Michael Parenti: Socialism and World War II (Two Brief Notes)

(Below is an edited version of something I published on Facebook a week ago)

Michael Parenti passed away recently. He was a fairly or very important Marxist scholar, maybe comparable in some ways to Noam Chomsky but less well-known and certainly more comfortable being called a Marxist. There is some information about him here (I am NOT endorsing that site- a progressive I used to be a political acquaintance of seems to think that web-page is a good source of info about Parenti, so I am linking to it but that’s all).

Although I listened, in the late 1990s, to two of Parenti’s talks (I got them on tape from Alternative Radio), I have never read one of his books and probably just a few articles that I can’t remember. 

As some of you may suspect, I am not great at political theory. But part of my personal grasp of socialism was improved a little bit by something he said in one of those talks on tape. He said that socialism is not the utopia. I can’t remember exactly what he said socialism is, but I think it was something very close to, as I put it- the final stage or two (of how many? Maybe a few) of BUILDING the utopia. I’m not saying it’s crucial- in fact it’s pretty minor (I can’t imagine a socialist group splitting over this). But I don’t think we should be promising the utopia. Another way I put it is this- there’s something in that part of math where, in High School Algebra they hand out graphing calculators where a line goes almost parallel but not quite to one of the axes and will, indefinitely get closer and closer and closer to intersecting that axis but it will never actually intersect.

Anyway, I liked Parenti enough that I typed up something similar to this for a Facebook thread. There were a handful of things he said besides the utopia thing that I liked (the algebra thing is all mine). I just remembered one more that I feel like sharing. 

He said that the D-Day scene at the beginning of the movie “Saving Private Ryan” was great but that the rest of the movie should have been called “Saving Private Ridiculous.” I understand what he meant and I agree with the first part but only sort of agree about the second part of what he said. That first scene, I imagine, captured how chaotic and bloody and nightmarish war probably is (independent of things like the political cause involved). When looking back at history I am probably more fond of the Allies than most American progressives are. I’m not sure how Parenti felt about that cause, but I can’t totally endorse what he said about almost the entire movie. Also, if anyone responds by explaining that the US was just as bad as Nazi Germany and that my failure to totally agree about that is evidence that I’m a bad ally of, for example, American Indians, let me explain that I got three As and one B in the four Native American Studies courses I took. Although I did do better as a white ally of American Indians IN THE CLASSROOM than I did OUTSIDE of it, I WAS a fairly good or okay ally OUTSIDE of it.  I’m also fond of what the British did in WWII, and I have a pretty good record as an Irish Republican. Also, I criticize the IRA and the South of Ireland for their behavior towards Nazi Germany. IT IS A REALLY GOOD THING THAT NAZI GERMANY WAS DEFEATED.

Tom

My Thoughts on the 1988-1997 TV Show Roseanne

I love TV shows, although only about 40% of what I watch is from the last two decades. My top six favorite shows are Star Trek: Deep Space Nine, Star Trek: Voyager, The Big Bang Theory, Supergirl, Roseanne, and Law and Order: Special Victims Unit. There’s a more complete list of shows I like under the “Movies” part of my profile. This is going to be about Roseanne.

I’ll offer a brief summary of the show and highlight some aspects of it but you can also read that wikipedia page.

This show ran from late 1988 until early 1997 and had ten seasons. I don’t think I’ve seen a single episode of the 10th season and I have probably only seen half of the 9th season. I probably have seen 80% of the episodes, an average of 2.5 times and on average about 15 years ago (I watched most of it as it was originally broadcast and watched a lot of re-runs between 2000 and 2010). I recently got a ridiculously good deal on the entire series on DVD and am going to go through it episode-by-episode.

It’s a hilarious 30 minute (with commercials) sitcom about a working-class liberal-progressive white family in what I think is a large town something like an hour away from Chicago (my brief, non-philosophical definition of liberal is someone to the left of Bill Clinton and to the right of Senator Elizabeth Warren; more details are here).

Some of the things that I like about it:

1) It’s progressive economically. There is pro-union stuff and although they get rich from the lottery in the 9th season, they use some of their wealth to help their former co-workers at a factory BUY the factory. There are a few seasons where Dan or Roseanne are small business-owners, but they have practically zero employees and treat them well.

2) It’s anti-racist. Of the very minor characters, about 1/10 are people of color, which kind of sucks, but there’s good anti-racist material. There’s one episode where they address the genocide of American Indians and slavery. Although there’s a small bit that’s pro-prisons, one of the 1-3 episodes that touch on that is also pro-affirmative action. There’s one episode where the Conners confront racism in their family and themselves.

3) It’s anti-homophobic. In an average episode, of the main, recurring and guest characters, about 6-8% are gay (one isn’t identified as gay until towards the end of the series).

4) The recurring character Mark Healy was played by an Irish actor, although he used an American accent because the character is American.

I have placed the Roseanne collection with the other DVDs that I am watching and will be doing reviews of the political issues raised in each episode. I won’t mention those episodes that have nothing political in them.

Affirmative Action and the Working-Class

In a recent post I criticized the more extreme white progressives for taking up the cause of Mumia Abu Jamal instead of supporting Affirmative Action. I touched on it briefly in the main part of the essay, saying that AA is more popular with people of color than Mumia is. In an addendum at the bottom of that post I went into more detail. In this post I will explain why AA is good and not in conflict with revolutionary politics.

(the addendum links to a Gallup poll which found that in 2018 72% of Blacks supported AA for poeple of color and 66% of Hispanics supported it for people of color (that figure for Hispanics might be higher if white Hispanics were excluded) (the first paragraph of a report here indicates strong support for race-based AA among Asian-Americans around 2000, and says nothing about more recent surveys which are apparently uncommon) (I haven’t heard anything about American Indians being unsupportive of race-based AA and about 1/3 of my major in college was American Indian Studies) (according to the first poll I link to, in 2018 69% of women supported AA for women)) (I’m willing to be bet that about 1/3 of those people of color who don’t support AA are middle-class Republicans, and something similar might be true about women)

(UPDATE 4/16/20 I think the frequent exclusion of Asian-Americans from polls about Affirmative Action might be because of the Model Minority Myth (and to enhance that myth) and because people like implying that Asian-Americans don’t support Affirmative Action and because they want to give as many Asian-Americans as possible the idea that their community doesn’t support it and create a wedge between Asian-Americans and other people of color) (UPDATE 11/4/20 A 2020 opinion survey of voters found that 35% of Asians in CA supported a ballot issue to legalize AA in CA and 42% opposed it,  and 23% weren't sure (in the same survey, Blacks were 53% in favor, 17% against and 30% not sure; Hispanics were 42% in favor, 18% against, and 40% not sure))

I can imagine a lot of the more extreme white progressives, and maybe some of the ones that aren’t white, saying that Affirmative Action is just for the benefit of the middle-class and it’s placing a bandage on Capitalism when we should let it bleed. To one degree or another, that’s largely untrue and AA shouldn’t be seen as obstructing the revolution.

In general AA negates institutional tendencies to replicate themselves- companies where all the people involved with hiring and/or promotions are white and/or male might only hire or promote people who are white and/or male. There’s also the fact that, often (not always of course, but often) people who are female and/or persons of color “bring something different to the table.” Even in a non-professional job that’s sort of relevant. I wouldn’t be surprised if (for example), when, in a moderately diverse area, a person of color finds themselves dining in a restaurant and all the viewable staff people are white, it would be a less enjoyable experience for them than if there were some people of color working outside the kitchen. And such a workforce in such an area could be evidence of discrimination and it also raises the question, what are the racial attitudes of these white employees working at a restaurant where the only people of color are in the kitchen? (I’d say something similar about gender)

There are three kinds of AA:

1. Outreach. Making sure that job openings are well known to those who are female and/or persons of color.
2. Preferences. This is where, for example, if there is a man and a woman who meet the minimum qualifications and the workforce is mostly male, the woman gets the job, even if in some ways the man is better qualified.
3. Quotas for Universities and Colleges, which I’ll get to soon.

Government contracts to companies owned by women and/or people of color

A lot of extreme progressives would say this is just for the middle-class. But working-class people benefit from it as well. As far as people of color go, such employers are (to put it mildly) less likely to discriminate in hiring, pay, and promotions. Some would say the promotions part is bourgeois, but consider this- although it’s a band-aid treatment for poverty among people of color, we want everyone have a middle-class standard of living (or at least lower middle-class, when there is a redistribution of wealth and no one gets more than about 20 times the minimum wage (I’ll go into more detail about my vision for socialism some other time)), and this is a good start. Also, every institution should involve equality- I’m not a fan of the military, but I believe there should be equality in it for people of color, LGBTQ+ people, and women. Also, today (and after the revolution) there is (might still be) discrimination in the public sector and possibly the employee-owned sector in promotions and maybe hiring as well. Also, a company owned by a person of color is less likely (to put it mildly) to tolerate a racially hostile atmosphere for people of color.

To one very large degree or another, everything I say above applies to AA for women.

Hiring and promotions by businesses owned by white men

Pretty much what I say above, more or less. For Blacks, “Hispanics,” and American Indians it would lessen the unemployment their communities disproportionately experience, and result in the non-white under-class getting better paying jobs (who will do the low-paying jobs? Ideally they would pay better, but that workforce should reflect the nation’s demographics).

