New issue of The Socialist now online

by Upset Fri Sep 09, 2005 15:43

In their review of sectarian violence the SP ignore the fact that over 90% of the attacks are carried by loyalists against catholics. Wouldnt do for the SP to take sides or let reality enter their blinkered view.

by Lolly Fri Sep 09, 2005 16:10

The fact is that 90% of sectarianism does not come from Loyalists. Just last night protestants were attacked by catholics. Like it or not catholic sectarianism is alive and well. I think the SP are correct to condemn all sectarianism. Other 'lefts' are happy to play the sectarian game. We need a socialist solution in Northern Ireland. Not a sectarian solution. The fact is that 'republicanism, nationalism, loyalism, and unionism has failed the working class of this country. At least the SP are making this point and calling for genuine class unity against sectarian bigots.

by observer Fri Sep 09, 2005 17:06

The overwhelmingly part of it is by unionists on nationalists. If the SP has not even grasped this fundamental truth after 30 years of Haddenspeak, it is no wonder they are still a tiny irrelevant sect hanging onto the coat-tails of gas and water "socialists" like Barbour.

by hs Sat Sep 10, 2005 23:08

the majority of sectarian violence is being conducted by loyalists, this is obvious. But now it is the loyalists who are the alienated, divided and fueding part of the equation. An increase in sectarianism is bound to come from this (which doesn't excuse it either). But ignoring catholic sectarianism won't help either becasue if you do that you are getting into "whataboutary" and frankly takeing part in the sectarian game. All sectarianism must be opposed. If you oppose loyalist attacks and not republican you are in essence excusing sectarian attacks from one side.
For an anology if gangs of whites attack a black person for rascist reasons it doesn't excuse gangs of blacks attacking whites, it's still racism. Socialim is supposed to be about overcoming divisions such as religion and race, a socialist party which doesn't condem all sectarian attacks but only one side is not much of a socialist party, whether it's popular or not.

by PH - Whatever Sun Sep 11, 2005 01:58

HS writes a lot of nonsense. He puts it like this "if gangs of whites attack a black person for rascist (sic) reasons it doesn't excuse gangs of blacks attacking whites, it's still racism"
As Malcolm X said - if you come with a rope to try & hang me and I hang you, mine is not the racism, it's a reaction to it.

In other words the slavery of capitalism and the divide & rule of race means that the outlook of BNP nationalism is not the same as 'Black' nationalism. HS reiterates (white) liberalism. The racism of the state and capitalism generally is written out and therefore the motivation of a black gang is seen the same as a white one. Complete nonsense and anti Marxist.

This has big repercussions for the North. Paramilitaries are all the same??? The sectarianism of the state, shoot to kill, arming the loyalists, diplock courts, internment etc is alll reduced to Catholic vs Protestant? Absolute nonsense. HS absolves capitalism of any wrongs and reduces it to the behaviour of gangs!!


This is a clincher...
"Socialim is supposed to be about overcoming divisions such as religion and race, a socialist party which doesn't condem all sectarian attacks but only one side is not much of a socialist party, whether it's popular or not."
In the North it is popular to renounce all sectarianism - as if it grew out of nowhere. To mention the role of imperialism now and then is anethema to HS. You are the Alliance Party in pink colours (mild red). That's why the SP defended (until recently) the so called "Peace Process" (and the rights of the Orange Order to march and used the apolitical slogan of "No Going Back" as an analysis to developments in the late 1990's.
William Walker would be to left of this.

Finally in the North, the SP would crawl out of their political impasse with an appeal to having a 'Protestant state' and a 'Catholic state' coexisting in the North on the road to 'socialism'.

by innocent prod Sun Sep 11, 2005 03:55

will you do it? It almost reads like you support catholic attacks on prods. what about innocent people never involved in anything that get attacked. Is revenge a good reason? what about the civilians killed down the years? Do they have to pay for their co religionists crimes or the crimes of the brits?

