Differing Roadmaps

Paul Moloney pmoloney1969 at yahoo.co.uk
Thu Sep 5 07:28:15 MDT 2002

Philip states:
> Given that the IRSP proposed a united front around
> the national  question to the same kinds of forces
> in the late 1970s, before Paul Moloney's current
> murdered Seamus Costello, I don't think there is
> anything funny or odd in assuming such a united bloc

> might be possible today.

So it's to be a 'current' bun fight.
Philip Ferguson's current has apologised for certain
activities in 'taking the war to Britain',
decommissioned weapons and supports the GFA.
He is no longer a member of SF and I am no longer a
member of the WP, therefore blaming me on a killing
that took place in 1978 (when I was 8) is a bit like
jumping to the conclusion that he supports the
apologies, the decommissioning GFA (all things which
he disagrees with). Time moves on and certainly has
done from the 70's and mid 80's.

Danielle wrote:
> I took Phil's comment to mean that armed struggle is
> only  viable if and when there is popular support
> for it.

It wasn't the impression I got.
Is the objective to build popular support for armed
struggle or socialism?
Do you really believe taking into consideration once
more the statement below that it will be possible to
get to positon where there will be popular support for
it again

> Other Republicans believe that the continuation
> of armed struggle will bring about a Republic.
> That by clinging to absolutes they can by the
> purity of their principles convince the "people" to
> back them. They are wrong. Thirty years of
> armed struggle did not succeed. Instead it led
> to a severe defeat of the Republican struggle.
> It is time to say that. The good guys lost the war.
> Going back to methods that have failed is not
> the answer.



Do You Yahoo!?
Everything you'll ever need on one web page
from News and Sport to Email and Music Charts

PLEASE clip all extraneous text before replying to a message.

More information about the Marxism mailing list