Did FF policies 1997 - 2008 betray Republican ideals*

Slideshowbob

I think they did - anyone else got a view?

*And by Republican ideals, I'll refer to The Proclamation for reference, e.g. "cherishing all of the children of the nation equally" and such like ....

Of course I welcome a debate here of what is a Republic, and/or a Republican ideal even .....

PS - can I add a poll here anyone know?

spank_inferno

When the founding document is as whimsical as the example provided it could be argued that all governments since 21 have failed in that regard.

So to ansewer your question: Yes, they probably did fail.

Also, I would argue that De Valera's unwinable trade war with the UK so soon after independance caused more damage to a fledgling state than FF did from 2001-2011.

Busted Flat.

When did FF ever had republican ideals, Devil era put that out to gain support and people fell for it, the corruption started with him, before FF, but in the US with the money that made him wealthy. While others sacrificed their lives for a cause that was sold out to corruption.

raymon

In my personal opinion I regard Fianna Fails actions as treacherous.
It disgusts me that the party that did the most damage to the republic uses the phrase "the republican party"

The proclamation states " We declare the right of the people of Ireland to the ownership of Ireland, and to the unfettered control of Irish destinies, to be sovereign and indefeasible"

Fianna Fail have clearly done the opposite by casually handing over our soverignty to foreign powers.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

IrishProd

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

I repected and agreed with everything you were saying until that, you lumped in the Irish language in with all that despicable stuff? FFS

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

ArmaniJeanss

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

I don't really get this (whilst I agree with you about little used languages like Irish).
Forcing children to learn to an acceptable standard the most commonly spoken language in the country (English) would seem something the U.S. government should do. Entirely sensible imo.
Is it any different to forcing children to do maths, or could parents decide to omit that from their children's education too?

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Nodin

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

There is something rather nauseating about sweeping generalisations used to push an agenda.

Britain had the marriage bar on female civil servants until 1945.

Britain also had (and has) a censorship board.

Britain decriminalised homosexuality in 1967.

Britain also ill treated single mothers (commitment to asylums, mother and baby homes), not to mention the fate of the 150,000 or so children sent to parts of the commonwealth, from the late 20's until 1967. Seeing as Gordon Brown saw fit to apologise for it not many years ago, it strikes me as odd that didn't register.

Britain also had its deals, its elites and its problems.

The fact is that the Irish state may have emerged a conservative one, but was of its time in many respects. The notion that a regression occurred is for the most part a nonsense.

oscarBravo

Nodin wrote: »

Britain had the marriage bar on female civil servants until 1945.

Ireland had it for twenty eight years longer.

Britain decriminalised homosexuality in 1967.

Twenty six years before Ireland did.

Britain also ill treated single mothers (commitment to asylums, mother and baby homes), not to mention the fate of the 150,000 or so children sent to parts of the commonwealth, from the late 20's until 1967.

Ireland's last Magdalene laundry closed in 1996.

The fact is that the Irish state may have emerged a conservative one, but was of its time in many respects.

It would seem it was 25-30 years behind its time, actually.

Nodin

oscarBravo wrote: »

Ireland had it for twenty eight years longer. Twenty six years before Ireland did. Ireland's last Magdalene laundry closed in 1996. It would seem it was 25-30 years behind its time, actually.

......did I say any different? No, I stated that "the Irish state may have emerged a conservative one, but was of its time in many respects". As the years progressed that conservatism was more and more apparent but at the time of independence it was far less remarkable.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

You Suck!

FF are the state of the art in opportunism, opportunism cannot embrace ideology since it would be an obstruction to the flexibility required to take full advantage of emerging situations at any point in time.

spank_inferno

Superb post Permabear.

Nodin

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

Yet again, you characterise the departure from Britain as some sort of fall a la "paradise lost" than a separation of states. It's rather laughable. Dublin had some of the worst slums in Europe "before 1916" - they didn't appear as the British left the harbour.

You seem to completely ignore the repression in the various colonies and protectorates as well. Presumably passing price restrictions and state intereference doesn't count if its just some kikuyu tribesman or Punjabi who suffers?

