RSF question presence of armed RUC/PSNI at GAA game

by Eddie Valentine Thu Feb 07, 2008 17:58

I fully oppose any armed police or army at a sporting event. I don't contest that. But I do wish to take up RSF on their view of the GAA.

2 weeks ago in Dublin I heard a RSF speaker give out that a DUP minister was at a GAA match. I wonder why is the GAA held up as some kind of sacred cow? It's a sporting organisation. It involves people of all political views. You and I may not agree with the DUP but what's wrong with DUP members going to GAA matches? Surely sport is there for all?

In the statement above you refer to the "nationalist community". Why should the GAA only be restricted to the "nationalist community"? RSF want to sectarianise the GAA. RSF want to have apartheid. With people like the RSF involved in the GAA the GAA is less and less appealing to protestants that want to take up a sport. Ditch this sectarian nonsense!

RSF also had a very bad position on the England V Irreland regby game in Croke Park last year. What's your problem with English Rugby players? English Rugby players or their RFU did not kill people on bloody Sunday in Croke Park! Why are you labelling ordinary English players and fans with the stain of their rotten government? What next? All Irish people are to blame for Mary Harney's health service? or All Irish people are to blame for Bertie Ahern's corruption?

RSF represent a backward nationalistic sectarian rump in Irish politics. They offer nothing but an unrealistic attachement to some kind of non-existant mythical gaelic past where we were all virteous gaels that played hurling, played the bodhrán, went to mass, went to ceilís and spoke the Irish language. Ireland was never like that and never will be.

by cael Thu Feb 07, 2008 18:08

Nobody was complaining about a member of the DUP attending a GAA match. Sinn Féin rejected the presence of a British Crown Minister at a GAA match. Clearly, this is unacceptable while the British state occupies our country. Likewise with the playing of the British national anthem.

by Eddie Valentine Thu Feb 07, 2008 18:18

RSF speaker outside GPO at a rally two weeks ago on Saturday spoke against a DUP minister attending a GAA match.

I'm no fan of the British anthem. It's backward and praises the Monarchy. But have you heard the national anthems of other states? Not many are progressive! Most national anthems are nationalistic nonesense. Why you not object to the German, Brazilian, French, etc anthems being played? Why are you touchy about Croke Park? UK anthem played many times in Lansdowne without your protests!

So, cael, you say Sinn Féin opposed a British Crown Minister attending a GAA match. First of all why? Why should the GAA be held up as some kind of model for your nationalistic fetish? Do you object to NI ministers going to Volleyball matches? or Rugby matches? Secondly, you don't want DUP ministers at football games but you're ok to be in Government with them. Now that SF oppose "British Crown Ministers" going to sports events I look forward to never seeing Ruane or McGuinness at any matches.

Nationalists often speak of "British Crown Ministers". Do you muppets not realise that it's no bed of roses in the South. Do you really think that Bertie Ahern is better then "British Crown Ministers". Same privatisation policies, same stealth charge policies, same cut-backs. Do you really think a harp, a green flag and cúpla focal brings paradise?

by Cael Thu Feb 07, 2008 18:30

The key word being 'minister.' I would not wish to see Martin McGuinness at a GAA match for exactly the same reason, i.e. he is a minister of the English Crown.

Many of these countries may well be guilty of crimes - but not the crime of occupying Ireland.

I take it you use the word 'muppet' due to a lack of vocabulary in the Queen's English.

As I was born and reared in the free state I know quite well its like here.

by Eddie Valentine Thu Feb 07, 2008 18:47

"The key word being 'minister.' I would not wish to see Martin McGuinness at a GAA match for exactly the same reason, i.e. he is a minister of the English Crown."

But you are ok with Free State ministers attending matches? Maybe it's just monarchies you ahve problem with... you would protest at an Australian Crown minister attending an International Rules game in Croke Park? Or a Dutch minister? or a Belgian minister? Or a Nepalese minister? I doubt it.

"Many of these countries may well be guilty of crimes - but not the crime of occupying Ireland."

So you care nothing about the role of USA occupying Iraq? Or Israel occupying Palestine? Or French (and Irish) troops occupying Chad? You are ok with putting your nationalistic head in the sand and having a glorious insular ,'self-sufficient', hurling, and mass-going little island.

"I take it you use the word 'muppet' due to a lack of vocabulary in the Queen's English."

No, I use that with good reason. You are a characture of a nationalist.

"As I was born and reared in the free state I know quite well its like here".

Yet, RSF only ever raise nationalistic opposition. Why no real agenda on social matters. You have a backward stagist view. We'll rub-out the line on the map then then, and only then, will we seriously think of the day-to-day issues facing people.

Do you really believe that humanity is divided by nations? Do you really think that English people are somehow 'natural' enemies? Why do you object to English rugby players in Croke Park? They did not kill anyone in the War of Independence. The English people are just as much victims of their government's policies as people in the North. Your nationalistic outlook is a big reason why northern unionism exists. Can you blame anyone for not wanting to be a part of Planet Bertie?

by Cael Thu Feb 07, 2008 23:51

I suggest you read Sinn Féin's Eire Nua and Saol Nua documents and you will see that what you have written is your own angry fantasy and has nothing whatsoever to do with the Republican Movement. Sinn Féin Poblachtach is the only genuinely socialist and internationalist organisation in Ireland.

by Cael Fri Feb 08, 2008 16:50

In short, unlike many, Sinn Féin Poblachtach are in full solidarity with the oppressed all over the world INCLUDING in Ireland.

by Eddie Valentine Fri Feb 08, 2008 19:56

"Sinn Féin Poblachtach is the only genuinely socialist and internationalist organisation in Ireland."

ha ha ha... take up comedy mate. Your whole political outlook is that of a nationalist. Who are you affiliated to internationally? What attempts have you made at establishing branches outside Ireland? You at best have a red fringe to your politics to make yourselves acceptable to some semi-thinking people.

by Cael Fri Feb 08, 2008 23:43

Eddie, you really should try to learn something before you speak. Sinn Féin Poblachtach has cumainn in Scotland, and is affiliated with revolutionary organisations all over the world. Socialism is not a pose for Sinn Féin, as it is for many who are happy to shout about injustice - as long as its thousands of miles away. These pseudo left wingers, many of them in secure, pensionable, state jobs latch on to any struggle in far off lands, but condemn anyone trying to bring justice to Ireland - and therefore threaten their own privilege. The real mark of a socialist is his/her support for armed struggle against imperialism and capitalism WHERE EVER it appears, particularly in his/her own home.

by Séamus Sat Feb 09, 2008 01:47

"The real mark of a socialist is his/her support for armed struggle against imperialism and capitalism WHERE EVER it appears, particularly in his/her own home."

