This is a piece from An Phoblacht and is a review of the book The Lost Revolution: The Story of the Official IRA and the Workers’ Party
By Brian Hanley and Scott Millar. I have not read the book yet, but I intend to, however I feel strongly that anybody who is interested in the future of Sinn Féin needs to look closely at the past of the Workers'Party. Their acceptance of the Northern State and attitude to the RUC is a warning to us about what could happen if we are not careful.
_______________________________________________________________________
Book review
The Lost Revolution: The Story of the Official IRA and the Workers’ Party
By Brian Hanley and Scott Millar.
Penguin Ireland.
ISBN 978-1-844-88120
Price: €21.99/£20
By Mícheál Mac Donncha
This book must rank as one of the most detailed and frank histories of any political party in Ireland or elsewhere. It tells the story of the bizarre political journey of the ‘Stickies’ from the split in the IRA and Sinn Féin in 1969 to the disintegration of the Workers’ Party and the departure of most of its leadership in 1992.
The book is primarily based on interviews with a range of members and former members of the Workers’ Party and ‘Official IRA’ and that is at once its strength and its weakness. The authors have put a huge amount of research into this and have spoken to dozens of people, giving a fascinating view from the inside of a highly secretive and conspiratorial political party. However, at key points, the absence of other perspectives is glaring. This is especially so in the coverage of the 1969 split where we get a very inadequate view of how it was seen by those on the other side of that divide.
The 1969 split was a disaster for Irish republicanism. Talented and committed leaders and activists went their separate ways and two Sinn Féins and two IRAs emerged at a time when the Orange state was collapsing and people in the 26 Counties were looking North as never before. Yet IRA Chief of Staff Cathal Goulding believed that his political project had such potential that it was worth allowing the Movement to split from top to bottom.
We need a detailed history of the build-up to the split during the ‘60s and how it happened and hopefully one will appear in due course. But even from the partial account given here, it is plain to see that Cathal Goulding and Seán Garland were set on a course that they were determined to follow, come what may. They disregarded both the widespread internal opposition to their direction and the events which were changing Northern politics fundamentally. Ironically, while the Provos were castigated as militarists, it was Goulding and Garland who used the military structure, discipline and conspiratorial tradition of the IRA to force through profound ideological changes that made a split inevitable.
When the crisis broke in the North and nationalists came under attack from the RUC and loyalists in August ‘69 the IRA was in a poor state to defend nationalist areas. The book makes clear that the IRA was still active and certainly did not “run away” but it had been allowed to deteriorate and dissatisfaction with the Dublin leadership over this issue was a key factor in the split.
More profoundly, the Goulding leadership had a flawed analysis of unionism and the flaws would become clearer as time went on. Ignoring the harsh realities of division brought about by 50 years of sectarian Unionist government, the Goulding leadership’s Northern policy was based on the belief that working-class Catholics and Protestants could be united on social and economic issues while pretending not to see the elephant in the room – the question of partition and British rule. They supported the retention of unionist majority rule at Stormont on the basis that this would lead to left/right politics in the North.
As time went on this blindness to reality developed into a political perversion so that, by the 1980s, the ‘Official IRA’ and Workers Party in the Six Counties were collaborating with the RUC, acting as informers within the nationalist community, and colluding with loyalist paramilitaries in criminal rackets. They were venomous in their opposition to the H-Block/Armagh campaign and the hunger strikers. They welcomed the use of ‘supergrasses’ by the RUC and, ironically, given Garland’s present predicament, supported political extradition. Such was their hysteria that British Labour Party conference delegates who went to hear Gerry Adams speak in 1983 were described as “ghouls” who would be “equally at home with the Yorkshire Ripper”.
The Sticks remained totally marginal in the North but in the 26 Counties they had an influence far beyond their numbers. With members in the trade union leadership and the media, the Sticks performed a very useful role for the political establishment. They provided a pseudo-left-wing critique of republicanism which complemented Government censorship of RTÉ. In the Irish Times in Dublin and the Sunday World in Belfast their journalists kept the anti-republican line while ensuring favourable coverage for the Sticks.
They were now deeply partitionist and strident in opposition to even the mildest forms of Irish nationalism. But the further they went in their denunciations of Sinn Féin and IRA ‘terrorism’ and in support of British repression, the more glaring became the contradictions in their own position. For, as this book makes clearer than ever before, the ‘Official IRA’ was still very much alive. It ran all kinds of robberies and rackets North and South to fund the Workers Party and, though it had declared a ceasefire in 1972, it had been responsible for widespread violence, not against British forces, but in feuds with the IRA and INLA, and in enforcing its presence in nationalist areas.