(UPDATE 4/23/20 I just remembered that there is greater poverty among women and there's unequal pay for women, so what I said sort of applies to them as well)

Quotas for universities and colleges

This and the contracts and hiring stuff, involve a few more things I haven’t said yet. Diversity. There’s not a bad chance that if it weren’t for AA for people of color, our society would be even more (informally) segregated than it is, and there would be more white people with little or no contact with people of color. And as far as the middle-class nature of most of the third level educated population, A) they’re not all middle-class when they go to college, and B) as far as those who are, they might, in one way or another, interact with working-class people in a significant way. When it’s white working-class people, they might, to one degree or another, discourage the racism that probably a large majority of such people are afflicted by. If it’s working-class people of color, they’re more likely to treat them with respect than they would if they went to a college or university with very few people of color.

I’m not sure to what degree this applies to AA for women, but there’s probably a fair number of white people out there who need to be convinced that people of color can graduate from institutions above the level of community colleges and can do jobs that require a lot of intelligence and/or skill, and/or business skills, etc. (I can imagine a lot of racists dismissing degrees received form Historically Black Colleges and Universities- they shouldn’t, but they do, and without quotas at the rest of the universities and colleges, more Black people would go to them)

(Universities and colleges also do outreach and preferences)

Some of what I say above applies to AA for women.

**************

In general, I think that white extreme progressives who oppose AA are saying that people of color and women are just fucked until the revolution happens, and don’t understand that AFTER the revolution, there will probably still be racist and sexist tendencies in our society. According to this, although Castro was incredibly anti-racist and outlawed racist discrimination, he admitted that racism continued in revolutionary Cuba. And for those anarchists who say that their alternative to capitalism will be racism-free, I say “what about the existence of ORGANIZED National Anarchists, who seem to be tolerated by the rest of the anarchists?” (I have read twice about anarchist book fairs (a popular and major event for anarchists) including a table for National Anarchists). What about the fact that most anarchists think that Federal intervention in the Civil Rights conflict in the American South was a bad thing? What about anarchists who are much less than enthusiastic when they talk about the Union cause in the American Civil War?

I am sort of a Marxist in the sense that about 1/2 of the political books I’ve read are by Marxists and I have a weak grasp of Marxist theory. But I’m also a left-wing social-democrat and I believe that 99% of the time reforms are good. First, I used to nominate myself as the least intellectual socialist by using a term I invented: “building blocks socialism.” I don’t put it that way anymore, but I believe that the accumulation of reforms, especially if they include relatively revolutionary reforms (i.e. empowering unions or shortening the work week with the same amount of pay, or reversing partial or local gov't privitization or a public health insurance option available to anyone who wants it (there was some talk about including that in Obamacare)) would add up to something approaching socialism and then it would be a small step to actual socialism. I believe that AA is one of those blocks.

Here is why I believe in most reforms:

1. As I said, they can be “building blocks” towards socialism.
2. They can alleviate suffering, etc.
3. Sometimes they are empowering.
4. Oppressed people can get a sense of the power they have when they successfully demand reforms, and that will possibly or likely encourage them to demand more.

On a related note, when I think about how we will rid this society of racism, I think one thing that will help is when vocally anti-racist progressives achieve more and more reforms or “revolutionary reforms” that benefit the working-class. Also, unionization will help with that (union households are more likely to vote Democratic than non-union households, and many of the organizers and staff in the labor movement are people of color and most of the whites are anti-racist and most union supporters are people of color or anti-racist whites).

***********

UPDATE 4/15/20

Some more thoughts about unions and racism.
1. In 2000 in a discussion on the email list of the Young Democratic Socialists (now YDSA) a member who was organizing workers in Indiana said that his competition was the Klan (UPDATE 1/26/22 That is, competition for the hearts and minds of the workers).
2. Eammon McCann is a socialist and anti-Unionist activist in Northern Ireland. He was one of the main leaders of the N. Ireland Civil Rights Movement in the late 1960s and early 1970s (he was one of the speakers at the rally/march that was attacked by the British Army on Bloody Sunday in 1972, and he was an organizer of the second Civil Rights march, the one in Derry in Oct. of 1968). He has held several different senior and very senior positions in the Northern Irish TRADE-union movement in the last 40 years. In 2016 he was elected to the Northern Ireland Assembly and in 2017 he would have been but they reduced the number of seats returned from each constituency form 6 to 5 so he was basically runner-up. As far as I can tell, in the last 40 years at any given time two mainstream or professional news publication have been publishing his columns. In a column written in the 1980s or 1990s and included in the 1998 anthology of his columns “McCann: War and Peace in Northern Ireland” he wrote:

The trade union movement is better placed than any other to purge the politics of this island of sectarianism. No other institution brings Catholic and Protestant workers together on a regular basis in pursuit of a common purpose which is antipathetic to sectarianism

I think you could easily say the same thing about racism in this country.


Two more thoughts about AA and the working-class
1. In the mid-1990s when I did a lot of activity and writing about AA, I often said that I thought attacks on AA are conservative and right-wing capitalists blaming AA and liberals and people of color for the economic problems their policies cause for working-class white people. It’s scapegoating.
2. It’s true that anti-discrimination measures in a capitalist society mean fewer jobs for white people. Which is why when we defend AA we need to simultaneously advocate for polices that create full employment.  

*********

In conclusion, AA is a good thing.

(I was not consistent in acknowledging this above, but I know that there are women of color)

(I sometimes think that sexual inequality of the sort this post addresses is a fraction of what it was decades ago, but (among other evidence that I’m wrong) in 2016 close to a majority of voters voted in such a way that the Electoral College placed in the White House a man who made several sexist comments, including one that could be interpreted as bragging about sexually assaulting women)

New Poems: Saorsie is Irish for Freedom

Three new poems. In the next few months you'll see a lot more poems (as well as "reviews" of Babylon 5 TV show episodes and maybe a long essay) here. I explain some stuff about the poems here.

The rest of the songs/poems can be found by clicking on the "lyrics" label (there are four pages worth of posts, so click on the "older posts" at the bottom of the first page).

“Saoirse” based on “Freedom” by Brutal Attack, original lyrics are here.

1.This is about a loose collection of Irish political elements that might be described as “non-republican/non-nationalist but anti-partitionist, radical and fairly militant anti-Unionists.” It would, to one degree or another, include the late group Peoples Democracy, and probably around 50% of the Civil Rights Movement and probably somewhere around 25% of the movement in support of republican prisoners around 1980. It is basically set between the beginning of the civil rights movement (around 1967) and the 1981 Hunger Strike. (actually if it weren’t for some talk of socialism and the bit about Blacks, I would be on very safe ground attributing the positions in the poem to the nationalist community which would also include many of the people I referred to above (UPDATE 4/24/17 I'm increasingly unsure why I DIDN'T do that- I guess I wanted to do something a little bit different- there ARE people who are neither nationalist nor republcian but who still have very good positions on issues very central to the search for equality, justice and freedom for the nationalist community, AND who are also DEFINITELY VERY socialist and DEFINITELY VERY anti-racist (somewhere around 50-85% of the nationalist community is anti-racist and/or socialist, but ALL the miscellaneous people I'm thinking of are SOLID anti-racists and socialists)))
2. Orange parades should stay out of Catholic areas. For a good set of reasons why, see this.
3. The starry plough is generally the flag of republican socialism but there are non-republican groups that use it as well.
4. During the conflict frequently city centers were off limits to anti-unionist marches and rallies.
5. The RUC were the police until late 2001.
6. The anti-internment march attacked on Bloody Sunday was part of the civil rights movement. Although many of the original demands of that movement had been conceded, the existence of “emergency” legislation was also an issue addressed by that movement since it’s beginning.
7. Kent, Ohio is where the Kent State massacre took place in 1970. (Four anti-war college students were killed by the National Guard)
8. Squaddies is a term for British soldiers.
9.Bread is a term for economic justice.
10. In the mid and late 70s a struggle between republican prisoners and the prison authorities developed around whether they were prisoners of war or criminals. After about 2-4 years the prisoners had a majority of the nationalist community behind them. For more see the middle third of this starting at “For 3-4 years in the 1970s….”
11. When internment was phased out in the 1970s it was replaced by a series of mechanisms collectively described as a “conveyor belt.” This included the power to hold suspects for 7 days without charge, and non-jury courts.
12. “Bourgeoisie” is a term for the upper-class.
13. The original is by a British band that supported the Unionist and British causes in N. Ireland.
**14. 69% of this version is me and 31% is the original.
15. I give this poem 4 stars out of five.
16. Saorsie is Irish for freedom.
17. The second to last line, I’m not envisioning something where 100% of the people on the island are black. To a large degree it was just me being a smart ass twisting the lyrics of the original. It could be a future where Ireland is roughly 2-5 times as diverse as it is now and most of the relatively white population are less than 100% white.

when we don’t want an Orange parade on our streets the police won’t ban it
And take a look at history, the British began it.
Yeah, they’re afraid of us because we tell the world
As we stand up to them with the Starry Plough unfurled
My patriotic heart for my country feels so proud
But when we want to march in the city center we’re not allowed

Chorus
We want freedom from poverty and the British Empire
They’ve joined forces and against us they conspire
London can try to suppress us with their army and the RUC
we will emerge victors against the British bourgeoisie

the Civil Rights Movement marched in Derry against internment
We were shot down by state terrorists just like those in Kent
We don’t want no squaddies, and yes most of us are reds
We’ll resist, the Unionists, and push for universal bread

So let’s keep organizing, the prisoners need political status
We will not tolerate the British “conveyor belt” apparatus
We want a country full of reds, and why not a country full of blacks
we want a United Ireland with a progressive income tax

******

“Irish Revolution” based on “Final Solution” by No Remorse, original lyrics here.