Is there no other kind of struggle that is worthy of support by your kind of 'socialist'? I mean, I know this might sound crazy, but how about something like a trade union struggle? I'd say that the Shell to Sea campaign and the No to Lisbon campaign are also struggles that are worthy of support, even if they aren't armed struggles.

by Des Sat Feb 09, 2008 14:54

"The real mark of a socialist is his/her support for armed struggle "
Think you need to read up on what Socialism is really about Cael cos what you percieve it to be and what proper socialsts perceive it to be are very, very different.
A true Socialist is someone like Eamon McCann, IMHO one of the greatest Irish socialsts of our time.
He resorts to peaceful means to fight for the causes he devotes himself too and has won respect and admiraion the world over for it. How many of your "socialists" can say the same thing?

by WT Sat Feb 09, 2008 15:22

Er, Des I think you'll find that he seems to have abandoned the Residents of Donnybrewer Road In Derry.

by Eddie Valentine Sat Feb 09, 2008 19:27

"These pseudo left wingers, many of them in secure, pensionable, state jobs".

This quote from out RSF friend stuck out for me. He is joining in the chorus of Ahern, Harney and other neo-liberals when it comes to attacking workers employed by the state. I take it that RSF think that public employees should be reduced as they are "privileged". People working for government departments, in hospitals, in schools, in libraries, etc. are all part of the Free State apparatus and are priviledged with vested interests in the status quo? Get real. You view humanity as divided by nations, you are a nationalist.

I also think that Cael's answer to question about international affiliations is very vague. You've members in Scotland, ok, but who are your international affiliates? Please give names of your sister organisations and/or afforts RSF have made to set up such links.

Finally, Cael is attacking socialists for opposing oppression in the world but not in Ireland. Again, the language of a nationalist. You do not realise that the vast majority of the work done by leftists in Ireland relates to day-to-day issues in Ireland. Examples were given above by others. In Ireland armed struggle is not tactically the best move so why should any serious activist engage in it? Cael is most likely a young boy who does not actually realise what armed struggle involves and only has romantic view learned from his nationalistic reading of history. If armed struggle actually did come on the agenda in this country he'd probably run a mile from it! (oh yes, btw, I do say he as I've never seen a female in RSF!).

by Yank - Amerikay Sat Feb 09, 2008 22:23

Eddie Valentine,

I noted your back abd forth with supporters of RSF with some degre of comical interest.

I am an American and completly opposed to US Imperialism, including the oppression of the US government against some of it's own citizens.

It amazes me when I see Irish "leftists" who talk big, bad and revolutionary when it comes to struggle of other people in other countries but do nothing about those who struggle in their own country. You are coards of the very highest order.

For the record, the groups here in the US involved in real struggle, such as AIM American Indian Movement look to the Irish Republican struggle with pride. In fact many delegations have been sent to the "wee north" and have come away with a greater understanding of their own struggle. We know whao and what the Republicans are. We also know who those are in the Free State who do nothing to advance the cause of social justice and equality in your own country.

You are the muppet, molded in the image of Bone-head Bono from U2, who talked tough and then went on plane flights and trips with Secretary O'Neill to Africa. here in Amerikay, we call your type latte liberals, talking tough and revolutionary in coffee shops while sipping on your latte.

To the Republicans, even though not all support the use of armed struggle, we still suport you all.

Bernadette Devlin proved herself to us when she came here, chided the American Irish involved in the bussing segregations in Boston, got the key to Philadelphia and then gave it to Angela Davis, who was in prison.

Keep up the struggle and the spirit all.

You are not alone

by Sceptic Sun Feb 10, 2008 15:28

“The real mark of a socialist is his/her support for armed struggle against imperialism and capitalism WHERE EVER it appears, particularly in his/her own home.”

This type of plonker gets radical politics an even worse name than it already has. Follow the Kalashnikov bearers whoever they are, however few and wherever they “lead” - even over the cliff. Armed struggle against capitalism? - why not shoot the man who delivers the milk to your home (since you brought your home into it) – one has to start somewhere to tackle these evil exploitative non public sector and, horror of horrors “for profit” people.

Oh and Yank - your back in a 60's time warp with your talk of B Devlin and Angela Davis. You must be one of those surviving ancient hippies still to be seen around the Bay Area, mourning Gerry Garcia these days. The last time Ms. Devlin tried to get into the US she was refused entry as an undesirable alien with links to dodgy groups - not all totally peaceful least not in the past. Her star has fallen a long way since the glory days of the young and pretty MP for Mid Ulster. Since 9/11 the Americans now recognize a radical troublemaker when they see one. No more VIP receptions for "Ms. Devlin".

by Cael Sun Feb 10, 2008 16:36

Its alway quite amusing to hear people criticise RSF. Its amusing because they never actually criticise what RSF are or what RSF actually say, but things they invent in their own heads. For example Eddie implies that RSF dosnt support trade unions because they are not using armed struggle. I said that a true socialist always supports the use of armed struggle against capitalists and imperialists. I didnt say that armed struggle was the ONLY method that could be used. I think you'll find that all the great socialists of the past, from Marx to Lenin, to Luxemburg, Connolly and Castro supported the use of armed struggle.

You also imply that RSF dont support public service unions. Complete rubbish. Have a look at this link for example on RSF support for classroom assistants:

http://admin2.7.forumer.com/viewtopic.php?t=8061

If RSF are critical of Irish Trade Unions, its that some of their leaders have conspired with the Landlords and Bosses to create conditions where land and house prises have soared, while workers have not been compensated for these increases. To the point were 5% of the population now 'own' 40% of the nations wealth and the Gombeen classes are so emboldened that they can actually challenge and successfully strick down minimum wages rulings.

You imply that RSF turn a blind eye to imperialism and capitalism in foreign countries. I might remind you that Ruairi O Bradaigh pioneered Sinn Fein's foreign affairs dept. during the 70's and early 80's. Indeed, Sinn Fein has always considered international links to be of the highest importance. A recient RSF delegation was very well recieved in Cuba.

As our American comrade said above, its the latte socialists who make sure that NOTHING will ever change, because they dont actually want anything to change - at least not at home, where ever that home may be.

by John - none Sun Feb 10, 2008 18:57

well said, or wrote there, Cael. RSF is the only political organisation that ive ever come across where people who are completely ignorant of its beliefs, politics, policy, history and structure feel no compunction on pontificating or stating where RSF stands or what RSF believes. Always the criticism is based on misrepresentation or out right lies. Over the years of watching other wise decent leftists resort to this I can only come to the conclusion that for them it isnt about what RSF is but what they themselves are not.

by Yank - Amerikay Mon Feb 11, 2008 04:57

Not a hippy, not from Berkley

Not a sell out either.

Your talk of castigating Bernadette Devlin and her not being allowed into the US (Chicago) tells me all I need to know.

There are some insane nuts in charge of this country, in case you haven't noticed. being barred from entering the US should be considered a badge of honor.

However, latte sippinng, tough talking psuedo radicals are welcome. Because your kind are not risk to the imperialists.

