Gerry Adams repeats himself again. But

Sir Humphrey Appleby

Norwesterner wrote: »

More vacuous soundbites from Adams. This time about elites.
The man who get donations from the Coca Cola company and Lehmann bankers, has MI5 mandarins writing his speeches, and has the Vatican altering his wikipedia page to paint him in a positive light.

Thats the funniest thing I have read on boards in a long long time.
Hilarious, probably defamatory, but hilarious.:D

FTA69

southsiderosie wrote: »

Well, like any other political movement, republicanism has split and there are different variants of it, which is why I object to the 'one true church' ideal of republicanism that has been unchanged since 1798.

True, but that doesn't negate the fact Fianna Fáil and Sinn Féin are wholly different organisations from a different tradition. The "Irish Republican" tradition that Sinn Féin were part of was a radical, militant and insurrectionist one; a tradition that Cumann na nGaedheal and later Fianna Fáil split away from entirely. To group all of the above under the bracket "Republican" and then go on to thus tie Sinn Féin to the agenda of the government parties is a bit lazy to be honest and ignores the fact that Irish Republicanism was about challenging the state from a revolutionary position while FF/CnG were all about reinforcing the state from a conservative point of view.

my point is that Adams' comments seem to be directed at CnG elites

In fairness, knowing Adams, it's safe to say he was also talking about Fianna Fáil when he mentioned a post-partition elite. While nobody could ever say that the Civil War was fought on a left-right basis, the fact remains that the progressive and revolutionary segment of that movement (Mellowes, O'Donnell, O'Malley, Ryan etc) were overwhelmingly anti-Treaty and had they not been roundly defeated they may have contributed in steering the state in a different direction. Then again they may have been swallowed up by a conservative majority. It's hard to say.

While the 1937 constitution may have just put into writing what the dogs on the street already knew, in terms of resetting the institutional and social landscape, this mattered - as many republicans more progressive than De Valera knew quite well, hence their opposition to both the RCC clause and the whole women's "life within the home" clause in Article 41.

It didn't elevate the church's position in any meaningful sense, it just provided added confirmation of a state-of-affairs that was long entrenched in Irish society. Similarly the notion that it was only De Valera who reinforced the church is bogus, it's safe to say that Fine Gael and even Labour were of a similar disposition.

No, I'm simply arguing that republicanism is a bigger house that some people make it out to be, and while I understand the instinct, particularly among SF supporters, to distance themselves from FF, you cannot wish political history away.

If we follow on your logic then it's also fair to lump Sinn Féin in with the Blueshirts, Fine Gael and whoever else in Irish politics; after the all the latter also called themselves "Irish Republicans." Republicanism in a world sense is indeed a very broad church, but in Ireland it has generally been taken to mean the insurrectionist and radical political tradition; something that you could never lump FF or FG into. I think "Nationalist" would be a better term for the type of thing you're alluding to.

Oh, to be fair, I think Sinn Féin is actually pretty exemplary in its approach to dealing with an increasingly diverse Ireland. Perhaps I should re-state a bit and not label to SF what is a trend among some republicans who happen to support SF.

True, but the whole "conservative nationalist" trend isn't limited to SF supporters by any means.

However, there is a long history in republicanism of groups of elites imposing their solutions to the Irish problem on the population without a great deal of consensus.

A common scenario in nearly every revolutionary situation.

Norwesterner

Sir Humphrey Appleby wrote: »

Thats the funniest thing I have read on boards in a long long time.
Hilarious, probably defamatory, but hilarious.:D

If only.....
The Lehmann link
http://saoirse32.dreamwidth.org/5399352.html

The MI5 writing Adams speech link. (scroll down)
http://www.sinnfein.ie/contents/11951

the Vatican sexing up Adams' wiki page link:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/northern_ireland/6949153.stm

The Coca-Cola donation to sinn Fein link:
http://www.nuzhound.com/articles/irish_times/arts2003/aug23_sinn_fein_coke__ODriscoll.php

Only the underaged and naive still think SF is some kind of force for radical change in Ireland.

SoulandForm

Norwesterner wrote: »

More vacuous soundbites from Adams. This time about elites.
The man who get donations from the Coca Cola company and Lehmann bankers, has MI5 mandarins writing his speeches, and has the Vatican altering his wikipedia page to paint him in a positive light.