1. The first verse is basically about the decades before the deployment of massive numbers of British Army soldiers in 1969. To a large degree British politicians were reluctant to get involved with the N. Ireland issue. The Tories especially deferred to the Unionists, who were part of their party. In the first 5 decades of N. Ireland, there were many protest efforts, political, or violent, or non-violent and the hands-off attitude of Westminster and #10 Downing St. contributed to the explosion of violence in 1969.
2. I believe that the use of force by the IRA did get London to briefly negoatiate with the republican movement in 1972. And I believe that two decades of IRA actions are part of why the combination of the Good Friday Agreement and the political scenery behind it was better than the combination of the 1974 Sunningdale Agreement and the political scenery behind IT.
3. The chorus is sort of influenced by the slogan “No Justice, No Peace.”
4. Some of the statements are about the IRA, not the nationalist population in general (I’m defining that as including northern republicans). Those are: Verse 1, line 1; verse 2, line 1 is about the IRA and rioters; same with the first half of verse 2, line 2; second half of Verse 2, line 4; first half of verse 3, line 1.
5. Based on what might be called a fairly scientific look, only about .2% of the IRA's operations intentionally resulted in civilian death.
6. As I explain in the middle third of a post here, what I wrote about global support was a bit off or something- huge chunks of the world didn’t want to be educated or be involved even though they should have.
7. The last two lines are about the protest among republican prisoners. There’s more about that in the middle third of this.
**8. 66% of this version is me, 34% is the original.
9. I give this poem four stars out of five.
10. No Remorse were British and supporters of the British and unionist causes in N. Ireland.
11. This poem is set basically in the decades before 1969 and ends roughly in the late 1970s.

Most of the Brits never listened Until the guns were in our hands
They read the Unionist papers and Ignored our democratic demands
We Nationalists protested for equality or fought to secede
London left it up to the Unionists, No matter where it would lead

Chorus:
Irish revolution
As conflict resolution

Our strategy is not to rock the boat We've got to blow it out of the sky
Got to make their nation tremble Expose and challenge all their lies
We’ll educate the world and isolate the British Tory scum
They may ignore our speeches But they'll listen to the gun

Chorus

As we gain momentum, The People continue to let loose
words, rocks, petrol bombs the BA and RUC are showered with abuse
As the blanketmen start the protest, the support starts to grow
The nationalists need defenders, they don’t want the IRA to go

Chorus

******

“Free Occupied Ireland” based on “Still Occupied” by Razor’s Edge, original lyrics are here.

1. In late 1968 the civil rights movement in N. Ireland seemed very strong. They had had two major marches, one of which was attacked in such a way that it generated a lot of anger among Catholics. The Prime Minister had made some moves towards meeting some of their demands and he SEEMED to have the support of the Unionist grass roots in doing so.
2. The RUC were the police until late 2001. A “game changer” march in early 1969 was attacked directly and indirectly by the RUC and the B-Specials (a semi-military force that could be described as a cross between the State Patrol and the National Guard in American states). In Aug. of 1969 the RUC and loyalist mobs joined together and unleashed a couple days of anti-Catholic pogroms or attempted anti-Catholic pogroms in Belfast and Derry.
3. The march that was attacked on Bloody Sunday was a civil rights march. The initial response to the massacre was a flurry of demonstrations, but in general the civil rights movement kind of ended shortly after BS and the Provisional IRA’s campaign intensified and became the dominant response to unionism and imperialism.
4.  James Connolly was Ireland’s greatest republican-socialist, Collins was a major leader of the IRA during the war of Independence and has been credited with developing urban guerrilla warfare, and
5. Che is Che Guevara, who has been credited with developing rural guerrilla warfare.
6. “West Brit” has multiple meanings- indigenous/relatively indigenous Irish people sympathetic to the unionists/British in relation to Ireland, friendly to the British monarchy, hostile to Irish culture, friendly to British culture (that last one isn't necessarily so bad, in this poem it refers to the others, especially the support for unionism/the British in relation to Ireland).
7. Green Tories are basically centre-right nationalists (in the South that refers to a political instead of community identity).
8. Most of the time, in most parts of the North there was intense conflict between republicans and the Church.
9. The Stoops are the Social Democratic and Labour Party, Sinn Fein’s more moderate rival in the Nationalist community. For more on them see this.
10. In 1974 a brief power-sharing attempt to resolve the conflict was made. It was aimed partly at destroying the IRA politically. Among other problems, the first half of the Sunningdale period PSF was a banned party, and when that was fixed, the UVF (a loyalist paramilitary) was legalized for about 1.5 years.
11. In recent decades and I think in the 1970s as well, republicans have been very supportive of the Palestinians.
12. Lines that end with * are referring to just the IRA.
13. I ignored a non-rhyming line at the end of both verses of the original lyrics.
**14. 80% of this version is me, 20% is the original.
15. I give this poem three stars out of five.
16. Estates are basically neighborhoods.
17. UPDATE 7/8/17 Calling N. Ireland a dictatorship (before the GFA) isn't the most accurate thing you could say, and to a large degree fascists were not among the most immediate enemies of Catholics in N. Ireland- the British government and Unionists weren't fascist, it's just a statement against fascism and dictatorship.
18. Razor's Edge were British and supporters of the British and unionist causes in N. Ireland.

in ’68 the future looked so bright,
It seemed we were so close to getting our civil rights
But then the RUC and loyalist mobs invaded our estates
Because for our civil rights we dared to demonstrate
The civil rights movement was shot off the streets by the BA
And now we’re fighting in the spirit of Connolly, Collins, and Che *

Chorus
Still occupied, we're not free -
But we are definitely off our knees!
Still it’ll be hard, hard to defeat *
the crown forces patrolling on our streets! *

The Brit, west brit, and green tory propaganda begins
to the priests conducting mass our resistance is a sin. *
The stoops are trying Sunningdale, but it’s just one big mistake
And we are fighting on for Irish freedom, whatever it takes. *
We're against fascism and dictatorship
We’re for freedom and justice, in the North and in the Gaza Strip

"The winner of Election 2016 is social democracy"

Last Friday the 26th there was a general election for the parliament in the South of Ireland. Below are the election results:

Fine Gael   50 seats. FG is economically moderate or conservative and socially moderate or liberal. They're descended from the pro-Teaty side of the Irish Civil War (which took place in the early 1920s).

Labour 7 seats. Centre-Left

Fianna Fail 44 seats. FF is economically moderate or conservative and socially moderate or conservative. They're descended from the anti-Treaty side of the Civil War (what you might call the side that wanted to continue fighting the Britsh).

Sinn Fein 23 seats

Anti-Austerity Alliance-People Before Profit 6 seats. Hard left.

Social Democrats 3 seats

Green Party 2 seats

Independent Alliance 6 seats. Progressives.

Independents 17 seats. I imagine mostly progressives.

The article I link to below says something I think I need to respond to now:  SF is not a right-wing party at all, although I have heard before that some of their voters in the south might vote right-wing if SF wasn't around (in America, where they visit, SF is less left-wing than they are in Ireland where they live and work, etc.). I explain why it's not accurate to call them right-wing here.

I used to be a member of the Irish Labour Party's American sister organization, the Democratic Socialists of America and my understanding of socialism and how to achieve it has not changed. My thoughts on the ILP and the meltdown of the ILP's vote (in the previous election they got 37 seats):

1) I have felt comfortable calling myself a supporter of both SF and the ILP because almost every election on that island involves Proportional Representation and/or the ability of voters to transfer their votes from one candidate to another (so IF I lived there I could more or less vote for both of them). 

2) I support SF a bit more  because they have a huge mandate from the nationalist community in the North. I would love to see the ILP running candidates in the North, where they have been organizing for around 10 years now.

3) It sucks that this happened to the ILP, but as far as I can tell, the gov't they were a part of pursued an agenda of austerity. I believe that is not what the ILP wanted to do (I am not real familiar with them but I have never heard anyone say they're Third Way (the politics of Tony Blair in seemingly socialist organizations)  and I heard something making me think they're as anti-Third Way as DSA is), but for decades now they have been kind of stuck with going into gov't with FG, and FG is, unfortunately, overall no better economically in my opinion than FF and even after their best elections, the ILP was not able to lead a gov't (something I blame on the fact that the conflict around the North hasn't been resolved yet). 

4) There have been some instances of SF and the ILP getting along, but not many. One example would be that in the 2007 elections to the Irish Senate, they had a voting pact.
5) UPDATE 3/6/16 An Irish leftist friend of mine who seems non-hostile to the Socialist International, painted a far less rosy picture of Irish Labour for me. It also made me attach greater value to what the Irish Times opinion piece said about the governing coalition Labour was a part of. On the other hand, he did say that in opposition, Labour is good. I still think that if Labour were LEADING a coalition gov't and/or had a partner closer to them ideologically than FG is, they would probably act more like social-dems.

There's an opinion piece in the Irish Times (Ireland's largest paper) that I wanted to mention. To whatever degree it's head-line is accurate, and I think it largely is, that's great. I don't follow Southern politics as much as I follow stuff in the North, and RECENTLY I've only been reading an average of about 50 articles a week about that. But this article seems pretty accurate and I thought it was an important one to highlight. The article is written by the IT's literary editor.

