Solidarity support self determination for Catalonia but not Ireland

making waves

Well-known member
Joined
Mar 2, 2010
Messages
21,029
Give him a few minutes, the signal from the mother ship isn't the best in this kind of weather.
Sorry cricket - some of us actually have to work for a living.

As for your comment about Ogle (someone PON is using to try and beat the Socialist Party with) - to suggest that the ILDA did more to promote the privatisation of Irish Rail (which hasn't been privatised nearly 20 years later) is like the LP daft claims that the anti-bin charges campaign led to the privatisation of the bin service.

:roll:
 


making waves

Well-known member
Joined
Mar 2, 2010
Messages
21,029
making waves. whats AAA/PBP etc "the lefties" view on the above?
The attitude of all socialists is that nobody should be forced to leave their home country for political, social or economic reasons. The vast majority of people who emigrate do so, not out of choice, but because they have to. If you want to see a reduction in political, social or economic migration then join the fight for a socialist society that eliminates the political, social and economic deprivation that force people to leave their homes and travel to different countries.
 

Mercurial

Well-known member
Joined
Jun 4, 2009
Messages
93,393
1. Any border poll would not and could not be described as a 'democratic vote'. The lead up to any such vote would be fraught with sectarian tensions and likely sectarian attacks. There would be widespread intimidation (on both sides). A vote to remain in the UK would likely result in loyalist triumphalism and a ratcheting up of paramilitary activity by republican 'dissidents' with a retaliatory response from loyalists. A vote for UI would likely lead to sectarian conflict that could snowball into open sectarian civil war - and even if it didn't the decision could not be implemented without the coercion of 1 million Protestants.
How is this anything but a consequentialist argument of the worst sort? It looks like you're suggesting that justice and democracy are values that should be suspended in the face of unjust threats of violence and coercion.

2. I never said that post UI society would be 'unjust' - such a term is liberal rhetoric. And a post UI society cannot be looked at in the abstract. It would be repressive because of the need for coercion against the Protestant working class, coercion likely also extended to Catholic working class people as the state struggled to impose its will. Such a development would be reactionary and dramatically deepen the sectarian divide on this island. Switching one form of oppression for another is not productive - all it does is change those on top imposing the oppression with working class people suffering the consequences, consequences that likely would include some significant degree of sectarian conflict.
"Justice" is not an exclusively liberal term, and I have no idea why you're reluctant to use it. It merely refers to a situation where people in a society are able to interact with one another under fair terms of mutual cooperation.

When you write about what a united Ireland would look like, you seem to be considering only the negative effects for working class unionists, ignoring entirely the negative effects for working class nationalists that exist at present. You seem to think it's perfectly fine to ask them to abandon their nationalism, yet you don't apply the same logic to unionists (who have more reason to abandon their unionism than nationalists do their nationalism).

Some group loses out either way. The difference between the two cases being that the status quo represents imperialism, whereas a united Ireland would not.
 

DavidCaldwell

Well-known member
Joined
Jun 9, 2011
Messages
3,952
Some group loses out either way. The difference between the two cases being that the status quo represents imperialism, whereas a united Ireland would not.
It is a long time since the period of the Plantations.

Your remark seems to imply that the Unionist preference (for the "status quo") is less legitimate than the Nationalist preference and, hence, that the wishes of individuals who hold Unionist views are, in some way, less valid than the wishes of individuals who hold Nationalist views.

If you do not mean your remarks to carry such implications, then I suggest you choose your words more carefully. If you did want your remarks to carry such implications, please be aware that this would be seen by many as bigoted.
 

making waves

Well-known member
Joined
Mar 2, 2010
Messages
21,029
How is this anything but a consequentialist argument of the worst sort? It looks like you're suggesting that justice and democracy are values that should be suspended in the face of unjust threats of violence and coercion.
You are suggesting that 'unjust threats of violence and coercion' comes from unionism - if there was a vote for UI then the 'unjust threats of violence and coercion' - you yourself stated that such a vote would legitimise the coercion needed.

"Justice" is not an exclusively liberal term, and I have no idea why you're reluctant to use it. It merely refers to a situation where people in a society are able to interact with one another under fair terms of mutual cooperation.
No it is not - justice is related to law - and law is related to power and control.

operating under 'fair terms of mutual cooperation' is equality with free and voluntary intent - no strings attached.

When you write about what a united Ireland would look like, you seem to be considering only the negative effects for working class unionists, ignoring entirely the negative effects for working class nationalists that exist at present. You seem to think it's perfectly fine to ask them to abandon their nationalism, yet you don't apply the same logic to unionists (who have more reason to abandon their unionism than nationalists do their nationalism).

