[Marxism] Donal going green

Philip Ferguson plf13 at student.canterbury.ac.nz
Tue Mar 23 16:41:24 MST 2004


Me:
>>And, of course, pan-nationalism in Ireland always leads into adaptation
> 
> to imperialism and then outright collaboration because bourgeois
> nationalism in Ireland is, essentially, an impossibility.



Donal:
> Yes, and Gerry Adams and Martin Maguinness (those bourgeois scoundrels)
> along with Fidel Castro and Ernesto Guevara (scum-bag bourgeoisie all) -
> will never lead a decent revolution.
> 
> Not at least according to Trotsky Volume 7 Chapter 5 Verse 3....
> 
> Such a combination of ignorance and arrogance are hard to find, Phil!!
> Meanwhile, we will conduct the long struggle despite the fools...
> 
> Is mise
> DOC



Donal, I think you're getting a bad chip on your shoulder and a very 
petty frame of mind.

I never mentioned Adams and McGuiness.  My comment above, which was 
mainly about 1921, was *the republican orthodoxy* on pan-nationalism for 
decades.  If you want to change that understanding and that orthodoxy, 
fair enough.  But at least be open about it.  And don't get on your high 
horse, when some of us are perfectly happy with the old republican 
orthodoxy about pan-nationalism.

Your comments about Castro and Guevara are bizarre, as is your silly 
comment about Trotsky.  Since I'm not a Trotskyist, your attempt to make 
out that someone who disagrees with pan-nationalism can only do so on 
the basis of some narrow Trotskyist orthodoxy/text is simply downright 
dishonest.

I disagree with pan-nationalism in Ireland because, in terms of Irish 
politics, I am a Connollyist, not a Trotskyist.  I disagree with 
pan-nationalism because I adhere also to the basic long-time orthodoxy 
of republicanism, which has consistently opposed pan-nationalism.

But, of course, you would have exposed your own politics if you had've 
said, "Not at least according to Connolly Volume 2 Chapter 5 Verse 
3...."  Or, "Not at least according to Gerry Adams, 1978. . ."

It's interesting that you regard Connolly's socialist-republicanism and 
even orthodox republicanism, including that held by the Provos for most 
of their history, as now being a "combination of ignorance and arrogance".

I would suggest the real ignorance is your own inability to learn from 
Irish history and the lessons of what pan-nationalism is and where it 
leads to.

Your "long struggle" is actually turning out to be nothing more than the 
neo-colonialist politics that a whole range of former national 
independence movements ended up converting to.  many of us have seen it 
all before, indeed we've seen it far too often, to be impressed that you 
and the Provos are somehow different.  Let alone in anywhere near the 
category of Fidel Castro and Che Guevara.  Like Che said, in the 
imperilaist era there is either "socialist revolution or caricature of 
revolution".

Since the Provos have *explicitly rejected* socialist revolution, they 
are, in the words of one of my great heroes (Che) producing merely the 
"caricature of revolution".  Indeed, even calling it a caricature now 
would give it too much credence.

Is mise,
  Phil











More information about the Marxism mailing list