In a piece featuring in Socialist Voice Eddie O’Neill and Mark Hayes question the Sinn Fein bona fides on its claim to be a left wing party.




By any relevant psephological indices, it is absolutely clear that Sinn Féin did exceedingly poorly —perhaps disastrously — in the recent local and European elections; and the results have clearly precipitated some reflective introspection by various party members.

For example, a defeated Sinn Féin candidate in Dublin, Lynn Boylan, has called for dialogue and co-operation with other “left-wing parties” in future, arguing that competition for votes had handed seats to Fianna Fáil and Fine Gael. She claimed, I am a republican, I am a united Irelander, but I am a left wing activist.” Indeed she went on to claim: “That’s how we were able to stop water charges—it’s because the left came together and worked together.”

Let’s just leave aside Sinn Féin’s specific role in the campaign against water charges, which is contentious, and concentrate on the more significant ideological proposition about Sinn Féin and its relationship with “the left.”

Over the years the Provisional movement has undoubtedly flirted with socialism as an ideology. For example, the original Éire Nua programme articulated by the Provisionals had a reasonably well-defined social component, with the emphasis on a more equitable and decentralised distribution of resources. By the late 1970s, under a new “Northern” leadership, this trend was accentuated. This was perhaps most vividly expressed in Jimmy Drumm’s speech of 1977 (apparently written by Adams et al.) which stressed the need for social liberation and the importance of standing in solidarity with workers against British colonial rule and the “fascist” Free State. (The speech also, incidentally, rejected a reformed Stormont and power-sharing.)

In this period Adams not only criticised capitalism, he was fond of quoting Connolly, while Sinn Féin explicitly identified itself with the ANC, PLO, and Sandinistas. Some commentators even detected the influence of Marxism; and though this was hugely exaggerated, there was a sense in which Sinn Féin identified itself as an integral part of a global “left” movement. It undoubtedly established its radical credentials through community work and activism in working-class areas.

However, there was always another, more pragmatic and opportunistic dimension to Sinn Féin strategy. This could be detected during and after the Hunger Strike, when the process of politicisation sought to reconfigure Sinn Féin as an electoral force. It was confirmed in a very personal way to one of the writers of this article when a letter was smuggled out of Albany prison in 1983 (written by Eddie O’Neill and Ray McLaughlin, and signed by other Republican prisoners). This missive explicitly addressed “the left” and urged all comrades to show solidarity with the Irish revolution while calling for a “broad front” of left progressive forces to form a common platform against imperialism.

The correspondence was completely disregarded by the Republican leadership at the time. The writing was on the wall: Sinn Féin was moving towards conventional constitutional politics. It eventually came to see itself as the natural repository for middle-class Catholic votes and positioned itself as the successor to the SDLP as the primary representative of the “Nationalist” community.

In relation to the north, Sinn Féin eventually adopted the diplomatic strategy of “pan-nationalism,” which not only led to the so-called “peace process” but meant succumbing to a political process that was inevitably dominated by bourgeois nationalist elements in Dublin, the SDLP, and the “Irish lobby” in the United States.

In effect, the diplomatic strategy drew Republicans into a procedure whose dynamic they could not effectively control. In the process, not only was Sinn Féin’s tenuous link to socialism abandoned but long-cherished Republican ideals were dumped by the wayside. This was most graphically reflected in the grotesque spectre of Jonathan Powell editing the speeches of Sinn Féin negotiators in Downing Street, and “Republicans” bending the knee to British royalty.

Sinn Féin had become co-opted by a state it was once committed to destroying. Moreover, it was prepared to administer an agreement that effectively reinforced sectarian categories, because identity politics was hard-wired into the Good Friday Agreement.

When Sinn Féin talks about “equality” now it relates to notions of inter-communal equivalence in a squalid sectarian scramble for limited resources, rather than a more equal redistribution of material outcomes in order to reduce obscene levels of disparity in wealth. In the north, Sinn Féin power-sharing has meant subordinating itself to a neo-liberal agenda. This has led to the party endorsing cuts in welfare, supporting PFI, and facilitating a reduction in corporation tax, at direct cost to the block grant.