Sometimes I wonder if Adams and McGuinness were ever Irish Republicans in any real sense; I strongly suspect that for them the PIRA's armed campaign was about ending discrimination in the north east of the country and precious little else. The way that they have abandoned serious anti-imperialist positions on EU membership and the presence of multinationals in Ireland along with the manner in which they have allowed Unionists to constantly block the Irish language bill that they supposedly signed up to in the St Andrews Agreement would strongly suggest this.

FTA69

SoulandForm wrote: »

Sometimes I wonder if Adams and McGuinness were ever Irish Republicans in any real sense; I strongly suspect that for them the PIRA's armed campaign was about ending discrimination in the north east of the country and precious little else. The way that they have abandoned serious anti-imperialist positions on EU membership and the presence of multinationals in Ireland along with the manner in which they have allowed Unionists to constantly block the Irish language bill that they supposedly signed up to in the St Andrews Agreement would strongly suggest this.

Exactly. It was Catholic Defenderism with a bit of socialist window-dressing. They were never really ideologically socialist republicans in a concrete sense.

Cody Pomeray

I think it's difficult to develop a consistent and enduring political philosophy in the midst of an armed upheaval, so their inconsistencies were forgiveable in the run-up to the ceasefires.

Certainly, disappointing socialist republican ideals seems to be the legacy of all Republicans as they move from the front line into Dáil Éireann. SF are moving from the small group of people trying to change Ireland, almost into a wannabe FFxLab hybrid.

SoulandForm

FTA69 wrote: »

Exactly. It was Catholic Defenderism with a bit of socialist window-dressing. They were never really ideologically socialist republicans in a concrete sense.

The problem was that they were not "traditional" Republicans such as General Tom Maguire either. This raises a big question though; can the last armed campaign therefore be justified? Would discrimination have ended quicker without it? Certainly reactionary used the troubles to entrench, justify itself and tighten its grip over the Protestant population in the north east- for instance in 1965 the Presbyterian Church in Ireland issued a very damning report about discrimination against Roman Catholics in the 6 counties and called for its elimination, by the early 80s any such action by them would have been completely unthinkable. Would the likes of Paisley and his thugs have faded into insignificance the way the Klu Klux Klan did in the southern states of the USA by the 80s without the armed campaign? Maybe but than again maybe not. I guess we will never know.

COYW

Cody Pomeray wrote: »

Certainly, disappointing socialist republican ideals seems to be the legacy of all Republicans as they move from the front line into Dáil Éireann. SF are moving from the small group of people trying to change Ireland, almost into a wannabe FFxLab hybrid.

That is probably as good a summation as I have come across on them Cody. As time progresses, I see more and more of FF in them, they could possibly merge in years to come but they do have a hint of old Labour (hard left) in them, but that seems to come and go. A stint in coalition will remove the hard left idealism and we will be left with another FF.

FG & SF is about as likely as FF & FG, so FF & SF is the only option. FF claim that this is not an option, as do SF but as we know both will chose power over any party reform. Just to decode that, I don't trust FF or SF in saying that they will not go into coalition with each other.

SoulandForm

COYW wrote: »

That is probably as good a summation as I have come across on them Cody. As time progresses, I see more and more of FF in them, they could possibly merge in years to come but they do have a hint of old Labour (hard left) in them, but that seems to come and go.

They are exactly where FF was in the 1930s give or take a few things.

If they get serious power than we will probably be FF in the 1980s.

southsiderosie

Cody Pomeray wrote: »

I think it's difficult to develop a consistent and enduring political philosophy in the midst of an armed upheaval, so their inconsistencies were forgiveable in the run-up to the ceasefires.

Certainly, disappointing socialist republican ideals seems to be the legacy of all Republicans as they move from the front line into Dáil Éireann. SF are moving from the small group of people trying to change Ireland, almost into a wannabe FFxLab hybrid.

To be fair, that is the legacy of any movement that shifts from outsider politics to establishment politics. The question for SF in the Republic is whether or not they are willing to trade power for principle - and that is the inevitable trade-off if they go into government with FF or FG. It hasn't worked out too well for Labour (ever), but being stuck in opposition can make it mighty tempting...

Norwesterner

SoulandForm wrote: »

Sometimes I wonder if Adams and McGuinness were ever Irish Republicans in any real sense; I strongly suspect that for them the PIRA's armed campaign was about ending discrimination in the north east of the country and precious little else. The way that they have abandoned serious anti-imperialist positions on EU membership and the presence of multinationals in Ireland along with the manner in which they have allowed Unionists to constantly block the Irish language bill that they supposedly signed up to in the St Andrews Agreement would strongly suggest this.

