Strange report from the SWP

by 1917 Mon Sep 09, 2002 13:23

I have to ask what are the authors of this report taking?

This sounds a bit like the pot calling the kettle black.

by Justin Moran - Sinn Fein Mon Sep 09, 2002 14:03 maigh_nuad at yahoo dot com

I think it's interesting in parts. Some of it is the standard nonsense accusing others of sectarianism etc. and so on but it's honest in places as well. It's the first time I've seen them basically admit they didn't do well in the general election, previously it's always been evasive generally positive claims.

Also honest enough about the organisation's weakness in terms of reliance on a core group of activists rather than a broader activist base and their use of front organisations to push their own strategic objectives.

I'm looking forward to seeing the Socialist Worker going weekly I have to admit. How will they maintain the famously high production quality on a weekly basis? I wait with bated breath. ;)

by Ray Mon Sep 09, 2002 14:14

As far as I can see its already written by computer

The latest [revelations/reports/announcements] by the [government/tribunals/colleges/Independent Newspapers group] are a shocking indictment of capitalism. Its time for all socialists to unite behind [the ANL/Globalise Resistance/the IAWM] and come to the demonstration on [Saturday at Parnell Square/Saturday at Parnell Square/Saturday at Parnell Square]

In this time of [the downturn/1930's in slow motion/crisis in global capitalism], we should take heed of the words of [Mark in Capital/Lenin in What is to be Done?/Trotsky in Shoot Them like Partridges/Kieran Allen in last week's Socialist Worker] and ask why [ICTU/USI/SIPTU/Labour/the government] won't [call for a general strike/arm the workers/occupy the Department of Education/raise the minimum wage to E10 an hour/call a demonstration for next Saturday, meeting at Parnell Square].

A few more paragraphs like that and they can go daily:)

by Harry Pollitt Mon Sep 09, 2002 14:28

Classic Ray! :)

by conor - socialist alternative (in a personal capacity) Mon Sep 09, 2002 15:57 conor at ziplip dot com

"Our strategic goal over the next period is to build up the
mass anti-capitalist movement."
"Our strategic goal over the next period is to build up the
mass anti-capitalist movement."
"Our strategic goal over the next period is to build up the
mass anti-capitalist movement."

keep saying it over and over -

"Our strategic goal over the next period is to build up the
mass anti-capitalist movement."
"Our strategic goal over the next period is to build up the
mass anti-capitalist movement."

-still, at least kieron allen isnt appearing with lord mountcharles in vip

by blistered Mon Sep 09, 2002 16:11

.

by Kevin Wingfield - Socialist Workers Party Mon Sep 09, 2002 16:33 kevinwingfield at oceanfree dot net

The SWP’s critics make a couple of points about the document we produced for our meeting with our sister organisations earlier in the year.

On the failure to achieve a Socialist Alliance in the South: As people may know since before the local elections some years ago the SWP has been seeking co-operation with other left of Labour parties in the electoral field.

When we first wrote to the Socialist Party suggesting such a thing before the last local elections, they replied with a number of long denunciations of the SWP. We did not expect the SP to agree with us on all questions or even to particularly like us, our proposal was that the two parties discuss co-ordinating our efforts in elections. After an exchange of correspondence the SP made it clear they were not interested in any kind of electoral pact with us.

Later, when a number of independents proposed the Socialist Alliance initiative, we enthusiastically supported it. Again the SP after umming and erring for a while decided it was not for them. It was (and is) the view of the SWP that an alliance including the two largest far left parties (SWP and SP) would be an important step forward in presenting an electoral alternative to the establishment parties and pose a socialistic alternative to the rise of republicanism. But of course such an alliance requires the co-operation of the SP – that was not forthcoming on these occasions.

We believe the SP was acting in a sectarian manner in refusing to seriously consider co-operation with the SWP. The SP is part of the CWI and it appears the same tactics are being applied elsewhere by that organisation. In England for example the Socialist Party walked out of the Socialist Alliance there when they were outvoted at a conference of the SA.

This is the back ground to our comments on the SP-CWI.
On the other hand things may be improving as following a series of approaches we made to the SP and others in relation to the Nice referendum campaign, it seems likely that co-operation over this at least will take place. We welcome this development.

On the Election. The Left was squeezed, that is obvious. Outside of the important exceptions of Joe Higgins and Claire Daly, the far left vote was very small for ALL candidates. The point was that large numbers of people disaffected with establishment politics voted for Sinn Fein, etc. Part of the reason for this is the idiotic refusal of sections of the far-left to co-operate, see above.

The SWP has been crucial to getting a number of initiatives off the ground, including major demonstrations by the Irish Anti War Movement. For us there is no contradiction between putting our backs into building action via united fronts and building our party. If the revolutionary does not seek to grow but simply rides the waves of protest then it can have no hope of achieving socialism.

Oh and Yes, our stategic objective *IS* to help build the anti-capitalist movement over the next period.

What self-respectiong socialist would ridicule such an objective?

Finally, Ray is clearly far too sophisticated for Socialist Worker. Instead he devotes most of his time to denouncing spam on Indymedia – good luck!!

Kevin Wingfield
Socialist Workers Pary

by Justin Moran - Sinn Fein Mon Sep 09, 2002 17:00 maigh_nuad at yahoo dot com

>The SWP’s critics make a couple of points about >the document we produced for our meeting with >our sister organisations earlier in the year.

Indeed, hopefully, we can keep it from degenerating into a slagging match.

>the South: As people may know since before the >local elections some years ago the SWP has been >seeking co-operation with other left of Labour >parties in the electoral field.

