Chris,
Interesting article.
"If we are a Socialist/Left wing movement then we need to start acting like one, no matter if we suffer short-term setbacks as a result."
I would argue that SF needs to move away from socialism. SF was not always socialist (albeit it had socialist members and inclusive ideas). If, as some would argue, SF has been somewhat flexible on the sacred-cows of republicanism, why shouldn't it be the same with the socialist element?
Chris:
A bit of a mixed bag for me as there are some key points that I could not agree more with you on. We have discussed these issues time and time again over a pint, cup of tea etc. However I am appalled at some of your suggestions, one in particular and I bet you can guess which one that is!
"It has long been my belief that as a movement we are too focused on what the leadership are doing, what they are going to do and what their strategies and plans are."
I agree totally. Too often at meetings is the majority of talking done at the top table with those on the floor coy about how they feel. Admittedly this is no fault of the leaderships, but I fear that if this sense of apathy or indifference seeks in any further it could prove to be fatalistic.
However I found that whenver the big issues, most recently policing, arose the grass roots were more than willing to argue their positions whether that be pro or against. I myself was quite vocal in the policing debate in my own area and whilst I voiced my grave concerns I felt that it was a great oppurtunity to move the struggle further. I do not think you should sell the activist base short Chris, as whenver the moment requires it they will raise to the challenge and ask questions, demand answers, formulate debate etc.. The only problem is these moments should arise more ofetn!
In terms of community engagement I agree totally. At the CC plus conference a while back I argued in my workshop that we can not seperate our community involvement from our republican politics. To do so would be an unmitigated disatser. We are embedded in the community, we are active on the ground and the community knows and trusts us. To abuse this would be a grave disservice to our community and the struggle. Why seek to seopearte two elemnts of our struglle that must by necessity coexist if our struglle is to be successful? I feel that republicanising our community is dealt with through this medium. We have always been told to ask ourselves at a meeting 'What have I done to further the republican message in my community since the last meeting?'. Many of the usual suspects can list off the mundane taks they did, but unforunately too many others are left with the answer NOTHING!
"We should take lessons from the Catholic Church2
Do you suggest that we emulate the culture of corruption and cover up rife in the Church as well?
As someone who claims to be a socialist, this is an odd thing to say. Firstly the Church has lost its grip on our community, I welcome this fact whole heartedly, so that probably wasn't the best example for you to use. Society has shunned the Church over the way the church abused its power and influence over the years. I find it perplexing that you would advocate going down such a path.
Religion should never feature in politics. If you wish to start imposing Catholicism on SF then you are creating an exclsuive party. This flies in the face of creating an Ireland of equals.
What about the many Protestant members of SF and the other sections you rightfully point out that we should engage with? Surely pursuing an ultra-Catholic agenda will serve only to further isolate these sections from republican ideals?
What about the many socialist, myself included, within the party who have grave misgivings over the role of the church?
I think that following the lead of the Church would be a backward step, an atavistic process of allowing others to dictate to us.
Chris
Under the heading 'community engagement' you say that 'our enemies dominate these ..' in reference to PTAs, School boards and such like. Do you think it's possible that such an outlook, viewing political opponents as 'enemies' is a hindrance to making friends and to expanding a party.Can you reach out to'yellow and white' voters by calling them your enemy? I always thought that the brits were our enemies, not our neighbours who happen to have different political outlooks.
I think the party need to change to move forward. Sinn Féin is a broad political church. I feel we need to narrow it. One of the criticisms of the party is, especially in the South, there is no clear cut policies or proposals. The party needs to change that. They need to sit down, laise with the grassroots and write an indepth, radical manifesto outlining what Sinn Féin is going to do for 21st Century Ireland.
To do this Sinn Féin needs to change one big thing, in my opinion, which won't sit well with a lot of members. They need to scrap the Average Worker's wage rule. How can Sinn Féin attract the neccessary expertise, especially from young graduates, when elected members of Sinn Féin don't make a good enough wage?
On the issue of the Church, I partially agree with Adelente. I do believe that Adelente has missed Chris' point on the Church. He isn't calling for the party to implement Catholic ideas but the idea that the party should be a focal point of the life of a community. Historically anyway, the centre points of an Irish Community was the Gaelic club and the Chapel. That is what Chris is arguing for, I think.
I believe in a full seperation between the Church and the State and that includes a seperation of the Church and all parties wishing to make up the State. On the other hand, I believe many of the more anti-Catholic Church elements of modern Socialism are normally too Liberal for my liking, especially on issues such as Abortion. I believe that Sinn Féin must build an Ireland of Equals, including equality for the unborn child. So I am sort of stuck inbetween the two sides on the issue of Catholicism inside Sinn Féin.
