I agree with some of what Rob says, re. the false counterposition of
armed struggle to 'peace process' sell-out. It would be nonsensical to
demand that the republicans fight on regardless of the real isolation of
their movement. Worse, it would be obscene from the comfort of a country
not occupied by foreign troops.
The question of whether the republicans are employing a military or a
political strategy is not ultimately what is at issue. What is at issue
is the content of that strategy, and that is where the current
republican leadership is indeed collaborating with imperialism.
There is nothing in principle wrong with negotiation. But it is
incumbent on any movement to give a true estimation of what its relative
strengths and weaknesses are. But instead of telling the truth - that
the republican movement entered the peace process from a position of
weakness, Adams insists that it is from a position of strength. That
builds a false picture about the direction that the process is heading.
Worse still, and here the contrast with the politics of republicanism is
most obvious, the leadership insists that Britain has a positive role to
play. Where the old republicans understood that there could be no
British solution to the conflict, Adams by contrast insists that Britain
holds the key to ending the conflict. This is pointedly apologetic of
British rule.
The 'real' and the 'continuity' IRA, failed because they only
counterposed the strategy of armed struggle to that of negotiation,
without clarifying the political difference that underlay it. Like the
PFLP in Palestine, they isolated themselves from the populace, by
refusing to understand that conditions had indeed changed. SF by
contrast is simply adapting to the changes.
In message <l03130322b3ce5a0cba1a@[137.92.41.119]>, Rob Schaap
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes
>G'day John,
>
>Maybe my memory plays me false, but I thought so vast a majority of the
>combined Irish population wanted an end to the killing that any notion of a
>genuinely socialist armed struggle in the here and now is untenable.
>
>Some here would argue that different leaders than MacGuinness and Adams
>might have excited mass support for a proudly promulgated socialist
>struggle.
>
>But I wouldn't.
>
>The world's a small place these days, and I reckon popular socialist
>sentiment in a country as miniscule as Ireland (and as close to Britain)
>ain't a likely scenario absent evidence of such in core countries.
>
>It takes more than hearty rhetoric and isolated moments of resolve in the
>periphery to convince people there's a fight there for the winning, I
>reckon. Mebbe there's a seed of collective consciousness to be had in a
>popular defence of workers' rights in ever more neo-liberal Ireland.
>That's where I reckon the trenches are just now, anyway.
>
>A successful Dunkirk ain't quite an El Alamein, but it was a prerequisite, no?
>
>Cheers,
>Rob.
>
>>Comrades,
>>
>>In my opinion as someone from Britain, the Republican movement though
>>now far from it revolutionary arder of previous years is still the
>>legitimate voice of the national liberation struggle against British
>>Imperialism. It might not have the aims we might like, it may have
>>made compromises with the British government which we may prefer they
>>didn't but that is a reflection of the change in political situation
>>globally.
>>
>>The weakness of the republican movement (I think the IRSP the only
>>avowedly Marxist republican group is now almost non-existent) is not
>>an excuse for Communist who are in an equally weak position to attack
>>what small moves they are making.
>>
>>The problem goes back to 1979-81 when MacGuinness and Adams took over
>>the leadership of Sinn Fein, marking the move from the revolutionary
>>leadership of Bobby Sands, the Hunger Strikers and their supporters.
>>The revolutionaries were defeated by British imperialism, just as
>>Connolley had been at the beginning of the century. And the bourgeois
>>and peti-bourgeois wing of the National Liberation movement came to
>>the fore. This was repeated internationally: in South Africa (Bilko
>>for President Mandela) and Palestine (the Intifada for Arafat).
>>
>>The only thing for those in the Imperialist countries is to support
>>the right of nations to Self-determination whatever wing happens to
>>be in the assendency and to try to weaken imperialism from the heart
>>of the beast and hence give greater room to those revolutionsry
>>forces in the national liberation movement to make greater advances.
>>
>>Regards,
>>
>>John.
>>
>>
>> --- from list [EMAIL PROTECTED] ---
>
>
>
>
>
> --- from list [EMAIL PROTECTED] ---
--
Jim heartfield
--- from list [EMAIL PROTECTED] ---