Some group loses out either way. The difference between the two cases being that the status quo represents imperialism, whereas a united Ireland would not.
You are reading my comments the way you want to read them - I will paraphrase what I wrote earlier. The north is a product of British Imperialist interests, based on unionist hegemony and requiring the repression of the Catholic working class. In order to keep the Protestant working class in line (and keep on exploiting the working class), unionism and imperialism consistently whip up sectarianism. Nationalists facilitate this by engaging in sectarianism of their own. the result is a deeply divided sectarian statelet where both Catholic and Protestant working class people face poverty and exploitation.

This is not about who is right and who is wrong. The Socialist Party did not oppose republican paramilitarism because it was against working class people having the right to self-determination - it opposed the 'armed struggle' because it could not and would not succeed - except in further deepening the sectarian divide and foisting repression on the Catholic working class.

Holding a border poll will do nothing to further the interests of the Catholic working class - including those who hold nationalist views. Irrespective of the outcome it will lead to deeper sectarian division, increased sectarian tension and likely renewed sectarian attacks - if there was any attempt to use coercion to force a UI then this would be ratcheted up by a magnitude and the coercion and repression used to force 1 million Protestants into a UI would also be deployed against the Catholic working class.

If you want to promote the legitimate national aspirations of the Catholic working class then you should be fighting for working class unity, fighting for the undermining of sectarianism by the development of class consciousness, fighting for the exposure of the exploitative nature of society North and South of the border and fighting for the political, social and economic emancipation of the working class - instead you are promoting a republican stunt that by its nature is counter-productive and reactionary (even to classical republican ideals).
 

PO'Neill

Well-known member
Joined
Aug 1, 2011
Messages
12,189
Website
www.facebook.com
So you don't know how many SF members are elected to the National Executives of trade unions in the North - or is it a case you do know but the answer is utterly embarrassing for SF.
Nope, but if you could post a credible link of the National Executives members in the six and the party they are aligned to that would be insightful ;)

And - so you are on notice - while SF will continue to attempt to impose austerity cuts on public services in the North it will be the elected 'Trots' in the public sector unions that will be stopping them.
As you know well it's the block grant from Westminster cut by the Tory's something that PBP, SF, DUP or anyone else in the Assembly can not do anything about no more than say, Clare council could if the Dail cut theirs.


For SF R2C was nothing more than a mechanism for hoovering up transfers to try and put SF into a position to go into coalition with FF. If SF were actually interested in building a 'left alliance' they would rule out any alliance with right-wing parties - but SF steadfastly refuse to do this.
If that was the case why did Inds4Change, PBP, Unite, Mandate etc join Right2Change ?? :)


Yet the Socialist Party repeatedly raises political issues within the trade unions and gets support for their political proposals. And to demonstrate an extreme example - only one trade union in the North supported the five demands of the H-Block hunger strikers - NIPSA - and did SF have any influence in this decision - no it did not - NIPSA supported the five demands directly as a result of the political action of Socialist Party members who persuaded the Catholic and Protestant members of NIPSA to support the proposal. This happens day in and day out on many political issues - but SF has zero clue of this because SF has little influence within the trade union movement in the North (probably because SF are too busy serving the interests of big business on the Executive).
As above, can you post a credible link ?
 

Mercurial

Well-known member
Joined
Jun 4, 2009
Messages
93,393
You are suggesting that 'unjust threats of violence and coercion' comes from unionism - if there was a vote for UI then the 'unjust threats of violence and coercion' - you yourself stated that such a vote would legitimise the coercion needed.


No it is not - justice is related to law - and law is related to power and control.

operating under 'fair terms of mutual cooperation' is equality with free and voluntary intent - no strings attached.


You are reading my comments the way you want to read them - I will paraphrase what I wrote earlier. The north is a product of British Imperialist interests, based on unionist hegemony and requiring the repression of the Catholic working class. In order to keep the Protestant working class in line (and keep on exploiting the working class), unionism and imperialism consistently whip up sectarianism. Nationalists facilitate this by engaging in sectarianism of their own. the result is a deeply divided sectarian statelet where both Catholic and Protestant working class people face poverty and exploitation.

This is not about who is right and who is wrong. The Socialist Party did not oppose republican paramilitarism because it was against working class people having the right to self-determination - it opposed the 'armed struggle' because it could not and would not succeed - except in further deepening the sectarian divide and foisting repression on the Catholic working class.

Holding a border poll will do nothing to further the interests of the Catholic working class - including those who hold nationalist views. Irrespective of the outcome it will lead to deeper sectarian division, increased sectarian tension and likely renewed sectarian attacks - if there was any attempt to use coercion to force a UI then this would be ratcheted up by a magnitude and the coercion and repression used to force 1 million Protestants into a UI would also be deployed against the Catholic working class.