Seems they were not against British Rule per se, but rather how the British ruled.

Cody Pomeray

southsiderosie wrote: »

To be fair, that is the legacy of any movement that shifts from outsider politics to establishment politics.

I'm not sure what the substance of this point is. By all means, many movements which engage the public outside the political process later join politics and are immediately accused of selling out. After all, disaffection with sell-outs was the ultimate genesis of the modern Sinn Féin movement.

This is all of little relevance. All that's relevant is Sinn Féin supporters' legitimate expectations of Sinn Féin.

Sinn Féin was a party with socialist republican ideals, in theory at least, which announced it possible to pursue those ideals within the establishment. I think that was a fatal mistake for Irish republicanism and for the ideological legitimacy of the movement. Small groups of people change Ireland. Big, representative political parties, which apparently Sinn Féin aspire to be, never will. They're too busy being popular.

southsiderosie

Cody Pomeray wrote: »

I'm not sure what the substance of this point is. By all means, many movements which engage the public outside the political process later join politics and are immediately accused of selling out. After all, disaffection with sell-outs was the ultimate genesis of the modern Sinn Féin movement.

This is all of little relevance. All that's relevant is Sinn Féin supporters' legitimate expectations of Sinn Féin.

Sinn Féin was a party with socialist republican ideals, in theory at least, which announced it possible to pursue those ideals within the establishment. I think that was a fatal mistake for Irish republicanism and for the ideological legitimacy of the movement. Small groups of people change Ireland. Big, representative political parties, which apparently Sinn Féin aspire to be, never will. They're too busy being popular.

Yes, we can't have political parties being popular, now! However else will they get elected?

The substance of the point is there there is a big difference between being a revolutionary social movement and a political party - only the former can afford to be ideologically pure on all issues big and small. The latter will need to make compromises if they want to get anything done.

Your comment cuts to the heart of one of the consistent issues with the republican movement: is having a small cabal of true believers more important than being a representative political party in a democracy? I'm genuinely curious: what would you have Sinn Fein do?

More broadly, why is ideological legitimacy more important than democratic legitimacy? If SF supporters don't like what they are about, then don't vote for them and give them a mandate. If you really don't like them and thing you can do better, well, go on and form a different party. Given the electoral institutions that exist in Ireland, it isn't actually that difficult.

HansHolzel

Census results in the North in 2012 showed 48% "Protestant" and 45% "Catholic". The "Protestants" were down 5% in ten years. In this context, post-1998, the flag issue and the parades issue remind me of what Parnell thought of the 1881 Land Act. It didn’t abolish landlordism but made landlordism intolerable for the landlords.

Therefore, when an Orange-lite hack like Henry McDonald writes in the Guardian that the South is a charity case that can’t afford the North, as if that fact had any bearing on the flag coming down, he fails to see that the Border isn’t the crux. His world is being turned over from within. But someone should at least tell the loyalist rioters that getting good grades isn’t 'acting like a taig'.

Cody Pomeray

southsiderosie wrote: »

Yes, we can't have political parties being popular, now! However else will they get elected?

The substance of the point is there there is a big difference between being a revolutionary social movement and a political party - only the former can afford to be ideologically pure on all issues big and small. The latter will need to make compromises if they want to get anything done.

That's not true.

Question: How has Sinn Féin and the republican movement in the North overcome civil rights violations? And how has it best worked towards social progress?

Answer: From outside of the political system.

Outside the political system, a movement can shout loud enough so the conversation changes. Inside the political system... joining the conversation... a movement can only wait until speaking rights are allotted to him.

In the present Dáil, no opposition politician should be waiting around inside Leinster house for speaking rights. It's a waste of time. It doesn't change the conversation. It is a sell-out on behalf of opposition politicians with specific ideological mandates.

Norwesterner

Cody Pomeray wrote: »

That's not true.

Question: How has Sinn Féin and the republican movement in the North overcome civil rights violations? And how has it best worked towards social progress?

Answer: From outside of the political system.

Outside the political system, a movement can shout loud enough so the conversation changes. Inside the political system... joining the conversation... a movement can only wait until speaking rights are allotted to him.

