the British military repeatedly bombed Dublin during the 1970s the Eire authorities responded by putting them in effective charge of the states national security apparatus in 1974 . An act of submission . Ireland as a whole is strategically important to the British so they exercise control in various forms over its territory and governance . This gives them an advantage at all times over the countrys citizens .

by Franks Sat Sep 29, 2007 22:03

Some minor points:

"Britian itself is engaged in an imperialist war in its former colony of Iraq you fucking wanker . Eire isnt , it hasnt declared war on Iraq."

So had the 26 counties state went a step further, and sent troops, rather than just allowing Shannon to be used, and made a declaration of war, this then would be the marker between engagement in an imperialist war, and colonial subserviance, or is the crucial issue the fact that 80 to 90 years ago there was a particular relationship between Britain and Iraq, but not between the 26 counties and Iraq.

"Unlike germany Eire is not a member of NATO either . America Britian and Germany are members of a formal military alliance with strategic and geopolitical ambitions in the middle east ."

Isn't the reason the Republic never joined NATO got to do with the fact membership involves a commitment to recognise existing borders as legitimate, something the government was unwilling to do in the 1940s as it would involve acceptance of the legitimacy of Northern Ireland/partition. They did offer a bilateral arrangement with the U.S., but the Americans were not having it. There are 26 countries in NATO, including Turkey, Estonia, Slovakia, Greece, and others that do not seem to fit into the major imperialist power category. Moreover the relevance of NATO to the Iraq invastion isn't apparent, as NATO was split down the middle over the issue, France and Germany taking an opposing position to Britain and the United States. Note also Irish participation in the EU Battlegroups.

"the Eire authorities responded by putting them in effective charge of the states national security apparatus in 1974"

Did they? Some people might note that the Irish government seemed to take a harder line on insurgent republicanism in the later part of the 1950s, see for instance internment, than in the most recent Troubles, we might also note the later extradition controvorsy, the abscence of joint military operations along the border, I mean you can't really say there was a military presence in north Louth comparable to that in south Armagh, can you, and wasn't it not more like the late 80s when the Southern state really went into crackdown mode (even moreso than "the law and order government") Here is another way of looking at it, in view of the conflict in the North the British state did attempt to exert influence southward, sometimes successfully, sometimes not, sometimes the interests of both states have co-incided, sometimes not. Again there is plenty of grounds for the Irish establishment to want to suppress insurgent republicanism without bringing a British influence into it. Note the fact republicans aimed to overthrow the 26 counties state also, note also the fact, unless I'm mistaken, some varieties of republicanism were particularly singled out more than others, the stickies in the early 70s, the IRSP later.

More important issue:

"The Irish state is subservient to foreign interest , Britain and America act in self interest ."

Well the self-interest of whom? We can if we wish look at innumerable instances where the British or American states have acted in ways opposing the interests of much of their respective populations, or sometimes acting against the expressed wishes of the majority of the populace, for instance the invasion of Iraq was opposed by most British people. Much like the Irish state in that respect. Why, in the case of the Irish state, do we have to introduce this colonial subserviance explanation. "national soverignity" in the sense that you seem to mean it, clearly does not exist in Britain either. Similarily earlier in this thread you referred to the police repression in Ballinaboy, yet frankly you could find way more instances of that in Britain, or the United States, or France, or Germany.
Does the British state govern in your interests? No, not yours because of "irishness", which is an irrelevance of birth in the case of O'Reilly, has it served the populations of those areas that were formerly mining districts well?

Is it not possible that the interests with the most influence over the Irish state might find a certain course of action conducive, for their own sake. This might include for instance a close alliance with the British state over a particular issue, and it might include supporting one war (Iraq), if not the other (Argentina).

On another issue you might also note the pressure the Irish state has brought to bear on maintaining a pattern of markedly unequal trading relations with the global South, in the interests of its agricultural industry.

Clearly the 26 counties is not at the top of the international pecking order at EU meetings or whatever (I suspect it has a damn sight more pull than around 100 other states though!), clearly there is also meshed international interests and influences rather than just isolated individual autonomous states. However treating the actions of a state in doing what all states do, which is to act in the interests of capital accumulation (try seeing how long a government would last if it wasn't geared to "economic growth"), as, in the Irish case, a peculiar product of colonial subserviance, is to open the door to seeking a new state, which, should it be free from foreign interferance, would therefore allow "national sovereignty" and not create the sort of problems we agree about, but in fact it would.