In effect, concessions have been made to the most egregious aspects of the capitalist system. The Provos, always anxious to evade the epithet of “sticky,” have been perfectly happy to emulate the “stoops.”

These observations are made not to lament the turning away from paramilitary tactics but to highlight the fact that the leadership of the Republican movement have actually made momentous choices at critical moments during the course of the so-called “troubles”—and they have made significant strategic errors. Rather than engaging in an inclusive debate with those activists at the cutting edge of the armed struggle, the leadership opted to back itself into negotiations with the bitterest of political enemies.

Compromise with the most reactionary representatives of Loyalism, Unionism and the British Establishment was always likely to end badly; and we now have a situation where it’s not even clear that Sinn Féin are republican, let alone socialist. Gerry Adams said recently that a united Ireland should not be something rushed into, while the party leader, Mary Lou McDonald, has confirmed that she would be willing to talk to anyone in post-election negotiations, because “that’s what grown-ups do.”

And here we can see the essence of the problem: principles cast adrift with the most vacuous of sound-bites.

In effect, in the hands of the Provisionals, Republicanism has become a multi-purpose ideology employed to lubricate the wheels of an electoral machine that is in the service of cynical, careerist politicians. Sinn Féin wanted working-class support without the more onerous task of rewarding them for their efforts, and they were punished at the polls.

There are lessons here, but there is little evidence that the leadership of Sinn Féin is capable of learning them. The most basic lesson is this: the idea of socialism without national sovereignty may be an illusion, but independence without socialism isn’t worth crossing the street for.


Keep up with Socialist Voice.

Provisional Sinn Féin, Republicanism, And Socialism: Some Comments

In a piece featuring in Socialist Voice Eddie O’Neill and Mark Hayes question the Sinn Fein bona fides on its claim to be a left wing party.




By any relevant psephological indices, it is absolutely clear that Sinn Féin did exceedingly poorly —perhaps disastrously — in the recent local and European elections; and the results have clearly precipitated some reflective introspection by various party members.

For example, a defeated Sinn Féin candidate in Dublin, Lynn Boylan, has called for dialogue and co-operation with other “left-wing parties” in future, arguing that competition for votes had handed seats to Fianna Fáil and Fine Gael. She claimed, I am a republican, I am a united Irelander, but I am a left wing activist.” Indeed she went on to claim: “That’s how we were able to stop water charges—it’s because the left came together and worked together.”

Let’s just leave aside Sinn Féin’s specific role in the campaign against water charges, which is contentious, and concentrate on the more significant ideological proposition about Sinn Féin and its relationship with “the left.”

Over the years the Provisional movement has undoubtedly flirted with socialism as an ideology. For example, the original Éire Nua programme articulated by the Provisionals had a reasonably well-defined social component, with the emphasis on a more equitable and decentralised distribution of resources. By the late 1970s, under a new “Northern” leadership, this trend was accentuated. This was perhaps most vividly expressed in Jimmy Drumm’s speech of 1977 (apparently written by Adams et al.) which stressed the need for social liberation and the importance of standing in solidarity with workers against British colonial rule and the “fascist” Free State. (The speech also, incidentally, rejected a reformed Stormont and power-sharing.)

In this period Adams not only criticised capitalism, he was fond of quoting Connolly, while Sinn Féin explicitly identified itself with the ANC, PLO, and Sandinistas. Some commentators even detected the influence of Marxism; and though this was hugely exaggerated, there was a sense in which Sinn Féin identified itself as an integral part of a global “left” movement. It undoubtedly established its radical credentials through community work and activism in working-class areas.

However, there was always another, more pragmatic and opportunistic dimension to Sinn Féin strategy. This could be detected during and after the Hunger Strike, when the process of politicisation sought to reconfigure Sinn Féin as an electoral force. It was confirmed in a very personal way to one of the writers of this article when a letter was smuggled out of Albany prison in 1983 (written by Eddie O’Neill and Ray McLaughlin, and signed by other Republican prisoners). This missive explicitly addressed “the left” and urged all comrades to show solidarity with the Irish revolution while calling for a “broad front” of left progressive forces to form a common platform against imperialism.