FTA69

I suppose it all comes down to what we mean by "Irish Republicanism" really, a term that's claimed by Michael McDowell, Gerry Adams and nearly everyone in between. The truth is that "Republicanism" in the popular sense has always been a very broad church which had adherents which ranged from militant Marxists (Connolly, O'Donnell etc) to national-chauvinistic religious types (O'Duffy). At it's best and most genuine however, Irish Republicanism has always been anti-imperialist, challenging the British presence in Ireland and also advocating an equitable society based on collective ownership of the country. And to be fair, when people say "Republican" they generally mean the above definition as opposed to the likes of Kevin O'Higgins.

Nobody can deny that the state that emerged after the Civil War was reactionary and retrograde on almost every level. It's also worth bearing in mind that actual Irish Republicans (not the ones who appropriated the term for credibility purposes) were also to the forefront in challenging much of that despite being a fringe trend in Irish politics. The likes of Peader O'Donnell was instrumental in organising small farmers against land annuities (the money we owed Britain for buying our own land back from aristocratic landlords) and the Republican Congress was to the forefront in protesting against slum conditions. The Proclamation and the Democratic Program set out much of what Ireland could and should have been, although that ideal was later subverted entirely by a self-serving political and economic elite. I personally don't think Republicans such as James Connolly would have been particularly supportive of anything that emerged after independence.

It's also worth challenging this myth that Ireland suddenly morphed into a theocracy in 1923. The reality is that the Catholic Church had a position of prominence in Irish society that dates back to the days of Paul Cullen. The British government bequeathed control of education to the church long before independence was even a political issue in Ireland. They did this after realising they needed to make an alliance with the Catholic middle-class as the days of the Ascendancy were untenable.

TL/DR Version - The notion of "Republicans turned the place into a sh*thole while the Brits were great" is simplistic and ignores historical fact.

Karl Stein

FTA69 wrote: »

TL/DR Version - The notion of "Republicans turned the place into a sh*thole while the Brits were great" is simplistic and ignores historical fact.

Historical facts tend to get in the way of hysterical ones.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

jank

Permabears posts is very hard to argue with in my opinion. I think he hits the nail on the head.

The term republicanism in an Irish context lost all its meaning after the Brits left Dublin Castle. It is all well and good to fight the war of independence and claim some notion of sovereignty. What comes next though? On one side we saw Marxists try and implement their style of ‘freedom’, on the other we saw chancers and goombean men. However, we have seen through the last 90 years that more often than not we made a dogs dinner out of it. We should have looked at the US and seen how they implemented their constitution. More emphasis on Liberty rather than equality.

I have said this before but I'll say it again. Australia and NZ where I have lived the last couple of years have a Queen as their head of state but these countries are vastly more republican (taking the dictionary term not some bollox SF or FF sells us) as Ireland. In these countries there is much more incentive for the average person to make the best out of his lot without the state being some cultural, economic or moral authority.

I was at a Vietnamese wedding there a few weeks ago. All of them 2nd generation Australian, smashing the drink and having a great time in general. All their parents and grand-parents were there as well and the vast vast majority of them came over with nothing but a suitcase if they were lucky. Refugees of a Communist take-over of South Vietnam which also included many Catholics cause as we know there is no God but the state in Communism. The grooms father was a police officer in the South Vietnamese government. Chances are that if he stayed he would have been caught, brought down some dark alley and have a bullet enter his brain.

Instead of fled to Australia and started a new life from scratch at the age of 45. Now, he has 3 sons and one daughter and numerous grandchildren. All of them employed in decent middle class professional jobs, all of the educated up to University level, all of them free to practise whatever politics or religion they want. All of them free to make lots of money and lose it all and start again. Australia gave him that opportunity. To me THAT is what republicanism is about, not some makey uppy happy crap word we use in Ireland.

Some fool from SF or FF would try and convince you that being poor and morally corrupt but free from a monarchy is better than having a Queen but the nation being better off both socially and economically.

To summarize, republicanism in the Irish context is just a word usually to popularise some political message from some in the know family, so the same people return to power to heap yet more misery on the average Irish person. It’s all a load of ****e and it doesn’t exist. We should be looking abroad for our inspiration not internally which we so often do.

Nodin

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

Not at all.

There were and are a number of objectionable features to the state post indepence. What I object to is your simplistic narrative painting the gaining of independence as some sort of fall from grace, which clearly ignores the context of the times. You ignore that many of the social advances in Britain happened long after independence, which - in the construction of your post - is intellectual dishonesty of the first order. Failing to note similar ills in Britain at the time is - again - distortion by omission. It's crude, tacky and propagandistic.

jank

Nodin wrote: »

Not at all.

