Sinn Fein=Socialist??

brianthebard

I'll probably get a torrent of abuse for this, but since when has Sinn Féin been socialist? Personally I find socialism totally incompatible with nationalism and for that reason alone I disagree, but I know there are others who don't feel the same. I wasn't aware of the party being set up as a socialist party, (although I know fairly little about its history) so perhaps this is a recent change? At first I wished to just discard the notion that they are socialist but I am continually seeing posts to this effect on this board and felt it necessary to investigate. What exactly makes the party socialist, as opposed to merely left wing?

To try to answer your own question what is the difference between socialism and being left wing?
Surely to be properly socialist you must be left of centre ie left wing otherwise you are carrying both cans.
A mish mash as it were.
It's generally the cherry picked best of both worlds mish mash that gets more representatives elected.

brianthebard

The difference would be holding strong marxist or other socialist views, or merely having some sympathetic social policies. For example many governments adopt policies such as increased social welfare that are originally socialist ideals but the government may only be trying to win left wing support without being truly socialist. I hope that makes sense.

stovelid

Maybe it's because they have, at one stage, contingently housed various ideas under a broad nationalist front, for example, staunch catholics and Marxist "Stickies" opposed to the British.

Nowadays, I assume people mean that their policies are more socially democratic than actually socialist.

brianthebard wrote:

I'll probably get a torrent of abuse for this, but since when has Sinn Féin been socialist? Personally I find socialism totally incompatible with nationalism and for that reason alone I disagree, but I know there are others who don't feel the same. I wasn't aware of the party being set up as a socialist party, (although I know fairly little about its history) so perhaps this is a recent change? At first I wished to just discard the notion that they are socialist but I am continually seeing posts to this effect on this board and felt it necessary to investigate. What exactly makes the party socialist, as opposed to merely left wing?

Jackie laughlin

There used to be debate within Marxism on nationalism. However, most came round to the view that internationalism implied nationalism. However, the debate was about cultural nationalism. Aggressive nationalism or imperialism is incompatible with socialism.

SFIRA has split a number of times over socialism Vs nationalism, most notably at the formation of Provisional SFIRA as staunchly nationalist rejecting the socialist tendencies of Official SFIRA. The provos. are now plain SFIRA, that title having become vacant when the oficials became the Workers Party.

Of course SFIRA are not socialist. They make welfarist and bash-the-rich noises for their domestic audience but not a word of that in the US.

brianthebard

That's what I thought JL, but like I said its been said a good few times now so I wanted to know where it was coming from.

FTA69

Socialism is not incompatible with nationalism per se, rather certain types of nationalism. Like socialism nationalism is by no means a homogenous ideology, for instance the nationalism of an oppressed nation like the Kurds is far removed from the imperialistic, jingoistic nationalism of Nazi Germany. Many would say that a hallmark of socialism is the resistance and opposition to imperialism, and nationalism can potentially have a progressive role in such a struggle if it is rooted in the sense of a broader, international trend as well as being equated with social equality.

Provisional SFIRA as staunchly nationalist rejecting the socialist tendencies of Official SFIRA.

Funny enough, most ex-IRA prisoners I know are extremely left-wing, many declaring themselves Marxists. The 1969 split was about the failure of the Sticks to defend nationalist ghettos, as well as southern elements being alienated over the dropping of abstentionsim. To portray it as a left-right split is simply lazy.

runswithascript

SF != socialist

RSF = socialist

Jackie laughlin

I accept that the question of activism was also a determinant of the split but that was linked to the left right divide and the movement did split with the traditional irredentists walking out.

FTA69

I accept that the question of activism was also a determinant of the split but that was linked to the left right divide and the movement did split with the traditional irredentists walking out.

Many in Provisional Sinn Féin were on the right, many prominent personalities within it were very much on the left, even of a Marxist disposition. The main thing dividing the two factions was the concept of an armed struggle against the Brits, people of both left and right sided with either group largely on that question alone. Bear in mind that many IRA prisoners in Long Kesh and Portlaoise had quite a sway on the thinking of the movement both from inside and when they got out. Even from the earliest standpoint the Provos identified with left-wing struggles around the world such as Vietnam.