By the late 1980s the ‘Official IRA’ was known as ‘Group B’ and was still involved in ‘Special Activities’ to fund the party. When the RTÉ programme Today Tonight (formerly a hotbed of Sticky influence) and Magill magazine exposed much of this, ‘Group B’ resorted to threats to the journalists.
The collapse of the Soviet states caused another ideological crisis for the Sticks who had followed a strong pro-Soviet line since the mid-70s. The party was now divided between those who maintained what they saw as democratic socialism, as well as favouring the retention of ‘Group B’, and those, mainly around the party’s TDs, led by Proinsias de Rossa, who wanted to jettison ‘Group B’ and move closer to the social democratic politics of the Labour Party. (Both sides remained vehemently anti-republican). When De Rossa’s faction could not turn the party around in 1992 he split to form Democratic Left which later merged with the Labour Party and eventually took over the leadership of that party. Both the last (Pat Rabbite) and the current (Eamon Gilmore) leader of Labour are ex-Sticks.
Despite the title of the book, and notwithstanding that many of them may have been sincere revolutionaries, the Sticky project was not the revolution and the revolution is not lost. It has yet to be won and, in winning it, lessons can be learned from the rise and fall of this now defunct political force.
Their acceptance of the Northern State and attitude to the RUC is a warning to us about what could happen if we are not careful.
ReplyDeleteIt's funny how Mac Donncha misses that particular elephant in the room.
The Lost Revolution is a pretty good book, it does go into what the OIRA were getting up to over that twenty-year period when they supposedly didn't exist, as well as other aspects of its history I'm sure some members would rather forget, but Mac Donncha's criticism of the lack of balance regarding the splits and feuds is more than fair.
The criticism about balance is fair but is that balance for the next book by other historians. The story of the oira is fairly hidden or maybe not as focussed on. This book sounds like a primary source rather than being able to fully flesh out the relationship of the provisionals. It sounds like a good book.
ReplyDeleteCiaran, reading the Cedarlounge blog I was struck by sense that time was healing the divisions of the split. That in and of itself is a good thing.
J
For me this is the key section of the review.
ReplyDeleteMore profoundly, the Goulding leadership had a flawed analysis of unionism and the flaws would become clearer as time went on. Ignoring the harsh realities of division brought about by 50 years of sectarian Unionist government, the Goulding leadership’s Northern policy was based on the belief that working-class Catholics and Protestants could be united on social and economic issues while pretending not to see the elephant in the room – the question of partition and British rule.
If this is the case then what is the SF analysis of unionism. Surley the party believes in the possibility of uniting on social issues. If they don't then does the leadership simply buy into the situation in the North as being a sectarian headcount that we will win only by outbreading the protestants? Surley no.
But to what extent was the failure of the Goulding analysis caused by the PIRA campaign. This campaign allowed the unionist politicans to claim it was a protestant versus catholic situation and that gave no room for the development of cross community solidarity. If the PIRA had not gone on the offensive then perhaps the Goulding line would have had a greater chance.
ReplyDeleteAnyway SF today is faced with the same situation. The attempts to reach out and build support in the unionist working class may well be undermined by those groups opposed to the GFA. How will SF react to this. Will it follow the Officals path or not? Will we too turn on fellow republicans?
AP
AP, Even before the IRA went on the offensive against the Stormont state and the B.A the poltical situation had shifted dramtically to one where violence was again used on a widescale to prevent political change.
ReplyDeleteYour point that the WP might hvae enjoyed some success if they were allowed act as the sole voice of nationalism is interesting to think on. I believe though that neither the unionists, the British, or a very large portion of the nationalist community could suspend their own political aspirations to give them that opportunity. That, rather than the strength of the provisonal IRA was the reason they could not succeed.
The WP choose to ignore the context they were in and that led to the failure of their strategy. They ignored the political/social/economic realitites in their analysis and as a result their analysis was not relevant to the time it was intended for nor did it speak for the people it should have. That happened both in the south and in the north but at different times.
