The Easter Uprising 1916

I'm not sure it is any kind of priority for anyone on here as it hasn't got anything to do with anarchism nor communism.

The Easter Uprising 1916
II cant see anyone here posting about the centenary of the Easter uprising

You could try scrolling down the page to Spikeymike's post. Judging by your last comment it would be useful if you read the links he posted.

This is relevant...

http://en.internationalism.org/icconline/201603/13876/james-connolly-and-irish-nationalism

There was an old discussion here ; http://libcom.org/forums/libcom-wobblies/iww-members-1916-rising-ireland about the ICC's article.

That link doesn't seem to work. I am not sure that old discussion is about the same article, because this is the first time we have put the James Connolly one, written in 1978, online. Perhaps the article in question is this one, published in 2006: http://en.internationalism.org/wr/292_1916_rising.html

Yers, you're right Alf, it's about that 'Sean O'Casey and the 1916 Easter Rising' article. Admins, why was that old thread I linked to above unpublished? I mean it has the flavour of the old libcom forums but you're not trying to airbrush history are you?

Sleeper

II cant see anyone here posting about the centenary of the Easter uprising - 24th March 1916. Too much filth around and too many paranoid people doing their dirty work for them now. Thoughts?

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/4/4c/Easter_Proclamation_of_1916.png

One day soon one of these nationalist revolts must lead to communism right? If only the proletariat can discover the right national flag to rally behind.

Ireland, Algeria, Vietnam, Cambodia, Angola, Afghanistan, Kosovo, Rojava...

As shug mentioned see also links here: http://libcom.org/forums/ireland/failed1916-easter-rising-24032016

Re: Red's posts 6 and 8 I couldn't find that interesting, if controversial for some, article on Sean O'Casey either on this site or the ICC's. Perhaps it could be re-posted again especially given the establishments recent nauseas celebration of 'the Rising' and the re-staging of Casey's play 'The Plough and the Stars' at the Abbey Theatre which I hope to see.

Re: Red's posts 6 and 8 I couldn't find that interesting, if controversial for some, article on Sean O'Casey either on this site or the ICC's. Perhaps it could be re-posted again especially given the establishments recent nauseas celebration of 'the Rising' and the re-staging of Casey's play 'The Plough and the Stars' at the Abbey Theatre which I hope to see.

Here it is...

Sean O'Casey

Red Marriott

Yers, you're right Alf, it's about that 'Sean O'Casey and the 1916 Easter Rising' article. Admins, why was that old thread I linked to above unpublished? I mean it has the flavour of the old libcom forums but you're not trying to airbrush history are you?

I think they pretty much unpublished everything at one point and older stuff was republished if they thought it was good or if people requested it. That might have only been some of the forums though.

Sleeper

You could be right it probably means far more to working class socialists than anyone here.

jef costello

I'm not sure it is any kind of priority for anyone on here as it hasn't got anything to do with anarchism nor communism.

and

You know one of the participants in the Easter rising was a countess right? And that the movement that arose from the ashes of the rising lined thousands of working class socialists up against the wall and burnt their families out of their homes.

I'm never going to understand this British lefty romanticism of Irish Nationalist gangs. A feature of impotence?

Red Marriott

Yers, you're right Alf, it's about that 'Sean O'Casey and the 1916 Easter Rising' article. Admins, why was that old thread I linked to above unpublished? I mean it has the flavour of the old libcom forums but you're not trying to airbrush history are you?

hi, Jef is right, a few years ago we mass unpublished loads of stuff, most of which breached the new posting guidelines. We tried to go through and omit useful threads but looks like this one must have slipped through the cracks, so it has now been re-published (you spot anything else like this will free to drop us a private message/e-mail and we can take a look and maybe re-publish)

Perhaps these articles penned by myself are of interest

http://www.worldsocialism.org/spgb/socialist-standard/2010s/2016/no-1339-march-2016/did-james-connolly-betray-socialism

And the Sequel

http://socialismoryourmoneyback.blogspot.com/2016/03/the-free-state.html

Both adaptations of a longer piece from here

http://socialismoryourmoneyback.blogspot.com/2014/09/connollys-nationalism-equalled-betrayal.html#more

Note that Red's link in their post no 6 which includes a discussion of the O'Casey article has now kindly been restored.

ajjohnstone

Perhaps these articles penned by myself are of interest

http://www.worldsocialism.org/spgb/socialist-standard/2010s/2016/no-1339-march-2016/did-james-connolly-betray-socialism

And the Sequel

http://socialismoryourmoneyback.blogspot.com/2016/03/the-free-state.html

Both adaptations of a longer piece from here

http://socialismoryourmoneyback.blogspot.com/2014/09/connollys-nationalism-equalled-betrayal.html#more

Very good articles from the SPGB. There is kind of a link between the early Irish Republican movement and Anarchism though as Jack White, who drilled the Citizens Army during the Dublin Lock-out went on to become an Anarchist.