To the brothers in struggle in RSF

Keep it up and keep on exposing the Imperialism and cowards that do not resist it in your country.

Solidarity from the belly of the beast.

by Sceptic Mon Feb 11, 2008 20:34

Yank – what changed post 9/11 is that the US now sees terrorists for what they are with no romantic blind spot for the Irish variety of terrorist. You might not be a Berkley hippy but I would guess you are still a radical 60s holdover rather than a Chomsky reading Xer. You are even worse than the native variety of terror supporting republicans as you don’t even live in Ireland – easy to be an armchair revolutionary stateside – your own posterior and wellbeing will be safely away from any bullets or bombs if the psycho fringe of Irish politics goes into action again. Why not support or found an illegal militia or terror group in the US? See how far you get. If your interest in Ireland is not beneficial keep your nose out of it I suggest.

Cael says “I think you'll find that all the great socialists of the past, from Marx to Lenin, to Luxemburg, Connolly and Castro supported the use of armed struggle.”

This does not validate anything in the here and now. Marx was not a politician or office holder and only in theory supported armed revolution with the possible exception of the communards but that was very untypical. Luxemburg was never an office holder either and she lived in a very troubled time when the communist experiment was still new. Lenin and Castro both kept power by murdering or imprisoning anybody and everybody who might hold different opinions from themselves or in any way might challenge their own greedy and totalitarian monopolizing of all power. As for Connolly do thing ever change? Have there been no new insights or circumstances that might change views on political action through violence? There is no excuse for violence in politics in western Europe just now where all governments are elected. The party Connolly co founded are his political heirs and has been steadfastly opposed to violence throughout its history. The Labour Party are the political heirs to Connolly not RSF. In any case these days the romantic rebel of the 20th century has morphed into the anonymous terrorist. Remember Che fought in uniform, announced his campaign and kept to rules of some sorts. There is no comparison whatever between that sort of rebel and entities like Al Qaeda/IRA. The result of a new IRA campaign will be more Omaghs and PSNI officers being killed when collecting their children from school like happened to RUC officers before them. This tendency must be crushed completely.

by Cael Tue Feb 12, 2008 18:13

The Labour party are the heirs to Connolly? Dont make me laugh. You say that there is no place for violence in modern Europe? What you really mean is that the Landlord and Capitalist classes are the only ones ALLOWED to use violence - against the working classes. The working class are not allowed to respond in kind?

by Eddie Valentine Tue Feb 12, 2008 18:59

While I did express laughter at some of Cael's comments I now wish to express my deep heartfelt belly-laugh at "Sceptic" from the Labour Party! He actually believes that the Labour Party are in line with Connolly's politics! Connolly would never support Fine Gael or Fianna Fáil coalitions, or social partnership deals, or the European Union (btw our radical comrades in LY now campaign for Lisbon Treaty), Connolly would not support being in the same internaitonal organisation as Blair, Brown, Schroeder, et al. James Connolly was actually a socialist which there are none in the Labour Party (certainly no active socialists anyway).

I'm not a pacifist. Cael is right to say Labour are against violence, but not violence of the ruling class [note: it was a Labour Govt in the UK that invaded Iraq & Irish Labour support imperial intervention in Chad]. Armed struggle is another tactic that can be used in certain circumstances. That's the point: IN CERTAIN CIRCUMSTANCES and always armed struggle should be under democratic control. The IRA were an elite. They were never accountable to anyone other then themselves. The IRA also engaged in autrocities such as bombing in civilian areas (remember the Warrington bomb?) and in tit-for-tat sectarian murders.

by Cael Tue Feb 12, 2008 19:12

While I agree with most of your post, I cannot agree with you singling out the IRA as being undemocratic. I wonder what resistance movement in a country under foreign occupation has been more democratic than the IRA? None I would say. I believe that the population of Republican areas have always had a strong say in what the IRA did or didnt do. Unfortunately, some of the sectarian attacks you mention came about through such local pressure. the IRA could have mounted much much more deadly operations in England, but they knew the Republican people would not support this. Not an ideal form of democracy I will admit, but really more effective than what passes for democracy in Leinster House. Do you really feel that being allowed to put a few numbers on a page once ever four years amounts to democracy? Do you think that if there was real democracy that 1% of the population would possess 20% of the wealth, or that 5% would have 40% of the wealth?

by Sceptic Wed Feb 13, 2008 19:03

That is an odd form of “democracy”. PIRRA waged its campaign on behalf of the Irish nation not on behalf of the republican areas in the north from which it sprang. The people north and south voted for representatives and polices which were against the IRA campaign. Nor can you dismiss elections just like that. Voting is important but it can be more frequently than five years if the polity demands it as in Switzerland or the US. Besides liberal democracy is participatory – there is much the citizen can do politically besides voting. Democracy is about electing representatives and supporting or rejected policies. It is not about the redistribution of wealth per se and a high income gini coefficient is not a negation of democracy. All advanced democracies have income redistribution mechanisms of some kind to make provision of public services and to provide protection to those on low incomes or unable to work etc. Wealth is virtually always more equally distributed in a democracy than in its absence.

On Connolly and Labour Party he actually founded it – not some other type of party though this was open to him. Be careful about invoking the dead as supporters for the IRA. They should be left alone. Besides the IRA was mainly about killing working people – catholic, protestant and Muslim. This would have been an anathema to Connolly. Would Connolly have supported the killing of the workers at Teebane? Somehow I doubt it. he devoted himslef to protecting workers not harming them. Tellingly his daughter disassociated herself from the IRA. So has Donal Nevin, Connolly’s most recent biographer if I recall right.

No one is “allowed to use violence” as such so far as I am aware. “Landlords” cannot go about attacking their tenants. They can only seek remedies within the law. There is a state monopoly on the use if violence which is then invested in the lawful police and defence forces.

by Cael Wed Feb 13, 2008 20:32

Sceptic, I really dont know where to begin with you! So Connolly wouldnt kill working class people? No doubt you think all those squaddies killed during Easter week were all from the Landlord Class? What his daughter did or didnt do is beside the point. Frank Stagg was one of Ireland's greatest patriots - and look at his brother.

Landlords cannot attack their tenants? People being forced to pay 1200 euro a month and more for a poxy one bedroom flat is not an attack? No wonder you are in the 'Labour' party. It should now be called 'Labour, The Landlord's Party.' Landowners charging massive prices for development land is not an attack on the working people? Forcing them to pay massive morgages for badly built little matchboxes, to the point that if they can afford to have children at all, they have no time to see them. That's not an attack? The police you mention are there to defend the privilage of the wealthy against the righteous anger of the people.