Tom

Star Trek: The Original Series Reviews G

This is one of my posts where I “review” Star Trek episodes. I will be giving each one a star rating. I sometimes will make some comments about non-political parts of them that I like or don’t like. I’ll sometimes use the issues raised in the episode to discuss similar issues in real life. And I will sometimes simply high-light the progressive politics of ST. ST is in-line with the three original themes of this blog, as I explain in the first ST post where I offer some general thoughts about ST.

I have been more or less ignoring this- the need for me to become familiar with The Original Series. In general I don’t like much of what I’ve seen. In any case, I am now watching it and will be doing reviews of those episodes. I will be giving pretty low scores, probably no higher than three stars out of five- I just don’t like TOS.

Lastly. multi-culturalism is such a pervasive theme in ST that I only comment on it when it goes beyond the norm (i.e. inter-species partners).

“Catspaw” See this for a plot summary.

A non-political episode. I give it one star out of five.

“I, Mudd” See this for a plot summary.

A non-political episode, although Mudd’s sexism kind of deserves to be noted. Mudd is basically the villain, so it is progressive.

I give it two stars out of five.

“Metamorphosis” See this for a plot summary.

A non-political episode, with one thing worth mentioning. It’s kind neat for us to meet Cochrane in TOS, considering we know about him from First Contact and kind of from Enterprise. (UPDATE 2/18/19 I guess I mean ME)

I give it two stars out of five.

“Journey To Babel” See this for a plot summary.

At one point Spock’s mom explains to Kirk that on Vulcan, men dominate the women. This is the second time we’ve heard something about that, so now I feel very comfortable saying that Vulcan society is very sexist. Should they be members of the Federation? I have mixed feelings about criticizing another culture’s treatment of women, but I think it's usually-always important to do so (I think there are good ways to do that and probably some bad ways to do it). I’m not sure if it’s something that should have prevented Vulcan from joining the Federation. I guess two factors would be: A) was the sexism codified in law, and B) was there some women’s rights organization on Vulcan that wanted their planet kept out of the Federation.

I’ve found many Star Trek episodes that talk about people with a multi-cultrual background (i.e. half human, half Vulcan, or in the real world, for example, half white, half black) and how they have trouble being accepted by one or both of the groups that they’re a part of (I guess you could say they’re part of a third group, for example, people who are half black and half white). I also remember reading that Zack de La Rocha of Rage Against The Machine experienced something similar. And (while getting my Ethnic Studies degree) I don't remember hearing or reading anything saying that this is not a problem; I have a vague memory of something supporting what I said, but I wasn’t sure of this and asked someone familiar with it if such people DO have that sort of trouble. He made me think I had an exaggerated sense of how many people experience it. But in this episode of ST, it’s again raised, in relation to Spock. I’m not saying that writers of ST episodes are experts, but I’m starting to think that I was closer to being right than my friend suggested I was.

There is one bit of socialism. At least one Federation diplomat believes that admitting a new planet into the Federation will result in the wealth of that planet being used to benefit it’s inhabitants.

I give it two stars out of five.

Star Trek: The Original Series Reviews D

This is one of my posts where I “review” Star Trek episodes. I will be giving each one a star rating. I sometimes will make some comments about non-political parts of them that I like or don’t like. I’ll sometimes use the issues raised in the episode to discuss similar issues in real life. And I will sometimes simply high-light the progressive politics of ST. ST is in-line with the three original themes of this blog, as I explain in the first ST post where I offer some general thoughts about ST.
I have been more or less ignoring this- the need for me to become familiar with The Original Series. In general I don’t like much of what I’ve seen. In any case, I am now watching it and will be doing reviews of those episodes. I will be giving pretty low scores, probably no higher than three stars out of five- I just don’t like TOS.

Lastly. multi-culturalism is such a pervasive theme in ST that I only comment on it when it goes beyond the norm (i.e. inter-species partners).

“Tomorrow Is Yesterday” See this for a plot summary.

A very non-political episode, which is kind of a surprise. Often episodes involving time travel back to Old Earth (that is, Earth in recent decades of the past and in decades of the near future) have some liberal-left political commentary. This doesn’t have that. There is one reference to an alien planet dominated by women- but I have mixed feelings about the nature of that statement. Normally I’d think it’s a good thing, to mention that women are capable of leading a planet. But there’s something about it that’s kind of sexist in this case.

I give it three stars out of five.

“Court Martial” See this for a plot summary.

A non-political episode. I give it two stars out of five.

“The Return of the Archons” See this for a plot summary.

A non-political episode. I give it one star out of five.

“Space Seed” See this for a plot summary.

This is the first ST episode or movie to mention the Eugenics Wars. Some of my thoughts on the issue of genetically engineered humans can be found here while discussing the first three-parter in that post (there is also some background in the plot summaries). In short I think that the Federation is right to ban genetic engineering of humans, with some possible exceptions.

This episode doesn’t really add much to what I had seen in other episodes or movies about the Eugenics Wars issue. There is a two or three book novel about the EW. I read the first one years ago and seem to have lost it. I somehow got either the second or third but don’t want to read it without the other 1 or 2. The thing is, in reference to one of those books, a former friend of mine said he thought it was racist. I can’t really say anything about those books. I am pretty sure he was referring to the fact that the villain was an Indian, and possibly-probably some other details; I would need more than that (Khan’s nationality) to agree.

I give it three stars out of five.

“A Taste of Armageddon” See this for a plot summary.

This episode has a very good anti-war theme. It’s about two planets that have waged war for 500 years using computers, kind of like a war game. When an attack takes place, people in the area of the attack are identified as casualties and are killed by “disintegration machines.” The idea behind this form of war-fare is that the civilizations will not be physically destroyed. But as kirk explains it: “Death, destruction, disease, horror- that’s what war is all about, Anan- that’s what makes it a thing to be avoided. You’ve made it neat and painless. So neat and painless you’ve had no reason to stop it.” Although it would be horrible if one or more civilizations were destroyed through war, it’d be better if there were no war at all (nothing is said about the war being just, it probably is like most wars, i.e. like World War I). Millions of people were being killed every year, and the war probably diverted at least some resources that could have been better used on something else. If they had experienced real war, the destruction and the injured people might have prodded the leaders to seek peace.

I give it three stars out of five.

“This Side of Paradise” See this for a plot summary.

There are a couple political things to mention about this episode.

1. The colonists are all vegetarians.

2. Towards the end, Kirk talks about “paradise” and wonders if humans are meant for “paradise” or meant to “struggle, claw our way up.” I believe something in the middle but leaning towards being meant for “paradise.” We will always have some degree of difficulty (i.e. natural disasters, etc.) but we can, probably in a couple centuries or so, create something pretty close to “paradise.” This reminds me of something that the socialist writer Michael Parenti said once. He said that socialism isn’t the utopia- it is the struggle to create the utopia (I’d say the latter stages of creating a utopia). And I’d say that even the utopia probably won’t be 100% utopian.

I give it two stars out of five.

Star Trek: The Next Generation Reviews P

This is one of my posts where I “review” Star Trek episodes. I will be giving each one a star rating. I sometimes will make some comments about non-political parts of them that I like or don’t like. I’ll sometimes use the issues raised in the episode to discuss similar issues in real life. And I will sometimes simply high-light the progressive politics of ST. ST is in-line with the three original themes of this blog, as I explain in the first ST post where I offer some general thoughts about ST.

I’m not very familiar with The Original Series and there might be some small amount of material there that would affect what I say about Star Trek (i.e. how often religion is mentioned)

Lastly. multi-culturalism is such a pervasive theme in ST that I only comment on it when it goes beyond the norm (i.e. inter-species partners).

“Sins of the Father” See this for a plot summary.

A non-political episode. I give it three stars out of five.

“Allegiance” See this for a plot summary.

There is a reference to anarchists, but it sort of describes an anarchist society as being very violent. I'm not sure how inaccurate that is- if things got to the point where anarchists were strong enough to do away with the state it probably would be a much less violent society than what we have today (of course, as I explain below, I think that most approaches to anarchism probably won't work, but some would and their vision is of a non-violent society).

My thoughts on anarchism are:

1. I consider something like half of left-wing anarchists to be my allies.
2. I don’t believe that the State is inherently oppressive. I believe that to one degree or another the state reflects the power of various parts of society (I got that from something Noam Chomsky said). Thus, a weak labor movement will lead to a state that is anti-union, to one degree or another. If the labor movement gets stronger, legislation about labor will make it easier for even more workers to be organized. Since this means that the labor movement won’t get stronger until the right politicians are elected, and the right politicians won’t get elected until the labor movement is stronger, I should say that much of my blog is about things that we can accomplish that will strengthen various liberal-progressive movements in America.
3. I’m not convinced that anarchism can provide services such as transportation or health care- it seems like the state would be more appropriate, and based on what I said in the item above, I’m comfortable with a democratic state. On the other hand, I get the impression that anarchists would be happy to see some functions of the federal or state government devolved to state or local governments, and I’m more or less okay with that, depending on exactly what we’re talking about.
4. It seems like decision-making in an anarchist society might result in an INFORMAL political elite- that the people best at political maneuvering would dominate decision-making. A problem with that is that you can’t un-elect those people. Additionally the the use of consensus decision-making results often in some minority who either defeat whatever proposal is being discussed and is supported by a majority, OR they vote the way the majority voted without their opposition being recorded; Lastly, it also would give people an inaccurate picture of how the community feels about that idea that was unpopular with a minority. (I think that consensus decision-making in small groups is a good idea- small groups being around 5-10 people; I have seen consensus decision-making not work at a meeting of about 25 people)
5. I know of one anarchist who, when her proposal was defeated because of consensus decision-making, she announced that her proposal would go ahead anyway.
6. I think anarchism would have a better chance of working AFTER a period of democratic socialism gets the vast majority of people thinking more in terms of solidarity and cooperation and less in terms of greed and power. Also, I wouldn’t object if, under socialism, there could be some small areas of the country where people would more or less have a large degree of autonomy and can experiment with anarchism (I don’t know exactly how that autonomy would work, but I think it’s still a good idea, and could from the start or after a few years be INDEPENDENCE for that area). Also, Democratic Socialism could, and maybe should, involve the devolution of some powers and responsibilities to the local or state level.