by A socialist Mon Sep 12, 2005 02:00

The posting by "PH - Whatever" is a fabrication of the SPs position on the national question in Ireland.
British imperialism consciously created sectarianism in Ireland, a divide and rule tactic it used in its colonial occupation of Ireland. The SP has a very long record of opposing oppression in the North, - shoot to kill, the Diplock Courts, internment, plastic bullets etc. And for the record we were the only people who opposed the entry of British troops into the North.
However unlike everyone else on the so-called left in Ireland we don't look at the current situation through nationalist rose tinted spectacles. To deny that sectarianism exists in the Catholic/nationalist population in Ireland, North and South is to deny reality. Sectarianism whether it is propagated by the British state, the Irish state, the unionist parties, loyalist paramilitaries, the Orange Order, or by Sinn Fein, the SDLP, or dissident republicans, has the same end result - it divides the working class, and encourages polarisation in society.
Sectarianism must be opposed by socialists regardless of whoever is responsible for it. The analogy used by HS with racism against blacks is crude and unbalanced, but nevertheless there some "truth" in what he says.
If a black community in defending itself from racists or fascists or the capitalist state uses force and as a result their attackers are injured or killed, then that is justifiable. I would therefore agree with the statement from Malcolm X that PH uses in his posting. The SP defends the right of the oppressed to self-defence. However, if someone from a black community consciously went out with the intention of attacking or killing an innocent white person at random, even as a response to a racist attack on their own community - that could not be defended. I would be interested in hearing the justification for such an act. If tomorrow, a loyalist paramilitary organisation carried out the sectarian murder of a Catholic in the North, would it be justified for someone from the Catholic community to "revenge" this killing by murdering a Protestant who had nothing to do with murdering the Catholic?
Whether it is in relation to sectarianism in the North or racism in the USA, socialists should stand and campaign for the unity of the working class - for unity between Catholic and Protestant workers or unity between Black and White workers - united in a struggle against those who perpetrate the sectarianism or racism and against the capitalist system which is responsible for both.
What is anti-Marxist (to borrow PHs phrase) would be to argue that Catholics or Blacks should fight this oppression on their own. Or in relation to the North that sectarianism that comes from sections of the Protestant community should be opposed and condemned but that Catholic sectarianism either doesn't exist or is justified because the historic oppression and discrimination against Catholics by the Unionist elite and British imperialism justifies or some how excuses it.
And racism does exist in some sections of Black society - the leader of the Nation of Islam; Louis Farrakhan is a racist. Racism is not exclusive to Caucasians. Racist attitudes were widespread amongst the Japanese towards the Chinese and Koreans in the past. Recently sections of the leadership of the Chinese Communist Party have consciously whipped anti-Japanese sentiments and many thousands have participated in anti-Japanese demonstrations.
Those who excuse the backward attitudes of the oppressed, whether they are White, Black, Chinese, Catholic or Protestant, are not Marxists. The working class all over the world has many backward and even at times reactionary attitudes. It is the action of a liberal to ignore or excuse these prejudices. It is the role of a Marxist to explain why these attitudes exist, to oppose them, and to argue for a socialist programme that can unite the working class in opposition to them.
The SP has never supported the "Peace Process". The SP has always pointed out that both the "Peace Process" and the Good Friday Agreement were an attempt by the British and Irish governments along with the sectarian parties in the North to institutionalise sectarianism, and maintain capitalist rule. That they would lead to an increase in sectarianism and would be doomed to failure. The current increase in sectarianism and polarisation in the North are a direct result of the so-called "Peace Process" which seeks to unite the sectarian politicians and ignores the interests of the working class.
The SP slogan "No Going Back" was used at a time when there was the possibility of the breakdown of both the republican and loyalists ceasefires. It was a simple slogan that captured the mood of the majority of working class people in the North, both Catholic and Protestant, that they didn't want to go back to the days of the armed struggle and the sectarian murder campaigns of the loyalist paramilitaries, and the tit for tat sectarian killings. I suspect that maybe PH, by attacking this slogan, regretted the passing of the armed struggle.
The last sentence of PHs posting is baffling, as he seems to be saying that the SP supports the partition of Ireland. The SP does not support two states in Ireland - we stand for a unitary state, a socialist Ireland.
PH - Are you denying that sectarianism exists amongst Catholics in the North? Or are you justifying it or excusing it? If you are justifying it or excusing it then you are guilty of sectarianism. If you are denying that it exists then you are living in a fantasy world.
Over the last number of years there has been a significant increase in sectarianism. According to official statistics since 1994, 14,000 people (Catholics and Protestants) have been forced to move home because of sectarianism. Sectarian rioting is now a regular occurrence at so-called interfaces between Protestant and Catholic areas, sometimes involving hundreds of people from both communities.
A litany of examples can be given of attacks by loyalist paramilitaries and Protestant sectarians on Catholics and Catholic areas. But there are also many examples that can be given of sectarian attacks on Protestants or Protestant areas by Catholic sectarians. Maybe PH you should inquire about the attacks on the Protestant Fountain area of Derry? Or maybe you should ask Gerry Adams and Gerry Kelly about their efforts to prevent sectarian attacks on Protestants by Catholic sectarians and dissident republicans?
Sectarianism can be defeated if the working class, Catholic and Protestant unite to oppose it; to stop all attacks on both communities, and to oppose the political parties like the DUP and Sinn Fein and others who propagate it and depend on it for their political support. Sectarianism can be defeated by uniting the working class in a struggle for a socialist solution to the national question and to end the rule of capitalism in both parts of this island.