As for your representative 'democracy,' why, in this day and age, do we need representatives? Why are we not allowed to vote on issues as they come up? Computer incription has reached a level where billions of euro are transfered hourly online. Are you telling me that the same cant be done with votes? No, the reason why we dont have that is that the pro politicians will fight tooth and nail to keep their privilage and their access to their dig-out chums. Why are most European countries not having a vote on the Lisbon Treaty? Of course, its because they know the people would reject it. No doubt if the people in the 26 give the 'wrong' answer, as they did with the Nice Treaty, they will be asked again and again until they give the 'right' answer. So much for democracy! and surely you are not going to tell me that the clowns who populate Leinster House have some kind of privilaged insight into how things should be?

by Cael Wed Feb 13, 2008 20:35

By the way, Sceptic, your idea of 'democracy' is certainly not about redistribution of our nation's wealth. But it would be the heart of a real democracy.

by Cael Sat Feb 16, 2008 14:35

I see that a recent poll is show that over 80% of people want the M3 re-routed away from Tara. Why is this being ignored, if this is a democracy?

by Sceptic Sat Feb 16, 2008 16:44

Cael - there is no reason why the reason why the object of democracy in itself should be the distribution of wealth. Democracy is a mechanism to ensure that government is representative and that the government can be peacefully changed if so desired. It is a system whereby the losers respect the results or enough of them do so as not to undermine the whole system. Obviously there will be some significant redistribution of wealth in the modern democracy but remember it has to be financed out of taxation and people will be concerned if taxation threatens to go too high. You sound like someone who focuses only on the giving of wealth and has never thought about where it comes from or how revenue is raised. Also there are mechanisms for decision making in democracies – one does not just change things because of some poll or other. That is not to have a sophisticated understanding of democracy.

by Cael - Sinn Féin Poblachtach Tue Feb 19, 2008 18:54

I have given a great deal of thought to how wealth is generated. I have come to the conclusion that pumping 142 billion of euro. borrowed abroad, into a property bubble in a country 4% urbanised, while native industry starves of capital is not the best way for a country to go about it. On the other hand, such a scam makes billions of euro in easy profit for a few Landowners and Speculators, and fills a lot of pro politicians pockets with stuffed brown envelopes and various other dig-outs and whip-a-rounds.

The real question is: are pro politicians not a parasitic group, serving merely as a front for the gombeen men, and standing between the people and genuine democracy?

by Cael Wed Feb 20, 2008 19:20

De Rossa's latest exibition being a case in point.

by Sceptic Thu Feb 21, 2008 12:23

It’s contradictory to argue on the one hand that there has been too large an influx of capital and on the other that “native” industry is starved of capital. Certain firms may lack competitiveness but they certainly don’t lack capital. The country has been awash with it for over a decade.

If you want to sweep away the current politicians and political system in the ROI (along with the political institutions presumably) what viable replacements have you in mind?

by Cael - Sinn Féin Poblachtach Thu Feb 21, 2008 16:44

From Finfacts.ie

Venture capital investment in Irish companies in 2006 amounted to just €192 million invested in 52 enterprises compared with Irish investors putting €11 billion in commercial property - €3 billion of this was spent on domestic deals.

While some lollipops have been offered to promote business start-ups in the export sector over the past decade, a halving of capital gains tax from 40% to 20% coupled with a massive extension of tax incentive schemes for domestic construction at a time when economic fundamentals were very strong, made property the default investment and the riskier export sector was just frozen out.

Farmers who rely on payments from the EU's Common Agricultural Policy and who have been able to sell land for development whether for house or road building, have raked in money from a crazy system that creates both a bonanza and fuels corruption.

In a report in The Financial Times issue of August 12th, 2006, on Irish buyers driving up farm prices in the UK, Matt Dempsey editor of The Farmer's Journal is quoted: "When you can now sell a piece of rezoned farm land on the edge of a town in Ireland for €500,000 an acre, several farmers have found themselves very rich."

One of Ireland's richest men is the top beneficiary of the direct payments from Brussels that are a form of public welfare and Ireland has to yet to be a net funder of the European Union Budget, after 33 years membership.

Meanwhile, as killings are made from the property bonanza, the industrial sector is contracting and this year less than €200 million in venture capital will be invested in Irish firms. The total monies invested since 2001 by the Enterprise Ireland Partnership Funds amounted to €183m in 99 companies.

In contrast, the Dublin-based Cosgrave Property Group family, has invested almost £500 million in UK property, in this year so far.

The Israeli IVC Research Center reports that:

Capital raised by Israeli VCs surged to $1.2 billion in 2005

Capital available for investment now at $2.3 billion

$1 billion projected to be raised by VCs in 2006

by Cael Thu Feb 21, 2008 17:36

On the question of how to replace the pro politicians, I would personally prefer a system where all citizens gave service as legislators at least once in their lives. A system of lottery would be my prefered choice. Having four provincial Dála would make this system more practical. Naturally, democracy is impossible in a super state like the EU. All major decisions should be taken by popular vote, using an online system. This system would make it much more difficult for vested interest groups to groom pro politicians with dig-outs and whip-a-rounds.

by Sceptic Fri Feb 22, 2008 10:49

Venture Capital is a side issue affecting a tiny number of usually high tech start-ups and with a very high risk. The vast bulk of most firms capital in the form of credits from banks which has been in ample supply at very low interest rates for years. This is what really counts.

The EU is not a “superstate” but a community of States with pooled sovereignty and with no shortage of aspirant members whose people see the benefits. Even Turkey is keen to join and it is not alone. It is also much more democratic than it is often given credit for. Many major decisions are made by inter Governmentally and all Governments must be elected. There is a directly elected Parliament which must pass legislation. The Commission has power of initiative only except where Treaty powers are conferred upon it by the Council. Finally there is an independent judicial arm which can overturn decisions which are found to be contrary to law and/or where a citizens rights require vindication. The Commission model was adopted following the failure of previous models and it has proven successful against any equivalent in any other experiments at communities of nations.

The Swiss model of government most approximates to what you are describing – significant provincial decentralisation and frequent referenda. However if you study it you will find there are also political scandals and corruption there. Also such a strong local government model tends to be much less tolerant of migrants for example, which enjoy far fewer rights than in the EU States. It also tends to favour a pronounced pro-capitalist model of social organisation that presumably would not be to your liking. This is also the pattern in the US that also has a high degree of autonomous local Government and decision by frequent plebiscite.