Captain Jack White is a fascinating yet neglected figure in Irish history. Son of Field Marshal Sir George White V.C., he became a Boer war hero, and crucially was the first Commandant of the Irish Citizen Army. One of the few notable figures in Ireland to declare himself an anarchist, he led a remarkable life of action, and was a most unsystematic thinker. He knew Lord Kitchener, was a dinner companion of King Edward and the Kaiser, who corresponded with H.G. Wells, D.H. Lawrence and Tolstoy, and shared a platform with G.B. Shaw, Conan Doyle, Roger Casement and Alice Stopford Green. The founder of the Irish Citizen Army along with James Connolly, White marched (and argued) with James Larkin during the 1913 Lockout, worked with Sean O Casey, liaised with Constance Markievicz and socialised with most of the Irish activists and literati of the early twentieth century. A man who lived many lives, White was the ultimate outsider beset by divided loyalties with an alternative philosophy and an inability to conform.

White belonged to the Anglo-Irish landowning class. James Robert – always known as Jack, was born in Co Antrim, at Whitehall, Broughshane, just outside Ballymena. As a young man he followed his father into the British army, where he saw action against the Boers in South Africa.

It is said that at the battle of Doorknop he was one of the first to go over the top. Looking back he saw one 17 year old youth shivering with fright in the trench. An officer cried “shoot him”. White is said to have covered the officer with his pistol and replied “Do so and I’ll shoot you”. Not exactly the attitude wanted among the officer classes of the army!

Soon after this he dropped out of the army. Arriving back in Ireland he found Sir Edward Carson’s bigoted crusade against Home Rule was in full swing. This was the time when the original UVF was created to threaten war against the British government if Ireland was granted any measure of self-rule.

Jack organised one of the first Protestant meetings, in Ballymoney, to rally Protestant opinion against the Unionist Party and against what he described as its “bigotry and stagnation”, that associated Northern Protestants with conservatism. Another speaker at that meeting, and coming from the same sort of social background, was Sir Roger Casement.

As a result of the Ballymoney meeting Jack was invited to Dublin. Here he met James Connolly and was converted to socialism. Very impressed by the great struggle to win union recognition and resist the attacks of William Martin Murphy and his confederates, he offered his services to the ITGWU at Liberty Hall. He spoke on union platforms with such famous names as Francis Sheehy Skeffington, Big Bill Haywood of the Industrial Workers of the World, and James Connolly.

He put forward the idea of a workers militia to protect picket lines from assaults by both scabs and the blackguards of the Dublin Metropolitan Police. This proposal to create a Citizen Army, drilled by him, was enthusiastically accepted. Its very appearance, as White recollected, “put manners on the police”.

He later put his services at the disposal of the Volunteers, believing that a stand had to be taken against British rule by a large body of armed people. He went to Derry where there was a brigade of Volunteers who were largely ex-British Army like himself. But he was shaken by the sectarian attitudes he found. When he tried to reason with them and make the case for workers’ unity they dismissed his case as merely sticking up for his own, i.e. Protestants.

When Connolly was sentenced to death after the 1916 rising White rushed to South Wales and tried to bring the miners out on strike to save his life. For his attempts he was given three months imprisonment.

He came home to find himself in a political wilderness. The unionists regarded him as a Shinner. The nationalists regarded him as an Orangeman! He moved towards the newly founded Communist Party which, with the first reports from Russia, seemed offer hope to humanity. But he had his doubts about them and never joined. Indeed for a time in London he worked with Sylvia Pankhurst’s anti-parliamentary communist group, the Workers Socialist Federation.

In 1934 a special convention was held in Athlone which was attended by 200 former IRA volunteers together with a number of prominent socialists, Communists and trade unionists. It resolved that a Republican Congress be formed. This was a movement, based on workers and small farmers, that was well to the left of the IRA. White joined immediately and organised a Dublin branch composed solely of ex-British servicemen. One notable result of this was a contingent of British ex-servicemen marching behind the Congress banner through cheering crowds of Dubliners on a demonstration against war and poverty.

