Category Archives: 21st century republicanism and socialism
TRES BILLBOARDS FOR THE REPUBLIC: PRESENTED BY FRIENDS OF THE INTERNATIONAL BRIGADES IRELAND
A musical, artistic and historic celebration of Ireland’s International Brigaders with Jurama, a film about Charlie Donnelly, the Republican Congress veteran and poet.
We also present One Way or Another, a play on the life of Dinny Cody who was killed at La Rosas 1937, while historian James Durney will give a talk on the life of civil war hero Frank Conroy.
Finishing up the evening with music from the wonderful Sive.
Posted in 1913 lockout, 21st century republicanism and socialism, British state repression (general), Commemorations, Economy and workers' resistance, General revolutionary history, Historiography and historical texts, Irish Citizen Army, Irish politics today, James Connolly, Political education and theory, Public events - Ireland, Republicanism post-1900, Revolutionary figures, The road to the Easter Rising, Trade unions, Unionism, loyalism, sectarianism, Women's rights, Workers rights
Accordingly, I will be running material by Marx (and Engels) on the subject of Irish freedom and its interconnectedness with the British revolution, as well as material by and about James Connolly.
This year also marks the 150th anniversary of the birth of one of Connolly’s great co-workers, Constance Markievicz.
This blog already contains a substantial body of her writings and also articles about her. Most recently, I added her 1923 pamphlet What Irish Republicans Stand For.
Later this year, I will be putting up a substantial piece on her and the Irish revolution, something I began to write well over 20 years ago and put aside unfinished.
I will also continue my (so far rather haphazard) efforts to get up everything I have of Fintan Lalor’s writings and write something substantial on ‘Fintan Lalor and the Irish revolution’. I had made a load of notes for this last year and then lost them, so I have to start again; very frustrating.
I want to get something substantial up soon on Sean McLoughlin too, a kind of precis of the book by Charlie McGuire, a book I urge folks to go out and buy.
As always, I have a bunch of books – and it’s growing, also as always! – which I want to review. They go back to stuff published about five years ago now, I have been so lax in getting these reviews done. Aaaarrrggghhh!
And there are a few old articles from several journals that I want to get up here, but I have to type them up – a very time-consuming task.
Posted in 1798 - 1803, 1840s, Famine, Young Ireland & Irish Confederation, 21st century republicanism and socialism, British state repression (general), British strategy, Constance Markievicz, Democratic rights - general, Economy and workers' resistance, Engels, Famine, Fenians, Fintan Lalor, General revolutionary history, Historiography and historical texts, Imperialism (generally), Ireland and British revolution, James Connolly, Marx, Political education and theory, Republicanism post-1900, Republicanism pre-1900, Reviews - books, Revolutionary figures, Unionism, loyalism, sectarianism
Posted in 1913 lockout, 21st century republicanism and socialism, Economy and workers' resistance, General revolutionary history, Historiography and historical texts, Irish Citizen Army, James Connolly, Labour Party, Political education and theory, Revolutionary figures, The road to the Easter Rising, Trade unions, Unionism, loyalism, sectarianism, Women
by Kevin Bean
One of the most frequently reproduced images of the Irish Republican Army’s 1994 ceasefire was of a Sinn Féin car cavalcade driving through west Belfast with tricolours flying and bystanders cheering. Its message was clear: the IRA was undefeated and the Provisional movement remained a force to be reckoned with. In a language that would become familiar over the next 25 years, the IRA’s statement announcing the ceasefire argued that republican objectives could now be pursued politically through “unarmed struggle” and dialogue as part of an Irish peace process. It continued:
Our struggle has seen many gains and advances made by nationalists and for the democratic position. We believe that an opportunity to secure a just and lasting settlement has been created. We are therefore entering into a new situation … determined that the injustices which created the conflict will be removed and confident in the strength and justice of our struggle to achieve this … We urge everyone to approach this new situation with energy, determination and patience.1
This statement and the orchestration of these events in the early stages of the peace process tell us a great deal about the politics and strategy that Gerry Adams and his comrades in the Provisional leadership would pursue in the future. For the next quarter of a century Adams would constantly repeat that political retreat was a form of Read the rest of this entry →
The issue of public housing played a key role in the Civil Rights movement during the late 1960s/early 1970s.
Prior to the creation of the Housing Executive in 1971, public housing had been allocated by local councils, and within unionist-controlled councils, discrimination in housing allocation was widely practiced against members of the minority Catholic community.
Indeed, the right to, and fair allocation of, public housing were key demands of the Civil Rights movement.
Through the creation of the Housing Executive, housing decisions were taken out of the political arena and placed in the hands of a neutral specialised organisation.
By 1983/84, public housing – almost all of which was controlled by the Housing Executive – accounted for 37% of continued here. . .
Excellent talk and discussion period – Ronan Burtenshaw at the James Connolly Forum in the little city of Troy, in New York state in March 2017. Troy, of course, is somewhere Connolly himself lived and organised – thus the name of this working class political forum group.
Posted in 21st century republicanism and socialism, Anti-household and anti-water tax, British strategy, Economy and workers' resistance, Elections, EU, Imperialism (generally), Internationalism, Irish politics today, Partition, Political education and theory, Provos - then and now, six counties, Social conditions, twenty-six counties, Unionism, loyalism, sectarianism, Workers rights
Not satisfied with the blow given to them by the Irish public, ‘Irish Water’ are again pushing for the commodification of Ireland’s water resources. This time they are doing it under the ruse of needing an extra two billion euro of tax-payers’ money to guarantee the greater Dublin areas water supply, by building a 170-kilometre pipeline to bring 330 million litres per day from the River Shannon to the area. This is all very convenient coming a few days after the announcement that Irish Water have plans in place to introduce excess water charges from next year.