The correspondence was completely disregarded by the Republican leadership at the time. The writing was on the wall: Sinn Féin was moving towards conventional constitutional politics. It eventually came to see itself as the natural repository for middle-class Catholic votes and positioned itself as the successor to the SDLP as the primary representative of the “Nationalist” community.

In relation to the north, Sinn Féin eventually adopted the diplomatic strategy of “pan-nationalism,” which not only led to the so-called “peace process” but meant succumbing to a political process that was inevitably dominated by bourgeois nationalist elements in Dublin, the SDLP, and the “Irish lobby” in the United States.

In effect, the diplomatic strategy drew Republicans into a procedure whose dynamic they could not effectively control. In the process, not only was Sinn Féin’s tenuous link to socialism abandoned but long-cherished Republican ideals were dumped by the wayside. This was most graphically reflected in the grotesque spectre of Jonathan Powell editing the speeches of Sinn Féin negotiators in Downing Street, and “Republicans” bending the knee to British royalty.

Sinn Féin had become co-opted by a state it was once committed to destroying. Moreover, it was prepared to administer an agreement that effectively reinforced sectarian categories, because identity politics was hard-wired into the Good Friday Agreement.

When Sinn Féin talks about “equality” now it relates to notions of inter-communal equivalence in a squalid sectarian scramble for limited resources, rather than a more equal redistribution of material outcomes in order to reduce obscene levels of disparity in wealth. In the north, Sinn Féin power-sharing has meant subordinating itself to a neo-liberal agenda. This has led to the party endorsing cuts in welfare, supporting PFI, and facilitating a reduction in corporation tax, at direct cost to the block grant.

In effect, concessions have been made to the most egregious aspects of the capitalist system. The Provos, always anxious to evade the epithet of “sticky,” have been perfectly happy to emulate the “stoops.”

These observations are made not to lament the turning away from paramilitary tactics but to highlight the fact that the leadership of the Republican movement have actually made momentous choices at critical moments during the course of the so-called “troubles”—and they have made significant strategic errors. Rather than engaging in an inclusive debate with those activists at the cutting edge of the armed struggle, the leadership opted to back itself into negotiations with the bitterest of political enemies.

Compromise with the most reactionary representatives of Loyalism, Unionism and the British Establishment was always likely to end badly; and we now have a situation where it’s not even clear that Sinn Féin are republican, let alone socialist. Gerry Adams said recently that a united Ireland should not be something rushed into, while the party leader, Mary Lou McDonald, has confirmed that she would be willing to talk to anyone in post-election negotiations, because “that’s what grown-ups do.”

And here we can see the essence of the problem: principles cast adrift with the most vacuous of sound-bites.

In effect, in the hands of the Provisionals, Republicanism has become a multi-purpose ideology employed to lubricate the wheels of an electoral machine that is in the service of cynical, careerist politicians. Sinn Féin wanted working-class support without the more onerous task of rewarding them for their efforts, and they were punished at the polls.

There are lessons here, but there is little evidence that the leadership of Sinn Féin is capable of learning them. The most basic lesson is this: the idea of socialism without national sovereignty may be an illusion, but independence without socialism isn’t worth crossing the street for.


Keep up with Socialist Voice.