I give it three stars out of five.

“Captain’s Holiday” See this for a plot summary.

A non-political episode. I give it two stars out of five.

“Tin Man” See this for a plot summary.

A non-political episode. I give it two stars out of five.

Star Trek: Voyager Reviews N

This is one of my posts where I “review” Star Trek episodes. I will be giving each one a star rating. I sometimes will make some comments about non-political parts of them that I like or don’t like. I’ll sometimes use the issues raised in the episode to discuss similar issues in real life. And I will sometimes simply high-light the progressive politics of ST. ST is in-line with the three original themes of this blog, as I explain in the first ST post where I offer some general thoughts about ST.

I’m not very familiar with The Original Series and there might be some small amount of material there that would affect what I say about Star Trek (i.e. how often religion is mentioned)

Lastly. multi-culturalism is such a pervasive theme in ST that I only comment on it when it goes beyond the norm (i.e. inter-species partners).

“Unity” See this for a plot summary.

In general a non-political episode, although it does touch on collectivity as a way to avoid racial conflict. On one hand, anything undemocratic is a bad idea, but in general I believe that socialism can contribute a lot to ending racial conflict. What I’m talking about is significantly different from what the episode talks about, but it did remind me of socialism as a part of ending racial conflict. It primarily helps with ending economic insecurity which, at least indirectly, fuels racism. Socialism also encourages people to identify more in class terms instead of racial terms. I might write more on that soon.

I give it three stars out of five.


“Darkling” See this for a plot summary.

A non-political episode. I give it two stars out of five.


“Rise” See this for a plot summary.

A non-political episode. I give it two stars out of five.


“Favorite Son” See this for a plot summary.

A non-political episode. I give it two stars out of five.

Star Trek: Deep Space Nine Reviews MM

This is one of my posts where I “review” Star Trek episodes. I will be giving each one a star rating. I sometimes will make some comments about non-political parts of them that I like or don’t like. I’ll sometimes use the issues raised in the episode to discuss similar issues in real life. And I will sometimes simply high-light the progressive politics of ST. ST is in-line with the three original themes of this blog, as I explain in the first ST post where I offer some general thoughts about ST.

I’m not very familiar with The Original Series and there might be some small amount of material there that would affect what I say about Star Trek (i.e. how often religion is mentioned)

Lastly. multi-culturalism is such a pervasive theme in ST that I only comment on it when it goes beyond the norm (i.e. inter-species partners).

“When It Rains...” See this for a plot summary.

This episode is partly about Section 31’s effort to spread an fatal infection throughout the Founders, something Bashir correctly identifies as genocide. Bashir and O’Brien are determined to find a cure, since Odo is infected as well.

There’s also more about the Cardassian resistance to the Dominion. Although it seems that many of the Cardassians involved are not democrats, it’s still sort of inspiring that they are fighting the Dominion. At the very least, it improves the odds of the Dominion being defeated. I also like how Kira is sent to help them, since she’s familiar with the sort of hit and run tactics they need to use. It reminds me of something I wrote in an earlier post here. I suggested that the IRA, instead of doing business with the Nazis, should have supported the Allied effort, and that could have included sending members to Nazi-occupied areas to train and advise resistance groups. It probably would have been very helpful and might have resulted in an earlier defeat for the Nazis. (I realize that if the IRA had done this it probably would have involved the British learning the identities of some IRA members, but if the IRA had done that (which would have been the right thing to do) after the war the IRA’s cause would have been a lot more popular)


“Tacking Into The Wind” See this for a plot summary.

Towards the end, Damar says something which probably means that he does believe in a democratic Cardassia. In response to another rebel Cardassian officer talking about restoring Cardassia to what it once was (an empire) Damar first kills him and then says “his Cardassia is dead and it won’t be coming back.”


“Extreme Measures” See this for a plot summary.

A non-political episode, but a good one, I give it two stars out of five.


“The Dogs Of War” See this for a plot summary.

There are three political aspects to this episode:

1) First, Ferengi society and the Ferengi economy are dramatically transformed into something just to the right of social democracy.

2) When Odo confronts Sisko about how Section 31 tried to wipe out all/almost all changelings Sisko tells him that the Federation considered giving the cure to the Founders but chose not to because it would strengthen their hand while millions of men and women are still fighting against the Dominion. But wiping out the Changelings or at least about half of them, WOULD be genocide.

3) Damar’s rebellion on Cardassia takes on more of a popular, mass character, which is good. In that kind of situation armed attacks by small groups are helpful, but mass action is at least as important. As I explained here Irish republicans could have done a better job of mobilizing mass struggle during most of the conflict.


“What You Leave Behind, Parts One and Two” See this and this for a plot summary.

One bit of politics is that the rebellion on Cardassia takes on even more of a mass character as a work stoppage is planned.

It ends with Sisko as some kind of super-natural being, or at least an alien VERY different from a human (and apparently existing on a different plane of existance). I’m not crazy about that. Starfleet Captains should not be like that.

Overall a good end to the series, I give it three stars out of five.

Star Trek: Deep Space Nine Reviews M

This is one of my posts where I “review” Star Trek episodes. I will be giving each one a star rating. I sometimes will make some comments about non-political parts of them that I like or don’t like. I’ll sometimes use the issues raised in the episode to discuss similar issues in real life. And I will sometimes simply high-light the progressive politics of ST. ST is in-line with the three original themes of this blog, as I explain in the first ST post where I offer some general thoughts about ST.

I’m not very familiar with The Original Series and there might be some small amount of material there that would affect what I say about Star Trek (i.e. how often religion is mentioned)

Lastly. multi-culturalism is such a pervasive theme in ST that I only comment on it when it goes beyond the norm (i.e. inter-species partners).

“Defiant” See this for a plot summary.

Aside from the Maquis aspect (my thought on the Maquis are here, while discussing the two-parter “The Maquis”), a very non-political episode, although it raises some points I think I’ll discuss.

1. The power of the Obsidian Order (basically the Cardassian KGB). Although it’s revealed that they are prohibited from having military forces (i.e. warships) it’s also revealed that they in fact are building a war fleet, which is completely confirmed later in the series and it appears that the Order doesn’t get in any trouble for building such a fleet, which further indicates that they are a very powerful and unaccountable force on Cardassia.

2. At one point Kira raises the issue of outsiders helping with some cause. She speaks as if there’s something wrong with that, as if anyone who does that must have some ulterior motive. Plenty of people do that, although there are different ways of looking at it (do we count white anti-racists in general? do we count Irish-Americans who joined the IRA?). If people see injustice and want to help end it as an ally, and they get involved to the point where they’re part of an underground organization, I don’t see what the problem is. Even if they’re a total outsider, I still don’t see what the problem is. And people who criticize such volunteers probably also believe the US should pat itself on the back for liberating parts of occupied Europe during WWII. America should do that, because although we had other reasons for getting involved, we were partly motivated by concern for Europeans oppressed or threatened by the Nazis and we in fact did help liberate parts of occupied Europe. The fact that we were also doing it for some national security reasons doesn’t make that bad. When people do it simply to help others, that should be seen as even more acceptable.

You could also argue that by helping end the oppression of some other group, they are helping themselves in the sense that, as Martin Luther King Jr. said, “Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere.” But that kind of “selfish” motivation should be seen as acceptable.

3. Many times throughout the ST series ST mis-uses the word “terrorist.” In this episode and others it’s taken so far that Kira says that when she was with the resistance she was a terrorist. I define a terrorist as someone who focuses largely on intentionally killing civilians, although there are also operations aimed at NOTHING more than terrorizing the civilian population without killing anyone. There are different ways of looking at it and there are gray areas that will result in plenty of debate, but I’d say when at least around 2-5% of an organization’s operations are aimed at intentionally killing innocent civilians, it’s a terrorist organization- although there’s other factors to calculate in, that’s a rough guide to how I see it.

Although there will be debate about which groups are terrorist and which aren’t, since we view and treat terrorist organizations differently from others, we should try to have a good definition of what one is. The common definition is a group that fights the government. But that means that the ANC were terrorists (even in recent years ANC figures have been on US terrorist lists), the IRA are terrorists, the Iraqi kurdish Peshmerga were terrorists, etc.


Overall a good episode. I give it four stars out of five.


“Fascination” See this for a plot summary.

A very non-political episode, and not a very good one. I give it two stars out of five.


“Past Tense” parts 1 and 2. See this and this for a plot summary.