"I do believe that Adelente has missed Chris' point on the Church. He isn't calling for the party to implement Catholic ideas but the idea that the party should be a focal point of the life of a community. Historically anyway, the centre points of an Irish Community was the Gaelic club and the Chapel. That is what Chris is arguing for, I think."
Exactly
I am a Catholic Socialist, I'm not calling for Sinn Féin to be that.
Plan B would be to join eirigi instead and work in earnest for a 32 county socialist Irish republic rather than stick with SF. Seriously, why not? It may seem quixotic but then again so was the entire 1916 enterprise, and that worked out surprisingly well in the end (though it wasn't such fun for the participants).
NCM,
A lot of people seem to be taking a keen interest in éirigi which would explain why SF are bad mouthing them in an attempt to put people off at every opportunity.
Newry republican.
Do you know what exactly Éirigi is? Is it a party? Does it have a manifesto or a constitition? Does it have a leader, a secretary, an address? All I know about it is that they appear here and there on protest, a bit like Ógra Shinn Féin.
Chris,
my question about reaching out to people while calling them 'enemies' still stands.
NCM.
1916 didn't work out that well for those of us still stuck in the British controlled 6 cos which isn't much fun for us.
sleepingpostie
Anyone who stands between the advancement of the Republican Struggle is an enemy in my book.
It doesn't mean you hate them or fight them but you must remove them from their current positon if you are to advance yours.
Enemies come in vaious forms, not just "the brits".
sleeping postie,
éirigi is a political party, it does have a constitution and it's chairperson is Brian Leeson, unfortunately i can't provide any more information as i'm not a member but if you visit this website it may help you
www.eirigi.org
sleepingpostie: "NCM,
1916 didn't work out that well for those of us still stuck in the British controlled 6 cos which isn't much fun for us."
Understood. I guess my point, though, is that the eventual outcome of 1916, though not ultimate victory, was still far more impressive than what "should" have been predicted to have resulted from it. I mean, that it eventually lead to the independence of ANY counties, much less over 75% of Ireland's counties, was pretty impressive, all things considered. Right place, right time, and fortune smiled upon the idealists. The point I wasn't making was that you should somehow be satisfied with the eventual outcome -- 6 counties under British control -- but that the outcome that came about still was an amazing "end" result.
Newry Republican: "A lot of people seem to be taking a keen interest in éirigi which would explain why SF are bad mouthing them in an attempt to put people off at every opportunity."
I'm just an outsider, but it strikes me that SF now has a vested interest in protecting the status quo, which means British rule in the north and a controlled opposition that knows its place and doesn't push hard. Eirigi threatens SF precisely because it doesn't know its place and isn't satisfied with the status quo. It seems to me that eirigi will be the force to be reckoned with before too long and that SF will have a perverse incentive to dampen any eirigi republican resurgence. Time will tell.
NCM,
I totally agree with the points you made about éirigi, the calibre of people that are now associating themselves with them is outstanding, you have former óglaigh, Ex-POWs, Former Blanketmen, Former Hungerstrikers, High profile community workers, Campaign group Relatives for Justice. Could this be the answer to the question "whats the alternative"? As you said time will tell.
Chris
No offense buddy but that socialism nonsense is a no goer. You are still young wait till your 30's when you start accumulating a few of your own "things". Center left is a perfecly valid political viewpoint and its one I share even if I am part of the problem and not part of the solution
But honestly socialism will never work in a practical manner for any nation, atleast in my viewpoint
Sean the Obtuse Canadian
Sean, Centre Left is Socialism. I don't believe that Chris is talking about Soviet Union Socialism, or even Eamonn McCann Socialism, but more Democratic Socialism, a form of Socialism practiced by most Centre Left Parties.
Seamus,
I would have thought most centre-left parties would no longer describe themselves as "socialist" but rather "social democratic" parties.
SF specifically describe themselves as socialist putting in mind the not-so-centre-left Tony Benns, Joe Higgins and Eamonn McCanns of the world (nice and admirable men; but political dinosaurs).
Reg, in my opinion, most political parties that describe themselves a Social Democrats, aren't even left of Centre. They are Centrist. Parties like both Labour parties, the Stoops, the Democrats in America etc.
Seamus:
"They need to scrap the Average Worker's wage rule"
I am opposed to such a measure for several rational reasons, rather than the histronics of some other members on in relation to this issue.