J
What SF could learn is how they were able to organise and picket and target and put people into positions where they could influence and set agendas, be it Unions, media.this is a must read for anyone on the left.They made many mistakes. Their brutal and callous regard to Life was disgusting , no more than ALL organisations regard to life. but they Knew far better than the modern day SF how to get things done.Picket on Homes.etc,etc.SF lack their dynamic by a long way
ReplyDeleteJ, but the point i made still remains. Will SF be pushed down a road they do not wish to travel, not by the unionists but by fellow republicans. Can the party condemn attacks on the psni or british army without repeating the mistakes of the Workers party? The workers party leadership was made up of men with great republican credentials, but look what happened.
ReplyDeleteTodays leadership of SF has great credentials, but that will not automaticaaly stop them going down the wrong road.
I for one felt very uncomfortable at Martin's statements following the killing of the british soldiers and the PSNI officer. The treatment by the PSNI and special branch of those opposed to the GFA must be a concern to the party, or we risk taking our eye off the real enemies of republicanism, namely the british presence in Ireland.
AP
A fascinating aspect of this book is the vibrancy of SF, both in the pre-split and in the immediate aftermath as the officials. The book shows that they were not the moribund yellow-bellied organisation portrayed in republican mythology. The PIRA lacked much of their radical cutting edge. Of course, later on the official movement was tarnished by its allegiance to Moscow. Its political success in the south as a community-based left wing outfit was the model for SF during its successful period in the nineties and early noughties.
ReplyDeletePaul,
ReplyDeleteI agree with your point regarding Sinn Féin needing to learn how to get into positions of influence. Our lack of presence in the Unions is a major stumbling block for the left of the party. We claim to be left wing, we are a mojor political party, with a large memebership, yet our influence in the main organisations of the working class is insignificant.
Clearly the party needs to learn lessons from somebody on this.
AP, true the point still remains. its one of the dangers of the process i suppose. I think that their tactics are wrong and will delay or event prevent progress to a UI but as you say we need to keep in mind what we are trying to do here so as not to end up as bureaucrats just ruling like the next lot.
ReplyDeleteTo the last anon and AP. I feel one lesson ot be learnt from what happened to the WP is that if we allow ourselves to simply follow strong leaders, then they may lead us down a road we do not wish to go down. What is required is that the membership Make policy initiatives themselves, discuss what is happening and are ACTIVE participants in the decision making process.
ReplyDeleteSP, This is a very interesting discussion. Some others I know within the party have been discussing for many years now just how the party's politics and strategy have approximated those of the Stickies. I remember asking a long-standing 'internal dissident' for information on the split with the stickies. They didn't have much more than the folk-history MacDonnacha peddles. It is puzzling how few Republicans who lived through 1969 have anything near a decent analysis of it. As such this book is very interesting and relevant.
ReplyDeleteUnfortunately, Micheal doesn't identify any lessons to be learnt or any questions to be asked from the work. We should ask why.
Of interest to me, at least, is the similarities (and implications) in how the military structure and culture was used to enforce decisions. And more critically, the fact that the stickies actually attempted a radical engagement with working-class protestants. It has been rightfully questioned (above) whether SF have ever done that - our position is totally confused on this matter and leadership is clearly content to allow that to continue.
The leadership appear to have adopted a post-Gramscian 'hegemonic' approach to engaging unionism. I could write quite a bit on it - but essentially the leadership seem content to engage in a war of position with unionism in a manichean struggle for existence through institutions of governance rather than engage with protestant communities on the basis of a socially radical agenda. Unionism is to be defeated through engaging it in toto rather than obliterated from the grassroots.
Of relevance to this critique is that the most significant difference between SF today and the stickies is SF's dominant position in the north which carries with it the responsibility to busily implement privatisation and cutbacks in the north. Given these factors, it is not unsurprising that SF are coming off poorly in its current approach. But it is a historic disappointment that the party appears intent to repeat the mistakes of the past - save in a more obviously self-defeating manner. SMD
SP, yes its the membership who should be able to drive the agenda as well. Thats what I meant by avoiding ending up as a bureaucrats party. the membership can be a safe guard as once the greens membership used be but no longer is.
ReplyDeleteSMD, without being flippant the most striking difference between SF and the WP today is that the WP has 2 councillors, zero tds, zero MEPS, zero MLAs. I agree that there are aspects of the northern govt. that are not appealing but when we compare with the WP we must recognise we are not comparing apples with apples. If our strategy is now incorrect then we must assume that theirs was also incorrect at some level.
J
SMD, I didnt know what Gramscian was to be honest and had to check it up. interesting fellow he was.
ReplyDeletehttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antonio_Gramsci
I get the impression that there is more happening at root level than we get to hear about. I base that on just what i read in general. The relationship with people like the late David Ervine seems in that vein and having loyalists at the west belfast talks back public meeting.
J
SF in most certainly not a revolutionary party that is for sure.I have just finished that book tonight.and at the end it lists some of its former members and where they are.I am 46 now and I have enough fire in belly to light up Dublin.What the book didn't do and maybe should have was to ask these people why they went to the other side.Let's look at SF with all its members how come it can't keep An Phoblacht a float.the bloody members won't buy it they are so mean, That to me speaks volumes for them.
ReplyDeleteFor the last 6 weeks I have been out nearly every other night putting up posters for the People's Movement and trying to keep in touch with my kids, doing the things a Father should do. SF couldn't even be honest and tell its members to get out and help the Peoples Movement
because SF are broke.Working with progressive movements what a bloody joke.Did you Hear GA tonight on the news about Lisbon same ould mantra, what about the Economics of Lisbon not a mention, why becuase SF don't do economics, or can't and yet it is so simple.No one mentioned why the charter for Fundelmental rights was seut , no one metnioned the verdict on the Metock case, whereby the ECJ overules the The Irish State.See IT today page 10.
SF are being told there is no money.I don' believe it that where is the money going.I re-call in 07 election and the waste of money spent, no accountabilty. After that election there must have been 500 euro of gear left around and no one looked for it.why not.
There are many people out there who want change
but they won't join SF becuase SF are speaking the language of the Middle Class. bollocks to that I say , Speak the language of the People, clear and simple.
I'm sure the The Lost Revolution is worth a read but I've several other books to wade through before tackling a history book. I kind of look at history books, especially ones that focus on personal detail within a short time frame, as quite interesting biopics which shed a some light upon the authors and those who they write about. Of course, all historical works are selective, incomplete and largely incapable of recreating the exact set of complex circumstances and emotions that played out in time past. (We're certainly not going to get immediate insight from some of the protagonists of 1969 [death, prosecution et al]).
ReplyDeleteOne thing I can write with certainty is that 2009 is not 1969. There are events that occured in recent history which none would have foreseen in 1969. There has been a sea change in social attitudes since 1969.
I ferverently hope SF doesn't try to emulate small leftist parties of the past or present (or indeed of the old civil war parties). SF, as political party, is not the end all be all. It is just a political party. The members of SF can and should act independently of the party through other activities such as outreach programs, economic forums, unions and just plain socio-political activities which they enjoy.
I suppose a general ethos, interpreted individually by each person as to their own vision, will come into play. I generally suppose the shared ethos will colour our independent activities. There will be times when the party political dimension will come into play with our own personal activities.
While we're all aware of the problems with the cult of leadership, we should also bring this critical insight into the party itself. The existence of this website is proof conclusive that there is a desire for a progressive/socialist bloc formation within the party and reflects a diversity of opinion within the party and the realities of real politik.
Generally speaking past history changes by the day, rewriting itself as events unfold, but it is the future upon which we need to concentrate. Given the election victory for Merkel in Germany and the Lisbon referendum this Friday, the future is being written large in terms of neo-liberal capitalist advancement. Given the economic fiasco perpetrated upon Ireland and other nations, the emergence of neo-liberal capitalism as the de facto winner of our economic malaise is almost mind boggling. I can only put this down to the utter failure of progressive/socialists to put forward a comprehensive socio-economic agenda during this period.
The way I see it from where I sit, Ireland's left is split into two camps. There is the old style monolithic revolutionary camp who patiently wait around for things to fall apart. They want to reap the firestorm that neo-lib capitalism is brewing, so to speak. On the other hand, we have the mainstream socialists, who by a quirk of Irish circumstances, are loosely tied to a right wing neo-liberal capitalist party. To my mind, this leaves a vast door open for an inclusive and dynamic progressive/socialist party to walk through. Such a party, given the nature of Irish politics, will be by necessity subversive to both the left and right on the political sprectrum in Ireland.
paul if your not getting the type of leadership you want then you have to step up to the plate your self. iam in DSC and we have a full on lisbon campaign going. if we weren't organised it would be no ones fault but our own.