A parliament that chose members by lottery would mean that people would be selected by chance and not by choice of their peers. Thus there would be no opportunity to vet the character or record of the people concerned. One would also need very small units of Government indeed in order to ensure all got a chance to serve. There would be a host of problems with it. It might have worked in an ancient Greek city-state but in that case the selected would have been restricted to patrician men of standing. I imagine it would be an idea with few supporters.

by F. C. Julianus Fri Feb 22, 2008 20:50

Its clear by reading this thread thats its RSF that are the ACTUAL socialists. great debate and thank you Cael for articulating the Republican position on here its so sad to see it misrepresented time and time again. Eddie V and co thought they could just swing in with their "connolly fest" politics you know teh type which refuse to acknowledge the British presence something the man himself was executing fighting, as head of the IRA.

by Sceptic Sat Feb 23, 2008 15:27

There is little point in you guys arguing who the real socialists are since neither RSF nor CYM (whom I presume are the parties) have any public support to speak of. The “ruling bourgeois” classes need not tremble for the present.

by tamed natives Sat Feb 23, 2008 17:29

and now sceptic resorts to the above cant win on facts play teh insult card as per usual. shouldnt someone on indymedia be concerned that the numbers of such genuine groups are low and at the same time be grateful to the that they exist in such hostile conditions. I know i am that RSF has such tenacity to carry on with what is noble rather than pack in it and say feckit the boss man is tops lets just be quiet about it and be good tamed paddys.

by Cael Sat Feb 23, 2008 23:54

Sceptic wrote:

"Venture Capital is a side issue affecting a tiny number of usually high tech start-ups and with a very high risk. The vast bulk of most firms capital in the form of credits from banks which has been in ample supply at very low interest rates for years. This is what really counts."

A chara, this is shocking nonsense. Sadly I dont have time to reply now, but I will very shortly.

by Cael Sun Feb 24, 2008 22:35

From the Hong Kong Venture Capital and Private Equity Association:

What are the advantages of venture capital:

Young companies without a strong track record may experience difficulties obtaining funds to finance the expansion of their business. Banks may grant them credit facilities but would usually require collateral, which the companies may not be able to provide.

Venture capital firms usually inject fresh capital into companies rather than providing commercial loans. This enhances the liquidity of the company without the burden of collateral or interest payments.

Venture capital firms may take majority or minority equity positions in a company and are long term investors. They usually require board representation and will take an active interest in the investee companies' affairs. While they are not involved in the day-to-day management of the company, the venture capital firms are able to add value to the company by their advice on business strategy, management, organization, financial systems, and their global network of contacts.

Professional venture capital firms, with their considerable experience in other ventures, serve as useful sounding boards for the companies in many strategic and management areas. They also provide senior level counsel on key issues facing the company. The infrastructure support of the venture capital firms can also assist young companies.

Having sound venture capital partners enhances the credibility to the investee companies. This would help in their business operations and in securing future financing.

Venture capital firms are business partners to the investee companies, sharing the risks and the rewards of the venture.

In the buyout situation, venture capitalists are backing management in both providing the equity financing and arranging the debt financing on a non-recourse basis.

by Cael Sun Feb 24, 2008 22:45

Now the point of all this is that during ten years of unprecedented global boom and low interest rates, instead of turning public debt into private debt via the great stamp duty scam, the free state administration could have set up a state VC company, which could have offered native Irish Industry all the advantages that the Hong Kong VC Association outline above. Today we would not be in a position of being like a junkie dependant on Multi-nationals, and having tens of tousands of young people up to their necks in debt for houses that are only worth a fraction of what they paid for them.

by Sceptic Mon Feb 25, 2008 18:52

The State already supplies large volumes of capital grants to business through Enterprise Ireland and the County Enterprise Boards as well as a host of services like training. Grants include seed capital where appropriate. It is doubtful if the State would be the best provider of venture capital grants on a large scale at least in the Irish context. The rate of business formation in ROI is favorable by international standards. As I said before the supply of capital is not a problem. The actual position is the opposite of what you asserted ie. that indigenous firms are being "starved" of capital. Investment with a high risk rewards ratio needs very careful management by the lending party - an industrial agency like Enterprise Ireland would not be a suitable agency to do this at least on a large scale. It is best provided by the private sector as is the case. Many indigenous firms become uncompetitive as wages rise and therefore fold or move offshore but this is a separate phenomena from a lack of capital and cannot be prevented by making more capital available.

by Cael - Sinn Féin Poblachtach Mon Feb 25, 2008 23:08

Why dont you provide some figures Sceptic, a chara. There's no point saying that Irish companies get 'lots' of grants. What are the figures, and compare these figures with what is actually needed.

Some interesting figures:

Only 3% of Irish SMEs have over fifty employees.

Multinationals make up 90% of exports. Microsoft Ireland, for example, is classed as an Irish company and contributes to the 10% of exports coming from 'native' companies. Consider that companies like Irish Distillers, Guinness and Baileys are actually foreign owned and you start to get a real indication of the state of Irish industry.

From Finfacts.ie

"Innovation specialist Professor Danny Breznitz of the Georgia Institute of Technology said that Ireland's research infrastructure is too narrow in its focus and may not be sustainable.

He also said that we are not creating enough new businesses, and when new businesses are set up, the financial supports are not there to keep them innovating."

Some 23% of the overall budget of the National Roads Authority for roads is to be spent on compensating landowners.

This means that as little as €13.5bn will remain out of the original €18.5bn announced by the Government for roads in the Transport 21 package up to 2014.

The increase in the price of land for infrastructure projects has rocketed in line with the Celtic Tiger property and land boom.

The amount the State has been forced to pay out for land compensation was described as "disturbing" by Fred Barry, the head of the National Roads Authority.

It accounts for 23% of the cost of roads projects in Ireland, but just 12% in England, 10% in Denmark, 9.4% in Greece and 1% in Iceland. A further 2% of the €18.5bn provided in the Government's Transport 21 for road building over the next decade will go to archaeologists.

So the question I have for you Sceptic is how come companies all over the world depend on venture capital, both as start ups and during periods of growth, but Irish companies can do with bank loans? Could this be why only about 3% of them have fifty employees or more?
could it be why they represent way less that 10% of exports (Forgive me if I cant quite regard Microsoft as a native Irish company.) Could the fact that such huge amounts of Ireland's wealth is being pumped into the bank accounts of a few landowners, speculators and developers account for the fact that there really is sweet FA left to put into Irish Industry.

by Sceptic Tue Feb 26, 2008 17:08

Cael,

You will see the figures for support to direct industry and industrial supports in the attachment on pages 156 and 157 to begin with.

The issue of asset price inflation looms large but it is not in itself an fatal impediment to industrial development. It is a property owning democracy with an Anglo Saxon legal tradition within its legal make up which makes things like CPO inevitable. Giving the State too much power to expropriate assets and property is something that people not just in Ireland are sensitive to. It is one of the reasons the Chavez poll was lost - too much power been given to the state to take over even small holdings and small private dwellings.

As for SMEs there are reasons why they are small in Ireland - many don't want to grow any bigger which takes trouble, hard work and risk for the owners. If you have an SME, a fine house, a beamer and lots of cash and time and you are still an SME many people would not be bothered expanding. Others don't have the capacity to expand - that is business - the well run firms succeed the less well ones don't. Its not necessarily access to capital - throwing more money at SMEs is not going to enhance their success rates. Besides as they grow they will offshore operations and be more likely to fall into foreign ownership in any case. As for the debt equity ratio again there is no strong reason for a State shareholding in SMEs. That is old thinking at least in Ireland. Incidentally, HK is a really red in tooth and claw capitalist environment - it is surprising you take that as your model.

