Adams' criticism of Ahern is cowardly and hypocritical

by idiot lover Fri Feb 14, 2003 00:50

ah who cares about that nonsense shelta,the invasion of Shannon and stopping the terrorist war against Iraqi civilians is more important than your petty sectish sour grapes

by Myrna Gonzalez Fri Feb 14, 2003 01:43

Adams rebukes the puppet, Aherne, while actively cooperating with the puppet masters, Bush and Blair, in destroying Irish national self-determination. How can Adams rebuke Ahern when he is allied with him in the so-called 'Pan-Nationalist Front' which subordinates Ireland, North and South, to the Anglo-American imperial axis. Neither Adams nor his faction have any moral standing to attack imperialism. Hence his mild rebuke to Ahern for not opposing the war.

by Kevin Fri Feb 14, 2003 01:51

Yea Idiot Lover, who cares about the north, I notice no one here has taken anyone up on the offer to go protest some soldiers that might actually shoot back up here - stay down in Shannon where it's nice and safe why don't you and continue forgetting about the north, there's a good wee Idiot, shhhhhhhhhh

by Just another girl on the IMC... Fri Feb 14, 2003 02:39

Well, whatever you think about their anti-militarism stance, it will be more interesting to hear their comments on the WEF forum in Dublin in October, considering G Adams was quite happy to accept an invitation to speak at it in NYC last year...

by Joe Thomas Fri Feb 14, 2003 02:43

S.F., has cooperated fully with imperialist plans for Ireland. It cannot logically oppose any imperialist manifestation such as the W.E.F. But to keep their duped, wilfully blind, followers on board the S.F. leaders will make progressive sounding noises from time to time.

by donaloc Fri Feb 14, 2003 11:22

The sentence is enough to generate a slight notion of the oxymoron. Ireland is variously occupied by an Imperialist army and subject to neocolonialism in the 26 Cos.
SF is a small but growing party. Its focus is the creation of a 32CDSR. It will achieve that goal.
The first lesson of politics is how to advance towards your goal. The ultraleft are always characterised by an inability to put forward a road map to their ultimate goal. Such a strategy requires an objective assessment of where we are right now. As Lenin said: the concrete analysis of concrete circumstance. This is the start off point for revolutionary activity.
Those who point to Gerry Adam's visit to the WEC in NY previously never read his speech. He took social justice and economic equality into that forum of the bourgeoisie. No doubt those who pretend to be revolutionaries would like to support events in Brazil with the assumption of Lula to the Presidency. Well didn't Lula attend the WEF himself - after attending the WSF.
What is needed is that those who bandy terms like imperialism go back and read Lenin on Imperialism. You then need to get with the story since 1916 - things have changed somewhat. Although in today's world we are faced with a form not hugely dissimiliar from that pre-WWI - except the hegemonic force is now the USA instead of Britain and imperialist forces have the power to ensure their mutual destruction if war ever erupted. In these new circumstances, revolutionaries need to be calculated. Again, as most Irish socialists will remember, Lenin decried those who criticised the 1916 Eiri Amach because of their puerile demands for a 'purity'. In a similar manner, the same sectarians who withheld judgement on the July 26th movement in Cuba in 1959 or the Bolivarian Revolution in Venezuala in 2000 will fail to understand our revolution today.
Is mise,
Donal.

by iosaf Fri Feb 14, 2003 11:35

mo chara,
I read the G. Adams address to SF on the eve of the Millenium. I was heartened to see that SF was discussing the "DSR" in terms of a newly globalised world. I read Lulu´s address to his party during the energy crises of that same year. I was heartened to see that Lulu was discussing with his party a "new route" to their longterm objectives.
I read many SF appraisals of the route to the "DSR" in 1993. I was dissappointed that that the IRish Republican movement had "invited" the Americans into a direct negotiating role in the Irish Peace Process. You will no doubt remember the debate amongst the very wide Irish Republican movement in Ireland, Britain, Europe and the Americas at that time over how best to moblise the "pan-nationalist front". I remember at that time saying and writing [in another name] that "we would rue the day we invited Washington to our table". I still hold that positition. I feel that the legitimate goal of acheiving a "unitary DSR" will not be served by assiting American intervention and longterm policy in European states. I think in some ways the reasons why will best be understood by reading my article "whats in it for them- New Europe" which I shall publish later today. But finally as an aside Lulu has quite tactically decided to support Brazilian militarists in their development of a Nuclear Deterrent. Would you tactically suggest the same thing for Ireland?

is mise le meas,
iosaf.

by donaloc Fri Feb 14, 2003 16:55

I will 'step through' again:

> I read the G. Adams address to SF on the eve of the Millenium. I was heartened to see that SF was discussing the "DSR" in terms of a newly globalised world. I read Lulu´s address to his party during the energy crises of that same year. I was heartened to see that Lulu was discussing with his party a "new route" to their longterm objectives.

I'm glad you feel that way. I think we all need to be imaginative and brave in terms of considering all available alternatives before choosing one which will get us to where we want to be.

> I read many SF appraisals of the route to the "DSR" in 1993. I was dissappointed that that the IRish Republican movement had "invited" the Americans into a direct negotiating role in the Irish Peace Process. You will no doubt remember the debate amongst the very wide Irish Republican movement in Ireland, Britain, Europe and the Americas at that time over how best to moblise the "pan-nationalist front". I remember at that time saying and writing [in another name] that "we would rue the day we invited Washington to our table". I still hold that positition. I feel that the legitimate goal of acheiving a "unitary DSR" will not be served by assiting American intervention and longterm policy in European states. I think in some ways the reasons why will best be understood by reading my article "whats in it for them- New Europe" which I shall publish later today.

I would certainly admit that for me it's not a simple decision. Most on the left would have an autopilot 'rejection' of US involvement in any sovereign struggle. However, there are a number of 'mediating factors':
(i) 6 Cos are already militarily occupied
(ii) the occupation force in (i) is a sub-imperialist component of US hegemony
(iii) we can use contradictions between US and UK imperialist interest to our own advantage
(iv) The US has a sizeable pro-Irish Nationalist lobby which we need to see as a potential friend in the struggle for unity.
(v) there is considerable precedence for playing one set of imperialists off the other -just look at what Cuba does.

Having said all that, there are significant dangers and risks involved. It's a difficult call to make, but overall, I don't think anyone really looking at objective realities could deny that the involvement of Clinton in our Peace Process was useful. That of the new administration remains to be assessed.

>But finally as an aside Lulu has quite tactically decided to support Brazilian militarists in their development of a Nuclear Deterrent. Would you tactically suggest the same thing for Ireland?

I will answer in a personal capacity. As far as I know, Lula and his Worker's Party Govt have decided to not commission the purchase of fighter planes (with wealth transfer to the military-industrial complex) in order to divert those funds to the poor. That's the sort of thing I would support. As for your allegation - I'm not aware of the Brazilians moving towards obtaining Nuclear weapons - that would be a significant move indeed. I'm not sure who they would be aiming them at - I was reading Castro's denounciations of the US lies about Cuban possession of WMD. He said, quite correctly, that possession of such would be crazy and deeply counterproductive. Cuba's strength lies in its people and in its appeal to internationalist solidarity. I would agree.

Is mise,
DOC.