ReplyDeleteprevious poster talking about the history of the split. in Dublin there is a few members around from that time and still a good few supporters. think there is still plenty to be said on that story but that no ones writen it down yet.
on the comparision of the sticks and the provo's there are similarities and differences
the sticks were active in a different time. during the 80's it was fertile ground for them. in the cities in the south any way. out side the cities, not as well. today SF gets support a bit in the cities a bit in the country in the south the same process mulitpied in the north. diffenent support patterns plus the last fifteen years economic patterns manifest themselves in the parties organiseing and portarying themselves differently.
while i agree with the sticks about the need to build cross community class politics i disagree with the way they went about it. i feel they gave succur in more ways than one to reactionaries across ireland at the expence of practicality, they shot themselves in the foot with there vemonitly anti provo rethoric forgetting that by and large the provos where made up of one section of that class they claimed to be addiment about uniteing, this at a time when dublin sticks were bragging about there mates in loyalist drinking clubs in belfast.
but there are similarities, i think we learned from there parlimentry experince but were having the same problem at council level. there practical things we can learn but agree with previous poster we need to look at how we deal with other republican groups and conflicting stratagies.
The problem with the Workers party, is that the based their strategy on Marxism and past writings, from other countries. They didn't look out their own window. The failed to understand the nature of Unionism, the benefit that the Protestant working class received from it. The sense of identity that people feel, and are entitled to even if they were also being screwed by their masters.
ReplyDeleteThey presumed that their votes received was an endorsement of their marxist position. It was not. It was down to hardwork etc, and being the only party representing those area's at the time, effective TD's at that. I have met people who voted for the Workers party, on the back of the Provisional's campaign!. The wp regularly only poll 2-300 votes, often below the Christian Solidarity Party.
They allowed their bitterness against the Provisionals to become all consuming.
Lessons for SF - Blind following of an idealogy is foolish, it has to take in to account local motivators and desires. It has to listen and respect the people who are voting for it and what drives them to vote for it. This would mean a more Nationalist and less internationalist party.
With regards to the dissidents, it is instructive that comments about traitors are counter-productive and offensive. I'm sure that Sean Garland called Martin a traitor many a time. The dissidents are tactically wrong, they are not morally wrong.They (wp) allowed their bitterness against the Provisionals to become all consuming. The same should not now be done to those outside the tent. Cumann na Gaedhal is a step too far.
Danny
Paul,
ReplyDeleteI disagree with you on your comments regarding SF and Lisbon. Leaflets have been going out and a great deal of work is being done by the memberhip and the leadership.
In terms of keeping An phoblacht afloat, I would point to the difficulties of every newspaper and I 'd be grateful if you could name a party political weekly with a wider circulation. For a discussion on An phoblacht have a look at a previous post.
http://sinnfeinkeepleft.blogspot.com/2009/04/where-now-for-phoblacht.html
TGmac i agreew tih you about the gap that exsts for a radical socialist/left party that is in touch with the reality of people's lives and the failures of traditional revolutionary socialism. I believe SF is in a position to fill that gap, but to do this we need to conscious of the experiences, sucesses and failures that have shaped other parties.
I am at present only half way through the book, but I see much that is relevant to SF at this time.
Danny ,
ReplyDeleteI agree with your point that the attacks on thoise opposed to the GFA is a mistake. I also agree that tehy are tactically wrong and not morally wrong.
With regard your points on the lessons for SF below
Lessons for SF - Blind following of an idealogy is foolish, it has to take in to account local motivators and desires. It has to listen and respect the people who are voting for it and what drives them to vote for it. This would mean a more Nationalist and less internationalist party.
Could you explain what you mean by more nationalist and less internationalist
With regard the WP, Danny, they never blindly followed ideology, they were a large tent, much like SF is, and that led to much opportunism, much like SF today, and helps explain a lot of what the WP did, and ultimately 1992. Without a clear understanding of society from the perspective of the oppressed and unity on that matter, it is difficult to see how such opportunism can ever be prevented or how our goals can be achieved. SF lacks ideology, and it is not to its benefit, because it means we indulge in the logic of the ideology of those we seek to defeat, much like the WP did.
ReplyDeleteBabeuf,
ReplyDeleteIf Sinn Fein lack ideology then which party might we look to as an example of a more ideological party. Which party has nailed the perspective of the oppressed so good into there ideology.
Considering the WP, get about 300 votes to the candidate I can think is ther any such party in Ireland, or even the europe, of today.