This two-parter is one of the most progressive and probably the most socialist episode ST has ever done. The two-parter is also very good, and I give it five stars out of five. A big part of why I like it is that I generally really like ST’s time travel episodes. Also, there’s some good action.

But the main thing I like about it is the politics. It’s about a period in America’s history lasting about 10-20 years and ending shortly after the events in the episode in the year 2024. At that point, every major American city had what was called a “Sanctuary District”- a walled in section of the city where homeless people without criminal records were housed. The buildings they occupied were basically squats and many people slept out on the street. Most were there for years, although the idea was that the staff would help with job placement. There was only one doctor for about 10,000 people. Security were notoriously cranky. The real idea of the districts was to keep homeless people out of sight of everyone else. It also occurred to me that it would make it difficult for the homeless to organize and express themselves to politicians and the media. It’s also treating homeless people who aren’t criminals as if they are, in the sense that their freedom is taken away, they’re put into what are basically prison camps.

The script brings up a lot of good points about poverty, I’ll high-light two of them. One of the sanctuary residents talks about how he lost his job because the company got new equipment. When automation results in people losing their jobs and those people end up homeless, that’s very messed up. Automation should be done in a way that makes things easier and safer and more productive WITHOUT costing jobs, which is very possible. Then the jobs created via the production and maintenance of the new equipment will bring us closer to full employment.

The best part of the two-parter is when the man who becomes a spokesperson of the residents says that one of their demands should be the re-instatement of the "Federal Employment Act." Whatever it is, it sounds like a good idea, and at the very least it’s some kind of stimulus program, if not something like the New Deal where the government creates jobs directly.

At the end Bashir and Sisko have the following exchange:

Bashir: Having seen the middle of the 21st century, how could they have let things get so bad?

Sisko: That’s a good question. I wish I had an answer.

Besides the great politics, it’s a great two-parter in other ways too. I give it five stars out of five.

Stoop Down Low Party

The Social Democratic and Labour Party is the main rival to Sinn Fein in the nationalist community, and until 2001 they were the larger of the two. They were formed by the merger of elements from the old Nationalist Party (which the SDLP basically replaced), the Civil Rights Movement, and the Labour movement in 1970. They're overwhelmingly in favor of non-violence, and fairly consistent about criticizing the security forces almost as much as they criticized the IRA, and have carried out some boycotts of public bodies in protests. But they frequently disappoint on a range of issues, mostly in terms of their claim to be solidly on the left (they're a member of the Socialist International). Although it varies from issue to issue (and I think that in the beginning somewhere around half were socialists), I'd estimate about 1/3 of them can claim to be leftists. I was told in July 2002 that the then-head of the SDLP Youth was a socialist who planned on leaving the party if it merged with Fianna Fail (see first item below).

(I'm more or less in the SI tradition, and used to be a member of the American section of the SI, and I'm not saying this as someone hostile to the SI)

They are sometimes referred to as the Stoop Down Low Party, or stoops, although I think some of them have adopted it as their own term. Anyway, here's what justifies calling them stoops.

1) They are basically Third Way. Their program hardly talks about public ownership at all, but talks a lot about "partnership" between government, business, and labor. I have never heard of them criticizing the Third Way.

Since shortly after the 2001 Westminster election when SF overtook the SDLP, there has been a lot of talk from the SDLP about merging with Fianna Fail, a centrist/centre-right party in the South. Partly because of this, in 2003 the Irish Labour Party started organizing in the North. In 2005 I interviewed, by email, the most senior Northern member of the ILP, Mark Langhammer, and he said that the SDLP do not represent the labour tradition or program.

UPDATE 6/27/16 I haven't heard anything in the last 6-8 years about them wanting to merge with FF and it may have even stopped about 3 years before that. And I have reason to believe that the current leader of the SDLP, Colum Eastwood might really be a socialist.

UPDATE 9/28/17 A merger with FF is now being discussed again within the SDLP. See this.

UPDATE 3/15/20 Just recently the SDLP created some kind of formal arrangement (not a merger) with FF.

2) Based on their public statements, almost their entire economic strategy for N. Ireland is to attract trans-national corporations.

3) They have no formal relationship with trade-unions, which isn't too surprising, but as far as I can tell they don't even have an informal one.

4) Until recently Catholic unemployment in the last 4+ decades has always been between about 2 and 2.5 times greater than for Protestants- a clear sign of discrimination. In the 80s/90s there was a campaign to get US companies (and maybe multi-nationals in general, it's not clear and the campaign was at least focused on America) in the North to adopt the MacBride Principles (a set of equal opportunity/affirmative action measures). This was endorsed by, among others, the AFL-CIO, most of the Congressional Black Caucus, the British Labour Party, and major sections of the British and Irish trade union movements. But John Hume, the then-Leader of the SDLP, opposed this because he was afraid it would scare off multi-nationals.

5) The SDLP claims to be the inheritors of the civil-rights movement. I'm sure there is some truth to this, but Hume had opposed the 1968 Derry Civil rights march and the 1969 Belfast-Derry march by left-wing students which was based on the Selma-Montgomery march and was a major turning point in the civil rights movement as the students were brutally attacked. He also opposed the 1972 march which was fired on on Bloody Sunday. He had told people that the Civil Rights Movement (or at least the left-wing of it) was "dangerous."

6) In several cases in recent years they have encouraged nationalist/Catholic communities to allow sectarian Orange marches through their neighborhoods- in one case a senior SDLP member even suggested that residents just take an extended vacation during the marching season. (If you're wondering why this is a civil rights issue, see this)

7) Every single academic source I have read has suggested the SDLP are overwhelmingly middle-class.

8) In 1971 internment without trial was introduced. In brutal raids the British Army detained hundreds of nationalists (mostly suspected/actual republicans, and a small number of leftists from People's Democracy) (they were almost all a little tortured; some were subjected to 7 days of sensory deprivation). Over the next 5 years about a total of about 2,000 people were interned, all but about 100 were nationalists, republicans, and leftists; although loyalists were murdering Catholics left and right, only 107 were interned, and only after about 18 months of internment.

In response a strike of rents and rates was called, and was solid in working-class areas. In fact, the SDLP had been one of the groups who called for it. But in 1974 there was a brief power-sharing government of which the SDLP were a part. In government, they announced there would be no amnesty for those on rent and rates strike, and increased the amount that could be deducted from striker's social security payments. Internment didn't end until 1975. John Hume was a minister in that government.

9) In the early 1990s the SDLP opposed the opening of a Brook Advisory Clinic (basically like Planned Parenthood) in Belfast.

10) They are extremely pro-life. Abortion is hardly available in N. Ireland, and the Assembly in 2000 passed a resolution saying that they oppose the extension of the Abortion Act to N. Ireland; the SDLP voted for it. More importantly, when an amendment was offered which referred the issue of abortion to the health care committee for further debate, research, and discussion, the SDLP spoke and voted against that. UPDATE 2/8/15 They strongly oppose choice in cases of rape or where the fetus has a fatal abnormality- for more see this.

11) In a 1994 Westminster vote(s) on lowering the age of consent for gay sex, none of the 4 SDLP MPs supported lowering it to 16 (that's what it was for heterosexual sex). John Hume voted for 18, Joe Hendron (who was defeated by Gerry Adams in 1997) abstained; the other two, who are still MPs, voted against lowering it at all. (UPDATE 5/25/14 A month ago the SDLP joined SF in an Assembly vote to legalize same-sex marraiges, and were probably more or less anti-homophobic starting around 15 years ago)
UPDATE 5/2/15  in all fairness see this about a veteran NI gay rights organizer who was also in the leadership of the SDLP.
UPDATE 11/11/15 Read this about a senior SDLP politician opposing gay marraige (starting in 1997 he was the SDLP candidate in North Belfast for every Westminister election, and was elected at every Assembly election starting in 1998; this statement includes the most recent Assembly and Westminster elections)

12) The following is from a 1996 article in Z Magazine by Jim Dees:
"Washington eagerly pitched in. In October 1985, 12 senior SDLP members flew to Washington and met with officials of the National Democratic Institute (NDI), which operates on grants from the National Endowment for Democracy (NED), established by act of Congress in 1983. Neither the NED or the NDI are federal agencies, and as such their records are not accessible through the Freedom of Information Act. What is known is the NED's history of involvement in supporting the democratic process in Central and South America, South Africa, and the Philippines. The agency was also involved in channeling money to anti-Mitterand trade unionists and right wing French student groups in 1985. ......
"To cement the alliance, Washington pumped in $120 million during the first three years alone. New corporations were created to facilitate the disbursement of grant money. Conveniently, Catholic clergy, who remained solidly behind the SDLP, dominated most of the corporations. The message was clear: support the SDLP or face unemployment, poverty and despair. In west Belfast, where many nationalist areas face unemployment well over 60 percent, the message got through."