29 comments:

  1. good piece Mark & Eddie. Readers will benefit from reading it in conjunction with Tommy McKearney's piece on the same theme. The two together are recommended reading. We hope to run Tommy's. SF is not a left wing party. It is a party of chaotic ideas and kept as such deliberately so that it can facilitate the political career of Mr Adams above all else. He is positioning himself for a run at the presidency.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Adams for President? Not a hope. Jean McConville and Robert McCartney will dog his every footstep on the campaign trail. Look what happened to McGuinnness, a far more popular politician than Adams, dogged by the IRA murder of Chief Prison Officer Brian Stack. McGuinness got only a paltry 13% of the vote. The most recent Sinn Fein candidate got less than half of McGuinness' vote.
      Of course Adams has the arrogance and vanity to imagine he would do well - the fact that Sinn Fein lost half their council seats seems not to registered with Adams. In any event, Sinn Fein has lost its way, outsmarted down South at every hands turn by Fianna Fail

      Delete
    2. No factoring in here of the possible impact of a vote that would allow the diaspora to vote, which is what might shift things in his favour. He will not be looking the vote from Ireland where everything you say is right, but from the states where they rename Patrick's Day Gerry Adams Day in New York. And if the main challenger is Bertie Ahern, he will fancy his chances.

      Delete
  2. Good piece but the conversation among Republicans needs to be about what WE need to do going forward, unless it’s to join that party. While these reflections offer us context to advise of best future approach, what further becomes of the new Sinn Féin is not really our concern and nor should it be. Any future approach not predicated on the Republican Constitution is arguably doomed to follow the same trajectory as the former Provisionals led by Adams. The sovereignty and unity of the Irish Republic is surely the foundation on which we must build future struggle.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. it is about more than that - the future SF is going to eat into what you consider your natural constituency. Some consideration as to where it is going is going to be necessary. While they still pretend to be on a republican trajectory, people are going to buy into it and go to them. That said, my own take is that the republican project is goosed, the Left is not marginalised as such but minimalised. I think the best that can be offered is to try and improve people's lives in whatever small way we can and do as little harm as we can.

      Delete
  3. Yeah, I agree with that but still note a tendency on the part of Republicans to focus on Sinn Féin and not themselves or their own respective groups. I’m not necessarily arguing this of the authors, as I don’t know enough about them.

    The failure of the new Sinn Féin and the reasons for that failure are of course relevant to us, but mostly for the purposes of knowing what to avoid going forward. Here we must surely note that tactical shifts must always be bound by principle.

    Our failure was not born of moving onto a strategy of unarmed struggle but in not ensuring the promised ‘new phase’ was premised on Republican principle and the advocacy of our own constitution. There lies the core lesson of the ‘peace process’ for me but has it been learned?

    Moving onto the rest of your comment. This morning, on ‘Sunday Politics’, the British Government’s David Liddington conceded that the Union is under strain. The idea Republicanism is ‘goosed’ must be tempered by this context, by newly emerging realities born of Brexit and demographic change.

    To the contrary, then, new political terrain is being ‘unearthed’ which we as Republicans bent on the Republic must seek to impact for the purpose of our object. ‘Bide your time, bide your time’, as you once said yourself in Glasnevin. This struggle is far from over.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. The union under strain is wholly independent of anything republicanism has done. If there is to be any change it will be as a result of a constitutional nationalist initiative - unity by consent - not a republican one of unity by coercion. Republicans might try and claim credit for it but it is like claiming credit for the good weather. Nor do the same able to step up to the plate and back a border referendum that is the only thing that will at this point change the constitutional status. Bide our time until it runs out. But the moment has passed.

      Delete
  4. With the above said, there is clearly a lot of work to be done. Republicanism, despite the opportunities that have been gifted it, is just not in the greatest of places at this moment and that’s obvious. It need not remain so, however. National sovereignty and its advocacy are the key to ‘re-finding’ our feet. Building an initiative that focuses on this — on the right of the Irish people to national freedom and sovereignty and which seeks means to see such made manifest — just might see our fortunes transformed. Up for it? (That’s a rhetorical question, because we both are, of course — though I expect you to deny it, as is customary, lol.)

    ReplyDelete
  5. If there were a ‘border referendum’ and were it to pass, the Union, in accord with an international treaty, will then be ended and a ‘sovereign united Ireland’ brought forward in its stead. It is precisely for this reason that the Union is under strain, for otherwise the pressure on the British constitution, born of Brexit and the ‘back stop’, would not be what it is.