The Congress is best known for bringing 200 Belfast Protestant workers to the republican Wolfe Tone Commemoration that year and for the scandalous attack on them by Sean McBride’s IRA men who were determined that no ‘red’ banners would be seen at their Catholic day out in Bodenstown.

One of the men carrying the second banner – on which was embroidered James Connolly Club, Belfast – The United Irishmen of 1934 – was John Straney, a milk roundsman from loyalist Ballymacarret who was later killed while fighting Franco’s army at the Battle of the Ebro in 1939.

Congress later split between those who stood for class independence, those who fought only for the Workers Republic, and those – led by the Communists – who firstly wanted an alliance with Fianna Fail to reunite the country. After the bulk of the first group walked out (many of them demoralised and ending up in the Labour Party) White remained in the depleted organisation. But their reduced size did not reduce the hatred the rich had for them. In April 1936 the Congress contingent taking part in the annual Easter Commemoration was subjected to attack by blueshirt gangs all along the route.

The main target of the mob was White. Patrick Byrne, the joint secretary with Frank Ryan of the Congress, describes him as a “tall, well built man with a clipped army moustache” who “used his blackthorn stick to advantage in close encounters with his attackers”. Inside the cemetery he was badly injured by a blow of an iron cross ripped from a grave. Byrne and a young poet, Tom O’Brien, who also fought in Spain managed to get White away.

The outbreak of the Spanish Civil War saw General O’Duffy’s blueshirts sending a contingent to help Franco. The Communist Party and leading republicans organised the Connolly Column to fight the Spanish fascists. Incidentaly the Irish International Brigade was yet one more example of how Catholics and Protestants fought together in a common class cause. White was thrilled with the collectivisation in Spain, and also with the volunteer militias. He learned with amazement that this was the work of the anarchists.

In addition to his work with the Connolly Column at the front, he trained militia members in the use of firearms. He also trained women in the villages on the way to Saragossa in the use of pistol for defence. What he could not stomach was that the Irish, like all the International Brigadeers, were being increasingly manipulated by the Communist Party. He had never accepted the CP, he had just not seen an alternative. Now he saw that alternative and it was anarchism.

There was a clash between White and Frank Ryan, who accused White of being a ‘Trotskyite’ and a traitor. White relinquished his International Brigade command and offered his services to the anarchist CNT union. White was asked to work, with the legendary Emma Goldman, for the CNT in London. In the course of a few months in Spain he had become a convinced anarchist.

It was at this time that he wrote the pamphlet ‘The Meaning of Anarchism’. He joined the group producing Freedom (the anarchist paper – still published in London – whose founders included Peter Kropotkin), and was one of the organisers of the regular meetings at the National Trade Union Club against Italian fascism and in support of the Spanish anarchists.

At this time White worked with a Liverpool-Irish anarchist, Matt Kavanagh, on a survey of Irish labour history in relation to anarchism. In 1940 White died. His body was hardly cold when the family, ashamed of Jack’s revolutionary politics, destroyed all his papers, including a study of the Cork Harbour ‘soviet’ of 1921.

His importance lies not in what he wrote, for all that survives is one short pamphlet, nor in any particular position he took. His importance lies in the link he provides between Irish working class history of the past and our anarchist vision today. All through his life he tried to organise ordinary people to defend their own interests and to realise the power they had if only they would use it.

Some writings from Irish anarchists that mostly offer quite a different perspective

An anarchist look at the ideas of James Connolly - the single most important figure in the history of the Irish left
http://www.wsm.ie/c/james-connolly-history-irish-left-anarchism

1916, left republicanism, anarchism and class struggle
http://www.wsm.ie/c/1916-dublin-left-republicanism-anarchism-class

Nationalism, socialism and partition
http://www.wsm.ie/c/nationalism-socialism-partition-ireland

If you'd read some the links above you might've noted that it was "easy" for Sean O'Casey (and probably others) at the time to "suggest ... the 1916 Uprising wasn't a revolutionary situation". O'Casey's "Irish analysis"; http://libcom.org/library/story-irish-citizen-army-sean-ocasey

Sleeper

Yes and surely that is basic stuff.

Yes it is, which is why its so curious that you're having so much trouble with this.

We know that some from each class will side with the other in a revolutionary situation.

Actually the history of Revolutions tells us the opposite, the only converts from the established class either renounce their connections before the uprising or are opportunists looking to prosper at the expense of their competitors.

