Making Sense, No. 5

You can join this discussion on The Cedar Lounge Revolution

• By: Garibaldy Thu, 03 Jun 2010 00:53:42

  In reply to Ramzi Nohra 1.

  Ramzi,

  I’d agree that what we have here is a matter of interpretation, rather than a question where someone can be proven right or wrong.

  As for what we have done, or continue to do to break the connection and advance persuasion. You raise the question of our literature. It’s true to see that we don’t plaster it at the top of everything we do the way other parties do. But nor is it something we hide. Just looking at the latest edition of LookLeft, there is a blurb I suppose you would call it on the Party. It talks about building a democratic, secular, socialist Ireland. If you go to the Party’s publication page

  http://www.workerspartyireland.net/publications.html

  you’ll see the extensive list of publications on republicanism and the republican tradition (and the list is incomplete). Including what was in some ways an update of The Republican Tradition, The Concept of Republicanism, written for the bicentenary of 1798.

  Transmitting our understanding of republicanism, and indeed socialism, is a part of trying to break the connection. It’s about persuading people of all religions and none that democratic, secular, socialist politics offer the best way forward for the working class across the island. At the same time, labour mustn’t wait. Class politics continues in both states in every action of the bourgeois parties – we must offer our own version focussed on the here and now as well as the long-term.

  You note the Party hasn’t had much success persuading people. I think that’s true of every party that ultimately wants an independent Ireland. I’d be interested though in hearing what it is you think we ought to be doing and aren’t in regards to this question.

  Thanks for the mention of that book.

  Reply on the CLR

• By: Garibaldy Thu, 03 Jun 2010 00:58:32

  In reply to yourcousin.

  YC,

  I’d agree that a lot of nationalism in the period you are talking about was not of the variety that we talk about today. It’s partly why I am cautious about using the phrase for the timeframe under discussion. It elides things that had similarities but also a lot of differences.

  I think it’s important not to say that Wolfe Tone or Connolly would have voted this way or that on such and such an Ard Fheis motion, and to that extent I’d agree with you. I’m not someone who thinks digging out a quote from Lenin or Marx or whoever settles an argument set in the here and now. But I think it’s worth thinking about whether such and such a position can be broadly understood as standing within the tradition they were themselves part of.

  Reply on the CLR

• By: Garibaldy Thu, 03 Jun 2010 01:13:37

  Bartholomew,

  A big question to which I’m sure this will be an inadequate and ill-thought out answer. But briefly, I think myself that nationalism involves not only the idea that the political and national unit should be congruent, but also that identification with the nation should be one’s primary political identification. I think this conflicts with class politics; I also think that what separates self-determination from nationalism is that it does not rule out the possibility of the uniting with other peoples, whether that involves formal political unity or close cooperation and coordinated action for progressive goals. Nationalism seems to me to rule out the former at least. In Irish terms, I suppose my own view would be that separatism remains a key aspect while there is a need to complete the transition to an independent republic, but once that independence has been achieved, I would have no objection to greater cooperation with others in the right circumstances. Separatism isn’t meant to mean isolationism.

  As for whether there is a difference between a people and a nation. I suppose that’s a complex question, relating to language usage as well as conceptualisation. At bottom, I suppose when I use the word people -especially when discussing a country’s internal politics – I mean what used to be called the menu peuple, the popular classes or the lowers orders. The ordinary working people of a country. So when I refer to the rights of peoples to self-determination I suppose I am thinking of the rights of the working people of countries to determine their own future. I think this is what the KKE meant with its slogan, “Peoples of Europe, Rise Up!”

  But equally, I probably do sometimes use people when nation would serve the same purpose. It’s something I need to think more about, as this answer doubtless makes clear.

  Reply on the CLR

• By: Ramzi Nohra Thu, 03 Jun 2010 08:54:04

  In reply to Ramzi Nohra 1.

  thanks for the response G.

  Reply on the CLR

• By: Bartholomew Fri, 04 Jun 2010 13:03:35

  Thanks Garibaldy. That doesn’t strike me as ill-thought out at all, but very persuasive about identification and self-determination. As for ‘a people’, ‘the people’, ‘a nation’, and now ‘a country’, I’ll have to think hard about those myself too.

  Reply on the CLR

• By: Gilmore's Travels and his beanstalk economics. - Page 6 Fri, 11 Jun 2010 22:39:57

  […] […]

  Reply on the CLR

• By: meals online Tue, 20 Jan 2015 22:54:02

  Excellent items from you, man. I have be mindful your stuff prior to and you’re
  simply extremely fantastic. I really like what you’ve acquired right here, really like what you are stating and the best way through
  which you assert it. You are making it entertaining and you still take care of to stay it wise.
  I cant wait to read much more from you. This is actually a great website.

  Reply on the CLR