The Easter Uprising 1916

58 posts / 0 new
Last post
Reddebrek's picture
Reddebrek
Offline
Joined: 4-01-12
Apr 10 2016 22:51
Sleeper wrote:
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?

Serge Forward's picture
Serge Forward
Offline
Joined: 14-01-04
Apr 11 2016 08:50

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.

fidel gastro
Offline
Joined: 15-04-08
Apr 11 2016 22:03
Reddebrek wrote:
Sleeper wrote:
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?

Quote:
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.

Quote:
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?

Reddebrek's picture
Reddebrek
Offline
Joined: 4-01-12
Apr 12 2016 02:02

????
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?

Auld-bod's picture
Auld-bod
Offline
Joined: 9-07-11
Apr 12 2016 08:17

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.

fidel gastro
Offline
Joined: 15-04-08
Apr 12 2016 11:36
Reddebrek wrote:
????
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.

Reddebrek's picture
Reddebrek
Offline
Joined: 4-01-12
Apr 12 2016 17:11
red and black riot wrote:
Reddebrek wrote:
????
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

Quote:
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?

Auld-bod's picture
Auld-bod
Offline
Joined: 9-07-11
Apr 13 2016 07:39

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.

Reddebrek's picture
Reddebrek
Offline
Joined: 4-01-12
Apr 13 2016 17:53
Auld-bod wrote:
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?

Auld-bod's picture
Auld-bod
Offline
Joined: 9-07-11
Apr 14 2016 02:54

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.

Sleeper
Offline
Joined: 19-10-15
Apr 15 2016 02:08

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...

Reddebrek wrote:
Sleeper wrote:
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?

Sleeper
Offline
Joined: 19-10-15
Apr 15 2016 02:23

I know what social class I am and I've never met someone within a capitalist society who didn't know what social class they are. It's been my misfortune to meet and have to try to communicate with some idiots who think they know better than ordinary people. You tend to find them attached to small internet groups that have no impact at all on the lives of ordinary people.

Serge Forward wrote:
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.

Serge Forward's picture
Serge Forward
Offline
Joined: 14-01-04
Apr 15 2016 10:38

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?

Auld-bod's picture
Auld-bod
Offline
Joined: 9-07-11
Apr 15 2016 10:22

Serge #44

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

Sleeper
Offline
Joined: 19-10-15
Apr 16 2016 01:43

Unless you have some pride in yourself and the working class nothing will change. You have to have passion and belief. All you are going to do is whinge and moan as things get worse.

That's all you are getting from me because I deserve better than this, better than anything capitalism and the state has to offer, and certainly better than the shit you and your buddies post.

Auld-bod's picture
Auld-bod
Offline
Joined: 9-07-11
Apr 16 2016 07:52

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.

Sleeper
Offline
Joined: 19-10-15
Apr 16 2016 16:35

Yep I really do believe that's what's been missing from so much class struggle anarchism. I also think it was a mistake to allow class war to claim it for themselves, because of course that meant that the other tiny groups like ACF/AF and DAM/SF used it as an insult rather than realising the importance of having pride in yourself, your community and your social class under capitalism.

We have to work with what we have. That means working within capitalism for its overthrow while also trying to ensure that working class people have access to the best available. The best health and social care, the best education, the best food and water, and of course as comrade Crow said the best wines:

"Why should it just be the bankers, politicians and the idle rich who get all the best things? As a militant trade union we demand a standard of living for our members that enables them to share in the fine wines and fine times that the likes of David Cameron and his Old Etonian mates take for granted."

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

Auld-bod's picture
Auld-bod
Offline
Joined: 9-07-11
Apr 16 2016 17:28

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!

ajjohnstone
Offline
Joined: 20-04-08
Apr 22 2016 10:59

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

Reddebrek's picture
Reddebrek
Offline
Joined: 4-01-12
Apr 22 2016 12:02
Auld-bod wrote:
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 wrote:
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 wrote:
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?

Quote:
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.

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

Priceless.

Auld-bod's picture
Auld-bod
Offline
Joined: 9-07-11
Apr 22 2016 12:46

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.

Reddebrek's picture
Reddebrek
Offline
Joined: 4-01-12
Apr 22 2016 12:58
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. 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.

Quote:
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.

Quote:
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?

Quote:
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

Quote:
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.

Auld-bod's picture
Auld-bod
Offline
Joined: 9-07-11
Apr 22 2016 14:05

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.

AndrewF's picture
AndrewF
Offline
Joined: 28-02-05
Apr 22 2016 15:28

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

Spikymike
Offline
Joined: 6-01-07
Apr 22 2016 17:46

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!

Reddebrek's picture
Reddebrek
Offline
Joined: 4-01-12
Apr 22 2016 16:09
Auld-bod wrote:

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.

Quote:
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.

Quote:
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.

Quote:
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.

Auld-bod's picture
Auld-bod
Offline
Joined: 9-07-11
Apr 22 2016 16:29

AndrewF #55

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

Agreed.