Blog Feeds
Anti-Empire
The SakerA bird's eye view of the vineyard
Public InquiryInterested in maladministration. Estd. 2005
Human Rights in IrelandPromoting Human Rights in Ireland |
RTS Good, Party poopers bad!![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() While enjoying the great party put on for EVERYONE in Dublin over the weekend i couldn't help but notice, some of the usual crowd had come to spoil the party! Who? I couldn't help but notice lots of red flags, with a very identifiable yellow fist and thos horrid initials on the flag. Nor could i help notice these flag handlers had a newspaper in hand, not for free, as the custom would be at a free party, but to buy! Not only did i notice this but i then noticed a table surrounded by these red flags with all of these papers layed out. Where was it on the road leading to the party of course. I believe it was some sort of recruitment agency. Maybe they would like to come on IMC and explain themselves? Why they took advantage of a free party to SELL some "material"? I'm not sure about the rest of the party goers but i found it to be a very gross action! |
View Comments Titles Only
save preference
Comments (49 of 49)
Jump To Comment: 49 48 47 46 45 44 43 42 41 40 39 38 37 36 35 34 33 32 31 30 29 28 27 26 25 24 23 22 21 20 19 18 17 16 15 14 13 12 11 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1its just my initials, i only post under BD or Brian
yes the suggestion came from Dave himself not Andrew. Excuse me please. The point being that pseudo-names are for security reasons mostly. Of course anyone can be anyone on this wire and post under as many different names as possible. Dave was wrong to give Ray second name out here, he can lose the rag sometimes.
- Anyway at least in fairness to Andrew and Ray they have the guts to bullshit under their own names. As for BD, R etc, etc . How are we to know they are not working to another agenda or that they are not simply the same embittered idiot appearing under a range of less than inventive surnames.
As 'IST supporter' says, many people have good reasons not to post under their own names, whatever group they belong to.
(Earlier in this thread somebody has posted two articles as comments, but didn't give their name. I think its pretty obvious which party they belong to)
And on that subject, Dave, I don't use my surname when posting here. I know it doesn't take much investigation to find out what it is, but posting it here is still an invasion of privacy, as much as posting someone's phone number or work address.
Just to confirm that IMC is certainly not the tool of any political group, all you have to do is look at the backgrounds of the people involved in it, there are participants from all backgrounds. Indymedia goes beyond the active editorial people too, it's a community including people like Ray (a censor without a password, according to some writers here) and the opponents and defenders of the SWP.
And we're not part of anyone's movement.
by both sides of it
as for Dave saying Ray is Indymedia's censor - sign up dave to the newswire mailing list and u can argue with and join the imc censors. Any suggestions that IMC = WSM are pure bollocks - suggesting IMC has an agenda against SWP is pure bollox. Top feature at present and upcoming ones are put together by an swp member.
IST Supporter you're explaining to Andrew that you post under a pseudonymn because of his work situation (as do I), but it wasn't Andrew that made that criticism! It was "Dave Lordan"! Here's what he said in a post titled "andrew lying once again":
>>Anyway at least in fairness to Andrew and Ray they have the guts to bullshit under their own names. As for BD, R etc, etc . How are we to know they are not working to another agenda or that they are not simply the same embittered idiot appearing under a range of less than inventive surnames.<<
So IST Supporter, you have my sympathy. Dave Lordan thinks that you're bullshitting under someone else's name and that you may be "working to another agenda". Perhaps he's right and you're part of an extensive police network? Personally I think Lordan's at best confused after reading his "economical with the truth" rants. But you never know....like me he may be merely a Phuq Hedd!
IST supporter, it was another SWP member who attacked people not writing under their own name.
Further to my mail earlier on, the monitoring center where a trade union ban had been lifted was the GCHQ site in Cheltenham.
That protestor that spat at the Guard should and I hope he was,removed quite quickly by the Gardai.People cheering this idiotic act are a disgrace.
However,a bunch of thugs repeatedly smacking women on the head should also be removed,quite,well,in an old fashioned manner,kapeesh?IT MAKES MY BLOOD BOIL TO SEE THAT!