According to Irish Water, excess use charges will not begin until January 1st, 2019, “at the earliest” while bills for excess use charges will not be issued until July 1st next year “at the earliest”. In order to make up for its losses and to fund these huge infrastructural projects Irish Water will be charging huge amounts on what it considers to be Read the rest of this entry →
Frustratingly, articles on the site of the Republican Network for Unity don’t have dates on them, so I’m not sure when this first appeared. I assume, from where it is positioned in the list of articles, and from its reference to “election results” – presumably the British general election of June 8, 2017 – that it was some time in the past six or seven months. It addresses an issue very close to my heart: the need for socialist-republicans to unite, instead of being divided into half a dozen small competing groups which, individually, simply can’t pose an alternative to the Shinners.
The writer is the PRO of Republican Network for Unity, a small socialist-republican current formed originally by former POWs who had come together to express opposition to the Sinn Fein leadership’s support of the policing boards in the north.
by Nathan Stuart
The election results pose many questions and challenges for those who continue to hold out for separation between Ireland and England. Any Irish republican who believes the current situation that anti-agreement republicanism finds itself in is in any way desirable isn’t examining the situation with honestly.
Sinn Féin are undoubtedly the winners of the election. Their results represents a seismic protest vote against DUP corruption and sectarian rhetoric. Sinn Féin, admirably, are portraying this result as an expression of separatism, without examining the reasons behind the electoral mobilisation or admitting the severe limitations of the Belfast Agreement in delivering for those with aspirations for Irish unity.
The Stormont project has been a failure from its inception. All it has to offer is a Read the rest of this entry →
The Provos have unquestioningly accepted the British state claim that they do not. The article below, which appears on the site of the Republican Network for Unity, suggests the British state continues to have a strategic, material interest in Ireland and keeping it partititoned.
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
by Paul Maguire
The question of whether Britain has or has not a strategic interest in Ireland is not an academic question or one that is best left to political spin-doctors: it is far too important for that. The peace process has witnessed Sinn Féin accept British declarations of strategic neutrality with respect to Ireland. Thus, having abandoned the orthodox republican analysis, which holds that British interference in Irish affairs remains the primary obstacle to the attainment of national liberation and that the unionist veto is nothing more than an anti-democratic subterfuge through which Britain justifies its interference in Irish affairs, Sinn Féin now believes that unionism – and not the British state – is the major impediment to unity. But are such British declarations of strategic neutrality genuine? Is the British state is engaging in political duplicity? Is it in fact concealing a strategic interest in Ireland? And does this strategic interest outweigh the political whims of unionism? And what are the implications of any ongoing British state interest for Sinn Féin’s analysis and its vision of a constitutional path towards Irish unity?
The unity of this article resides in the belief that Britain has a strategic interest in Ireland. Evidence will be highlighted to support this analysis and – at the same time – undermine the current Sinn Féin analysis of British state policy in Ireland. However, at the outset, it is necessary to chronicle the vital importance which the debate surrounding Britain’s strategic interest in Ireland assumed during the formative stages of the Irish peace process.
The Sinn Féin narrative would have us believe that 1990 was the year in which. . .
read full article here: http://republicannetwork.org/britain-strategic-interest-ireland/
The other day I was talking to one of my long-time best mates in Ireland about stuff and thought chunks of the conversation – it was on messenger – would make interesting material for this blog. My mate is a longtime (southern) republican and OKed the following. We’ll call him ‘Eamon’.
The conversation actually began with other subjects, like the problem of (religious) sectarianism among some Shinners. Then it moved onto a mixture of discussion about Sinn Fein and southern politics, interspersed with various personal recollections and comments, which aren’t appropriate here.
Eamon: A Shinner asked me today to delete my latest post on my facebook page!
Me: Typical. Hey what did McElduff say? I think FF and DUP love stuff like this, as it enables them to take the moral high ground, covering over their own sins.
SF has basically chosen in the north to be a catholic/nationalist party instead of a republican, let alone socialist-republican, party. So McElduff is just doing what a bunch of Shinners (and some of their support base) is thinking. The leadership will be fucked off because he is doing in public what they are thinking.
E: True. Hey, it looks like Mary Lou will get to be leader unopposed.
They knew what they were doing when Michelle O Neill was appointed leader in the North…..With McDonald being the president of Sinn Fein there would be no opposition from Belfast about the president been from Dublin with O Neill in the North…..Very clever move….
Me: Adams is nothing if not crafty. A worthy heir to De Valera in that (horrible manipulative) sense. O’Neill and McDonald are also lightweights, so Adams will be able to string pull after he retires. SF have been reshaped entirely as an Adamsite party. His creation. Quite sickening really.
E: SF folk seem to think with Adams and Martin gone that they will fly it now in the South……That the IRA monkey is off their back……But they are wrong…..After all Adams topped the poll in Louth and brought in another SFer on his surplus.
The Irish electorate have long forgotten about Sinn Fein’s past…… Still, I would bet anybody a thousand euro that SF will not get more than 15% next election down south.
And 15% will not get them into government, even in a coalition.
The careerists in SF will not stay there forever in opposition….. I predict some will walk after the next election…
Me: Adams was contradictory in terms of popularity. He was the Shinners’ biggest asset (gunman turned statesman, although he apparently never did fire a shot), but he was also their biggest liability. Fine in Louth – and he would have been very popular in Monaghan and Donegal if he had’ve stood there – but of less use electorally in Dublin or Cork.
I think there is a reasonably big space for SF’s politics – the gap left by Labour and FF since they are discredited by imposing austerity. But the closer the Shinners get to a whiff of “power”, ie Leinster House government, the more Read the rest of this entry →