13) As for the border, some of them have been so willing to compromise on that that I think they are in serious conflict with anti-imperialism. At some point about 5-10 years after the Good Friday Agreement was approved in referenda, a senior SDLP member said that the spirit of the Agreement meant that now Ireland could only be united when a majority of both nationalists and unionists supported that. Setting aside his use of the word "unionists" (by definition, a unionist does not support a United Ireland, there will never be a majority), the idea that there now has to be a majority of Protestants is ridiculous. The thing is, it goes further than saying that there must be a voting majority in N. Ireland who support uniting Ireland before Ireland can be united, and even THAT, as I explained in the paragraph beginning "One thing..." of the post "Catholic, Protestant, and Dissenter" is ridiculous to begin with.
UPDATE 1/11/16 The Party Leader of the SDLP said, as a crisis started in the Peace Process grew, that if the Executive of the Assembly (created as part of the GFA) couldn't be re-established after an upcoming election, there should be joint authority between the Irish and British states (in the European sense of the word) in the running of N Ireland. This is a reasonable and very good idea. What I mean is that it's a much better thing to hear from a leader of the SDLP than what I described above. I'm actually becoming slightly positive about the SDLP, with Eastwood as it's leader.

Fun with Nazi lyrics

UPDATE 8/19/12 The intro for this post has just been re-done, primarily to shorten it.

I do a kind of poetry on this blog. I take the lyrics of songs I listen to and alter them in different ways. On average about 60% of the syllables in my version are mine, 40% are from the original (that was updated 3/28/20). One of the two main ways I alter the lyrics is that I take lyrics about N. Ireland and make them about general liberal-left stuff, or vice versa. The other way is to take lyrics that are politically offensive to me and twist them into more or less the opposite of what they were originally (i.e. I took a song called “Oh no Here Comes a Commie" and made it “Oh no, Here Comes a Fascist”) (those poems also often involve a change of subject as well, and there's a small number of poems that contain only a small amount of material in conflict with what the original authors believe, but at the very least there's that). Almost all of the offensive lyrics that I alter are from Nazi skinhead bands.

I can't remember exactly how it started, but I decided that I like taking the lyrics of racist songs and twisting them into more or less the opposite of what the original said. I like the idea of taking their songs and throwing them back in their face, saying "look what I did, I took your lyrics and twisted them into the exact opposite of what you intended, you racist mother-fucker!” I imagine them reading my poem and recognizing some of the lines and getting pissed off about that in connection with what AT LEAST one line that I put there says (or a word in a line, etc.). Another way of looking at it is that it's like in those cartoons where Elmer Fudd points a gun at Bugs Bunny and Bugs bends it so that the gun is pointed at Fudd. Also, sometimes it's entertaining to read the original lyrics and then read my poem, at least when my version says the opposite of what the original says. I have also frequently done poems based on lyrics I like. (I have often referred to the poems based on offensive stuff as “Those Lyrics”). Almost all the time when I'm twisting offensive lyrics, I more or less change only what has to be changed- if it's completely different from the original, that kind of defeats the idea, although it could still be a good poem. I have also started twisting loyalist lyrics like I twist the racist stuff.

I do these poems because writing them is a fun, creative process, I get to express myself and explains stuff, especially through the notes, and some are really good.

A lot of the poems about N. Ireland are based on lyrics by people who more or less support(ed) the British and/or unionist causes in N. Ireland. With the rest of the N. Ireland poems based on racist stuff from other  countries with a significant chunk of the Irish diaspora, I have included at least one bit of something hostile to white supremacists (See this for more about that). Some of the former bands are Skrewdriver, No Remorse, and Brutal Attack. Some of the latter bands are Final War, Bound for Glory, and Bully Boys. Some poems are based on Nazi Skinhead stuff from other countries like Belgium. Without a lot of Irish-Belgians around talking about "the Cause" I think they probably just go with what their hero Ian Stuart of Skewdriver said about the North.

I have done my best and last calculation of how much of the lyrics are me and how much are the original. I counted all the sylables, and then the sylables of the words I put in the poem and came up with what % of the lyrics are me. ** marks this last, best, and final calculation.

Although this probably goes without saying, I am never or practically never referring to me when I use the first person. You might say the poems are about actual people who are not Tom Shelley or characters or something like that. I was not interested in changing all the first person statements, but I am no Walter Mitty!

The rest of the songs/poems can be found by clicking on the "lyrics" label at the bottom (there are several pages worth of posts, so click on the "older posts" at the bottom of the first page).


Why do I listen to that kind of music? (between late 2008 and mid-2018, I’ve spent an average of about 1 hr. a day listening to music by Nazi Skinheads (probably an average of about 5 hours a day listening to more or less anti-racist or neutral music):
1. I’ve always been interested in skinheads and very much opposed to Nazi Skinheads. In general, there’s something about listening to the music of my enemy that I find fascinating.
2. Although I don’t have to listen to study the lyrics, that is part of why I listen. It’s kind of research. Same for the fan-vids I downloaded from YouTube that have a lot of imagery.
3. The ones I listen to are MUSICALLY good- I like the sound.
4. These "poems" I write (and inspiration often strikes when I'm listening, so I kind of DO need to listen for this reason).

Some other things about me listening to that music:

1. I listen to a small amount of N. Ireland loyalist (anti-Catholic/anti-Irish) music and several of the Nazi songs I listen to have the same message (I’m Irish-American and Catholic).
2. I have heard of other people doing something similar.
3. From about 1989 til 2009 about 70% of the FICTION that I read was by people like Tom Clancy and Stephen Coonts, people who are very close to the political center, and yet half that time I was doing a ton of left-wing activism (the rest of the time I was doing almost nothing political).
4. I have done a ton of activism on anti-racist and/or anti-homophobic issues and did a pretty good job of organizing that way on other issues. This blog has a ton of material that’s anti-racist, anti-homophobic and even more material that is against anti-semitism. 

 

UPDATE 1/21/19 I am leaving the above 2 sections because I DID for about 10 years listen to that music, but I also need to announce that I stopped listening to it recently. I learned recently the hard way that listening to it when I'm already depressed just makes my depression worse, and I also worry that anti-racist people will attack me over listening to that stuff. On the other hand, the last thing I'm going to do is delete my poetry from this blog. To one degree or another it's really good.

Why do I provide a link to the original lyrics even when they are offensive fascist or loyalist stuff?

1. I probably have nothing to worry about, but I DO worry about getting sued or legally harassed by the authors of the original lyrics, who despise me. I think that linking to the original lyrics might make it less likely that sort of attack on me would work.
2. I would say something similar about being criticized for stealing from artists without giving them credit.
3. Some of the best lines in my poems are unaltered from the original and I believe strongly in giving credit it when it’s due.
4. When less than about 50% of my poem is me and at least 51% of it is the original and my poem is saying the opposite of what the original was saying, sometimes it’s kind of amusing to read the original and then read my poem.
5. Sometimes the best lines were mostly or entirely written by me and I want people to know which amazing lines were written by me.

That's about it. Here are the poems- with some notes, which are probably more or less needed.

1. Costello's Song. Irish politics.
2. Red Power. American politics.
3. The Spirit of Che Guevara. Global resistance to oppression.
4. Fuck Orangeism. Anti-Sectarian Protestants in N. Ireland.

Costello's Song

Based on "White Power" by Skrewdriver, original lyrics are here.

1. Seamus Costello was a socialist republican leader in the 1970s, for more see the post below this.
2. FF and FG are Fianna Fail and Fine Gael, the two largest parties in the Republic, more or less centrist/centre-right.
3. The divison of Ireland and the sectarianism that goes with it weaken various liberal, left, progressive, and working-class movements, and therefore are part of the socio-economic problem; also, the two main unionist parties are basically centre-right, and Blair's economic policies have not helped the North.
4. "just sit and scoff" I'm exaggerating how little was done to stop it, buit 90% of the time, unless I have a good reason, I don't like to alter the lyrics unless neccessary (i.e. Red instead of White). Same thing with the line about corruption. Also, on a related note, it now exaggerates how little was done to stop the growth of corporate power- it might also exaggerate how powerful corporations in Ireland have become.
5. Aside from a huge chunk the loyalist paramilitaries, there aren't many fascists in Ireland (although, there's a large number in Britain and they often visit N. Ireland), and I don't advocate killing them, but I didn't have a good reason for changing that line any more than I did.
6. The line that ends with "begun," might not be the Queen's English, but I'm an Irish Republican, so fuck the Queen (seriously, though, it rhymes).
7. The North is a lot less Orange today than it used to be, but aside from uniting Ireland, there's still room for improvement on that front.
8. Ian Paisley was a notorious anti-Catholic bigot most of his life.
9. In my songs, I use the word "fascist" to refer to more than just Nazis, but also as a statement against bigotry (that doesn't mean I advocsate killing them, but in these first two poems using the word "fascist" is meant to bring up the subject of bigotry, something otherwise absent from the poem).
10. UPDATE Both Red Power and Costello's Song have a line about corporations taking over, and the second half of that line is different for each song. I'm switching them- the slam dance analogy makes more sense in the American context.
**11. 35% of this version is me, 65% is the original.
12. I give this song/poem four out of five stars.
13. Orange is the color of anti-Catholic bigotry in N. Ireland.
14. It's about republican socialists in general. I don't think Costello advocated the violent overthrow of the Dublin State. In any case this poem isn't advocating that. and today probably only a very small minority of republican socialists advocate that.

I stand and watch my country, going down the drain
The Brits and unionists, FF and FG, they are all to blame
The corporations have taken over, we just let them advance
But if we remember Seamus, we still have a chance

Red Power
For Ireland
Red Power
Today
Red Power
For the world
Before it gets too late

Well we've seen a lot of privitisation, we just sit and scoff
We've seen a lot of corruption, and the judges let 'em off

We've got to do something, to try and stop the rot
And the fascists that abuse us, they should all be shot

Are we going to finish what Seamus begun?
Have they got the Republican Left on the run?
Orange society is a mess
We ain't gonna take much more of this

What do we need?