Twould appear that from the voters perspective, the WP or maybe other left parties you maybe are talkin about aint doing a good job to represent the views of the opressed. If they were then maybe they mihgt be taking more than a per cent of the votes.
i need to be talked around to thinkin thats a good idea. mixing it with the parties that the working class are not voting for. I need convincing.
that logic can be turned on it's head though. if 8% of the people in the south vote for SF that means 92% don't 25% in the north 75% don't. brake that down on a class basis. more working class people vote for reactionaries like FF FG lab DUp etc. are there politics right because they get more votes. i hope not, very depressing if they are. numbers can't be enough. it's ideas that are importent.
ReplyDeletethe job of political parties is as much about education, promoting values ideals etc as it is about winning seats. in a perfect senario the two would happen in tandeum over a pro longed period. but maybe with social changes over the last few decades, the practice has changed and political parties ditch long term plans for short term gains, i.e they try to capture the floating voter at a given election. over time the process is unsastainable, friction develops.
a 100% ideogogical pure anything is unhealthy but agreed base ideological principles are touch stones which allow people to operate independently with in the same frame work, respect for them maintains cohession. internally and externally.
"the job of political parties is as much about education, promoting values ideals etc as it is about winning seats."
ReplyDeleteits also about changing society.
Winning seats alone as the greens have taught us or ignoring electoral politics dont work.
Actually what you say about the FF/DUP having a large working class vote is true. It does not mean their policies are correct. It does mean that the left should figure out why its the case though.
Your point about percentages not voting for SF. I am minded to think of FF in 2007. It certainly was the case that 60% were against them in that ekection
deffinitly. but what do we mean about change in society is the change in society simply that SF are on top and FF DUP aren't.
ReplyDeletewhy should people get behind it, whats really going to change. thats where ideology is important. it's an agreed outlook articulated by everybody. definitly agree with you it's more important than winning seats
But the real catch is that if you dont win seats then you never get to implement your plans and deliver the real change.
ReplyDeleteBut without a firm ideology and the wisdom to know when to conceded on some points while standing firm on others would see us end up like the greens governing, doing nothing and getting slaughtered at an election. If the greens had held true to their ideology they would have left such a nakedly corrupt govt. long long ago.
So while winninng seats is not the be all and all neither is just having an ideology that you sell outside electoral politcs.
The only yardstick is shaping society. today we in the south live in a state that has been shaped by Fine Gael and Fianna Fail. Its a vision of a state that we reject as incomplete, unfair, and anglicised.
However it was bums on seats that created that state. We must never ever forget that but equally those seats are just a way for the reconquest of Ireland.
i think if SF had a better election in 2007 they'd be in exactly the same position the greens are in now. there leadership went into that election open to a coalition with FF or FG. they had a bad election, thank god in the long term it was a blessing.
ReplyDeleteit's the catch 22 of electoral politics. SF have the knock on effect of being in government in the 6 counties implementing privitisation and cuts. sure it dosn't sit well with shinners. and some may say its practical but others are going to say bollox to that. if it doesn't sit well with a socialist out look they agreed to support the party on then its not unreasonable to withdraw support. this effect is all over the island. what happens in belfast has a bareing in dublin.
i don't disagree that parlimentry politics has benifits but it also has draw backs. it would be highly unlikely that SF will form a single party government any time soon that means coalition. a coalition with FF or FG means the same problem the greens are haveing, where today there faced with the practicle choice of pushing forward what ever limited reforms they can or get wiped out by the electorate. its the problem all small parties have, remember the PD's , big deal a few years ago, gone now. it would be the exact same for SF.
though traditionaly republicans have no problem with scacrafice. if the idea is to scacrafice SF for what ever limited movement towards a UI in can get in a term of government then thats interesting. not bad if it is, more realistic. the problem with that is that people motivated by other issues see through it. as one seniour trade unionist said recently SF is using the south for the north. i.e useing issues down here to get in power to puch reunification. great,iam sure republicans in the south have no problem with that. the problem is when your buillding support out, if someone comes to support SF on what ever social issue of the day, in a government is there issue going to be sacrafised for practicality. SF has been very practical in the last few years and in my opinion for good reason but the consequence of all this practicality is trust, its catch 22.
http://www.indymedia.ie/attachments/sep2009/lostrevolutionlaunchsep09.mp3
ReplyDeleteaudio file of the book launch for those who are interested
An excellent review of the book over at organized rage
ReplyDeletehttp://www.organizedrage.com/2009/10/organized-rage-book-review-lost.html
I just read that review and was going to link to it. Its a very good review indeed and I think the best of the lot I've read.
ReplyDeleteHe also has a very interesting review of a book on Trotsky.Interesting stuff.
J