Chapter 1, Footnote 21, Page 6:

Additional information concerning the relationship between socialism and republicanism in Northern Ireland is provided in this earlier version of the main paragraphs comprising pages 323 and 324: There seem to be multiple phenomena which are contributing to the calculation by dissident sympathizers that dissident violence is acceptable because destabilization may prove more conducive to their wellbeing. The very small number of violent dissidents would be surely be apprehended and convicted through assistance from the public, if their initiatives were not accepted to some significant extent by their neighbors and associates. The reference to phenomena in rhetoric which encourages such acceptance should not be mistaken for proof that those supplying the rhetoric are genuinely motivated by those phenomena. Nevertheless, identification of these should enable optimization of strategies designed to combat dissident violence. Analysis of dissidents’ statements concerning their motivations for violence emphasizes that the reasons they give have been voiced by nationalist republicans for decades, including demands for the end of “’British occupation,’” and for a “32 county democratic socialist republic.” While their goal of incorporating Northern Ireland into a 32 county united Ireland has been the more salient one within the movement and certainly in the eyes of the press and international observers, the goal of introducing socialism has also been consistently put forth by nationalist republican leaders as a justification for violence and political activism, for at least one hundred years. The constitution of the IRA, the main paramilitary association prior to power-sharing, states that one of its objectives is “to support the establishment of an Irish socialist republic.” This objective has been portrayed often as a high priority. For example, in 1980, Seán Mac Stiofáin, a former chief of staff of the Provisional IRA, called his organization “’a revolutionary left-wing organisation’” and stated that “’as revolutionaries we must be anti-capitalist, we are anti-capitalist, and as anti-capitalist we are revolutionary left.’” In a 1986 speech, Adams asserted that “’real national independence is a prerequisite of socialism’” and “’[y]ou cannot have socialism in a colony or a neo-colony.’” O’Boyle’s descriptions of the role of socialism in republican rhetoric emphasizes its consistent use and effectiveness. For instance, he explains that “[a]n interesting feature of much of the literature produced by the Republican Movement in the 1970s and 1980s is the identification of the movement with the goals of the revolutionary left. Although the split in the Republican Movement in 1969/1970 was characterised as a split between those who wished to orient the movement towards Marxist political activity in a broad-front type scenario and those who were seen as traditional old-school ‘physical force’ republicans, the latter- who formed the Provisional IRA- developed their own left-wing political ideas within a couple of years, perhaps as a result of an influx of rapidly politicized young recruits.” While the financially insecure are naturally more likely to support anti-system violence, the IRA’s socialist rhetoric surely contributed to the organization’s historically greater support “in the ghetto areas of the cities and in the poorer rural areas.” The socialist goal which was put forth consistently by nationalist groups throughout much of the twentieth century has not been achieved. Dissident leaders have emphasized their commitment to socialist goals, seemingly to appeal to those who remain very disappointed that substantially greater financial equity has not been achieved by the power-sharing system. In a 2012 article, Bean observes that the rhetoric of one of the more prominent dissident organizations, the Real IRA, has become “increasingly left-wing.” He points out that this is evident in the Real IRA’s activities and statements in 2011: “Bombings of banks and the City of Culture office in Derry in 2011 were ‘intended to send out the message that while the Irish national and class struggles are distinct, they are not separate’. A statement added that the attacks were part of a strategy of targeting ‘the British government’s capitalist colonial system in Ireland’ and were in response to the actions of bankers and politicians who were exploiting working-class communities during the economic crisis.” Brendan Murtagh and Peter Shirlow suggest some reasons why some acceptance and sympathy for dissident violence may be encouraged by the current economic policies of Sinn Féin leaders such as Adams, who previously rallied support for violence partially through reference to socialist goals. They argue that Sinn Féin “has shifted most in terms of the orthodoxy of its economic thinking, based primarily on the desire to gain middle-class Catholic support tied to their awareness that a previous Marxian analysis of the economy was out of tune with potential voters.” For instance, Sinn Féin had cited the “positive redistribution of resources” as a goal in 2003-2008 but, “[b]y the 2011 Northern Ireland Assembly the term redistribution had disappeared from its manifesto.” Murtagh and Shirlow believe that Sinn Féin “operate[s] a Janus-faced populist rhetoric that articulates welfare protection and social mobility at the same time as promoting an increasing neoliberal order” that “sustain[s] social polarisation.” Consideration of the financial situation currently experienced by many supporters of dissident violence, and comparison of the observed movement of Sinn Féin away from socialism with dissidents’ use of socialist rhetoric to gain support, suggests that promotion of such support through this rhetoric may become less successful if financial conditions and political choices changed. Trends within Northern Ireland and throughout the world indicate that it would be incorrect to attribute dissident violence and its support to poverty and an economic downturn. For instance, careful analysis of trends in violence and economic conditions prior to 1998 in Northern Ireland have shown that higher unemployment was actually associated with lower numbers of killings by republican and loyalist groups. However, an intriguing confluence of economic, political, and dissident violence trends now suggests that dissidents may be employing socialist rhetoric because it is increasing their support now.