The good Countess Markievicz was made minister for Labour in the first Irish Republic (1919-21) this was when the IRA starting siding with Irish businessmen and actively broke strikes and "illegal expropriations".

Now it's easy to suggest with hindsight the 1916 Uprising wasn't a revolutionary situation but those Irish people involved, and the English who brutally slaughtered them, certainly saw themselves in a revolutionary situation.

Many contemporary Irish (including active Nationalist organisations and militias) didn't view it as a revolutionary situation but a stupid and reckless adventure which is why they didn't support it. And General Maxwell viewed the insurrection as a simple criminal mutiny, which is why he didn't see political fallout from martyring the captured insurrectionists.

You also mean the British Army, not English (you a Celtic revisionist, or just a guilt ridden liittle Englander Sleeper?), and most of the units deployed were Irish. Most of the fighting was between the Irish Brotherhood and Citizen Army vs the (Irish) Volunteer Corps the Royal Irish Constabulary, and the Royal Irish Regiment. Other Irish regiments like the Connaught

This "good Irish" vs "evil Brits" version of the oppression and exploitation of Ireland has been cooked up deliberately by Irish nationalists to portray a simplistic morally palatable version of Irish history in order to push National unity at the expense of Irish labour. Funnily enough this period of Irish history showed the deepest fraternal links between Irish and British workers, that's another thing you'll won't find in the Sinn Fein version of Irish history.

As for your british lefty comment, I don't consider myself a lefty or a righty. But I'm interested in an Irish analysis of the events of 1916.

If the shoe fits wear it. And you've been given plenty of Irish perspective both contemporary and with hindsight. I'm giving you an Irish perspective right now.

Sleeper

I'm not having any problems with it, but never mind that eh. Well thank you kindly for educating a poor working class lad like myself about the 'history of Revolutions'

Here's a free tip for you mate, never try this poor suffering prole routine with me again, its a stupid rhetorical trick and it really doesn't work when used against me in particular. I work 72 hours a week for minimum wage, before that I was a day labourer, and my family background is collection poachers, peasants (until the 1960's), (indentured) servants, builders, cobblers and even actual bogtrotters.

But even if I were a Castle Catholic descended from the clan battle leaders it doesn't fly because contrary to what you allege working class people aren't thick so your socio-economic background is no excuse for your poor analysis.

But if you really do think your reading of the `history of revolutions` is wrong and yours correct, then by all means provide some examples. Surely you should leap at the opportunity to enlighten a fellow poor working class lad like yourself?

I said those involved at the time considered it a revolutionary situation. Actions and declarations of the time show this to be the case. I notice you haven't disputed this.

Err, no. I did actually dispute that, just because you haven't got a response doesn't mean it didn't happen. Unless you're now shifting the goalposts to the actual participants of Easter 1916, which you can't do because you brought the "English" into it.

My interest, as always, is on the impact for the working class for any given situation. But thank you for your views and opinions

Yeah not buying it, you've been told repeatedly what the outcome of the Irish Nationalist movement was for the working class, and refused to engage or even acknowledge it.

Hell I wouldn't be surprised if you hadn't even bothered to read the proclamation of the Republican Brotherhood.

Sleeper

I've read and discussed practical stuff like this with people involved when you were just a twinkle in someone's eye.

Then and now my goal is the revolutionary overthrow of the state and capitalism by the working class and the creation of an anarchist society based on mutual aid and voluntary cooperation.

Don't ever try to tell me what I think, or what anyone other than yourself thinks...

Well then I guess that makes your inability to understand even the basics of an anarchist society sad rather than funny.

But then again this isn't really true is it. You quite clearly haven't discussed any of this with anyone because if you had you would have some to say on the subject that actually had substance.

Sleeper

Ah look I see you can't put together an argument without abusing your opponent. This makes you look childlish. Perhaps you should just get back on your bmx and carry on cycling around that little middle class estate you were brought up on. After all there's no shame in organising in the community you were brought up in...

You know for a such an outspoken stalwart of the working class your arguments have a curious reliance on identity politics. And by reliance I mean that's the only card you've got.

Sleeper

Well yes they would because I identify myself correctly as working class.

Whose they?

That's odd because in all the time I've spent in the UK the obsession with another persons origins and the idea that this means anything is the hobby of the snobbish toffs. But then you're ideas of what a working class person actually is reads more like an Andy Capp caricature. Care to actually respond to anyone's points or are you just going to keep playing the long suffering salt of the earth gimmick?