That the SWP were proposing that is fairly well known and maybe it would have benefitted the SP and SWP but the parties did manage to divide up the constituencies between them and refrain from running against each other. Thus one wonders whether they would have done any better as one.

From the SP's point of view, they have a TD and a couple of councillors, one could be forgiven for being an SP member and asking oneself what the SWP can really bring to the game. What do they actually have to gain from such an alliance?

As for the Socialist Alliance in Britain, my understanding is that the SP walked out because the constitution/regulations for the organisation favoured the largest group, the SWP, and they feared being dominated. How true that is I don't know as I haven't really bothered looking into it but such is what I was told.

>It was (and is) the view of the SWP that an >alliance including the two largest far left >parties (SWP and SP) would be an important step >forward in presenting an electoral alternative

Interestingly in Resistance, while repeatedly making this call, you also seem to be calling on the Stickies to join in. Is that correct and are you serious and how do you think the Sticks would react?

>socialistic alternative to the rise of >republicanism.

Those dastardly shinners again. Curse them and their handsome spokespersons. For truly it is written than without them the revolution would occur tomorrow, Friday at the latest.

>On the other hand things may be improving as >following a series of approaches we made to the >SP and others in relation to the Nice referendum >campaign, it seems likely that co-operation over >this at least will take place. We welcome this >development.

Speaking purely from a SF perspective, my understanding is that the SP approached other groups and certainly were the ones who called the meeting last week where the issue was first discussed.

>Oh and Yes, our stategic objective *IS* to help >build the anti-capitalist movement over the next >period.
>What self-respectiong socialist would ridicule >such an objective?

None I suppose, all for building anti-capitalist movements, but some people have an impression, from where they got it I don't know, that the SWP build such movements and broad fronts with the express or implied intention of being the dominant force and using it to recruit and strengthen the party as distinct from the movement.

Having only been really involved with the SWP in one such front, GR, I'm not going to open a can of worms by commenting on the rightness or wrongness of such an attitude merely that it exists, is honestly held by many people, and thus causes them to look at the SWP's committment to building such a movement with just the merest touch of cynicism.

by Kommy Mon Sep 09, 2002 17:52

Surely the running of the country should now be handed over to the anarchists. With around 40% of the electorate not voting, as the anarchists suggested, the government should have handed over the reigns of power to the anarchists. This would have presented a not inconsiderable problem for the anarchists who don't want power, but a fair spake for all.
The government however pre-empted this dilemma and seized power in a bloody coup (health cuts, etc). Anarchists have vowed to continue to struggle for democracy (not of the current gombeen democracy sort but true representational democracy).

by x Mon Sep 09, 2002 18:36

It's nice to have living reminders of the distant past around, although its a shame how individuals can get stuck in redundant and irrelevant ideas.

It's a pity the natural law party didn't run in the last elections because by polling ahead of the SWP they would have put the SWP's result in perspective.

That comparison isn't completely fair though - after all, the Natural Law Party isn't a cult.

by Sean Mon Sep 09, 2002 18:41

In the SWP internal document leaked it is interesting to see their analysis of Ireland post general election.

SWP seem to think that the reson why they did badly in the election was because of the rise of Sinn Féin. I accept that a cetain amount of 'squeezing' of the left vote occoured. For example the SP vote in Dublin South, Dublin South West and Cork N-Central would be far higher if SF candidates were not there.

However they fail to see that the SWP just do not get support because of their methods. SP nearly got 2 seats. This is because the SP get support from ordinary people because they're a campaigning party based among the working class and do not flit from issue to issue constantly.

I'm also interested to see that SWP will 'use' the Socialist Envioronmental Alliance in northern elections again. The reality is that that 'Alliance' only had one member, the SWP! While on the north, it is interesting to see the SWP will "openly and confidently take on the
politics SF and the PUP", previously the SWP have supported SF and the IRA.

Like Justin Morgan I also look forward to the Weekly Socialist Worker. I wonder if they realise the work, and support, needed to go weekly!

by Justin Moran - Sinn Fein Mon Sep 09, 2002 18:58 maigh_nuad at yahoo dot com

>While on the north, it is interesting to see the >SWP will "openly and confidently take on the
>politics SF and the PUP", previously the SWP >have supported SF and the IRA.

They have? I see, well either they were doing a very bad job of it or you might be just the smallest bit incorrect in that. I can't claim to be familiar with the finer points of the SWP's policy on the North over the last few decades but certainly in the last five years they have been trenchant critics of Sinn Fein, and reality, which with republicanesque passion, they refuse to recognise :)

by IST Supporter Mon Sep 09, 2002 19:03

this discussion document had been freely available on the IS Tendency site.

http://www.istendency.org/islatest.html

see posting dated 20th August.

by Kevin Wingfield - SWP Mon Sep 09, 2002 19:33 kevinwingfield at oceanfree dot net

I am not intersted in dealing with purely point scoring of some of the postings so I'll confine myself to a politics of theissues.

Justin asks:
>What do they [the SP] actually have to gain from such an alliance?

It would be wrong to judge this on the basis of short term advantage for this or that faction – that really is sectarianism. Although I believe the whole Left would gain.

Most people of a Left disposition have heard of the SP and the SWP and either think they are the same or wonder why in hell they are separate. Political divergences on important issues divide us, therefore full blown unity is not likely, at least not in the short run, but any left leaning worker thinks it is baffling that we cannot present a united face at elections and on matters where we agree. I and my comrades in the SWP agree with them.

A Socialist Bloc would begin to show the world the Left was serious and was more concerned with changing the world that fighting each other.
Justin asks:
>you also seem to be calling on the Stickies to join in. >Is that correct and are you serious and how do you think the Sticks would react?

How they react is up to them, but we in the SWP are serious.