Firstly I feel that this rule helps to guard against the emergence of a career poltician culture, as those elected will only get a fraction of their wage. The hateful career led bastards will fuck off to Stoops thus seperating the shite from the silver.
Secondly as a socialist I feel that morally it is the right thing to do. Why should an elected rep have a vast financial backing while their workers have none?
Thirdly at a time when the party is struggling to generate finances for its running this would be suicide. Office workers, organisers etc would all be laid off with elected reps left with an increased wage but a massive increase in work load! Look at the dire straits others who don't operate this rule are in! Furthermore the republican movement is bigger than any one individaul, hence this measure reflects this.
Fourthly I feel that contrary to what you argue, their are several capable graduates working in posts for the party. I know two of these quite well and they do a hell of a lot of work and are amazing at their jobs. It has been a pleasure to work with both of them on a number of issues. I'm sure their are many others out there too. Furthermore I feel that the calibre of staff and elected reps is better than those of other parties, so why change this?
"Firstly I feel that this rule helps to guard against the emergence of a career poltician culture, as those elected will only get a fraction of their wage."
I don't mean that they should be given the current wage awarded to TDs, MLAs, MPs or Ministers but enough for it to be competitive. Many of the prospective elected representatives for Sinn Féin are very abled people who could carve out a massive earning if they didn't enter politics. This automatically excludes a large amount of people from Sinn Féin's skill pool.
"Secondly as a socialist I feel that morally it is the right thing to do. Why should an elected rep have a vast financial backing while their workers have none?"
Sinn Féin would be in a better place to help the Working Class in Ireland if we could draw from the talents of as many people as possible. One of Sinn Féin's falling points is the Economy. What Economist worth his salt is going to work for £20,000?
"Thirdly at a time when the party is struggling to generate finances for its running this would be suicide."
A full increase in Salaries, being for MPs, MLAs, TDs, Committee Chairs, Ministers etc would be £1.5 Million a year. Now I don't agree that they should get their full salary. Setting a cap at a competitive £35,000 would cost only £1/2 Million a year extra. Sinn Féin can afford this.
"Fourthly I feel that contrary to what you argue, their are several capable graduates working in posts for the party."
There undoubtedly are. But is their enough of them. Sinn Féin, in my opinion, needs a massive overhaul on policy. Not on principles, but on policy. It needs to be done and there are areas of policy that I don't believe Sinn Féin has enough quality in.
Sean the Obtuse Canadian: "No offense buddy but that socialism nonsense is a no goer. You are still young wait till your 30's when you start accumulating a few of your own 'things'."
It's funny, it's only now that I'm in my 30's, have a fairly decent salary and have started accumulating "things" that I've come to the conclusion that socialism is a worthwhile political goal and that a life centered around consumerism and profit made by farming off of others' productive labor is an empty one devoid of moral worth.
The issue I'm struggling with is, as you say, how to make socialism work from a practical standpoint, such that there's not moral hazard created by misaligned incentives (i.e. why work if you'll get stuff anyway?) and that political elites don't get to decide who eats (political friends) and who doesn't (political foes). The disaster of the Soviet Union ought to be studied in depth as a prime example of what to avoid, I'd say...
what S/F should do is have a good hard look at themselves and ask who runs the party . the leadership, the grassroots, or the brits i opt for the latter, and i wonder how to claim the party back the brits did some job on republicans smell the Shiite you have been sold down the river ye are now more british than the brits stormount why would any self respecting republican want to sit their
Camlough Republican, I'm not one for going on about spelling and punctiation and things of that nature, but at least try to make your posts legible.
On the issue you brought up, Sinn Féin is not being controlled by the British. Sinn Féin is probably being controlled by the Leadership and being scrutinised by the grassroots through the Ard Fheis. Sinn Féin, in order to achieve our goals, needs to be involved in the Political Process, which means taking seats and working in both Stormont and Leinster House.
LEGIBLE OR NO OR WHEATHER I SPELL STORMOUNT RIGHT OR NO THE TRUTH IS THE BRITS OWN S/F LOCK STOCK AND EVERY OFFICE THEY GIVE YE MIGHT NOT SPELL THAT WELL BUT I CAN SMELL A SELL OUT ACHIEVE YOUR GOALS MY ASS YOUR CLOSER NOW TO A UNITED IRELAND THAN YOU WERE 30 YEARS AGO DREAM ON SHAMUS OR SHOULD I SAY ADE
SF have put the struggle back 100 years
"SF have put the struggle back 100 years"
Considering that 100 years ago all of Ireland was under British Rule, I would imagine that they haven't put it back 100 years. Unless there's something the Dubs aren't telling us.