    That this is an allowance of the constitutional status quo, not necessarily acceded to by the state on the back of any Republican endeavour, holds no relevance. It is political reality and the reality of the political environment we are faced with and surrounded by.

    We don’t need to ‘back’ a referendum, of any hue, to present the case that Ireland’s sovereignty should extend over all 32-counties. We simply need to present and advocate that argument. There is no reason to go beyond this when it risks internalising the legitimacy of British constitutional constraints, whose designs are to give democratic title to British position where none exists.

    We can still, however, advocate that any such ‘border referendum’, where a ‘Yes’ vote emerges as the outcome, should lead onto full Irish Unity under a full Irish Republic. That we might not succeed is no reason not to try — particularly when the mass of the people are receptive to the idea that a future United Ireland should take the form of a 32-county republic.

    We must engage with emerging realities from a position and point that allows us to present the Republican argument without excluding ourselves from political ongoings. As we’ve spoken about before, we must be somewhere on the bus — even if duked down at the back for now — and not gazing as it passes like the cow in the field. We might be surprised how many of our fellow passengers share basic politics as our own.

    ReplyDelete
  6. But the strain could as easily have come from the French revolution or Vatican 2. Republicanism had nothing to do with it. It came in spite of republicanism not because of it.
    No, republicans don't need to back a referendum to present the case for 32 County Sovereignty. But the presentation of the case by republicans will have all the efficacy of a rain dance. Who would pay it the slightest attention?
    Republicans can advocate whatever they like just as they can advocate less snow in Russia next year. But if they lack the wherewithal to do anything, it is pretty much academic.
    If republicans must engage with political realities it requires more than pointing them out. It is not enough to shout "look somebody is drowning" when nobody is listening. It requires getting in and hauling them out.

    ReplyDelete
  7. That said I am standing on the beach doing pretty much nothing so it is not a criticism of you who is shouting help - just an observation.

    ReplyDelete
  8. The strain has come because British vices to hold Ireland, against her wishes, no longer provide the surety they once did. The contrived veto which Britain depends on, towards this end, has been eroded by demographic change. Brexit further ups the ante. Whether Republican strategy, Vatican II or the French Revolution had an input, here, is simply not relevant, for that in no way impacts the basic reality that this is where we now are at.

    That this emerging reality need not lead onto a 32-county republic is as obvious to me as it is to you, be assured. I argued as far back as the ‘90s that demographic change would not on its own be sufficient to arrive at our object, due to the impact on the nationalist community’s political consciousness certain to be wrought by normalisation. How I then seen it has proven the case but Brexit has changed the dynamic. Normalisation has been fully upended, if only for now.

    We don’t just give up on the drowning child as a lost cause, no matter. While there is breath in its lungs and a pulse, we fight on. We don’t stand shouting from the sidelines. We engage. We don’t sit in our ivory tower taking refuge in the politics of rejection. We advocate, cajole, encourage and lobby and influence. They don’t call it struggle for nothing.

    What would Dessie Grew do is a question I’ve often asked myself when confronted by doubt and its ilk. One thing for sure is he would not give up — and nor should we. Not while there is air and a pulse. We must find the means to present our argument without excluding ourselves from politics ongoing. That is the way forward in what are times of great opportunity for Republicanism not to be discouraged or downplayed.

    ReplyDelete
  9. Sean - four paragraphs and not a sliver of an idea. Nor is it isolated. There has consistently been a dearth of ideas. It is instructive of the stasis that republican thought is in the grip of and above all else sends out a message that republicanism can make nothing happen.

    ReplyDelete
  10. The idea is that we organise for the reconstitution of the Irish Republic upon an end to Partition rule — it’s not rocket science. Come that event, the end of Partition, the Republican idea is that Dáil Éireann should be restored as a national parliament for all Ireland, convening upon free elections across Ireland’s 32 counties and sitting at first as a constituent assembly, tasked with framing the forward governmental basis of the country.