Justin writes:
> all for building anti-capitalist movements, but some people have an impression, from where they got it I don't know, that the SWP build such movements and broad fronts with the express or implied intention of being the dominant force and using it to recruit and strengthen the party as distinct from the movement.

Two points: As I argued in my earlier posting we are committed to helping build a broad-based large-scale anti-capitalist movement; resistance to Bush’s war without end, etc, etc. I think it is obvious to anyone that we are in the forefront in building these movements. And there is no contradiction in simultaneously building a revolutionary party through this work.

The SWP believe in a mass movement to fight the war, and we help build it. In the longer run we also believe we need working class revolution to destroy the system which causes wars. And to help promote this prospect we need a revolutionary party. That is why we openly recruit those who support our politics.

(This is not to take away from activists from other traditions although it was noticeable that the Provos only managed one person to GR. Parties and groups that think so little of these activities in practise are poorly placed to complain about the influence of those who DO take anti capitalism seriously).
Justin lightens the mood:
> Those dastardly shinners again. >Curse them and their handsome spokespersons. For truly it is written than without them the revolution would occur tomorrow, Friday at the latest.

I suppose this passes as reasoned debate in the circles you frequent. Of course revolutionary socialists oppose nationalism. Many people have illusions that SF is an anti corporate; pro-working class party. Seventy years ago many had similar illusions in De Valera and FF. It is entirely unsurprising that the radical rhetoric should translate into gains from alienated working class people. The comic opera divisions of the Left have made this easier for them.

But your party has not yet been put to the test. The electoral arithmetic meant that the FF mandarins didn’t have to make the call for SF to negotiate terms for a coalition or minority government. Not this time.

But SF has refused to exclude the possibility of supporting FF in the Dail or even taking its place in a Coalition government. After all SF is happily ensconced in Stormont showing it is not really anti-capitalist. Martin McGuinness and Bairbre de Bruin have no problem selling off school and hospital facilities to “Private Partnerships”.

Working class people are still waiting for McGuinness to go through the tortuous whoops he has set himself to abolish the hated 11 plus. (There was a time of course when he did things more “directly”)

Which means that the politics of SF will lead them into doing what Labour has done in the past – disillusion their followers by joining in the system that they allowed people to believe they opposed.

This is not to engage in a slagging match but to point our the political basis of why we need a socialist bloc: to begin to fight SF for influence among the growing numbers of working class people thoroughly alienated from establishment politics.
Kevin Wingfield
Socialist Workers Party

by Irony is dead Mon Sep 09, 2002 21:28

On the Election. The SWP was squeezed, that is obvious. Large numbers of people disaffected with establishment politics voted for Sinn Fein and SP candidates Joe Higgins and Claire Daly.
SWP explanation: part of the reason for this is the idiotic refusal of the SP to co-operate with the SWP.
This is better than George Orwell. And now together: two legs good, four legs better,
two legs good, four legs better.

by Irony is dead Mon Sep 09, 2002 22:07

The above posting from an SP comrade uses my posting name. Apply some thought and use one of your own. Likewise your point has already been addressed before

by Irony is Alive Mon Sep 09, 2002 23:57

I think it was Marx who said that "a revolutionary party without support from the masses is a phanthom."

It is very funny to read their internal document and see how they excuse their disasterous electoral preformance.

SWP are as subtle as a brick, they are not transitional in their approach, they place too much emphasis on selling paper and recruiting, they're not based among working class, thet flit from issue to issue, and they are extremely opportunistic. These are the reasons why SWP did very badly in the elections.

I'm sure that there must be SWP members that are questioning their party's methods especially after looking at the election results.

SWP cannot put their lack of support from ordinary workers down to the rise of SF. In my opinion SP were squeezed by SF in some areas, SWP are too insignificant to be squeezed.

by hs - sp Tue Sep 10, 2002 00:52

Here is a report from the individuals that organised the Irish socialist alliance

http://members.lycos.co.uk/socialistdemocracyie/SDJAutumn2001TheFightForLeftUnityInIreland.html

This part is the most interesting:

"Though the founding conferences were well attended, the first full meeting of the Alliance took place in April with an extremely small attendance. The draft programme and structure was before this meeting for discussion. The SWP reported that they had set up a separate alliance in the North of Ireland, which had its own programme. Concern was expressed that this was done without the involvement or knowledge of the national steering committee. The SWP argued, for the first time, that the Alliance had no jurisdiction in Northern Ireland. (However, the two other groups in the Socialist Alliance, who were almost entirely Northern based, were never brought into the foundation of the new Northern alliance.) The SWP then proposed (for the first time - the draft programme before the meeting was largely an SWP product) that the programme be only a discussion document, from which local alliances could adopt their own. Concern was expressed that this was a constitutional change in the Alliance which would break it up as a national organisation."

A seperate alliance in the north of ireland without telling the others? Even thopugh they are northern based.

Now please Kevin tell me as an ordinary rank and file SP member why I should bother my arse with this sort of bullshit. We didn't get involved in your alliance because of your past record, seems we were right not to. You talk the talk all day long but basically you are lieing going by your actions.

yours fraternally (but not allinged)
hs

by Ray Tue Sep 10, 2002 09:15

Apparently the SWP vote was 'squeezed' by the Shinners in the last election. To me this implies that their vote fell because of Sinn Fein, right? But didn't the SWP do just as badly in the previous elections? Who squeezed them then?

(I think the SWP actually did better this time around, at least in those areas where they ran as 'the official anti-bin charges candidates')

by Kevin Wingfield - SWP Tue Sep 10, 2002 09:44 kevinwingfield at oceanfree dot net

As I pointed out before, the Socialist Alliance was originally called together by independents in Dublin and the SWP rapidly rowed in.

