Understanding the Irish Republican Socialist Party

[Leigha]

Found myself reading about Bernadette Devlin this afternoon, whilst looking for something completely unrelated. For those who are unaware - she was part of the Irish Republican Socialist party. She was an Irish civil rights leader and became the youngest member of British Parliament.

After engaging, on the side of the residents, in the Battle of the Bogside, she was convicted of incitement to riot in December 1969, for which she served a short jail term. After being re-elected in the 1970 general election, Devlin declared that she would sit in Parliament as an independent socialist.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Irish_Republican_Socialist_Party

My question is, how can a political party foster and support Republican ideals, as well as Marxist and Socialist ones (at the same time)? I'm wondering if these terms are defined differently in Ireland, as to enable them complementary of one another?

Can you help me to understand this better? 

[Syne]

A republic is just a representative form of government that usually has safeguards against various forms of tyranny. Ancient Rome and Greece were organized as republics for a time.
Socialism is more an economic strategy than an organization of government. It's more about who owns what, and how things get distributed.
While the free market is most associated with republicanism in the US, there is nothing about a republic, itself, that necessitates it be that way. Although it could be argued that the two have a natural affinity, both being based on consensual interactions.

[Leigha]

I think that the term ''republic'' is what has been tripping me up. It's been such a ''dirty word'' in our culture that I can only see ''republican'' in that light, but your explanation is very helpful. Thanks!

But, Bernadette Devlin eventually left the ''republican party'' and became an Independent Socialist. I wonder if there is any correlation between that and modern day ideals about socialism. Hmm.

[Syne]

Well, republicans are the only ones protecting the ideals of a republic in our country.

[Leigha]

A republic is just a representative form of government that usually has safeguards against various forms of tyranny. Ancient Rome and Greece were organized as republics for a time.
Socialism is more an economic strategy than an organization of government. It's more about who owns what, and how things get distributed.
While the free market is most associated with republicanism in the US, there is nothing about a republic, itself, that necessitates it be that way. Although it could be argued that the two have a natural affinity, both being based on consensual interactions.

Well, republicans are the only ones protecting the ideals of a republic in our country.

This is worth exploring. How do you mean? 

It's interesting, and a bit confusing...that we use words like ''democracy'' and the ''republic,'' to describe the US' ideals. Yet, Democrats and Republicans are continuing to draw deeper lines in the sand, that separate them. 

This is why we need an Indepedent as President. A competent one, but it would be a nice change. You have to admit, many Republicans don't really uphold decent values, either.

[Syne]

A republic is just a representative form of government that usually has safeguards against various forms of tyranny. Ancient Rome and Greece were organized as republics for a time.
Socialism is more an economic strategy than an organization of government. It's more about who owns what, and how things get distributed.
While the free market is most associated with republicanism in the US, there is nothing about a republic, itself, that necessitates it be that way. Although it could be argued that the two have a natural affinity, both being based on consensual interactions.

Well, republicans are the only ones protecting the ideals of a republic in our country.

This is worth exploring. How do you mean? 

It's interesting, and a bit confusing...that we use words like ''democracy'' and the ''republic,'' to describe the US' ideals. Yet, Democrats and Republicans are continuing to draw deeper lines in the sand, that separate them. 

Not really interesting or confusing, if you know your history and forms of government. The US is constitutional republic, and nowhere in the US Constitution is the word "democracy" ever mentioned. This is because the Constitution is concerned with the formation and organization of the federal government, which is a representative democracy, but with safeguards, like the electoral college and equal state representation in the Senate, that protect against a tyranny of the majority...a major concern of the founding fathers. States tend to utilize more direct democratic mechanisms like referendum votes, etc., but even states have the separation of powers as checks and balances.

Republicans have always protected against majority rule, as that party was explicitly formed to fight slavery, and has always protected the means of the republic to address such problems. Democrats has always supported slavery, Jim Crow, and bolstering the majority, like populous coastal states and big cities, over the minority, like the rest of the country. Nothing is new about any of this other than the leftist propaganda and lies. As Democrats move toward more extreme goals, like actively seeking to remake American as a socialist state, the deepening divide is wholly their doing, as history has shown the left moving further left over the decades, while the right has remained relatively the same. They just have to lie in order to cover for their own extremism.

This is why we need an Indepedent as President. A competent one, but it would be a nice change. You have to admit, many Republicans don't really uphold decent values, either.

Aside from Independents tending to be one-issue parties, independents also espouse many leftist policy goals and largely caucus with Democrats. If you think that's a significant difference, or even electorally viable, well...that's cute. Single-issue parties are just as intent on cramming their edicts down on everyone else as Democrats are.

You've drank the "resistance" kool-aid if you really believe significant Republicans don't uphold decent values, especially relative to Democrats.

[billvon]

Well, republicans are the only ones protecting the ideals of a republic in our country.

Perhaps.  By such literal definitions, though, only democrats are protecting democracy in the USA.

[Syne]

Well, republicans are the only ones protecting the ideals of a republic in our country.

Perhaps.  By such literal definitions, though, only democrats are protecting democracy in the USA.