Also, putting it in Caps Lock doesn't make it in anyway easier to read.
"SHAMUS OR SHOULD I SAY ADE"
Deliberately anglicising the spealing of my name. I have to say that's very British of you.
Also, if you notice I have been having an argument with Adelente in this exact topic so, unless I'm suffering from schizophrenia, I doubt we're the same person.
It's funny, it's only now that I'm in my 30's, have a fairly decent salary and have started accumulating "things" that I've come to the conclusion that socialism is a worthwhile political goal and that a life centered around consumerism and profit made by farming off of others' productive labor is an empty one devoid of moral worth.
NCM,
Well said. I agree 100%.
very british off me the very point i make we now will be british thanks to jerry and marty and the yes men of S/F or the NDP
"very british off me the very point i make we now will be british thanks to jerry and marty and the yes men of S/F or the NDP"
republican
Patience and a good political strategy and you guys, meaning true republicans, should be able to achieve your goals peacefully by using the mechanisms of democracy, period. Regarding Gerry Adams, as Pontius Pilate once said, "What is truth?", and who knows what the truth is? But who cares? The pen is mightier than the sword, and 30 years of the sword led to a stalemate and lots of decent people dead on both sides. Join eirigi, advocate for a socialist republic using the liberal system the Brits uphold (and the Brits are liberal... you should come here to the US and you'd find the British government docile by comparison... local sheriffs' departments here will kill you while you sleep in your own bed and pay nothing for doing so), and a united Ireland will be at your feet before you know it. Or that's my unsoliciated and outsider advice.
NCM
The British system is not and has never been 'liberal' in terms of its Irish policies. A brief reading of history will show you that the Irish people have tried 'democratic' means far oftener than armed means but the results were rarely impressive.They have also shot our people 'in their beds'. The GFA is a case in point whereby the IRA were persuaded to stop fighting in exchange for the right to agree to that which they were fighting against, British rule in the 6 counties.
"the pen is mightier than the sword", sounds good but like "the camera never lies" it doesn't stand up to scrutiny.Pen wielding pacifists are scarce in your country and mine.
As for Eirigi, it is a bit early to know what they are yet, still a small rump of republicanism, and have a way to go to prove themselves. Don't appear to have any strategy apart from the occassional protest although I imagine they are working on that.
Seamus, don't be too upset about that boyo calling you 'Shamus', after all Shamus, when speaking to a Seamus is not far wrong as in Irish it'd be A Sheamus (with the s silent), that's why the Scots equivalent to Seamus, Hamish, starts with a h.
Must just be me then who resnts watching other people benefit from my hard work. Not the people I work with or even the genuinely needy but the spongers who do no work only the bare minimum they absolutely have to. the ones always looking for an angle to work the system
The free market system is already very socialist
Every one as per their ability... sounds alot like if you can do and get paid for it
Every one as per their need... you don't actualy NEED most of the things we WANT in a modern western democracy
So as long as you have food and shelter then anything else is up for YOU to provide for YOURSELF..... very free enterprise
"They need to scrap the Average Worker's wage rule”
Can I elaborate on this issue and ask a few questions which have never satisfactorily been answered through my internal party queries?
I am a former member of the RM for more years than I care to remember and am removed from the Movement by my present geographical location as opposed to any sense of disagreement with present movement policy. However I feel that some questions need to be asked in the context of the “average industrial wage” earned by Party members.
These points are made in the fullness of sincerity and honesty in the hope of finding answers to questions that I have raised previously within internal Party structures and have never been fully answered. I would appreciate that Republicans who disagree with current SF policy don’t use this post as a whipping boy to exercise your disagreement / dissatisfaction / personal grudges etc,
What is the average industrial wage?
Let’s look at this in the context that electricians, plumbers, bricklayers etc tend to earn more than, say, laborers, painters, lorry drivers etc and do “educated” professions such as lawyers, teachers, accountants etc also fall into the “average industrial wage” bracket?
In short, who decides the average industrial wage in party structure and what is the calculation for it?
Is it means tested?
There are some MLA.’s who also hold other posts such as various positions within District / City Councils, Members of Westminster etc who can claim personal expenses, (I personally know that Belfast City Councilors expenses are kept by the individual and don’t go into central Party funds, although I don’t know if this is the case with Westminster expenses), Is the average industrial wage paid by the Party to Stormont Elected Reps diminished by these personal expenses?
Advisors fees
SF has a number of advisors from expert legal, economic, educational fields etc. Are these personnel from academia paid along the same wage scale as the average industrial wage?
Equality for all?