Anyway this republican stress on native industry is old hat. That was precisely the policy of the 1930s to 1960s - encourage native industry behind high tariff barriers. The policy was so unsuccessful in delivering it had to be changed 180 degrees in 1958+. It is the surest recipe for poverty and depression. There is advantages in an indigenous sector, which we have, but so too is there in having large foreign firms here - the value added they contribute is very high and profit repatriation does not matter a whole lot in reality. They still produce the goods and the value. This nativist economics is inward looking and passé.

by Cael Tue Feb 26, 2008 23:27

A chara, unless Im reading those pages wrong, it looks like the dept. spent much more on civil service salaries and allowances than it gave out in grants and supports to SMEs.

by Cael - Sinn Fein Poblachtach Tue Feb 26, 2008 23:57

To begin with, the idea of native industry seems to be anything but passe. I suggest you read this article "Report says European countries should focus on small companies to boost exports" on a new European report which puts forward ideas that RSF have been putting forward for decades:

http://www.finfacts.com/irelandbusinessnews/publish/art...shtml

I think your idea that SME in Ireland remain small is because of the laziness of their management is as outlandish as your idea that local
government is more likely to be racist than large central government.

I would say there are very good reasons for state ownership of companies: just look at what happened with Eircom and now Aer Lingus.
I certainly realise that the Hong VC Association is as capitalist as anything could be, that doesnt mean that they are not correct on the matter of VC. A state agency investing in Irish SMEs would have many benefits. Naturally, we would have to get rid of that Anglo-Saxon system you mention of pouring billions into wealthy Landlords pockets.

by Sceptic Wed Feb 27, 2008 11:19

I never wrote that Irish SME management was lazy – it is a feature of many however that their owners lack ambition to expand further once they have reached a certain size which yields them their aspirations. It is a lack of greed not a lack of work ethic. Expanding a business can take years of toil and risk. The pattern of small business ownership in Ireland is that of a nuclear family with a handful of employees. In Italy a very large extended family is often involved thus the SMEs tend to be larger.

If you are noting the amount of resources devoted to the pay of public servants it would be very much more if one had more State industrial agencies for VC or whatever. Moreover the absence of personal risk would not make for good decisions. In general it’s the market that picks winners not civil servants. There are exceptions but that is generally true.

The SME sector can certainly fulfil a vital role – no one is denying that. What is crucial however is trade policy. Is it your idea to develop native industry behind tariff barriers and cease to be an open economy? If yes we are back to the 1930s with the associated impoverishment and emigration. If no the State has to be blind as to the national origin of the firms operating in the economy and cannot implement a national preference policy in relation to grants, public contracts and the like.

I wager you will not get very far if you argue that the State can take over the assets and property of people without compensation at the market rate. That was the reference to Anglo Saxon law I made. The reality is that this is a property owning democracy under the rule of an Anglo Saxon legal order. You are on a hiding to nothing if you think you can change that except maybe by terrorism and even then a very large terror campaign would be required to collapse the present legal and constitutional order and replace it with a regime which would have a free hand to expropriate property without compensation.

by Cael Wed Feb 27, 2008 19:51

Sceptic, a chara, can I ask you if you have any figures or can quote any research that indicates that SME managements in Ireland lack ambition? It sounds a bit like your assertion that SMEs get "lots" of grants. Also, do you have any figures showing that Irish SME's are mostly family businesses?

Having more civil servants is not the problem. Its what they do that is the problem. There is no reason to suspect that civil servants engaged in a state VC company would not actually earn their wages - any more than those working in private VC companies do. On the question of personal risk, there are a large number of very large private VC companies in the world. Most of the personel making investment decisions in these firms are not risking their own money - any more than bank employees are. This does not stop them making good decisions.

Having a state VC company does not imply trade barriers. Why do you think it does? Besides, we already have a great number of trade barriers - only now they are implemented at a European level. This is NOT an open market. I wonder if the state is blind about grants? It seems that foreign multi-nationals are in the privileged position here. Besides, having a state VC company could well do away with the need for grants at all. Instead of giving money away, it buys equity.

Regarding your last paragraph, there are a number of serious problems that you are taking for granted. One is your idea of the market value of land. Ireland is 4% urbanised, it has one of the lowest population densities in Europe - and yet, it has some of the highest land and housing prices. This is not an example of the functioning of a free market. Just the opposite. Its an example of artificial price setting. Naturally, this price setting would collapse immediately if Ireland had a democratic government which was not legislating in the interest of the 5% who own 40% of Ireland's wealth, but instead was legislating in the interest of the other 95% of the people.

As you say, the 26 county state was set up by a British act of parliament, with the express intention of overthrowing the democratic government of Ireland and replacing it with a British neo colony, which would maintain the privilage of the few. Leinster House remains a bastion of the Anglo-Saxon mentality in Ireland, and remains the bulwark of landed privilage and influence. RTE remains little more than a state propaganda organ, while the print media is firmly in the control of the privileged. Their is no possibility of democracy under these conditions - a fact the privileged are well aware of and are determined to maintain. Nor can it be said that Ireland, in general, is property owning. A very small fraction of the Irish people own the vast bulk of Irish wealth.

by Sceptic Thu Feb 28, 2008 15:30

SMEs do get many grants and the whole corporate sector enjoys a comparatively low tax rate. My observations on the nature of Irish SMEs and the reasons they are so small is based on my observation and testament from the field which you can accept or reject as you will though I would guess they would be borne out in the literature. By the same token however how well do you really know the SME sector before you begin to make detailed recommendations for the cure of its various ills? How well do you know that there is a shortage of venture capital? There is no shortage of equity finance for SMEs including from public sources though many businesses prefer the better leverage available from debt finance – it makes for higher profitability and outside equity dilutes often cherished ownership. There are already a range of supports for enterprise – we don’t need to move further to an outdated GOSPLAN model.

You are wrong on the Irish ownership of property – any survey would show the rate of home ownership is high compared to the rest of EU and the rate of farm ownership is very high also. Don’t confuse the defence of property ownership with wealth. The small man who owns a ten acre farm or a modest artisan cottage will defend property rights with if anything even more zeal than the rich man who has more. The small man has less to loose. People are not going to go with a programme which interferes with property rights if they have a say. Mr. Chavez forgot that and he became unstuck. Realms of anti American or anti British rhetoric are not enough. Nor is being great pals with Fidel or being far away admirers.

As for land prices the market does operate all too well in the sector. The root of the problem is the planning system however abetted to some extend by the penal rates of stamp duty.

You are also wrong about trade – the EU is the most liberal force of trade management among the main blocks. Agriculture is a problem but that is due to the power of the farm lobby both at home and in the rest of the EU. It is the same in the US and in Japan. What is the RSF position on trade barriers? Are tariff barriers to be brought back in or not? And why not have large scale multinational investments? They provided hundreds of thousands of well paid jobs and billions in terms of national wealth.