As I also pointed out the SP didn't indicate for some time whether it would co-operate with that initiative or not. After clowning around for a while the SP eventually decided to refuse to become involved in the SA.

Independently of the SA initiative in the South, SWP members were in discussion with a number of environmental activists, Greens and individuals in the North.

This led to the formation of the Socialist Environmental Alliance in the North to fight the local elections held simultaneously with the British General election last year.

Naturally the SEA campaign in the North reflected the programme agreed by the forces on the spot.

Fairly obviously at this early stage and so long as the SP remained aloof the initiative had to be based on local forces not armchair generals in Dublin. This is a general point -- until the SA gains a national profile -- and possibly even then -- the progamme would need be adaptable to local coalitions.

This seems to me so obvious a fact for anyone in the business of constructing a serious alliance of diverse forces as to be scarcely a source of scandal.

On the Socialist Environmental Alliance, the Socialist Party confined themselves to bad-mouthing the initiative, etc. A couple of very small groups ( 2 or 3 people at tops) came along to SEA meetings to preach about programmatic purity but took no part in the work of the SEA. With the best will in the world it's hard to take people like that seriously.

In the end the SEA adopted four candidates to fight the local elections in Derry and Belfast. Two were SWP members, the others independents. They canvassed working class estates in both Catholic and Protestant working class areas.

Discussions on door-steps indicated that many were sympathetic to what we had to say even if this was not translated into large numbers of people breaking from traditional voting patterns.

Try an keep in mind the big picture and the real enemy: Was it a good thing that left wingers co-operated to stand against the sectarian agenda of the Assembly parties? In my opinion yes.

The operation was extremely modest in scope and while the results could not be described as a breakthrough, the SEA represented a real alliance and co-operation between socialists and environmentalists from different traditions. It was a useful initiative to be built on.

In other words, while the SP was wringing its hands and finding excuses to avoid co-operating in the SA, left wingers in the North got on and did something even if on a small scale.

In the Southern election this year, we publicly called for a vote for *ALL* socialists -- specifically including the SP candidates. (I didn't see any SP material calling for a vote for our candidates.)

By the way no socialist has a right to crow about electoral success. Outside of the excellent votes for Higgins and Daly (which we have publicly and warmly welcomed) none of us did very well.

That includes WP, SP and SWP. So a little modesty is in order.

I've given our political analysis of the reasons for that in earlier posts in this thread. Other posters have not felt the need to offer any *political* explanation outside of self-serving statements and "we're better than you" sort of infantile remarks.

Throughout initiatives for socialist co-operation whether proposed by the SWP or the originators of the Socialist Alliance, the Socialist Party has played a destructive role. We very much hope the SP agreeing to co-operate in the NIce Treaty referendum campaign heralds a change from this sectarian approach.

We in the SWP repeat, socialists need to cop themselves on, grow up and co-operate to ensure socialism makes headway.

Kevin Wingfield
Socialist Workers Party

by Ray Tue Sep 10, 2002 10:08

- As I also pointed out the SP didn't indicate for some time whether it would co-operate with that initiative or not. After clowning around for a while the SP eventually decided to refuse to become involved in the [Irish] SA.

That's not true. I was at that first meeting of the SA. The SP made it clear in their speech that they wouldn't be joining.

(If anyone's interested in My 'Left Unity' Hell, there's a full report here
http://flag.blackened.net/revolt/wsm/news/2000/unity_nov25.html

- This is a general point -- until the SA gains a national profile -- and possibly even then -- the progamme would need be adaptable to local coalitions.

Funnily enough, this is almost the complete opposite of the line taken by the British SWP. The SP over there left because they wanted more local autonomy, while the SWP wanted a more centralised alliance.

by Inessa Armand Tue Sep 10, 2002 10:15

it was instructive to read "hs" exposing the swps two nations mentality. so, the socialist alliance had no jurisdiction over the north?

perhaps the swp members in the north should be in the british swp then?

or should i call it uk swp?

by Irony? Tue Sep 10, 2002 12:56

"Discussions on door-steps indicated that many were sympathetic to what we had to say even if this was not translated into large numbers of people breaking from traditional voting patterns."

Come on, we must admit it, Mr Wingfield is definitely better than George Orwell!

by Jon Anderson Tue Sep 10, 2002 13:21

My heart sank when I read the SWP was thinking of reviving the SEA. A little reality is in order here.

"Naturally the SEA campaign in the North reflected the programme agreed by the forces on the spot."

To talk about forces on the spot is a bit grandiose. I know very little about Derry, but in Belfast only a handful of non-SWP people were involved. Certainly the SWP had a majority and could have got any programme it wanted.

"On the Socialist Environmental Alliance, the Socialist Party confined themselves to bad-mouthing the initiative, etc."

Then why tailor the programme to suit a group which had made clear it wouldn't be there?

"A couple of very small groups (2 or 3 people at tops) came along to SEA meetings to preach about programmatic purity but took no part in the work of the SEA. With the best will in the world it's hard to take people like that seriously."

It wasn't a question of programmatic purity. It was a question of running for election in Northern Ireland on a programme which didn't mention the national question at all, didn't mention the Agreement and whose contribution on the RUC was to pledge to "police the police", whatever that means. It's hard to take people seriously who think you can stand for election without even mentioning the main issues. Especially if they've spent years blasting the SP for running gas-and-water election campaigns.

Bear in mind here that those of us who argued the programme was inadequate were not calling for a full-blown revolutionary programme. And it isn't as if there were significant reformist forces to be accommodated. This was the SWP majority in the meetings blocking the alliance from adopting SWP policies.