Jackie laughlin

I'm sure there were and are socialists/social democrats/Marxists in SFIRA, just as there are in FF. On an individual member's level the member decides what is his or her overriding view and sometimes, say, a twisted notion of Irishness or revenge is more important than to them than socialism. On a party level, there is the party stance and that was put time and again unchallenged in public by Ruairi O'Bradaigh. It certainly wasn't socialist.

stovelid

The failure to 'defend' the ghetto was a general IRA one.

When the split did occur, the 'sticks' in the IRA were vaunting a view of the conflict which did not involve taking arms against the protestant working class, even in justifiable defense so a left-right split did have some place in this.

FTA69 wrote:

The 1969 split was about the failure of the Sticks to defend nationalist ghettos. To portray it as a left-right split is simply lazy.

Lemming

Heh.

Sinn Fein. Nationalist Socialists?

Heh.
Heh.
heh.

Oh the ironing is delicious.

FTA69

When the split did occur, the 'sticks' in the IRA were vaunting a view of the conflict which did not involve taking arms against the protestant working class,

The Provos had no interest in fighting the Protestant working class, rather defending ghettos against Loyalist mobs. They also held the view that a cross-class alliance was impossible while privilige was maintained on the back of partition. They sought to break the British connection in order to construct a socialist Ireland. The sticks had naieve and juvenile dreams of building socialism in the context of an occupation.

On a party level, there is the party stance and that was put time and again unchallenged in public by Ruairi O'Bradaigh. It certainly wasn't socialist.

It was generally left-wing though, besides Brádaigh got the heave ho in 1983.

mike65

This thread could get very beard-tweaking and corduroy with elbow patches.

Sinn Fien is as socialist (or not) as the audience they address. A certain number certainly do not give the impression of being that committed to traditional socialist lifestyles such as living a modest life in one house.

While googling I've discoverd the Shinners have appropriated Dublin South East :eek:

http://www.socialistdemocracy.org/ is NOT a fan of Sinn Fein

Mike.

ballooba

mike65 wrote:

While googling I've discoverd the Shinners have appropriated Dublin South East :eek:

We're not all poshies around here. DSE incorporates a lot of poorer parts of the inner city and Ringsend. Most of the focus for canvassing seems to actually be in these areas.

mike65

Fair enough but I was suprised they used the cover of a geographic based url.

Mike.

johnnyskeleton

brianthebard wrote:

What exactly makes the party socialist, as opposed to merely left wing?

The same thing that made Bertie Ahern a socialist a year or two ago (I think in an interview in the Irish Times, he said that he was the last socialist left in Ireland).

Consider this; I see a hot bird in the pub, go up to her and ask her what kind of music she likes. She says Lou Reid, I say I like Lou Reid, mumble something about the velvet underground and, as far as she's concerned, I am a fellow Lou Reid fan. Maybe the next morning she'll realise (to her horror) that I what really like is Girls Aloud and Kraftwerk, but in this scenario, I was what she wanted me to be for the purposes of the night. The following night I'll see another hot bird who, by a remarkable co-incidence, has the same favourite book as me.;)

What is to stop a politician saying "you like socialists? what a coincidence, I'm a socialist" and then after they've had their wicked way with us say "by the way doll, I'm a dirty capitalist".

I'm not saying that SF are not socialists, but so far all we have to go on is their word. As far as I know (although I don't really know that much) many parties that are staunch socialists/environmentalists veer towards the center as they become more powerful. The Green Party in Ireland made a decision a couple of years ago to use posters in their campeigns (bad for the environment but gives them a greater share of the poll). I think it is generally the experience that left wing parties, when they get into power become less extreme. By contrast (and for reasons not easily understood) right wing parties tend to become more extreme. Maybe it makes sense to be left wing if you're an underdogs, and right wing when you're on top.

brianthebard

johnnyskeleton wrote:

The same thing that made Bertie Ahern a socialist a year or two ago (I think in an interview in the Irish Times, he said that he was the last socialist left in Ireland).