Right Sleeper, so class is about identity then? This sort of shit is a persistent albatross round the neck of any attempts to build genuine class struggle initiatives. I really wish the prolier than thou brigade would fucking do one.

Reddebrek

Sleeper

I'm not having any problems with it, but never mind that eh. Well thank you kindly for educating a poor working class lad like myself about the 'history of Revolutions'

Here's a free tip for you mate, never try this poor suffering prole routine with me again, its a stupid rhetorical trick and it really doesn't work when used against me in particular. I work 72 hours a week for minimum wage, before that I was a day labourer, and my family background is collection poachers, peasants (until the 1960's), (indentured) servants, builders, cobblers and even actual bogtrotters.

But even if I were a Castle Catholic descended from the clan battle leaders it doesn't fly because contrary to what you allege working class people aren't thick so your socio-economic background is no excuse for your poor analysis.

But if you really do think your reading of the `history of revolutions` is wrong and yours correct, then by all means provide some examples. Surely you should leap at the opportunity to enlighten a fellow poor working class lad like yourself?

I said those involved at the time considered it a revolutionary situation. Actions and declarations of the time show this to be the case. I notice you haven't disputed this.

Err, no. I did actually dispute that, just because you haven't got a response doesn't mean it didn't happen. Unless you're now shifting the goalposts to the actual participants of Easter 1916, which you can't do because you brought the "English" into it.

My interest, as always, is on the impact for the working class for any given situation. But thank you for your views and opinions

Yeah not buying it, you've been told repeatedly what the outcome of the Irish Nationalist movement was for the working class, and refused to engage or even acknowledge it.

Hell I wouldn't be surprised if you hadn't even bothered to read the proclamation of the Republican Brotherhood.

You work 72 hours a week? How do you have so much time to post on Libcom then?

????
It doesn't take me very long at all to make a comment? Do you have a horrible typing speed or something?

I also don't post nearly as much as I used to, so y'know. How much time does it take you post here?

Reddebrek #24

‘Quote:
We know that some from each class will side with the other in a revolutionary situation.

Actually the history of Revolutions tells us the opposite, the only converts from the established class either renounce their connections before the uprising or are opportunists looking to prosper at the expense of their competitors.’

If this is so, were the white armies in Russia composed only of the ‘established class’? Were the Red army anti-working class fighting against the whites, or only when they turned their guns on the anarchists?
I think things are more complex than determining someone’s class (therefore political allegiance) by asking them to show the palms of their hands.

Reddebrek

????
It doesn't take me very long at all to make a comment? Do you have a horrible typing speed or something?

I also don't post nearly as much as I used to, so y'know. How much time does it take you post here?

It's just that if I worked 72 hours a week, I doubt I'd bother spending what free time I had posting stuff on here.

red and black riot

Reddebrek

????
It doesn't take me very long at all to make a comment? Do you have a horrible typing speed or something?

I also don't post nearly as much as I used to, so y'know. How much time does it take you post here?

It's just that if I worked 72 hours a week, I doubt I'd bother spending what free time I had posting stuff on here.

Okay, but you don't really get a say in what other people do with their free time do you. No offence mate but that's pretty arrogant to doubt someone because they're doing something you wouldn't.

Auld Bod

If this is so, were the white armies in Russia composed only of the ‘established class’? Were the Red army anti-working class fighting against the whites, or only when they turned their guns on the anarchists?
I think things are more complex than determining someone’s class (therefore political allegiance) by asking them to show the palms of their hands.

Sorry you've lost me here, can you rephrase this because I don't understand what you're trying to say?

Reddebrek #38

Apologies for not being very coherent on my last post.

For once I think sleeper is basically correct in his/her statement regarding the composition of revolutionary and counter-revolutionary forces. However like all generalisations there are lots of qualifications.

Particularly when it comes to the military - armed forces are largely composed of the working class (unless the ruling class are reduced to sending their youth straight from the military schools). You are correct I think, that few of the ruling class or their lackeys join the revolution. Of those who do, when and what their motives may be is open to question. Who knows the secrets of the human heart? From my reading, talking to people, it appears that chance, opportunity, family, friendship, even religion can play a part in the choices people make. Many people particularly liberal intellectuals appear to take the ‘Doctor Zhivago’ line of concerned opportunism.

I’ve read that on occasion the way to separate the proletarians from the politically unreliable as by examining their hands. Today most of us would not pass this test. (The Nazis in the camps used a similar selection procedure with a different motive.) The main thing is no one can predict the future and how the chips may fall.