Besides,there are restaint methods,and,if needs be,blows to sides of the legs that,while quite effective,are not anyway near fatal,such as the blows to the head and face that were received by these protestors.18 year old kids should not be arrested by having their faces smashed in,and being dragged along the pavement by a lug twice his size.
I did not see the Grsai gave so full on into the taxi drivers when they were blocking the city and airport.Where was the valient knight,Sir Donal Corcoran,then?
I'm no red like you guys.However,I fear a state that allows a creeping erosion of our constitutional liberties by allowing imbeciles to be involved in crowd control,and law enforcement.Otherwise,I am a decadent cynic,that laughs from afar at the affairs of men.Arghh!
well Andrew I am that person who uses the id "IST Supporter", the reason? As I am typing these words to you I am currently sitting at a desk in a major US transnational corporation in Cork and am on a short-term contact job like so many people in this country.
People who know me in the SWP know who I am anyway. I simply can’t give my real name or email address out on an open forum like indymedia.ie for basic reasons of security. I worked in a previous IT company in Dublin working on a basic internet, mobile phone and land-line monitoring system for one of the European police forces OK (yes hard to believe I know!) and was supposed to have a background check from INTERPOL, indeed very 1984-ish. I did whatever work had to be done and am fully aware of the technologies that can be used to monitor if that was required. You may want to attack me (and you are welcome) for working in such a place but I remind you that there were trade unionists even in places in Britains electronic monitoring centers (forgotten the exact name of the place I am referring to, maybe someone I reply to me).
So I simply cannot give out my name or exact details not for political cowardice but for practical reasons. Maybe you can because you have a better work/secure work environment (you are an IT worker like me too) than what I have at the moment.
Cheers
IST
I'll forgive you calling me names Dave because you can't help it and anyway the events I mention occurred on 'The Party' sometime before you joined it. I haven't attended Marxism in around five years precisely because actions like refusing to allow the distribution of non-SWP litreature are part of its culture of stamping on any attempt at debate. But rest assured I was banned from one marxism and told to stop leafletting or be banned from another.
The same thing happened to other WSM members as I'm sure they will be happy to confirm and members of other organisations. Ask your leaders, I suspect they will also happy confirm this and say 'so what' (In fact Kevin may do just this in a minute). Incidentally PDF files of the leaflets concerned at to be found at the site below.
I'm a bit amused by your indignation as I said I don't really consider this much of a 'crime'. I accept that the SWP have a right to a certain amount of control over events they organise - my one gripe is that in that case they should be more honest about the nature of events like Marxism. No big deal though!
Now on to your actual untruts (in case you not clear Dave a untruths is when you say something that is not in fact true). I'm saying untruths rather then lies to give you the benefit of the dougbt as you are again talking of things that your leaders have told you about. Maybe they are misleading you?
Number 1.
"WSM supported a fine gael speaker over a socialist speaker for an Alliance for a No Vote public meeting during the abortion referendum)"
Not true. In fact a lie I watched the actual manufacture of. Here is what really happened.
Before the ANV march there was a discussion as to who the speakers should be. The SWP wanted one of their northern leaders to be a speaker. Most other people felt she wasn't well enough known. The SWP argued she was the only 'pro-choice' speaker, it was pointed out that there were already two pro-choice speakers on the platform.
So the clever SWP decided to try a new tack. They demanded a vote on whether or not their speaker could speak. As this was obviously going to be defeated they also demanded a vote on whether or not the FG TD Monica Barnes could speak. But, and lets be clear about this, there was no question of eliminating one speaker in favour of the other.
The vote was taken, the SWP speaker failed to attract sufficent votes so she wasn't invited. I actually abstained from the vote as the whole think was so stupid and manipulative (I'd actually intended to vote with the SWP up till near the end!). Afterwards as expected the SWP manufactured this lie that the choice was between the two speakers. Anyone familar with their tactics will not be surprised by this stunt.
Now on to untruth number 2
"censorship implementing (Ray Cunningham of WSM is the indymedia censor)"
As Ray has stated here on a couple of occasions he is no longer a member of the WSM. But he is also not the 'indymedia censor' in any case. He has taking on the role of pointing out what he considers an inappropiate posts on the newswire but it is actually other people in indymedia that choose to remove them. Maybe Dave considers free speech to be censorship - not surprising coming from the Leninist tradition which happily murdered and jailed tens of thousands of left opponents.