Consider this; I see a hot bird in the pub, go up to her and ask her what kind of music she likes. She says Lou Reid, I say I like Lou Reid, mumble something about the velvet underground and, as far as she's concerned, I am a fellow Lou Reid fan. Maybe the next morning she'll realise (to her horror) that I what really like is Girls Aloud and Kraftwerk, but in this scenario, I was what she wanted me to be for the purposes of the night. The following night I'll see another hot bird who, by a remarkable co-incidence, has the same favourite book as me.;)

See that's what I thought which is why I wanted to ask this question-if all that's happening is pandering to the masses(socialists at any rate) why do people insist on calling SF socialists? I've yet to see anyone actually prove that the party are socialist, even FTA69 who seems to be defending the party hasn't actually said what makes the party socialist. If it is just a case that SF are saying what we (maybe) want to hear, why are so many people believing them?>

mike65

I never thought I'd see those words in the same sentence.

Mike.

marco murphy

I've yet to see anyone actually prove that the party are socialist

What is your definition of socialism?

brianthebard

Poblachtach wrote:

What is your definition of socialism?

It doesn't matter what my definition is, I accept that there are more than one versions of socialism, for this debate I will even accept that socialism and nationalism can work together under the one movement. Show me something rather than dodging the question.

@mike? which words in particular surprised you?

Jackie laughlin

FTA,
The British Army was deployed to protect catholic/nationalist areas from loyalist/protestant mobs.



Most populist parties will tell you what you want to hear. Even ideological parties will try to soften their position for public consumption. SFIRA are in a different category. It is not at all clear yet what they are about since they accepted partition. The IRA still exists and is turned on and off as a vigilante force in poor estates. It is very much turned on as a mobilising force at election time.

Raskolnikov

They're socialists and nationalists.

So that obviously makes them Nazi's.

ednwireland

just about to say the last person the defined himself as nationilist socialis was adolf hitler
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nazism

brianthebard

Ok so we've got the nazi comments out of the way at least...Now any real answers?

FTA69

even FTA69 who seems to be defending the party hasn't actually said what makes the party socialist.

I'm not defending Sinn Féin at all, I've no interest in doing so either. To clarify whether SF are socialists or not you'll have to clarify what socialism even means. If socialism means nationalising certain industries, making public services free and accessible and having a tax system based on the equal distribution of wealth then Sinn Féin are socialists in many respects. Although they aren't ideological socialists which means their policies may well be changed or scrapped whenever it suits them.

Jackie,

The British Army was deployed to protect catholic/nationalist areas from loyalist/protestant mobs.

No it wasn't, it was deployed "in aid of the civil power" which at the time was the gerrymandered Unionist government in Stormont which had previously used the RUC and B Specials in attempts to quell the Nationalist population.

The IRA still exists and is turned on and off as a vigilante force in poor estates. It is very much turned on as a mobilising force at election time.

The Provisional IRA hasn't engaged in punishment activity in years, bear in mind the people in the "poor estates" you bring up were and are supportive of the Republican Movement. It isn't the IRA which mobilises people during elections, its usually the SF apparatus.

brianthebard

FTA69 wrote:

I'm not defending Sinn Féin at all, I've no interest in doing so either. To clarify whether SF are socialists or not you'll have to clarify what socialism even means. If socialism means nationalising certain industries, making public services free and accessible and having a tax system based on the equal distribution of wealth then Sinn Féin are socialists in many respects. Although they aren't ideological socialists which means their policies may well be changed or scrapped whenever it suits them.

That's all I wanted to know.

No it wasn't, it was deployed "in aid of the civil power" which at the time was the gerrymandered Unionist government in Stormont which had previously used the RUC and B Specials in attempts to quell the Nationalist population.

Why do you say this? It is accepted knowledge that the army was deployed to protect the Catholic populations of Belfast and Derry. Although this changed soon after the army arrived, its still a fact. We were studying this period in history just this week. What source do you have to refute this claim?

marco murphy

In my view Sinn Fein is socialist by working on the ground with the people.
Social eradication, taxing the rich higher and the poor lower is socialist enough for me. Some of the old establishment parties say Sinn Fein will not be in government after this election. Ministerial seats are not theirs to give. They belong to the people of Ireland. The people will decide who goes into power.