This would be of course like in the 1916 to 1923 period thinking that manifold issues would be resolved if, instead of being ruled from London, there was a Dublin based administration. This I do not think proved successful. Pretending that post-1923 there was not an independant state in Ireland is crucial to the continuation of insurgent nationalist politics, as therefore the issue that there was a national revolution and it didn't lift things up for the common people of Ireland (in fact arguably the opposite happened) doesn't have to be dealt with, moreover, as nationalism, in one sense, holds that there is a common national interest, the pretence that the 26 counties state is somehow a creature of Britain allows the shibbloteh of a common national interest to go unquestioned.
Unquestioned, despite for instance the fact the independant Irish state was clearly complicit with the British states repression in the North. A complicity which can be accounted for by reference to the interests of the rich and powerful in this country, without the hand of perfidious Albion, except if we believe in a mythical idealised nation, and when its sons do things we do not like, then the "regardless of his birthplace" magic is invoked, and in fact they are Brits!

by Barry - 32 csm Sun Sep 30, 2007 06:51

"So had the 26 counties state went a step further, and sent troops, rather than just allowing Shannon to be used, and made a declaration of war,...""

It didnt. so this is just winding semantics
.
"Isn't the reason the Republic never joined NATO got to do with the fact membership involves a commitment to recognise existing borders as legitimate, something the government was unwilling to do in the 1940s as it would involve acceptance of the legitimacy of Northern Ireland/partition."

As has been pointed out to you already it fully accepts the partition of the Irish nation, is a member of the Council of the British isles and some of its leading politicians are publicly considering a return to the British commonwealth . While this may not strike you as acting in a subserviant manner to the colonial mother country it does to me .
The issue of partition created internal constitutional problems for the southern state in joining NATO that they simply didnt want to address . Joining NATO would have forced them to address the issue of partition one way or another . It was not until the 1990s that an Irish supreme court ruled that articles 2&3 were actually a constitutional imperative ( resulting in their hasty aboandonment) , an attempt to join NATO would have brought this issue to the fore very soon after the state adopted that constitution which is what the southern state did not want . The deliberate ambiguity prior to that served the purpose of parking the issue of partition in the states constitution while not addressing it , while at the same time pointing to the constitution as proof the issue was being addressed . It was the same principle as the first Anglo Irish Treaties boundary commission , parking the issue as opposed to addressing it . Failure to address it when challenged by its own constitution to do so would have been disastrous for the ruling class at that time having just succeeded in persuading the majority of its citizens of the states own independence and therefore legitimacy . That itself took almost 2 decades of sustained oppression against its own citizens , justified on the pretext that a united Ireland was being persued by the state .
The opposition to joining NATO therefore wasnt founded on the principle of accepting partition but the political reality that it couldnt be seen to accept it by its own citizens who also regarded military neutrality as a manifestation of national sovereignty for historical reasons .

Try also addressing the issue of Baldonnel though with a bit more than " did they ?"
Yes , they did ..

""Did they? Some people might note that the Irish government seemed to take a harder line on insurgent republicanism in the later part of the 1950s, see for instance internment, than in the most recent Troubles, we might also note the later extradition controvorsy, the abscence of joint military operations along the border,""

you seem to be arguing the point that because successive southern governemnts have introduced draconian legislation more enthusiastically to protect partition they arent subservient to colonial interests in Ireland ? The loyalist organisations were British state proxies adopting harsh measures the British state couldnt be seen to adopt itself . The stormont regime adopted measures the British couldnt be seen to have direct responsibility for . The British state also stopped interning Irish people quite early on in the conflict . It didnt mean they werent protecting British interests in Ireland . You obviously arent aware of the dictum that Britain prefers an Irishman turning the spit . Its a classic symptom of colonialism .