There is a lesson in following the method of slander and distortion Dave uses. And it is not that Dave is a 'bad guy'. Rather any look at leninism in power will show you the same methods of half-truths and conspiracy again and again. It is in short not only the method of the SWP but also deeply embeeded in the politics of Leninism.
The SWP may talk of "serious arena for debate and counterinformation" but as soon as any such debate starts that is critical of the SWP they fall back on the old tactics of calling people cops, splitters, nuts and censors. They complain about people posting under pseudonames when it is obvious that identities such as IST supporter or Cooleyboy are not the real names of the SWP members concerned. The universal rule is to be one rule for the SWP, another for everyone else.
- andrew has never been threatened or thrown out of marxism for anything
Andrew has been throw out of Marxism on more than one occasion, as have I (when I was in the WSM), as have most of the members of the WSM at one point or another, as have many of the members of other small left-wing groups.
(For giving out leaflets, or selling papers/magazines. You know, the kind of thing the SWP was allowed do at RTS. Apparently, when you let someone do something, but criticise them for it, that's 'censorship'. When you throw people out to stop them doing something... well, that never happened.
We've always been at war with Eastasia, and rations are going up every year. Doubleplusgood!)
- I wish the wsm would show up at marxism and argue their politics instead of trying to sow divisions with cowardly slanders
Been there, done that, got the t-shirt. For a couple of years at least one or two of us would go along to some of the sessions. It was always very predictable - if you were lucky enough to be called (ie. if the chair couldn't easily ignore you) you'd get to speak for about a minute to reply to the half-hour of the SWP speech. This would be followed by 5 or 6 SWP speakers disagreeing with you. If you were _very_ lucky (this generally only happened when some young SWP member was called on and gave their time to the WSM to see what they'd say) you might get a second chance to speak, for about a minute. Then at the end the main speaker would get 5 minutes to reply to you. Not ideal conditions for debate.
Funnily enough, even though the SWP regularly has meetings about anarchism, the Russian revolution, or the Spanish revolution, they have NEVER invited an anarchist onto the platform to give their side. Not once. Who are the 'cowards' then?
- WSM supported a fine gael speaker over a socialist speaker for an Alliance for a No Vote public meeting during the abortion referendum
Again, untrue. There was a disagreement in the ANV meeting about whether to invite an SWP speaker. Andrew abstained on that vote. Dave is completely wrong to say that a FG speaker was supported over the SWP speaker - these were two separate issues. The vote was over an SWP speaker or no SWP speaker - that's all.
- Ray Cunningham of WSM is the indymedia censor
Doubly untrue. I used to be in the WSM, but left back in January. And I'm not 'the IMC censor', I'm not even one of the editors. I often criticise articles on the newswire, but I don't have the power to remove them.
- However in no circumstances would we allow anyone to ban our newspaper, whether they are cops or bakuninists
As has been pointed out (repeatedly) here, nothing was done to prevent the SWP from selling their papers. They were apparently _asked_ not to sell stuff, but nobody tried to force them off the RTS.
- Indymedia has the potential to be a serious arena for debate...
But only if people stop criticising the SWP. So that'd be the 'Marxism' type of debate then, would it?
- ...and counterinformation
That'd be the series of lies in your post, would it?
"What are you suggesting Pat? Are people to be prevented from criticising the SWP? Is that the 'anti-censorship' position? Deleting any opinions you don't agree with?"
i haven't suggested censoring anything. you're the censor. you defended the deletion of the shelly ad.
i'm merely pointing out that a small group of rts activists are not representative of the crowds that turned up.
rts don't own the streets anymore than the swp own the anti war movt.
i'm criticising the criticisers. the way people have been going on you'd think the swp were guilty of war crimes. they merely chose to ignore a small group of rts activists.
as you well know i am not a swp supporter. so you are merely being childish to suggest that i would put the swp above criticism.
you are the one who deletes, not me.