What if your SME development policies succeed and your SMEs become big businesses? – usually a bogey for your kind of people. Is RSF only pro business so long as the business remains small? McDonalds began as a modest family business. It just grew organically with success. Now the “anti globalisation” crowd throw bricks into their windows on march days. It is a fact that some things can only be undertaken with a large business unit. Off-shore oil exploration and extraction is one. What is the inflection point at which a “good” native and small business becomes a bad “big” business with all that implies?

Your final paragraph is rather hackneyed class war stuff with an Anglophobic colouring. These matters are settled and in any event have little either historical or actual reality except inside the head of Ruri O’Bradaigh and a few like him. You come across as rational and reasonable enough apart from a blind spot on all of this. The Irish Free State was established by the Dáil accepting the 1921 Anglo Irish Treaty and its adoption of the first constitution. That there was also British legislation does not mean that it was established by an act of the UK parliament as you put it. Obviously UK legislation had to change to allow for materially changed circumstances. This was for an orderly separation from the UK – it did not mean that the Free State was “granted” independence in the manner of a dominion.

by Cael - Sinn Fein Poblachtach Thu Feb 28, 2008 22:31

Just let me repeat something I posted above:

"Venture capital investment in Irish companies in 2006 amounted to just €192 million invested in 52 enterprises compared with Irish investors putting €11 billion in commercial property - €3 billion of this was spent on domestic deals."

Now are you trying to tell me that only 52 Irish companies looked for equity finance in 2006? At a time when 11 billion was available for investment? I hardly need to say more. The benefits of VC, outlined above are generally not available to Irish SMEs. Thats why they do not develop.

You say that Ireland has a high rate of home ownership - compared to other European countries. Are you including homes that are really owned by the banks? The bottom line is that there is no reason why every Irish person cant have their own home. Having a roof over your head is not the kind of 'property ownership' that Im against. Its grabbing two or three or more houses, and grabbing development land, then profiteering on the need of others to have a home. This is the kind of anti-social behavior RSF is against. You constantly imply RSF policies are irrelevant to the Irish people. Well RSF is very relevant to anyone who is paying high rent to make some landlord rich, or to anyone who wants to own their own home but cant even put a deposit together, not to mind pay the insane re-payments, or to anyone already paying these insane morgages for some badly built little matchbox in the back of no-where, or to anyone who cant see their children because they have to spend so much time working to make these repayments, or to anyone sending their kids to prefabs for a school because the dept. of Education cant afford to buy a site for a proper school, etc. etc. We are not talking about tweaking the system to make it slightly more bareable, we're talking about getting rid of the whole rotten thing.

The root of the land prices is the planning system? Well, thats part of the story - a part that the landlord class has played a major part in - but its not the whole story. Speculation in development land should have been outlawed a long time ago as the nasty anti-social practice it is. I have no doubt that the speculators have caused a lot more misery and ruined lives then the drug pushers could ever do - and that includes the Labour party supporter with his second house that he regards as a pension plan for himself. Far from banning this practice, Leinster House has greatly encouraged it - in the process converting potentially useful public debt into completely useless private debt, via the great stamp duty scam.

Saying that the EU is the most liberal block is not the same as saying that it does not have trade barriers or that it is an open economy. I am not against multi-nationals being here. Im just against our junky-like dependence on them.

Again, I have nothing against large businesses. Here is an article on Venezuela's National Oil Company's Vision for Social Development:

http://admin2.7.forumer.com/viewtopic.php?t=8491

What Im against is making human beings into mere factors of production.

You are quite wrong if you think the GFA masquerade settles things in Ireland. Very far from it. People are starting to see through the Emperor's new cloths.

The free state was established by smashing the Irish Republic with Black and Tan terrorism. It was founded by the British Government of Ireland Act 1921 - and no amount of spin will ever change that fact. But that isnt the most important fact. As you rightly say above, the 26 counties are ruled by English Common law to this very day.

by Sceptic Fri Feb 29, 2008 16:16

Home ownership includes properties which have a mortgage attached to them by any common definition. Only about a third of Irish homes are mortgaged and repossessions are rare. Personally I think it would be a good thing to adopt the Kenny report recommendations on development land but I also know it won’t happen easily. However the solution is not a Marxist revolution!

Humans are not “mere factors of production” in the British or Irish systems or anything like it. Much of the entire legal systems and underlying national philosophy is about the rights and liberties of the individual. A communist government does see its cadres of “workers” in these terms however.

What have you got against English law? For one thing it protects you from the state and it has habeas corpus enshrined as well as the jury system, presumption of innocence, mandamus, prohibition of double jeopardy etc. Besides it is only one element of the Irish political system. There is a large corpus of native legislation and case law built up since 1922 as well as its own distinct written constitution. The introduction of a Napoleonic legal system would be a mammoth undertaking that would bring no clear benefits.

Not everything that came from England is bad – even by your own lights you should see that. Nationalism is a largely English invention from Tudor times the chief architect of which was Thomas Cromwell. Republicanism in its modern sense was an invention of his relative Oliver Cromwell. Marxism was formulated in London as England was the only country in Europe tolerant and pluralist enough to allow its troublesome German Jewish author the liberty to work on his books.

by Cael Sun Mar 02, 2008 22:26

Its not much good saying that English law has a few positive aspects to it, so its good enough for the Irish people. Sinn Fein Poblachtach looks around at the way a few well connected landowners have been able to mercilessly hold the Irish people to ransom and force them to borrow vast amounts of money so that they could have a roof over their heads. We see the way minimum wage awards can be struck down on the basis of interference with property rights. The widespread poverty in whats supposed to be the second richest country in the world - and we have to say that this is not a side effect of English law that might, on one day, be reformed, but the very core of it, i.e. the protection of privilege. Thats really not good enough.

by against ultra nationalism Sun Mar 02, 2008 22:47

To those who claim RSF are socialists, if you bother to read their policy documents you will see they like other euro ultra nationalists, including the BNP advocate something called distrubutsm, which is modern day corporatism.

Distributism believes in private ownership through guilds and syndicates.

socialism believes in public ownership via the state.