There were and are a number of objectionable features to the state post indepence. What I object to is your simplistic narrative painting the gaining of independence as some sort of fall from grace, which clearly ignores the context of the times. You ignore that many of the social advances in Britain happened long after independence, which - in the construction of your post - is intellectual dishonesty of the first order. Failing to note similar ills in Britain at the time is - again - distortion by omission. It's crude, tacky and propagandistic.

In fairness, Permabear does post very specific examples of social liberalism that occurs in Britan where Ireland was decades behind in granting similar rights. If for example Ireland remained within the commonwealth or the Union divorce would not have become illegal in 1937 and books from Steinbeck, Joyce and JD Salinger would not have been censored or banned. Lets not even go into the economic arguments...

Nobody is saying Ireland became Stalinistic overnight but I think the main thrust of the point is that in terms of Irish Republicanism the average person was generally less free after independance than before. The only freedom we gained was to make a mess of our own doing, time and time again. Yet Irish republicanism is something to be celebrated without question. THAT is the main gribe I think. Flag waving gob****es saying 'Arent we great!'

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Godge

Nodin wrote: »

Not at all.

There were and are a number of objectionable features to the state post indepence. What I object to is your simplistic narrative painting the gaining of independence as some sort of fall from grace, which clearly ignores the context of the times. You ignore that many of the social advances in Britain happened long after independence, which - in the construction of your post - is intellectual dishonesty of the first order. Failing to note similar ills in Britain at the time is - again - distortion by omission. It's crude, tacky and propagandistic.

I think the point is also being made that the freedoms gained post-1922 were greater in imperialist Britain than the freedoms gained in Republican Ireland. That remains true to the present day when we still have a state that has ridiculously constrained divorce and abortion laws.

There is no doubt that despite the ills in Britain, the social and economic advances there over the last century have been far greater than in our little Republic.

JesterWX58

jank wrote: »

.... If for example Ireland remained within the commonwealth or the Union divorce would not have become illegal in 1937 and books from Steinbeck, Joyce and JD Salinger would not have been censored or banned. ....

Ireland was in the Commonwealth in 1937....

Nodin

jank wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

....not in his original post, however. He also seems to be - as pointed out - blind to common ills, not to mention the impositions on those subject to the Empire in Africa, Asia etc.

jank wrote: »

Nobody is saying Ireland became Stalinistic overnight but I think the main thrust of the point is that in terms of Irish Republicanism the average person was generally less free after independance than before. The only freedom we gained was to make a mess of our own doing, time and time again. Yet Irish republicanism is something to be celebrated without question. THAT is the main gribe I think. Flag waving gob****es saying 'Arent we great!'

....which "Irish republicanism" would that be? DeValeras? Frank Ryans? Peadar O'Donnels? People here are talking about it as if its some undivided body, when in fact its notoriously fractious. "mainstream nationalism" is far more accurate when referring to Irelands governance post independence.

Permabear wrote:

This post has been deleted.

...a proclamation from a failed rising, of which all seven signatories were executed. What happened next was the not unknown phenomena of various centrist and conservative elements seeing what way the wind was blowing and deciding to act accordingly. Similar happened in Greece, the US etc.

Karl Stein

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

Toward an English dependency? Oh joy!

I'd tend to agree with former Taoiseach, and veritable establishment man, Garret Fitzgerald's (not renowned for his love of physical force Republicanism which must surely make you and your little crew of groupthinkers a fan of his) appraisal of the 1916 rising when he writes:

What was on offer before 1916 was Home Rule – devolution, well short of independence. It is assumed by many that Home Rule would have evolved automatically into sovereign independence [...] The truth is that without 1916 our people might well have settled down for a time at least within a Home Rule system [...] with the evolution of the welfare state, Ireland would have become increasingly dependent financially on Britain.

If Home Rule had endured for any length of time, a move to independence would have become so costly in the short-run that it is most unlikely that there would ever have been a willingness to pay the price of doing without these transfers.

spank_inferno

Carlos Roca wrote: »

Toward an English dependency? Oh joy!

I'd tend to agree with former Taoiseach, and veritable establishment man, Garret Fitzgerald's (not renowned for his love of physical force Republicanism which must surely make you and your little crew of groupthinkers a fan of his) appraisal of the 1916 rising when he writes:

The merit of the 1916 rising is not the point of discussion.