"" I mean you can't really say there was a military presence in north Louth comparable to that in south Armagh, can you, ""

well it certainly would have made the overt and covert activities of the British military in North Louth a tad more difficult . When on the rare occasions the southern security forces acted in the manner an independent states security forces should and apprehended British covert operatives on a cross border murder mission it caused a diplomatic furore , one in which the subservient relationship between both states again came to the fore . The substantive point is though that while the states security forces persued republicans with relish and still do they did not persue those who were massacring the states citizens and repeatedly bombing its citizens . This would point ,even to the layman , to a subservient relationship between the state which was being bombed and the state doing the bombing . An independent state as opposed to a subservient post colonial one would clearly regard such repeated attacks and the massacre of its citizens as an act of war .The co-operation , or more accurately the collusion involved , was more than substantial bearing this in mind .

The southern governemnts military resources are also nothing like the British militarys and such a presence could not have been maintained wihtout massive financial expense . Politically it would have been counter productive for whichever party was in power in Dublin had they put the southern border counties under similar military occupation as their neighbouring counties . People in south armaghs votes dont count in westminster . North louths and monaghans votes are pretty crucial in leinster house . Deploying thousands of troops on a daily basis to harass and search your own electorate , as opposed to foreigners who dont vote for you in a foreign country you dont live in and were you dont need to stand for election can be a risky strategy for any government . And if insurgents exploit local resentment at being under daily military occupation you have even deeper problems .
British strategy ( ultimately successful) also was focused on steady attrition as opposed to knockout blows . As they stated themselves in their recent report in operation banner all the military strucures necessary to defeat the insurgency were in place by 1980 . They had an endgame , a long war , and did not seek the defeat of an insurgency in the certain knowlege it would spring up again . They sought its total defeat , ideological as well as military and secured it . The defeat of the very ethos of national sovereignty which sustained insurgency was the objective . The insurgency was only a physical manifestation of that ethos . The full co-operation of the southern government and the entire ruling elite in the south was necessary for the success of that project . That co-operation was rendered to the British and the principle of national sovereignty was removed from the political equation .

""and wasn't it not more like the late 80s when the Southern state really went into crackdown mode (even moreso than "the law and order government")"

it may have esacped your attention but its still in crackdown mode . There are as many republican prisoners in Portlaoise today , mostly on the word of a senior garda , as there was during the height of conflict .

""Here is another way of looking at it, in view of the conflict in the North the British state did attempt to exert influence southward, sometimes successfully, sometimes not, sometimes the interests of both states have co-incided, sometimes not. ""

explain to me how the interests of the southern state are served by repeated no warning car bomb attacks on its capital ? This is generally what happened when all other attempts at influence failed .

""Again there is plenty of grounds for the Irish establishment to want to suppress insurgent republicanism without bringing a British influence into it. Note the fact republicans aimed to overthrow the 26 counties state also, note also the fact, unless I'm mistaken, some varieties of republicanism were particularly singled out more than others, the stickies in the early 70s, the IRSP later. ""

you are mistaken . The stickies were put in effective charge of the states broadcasting authority in 1970 immediately after FFs Gerry Collins sacked the RTE board en masse along with a number of journalists . The purpose was to suppress democracy and the stickies were the very people to do that . Secondly Im not bringing a British influence into it , the British brought themselves into it . Your asking me to consider a scenario that does not exist for the sake of argument and semantics . A pointless and empty exercise .

""Well the self-interest of whom? We can if we wish look at innumerable instances where the British or American states have acted in ways opposing the interests of much of their respective populations, or sometimes acting against the expressed wishes of the majority of the populace, for instance the invasion of Iraq was opposed by most British people. Much like the Irish state in that respect. Why, in the case of the Irish state, do we have to introduce this colonial subserviance explanation. "national soverignity" in the sense that you seem to mean it, clearly does not exist in Britain either. ""

Firstly you are intent on framing Ireland within a British context when the dynamic at work is clearly different . The Iraq invasion was opposed by a lot of British people at the time but not the majority . A political/military elite sought geo-political advantage for Britain in Iraq and told its people Saddam Hussein wanted to attack them . No such dynamic was at work in Ireland . Britain itself was invading Iraq , Ireland wasnt . Secondly Ireland does not occupy any part of Britain , nor has it colonised Britain for 800 years , its military has never occupied Britain. The British state was not created at the point of an Irish gun , it has never sworn allegiance to an Irish Taoiseach . The Irish intelligence serices have never been put in control of the London editon of the Times or any journal of record in Britain .Nor does the Irish state operate a puppet parliament or intelligence headquarters on British soil . The relationship is quite different , therefore the context and dynamics are also . Any comparisons to British society when discussing the post colonial relationship between both nations is ridiculous.

