|
|
Post by Papa C. on May 3, 2007 9:44:41 GMT
I was talking to a comrade about the nature of the ruling class and that the working class, at some stage, even if a majority are in support of revolution, are going to have to take up arms or weapons against our rulers and high ranking and fundamentalist unionists like Paisley in order to defeat them. This stems from the simple fact that the ruling class will become increasingly desperate to hold on to power and will do so to the final hour, never allowing working class control and true democracy as long as they can stop it.
Does anyone know what the (Irish) Socialist Party's view on revolution and how they can achieve revolution? I know the SWP are completely opposed to armed revolution and I think this is a major downfall in their ideology as I think it neglects to recognise the desperation of those in power/ those at the helm. Just to clarify, I am not in favour of armed revolution as the only means to liberation but to be used as a tool IF NEEDED in defense of the working class or a tool of revolution.
Perhaps this topic is something we can discuss?
|
|
|
|
Post by dangeresque on May 3, 2007 18:51:32 GMT
very good topic. wish we had someone to speak for the CWI/SP. Could ask RedGalway at Derry IRSP to chime in.
|
|
|
|
Post by RedFlag32 on May 3, 2007 22:58:13 GMT
Yes i think this is worthy of discussion,however i will hang back and see if we get someone from the Sp to explain their position first. I think this is only fair! I hope this doesnt turn into an anti-SP discussion though.
|
|
|
|
Post by Papa C. on May 8, 2007 14:47:36 GMT
Yes, I would be worried about a topic like this breaking into an argument rather than discussion but I think the posters here are very respectful when it comes to other people's views so I'm sure it will be amicable  |
|
|
|
Post by dangeresque on May 8, 2007 18:45:36 GMT
I hope this doesnt turn into an anti-SP discussion though. But Kaustkyites were made for M-Lists to bash  |
|
|
|
Post by Stallit 2 de Halfo on May 8, 2007 20:05:49 GMT
Hi Caoimhain.
Where did you hear/read about that? - thats the first iv heard about it.
I was at an SWP meeting were one of the topics for discussion was (now I cant remember much) about Brazil(?) and some armed group.
The question was put around as to whether "we" agree'd with this groups taking up arms and the consensus was unanimously in support - if thats anything to go by.
|
|
|
|
Post by Stallit 2 de Halfo on May 8, 2007 20:09:29 GMT
And just to sort of answer your question. Both the SP and the SWP are Trotskyist. Would it have something to do with Trotsky's "permanent Revolution" theory - im not well read on Trotskyism so im not too sure  |
|
|
|
Post by RedFlag32 on May 14, 2007 15:17:48 GMT
It does seem like the majority of the organizations who would be classified as Left in Ireland do not see the significance of an armed section of the working class. Is this why Eirigi did not join the IRSP and instead distanced themselves from the INLA?Is this the pacifism you are talking about comrade?
|
|
|
|
Post by Papa C. on May 15, 2007 13:08:47 GMT
I was at an SWP meeting were one of the topics for discussion was (now I cant remember much) about Brazil(?) and some armed group. The question was put around as to whether "we" agree'd with this groups taking up arms and the consensus was unanimously in support - if thats anything to go by. Well the SWP are great at supporting armed revolution and anti-imperialism when it’s not in Ireland. As far as I’m aware the SWP practice a social-pacifist type of politics. I’ve not read a huge amount into the party as I consider them to be reactionary based, mainly, on the fact that the party have recognised the British Imperialist imposed sectarian border, but maybe someone else could shine some more light on this. I think armed political resistance groups are justified, simply, by the British Government’s presence in Ireland and I think it would be dishonest and reactionary for any anti-imperialist group to distance itself from armed resistance simply because the British and Irish Government’s stood solid against it and succeeded in controlling public opinion on the issue. Yes RF32 that is the pacifism I am talking about. Obviously there is a danger of a type of factionalism breaking out if there are too many armed groups and we have seen this in the past but I think a united armed group working in the interests of the revolution is important to defend against the state. If said armed group are truly revolutionary, then there is no reason why leftist organisations shouldn’t support it – if said group is truly revolutionary though. As FTA69 has said, Éirigi have their reasons for not joining the IRSM but it’s nothing directly related to the existence of the INLA. I think it’s just more about taking the initiative and worried they couldn’t do that within the IRSM – this is only based on what I’ve heard from FTA69 of course. Possibly unbeknownst to Éirigi though, the IRSP does not work with the top-down politics of Sinn Fein. |
|
|
|
Post by RedFlag32 on May 20, 2007 14:53:42 GMT
As FTA69 has said, Éirigi have their reasons for not joining the IRSM but it’s nothing directly related to the existence of the INLA. I think it’s just more about taking the initiative and worried they couldn’t do that within the IRSM – this is only based on what I’ve heard from FTA69 of course. Possibly unbeknownst to Éirigi though, the IRSP does not work with the top-down politics of Sinn Fein. Caoimhain,the reason i mentioned the connection to an armed group (INLA) as being one of the reasons for Eirigi not joining with the IRSP was because FT69 said it himself on another forum,i know he is not an official rep and this is only his personal view but the point does stand if a member thinks that was a reason why they didn't join the IRSP. If this is true then it is definitely the type of pacifism this thread is about. |
|
|
|
Post by redgalway on May 28, 2007 12:02:57 GMT
when have their been objective conditions favourable to an armed class uprising in Ireland?
|
|