    What we lack, at this time, is the power to effect such an outcome but that doesn’t mean we change our core politics that in turn we become more electable — which is surely the approach of the new Sinn Féin and the lesson to be drawn from that project. It means we work to popularise them — to build them into the mind’s eye of the people. Only through the hard work this requires will our day ever come.

    While a large section of the Irish people either do not share, have insufficient knowledge of or are otherwise uncommitted to the intricacies and virtues of Republican political theory, they nevertheless share the Republican vision and aspiration for a united all-Ireland republic — this to be premised on the values, if not the explicit constitutional line, of the 1916 Proclamation.

    In the context of that shared aspiration, through a common endeavour towards an independent 32-county republic, the respective lines of political theory in Ireland can be reconciled, this without infringing upon the perceived integrity of either, with both, in turn, finding form and expression in a ‘new republic’ that meets the requirements of all.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. for those who are interested Sean there has to be something more than rhetoric.

      Delete
  11. Dessie Grew ended up full of holes in an Armagh field for his political course of action, whilst his contemporary comrades leadership had already worked out the futility of his actions.

    He too probably believed the rhetoric. Choose your heroes wisely.

    Do you really think the present day Dail will ever vote for self termination Sean?

    ReplyDelete
  12. Steve - I wish Dessie had not have carried on but he did and paid the ultimate price. What he thought he was fighting for was being diverted into the political careers of others

    ReplyDelete
  13. That there should be national elections to a national parliament in the event of a ‘Yes’ vote border poll — as there should be in any event as far as Republicans are concerned — i.e in the now and without the requirement for any interim measure or vice — is not mere rhetoric but, with it, a clearly laid out political position. Likewise, that it is at such an assembly where the governmental basis of the country should be worked out democratically is, again, not merely rhetoric but a political alternative to the political course preferred by the status quo. Increasingly, indeed, it is being argued that a constitutional forum should be set up under the auspices of the Dublin Government to give greater clarity to what an all-Ireland republic would look like in advance of a ‘border referendum’ — so it’s hardly the case that we’re discussing pie in the sky here. We are advocating that such a forum be freely elected on a 32-county basis. Republicans must offer their analysis of how the Irish Unity process should manifest and seek to build support for their argument — anywhere and everywhere, including among those we might not agree with or who are opposed to us. It isn’t rocket science and it certainly isn’t rhetoric.

    ReplyDelete
  14. it is rhetoric because it has been said for yonks with nothing outlined as to how to get there. The Plymouth Brethren could make the same argument as to how they are going to convert everybody in the new Ireland to their belief system. In fact I think I would listen to the Brethren first!!!

    ReplyDelete
  15. It could be ‘got to’, if by no other means, post-a ‘Yes’ vote border poll — which, though not our preferred means, is written into international treaty as a trigger for constitutional change. The work of engaging the people with its merits, of the forward process we advocate, would need to have been done in advance of such a vote, which would impact the direction the political process would move come such a vote. This isn’t rhetoric. It’s practical politics but politics still bound by the parameters of Republicanism.

    This is what Republicans should be attempting in 2019. It’s either that or we follow the Adams path into constitutionalism or seek to rebuild the Army, for another push on that front. They are the options — not nonsense talk about the Plymouth Brethren, whoever they may be, which presumably is code for give up. Dessie Grew didn’t give up but nor did he die for nothing. I understand where you’re coming from, however, and why you see the environment as you do. But, while I respect both your good self and your views, I just can’t in good conscience go along with this resignation to defeat.

    ReplyDelete
  16. Sean - you are right about the nonsense talk of the Plymouth Brethren - a group founded in the 1820s in Dublin that held to the inerrant word of the bible. So as purveyors of nonsense, I thought it useful to introduce them as part of an observation that they have as likely to have much influence on what is going on post partition as republicanism.