""Similarily earlier in this thread you referred to the police repression in Ballinaboy, yet frankly you could find way more instances of that in Britain, or the United States, or France, or Germany.
Does the British state govern in your interests? No, not yours because of "irishness", which is an irrelevance of birth in the case of O'Reilly, has it served the populations of those areas that were formerly mining districts well? ""

The British state can never govern in my interests because I dont live in Britain , therefore do not even participate in the election of the people who dominate westminster or have the remotest interest in doing so . I live in the funny little occupied area . Why on earth would it remotely concern itself with my interests at any time ? It has no need to pander to them just as I have no desire to pander to its interests .

There is no suspicion that Im aware of that the countries youve mentioned have placed their police in the control of a foreign military intelligence agency whose national interest is served by stealing those states national resources . That is the case in Eire though . British commercial interests are also an interest of its intelligence services .
The failure of the British people to create a progressive political system in their country is largely their own fault . Its not as a result of threats or interference from this country , we dont meddle in their affairs or force any system of governance on them . The westminster governemnt governs those people with their consent . In order to exercise control in Ireland it requires both overt and covert political and military influence . Its a completely different relationship and political and even cultural dynamic at work .

"Is it not possible that the interests with the most influence over the Irish state might find a certain course of action conducive, for their own sake. This might include for instance a close alliance with the British state over a particular issue, and it might include supporting one war (Iraq), if not the other (Argentina). "

In cases were subservience is not forthcoming within the postcolonial relationship pressure is brought to bear within that relationship .. For example in 1971 Fine Gael signalled it would vote against draconian legislation in Leinster House .Justice Spokesman Paddy Cooney condemned the proposed legislation as akin to the laws of apartheid south africa. Britain then bombed Dublin on the eve of the vote . The Irish media ( Irish times under the control of MI5 and RTE under the control of the workers party) hinted that it was the provos . Fine Gael then abstained from the vote and the legislation was passed thanks to the pressure Britian brought to bear . An independent nation would have regarded such an act of war as an act of war .

3 years later Fine Gael came to power . Britain bombed Dublin again , only this time much more ferociously . Fine Gael in turn submitted to Britains demands , which this time involved not just further draconian legislation but a dominant role in the souths security services . This was submitted to and within months the Baldonnel accord had taken place . In secret and away from the notice of the Irish people having been rebuffed by the same administration months earlier . Both FF and FG governments were fully aware that Britain had bombed them to secure their compliance and subserviance . Both fully complied rather than even complain , much less respond even diplomatically or even by investigating the bombings and seeking to apprehend the perpetrators . That ethos is the one at the heart of the state , its media and its security services . One of subserviance to an order in which Britain is the dominant partner in Irish affairs .

The lack of support for British occupation of Las Malvinas was simply rhetoric from a rogue politician , it was irrelevant to the outcome , it was irrelevant to British interests in Ireland . Ireland wasnt strategically important for the campaign , their co -operation wasnt necessary .. Ultimately the rogue was taken care of and taken fully out of the equation of anglo Irish relationships where Irish co-operation was necessary . He was replaced by and with someone much more amenable , just as Saddam and Noriega were ultimately removed and replaced from their respective thrones when they became uncompliant .