Voipjunkie

Jackie laughlin wrote:

I'm sure there were and are socialists/social democrats/Marxists in SFIRA, just as there are in FF. On an individual member's level the member decides what is his or her overriding view and sometimes, say, a twisted notion of Irishness or revenge is more important than to them than socialism. On a party level, there is the party stance and that was put time and again unchallenged in public by Ruairi O'Bradaigh. It certainly wasn't socialist.

During O'Bradaighs leadership of PSF he brought forward the Eire Nua proposals which was for a Federal Democratic Socialist Ireland as far as I know RSF still stand for a Federal Democratic Socialist Ireland.

Voipjunkie

brianthebard wrote:

Ok so we've got the nazi comments out of the way at least...Now any real answers?

Most provos would probably identify themselves as Republican Socialists in that there political ideals are based on the ideas of Tone and 1798 and that socialism goes hand in hand with the ideals of 1798.

Exactly what that socialism means is very hard to define for some it is just a belief in equality and for others it is a socialism based on the works of Connolly and Marx. However Sinn Feins policies whatever about what some of its individual members might believe in is not revolutionary or marxist. It is left leaning a bit further left than the labour party but not what could be described as socialist.

If the truth be known I don't think Sinn Fein have any hard or fast principles socialist or otherwise anyone that seen Adams on primetime recently would have seen that he desperately dodged tying SF to any policy just generalities that the Health service is bad and so is the traffic etc.

Basically they are the new FF socialist if you want them to be but the only real interest is being in power what they would do with that power is anyones guess.

marco murphy

Voipjunkie wrote:

During O'Bradaighs leadership of PSF he brought forward the Eire Nua proposals which was for a Federal Democratic Socialist Ireland as far as I know RSF still stand for a Federal Democratic Socialist Ireland.

Eire Nua proposals are mad, even wishing for the capital to be established in Athlone.

Voipjunkie

Poblachtach wrote:

Eire Nua proposals are mad, even wishing for the capital to be established in Athlone.

Irrelevant the point was that it was allegedly to create a Socialist Ireland yet people here are suggesting that the PSF OSF split was a right left split this makes no sense when the part they claim was the right element was proposing a
Socialist Republic.

Jackie laughlin

How many times must the archive footage of grateful Catholics/nationalists serving tea to British soldiers be shown on TV before the myth of SFIRA protection is dispelled?


Of course people in deprived areas support the IRA vigilantes because they tackle thieves, drug dealers, joyriders, anti-social behaviour. That is a measure of Garda failure.

stovelid

Without being pedantic, you're both assigning motives to the army deployment based on ideology. In the first instance, the army was deployed because the civil forces were overrun.

That it was mostly Catholics were under attack or that the civil forces were an adjunct to a sectarian state probably wasn't factored into it at that stage.

brianthebard wrote:

Why do you say this? It is accepted knowledge that the army was deployed to protect the Catholic populations of Belfast and Derry.

Raskolnikov

Jackie laughlin wrote:

How many times must the archive footage of grateful Catholics/nationalists serving tea to British soldiers be shown on TV before the myth of SFIRA protection is dispelled?

Or the grateful wee Jackeens, cheering British troops coming to quell the 1916 Rising. :rolleyes:

I'm sorry, but you've got some of the most lop-sided argument out of any poster on Politics.

stovelid

Why the left right split thing comes up is probably not because of the envisioned Ireland but the method of engagement.

PSF wished to engage the British and defend catholic areas against Loyalists.

The soon-to-be- OSF thinking was the then nascent idea that any armed action against the protestant working class (even justified action against Loyalists /UDR whatever) was counter productive in the long run as the British were not the main problem, the alienation of protestant /catholic working classes were.

This is an idea (seeking consensus with protestants ) that PSF have only come around to themselves in the last 10 years.

TBH, SF thinking on the Socialist state is understandably wooly (almost a default anti imperialist setting) because - as others have noted - political ideas were in the main only corollary to the 'national struggle' and this is why you had many differing ideologies under the nationalist roof.