Does a, (relatively) young woman with a young family, such as Michelle Gildernew, in a Stormont Ministerial position, get paid the same average industrial wage as, for example, Fra McCann, an MLA with a grown family?.
If not, why not? Are their political responsibilities and domestic commitments not different? And if they are should the commitment and responsibility not be financially compensated commensurately?
As I said before, I ask these questions in the spirit of finding answers through transparent and honest debate which I have not found elsewhere. Please don’t turn it into a bunfight.
sleepingpostie: "The British system is not and has never been 'liberal' in terms of its Irish policies. A brief reading of history will show you that the Irish people have tried 'democratic' means far oftener than armed means but the results were rarely impressive.They have also shot our people 'in their beds'."
I get all that, but much of that was from different times when civil and human rights were barely even concepts, much less concerns. The world of 2009 is a far different one from 1981 or 1972, and certainly from 1920. What once wasn't possible in terms of democratic, peaceful resistance now should be. Yes, "the pen is mightier than the sword" is a stupid cliche but like all cliches there's some truth in it, especially when democratic, peaceful methods are possible. At least SF and GFA have opened the door to further advances.
But I'm not there and what do I know about it? Fair criticism.
At least SF and GFA have opened the door, to where, Stormont Ministerial positions, is it possible that the brits are so far into S/F that the war is really over, for maybe twenty years or to republicans get their act togeather,Mybe its me but i dont see any strategy to unite our country we give up the only tool we had to shift the brits IRA] for what, Stormont Ministerial positions, History never lies well nearly ever i love to see what really went on,was it another british stragy or just the same one they always used divide and conquer
listen to yourselves, stragy to win seats in a british state, why are you not planning to bring this state to its knees like the IRA tried to do
republicans didnt give their lives for to sit in a british state running it for them they died to get the brits out not turn into brits like S/F have done, come on, bring the whole thing down round them
sad republican,
All I'm arguing is this. You guys have achieved incremental victories over the years, and some of these incremental victories have been impressive, like the independence of the Republic (yes, I know, I know, but all things considered, that was still a victory). One of those victories is the GFA. It is not ultimate victory, but if you folks are clever, and you are clever, I believe under current conditions you can play within the Brits' own rules and finally, finally win this thing without ever firing another shot and without any more people, people like you and me, getting killed. I'm not saying that Gerry Adams is "the man," I'm not saying Gerry Adams is or is not a sellout or something, and I'm not saying that the GFA is the end all and be all. But I am saying that, unlike 100 years ago, unlike 30 years ago, the Brits should not be particularly tough foes politically, and you should consider ways to get the 6 counties out of the UK and institute socialism using purely political means and strategies. It is the moral and ethical thing to do.
To resort to another cliche, all I am saying, is give peace a chance. Fighting the Brits another 800 years would be pointless and wrong if in 15 or 20 you have a decent chance of winning through non-violent political means.
But let me say one more time: this is the perspective of an outsider. I can't legitimately tell you what to do, what to think, etc. and my ideas might be purely stupid. But I've never been the sort to keep my ideas to myself just because they are dumb.
Anyone who stands between the advancement of the Republican Struggle is an enemy in my book.
It doesn't mean you hate them or fight them but you must remove them from their current positon if you are to advance yours.; such a load off brown stuff
seamus Sinn Féin is not being controlled by the British. Sinn Féin is probably being controlled by the Leadership the leadership have been compromised, wake up,
sad republican: "Anyone who stands between the advancement of the Republican Struggle is an enemy in my book.
It doesn't mean you hate them or fight them but you must remove them from their current positon if you are to advance yours."
Which makes sense. This is still consistent with what I've been saying. I'm not arguing that republicans should follow Gerry Adams and SF or that this would lead to victory if republicans did that. What I am saying is that a political, non-violent strategy for victory is what is needed, in my totally outsider opinion.
hj
Sean mc kenna was true republican who went to war with the brits .why is there no blog for him,TONYgot a good blog sean the IRA vol ,hunger striker, not a word why i ask
Sad Republican:
All too often in this unjust world the courageous have no reward to show for their brave actions. Where are the songs for all the other heros who died, the statutes for each man in this world who sacrificed for a cause greater than himself?
Gerry has his blog, but who cares?
So chris did the Newry $hinners get their knuckles rapped at the big meeting in Mullabawn the other week ?
TO BAD IRISH CATHOLICS DIDNT HAVE A FEW OIL WELLS.
hi Chris,
interesting piece. is it not ime for the left in SF to come together and push for chang ein party polciy and structure. Why has there been no attempt to do this under a banner of something like SF left.
Commenting by HaloScan