In the present Dáil, no opposition politician should be waiting around inside Leinster house for speaking rights. It's a waste of time. It doesn't change the conversation. It is a sell-out on behalf of opposition politicians with specific ideological mandates.

Absolutely.
And what I despise most is the dishonest claims of SF people who ask insist "it's the only show in town" and that the only 2 options for Republicans is "parliamentarianism or armed struggle."
I didn't leave SF because of the peace-process or ceasefire, I left when they entered Stormont.
They could've continued with the ceasefire but build an activist popular movement outside of Stormont.
I'd say they'd probably be stronger today if they had.

SoulandForm

Norwesterner wrote: »

Absolutely.
And what I despise most is the dishonest claims of SF people who ask insist "it's the only show in town" and that the only 2 options for Republicans is "parliamentarianism or armed struggle."
I didn't leave SF because of the peace-process or ceasefire, I left when they entered Stormont.
They could've continued with the ceasefire but build an activist popular movement outside of Stormont.
I'd say they'd probably be stronger today if they had.

Gerry Adams and Martin McGuinness belittled Ruairí Ó Brádaigh in 1986 for calling a cease fire in the mid-70s and promised posing as hyper militarists that the war would continue unceasingly until the British withdrew. They merrily used slander and violence against both RSF outside of the prisons and the League of Republican Communists within the prisons at this time. Provisional Sinn Fein is and was since the clique took control a highly authoritarian organization- this allowed the Imperialists to buy off the leadership and take most of the membership with them. You can see a lot of the same story with the Workers Party. I hope that the lessons of history will be learnt and in the next round against the enemy people will not be so trusting.

southsiderosie

Cody Pomeray wrote: »

That's not true.

Question: How has Sinn Féin and the republican movement in the North overcome civil rights violations? And how has it best worked towards social progress?

Answer: From outside of the political system.

Outside the political system, a movement can shout loud enough so the conversation changes. Inside the political system... joining the conversation... a movement can only wait until speaking rights are allotted to him.

In the present Dáil, no opposition politician should be waiting around inside Leinster house for speaking rights. It's a waste of time. It doesn't change the conversation. It is a sell-out on behalf of opposition politicians with specific ideological mandates.

Stronger in what sense? The republican movement, like the civil rights movement in the US, highlighted an intolerable political and social situation, and made claims for change that no democracy could willfully oppose forever. But on what issues today do you think they would have more policy leverage on outside of the system rather than inside of it?

Norwesterner wrote: »

Absolutely.
And what I despise most is the dishonest claims of SF people who ask insist "it's the only show in town" and that the only 2 options for Republicans is "parliamentarianism or armed struggle."
I didn't leave SF because of the peace-process or ceasefire, I left when they entered Stormont.
They could've continued with the ceasefire but build an activist popular movement outside of Stormont.
I'd say they'd probably be stronger today if they had.

There is no reason that republican civil society organizations can not or should not put pressure on elected officials to enact the kinds of policies that they want to see or build an 'activist popular movement'. But a party isn't a movement - it is an organization designed to move political positions through a legislative body, and that involves levels of compromise that most activist organizations are unwilling to make - and that isn't necessarily a bad thing. But they are fundamentally two different animals, and I think it is unreasonable - and, frankly, naive - to see them in any other way.

SoulandForm

southsiderosie wrote: »

There is no reason that republican civil society organizations can not or should not put pressure on elected officials to enact the kinds of policies that they want to see or build an 'activist popular movement'. But a party isn't a movement - it is an organization designed to move political positions through a legislative body, and that involves levels of compromise that most activist organizations are unwilling to make - and that isn't necessarily a bad thing. But they are fundamentally two different animals, and I think it is unreasonable - and, frankly, naive - to see them in any other way.

The point of Republicanism is not to reform the set up enforced on the Irish people at the point of gun but to abolish both Stormount and Leinster house giving the Irish people a direct as opposed to pseudo-representative say in how the nation is governed. Both legislative bodies have no legitimacy both in their origins and their practices.

southsiderosie

SoulandForm wrote: »

The point of Republicanism is not to reform the set up enforced on the Irish people at the point of gun but to abolish both Stormount and Leinster house giving the Irish people a direct as opposed to pseudo-representative say in how the nation is governed. Both legislative bodies have no legitimacy both in their origins and their practices.

And thus spoketh the People's Front of Judea.

I need my head examined for ever wading into these threads.

Norwesterner

southsiderosie wrote: »

And thus spoketh the People's Front of Judea.