"Try and keep in mind the big picture and the real enemy: Was it a good thing that left wingers co-operated to stand against the sectarian agenda of the Assembly parties? In my opinion yes."

Now I have no particular reason to like the SWP, but I don't see the SWP as the enemy and certainly not as the main enemy. If I had been registered in Laganbank I would have voted for Barbara Muldoon. And as Kevin may know, I argued at the time - repeatedly - that in the absence of a meaningful alliance she should run as an SWP candidate on an SWP platform.

But that does not mean the programme is not important. If you are standing mainly for propaganda purposes, the programme is vitally important. And co-operation on the left does not mean all the little groups being buddies together and not mentioning their differences. The proper name for that is opportunism.

Is co-operation around Nice a good thing? Unquestionably yes, because the left is in agreement there is no reason why there should not be a united socialist campaign.

But broader left unity is another issue entirely and is dependent on political unity. The proposed Socialist Bloc is a case in point. A modest proposal to finish - if the SWP's unity strategy is contingent on the involvement of the SP and the political basis would be a minimum which is acceptable to the SP, why not just join the bloody Socialist Party? I'm sure they would give you factional rights.

by Robert the Glove - SEA Tue Sep 10, 2002 15:38

Just to let y'all know. There is no "two nations mentality". The reason that there was a seperate election campaign in the north, is because we have seperate elections. Its a bloody inconvenience but the boarder exists, so it wont do much good campaigning in the south for the northern elections. It aint really all that confusing.

by Brian Cahill - Socialist Party Tue Sep 10, 2002 15:50

It is interesting to read Kevin Wingfield's views on left cooperation. Sadly those views are all too predictable. Let's take some of the most obvious points:

1) Kevin claims that the entire left did very badly at the general election. He conflates the results of the SWP with those of the Socialist Party, neatly exculding two of the Socialist Party's candidates and ignoring all other left wing votes.

Let's look at the general election results of the Irish left. The Socialist Party got just under 15,000 votes. We had one TD elected and just missed out on winning a second seat. Our other three candidates got around 1,000 votes each.

The Workers Party stood eight candidates and recieved 4,000 votes. Given their past record I'm sure that they were disappointed with their showing, but their tally did include a vote of 1,200 in Waterford which is respectable by any standards.

The Workers and Unemployed Action Group stood one candidate and got him elected, with more than 5,000 votes.

A leftish independent in Dublin, Finian McGrath, also got elected with 3,800 first preference votes.

The SWP stood seven candidates and received 3,300 votes, putting them in foutth place on the Irish left, fifth if you count McGrath. In Dublin and Cork they managed to save the Immigration Control Platfom candidates from the indignity of coming last. In Cork, where neither the Socialist Party nor the SWP had stood before they stood in neighbouring constituencies with the predictable result that the Socialist Party candidate got four times the vote.

Kevin claims that everyone on the Irish left should "show some modesty". I quite agree. Why don't we start with the SWP showing not so much "modesty" as simple realism with regard to their own significance?

The SWP didn't get 3,300 votes, or before that their awful votes in the previous general election, because Sinn Fein squeezed them or because the Socialist Party refused to hold their hand. They got very poor votes because they have failed to build any support amongst working class people.

The question which should be occurring to the brighter members of the SWP is "why exactly have we failed to build any support"? I can provide a fairly detailed answer, based on your viciously sectarian practice and your wild swings of mood from "Resist! Revolt! F**k Capitalism!" to dropping all mention of the working class or of socialism, but that's for another discussion. (Although I do feel the need to point out in passing that no self-respecting anti-capitalist would have put those coy little asterisks into the workd fuck).

Kevin misrepresents the attitude of the Socialist Party to left wing cooperation in a number of ways. We have a long and proud history of non-sectarian cooperation with others on the left, in the unions, in campaigns (such as the anti-water tax stuggle) and even on the electoral front. The SWP is in no position to lecture *us* on left wing cooperation given its equally long history of hijacking campaigns and setting up party fronts.

Given the previous form of the SWP (and I don't need to go into each example, everyone here knows your record) it is hardly surprising that almost everyone on the left from the Socialist Party to the WSM is wary of getting tangled up with it. If you want trust, you have to earn trust. Crying crocodile tears and saying that this-time-we-meeaaan-it, just isn't good enough. That your recent overtures seem to be without any serious reassessment of your previous sectarian behaviour doesn't exactly inspire confidence.

So we get Kevin rewriting the history of the SWP's approach to us during the last local elections. He forgets to mention a few points which the rest of us might feel are salient. The Socialist Party had just fought the preceding general election as part of an alliance of left wing and working class forces. Not only had the SWP shown no interest in that alliance, they actually stood against us in Dublin South Central. Further, they had spent decades denouncing those socialists who fought elections as "electoralist" and now, without a word of explanation, sought electoral cooperation. It is not unreasonable to want an explanation, nor was it unreasonable to tell you to go away. I suggest that Kevin re-read the pamphlet we produced at the time "The Struggle For Socialism Today". Far from just denouncing the SWP, it carefully looks at your practice and analyses it. For those who have not yet read it, it is available on the socialist youth website.

We are also confronted with Kevin's strange (or just simply dishonest) account of the English Socialist Alliance. The Socialist Party set up the SA with the Leeds Left Alliance and the Leicester Radical Alliance. It was intended to provide a forum for left wing cooperation, where no one group would be able to impose its will on the others, and hopefully to eventually play a role in the establishment of the new broad working class party which we think we need.