    If we gloss over the rhetoric of the first para and pay more attention to the second - if those are the options, perhaps people will see that there is no future for republicanism, that is has long been defeated; that the defeat took place when it surrendered for terms wholly antipathetical to the entire republican project. When victory is not an option defeat can only be avoided with a substantive compromise. There was none. Rebuilding the army? I understand that you are not advocating that but if that is even remotely considered an option by anyone (we have seen the complete failure of that with NIRA) it underscores the total strategic myopia. And if as an option it is on a par with your first one, as you seem to suggest given that you have only outlined two, what does that tell you? I guess after a while to me it all sounds like people praying. Alright for those who think it works but of absolutely no relevance to those who find it a complete waste of energy.

    ReplyDelete
  17. Retreat into constitutionalism it is then — the third option which perhaps you missed. Seems like Gerry and Martin were right after all.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Gerry and Martin were never right. They had more radical options but none to secure a Republic. Just as today republicans have more radical options, just not any that would secure a Republic. If the border goes it will be in spite of republicanism not because of it. A sad denouement to so many years that could have been better spent, and for many even lived.

      Delete
  18. The object of Republicanism is the Republic; the effort is to see its sovereignty extend over all Ireland. Your argument is by extension an endorsement of the leadership’s shift and rhetoric won’t change what underpins it. I agree that it’s awful what happened and the lives lost but the causal factor was not a misguided Republican strategy. A terrorist war was mounted in and on our country by an imperial power with no legitimate authority or title in this country. That is why all of those who died died and why lives that could perhaps have been better lived were not. It is brutal and it is a tragedy without doubt but, while we should strive to ensure it only ever happens again in the event it is necessary, it is the bottom line. The Republic is of course an achievable object — and it will be realised.

    ReplyDelete
  19. The object of Catholicism is a Catholic Ireland. The effort is to see its sovereignty extend all over Ireland.

    I have no doubt people believe that too and consider it a good thing. But having a mantra is not going to make it happen.

    People have as much right to reject nationalist opinion as they have to reject Catholic opinion. There should no more be obligatory nationalism than there should be obligatory Catholicism.

    There was a misguided republican strategy that failed.

    Many people died because they made the wrong choices, listened to the wrong people.

    Many people killed for reasons they abandoned at the drop of a hat. Some even committed war crimes.

    Catholic Ireland too is an achievable objective … but only in the minds of those who believe it. Without the slightest inkling of strategy, it is moonshine.

    The sheer paucity of republican strategic ideas inadequately compensated for with slogans, contrasted with the widespread hegemony of constitutional nationalist ideas, leaves republicanism in an arid place and showing not the slightest sign of moving beyond it.

    ReplyDelete
  20. The object of Catholicism is a Catholic Ireland. The effort is to see its sovereignty extend all over Ireland.

    I have no doubt people believe that too and consider it a good thing. But having a mantra is not going to make it happen.

    People have as much right to reject nationalist opinion as they have to reject Catholic opinion. There should no more be obligatory nationalism than there should be obligatory Catholicism.

    There was a misguided republican strategy that failed.

    Many people died because they made the wrong choices, listened to the wrong people.

    Many people killed for reasons they abandoned at the drop of a hat. Some even committed war crimes.

    Catholic Ireland too is an achievable objective … but only in the minds of those who believe it. Without the slightest inkling of strategy, it is moonshine.

    The sheer paucity of republican strategic ideas inadequately compensated for with slogans, contrasted with the widespread hegemony of constitutional nationalist ideas, leaves republicanism in an arid place and showing not the slightest sign of moving beyond it.

    ReplyDelete
  21. No-one can force the logic on me that, because our current position is so weak, we should abandon our long-cherished goal of an independent Ireland and a society befitting the Irish people. I think we’ve come to the end here. No doubt there will be further discussion down the line.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. The Irish will be a minority in their homeland in two decades because of the New Muslim and Subsaharan Plantation you are ignoring. These newcomers will always have an ethnic homeland to return to if they so wish. We won't. You are talking rubbish.

      Delete
  22. Very much so - would be wholly wrong for anyone to force that logic on you. We must be free to believe what we want. Which also means people have to be equally free to believe something different from what we want them to believe. Useful that the position is seen as so weak - it is when people think it is strong that the problems start.

    ReplyDelete