,"" in the Irish case, a peculiar product of colonial subserviance, is to open the door to seeking a new state, which, should it be free from foreign interferance, would therefore allow "national sovereignty" and not create the sort of problems we agree about, but in fact it would. ""

again , national sovereignty is about more than a line on a map or its absence

""This would be of course like in the 1916 to 1923 period thinking that manifold issues would be resolved if, instead of being ruled from London, there was a Dublin based administration. This I do not think proved successful. Pretending that post-1923 there was not an independant state in Ireland is crucial to the continuation of insurgent nationalist politics""

Firstly it is not a pretence that this state was bound by a formal oath of allegiance to a foreign head of state , so therefore not independent . Secondly it is not a pretence either that the state itself was founded under British legislation , British terms and conditions as to its internal workings ( whom the state must employ in its administration etc) under threat of of horrific military force against the population . Your argument seems to be that somewhere along the line this state evolved to an independent one free from colonial influence ,except its one in which horrific military force is actually used against its population rather than just threatened .
In 1916 the Irish governments view was that simply being under a green flag instead of a union jack was insufficient , as the colonial power would continue to exert influence through a variety of agencies . National sovereignty and its defence involved radical internal change , economic , political , military and cultural change .This turned out to be the correct view . Britain executed that Irish government and a few years later helped create one with a completely different ethos . They in turn administered a state which reflected that different ethos , one in which Irish sovereignty and Irish democracy and democratic programmes were to be suppressed .

""as therefore the issue that there was a national revolution and it didn't lift things up for the common people of Ireland (in fact arguably the opposite happened) doesn't have to be dealt with, moreover, as nationalism, in one sense, holds that there is a common national interest, the pretence that the 26 counties state is somehow a creature of Britain allows the shibbloteh of a common national interest to go unquestioned. ""

The national revolution didnt lift things for the people because the revolution clearly fucking failed . The object of the national revolution even at its most superficial was not to create a partitioned state or adopt an oath of allegiance to the British crown , because to do so was a violation of both sovereignty and democracy and a continuance of colonialism . The ethos of the republican seperatist revolution was set out in its first President Patrick Pearses address "The sovereign People" in which the issue of what national sovereignty entailed was addressed at length .

“ The nations Sovereignty extends not only to all the men and women of the nation but to all the material possessions of the nation , the nations soil and all its resources , all its wealth and all wealth producing processes within in the nation . In other words no private right to property is good against the public right and welfare of the nation” .

“ It is , in fact, true that the repositories of the Irish tradition , as well as the spiritual tradition of nationality as the kindred tradition of stubborn physical resistance to England have been the great , splendid, faithful common people - that dumb multitudinous throng which sorrowed through the penal night, which bled in 98, which starved in the Famine , and which is here still - what is left of it - unbought and unterrified . Let no man be mistaken as to who will be Lord in Ireland when Ireland is free . The people will be Lord and master”

Lalors dictum was acknowleged as crucial to the issue of national sovereignty “Not to repeal the Union, then, but the conquest - not to disturb and dismantle the empire , but to abolish it forever. Not to resume or restore an old constitution, but to found a new nation and to raise up a free people , and strong as well as free, and secure as well as strong , based on a peasantry rooted like rocks in the soil of their land”

Pearse and Connolly acknowleged these central aspects of our national sovereignty addressed by Lalor were crucial to our independence as a nation . The southern states purpose and ethos from the outset has been the overthrow of such an ethos , a barrier against the ethos of a sovereign people and sovereign nation .
The state the British introduced to Ireland has sought continually to present itself as the object of a national revolution as a plank of its legitimacy and acceptance . In fact it was the product of a British sponsored and armed counter revolution . Democracy was overthrown by force of arms and the colonial threat of annihilation . Thats a denial of national sovereignty and not an assertion of it , certainly from an Irish point of view . The Irish people are not Lord and master in their own nation and never have been .

""Unquestioned, despite for instance the fact the independant Irish state was clearly complicit with the British states repression in the North. A complicity which can be accounted for by reference to the interests of the rich and powerful in this country, without the hand of perfidious Albion, except if we believe in a mythical idealised nation, and when its sons do things we do not like, then the "regardless of his birthplace" magic is invoked, and in fact they are Brits! ""

