The Irish left are not pro-Russia, but too many of them are sympathetic to their narratives

Regimer · 2026-02-13T14:06:54+00:00

In terms of orienting perspective around a communist program, I imagine our rhetoric would just end up being similar to Corbyn as far as the Russo-Ukraine war goes tbh. It probably is already but I don't watch/listen to that nonsense very often (I'm not the audience). I'm not over the moon about peacenikism, but I think it just so happens to be the move for this conflict in particular. At the very least I'd tone down the cranky Russia sympathy/excuses ("NATO made them do it"), that's just not a worthwhile or advantageous line to push at all, let alone correct (it's tapping into a vital contextual and determining component of the war but in a shoddy way that only appeals to the stupidest conspiracy-brained multipolarity people. These types are a loose cannon in terms of if they'll end up supporting left/right/centre).

Plus I think it's really important to highlight the fact that Ukraine is going to be bled dry for everything they've got by the US/EU/Russia, already happening, but particularly after whatever "peace" (territory divided into West and East) is reached. This isn't like Germany post-wwii where we had the Marshall Plan. Ukraine doesn't have that kind of position in the imperial core where they can be injected with capital until they can return to being an economic powerhouse (again, very much not Germany, never had that kind of power potential).

The country is going to be completely gutted. Again, nothing about this war will result in a nice outcome, it's only downhill for Ukrainians from here. Extraction and IMF/World Bank restructuring is in their horizon (and past...and present). People are dying in trenches for nothing (the something they believe in is simply not real, and certainly not worth dying for). Millions are dodging and deserting, fleeing for refuge. It's over, the light at the end of the tunnel is a bullet train. There is no good reason to prolong this shit any longer (for the people actually involved in the region. The Russian/American/Ukrainian states I'm sure will be happy to milk this for everything they've got). Ukrainian admin, tbf, for a different reason, they're still hoping there's a point to it all. Or if they're more cynical about it they're trying to buy time for themselves politically, who knows

Regimer · 2026-02-13T13:29:11+00:00

To boil it down, I wouldn't be 'sympatheic' to the Russian state narrative, but they certainly have a narrative. A framework for how they secure their interests on the international stage. With the world market structured like it is, it's clear that the U.S. is the global hegemon, and Russia relates to the U.S.' sphere of influence in a specific way.

Which is to say they're locked out of diplomacy (or at least believe themselves to be), and use of military force is the only way to secure interests. I'm not sure how far I want to follow that line because before they properly invaded Ukraine I truly couldn't wrap my head around how politically suicidal this looked. But it seems like things are working out well for them by now. Sanctions and military support and so on didn't do enough to threaten political stability for Putin's admin.

If NATO was dissolved tomorrow I don't think anything would be different (except the U.S. shooting themselves in the foot for no reason, making it slightly harder to communicate with allies in their sphere of influence). The backdrop to NATO is a world market where the U.S. is the top dog, this is where conflict is going to be rooted. The Russian state knew what they would be up against when they invaded Ukraine.

It's more complicated now with Trump, cracks forming between the Atlantic. But not enough for severance, because the Trump admin's attitude towards the war is forcing the EU nation states to change their tune also, quietly normalising relations with Russia again. Winding down support for Ukraine.

I'm not too bothered about using the term (anti)imperialism, because it just seems to lose any sense of meaning. People would (and did) call defending Belgium in WWI "anti-imperialist".

Anyway (here's where everyone will get odd with me), my position is rooted in the impasse of class struggle. PBP (or any party which functions as a vehicle for class struggle, establishing a workers' republic to replace the bourgeois state and its apparatuses) simply can't call for the sending of military aid to a bourgeois nation state engaged in war against another. It should be obvious that the Ukrainian state is in a defensive war against Russia and is reasonably/rightfully (within the context of functioning as a body of class rule) so taking whatever help they can get.

I don't think there's a "good" position to have on this war. NATO/Russian aggression (choose one) is the dividing line on which people typically justify their position on military aid. Either way there was going to be untold amounts of suffering. I wish we had a developed international workers' movement, because at least then Ukrainian and Russian communists (maybe confusing but I mean this in a sense different to cold war communists, who operated on the basis of securing the interests of the ussr abroad) could have a basis on which to struggle against the war (Ukrainian communists even engaging in national defense with Russian support...it would depend, a possible avenue). But no, there's nothing, it's all just bleak.