That's just plain ignorant or naive. Democratic mechanisms are valid within a republic, especially in state and local government. So Republicans are protecting local democracy BECAUSE they protect the republic. Whereas Democrats seek majority tyranny, to the exclusion of a republic. It a lot like Jonathan Haidt's foundations of morality, where conservatives favor all five equally but leftists favor only two, to the exclusion of the rest. The definition of narrow-minded. And in the case of democracy, a single-minded demand to get their way...and throw a little tantrum for years when they don't...regardless of who has to suffer for it.

[Leigha]

A republic is just a representative form of government that usually has safeguards against various forms of tyranny. Ancient Rome and Greece were organized as republics for a time.
Socialism is more an economic strategy than an organization of government. It's more about who owns what, and how things get distributed.
While the free market is most associated with republicanism in the US, there is nothing about a republic, itself, that necessitates it be that way. Although it could be argued that the two have a natural affinity, both being based on consensual interactions.

Well, republicans are the only ones protecting the ideals of a republic in our country.

This is worth exploring. How do you mean? 

It's interesting, and a bit confusing...that we use words like ''democracy'' and the ''republic,'' to describe the US' ideals. Yet, Democrats and Republicans are continuing to draw deeper lines in the sand, that separate them. 

Not really interesting or confusing, if you know your history and forms of government. The US is constitutional republic, and nowhere in the US Constitution is the word "democracy" ever mentioned. This is because the Constitution is concerned with the formation and organization of the federal government, which is a representative democracy, but with safeguards, like the electoral college and equal state representation in the Senate, that protect against a tyranny of the majority...a major concern of the founding fathers. States tend to utilize more direct democratic mechanisms like referendum votes, etc., but even states have the separation of powers as checks and balances.

Republicans have always protected against majority rule, as that party was explicitly formed to fight slavery, and has always protected the means of the republic to address such problems. Democrats has always supported slavery, Jim Crow, and bolstering the majority, like populous coastal states and big cities, over the minority, like the rest of the country. Nothing is new about any of this other than the leftist propaganda and lies. As Democrats move toward more extreme goals, like actively seeking to remake American as a socialist state, the deepening divide is wholly their doing, as history has shown the left moving further left over the decades, while the right has remained relatively the same. They just have to lie in order to cover for their own extremism.

This is why we need an Indepedent as President. A competent one, but it would be a nice change. You have to admit, many Republicans don't really uphold decent values, either.

Aside from Independents tending to be one-issue parties, independents also espouse many leftist policy goals and largely caucus with Democrats. If you think that's a significant difference, or even electorally viable, well...that's cute. Single-issue parties are just as intent on cramming their edicts down on everyone else as Democrats are.

You've drank the "resistance" kool-aid if you really believe significant Republicans don't uphold decent values, especially relative to Democrats.

No drinking of anything - I'm a realist, and believe that there are good/bad on the Repub side, as well as the Democratic side of the aisle. It's imperative to find a way to be objective about one's partyline affiliation, lest you be swept away with anything and everything that they're willing to do. I have friends who are Republicans and everything Trump does, they automatically agree with. It's like they really don't think past their party affiliation, as if someone on ''their side,'' could ever be corrupt. Not saying Trump is corrupt, just using him as an example. And they look at Democrats as inherently evil folks who ALL want to destroy the country. Sure, some do, but not all.

It's not easy to be objective, but it's worth it, in the long run. Maybe even in the short term.

[Syne]

Aside from Independents tending to be one-issue parties, independents also espouse many leftist policy goals and largely caucus with Democrats. If you think that's a significant difference, or even electorally viable, well...that's cute. Single-issue parties are just as intent on cramming their edicts down on everyone else as Democrats are.

You've drank the "resistance" kool-aid if you really believe significant Republicans don't uphold decent values, especially relative to Democrats.

No drinking of anything - I'm a realist, and believe that there are good/bad on the Repub side, as well as the Democratic side of the aisle. It's imperative to find a way to be objective about one's partyline affiliation, lest you be swept away with anything and everything that they're willing to do. I have friends who are Republicans and everything Trump does, they automatically agree with. It's like they really don't think past their party affiliation, as if someone on ''their side,'' could ever be corrupt. Not saying Trump is corrupt, just using him as an example. And they look at Democrats as inherently evil folks who ALL want to destroy the country. Sure, some do, but not all.

It's not easy to be objective, but it's worth it, in the long run. Maybe even in the short term.

No, you just tell yourself you're a realist to make you feel better. I was "never Trump" in 2016, still disagree with his fiscal liberalism, find plenty of bad actors, like Mitt Romney and the late John McCain, on the right, and even registered and voted Democrat in the past. But that doesn't reflect on the vast majority of Republicans except by fallacious guilt by association and believing leftist media lies, i.e. drinking the kool-aid. There's no accounting for the people you're willing to call friends. That's on you. Don't use your limited personal and anecdotal experience to color you perception of the entire world.

Even if there are some Democrats who do not want to kill babies and destroy our freedom, when do we EVER hear them pushing back against those who do? I sure don't, so they must do it in hushed voices behind closed doors, lest the social media gestapo come for them.

Sitting on the fence and picking Democrat-lite independents is not inherently objective. At worst, it's a fallacious belief that the middle ground is always better, and at best, it's knowingly admitting that most Democrats are not worth voting for but accepting their policies from independent candidates anyway.