The British SWP, true to form, showed no interest in the Socialist Alliance until it scented organisational gains. It swamped the SA with its numbers (the English SWP is nearly twice the size of the English Socialist Party), then it packed its conference last December and pushed through a new constitution. The new constitution centralised the SA and gave the biggest group the right to make all of the decisions for the "alliance". At that stage we left. We have no desire to play the friendly face of yet another SWP front. The other founder-members of the SA have also left, as have the only other organisation in the English SA which has built any support amongst working class people, Red Action. This is exactly the kind of behaviour which means that nobody else on the left wants to go anywhere near you and it is precisely the kind of behaviour which the Irish SWP is renowned for (although thankfully the Irish SWP can only pull their stunts on a smaller scale). For Kevin to use this as an example of "Socialist Party sectarianism" beggars belief.

The working class in this country needs a new party. Labour have become identical to Fianna Fail and the rest. The Workers Party has fallen apart. The Socialist Party is under no illusion that a small group of revolutionaries can just grow into the new party of the working class. To build such a party we need allies and plenty of them. More importantly we need significant groups of working class people to decide that they need a party of their own and to be williing to get involved. So the question becomes, does lumbering ourselves with the SWP move us more effective or would it just taint us by association? I know my view on that issue and it isn't favourable to the SWP.

by Ray Tue Sep 10, 2002 15:53

...is that while there may be two separate elections, there is no need (necessarily) for two separate organisations. After all, the SWP exists north and south of the border, doesn't it? So why shouldn't the Socialist Alliance - especially since some of the Socialist Alliance member organisations were actually based in Belfast.

(I'm not an advocate of the Socialist Alliance, just an amused spectator of the knots people will tie themselve into as they justify their attitudes to it)

by / Tue Sep 10, 2002 15:56

"an amused spectator" that about somes you up ray

by Ray Tue Sep 10, 2002 15:59

Well, /, I'd be happy to share war stories with you next time we meet. You obviously already know me - how should I recognise you?

by Robert the Glove Tue Sep 10, 2002 16:47

There were discussions on the name. I myself voted SA, but due to a sizeable number of greens involved it went the other way. Onthe issue of affiliation, I do not really think it was discussed. Probably because the alliance was really just an electorial one to begin with. The campaigns we agitated on in belfast were essentialy quite localand affiliation was not deemed nessecary. We did affiliate with the Derry SEA though. Its important to remember that this was a joint inititive and although they played a significant role in the SEA, the decisions were spread out and discussed quite openly. Otherwise I think they would of jumped at the idea of joining up all the seperate SA & SEA groups, which personnally I dont think was nessecery.
Hope this clears things up.

by Ray Tue Sep 10, 2002 17:00

II don't think the criticisms are of the name, but of the fact that the SWP were simultaneously joining the Socialist Alliance and setting up the SEA in the north. The SWP were the motivating force behind the SEA, right? So why did they say "Lets set up a new organisation to fight these elections" rather than "Lets have a local meeting of the Socialist Alliance (of which we're a member) and bring together local activists to fight these elections"?

Personally, I'd quite like to know what the SEA thought they were doing using the anarchist circled A on their literature, when the alliance didn't contain any anarchists and anarchists don't contest elections.

by Kevin Wingfield Tue Sep 10, 2002 17:49 kevinwingfield at oceanfree dot net

Brian from the Socialist Party disagrees when I say the Left polled poorly in the election because it was squeezed by the SF vote. He seems to believe that the good performance of Joe Higgins and Claire Daly and votes in the region of 1,000 for others of the SP candidates disproves my point. These votes are creditable, and I take nothing away from your members for the good campaigning work that achieved these results.

My point is this – Sinn Fein did even better. They got TDs elected and picked up the votes of very large numbers of working class people that the revolutionary left ought to be connecting with.

This is a fact that requires a slightly more serious approach than shouting “We got 1,000 you got 500 yah boo sucks!!”.

Unfortunately rather than grapple with the strategic need to address this problem, you seem happy to stick at this level.

This sort of silliness is exemplified by your story of the 1997 general election and our alleged lack of interest in your alliance. You neglect to mention that the SWP was *excluded* from the alliance your people cooked up. The result of this crass piece of sectarianism was that one of our members ended up contesting the same constituency as one of yours.

It was to end this sort of infantile and counter-productive behaviour that we approached you after that election to discuss co-operation – an overture which you rebuffed.

I suppose the legacy of years of this sort of conflict is that we trust you just about as much as you trust us. The tone of some these postings sometimes seems more appropriate for relations between SF and DUP rather than fellow socialists.

We are not petitioning as repentant sinners, asking that the wise and good in the SP give us another chance. We have no apologies to make. We are happy to stand over our record.

Our differences with the SP are serious, and of long standing. They probably exclude organisational unity in the same party in any immediately foreseeable circumstances. They should not exclude co-operation in different areas and campaigns and facing the working class at election times in an alliance that has more in common than divides us. Elections have an importance but aren’t the be-all and end-all for revolutionaries and we will continue to organise on the streets, in the colleges, workplaces, etc (what you call “flitting”)

We are making a simple political point that so far nobody has seriously addressed, still less rebutted: The far left, even if it hates one another has to co-operate. Sinn Fein are the immediate beneficiaries of alienation and anger with establishment politics. What happens when they disillusion their followers by joining the system? Will there be a vibrant and credible far left alternative that can provide a viable way forward? Or will it be content to say we got a few more hundred votes that you although we all lost.
None of us are big enough for the tasks ahead, not by a long chalk.
Think small-time and you’ll remain small-time.

Kevin Winfield
Socialist Workers Party

by Brian Cahill Tue Sep 10, 2002 19:40

I am tempted to just wish the "big-time" thinkers of the SWP well in their efforts and leave it at that. You never know, perhaps their unique vision and insight will allow them to continue to tap into the huge reservoirs of support which they seem to think are open to them, though they will have to do it without us holding their hand. I am rather more sceptical. 30 years of trying to build their sect has left them with a couple of hundred paper-sellers, no support to speak of in working class communities or the trade unions, and the distrust of every left wing activist in the country.