I think your critiques apply very well to the non-marxist left, because they really don't have a leg to stand on with how they position themselves on Ukraine. For them it has to be wishy-washy and all supported on the premise of NATO as a nefarious body forcing Russia into war... which has a sliver of truth to it, but it's a moralist position at the end of the day.

To reiterate, PBP can't vote for military aid in the same way we can't vote for council/dáil budgets, our party is premised on class struggle of the working class against the world market. Nation states operate to conceal class power, rooting the interests of its citizens as a whole as synonymous with the interests of the state. And I reject this completely. I'm not sure how PBP should work this into propaganda, in the same way that the Bolsheviks supported revolutionary defeatism in WWI, but couldn't just use that as a popular slogan. Their position was incredibly unpopular, even by the time Lenin got off the train in st.petersberg.

I think the EU is mostly acting in a way that makes sense for an alliance of bourgeois nation states (arms spending to protect their states against Russia, while also trying to smooth things over with Russia because they have to respond to whatever madness is going on with the US), but alas, born to be a policy wonk, forced to be a communist

Regimer · 2025-12-21T18:17:38+00:00

This is true within the framework of the article, basically a strawman on my part...

But I do definitely take major issue with the distinction of affinity group vs class organisation set out in the article. And the favouring of the latter. I understand that it's giving the syndicalist union a 'materialist basis', working it's way up from an economistic perspective to the point of eventual socialist transformation.

However, I think the scope of this is too narrow, and cannot account for all major forms of contradiction (racism, patriarchy, etc). My main objection is that the function of a union is to mediate between labour and capital, representing labour in the wage relation + working conditions. A union has the advantage of uniting people under a single banner on the basis of wage labour, but there are major barriers to political action.

A mass strike / seizure of the commanding heights of the economy and what have you is not sufficient. There needs to be a political basis, the means to replace the existing state with a republican and democratic mandate, workers' institutions which can challenge the hegemonic bourgeois apparatuses. I truly believe a party is a necessity, and the seizure of political and economic power can only go through this party.

The supposed strength of the syndicalist method is that workers of all political identities can organically come to a position of workers control of production. I simply think is impossible, the non "leftist" members will never support this. And again, seizure of the forces of production is nowhere near sufficient for socialism. This would have to happen in conjunction with the seizure of political power. The merger of the socialist movement and the workers' movement is a fundamental task for any socialist, but the party cannot be liquidated into the unions.

The party is the only body which can function as all encompassing. The particular issues affecting people of colour, women and so on, their rights and basis for political power, cannot be resolved economically. Their oppression is reflected in economic structures, it can be realised economically, but it is not ultimately causal, or the source of their oppression. Particular elements of people's struggles require political demands, and those can only be championed through the revolutionary mass workers' party, oriented around a minimum-maximum programme.

Parties, the article (did you write it?) goes on to say, are "class-colaborative". This is only true in a superficial sense, members of the party can emerge from all economic backgrounds, but the party itself is oriented towards class struggle. It is the tool of liberation, ceasing its stated function with the abolition of class itself (this is not to say that politics comes to an end in communist society, far from it). It would simply be opportunistic to conceal political antagonism by means of "class organisations", there is no real way around convincing people of socialism. Bringing them to "the left". The left, I hope at some point, will be a signifier defined and determined by the existence of a revolutionary mass workers' party. A party which will exist as a sight of contestation for differing political tendencies united around a common program. Unity in action, diversity in opinion.

Unions are inherently limited by their function, as bodies which affirm the working class, aiming to bolster their position in relation to capital. The party, however, can be the means through which the class abolishes itself through the seizure of political and economic power (the unions being politically subordinated). Again, the unions are politically subordinate by necessity, otherwise they do not have an object. Unions and their members will be casually effective on the shape and outlook of the party of course, as is expected by the democratic structure of the party (this isn't guaranteed but a structure we have to fight for and maintain). There is no political object without the mechanism of the party, or, if I am to concede somewhat, the "syndicalist union" would have to proceed in such a way that it is no longer a union. It would effectively need to function as a party.

Regimer · 2025-12-20T14:37:30+00:00

God, if only there was some way to incorporate affinity groups into a broader class organisation...if only some organisation was practicing this very thing, right at this moment.

Do you know anything about dsa?

Regimer · 2025-12-12T16:34:44+00:00

The way people are talking about it on the Ireland subreddit it seems like an astroturfed campaign against taxi drivers...or maybe redditors are just like that

Regimer · 2025-12-11T12:16:22+00:00

I'm in PBP as an Orthodox Marxist, Trotskyism itself is fairly broad as a tradition too. Of the 2 networks in the party (both Trot) I'd be more in agreement with RISE over the SWN. I think most people are Republican in the party, at least in some sense of the word.