Auld-bod

Reddebrek #38

Apologies for not being very coherent on my last post.

For once I think sleeper is basically correct in his/her statement regarding the composition of revolutionary and counter-revolutionary forces. However like all generalisations there are lots of qualifications.

Okay, but you've picked a terrible example with the Russian Revolution. Most members of the wealthier classes who took part in the revolution like Lenin whose father was an "Excellency" were active for decades before hand and lost their privileges as a result. I didn't say wealthier types don't go in for revolution I said that if they don't make a break with their class privileges before the revolution happens but only when its in their self interest to do so, then its probably a sign of opportunism, or that the revolution isn't very revolutionary to begin with.
Those who worked with the Bolsheviks after the Revolt started like the Okhrana agents and the commandant of the Petrograd prison did so because the Bolsheviks were already in charge and it gave them protection.

As for the Whites,the officers kept their men under control by vicious sadism, that's ultimately why they were unreliable, many units would mutiny or switch sides as soon as local White forces looked to be losing, and would switch sides again if the Reds were losing ground, to save themselves from reprisals. Neither army had many reliable combat units, so that's not really indicative of much political zeal. As for liberal intellectuals my reading has been that as a class they supported the February Revolution believing it would lead to a parliamentary republic. Most of them opposed the Bolsheviks and remained with Kerensky, unfortunately for them Admiral Kolchak destroyed that faction and was hell bent on building a new Russian Empire that would be even more backward than the rule of the Romanov's. They didn't really have much choice given how weak they were as an independent force. And a large proportion of them chose exile anyway.

Can you name a single revolution that involved the mass participation of the wealthier orders that didn't result in them controlling and reversing that revolution?

Any examples? Hell no!
I was thinking of 'revolutionary history', from a libcom perspective none have ended well.
However I feel if the working classes continue to look to 'leaders' for answers, some real shits will emerge from their own ranks. Even an 'ideal' form, needs a 'good' political content.

Which is to say, a million miles away from easter 1916.

And that has got what to do with actual class struggle? After all, John Prescott probably still identifies himself as working class. I don't know if Alan Sugar still does but he's never shy of laying on the 'poor background' shtick. I don't see either of them contributing anything positive to our side in the class struggle.

The working class is the only class capable of abolishing capitalism. That's it. The whole 'class pride' bullshit is a side show or vanity project for do-nowts or those who want to rise above their class, not rise with their class, and the bourgeoisie is chock full of those proud of their humble origins. Fuck em.

As for 'ordinary people', what does that even mean? Ordinary working class or ordinary ruling class? And do such 'ordinary people' all act and think the same way? It's bollocks. We're all ordinary and all extraordinary people. It's called being human.

So what else do you do besides bang on about your working classness to other working class people, Sleeper? Especially as most of us on here are not exactly fauntleroys rolling in it and may have origins humbler than your own?

Serge #44

Spot on.
Your origins you have no choice over.
Who you are depends on the choices you make.

Sleeper #46

I’ve come out with this sort of nonsense in the past. Yes, you need passion and belief - but pride? The working class is a creation of capitalism and the working class will cease to exist when capitalism is transformed. Look at the ‘working class’, acknowledge its struggles against its oppressors, however also see that often it envies the privileges of the ruling class.

There is no shame in being working class, and there is much in the history of the class struggle to take pride in. The rest is best forgotten. As the creature of capitalism it has yet to unite, to stretch beyond its master’s shiny prizes of wealth, power and fame. And you cursing libcom does not change anything.

Agreed with most of your last post.
The good things in life should be for everyone. Only at present how many in the UK (as it's the only working class I've experience of) would agree with the egalitarian premise that 'no man is good enough to be another man's master'?

Too often when people refer to 'the good life' they're referring to a life of ease, where servants take care of your every need. I've been in the same bar as Billy Connolly, when he'd barely a pot to piss in, now he owns a castle and pals around with aristos. Working class heroes every one, and an example to us all!

For anybody interested, the SPGB are continuing its policy of hosting non-member guest speakers.

This Sunday (24 April) at Head Office - 3pm, a talk by Dr. Ivan Gibbons.

THE 1916 DUBLIN EASTER RISING

100 years on, the causes and consequences of the Easter Rising still generate considerable controversy. Was it a brave if idealistic and foolhardy landmark event that triggered the ultimate establishment of an independent Irish state or was it a conspiratorial anti-democratic putsch which ushered in a century of political militarism from which the country is still recovering?