If you want to promote the legitimate national aspirations of the Catholic working class then you should be fighting for working class unity, fighting for the undermining of sectarianism by the development of class consciousness, fighting for the exposure of the exploitative nature of society North and South of the border and fighting for the political, social and economic emancipation of the working class - instead you are promoting a republican stunt that by its nature is counter-productive and reactionary (even to classical republican ideals).
This looks like the socialist equivalent of "colour-blind", "shoe-horse theory" liberalism when it's applied to race and racism.

I want to promote justice. Justice from class-based oppression and justice from imperialism. The only way to do that is to promote both socialism and nationalism. You're blinded by the need to see everything in terms of class. It's fetishism that does nobody any favours.
 

ionsniffer

Well-known member
Joined
Sep 27, 2014
Messages
7,162
what are their views on immigration within the EU?
any members on here?
never hear them speak about it.
can I get an answer to this Making waves? how is defending the "ordinary worker" flooding Ireland with cheap labour?
 

making waves

Well-known member
Joined
Mar 2, 2010
Messages
21,029
I want to promote justice. Justice from class-based oppression and justice from imperialism. The only way to do that is to promote both socialism and nationalism. You're blinded by the need to see everything in terms of class. It's fetishism that does nobody any favours.
Getting 'justice' doesn't mean getting emancipation. 'Justice' can be given and can be taken away - it is a reformist notion. Wrestling control from the elites means full emancipation and the elites have no power to overturn it.

To suggest that you have to promote nationalism to get 'justice' from imperialism - real emancipation from imperialism can only be achieved through socialism. As long as nationalism works within the confines of capitalism then it will inevitably compromise with imperialism and the nation state will be dominated by global capital. Once the nationalist recognises this then they move from nationalism to socialism as the only ideology capable of securing emancipation from imperialism.

As for a 'fetish' - we live in a class-based society where everything is based on domination by the elites and a constant class struggle. Recognising this is not a 'fetish' - it is recognising the reality of life. Ignoring the root cause of exploitation leads the nationalist to replicate the exploitation when they get into power (as all nationalist movements have done).
 

making waves

Well-known member
Joined
Mar 2, 2010
Messages
21,029
can I get an answer to this Making waves? how is defending the "ordinary worker" flooding Ireland with cheap labour?
Immigration is not what creates cheap labour - it is the conscious decision to drive down wages by the elites - an example of this is zero hour contracts.

Socialists campaign for increased wages, trade union rights and secure jobs.
 

Mercurial

Well-known member
Joined
Jun 4, 2009
Messages
93,393
Getting 'justice' doesn't mean getting emancipation.
That depends on your conception of justice. Mine requires emancipation. I don't understand what yours is.

As for a 'fetish' - we live in a class-based society where everything is based on domination by the elites and a constant class struggle. Recognising this is not a 'fetish' - it is recognising the reality of life. Ignoring the root cause of exploitation leads the nationalist to replicate the exploitation when they get into power (as all nationalist movements have done).
This looks exactly like the "colourblind" approach to racism, whereby black people are exhorted not to see racial distinctions, while simultaneously being oppressed by them. You want people who have been oppressed on the basis of their membership of a national community to ignore that membership in favour of viewing themselves only as members of the working class (even as other members of that class are complicit in their oppression).
 

ionsniffer

Well-known member
Joined
Sep 27, 2014
Messages
7,162
Immigration is not what creates cheap labour - it is the conscious decision to drive down wages by the elites - an example of this is zero hour contracts.

Socialists campaign for increased wages, trade union rights and secure jobs.

flooding the country with people who earn 40e a week in their home countrys with no welfare gives employers the obvious advantage of paying the bare minimum to employees.
there is an unlimited number of emplyees to choose from and treat how they like. Like I said no good for our own kids trying to make a few quid here

you think this is acceptable?
 

making waves

Well-known member
Joined
Mar 2, 2010
Messages
21,029
flooding the country with people who earn 40e a week in their home countrys with no welfare gives employers the obvious advantage of paying the bare minimum to employees.
there is an unlimited number of emplyees to choose from and treat how they like. Like I said no good for our own kids trying to make a few quid here

you think this is acceptable?
As usual you put the cart before the horse - you don't eliminate cheap labour by kicking immigrants out of the country - you eliminate cheap labour by increasing the minimum wage, increasing statutory entitlements and working conditions across all sectors, making trade union recognition mandatory and ensuring workers have secure permanent jobs.

The capitalist class will use any and every mechanism at their disposal to drive down wages - simply kicking out immigrants will solve nothing.
 

making waves

Well-known member
Joined
Mar 2, 2010
Messages
21,029
That depends on your conception of justice. Mine requires emancipation. I don't understand what yours is.
Then why not just call it what it is - political, social and economic emancipation. You only require the concept of 'justice' in a class based society - under capitalism the concept of 'justice' is based around the enforcement of contracts and every aspect of our lives is controlled by contracts.