by . Mon Sep 12, 2005 02:25

magazine from cwi in the uk

http://www.socialismtoday.org/

no to terror no to war

by . Mon Sep 12, 2005 02:28

Sp magazine

http://www.socialistparty.net/

by Interested Mon Sep 12, 2005 16:05

I read the article about the Youth Camp but I wonder if you had any discussion on Joan Collins and Dermot Connolly leaving the SP last year. On a specific youth note you might have discussed how Shane Kenna was forced out of SY and SP.

by SP Member Mon Sep 12, 2005 16:37

Collins and Connolly left because they had their own agenda, this has been discussed already on many threads. Kenna left because he was unable to fulfil the duties expected of party members.

by binman Mon Sep 12, 2005 19:55

http://www.indymedia.ie/newswire.php?story_id=71354

by Cynic Tue Sep 13, 2005 10:40

A Socialist claims that the SP accept the right of communities to defend themselves but the reality is very different. The SP supported the Orangemens right to march down the Garvaghy Road and through other Catholic areas. Indeed when Joe higgins went to the garvaghy Road he spent most of his time fraternising with the Loyalists on the hill.

The same was true of the loyalist siege of the church at Harryville. The SP did nothing to support the parishioners. Indeed when the SWP organised solidarity action for the Harryville people, the SP condemned this solidarity as being sectarian!

Even when catholic primary school kids were having urine and blastbombs thrown at them the SP wouldnt take sides. True champions of nonsectarianism.

by Belfast Tue Sep 13, 2005 10:53

Indeed when the SWP organised solidarity action for the Harryville people, the SP condemned this solidarity as being sectarian!

by Cynic Wed Sep 14, 2005 12:55

Its true. The SP support the right of Orangemen to march through Catholic areas, including the whiterock Rd. Thats why you wont hear any SP condemnation of the Loyalist violence which took place over the last few days.

I'll leave it to the SP to explain why they condemned the SWP solidarity action at Harryville as sectarian.

by observer Wed Sep 14, 2005 13:04

Working class nationalist violence against the state (their beloved "workers in uniform") is seen as the same thing as working class loyalist violence against nationalists. Go figure.

by pat Murphy Thu Sep 15, 2005 01:41

if you're going to make a charge as serious as this shouldn't you tell us your name? calling yourself cynic makes me cynical. You seem to be trolling are you also the poster "interested." ?

I'm not going to believe such a serious charge from an anon who until he tells us his name, his party if any, (so we see where he's coming from). And he produces some sort of evidence.

i would advise others to take such trolling with a grain of salt.

i don't know if there is an editorial guideline for libelous comment from anons, the kind of libel which could lead to people being hurt. If there isn't there should be an editors should look at this contribution seriously, cynic could at least supply them with his name.

by CYNIC Thu Sep 15, 2005 10:54

"The Orange Order is a reactionary sectarian organisation. Despite this it does have a right to march. To deny this right merely alienates the wider Protestant community and drives them behind the various bigots who want to whip up this issue."

www.socialistparty.net/ pub/pages/socialist008aug05/9.htm

"While opposing the sectarian ideologies of groups like the Orange Order and the Ancient Order of Hibernians, we respect their right to march and the rights of residents to object. "
www.socialistparty.net/youth/manifesto2.htm

(Nice of them to allow residents to object. BTW, when has the AOH (an irrelevant group)ever wanted to march through a LOyalist area? Would the SP support the right of Sinn Fein to march down the Shankill Road?)

by cyniccynic Fri Sep 16, 2005 02:15

"I'll leave it to the SP to explain why they condemned the SWP solidarity action at Harryville as sectarian."

cynic's been through a few threads making this claim but so far has been unable to back it up, more trolling i think!

by Cynic Fri Sep 16, 2005 10:35

I've been backed up on another thread regarding this. Even Robert SAulter, Grandmaster of the Orange Order supported the parishioners at Harrtville. Do the SP think hes also sectarian?