This thread is about the performances of governments post-independence wrt the founding fathers socialist/republican ideals.

If you want to shift the goal-posts please try harder.

Karl Stein

spank_inferno wrote: »

The merit of the 1916 rising is not the point of discussion.

This thread is about the performances of governments post-independence wrt the founding fathers socialist/republican ideals.

If you want to shift the goal-posts please try harder.

Clearly our fortunes pre-independence and post independence were being compared (albeit laughably reductively). The uprising led to rapid transition to self-governance that in turn draws legitimate criticism of how we governed ourselves in the short term.

I was simply exploring how that might have worked out in the long term.

You do not get to decide the parameters of the debate.

FTA69

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

I'm not speaking for Nodin, but I don't think he denied that Ireland stagnated rather said it didn't go from being a pluralist, progressive place to a religion-led sh*thole overnight. As I said in my post above, the church was long established in Ireland's social infrastructure for years before independence. Furthermore, this was a situation that was created by the British state who handed them the education system and allowed them to gain influence over healthcare. In other words, Ireland under British rule wasn't the least bit secular and this was something promoted and facilitated by the state at the time.

spark-inferno

This thread is about the performances of governments post-independence wrt the founding fathers socialist/republican ideals.

I don't think any Irish Republican would disagree with you in that sense. The original vision for the Republic was based on socialist and republican ideals and that was later hijacked and sidelined by the right wing. As I said above, I'm an Irish Republican and I would consider the likes of Connolly, Tone, Emmett and Mellows to be adequate representatives of that ideal. The likes of De Valera, Blythe etc would be better described by the term "nationalist".

Nodin

spank_inferno wrote: »

The merit of the 1916 rising is not the point of discussion.

This thread is about the performances of governments post-independence wrt the founding fathers socialist/republican ideals.

If you want to shift the goal-posts please try harder.

He didn't wasn't the one who dragged in 1916.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Nodin

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

More painting in broad strokes.

I see nothing "toxic" in wishing to break from an Empire built on racism and sectarianism, and whose preservation was often aided by the furthering of both.

The North didn't exactly become a hotbed of liberalism and booming commerce, despite its staying with the union. Not only that but religion dominated (and still does) the school system there, and there's more restrictive abortion legislation.

Mr Cumulonimbus

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

Exposure to 19th century British economic policy in Ireland being a cause? I wouldn't call it a "toxic strain", more a "logical" one tbh, in response to the biggest catastrophe in Irish economic/social/cultural history that occurred from 1845 to 1850, plus it's after-effects.

Sand

Nodin wrote: »

More painting in broad strokes.

I see nothing "toxic" in wishing to break from an Empire built on racism and sectarianism, and whose preservation was often aided by the furthering of both.

The North didn't exactly become a hotbed of liberalism and booming commerce, despite its staying with the union. Not only that but religion dominated (and still does) the school system there, and there's more restrictive abortion legislation.

And were Irelands attempts to break with that Empire (culturally/socially/economically given that politically the break had already been achieved) at any cost as Permabear has pointed out motivated by an objection to racism and sectarianism?

Or are you simply attempting to recast conservative and atrociously bad policy-making as doomed but romantic idealism?

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

jank

Agreed, it is telling that people are not even bothered to defend their brand of Irish Republicanism but instead are going down the mud slinging route of "LOOK British imperialism!" as if the argument is all of a sudden binary.

FTA69

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

I never said it does. My point was that you are attempting to lay the socially conservative and religion-dominated ethos of the Irish state at the door of Irish Republicanism despite this not being entirely truthful. The historical reality is that the Catholic Church was given official prominence in Irish society long before 1916 and this was actively encouraged and facilitated by the British state itself; the same state you advocate as being progressive and pluralist.

Furthermore you go on to suggest that if Ireland had remained a part of the UK, we would have benefited from the liberalisation of Britain in the post-war period. This is another historical fallacy. When we look at the part of Ireland that did stay in the UK, we saw that it remained a sectarian and stunted backwater and was completely untouched by the liberal currents in Britain itself. In fact, the state got more and more sectarian while Britain looked the other way.

The moral of the story Permabear, is that the British establishment has never viewed Ireland as an equal partner and this notion that hundreds of years of conservatism would have been washed away if he we stuck with the UK is nonsense.