This is patent rubbish . Again your ignoring that this independent state was complicit in British atrocities committed in its own capital , and continues to be complicit as we speak . It never even issued a declaration of independence . The state is patently not the Irish nation and does not even acknowlege that such a concept , a physical Irish nation , can exist without foreign approval beforehand . That is subservience to colonialism and a denial of the principle of national democracy .Again your arguing that the mythical hand of the British does not exist in Ireland when it plainly does . No magic is involved or any such romantic notion . The ultimate purpose of colonialism and imperialism is capitalism . That native capitalists find common cause with and identify with colonialist ambition and practice within a post colonial society is not an argument against the existance of that post colonial society in the first place . That capitalists identify more with the denial of a national democracy within a post colonial society than with the implementation of such a principle requires no magic . The capitalists gravitate towards the real power because its in their financial interests to do so , because they are bourgouis in outlook , self centred , individualistic , and bereft of national consciousness . their compliance in the post colonial equation is necessary . That capitalists such as OReilly opt to formally buy into the entire colonial concept is simly a natural progression of such a body politic , not a get out clause that means we can deny he is Irish .
A state founded upon the principle that a colonial power has the right to deny the existance and function of a national democracy has that denial at the heart of its ethos regardless of its outward nationalist rhetoric , upon which it relies from time to time to maintain the pretence of independence and sovereignty and therefore its very legitimacy and acceptance from the people it rules over , the colonised.
It is that denial of national democracy at the heart of the states post colonial ethos which directly facilitates the violation of national sovereignty . National sovereignty at its maximum expression requires national democracy at its maximum expression in an Irish context because it is a post colonial context , hindered by colonial interference which demands limitations be placed upon the ractice of a national democracy , that the very notion of democracy is suppressed with vetoes . It is under the suppression of democracy that both colonialism and capitalism flourish .
The overthrow of both requires a revolution with both democracy and sovereignty at its core . Both most be the strategy as well as the objective

by Franks Sun Sep 30, 2007 13:36

Barry the referance to NATO and Ireland is to point out that no one stopped the Republic from joining NATO, but the Irish government, according to your earlier argument the 26 counties would be part of the imperialist club if it had joined NATO. I do not believe any Irish government ever was serious about ending partition, quite the contrary in fact.

"you seem to be arguing the point that because successive southern governemnts have introduced draconian legislation more enthusiastically to protect partition they arent subservient to colonial interests in Ireland"

Well if 1974 was the key date in security policy subserviance it doesn't really account for the internment of republicans in the 1920s, 1940s, and 1950s (and the 1930s as well?).

Anyways I'm not going to make a point by point response because that way is the way to get bogged down in minor detail and miss the three most important points.

You still havn't accounted for why if conditions are similar in Britain and the 26 counties, those conditions can be explained by neo-colonialism in the case of Ireland, but not such in Britain. Developments have been forced ahead in Britain with the use of naked force. Incidentally this has happened to a far greater extent in France or Germany. Probably a function of the extent and strength of oppoistion more than anything else. It is not therefore apparent how policing in Ballinaboy is a product of colonialism.

You havn't accounted for the decidedly imperialist looking nature of some Irish relations with the wider world.

Your case as regards the colonial subserviance of the 26 counties state now seems to have retreated to maintaining this on the basis of the Dublin/Monaghan bombing and on the Irish governments support for partition/repression of republicans.

Why are there not indigenous grounds, not related to a British influence, that account for this?
We can only overlook this possibility if for some reason the Irish state is deemed to have an actual interest in protecting the North's minority, or in overcoming partition. Why should we assume this? Why should the Irish state be more selflessly interested in the welfare of the denizens of south Armagh than the British state? Because it is the "national territory"? C'mon that is just bollox they whipped up to deflect attention from them, to paper over social divisions beneath a rhethoric of anglophobia. When the insurgency started in the North, and such thinking became a threat to them, they switched it off.

If anything the Dublin government is more keen on and more responsible for the maintenance of partition than London.
In fact when Wilson was considering all options they, Dublin, sought to get the Americans to intervene against a British withdrawal (relations between Dublin and London actually seem a lot more strained at this time than you suggest!). Even back in the 1920s the discussion over the Treaty was almost totally focused on commonwealth status/the oath, not on Northern Ireland.

Why in the name of God would the southern Establishment want to incorporate the North into the republic?

First they would have to incorporate the Unionist population into their state, and supposing that went o.k., a big supposing, they would then face a republicanism that had a lot more prestige and status than before, and having acheived stage one, could then go on to more determidly opposing the southern establishment, which every faction of republicanism has said they are about.