The Socialist Party is accused above of thinking "small time". On the contrary, Kevin, we want to see a worldwide socialist revolution and ambitions don't come much bigger than that. The point is that, unlike the SWP, we are not willing to fool ourselves about where we actually are.

We are a small revolutionary organisation. We have some real support in some working class areas of Dublin and in some trade unions, but we are still peripheral in the greater scheme of things.

The SWP, without any of our small but real successes, has a far higher opinion of both its present position and the immediate possibilies open to it. That is only to be expected: divorced from day to day working class life, sectarians have often deluded themselves about the situation they are really in. The SWP's conviction that the big-time is just around the corner, and its corrolorary that a far-right breakthrough is equally close if we don't seize the opportunity, has been shared by all of the most bizarre outfits on the left. Gerry Healy's WRP spent years arguing that we would have a revolution or fascism within a few months. The SWP differs only in degree.

I don't know how plainly to say this, Kevin, but there are no shortcuts. We are trying to build a revolutionary organisation by slow, patient, work amongst working class people, seriously laying foundations in communities and trade unions. The SWP is not. Your recent turn towards shiny happy "non-sectarian" friendliness is not a real change in attitude, it's just your latest get-rich-quick scheme. If the Socialist Party would only come out and play, everything would be alright.

Justin, from Sinn Fein, made an important point. The SWP didn't stand against us this time around. The Socialist Party and the SWP stood in 12 constituencies between us. All of the votes were predictable to within a few hundred. Are you seriously arguing that if we had stood under some joint banner that they would have greatly improved? They wouldn't have, you know.

The SWP candidates would still have lacked a local base. The Socialist Party candidates would still have had the small base that we have built. Neither organisation would have had the enormous resources of Sinn Fein, or their huge media profile, or their all-things-to-all-men policies.

On the other hand the Socialist Party would have had to waste time and effort dealing with whatever antics the SWP were trying to pull from week to week. We would have had to spend yet more time explaining to people you have managed to alienate that we are not the same.

Kevin points out that the SWP are not coming to apologise. I don't want you to apologise, although I suppose that an SWP apology to all of the activists you have screwed over over the years probably wouldn't hurt. I want you to grow up.

The Socialist Party has been involved in many broad left campaigns. We will be involved in many others. Eventually I am sure that we will again launch some kind of broader formation. If the SWP seriously wants to be involved in such structures, I suggest that you start by having a long look at your behaviour. Earn some trust and you might deserve some.

by Kevin Wingfield - SWP Tue Sep 10, 2002 20:17

Brian's last contribution was silly.

Arguments which boil down to "We are better than you" are really just vacuous boasting.

No attempt to point how you disagree with our assessment of the current situation, or the obligations on revolutionaries we have pointed out..

You are patiently building away -- bully for you!

Perhaps debating tricks of these sorts are useful tactics to inoculate your supporters from any contact with the SWP, they are not a serious engagement with the issues raised.

Good luck!!

Kevin Wingfield SWP

by Jacko Tue Sep 10, 2002 21:21

Im an outsider in no party. Iknow people in the SWP and the Sp and they both do good work with very different styles they would have a lot to gain by pooling their resources. The SWP seems to want smething like this, the Socailist Party not....pity

by Finghin Wed Sep 11, 2002 00:13

the SWP should look at their party as it really is. Look at what Brian Cahill is saying about your tactics and your lack of any real base in the working class. These are real criticisms not just sectraian point scoring. I members of the SWP are serious about building theri party they should look at these facts.

The SP pamphlet on the SWP'e offer of an electoral alliance is available at www.syucd.cjb.net under the articles section. it is called 'The Struggle for Socialism today - replay to the politics of the SWP'

by hs - sp Wed Sep 11, 2002 00:51

Kevins argument - The swp won't work with us because they are sectarian. They would prefer to do worse in elections rather than work with the SWP.

SP comrades arguments - On past (and present) record we don't rust you

Kevin - thats not true you're just sectarian

All activists can judge for themselves

by hs - sp Wed Sep 11, 2002 00:58

obviously the first swp is supposed to read sp.

But on a serious note in the elections we ran seperate areas, you used the name socialist instead of swp and most people wouldn't know the difference. If we had both ran on SA it would have been excatly the same.

On SF squeezing the left viote. In the council elections yes, we could have got one if not too extra, but thats not making excuses. But in the general election the made no significent difference.

On another reason why we don't trust you: I attended two swp front demonstrations one the ANL the last big march two years or so ago and the following year the new front, anti depertaion league or something like that. At both events you REFUSED to allow joe higgins to speak. And then you ask to allign with you?

by conor mc gowan - socialist alternative (speaking not for the group but for me) Wed Sep 11, 2002 01:40 conor at ziplip dot com

ANOTHER SWP VS SP VS ANARCHO VS SINN FEIN

they started it

by Brian Cahill Wed Sep 11, 2002 03:19

Firstly, apologies to Conor and anyone else who is bored for continuing the thread.

Kevin accuses me of failing to engage with the SWP's view, of using debating tricks and of trying to innoculate Socialist Party supporters from contact with the SWP. Perhaps I wasn't making myself clear enough, but I suspect that Kevin is just being disengenuous.

1) I believe that the SWP have a wildly exaggerated view of both your present significance and more generally the immediate prospects for the left. I don't think that this is a momentary abberation, it has in fact been integral to your organisation's outlook for some years. Some time ago the British SWP was using the slogan "Paris 1968! London 1994!".