Nodin switched tack, and is now trying to argue that the conservative and retrograde policies implemented in the 1920s and 30s didn't represent genuine republican aspirations (cf. the "it wasn't real communism" defense).

Not really. He's just pointing out that Irish Republicanism and conservative nationalism aren't the same things and are in fact very different ideologies. He's also correct in saying that it was the right-wing capitalist sections of the movement who ended up becoming dominant much to the expense of the original left-wing and pluralist ideals that were set out in 1916 and the period shortly after. That isn't a cop out, it's just fact.

Similarly pointing out that the British Empire was indeed a tyrannical entity isn't diversionary, it's a very relevant point considering some on this thread are arguing we would have been best served by remaining with that same Empire. Bear in mind a mere ten years before the birth of Thomas Clarke, over a million people had died of starvation in Ireland despite supposedly being considered an integral part of the United Kingdom.

jank,

greed, it is telling that people are not even bothered to defend their brand of Irish Republicanism

My brand of Irish Republicanism is that of James Connolly or Liam Mellows and I'll defend that to the hilt. The problem is you're trying to pin capitalist, conservative and religious individualism to myself and Nodin despite us having no truck whatsoever with that sort of crap. If you want people to defend that type of politics go talk to a Fine Gaeler.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

FTA69

When you try to disassociate your "brand" of republicanism from post-independence nationalistic Anglophobia, you are simply engaging in the No True Scotsman fallacy:

So, you can assert all you like that No True Republican would have banned divorce and contraception, set up the Committee on Evil Literature, and so on — but the indisputable historical fact remains that many republican nationalists of the time were entirely on board with such policies.

Righto, I'm going to address this first. If you look at my earlier posts you'll see I said that Irish nationalism has always been a very broad church and that Irish Republicanism, as I view it, has often been at odds with elements within that particular trend. Furthermore, I also stated that I was a Socialist Republican who would look to the likes of left-wing anti-imperialists such as James Connolly, Peader O'Donnell etc and to me Irish Republicanism at its best was in favour of a collective approach to resources and the foundation of an equitable state.

As a socialist, I find it bizzare that you would attempt to pigeon-hole me into supporting or being complicit in the capitalist and right-wing conservative establishment that emerged in Ireland after the Civil War. The tradition I purport to support (lovely bit of rhyming there) was actively opposed to that.

So were large aspects of mainstream Irish Nationalism stupid, backward, insular and discriminatory? Absolutely in my eyes. And you'll never find me defending the gombeenism that later came as a result of the right-wing dominating the anti-imperialist movement in Ireland.

King George V signed the Home Rule Bill on September 18, 1914, with agreement that its implementation would be delayed until the First World War had ended. But a peaceful transition to independence wasn't dramatic enough for Ireland's messianic republicans

And if Ireland had no militant Republican movement, and we progressed on to Home Rule within a British context, then what? As I've said above, Ireland was a deeply conservative and religious place before this and as has been proven already, being in the UK was no guarantee of social change in Ireland itself.

To be fair Permabear, you've continually neglected to address the fact that official social conservatism was not a product of Republicanism alone.

Nodin

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

This simplistic narrative of a singular monolithic republicanism can be rejected out of hand. As a result its hard to see how any "true Scotsman" fallacy can arise, as no claim for a singular breed of Scotsman has ever been made that side of the argument.

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

You can address me directly, as I am still living.

I didn't change tack.

And I am saying that you seem rather blind to the failings on one side in particular, and ignore those to suit your argument.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Nodin

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

A wild assumption.

Mr Cumulonimbus

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

An order which in the same time period engaged in reckless expansionism that ended with retrenchment post 1929 on a global scale.

K-9

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

I don't know where Parnell fits in there, it would seem to me that Conservative values and the Catholic Church had become so powerful by the turn of the century that liberal values had become a minority view. Independent Ireland was just a continuation of that social ethos, there was no realistic check and balance to the system.

After independence, nationalists and republicans of all stripes identified liberalism, progressivism, capitalism, urbanism, pluralism, and even modernity as values or conditions associated with the overthrown oppressor, and set about expunging them as a corrupting foreign influence. In particular, liberal capitalist values were seen by all sides as an unwanted British imposition.

Republicans differed only in the alternatives to liberal capitalism that they advocated — whether re-creating a prelapsarian Gaelic social order or following other nations down the track to revolutionary socialism. In reality, the most likely alternative to liberal capitalism is conservative authoritarianism, especially when the Catholic Church wields such significant authority and political power. And so that's exactly what we got.