As for SF support in working class areas in the south, I can personally attest (I was brought up in West Tallaght) that it seems to be a combination of canny (and sincere) groundwork and the anti establishment aura that still lingers around the party, post-troubles.

Voipjunkie wrote:

Irrelevant the point was that it was allegedly to create a Socialist Ireland yet people here are suggesting that the PSF OSF split was a right left split this makes no sense

brianthebard

stovelid wrote:

Without being pedantic, you're both assigning motives to the army deployment based on ideology. In the first instance, the army was deployed because the civil forces were overrun.

That it was mostly Catholics were under attack or that the civil forces were an adjunct to a sectarian state probably wasn't factored into it at that stage.

How can you say that? What source do you have to back up these claims? I can quote Prof. Comerford on this matter.

csk

brianthebard wrote:

How can you say that? What source do you have to back up these claims? I can quote Prof. Comerford on this matter.

What is Prof. Comerford's quote ? Can you quote any primary sources such as the British Governemnt as to why the Army was sent in ?

stovelid

More to the point, how did he juggle making crucial military decisions on behalf of the British government with an academic career?

brianthebard wrote:

How can you say that? What source do you have to back up these claims? I can quote Prof. Comerford on this matter.

brianthebard

stovelid wrote:

More to the point, how did he juggle making crucial military decisions on behalf of the British government with an academic career?

You complain about my "ideology" being behind the information I give, then you merely replace it with your own. Prof. Comerford is a respected historian and has written extensively on Irish history. Look him up, it shouldn't be too hard. All your doing is countering what I'm saying with "no its not".

stovelid

I don't think I have a particular ideological bias as regards the North. Not along protestant /catholic/British/Irish lines anyway.

Saying that the army were exclusively deployed either to prop up Stormont or to save Catholics does.

I merely said that the British (Labour) government initially deployed the army because the civil authorities could not maintain order in a section of the United Kingdom (stated as fact, not ideological emphasis).

All other theories display an ideological bias which is natural. I'm at a loss to see why this is a controversial thing to say.

For example, a minority of protestants were also burned out of their homes in 1969. Does this mean that the Army were there just to help Catholics and not Protestants?

For example, if the primary purpose of deployment was to prop up Stormont, why was indefinite direct rule applied immediately afterwards?

I haven't read the academic you quote but why display his name like some kind of argument quelling, omniscient final word on the matter? Academics can have an agenda too.

brianthebard wrote:

You complain about my "ideology" being behind the information I give, then you merely replace it with your own. Prof. Comerford is a respected historian and has written extensively on Irish history. Look him up, it shouldn't be too hard. All your doing is countering what I'm saying with "no its not".

FTA69

Stovelid is correct, you can quote Prof Comerford (whoever he is) til the cows come home, the fact remains that troops were deployed "in aid of the civil power", that was the phrase which was used. Considering that "civil power" was a Unionist government who was using the police to quell Nationalists, how could the Brits be used to protect Nationalist areas? Nationalists through the medium of the IRA protected themselves.

How many times must the archive footage of grateful Catholics/nationalists serving tea to British soldiers be shown on TV before the myth of SFIRA protection is dispelled?

http://www.writingsonthewall.net/media/bloodysunday.gif

Will they be showing this on TV too when we discuss the concept of "myths"?

Jackie laughlin

FTA,
The phrase "in aid of the civil power" may have been used but the fact remains that British soldiers were used to protect Catholic areas from loyalist mobs because law ard order had broken down. I can phrase that more to your taste, "because the sectarian Crown forces within Northern Ireland were unwilling to do so."

Ras,
Thank you for the compliment. It has taken me time to get to and face the truth of modern Irish history. You are quite right: the 1916 rising was deeply unpopular in Dublin. This strikes me as understandable, given that the city centre was ruined and there were civilian casualties including children. Public opinion turned when the British stupidly dragged out executions over weeks.

brianthebard

Ah I see what ye were implying. I have no bias or ideological interest in the north, but thanks. In any case I've discovered that SF are not really socialist at all, which still leaves me puzzled as to why people refer to them as such. Oh well.