So, with all this headache, can you explain to me what any of the movers and shakers of the 26 counties would get out of this?

If anything, given the capacity of the northern conflict to destablise the south, and given the fact it probably impacted, just a bit, on selling Ireland to tourists and investors, Dublin has a far greater interest to keeping the lid on the north than London has.
Indeed conflicts between Dublin and London over northern matters are always cause London is doing a bad job of that, or on a rhethorical level.

Why would Dublin need the Brits to tell them to go about repressing armed groups, and their political associates, who aim at overthrowing the state? Republicans do aim at a new Ireland, across the 32 counties don't they? Somewhat singular that the Irish government apparently needs foreigners to tell them to repress "armed subversives"? Every other state seems to manage without London to tell them.

If you can produce one single solitary reason as why the establishment in the 26 counties would want to end partition, have any interest in the "national territory" beyond rhethoric in times past, and want to not repress republicans, then, and only then, we might have something to account for, something to explain, an interest that was deflected by colonial subserviance.

Otherwise all we can see is two states sharing a common interest in repressing some subversive types.

On the Dublin/Monaghan bombings I refer you back to the strategy of tension in Italy, or for that matter on a smaller scale Spanish state terrorism in France (GAL). We can only be suprised or think the Irish states involvement in a cover up is odd if we have as a starting premise a state should have its citizens interests at its heart, didn't they cover up stardust as well, see the reaction of states to disasters is often tardy, and they often imperil their populations, for instance Britain's participation in the Iraq war increased the chance of retaliation in Britain. Why should we assume when faced with the Dublin/Monaghon bombings the first option for the Irish state is to seek justice for the victims? Only if we think a state is supposed to behave in another way, then when it doesn't we then have to invoke some hidden hand to explain this. No it is normal practise.

by Franks Sun Sep 30, 2007 14:11

"It is that denial of national democracy at the heart of the states post colonial ethos which directly facilitates the violation of national sovereignty"

Go for it. Expain how "national democracy" and "national sovereignty" exist in ANY European country.

by Franks Sun Sep 30, 2007 14:14

Also if Ireland has always been a neo-colony puppet state of London, why was it apparently necessary for there to be bombings in Dublin to move the state's security policy in a direction conducive to the interests of the British state, as you claim, logically this would not have been necessary at all, seeing as the national revolution failed and the southern state was just a creature of Whitehall.

by Franks Sun Sep 30, 2007 14:17

"The Irish people are not Lord and master in their own nation and never have been."

...and the English, Welsh, Scots, French or Germans are in their respective 'homelands'?

by Memi Mon Dec 17, 2007 11:02

To return briefly (and belatedly) to the original point of departure for much of this discussion, I would enthusiastically encourage people to write to political prisoners such as Darren Mulholland. I have been writing to Darren in Portlaoise Prison for two or three years now, and it has been a thoroughly enjoyable experience for me and I hope for him too. He is a very nice young man, very driven and intelligent with a great sense of humour. This correspondence has been a very positive and enlightening experience.

I consider Darren to be a friend, and like other friends while I would hope to be able to support him and encourage him where ever I can, at the same time as I'm sure he's aware, I don't necessarily endorse all of his actions or motivations for them. And I think we both consider that this is ok--the world would be a pretty lonely place if it was a condition of friendship that such endorsement or assimilation was a prerequisite for communication. Similarly, I think it is understandable that the raising of the political prisoner issue will inevitably give rise to the legitimacy or otherwise of the 'revolutionary' activism that leads someone to take on this difficult and costly role. Questions will inevitably arise, and the complexity of the issues makes it equally inevitable that there are no simple or obvious right or wrong answers.

What concerns me about some of the previous exchanges is the apparent lack of empathy or at least opennenss to diversity of opinion in the undertaking of these debates. While it is legitimate to put different perspectives or raise points of historical fact, at the same time seeking to belittle or humiliate one's opponent wouldn't seem to lend itself to the ushering in of a new golden political era where power will be devolved to the masses and somehow such diverse debates will be not only welcomed but serve as a model for inclusive decision making. Devolving power means by its nature being open to the uncomfortable fact that others will disagree with you, and this can be a disturbing course of events when you consider yourself to be completely and utterly right in your views.