In short, then, republicans of all stripes paved the way for the retrograde policies of the 1920s and 30s by attacking and weakening the only order that could have legitimately contested or moderated them — liberal capitalism.

Unfortunately social democracy was only in its infancy then so there wasn't a third alternative.

Still, in the 1950s, Fianna Fáil minister Kevin Boland openly celebrated the state's destruction of a row of Georgian houses in Kildare Place, calling protesting preservationists "belted earls."

I can't argue with that much you've posted in this thread, but I'd say the destruction of large parts of Georgian Dublin was a mixture of De-Anglicising Ireland and a element of liberal capitalism.

K-9

Slideshowbob wrote: »

I think they did - anyone else got a view?

*And by Republican ideals, I'll refer to The Proclamation for reference, e.g. "cherishing all of the children of the nation equally" and such like ....

Of course I welcome a debate here of what is a Republic, and/or a Republican ideal even .....

PS - can I add a poll here anyone know?

We'd a high, universal child benefit that went to every family in the state, not based on childcare and working as other countries have, generous enough SW payments, huge resources went into hiring Special Needs Assistants although belatedly, record low unemployment levels which has a knock on effect on children, low enough student/teacher ratio and no emigration by necessity. I'm sure we had other benefits as well.

The cost of the above was probably unsustainable into the future, plus we all know the foundations were built of sand. I suppose while the money was there, the state invested money in children usually in a "we'll give you the money" way and "you decide" how to spend it, the high universal child benefit payment a good example, rather than targeting working parents with a childcare tax credit.

We also had substantial cuts in income tax after 1997 which was supposed to trickle down to families to spend as they saw fit, Play Stations, XBoxes, TV in the bedroom were seen as necessitys for children, not sure that was envisaged in the Proclamation.

FTA69

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

Not really to be honest. Militant and separatist Republicanism always had a bloc of leftists within it (that was also the case with modern manifestations such as the Provisionals) but there was no significant overlap between Socialist Republicanism and mainstream nationalism. In fact that brand of politics was actively opposed by various southern governments with measures such as internment, the use of political police and even executions. Any sort of left-wing Republicanism was actively derided (witness the treatment of those who fought against Franco) and Ireland was up there with the best when it came to anti-communism.

Did socialist republicans not also believe (per what I wrote above) that Ireland needed to be "cleansed" of British and foreign influence, albeit by way of a socialist revolution rather than by re-creating a prelapsarian Celtic utopia?

They believed in a process of decolonisation and the creation of a nation (banging out the rhymes on this thread) that wasn't inextricable linked to the colonising empire. That isn't necessarily motivated by xenophobia and was common in nearly every anti-imperialist struggle in the 20th Century. Did aspects of that often become shrill and a bit silly? Probably. But it certainly wasn't based on the cultural **** (i.e. the Tailteann Games) that mainstream nationalism deployed in order to bolster their credibility. Socialist Republicans have always stated that real change in Ireland will not come from nationalist symbolism at alone. As Connolly said; "If you remove England tomorrow and raise the green flag etc etc etc".

After independence, nationalists and republicans of all stripes identified liberalism, progressivism, capitalism, urbanism, pluralism, and even modernity as values or conditions associated with the overthrown oppressor, and set about expunging them as a corrupting foreign influence. In particular, liberal capitalist values were seen by all sides as an unwanted British imposition.

The Irish Free State was avowedly capitalist. It wasn't socially liberal, but it was certainly pro free-trade and individualistic. It was pretty much the opposite of what socialists like Connolly advocated.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Nodin

K-9 wrote: »

I can't argue with that much you've posted in this thread, but I'd say the destruction of large parts of Georgian Dublin was a mixture of De-Anglicising Ireland and a element of liberal capitalism.

It's the same mentality we still have in many quarters today. There's a considerable number that, when shown a view or a historic monument, will automatically envision what they'd build on it to make a few bob, be it above board or otherwise.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Mr Cumulonimbus

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

Because it wasn't up to 1930 or so, despite pressure from certain quarters to do so. Interesting piece by M.E Collins which says that after independence advice was sought from the business community on what policy to follow. They recommended a cautious approach, which was adhered to and included free trade with Britain. Hardly the actions of those hellbent on breaking every link for the sake of it.