Red Power
For Ireland
Red Power
Today
Red Power
For the world
Before it gets too late

Well, if we don't win our battle, and all does not go well
It's Apocalypse for Ireland and we'll see Ian Paisley in hell

********

Red Power

Based on "White Power" by Skrewdriver, original lyrics are here.

1. I exaggerate how little was done to stop the growth of corporate power and privitisation, but crucial parts of those lines are in the original.
2. "fascists" I don't advocate killing them (and with some exceptions I don't believe they should be shot either), but the vast majority of the time, unless I have a good reason, I don't like to alter the lyrics unless neccessary (i.e. Red instead of White).
3. I slightly exaggerate how bad things are for the poor and how judges treat corruption.
4. Obviously no one's being drafted, but it could happen, it's even slightly possible with Obama, and just recently it was very possible.
5. Obama, who is slightly to the left of the Clintonites, is probably going to disapoint, but A: he's probably still better than McCain (especially considering Palin), and B: overwhelmingly the current situation can be blamed on the two groups mentioned.
6. In my songs, I use the word "fascist" to refer to more than just Nazis, but also as a statement against bigotry.
7. UPDATE Both Red Power and Costello's Song have a line about corporations taking over, and the second half of that line is different for each song. I'm switching them- the slam dance analogy makes more sense in the American context.
8. "Slam dance." Probably something like 2/3 of concerts, slam dancing/moshing is the exact opposite of what I'm talking about. But "slam dance" rhymes and mostly makes sense. (of course it's been about 13 years now, but I doubt it's changed)
**9. 34% of this version is me, 66% is the original.
10. I give this song/poem four out of five stars.
11. Obviously corporations have been dominant in America for many decades, but in the last 20 or so years it's gotten worse- i.e. privatization.
12. This is about combating injustice in different ways and what I have in mind overall would be about 99% non-violent.

I stand and watch my country, going down the drain
The Republicans and Clintonites, they are all to blame
The corporations have taken over, it's a social slam dance
We used to have the New Deal, now the poor don't have a chance

Red Power
For America
Red Power
Today
Red Power
For the world
Before it gets too late

Well we've seen a lot of privitisation, we just sit and scoff
We've seen a lot of corruption, and the judges let 'em off

We've got to do something, to try and stop the rot
And the fascists that abuse us, they should all be shot

Are we going to sit while they draft our sons?
Have they got the unions on the run?
Capitalist society is a mess
We ain't gonna take much more of this

What do we need?

Red Power
For America
Red Power
Today
Red Power
For the world
Before it gets too late

Well, if we don't win our battle, and all does not go well
It's Apocalypse for the world and we'll see George Bush in hell

******

The Spirit of Che Guevara

Based on "Soldier of Freedom" by Skrewdriver, original lyrics are here.

0. UPDATE 2/15/19  The line about heroes bleeding- I could have sworn it was a fairly or at least sort of common line when discussing martyrs, etc. of armed struggle. And after searching for that phrase just now, it seems like practically no one uses it the way I was using it. I might change it sometime soon.
1. I'll keep this brief, but I don't believe universally in seperatism. There has to be either serious oppression and/or something like 65% support for it among the relevant population, or some kind of combination (that applies to independence, I have slightly lower standards for autonomy) (besides what I mention below, I support the Basques, Turkey's kurds, iraq's kurds, possibly some others, and potentially many non-European-American nations inside the US (the main issue there is how much popular support there is for seperatism among that nation, also possibly all residents of the area that will become independent (if a situation roughly geographically similar to the Irish situtaion develops, I would look at it roughly the same way); I do not, at this point, support Scottish Independence (UPDATE 4/11/16 I do NOW since last years British election saw the Scottish Nationalists get 56 out of 59 seats in Scotland (in the previous British Parliament they had 6 out of 59 which is believe is very close to what they have gotten in recent decades)).
2. I don't know how sympathetic Cheney was to Apartheid, but I believe that he voted for a resolution labeling Nelson Mandela and/or the ANC as terrorists. (UPDATE 1/31/09: Although I wouldn't be surprised if he did exactly what I said he did, I have found two things about him I'm certain of, which are basically the same as that (including one vote against sanctions on S. Africa))
3. Although I'm not sure that line is worded the right way, the World Bank and IMF frequently do stuff that makes poverty worse despite popular support for progressive economics in countries that get involved with the World Bank. In South Africa for example, one or both institutions thwarted the ANC government from advancing the economic policies they had campaigned on at the end of Apartheid (I'm not sure to what degree some of the people in the ANC had to be dragged into implementing WB's preferred policies, but the fact is that that kind of aid from international institutions shouldn't be used to discourage democratically elected governments from implementing the progressive economics they said they would when campaigning for office).
4. The last line is adopted from my favorite song, "Your Daughters and Your Sons." The lyrics are here.
5. Belfast is the capital of Northern Ireland.
6. Spain refers to the Spanish Civil War, which was won by the fascist side, which was followed by a fascist takeover of most of Europe.
7. S. Africa refers to the anti-Apartheid struggle.
8. The couplet that mentions Little Bighorn is referring to conflict between America settlers and the US Army on one hand, and Native Americans on the other. The tentacles part is about how after that battle, the westward settlement of the US continued.
9. The Warsaw Ghetto during World War II saw a rebellion by the Jewish occupants.
10. West Bank refers to the Palestinian struggle.
11. East Timor experienced a genocidal occupation by Indonesia until 1999.
**12. 48% of this version is me, 52% is the original, which doesn't count eliminating the 3-line chorus but does count adding two completely new lines at the very end.
13. I give this song/poem five out of five stars.
14. The reference to class pride is about WORKING-CLASS pride, and is not the best line I've done, (because most of the conflicts in this poem are more about national/religious/racial oppression than they are about class oppression) but it's okay.
15. UPDATE 7/9/12 This is not exclusively about armed struggle.
16. UPDATE 6/19/16 I changed WIN to SURVIVE in the 2nd line of the 3rd verse.

I don't fight for money, the whole world is my land
I'm fighting for freedom, I know where I stand
I fight for the nations, that haven't yet died
I fight to stop Imperialism, creating global class pride

I fought in Belfast, where the heroes bled
I fought in Spain, but the Brown disease, it spread
I fought in South Africa, against Dick Cheney's pets
Now I see democracy undermined by World Bank debt

I fought at Little Big Horn, but the tentacles spread
We are determined to survive, we will plow on ahead
I fought in the Warsaw Ghetto and the West Bank
With our rifles and petrol bombs we took on their tanks

We won in East Timor, against mass slaughters
It'll happen again, because you sow the seed of freedom in your sons and your daughters

*****

This one is actually not based on a racist song, it's a N. Ireland version of my favorite anti-fascist song. Considering the source of the original (white British people) and the lyrics, it's mostly aimed at celebrating Protestants who are anti-sectarian, or even better, republican. The original is called "Fuck Fascism" by The Oppressed. I guess I call it "Fuck Orangeism," (Orange is the color of anti-Catholic bigotry in N. Ireland) although I don't change all the key lyrics since there are obviously racists and fascists there (and the vast majority of them are associated with the Unionist/Loyalist side). It's about a mixture of violence and, mostly, non-violence.

**10% of this version is me, 90% is the original.

I give this song/poem four out of five stars.

The web-site of The Oppressed has shut down and I can't find the lyrics on-line except for a long discussion, so I'll just post them below the altered version. UPDATE 3/9/20 I decided that I like this poem more than I used to, but I also decided that a few more words need to be changed- it was written in 2008 and talks about an Orange State as if there wasn't one at that time, and there kind of WAS- I guess you could say that now, in 2020 it makes more sense since it isn't Orange at all today.

"Fuck Orangeism"
You don't understand us, we're nobody's fool
We know there's no freedom, under Orange rule
You'll never oppress us, you'll never dictate
Don't you see, we don't need, your sectarian hate

FASCISM, FASCISM, FUCK YOU AND YOUR FASCISM
FASCISM, FASCISM, FUCK YOU AND YOUR FASCISM

We'll NEVER surrender, we'll NEVER give in
We will NEVER turn our backs or let the sectarians win
So, don't try and tell us, about your Orange state
Don't you see, we don't need, your racial hate


"Fuck Fascism"
You don't understand us, we're nobody's foll,
We know there's no freedom, under fascist rule,
You'll never oppress us, you'll never dictate
Don't you see, we don't need, your racial hate

CHORUS:FASCISM,FASCISM,FUCK YOU AND YOUR FASCISM

We'll never surrender, we'll never give in,
we will never turn our backs, or let the racists win,
So don't try and tell us about your fascist state,
Don't you see, we don't need, your racial hate


One last note: Even with the songs that are only about 10% me (and at the upper end, one is 75% me), I have a request, although I don't have strong feelings or expectations about this. First, I want credit for these songs. Second, I'd appreciate it if the notes follow the lyrics around the internet. If you modify the lyrics further, please either make some notes for the changes if you leave some of my changes, or just provide a link to this URL so people can see my version. Although I'm not sure how many people will like what I'm doing with the lyrics, to one degree or another (depending on how much I changed them) I'm proud of these songs- and at the risk of getting a little personal, if people like the songs, I could really use the extra boost of getting credit for them right now (or if you don't like them, they were all written by Sarah Palin- that fascist, what kind of sick person enjoys altering racist lyrics?).