FTA69

The phrase "in aid of the civil power" may have been used but the fact remains that British soldiers were used to protect Catholic areas from loyalist mobs

They were in their arses, by 1971 they curfewed the Falls Road and killed 7 people while they ransacked people's homes. Later on in that year they were smashing in Nationalist doors and dragging them off to Long Kesh without trial. Then we had Bloody Sunday in January 1972. The Brits were deployed here to pacify the place, not to protect Nationalists.

Jackie laughlin

Pacifying the place and protecting Catholics are not mutually exclusive. The fact remains that British troops protected Catholics. Now, there's no way of underestimating British military stupidity. Once they were deployed in the North and having won the suppport of nationalists, they blew it. Having been attacked by SFIRA, they went booting in the doors of innocent Catholics in search of terrorists and guns. SFIRA step in as protectors. Murdering thugs they certainly are but SFIRA are excellent tacticians who use people mercilessly.

FTA69

Sorry, you're wrong again jackie, the Falls Road Curfew was before the IRA ever engaged the British Army.

Jackie laughlin

FTA, Hardly "again" as I've not been wrong in any of our exchanges. However, I may have to bow to your superior knowledge on this question but you'll have to argue for your proposition that without provocation the British army imposed a curfew and went about persecuting catholics. The British army have a history of bloody, inappropriate, ill-conceived reaction but it falls short of the insanity you suggest.

FTA69

Hardly "again" as I've not been wrong in any of our exchanges

1) You said the IRA marched at the head of a United Ireland rally in Dublin when they didn't.

2) You alleged that the majority of those killed by the IRA were civilians, which is untrue.

3) You alleged that the majority of Catholic civilians who died were killed by the IRA, when it was actually Loyalist paramilitaries and the British Army.

However, I may have to bow to your superior knowledge on this question but you'll have to argue for your proposition that without provocation the British army imposed a curfew and went about persecuting catholics.

They had minor manouveres in Nationalist areas, but bear in mind it was the Provisional IRA which stopped the Short Strand area being overrun by Loyalist mobs in 1969, and from that moment on they were identified by many as the protectors of the Nationalist community. Arms were used at this period solely for defensive purposes, the IRA only engaged the Brits in 1971, after internment and the Falls Road Curfew where the Brits systematically ransacked the area looking for weapons. They also managed to kill 7 locals by gunfire and knocking them down with Saracens. They indeed faced rioters, since the early days but their baton charges, shootings, rubber bullets and mass arrests quickly alienated them from the Nationalist populace.

As I said, it was Nationalists who were engaging in insurgency and as such it was toward them that the British Army was directed. It is also quite naieve to portray the Nationalist working class as dupes manipulated and presided over by Republicans, the fact remains that the Republican Movement was an organic organisation and the ties between that movement (whether it be provos, INLA or whatever) and the community were and are deep and complex.

Jackie laughlin

Threads are being crossed here.

1) A troup of jack-booted, uniformed, marching soldiers who were clearly members of a private army, or pretending to be, marched at the head of the Make Partition History march in Dublin last year. You insist they were not members of the IRA.

2) It depends on how you categorise the victims. On another thread I've conceded that roughly a third of IRA casualties were British soldiers. The substantial point is that the IRA's incoherent blood lust has killed hundreds of people including police, ordinary workers, rival pseudo-republicans, anyone the IRA deems a spy, etc.

3) Again, this is a matter of how the count is done. The substantial point is that the incoherent blood lust has resulted in the so-called defenders of the "Catholic/nationalist community" murdering hundreds of Catholics, more than any ONE other armed grouping.

Catholics/nationalists were seeking civil rights until the IRA tried to mount an insurrection.

So, the British were looking for guns. At least you've given them an excuse for their stupid, thuggish behaviour which managed to lose their Catholic support.

You can hardly call me naive when you choose to portray provos, INLA etc. as springing organically from "their" communities. Leaving aside their internecine killings over who will be top dogs in the estates, the pseudo-republican thugs were and are a scourge on this country.

In moving material from another thread into here, you conspicuously fail to move in your attempt to whitewash the Le Mon bombing, which I chose as an example of an outrage whose perpetrators, commanders and associates should be brought to justice. Anyone with a shred of self respect would inform.