Don't be duped by crypto-fash.

by Cael Mon Mar 03, 2008 20:35

That last comment is pure garbage. Why dont you give us some evidence of your assertions instead of just vomiting out this mindless hatred?

by Sceptic Mon Mar 03, 2008 20:36

You could not be more wrong. The minimum wage decision had nothing to do with any bias in law. It was because these industry agreements registered with the Labour Court had no proper basis in statute law. It does not mean that there is any inherent problem with minimum wage legislation as such in an Anglo Saxon legal jurisdiction.

by Cael Mon Mar 03, 2008 20:40

Sceptic, it means that 'property rights' are more fundamental to English law than the right of people to have a decent wage. Thats why the court had no choice but to strike down the minimum pay award and rule in favour of the gombeens who took the action.

by Sceptic Tue Mar 04, 2008 13:18

It means absolutely nothing of the kind. There has been minimum wages legislation in Anglo Saxon legal jurisdictions for decades if not for over a century. However it has a have a proper legal base and that is the task of legislators. A local Irish sectoral level agreement was found not to have an adequate legal basis to enforce compliance. If there is to be binding legal effect given to such recommendations in future it will need a statutory instrument at least to enforce it. It has NOTHING to do with property rights and still less property rights being superior to labour rights. At least argue on the facts.

by REPUBLICAN SOCIALIST Tue Mar 04, 2008 21:33

against ultra nationalism talks shite but find teh conversation about economics to be beyond him, some socialist. AS a Republican socialist i feel that it is RSF that is the most left of all Republican groups, i mean the modern day irps think its all about waving starry ploughs and saying working class over and over without any actual politics, i understand RSF isnt Marxist but nor do they pretend to be.

Doesnt mean their documents are still not socialist

by Cael Tue Mar 04, 2008 22:50

Yes Skeptic, as your Labour party press release said:

"the procedures used for the setting of minimum wage levels by the Joint Labour Committees and the Labour Court" were struck down by the free state court.

But the Irish Hotels Federation argued on the basis that these procedures deprived them of their 'property rights'.

by against ultra nationalism Wed Mar 05, 2008 11:27

Republican socialist please don't insult my intelligence by claiming distributism which RSF advocate and supports more private community ownership is socialism EF Schumaker is extensively quoted in RSF documents.
WIKI

"Schumacher's rejection of materialist, capitalist, agnostic modernity was paralleled by a growing fascination with religion. His interest in Buddhism has been noted. However, from the late 1950s on, Catholicism heavily influenced his thought. He noted the similarities between his own economic views and the teaching of papal encyclicals on socio-economic issues, from Leo XIII's "Rerum Novarum" to John XXIII's "Mater et Magistra", as well as with the distributism supported by the Catholic thinkers G. K. Chesterton(1), Hilaire Belloc and Vincent McNabb. "

From RSFs Saol nua

http://www.rsf.ie/saolnua.htm

. Therefore we must learn to think in terms of an articulated structure that can cope with a multiplicity of small-scale units. If economic thinking cannot grasp this it is useless. If it cannot get beyond its vast abstractions, the national income, the rate of growth, capital/output ratio, input/output analysis, labour mobility, capital accumulation; if it cannot get beyond all this and make contact with the human realities of poverty, frustration, alienation, despair, breakdown, crime, escapism, stress, congestion, ugliness, and spiritual death, then let us scrap economies and start afresh. Are there not indeed enough 'signs of the times' to indicate that a new start is needed?”
-- EF Schumacher in SMALL IS BEAUTIFUL l

......................the other name for it is Strassierism or volkish socialism(look it up).

(1) Fascist writer and member of the BUF his cousin AK founded the National Front.

by Cael Wed Mar 05, 2008 16:40

Your quotes sound eminently logical to me. Hugo Chavez is following exactly this policy to great success at the moment. What part of this advise do you object to? I suppose Chavez is a fascist too in your mind?

Please see the related link:

Venezuelan Revolution: A Workable Alternative to Capitalism?

by against ultra nationalism Wed Mar 05, 2008 17:08

Chevez is not an ultra nationalist, his politics are driven by the need to redistribute wealth , which includes putting wealth into public hands, RSfs distrubuitism is the need to create more private ownership via guilds corporotism/distrubuitsm.

RSF are a nationalist reactionary party who has traditionally avoided socialism because it might have have made many of its rural small farmer membeship fearful of losing the family farm, its as basic as that.

Anyone who studies your documents will see you advocate a better distribution of private wealth and resourses rather then socialism.

Revolutionary socialists you certainly aint

by Kat Wed Mar 05, 2008 17:35

Well Mr. Against Ultra Nationalism, for all your textbook learnin' one thing you have forgotten (on purpose perhaps) to grasp is the socialist policies contained within Eire Nua and Saol Nua are the ones that actually work, And that are working currently, they are examples of successful policies which enable poor countries like Cuba to have better health care delivery than rich countries like the USA, They are the policies which enable Any child in Scandinavia to attend college no matter what his birth circumstances are. The Policies that have enabled more venezualan children to EAT than any time in decades. For all yer fancy trustafari radical BS the only real life examples of working socialism for the benefit of ALL are of the variety that do include some private rights within the state, last I checked, all the grandiose attempts at the perfect red society with no private rights to balance the power of the state have failed... Pol Pot anyone? I think I would rather be considered an ultra nationalist, than simply a blind ideologue

by socialists? Wed Mar 05, 2008 17:52

"against ultra nationalism" is using the same arguements that "radikals" like DeLeon (and how you see yourself im sure) used against Connolly, Irish Republicanism is a lot more complicated than your 'theory' ans scientific socialism cage. By the last years of his life Connolly knew it, nearly a 100 years after his death you still dont. Irish Republicanism is distict and not bound by any of your bookshelf ism's.

by praxis - NONE Wed Mar 05, 2008 18:19

No RSF documents call for "guilds" , you are attempting to script write for RSF. RS F can and wil speak for itself, even those who are opposed to ALL RSF stands for have to criticise it and judge it by what RSF SAYS , not by what you want it to mean.
or what makes arguement easy for morons (fuck debating documents and politics just cry fash!)

by against ultra nationalism Thu Mar 06, 2008 11:29

That document has been revised in the last year, it previously quoted Chesterton and moaned about foreign banks as well as going into detail about Its distruibutism and guilds.

The posters on here who believe more equal private ownership equals socialism have been duped.

Show me where RSF call for a free at point of use NHS ?

Or the where they will abolish private ownership ?

Infact they state they support it.

by rsfwatch needs meds - truth is valued here Thu Mar 06, 2008 19:39

"That document has been revised in the last year, it previously quoted Chesterton "

That is untrue i have an original copy of Saol Nua and it has no mention of him whatsoever. you clearly have issues with rsf and fair enough plenty do, but so far none of your fanciful critique has been based on any fact. there must be something that rsf actually says ,does or believes that you can take issue with, no?

rsf SAY they arent a marxist group. they make that clear there is no subterfuge involved. you cant question their commitment to marxism when they make it clear to all and sundry that they arent. though ive met more than a few involved with rsf primarily as they view the Republican cause as a nessacry sdtep, no you could have issues with THOSE individual but not with rsf as a group. they are a socialist orgainsation reading their documents and dialogue with their members as shown that.

your post are dishonest and creeping with hyperbole ad hominin. its YOU that are engaged in subterfuge "rsfwatch" and its you thats fooling no one.

wow, rsf arent marxists thtanks for letting us all in on that ya troll.

by Cael - Sinn Féin Fri Mar 07, 2008 13:03

From Saol Nua, Sinn Féin's economic program:

"Finance, Banking and all key industries must be brought under public, democratic or social control."