Dr Ivan Gibbons, Programme Director in Irish Studies at St Mary’s University, Twickenham and a Director of Hammersmith Irish Cultural Centre weighs up the arguments for and against this cataclysmic event which changed Anglo-Irish relations forever at the cost, arguably, of partitioning Ireland for the next century.

Discussion period, as usual, and free refreshments as the customary bribe to attend

Auld-bod

Any examples? Hell no!
I was thinking of 'revolutionary history', from a libcom perspective none have ended well.
However I feel if the working classes continue to look to 'leaders' for answers, some real shits will emerge from their own ranks. Even an 'ideal' form, needs a 'good' political content.

Which is to say, a million miles away from easter 1916.

Okay, but then why did you bring up 1917? And I'm sorry but I really don't get what your criticism is again, I haven't said anything about "leaders" regardless of class other than to criticise a couple. I don't think you've understood my comments at all.

Serge Forward

And that has got what to do with actual class struggle? After all, John Prescott probably still identifies himself as working class. I don't know if Alan Sugar still does but he's never shy of laying on the 'poor background' shtick. I don't see either of them contributing anything positive to our side in the class struggle.

Prezza definitely does still claim to be working class, and in the sense of a social class instead of economic he is. Social classes are just cultural identities and as someone whose met the man he speaks just like Sleeper does. Alan Johnson was still using the fact he worked as a Postman as a shield too.

Sleeper

I've obviously ruffled your feathers a bit. Well that's okay because we all know what social class we belong to really. I am working class by any measure you want to use. You are not and it shows in everything you post on this thread...

Not really, as far as the Brits cheerleading gangs of nationalist murderers in the Emerald Isle I've encountered you've been relatively benign. And your miles above the shite I've seen spread by certain "Irish-Americans". If anyone's been riled up here it's you, remember this grandstanding?

Don't ever try to tell me what I think, or what anyone other than yourself thinks...

Yeah, again analysing the words and manner of communication to identify ones breeding is the hobby horse of the bluebloods. So if anyone's proving themselves a false prole here that'd be you.

But then again since I have an understanding of the class system rather the absurd British "class ridden" cultural substitution, I don't need the validation of constant reinforcement. I'd say its sad but the real tragedy is that all your doing is reinforcing stereotypes about proles being thick every time you use it as an excuse.

If you really are working class and are proud of it like you claim why do constantly put the class down everytime you receive criticism?

Its no surprise you were falling over yourself about Easter 1916 since that was carried out by blokes in overalls. Hell even the good Countess traded in her ballgown for a Citizens Army fatigues.

And of course we both know you won't answer my questions, instead you'll just think up another weird caricature for us both.

I'm not cursing libcom just certain bell ends who post here and think it's ok to abuse other posters.

Priceless.

Reddebrek #51

‘Okay, but why did you bring up 1917?’

As you implied, as an example of ‘revolutionary history’.

Your main point, as I understand it was regarding the composition of the pro-revolutionary forces. MY point is that there are some within the working class, who regard themselves as leaders in waiting, who unless checked will appoint themselves (the danger need not come from the ‘upper class’ elite).

I mentioned Easter 1916, in my final paragraph, because it lacked in terms of class composition and a political agenda, the ingredients to qualify as a potentially successful revolution by libertarian communist criteria, in my opinion.

If you think I failed to understand your comments perhaps you’d like to explain why.

Auld-bod

Reddebrek #51

‘Okay, but why did you bring up 1917?’

As you implied, as an example of ‘revolutionary history’.

Did I? I think that's more you projecting on to me here. By revolutionary history I mean the history of Revolutions, you were the one who picked 1917 not me mate. How exactly do you know my views on the Russian Revolution? I don't believe we've ever spoken on the subject, and if we haven't you're just jumping to conclusions.

Your main point, as I understand it was regarding the composition of the pro-revolutionary forces. MY point is that there are some within the working class, who regard themselves as leaders in waiting, who unless checked will appoint themselves (the danger need not need to come from the ‘upper class’ elite).

Okay, I don't get that vibe at all until your comment number 41, I find your argument rather disjointed and so find myself wondering what your overall point is.

I mentioned Easter 1916, in my final paragraph, because it lacked in terms of class composition and a political agenda, the ingredients to qualify as a potentially successful revolution by libertarian communist criteria, in my opinion.

Agreed, is this another case of me "implying" something?

If you think I failed to understand your comments perhaps you’d like to explain why.