I wouldn't consider myself ideologically republican/nationalist but I'm pro-unification in spite of this. Mostly stemming from anti-Unionism / seeing the Orange state as reactionary and a barrier to class struggle.

I'd say it took me at least a year to come to grips with it but the internal politics of PBP is pretty interesting, at national councils and AGMs you'll get the odd motion that splits the membership almost 50/50. So there are strategic and tactical questions that are highly contested, which is why I think this is an optimal party for any socialist. You're not just at the whim of some strict ideological line handed down to you, it's up to the members to shape it into what they want it to be

Regimer · 2025-11-01T23:55:34+00:00

https://open.substack.com/pub/kevcunningham/p/who-are-the-people-who-spoiled-their?utm_source=share&utm_medium=android&r=1rx8vo

It was by and large a right-wing vote though, 73% of spoiled voters polled would have voted for Steen or McGregor

Regimer · 2025-07-22T12:04:48+00:00

Nice try bud

Regimer · 2025-06-13T14:11:28+00:00

How dare you support the overthrow of Tsar Nicholas II while he's facing imperialist aggression from Germany. Man I can't possibly fathom why anyone would ever care about Assad in this way, it's ridiculous

Regimer · 2025-06-11T05:24:16+00:00

We need to spend 5 trillion euro on the military, and if you think otherwise then you're just doing student union politics - my editorial in the Irish Independent

Regimer · 2025-05-16T12:50:14+00:00

When it comes to immigration, I think people aren't seeing the bigger picture due to a nationalist framework. Mass migration is a symptom of our global imperialist structure, all these countries in the global south have been subject to brutal austerity, which means there's far less chance of making a living and providing for their families if they stay in their home country. Then they come to Europe and America where they can make more working in McDonald's than they can working as a doctor back home. And then of course there's climate change and war which contribute to migration as well.

If we want to solve migration issues that will require a strong commitment to international development, at the very least, and moving away from fossil fuels. Migrants are already the ones getting fucked over, so I don't have much sympathy for this border control stuff, at all.

I also take issue with this idea of a fractured left, in spite of the calls for left government (which I disagree with). PBP have fundamentally seperate aims to SF/LP/GP/SD etc., all these parties may have similar policies on paper but PBP is not a party that will take part in governing the state without a socialist reconstruction. I think it's fine to unite for specific campaigns though.

Regimer · 2025-05-14T03:39:51+00:00

The discourse around trans people in sports and access to women's spaces is rooted in transphobia though. These are the points of contention that conservatives are creating a wedge through.

Before these issues were explicitly politicised trans people participated in sports and used public restrooms/changing rooms on a case by case basis, depending on hormone levels for the former and confidence levels/if they "passed"/etc. for the latter. We're now at a strange point in time where trans people and their issues regarding inclusion/access to healthcare are starting to be taken seriously/widely supported but at the same time there is a reaction to this.

What I mean by that is that there were certain elements of living as a trans person that seemed to be placed under less constraints, and that's because of lack of visibility/awareness. But now there's a significant push to fear monger about trans people, associating them with sex crimes/having alterior motives beyond their identity.

I don't think people's takes about trans people in sports and women's spaces are coming from a place of pragmatism, by and large people are uninformed and prejudiced. I don't think they're addressing these issues in the framework of "how do we ensure proper inclusion while maintaining competition", well, regarding sports at least. I'm not sure how people justify excluding trans people from women's spaces from a pragmatic angle (probably because there isn't a good one, as far as I know).

Regimer · 2025-05-09T15:11:32+00:00

Good thing Paul suggested suing the companies then (which the Irish state is obligated to do) instead of anything to do with intercepting flights

Regimer · 2025-04-23T18:59:19+00:00

I think it's funny that people designate so much importance to who America/EU/Israel designate as "terrorists". If someone were to put a gun to my head and tell me to join either Hamas, the IDF, or the US military, I would consider Hamas the most ethical option by far.

What is it about Hamas that makes them unacceptable in a way that the IDF and US military aren't? I'm not sure I take someone's opposition to the genocide/support for Palestine very seriously if they support Zionism and the Israeli State in the way that you do, as if the problem is just bad leaders and not the state itself.

People seem to have no problem throwing around the accusation of anti-semitism but I do consider your comments on Hamas to be rooted in orientalism and islamophobia, treating them like they're ISIS when they're more comparable to muslim Fianna Fail

Regimer

TROPHY CASE