This looks exactly like the "colourblind" approach to racism, whereby black people are exhorted not to see racial distinctions, while simultaneously being oppressed by them. You want people who have been oppressed on the basis of their membership of a national community to ignore that membership in favour of viewing themselves only as members of the working class (even as other members of that class are complicit in their oppression).
This demonstrates that you have zero understanding about the nature of society, how it is structured and how it operates.

This has nothing to do with how people 'view' themselves - it is about how power and control is exercised in a capitalist society. Racial discrimination exists because it is a necessary component part of the control exercised by the elites under capitalism. National oppression exists because it is a necessary component part of the control exercised by the elites under capitalism.

The division of Ireland in 1920 was a conscious decision by British Imperialism at a time, not only when they were faced with a guerrilla campaign by the IRA but a mass movement by the working class on the island. The purpose of partition was to divide the working class along sectarian lines. It is worth noting that the Belfast pogrom in July 1920 occurred at the same time the British Parliament were 'debating' implementing partition - and sectarianism was the method used. The purpose of the pogrom was not only to facilitate the implementation of partition but also drive a sectarian wedge between the Catholic and Protestant working class and to expel left-wing Protestant working class activists from workplaces and communities across Belfast.

The Brits would like nothing better than to be shut of the North - but they no longer control the monster they created - sectarianism. Nothing they do on the basis of capitalism can eliminate this sectarian monster - their approach is, as it has been for decades, to manage an 'acceptable level of violence'. The conflict between unionism and nationalism is a conflict manufactured by imperialism - a conflict they can no longer manipulate. Furthermore, the conflict has served its purpose - the strategic reasons for the implementation of partition no longer exist. The problem is that both unionism and nationalism are based on the existing sectarian division, they are reactionary and feed off of the sectarian division - and both sides need to maintain the sectarian division to maintain their power bases within their respective 'communities'. 100 years of the oppression of the Catholic minority in the North should not be replaced by the coercion and repression of a Protestant minority on the island - and that is what would be necessary to impose a united Ireland. At best it would lead to another 100 years of coercion, repression and sectarian conflict.

If you want to avoid this then you need to realise that by focusing solely on political emancipation for the Catholic working class you must coerce the Protestant working class - the only way of resolving the national question in Ireland is on a class basis through not just political emancipation but social and economic emancipation of the working class as well - and the only way of achieving this is on a class basis through united action by the Catholic and Protestant working class on an all island basis.
 

Mercurial

Well-known member
Joined
Jun 4, 2009
Messages
93,393
Then why not just call it what it is - political, social and economic emancipation. You only require the concept of 'justice' in a class based society - under capitalism the concept of 'justice' is based around the enforcement of contracts and every aspect of our lives is controlled by contracts.
I call it what it is because that's what justice is.

This demonstrates that you have zero understanding about the nature of society, how it is structured and how it operates.
This is ironic, given the extremely reductionist view of society you're defending here, such that everything must always in every respect be reduced to talk of class-based oppression. For example:

This has nothing to do with how people 'view' themselves - it is about how power and control is exercised in a capitalist society. Racial discrimination exists because it is a necessary component part of the control exercised by the elites under capitalism. National oppression exists because it is a necessary component part of the control exercised by the elites under capitalism.
Not everything that is bad in the world is attributable to capitalism. The fact that capitalism can help something like racism to flourish doesn't mean that capitalism causes racism.

If you want to avoid this then you need to realise that by focusing solely on political emancipation for the Catholic working class you must coerce the Protestant working class - the only way of resolving the national question in Ireland is on a class basis through not just political emancipation but social and economic emancipation of the working class as well - and the only way of achieving this is on a class basis through united action by the Catholic and Protestant working class on an all island basis.
But I've never suggested that one should "focus solely on the political emancipation for the Catholic working class" (indeed, I haven't been referring to Catholics at all, since the division I'm discussing is between nationalist and unionist, which doesn't necessarily map on to Catholic and Protestant).

"Resolving the national question" doesn't require emancipation for working-class people. Resolving class-based oppression requires that. Both should be achieved in order for justice to prevail.
 

PO'Neill

Well-known member
Joined
Aug 1, 2011
Messages
12,189
Website
www.facebook.com
Now the Unionist majority in the numbers game is slipping, and there's no amount of gerrymandering can fix that, suddenly they're back to the threat of using terrorism to keep their stranglehold on the 6 counties. The Trots getting allies with their theory that unionist threats can block a United Ireland even if a majority would vote for it from Lord John Taylor, funny allies for a ' socialist ' party eh :)

Peer: Tiny majority for united Ireland would spark civil war - Belfast Newsletter
 


New Threads

Popular Threads

Most Replies

Top Bottom