Because you aren't actually addressing the things I've said, at best you're just using them as a springboard for your own ideas in a way that suggests they're responses but actually are not. You've been putting words into my mouth from the start, to be honest.

I mean this

If this is so, were the white armies in Russia composed only of the ‘established class’? Were the Red army anti-working class fighting against the whites, or only when they turned their guns on the anarchists?
I think things are more complex than determining someone’s class (therefore political allegiance) by asking them to show the palms of their hands.

is textbook strawmanning. Even more so since by your own admission you don't think it qualifies.

Reddebrek #53

‘Auld-bod wrote:
Reddebrek #51
‘Okay, but why did you bring up 1917?’
As you implied, as an example of ‘revolutionary history’.

Did I? I think that's more you projecting on to me here. By revolutionary history I mean the history of Revolutions, you were the one who picked 1917 not me mate.’

Really? - Reddebrek #40:
‘Okay, but you've picked a terrible example with the Russian Revolution. Most members of the wealthier classes who took part in the revolution like Lenin whose father was an "Excellency" were active for decades before hand and lost their privileges as a result.’

This implies to me you understood exactly that I was using an example (it was not your example). You appear to be the one reading into things. I agreed with most of what you wrote, as my answer to your question was that I could not come up with an example and stated that all passed revolutions were failures.

You are correct, I just used the things you said as a springboard for my own ideas. Sorry to offend you, how dare I think my thoughts could be thought relevant.

As Easter 1916 was what the thread is about I was trying to make my comments relevant to the thread as a whole, I was not meaning to infer anything and was not putting words in your mouth.

On your 24 post you stated that sleeper was wrong when they wrote that some from each side will side with the other during a revolution. My point (#38) was that in all armies the cannon fodder are largely working class. Therefore to ask about the white and red armies appeared appropriate (if not very coherently written).

Your view that this was a strawman is valid, though you ignored my basic point. To say I was addressing something you didn’t say, is obvious, that’s why I raised it.

Jesus would you two give it a rest, you both look like complete plonkers at this point.

On point - here is the 1916 panel from this years Dublin anarchist bookfair https://youtu.be/drnxXE8JwRM

Yes and that Dublin presentation was interesting - worth a view by others though I'd still question the few claimed 'positive' outcomes of the 1916 rebellion in terms of it's influence on other equally 'nationalist' anti-colonial movements elsewhere? The non-WSM speaker was a useful addition to the line-up even if I'm still more favourable to O'Casey's reflection on the events than he was - the Abbey performance of 'The Plough and the Stars' was excellent!

Auld-bod

Really? - Reddebrek #40:
‘Okay, but you've picked a terrible example with the Russian Revolution. Most members of the wealthier classes who took part in the revolution like Lenin whose father was an "Excellency" were active for decades before hand and lost their privileges as a result.’

This implies to me you understood exactly that I was using an example (it was not your example). You appear to be the one reading into things. I agreed with most of what you wrote, as my answer to your question was that I could not come up with an example and stated that all passed revolutions were failures.

Are you serious, or is this your idea of a joke?
You brought it up, and I responded to you, you could of said anything and the act of my replying wouldn't alter the content of my previous points. Language doesn't travel back in time. Do you see why I have so much trouble figuring out what you're getting at? Would you prefer it if I just ignored you?

If you carry on like this I think I'll have to.

You are correct, I just used the things you said as a springboard for my own ideas. Sorry to offend you, how dare I think my thoughts could be thought relevant.

Oh knock it off, I'm objecting to you putting words into my mouth, if you weren't making them out into weird responses to me I wouldn't care. Your free to waffle on all you like but don't get snippy with me if I try to figure what your meaning is in relation to what I've been saying.

On your 24 post you stated that sleeper was wrong when they wrote that some from each side will side with the other during a revolution. My point (#38) was that in all armies the cannon fodder are largely working class. Therefore to ask about the white and red armies appeared appropriate (if not very coherently written).

Well no it wouldn't because you have absolutely no idea what my views on that are do you. I also qualified my statement which you didn't take into account either, so no that was an absurd strawman.

Your view that this was a strawman is valid, though you ignored my basic point. To say I was addressing something you didn’t say, is obvious, that’s why I raised it.

?????I didn't ignore your basic point at all, I actually engaged you on it and expressed confusion when your further comments said you didn't think it mattered either. I didn't use your words as an excuse to talk about something else and expect you to answer on a subject I pluck from the ether do I.

AndrewF #55

'Jesus would you two give it a rest, you both look like complete plonkers at this point.'

Agreed.