I need my head examined for ever wading into these threads.

1.5 points for originality.

Chips Lovell

HansHolzel wrote: »

...an Orange-lite hack like Henry McDonald ...

Really?

SoulandForm

Norwesterner wrote: »

1.5 points for originality.

Well its an interesting fact that southern Ireland is one of the most if not the most apolitical places in western europe- this cannot blamed on ordinary people in general, its due to the fact that debate is tightly limited by the elite who control parties and the media. Any dissent is demonized or laughed off. However given the suicidal course that people of rosie's ilk have taken the country on Im not sure how long this state of affair can last. Rising gun crime and a massive debt from bailing out grossly irresponsible banks and still they are coming out with the same old nonsense.
.

alastair

SoulandForm wrote: »

The point of Republicanism is not to reform the set up enforced on the Irish people at the point of gun but to abolish both Stormount and Leinster house giving the Irish people a direct as opposed to pseudo-representative say in how the nation is governed. Both legislative bodies have no legitimacy both in their origins and their practices.

The 'pseudo-representative' model at least has the benefit of actually better representing the majority of people's opinions and inclinations. The elusive 'pure' republican ethos hasn't exactly captured much public support, has it? So the question of legitimacy really comes down to consensus - which isn't really an area that 'pure' republicanism does particularly well in. It's a minority interest, unable to garner anywhere near enough support to be much more than a cliquey talk shop.

alastair

SoulandForm wrote: »

this cannot blamed on ordinary people in general, its due to the fact that debate is tightly limited by the elite who control parties and the media.

Of course it it is. Those nefarious elites strike again.

SoulandForm

alastair wrote: »

The 'pseudo-representative' model at least has the benefit of actually better representing the majority of people's opinions and inclinations. The elusive 'pure' republican ethos hasn't exactly captured much public support, has it? So the question of legitimacy really comes down to consensus - which isn't really an area that 'pure' republicanism does particularly well in. It's a minority interest, unable to garner anywhere near enough support to be much more than a cliquey talk shop.

Does it? The majority of people in southern Ireland have precious few political opinions and inclinations but maybe you should ask them what they think about their "representives" who have made themselves the best paid politicians in the EU. You might be surprised and it might cause you to wonder how such a situation could exist in a supposedly representative situation. And yes the issue of legitimacy very much does come into play given the foundation of the state and the way it has continually exercised authority against the best interests of the majority of its citizens since its foundation. If the silent majority actually began to develop a genuine interest in politics things would radically change- already Fine Gael would clearly love to see the mirage of democracy stripped back even further.

alastair

SoulandForm wrote: »

Does it? The majority of people in southern Ireland have precious few political opinions and inclinations

They don't? Or they just don't share your opinions? The 'silent majority' keep exercising their democratic franchise elsewhere, after all.

Manach

There does seem to be a drift away from a more accurate representation of the peoples' wishes in the historical context of the emerging structures of the Irish state. At a local level, which presumably would be more in tune with popular sentiment, there is a trend from the 1927(?) Local Government Act onwards to strip the executive powers from these councils and encorporate it to a central state functionality. By international European statements, there is a very low rate of engagement by the public at a local level - and compared to the benchmark of the US style townhall style meetings, nearly non-existent.

Cody Pomeray

southsiderosie wrote: »

...on what issues today do you think they would have more policy leverage on outside of the system rather than inside of it?

This time around it's social inequality of an economic nature. Without a fundamental change of social values, inequality is a game of musical chairs.

Recessions and booms and ceasefires and political parties come and go, but it's always the turn of another generation to leave society. It's always the turn of another generation to face unemployment, to face into the unlucky fiefdom of an economic wasteland.

Correcting this problem requires wholescale re-design of the public institutions that have scarcely changed since the foundations of the original Free State. Government has maintained a spectacularly consistent ideological outlook since 1922. If given the chance, it will coast along with the same outlook intil 2022 and beyond.

Activism outside of the political establishment seeks to undermine Government, undermine its moral authority, and challenge the people to re-imagine the Republic. If extraordinary, extra-political measures were required to fight inequality and economic tyranny in Northern Ireland in the late 20th century, why not in all of Ireland in the present day?

View

Cody Pomeray wrote: »

Government has maintained a spectacularly consistent ideological outlook since 1922.

It is the electorate who has maintained this ideological outlook.

They have displayed an impressive lack of interest in alternatives.