Your present political analysis amounts to "people are angry, the right wing parties are bad, there are big opportunities for the left and Sinn Fein are getting there first". With the exception of the Sinn Fein clause, this is timeless stuff. You could equally have been saying it five years or ten years or twenty years ago. And to some extent it's bland enough to always be partially true: working class people always have reason to be angry, right wing parties are always bad, and at most times there are some opportunites for the left to build on those two points.

The problem is that when you get down to specifics this bland optimism just isn't good enough. We are at the end of an extremely long boom which has greatly strengthened the hegemony of capitalist ideas. Labour, the traditional political organisation of Irish workers, has become indistinguishable from Fianna Fail or Fine Gael. The Workers Party has fallen apart. The unions have been wedded to partnership ideas for a very long time. The idea of socialism, let alone the idea of a socialist revolution, is not very widespread. Despite your organisation's denials, the fall of the Stalinist regimes, for all that they were undoubtedly murderous dictatorships, has also played a role in increasing the confidence of capitalism and setting back the idea that any alternative to it is possible.

So yes, people are angry. And yes the right wing parties are discredited. But opportunities for the revolutionary left remain limited. Nothing is gained by ignoring the world around us and pretending that some kind of big breakthrough is on the cards (or would be if only the Socialist Party would come out and play).

No doubt you will accuse me of "pessimism" or some other such standard issue response. I am not excluding the possibility of swift changes in the situation. People can draw socialist and even revolutionary conclusions very fast. The anti-capitalist movement in some countries (although not measurably in Ireland) has played a role in beginning to challenge dominant right-wing ideas. But change the world we first have to look at it as it is and not as we want it to be.

The immediate responsibilities of revolutionaries in the south of Ireland are to strenthen the left in the unions, to turn the anti-bin tax struggle into a fight bigger than the water-tax campaign, to take up and maintain other issues in working class communities as they arise (including Nice, racism etc) and spread class and socialist ideas as best we can. To build a solid base for our ideas and organisations. When I see the SWP engaged seriously in any of that work, I will begin to have some respect for you.

2) On the notion of innoculating our supporters from contact with you, don't be so contemptible. We have nothing to fear from debate with the SWP, except the strong possibility of wasting valuable time.

by Sick of the same Wed Sep 11, 2002 12:26

Brian says "We have nothing to fear from debate with the SWP, except the strong possibility of wasting valuable time"

Brian that's all you ever do. Almost every posting you put on the net is about other left wing groups, in particular you have an obsession with the SWP. Why not organise something positive or put a critique of the right, war on terror etc.

You view the world through a small prism...

by hs - sp Wed Sep 11, 2002 15:48

My friend it is called debate. I know your organisation frowns upon it but everyone else does it. If you don't like it you don't have to read it or take part. You can stick to your party line. But believe it or not when somebody asks why we won't go into an alliance with them (as kevin has been asking) we will answer. If you don't want an answer don't ask the question (but maybe you don't want the answer, just someone to blame for your failure in the election, why don't you expel another branch?)
And when you ask a question don't expect to like the answer either, life doesn't work that way.
Don't mean to be offensive but if you can't handle a debate on a simple issue of left unity don't bother coming onto threads about it, go out an sell your paper.

by hs Wed Sep 11, 2002 15:56

And you had to dig pretty deep through old threads to get to this one so don't tell me you're not interested. You just don't like the answers you're getting.

Again I will repeat, nobody takes the swp seriously because of their record, if anything they would cost us alot of support and we would have to water down our politics not to mention the general hassale and manovering that would go on.
If the SWP becomes a serious organisation working in communities and stop the silly control freakery (and alienating everyone they meet) I will support us working together more.

But they way the SWP is putting forward unity -
ie "THE SOCIALIST PARTY ARE SECTARIAN!!! would you like an alliance?" isn't helping.

And in Britain and in the SA here you did the same old stuff again.

What rank and file SWP members don't understand is that most activists (and most people, this is why your turnover is so big, every wondered?) are not willing to simply take orders without debate or discussion and if a policy backflip happens (ie elections) deny it ever changed doesn't work.

I honestly don't think an SA would last a minute with you in control (and yes this is what its about) I wouldn't put up with any sort of antics life is simply to short and there is too much to be done.

by Sick of the same Wed Sep 11, 2002 16:19

My above post applies to you aswell by the looks of it. Broaden your horizons..

by OK - SP Wed Sep 11, 2002 20:00

The SP supporters taking part in this debate have not got narrow horizons!

The fact is that post election the SWP are looking around for people to blame. They can only blame themselves for their disasterous position, ie not much support from activists or ordinary people.

It's not a question of the SP being sectarian, it's a question of the SWP wanting to control everything and alienating people. Most people on the left would know exactly what I'm talking about.

After the election I speculated that the SWP membership will look at the election results and question their leadership and their tactics etc.

Or that the leadership would go on an 'anti-capitalist, anti-election rant'. Rather than going on this 'rant' the leadership has gone down the road of blaming others. I wonder if rank-and-file members are questioning their party's tactics, methods etc in light of the elections?

by Sick of same Wed Sep 11, 2002 22:41

Sorry I forgot to include you OK, you haven't posted for a while.

by hs - sp Wed Sep 11, 2002 23:51

We did not run or ruin your election. You got votes in areas you did the work, ie richard boyd barret. The rest you got slaughtered. Next time put up candidates who have done work in the area. This is obvious and no amont of blaming will change that.
The SP vote was mainly on the candidates themselves rather than the party because we are not yet seen as a party outside leftie land. The same goes for yourselves wake up and do something about it rather than blaming,

Imagine if we had gone into an alliance with you! What would you be saying then after the same disaterous results?