"However when you say above "but the swp asserted their right to ignore the wishes of a small group of rts activists & are still being metaphorically pilloried for it." You are doing what I was complaining about - calling 'metaphorical pillorary' censorship which it is not. But if you consider such 'metaphorical pillorary' censorship then surely by metaphorically pilloring the 'small group of rts activists' you are engaging is what you consider censorship of them."
the small group of rts activists wanted to prevent the swp from selling their paper. i'm merely pointing out that the rts organisers, hard working though they are, were not necessarilly representative of the crowd that turned out.
i'm merely criticising them.
whats been going on here, you'd think the swp were guilty of crimes against humanity.
"The problem here is the same problem with calling everything you don't like 'fascism'. It just serves to debase the meaning of the term to 'something I don't like' - in this case your suggesting that people saying something you don't like is censorship."
don't intoduce red herrings, i didn't mention fascism. i have shown an actual case of censorship & aidan actually said that he wasn't going to delete it again BECAUSE OF THE DEBATE IT HAD GENERATED. not because of any price etc.
what has been going on here is a form of mccarthyism. swp members being named etc.
the same people will come after the wsm if they have a falling out with you.
i was "outed" work wise on indymedia because of my republican politics. i can't help but wonder how much of the anti-swp stuff is motivated by people who dislike the swps consistent anti-imperialism (ie they oppose imperialism in ireland). see the reaction to joe Cs anti imperialist speech at the gr anti racism march.
wsm members generally haven't gotten involved in debates about the national question on indy but you do have an anti-imperialist position on ireland. if you start expounding that policy, then some of your fairweather friends on imc are likely to turn on you as well.
andrew has never been threatened or thrown out of marxism for anything. I wish the wsm would show up at marxism and argue their politics instead of trying to sow divisions with cowardly slanders.
Though for a fine gael supporting, (WSM supported a fine gael speaker over a socialist speaker for an Alliance for a No Vote public meeting during the abortion referendum) censorship implementing (Ray Cunningham of WSM is the indymedia censor) organisation i'm not surprised that they carry on the tradition of behind the back bakuninism. By the way i gave away plenty of free papers on Sunday to people who wanted them but didn't have the money to pay for them, as I often do and we did compromise with the spirit of the event by asking people for donations rather than for the princely sum of one euro. However in no circumstances would we allow anyone to ban our newspaper, whether they are cops or bakuninists.
I don't believe most of the people involved in organising RTS, some of them personal friends or acquaintances of mine, were too concerned with who was distributing what at the party. What they were worried about, and rightly so was whether the event was a success and it was and congrtatulations. Incidentally, we printed lots of leaflets and posters for the rts event on a non-commercial basis at the request of some of the organisers.
Whether some people like it or at their are plenty activists out there, not necessarily inclined to spend their time in arguments on the web, who want to be able to access the countermedia.
Their are many organisations which sell stuff but are not commercial from charities to trade unions.
We are always glad to see people distributing or selling counterinformation on events we organise or are involvced in organising, whatever the source.
Anyway at least in fairness to Andrew and Ray they have the guts to bullshit under their own names. As for BD, R etc, etc . How are we to know they are not working to another agenda or that they are not simply the same embittered idiot appearing under a range of less than inventive surnames.
Indymedia has the potential to be a serious arena for debate and counterinformation or it can be sucked into the sectarianism and bitterness of the old city centre dublin left which unfortunately, due to the relative tininess of the movemnent in Ireland, still exert a disproportionate influence on activists. If it goes the latter direction it will be about as radical as the Carlow Nationalist. RTS and indymedia are an important part of teh movement right now, but so are the swp. Lets make sure it stays that way by doing our best to work together.
www.swp.ie
- the shelley ad was deleted; this was a case of actual censorship.
As far as I'm aware, there have been two SWP related articles deleted from the newswire.
About a month ago, an SWP member posted an announcement that the latest issue of Socialist Worker was available for sale. This was deemed to be an advertisement and was removed. A couple of days later (and since then) the new issue of Socialist Worker was announced with a digest of the articles it contained, and links to those articles on the web. These posts have not been deleted.
Last week, an article about a book launch was deleted because it was judged to be an advertisement. When an amended version of that article (which didn't contain the book's price or ISBN) was posted it stayed up.
So what has happened is that (over a period of about a month) two SWP articles have been taken down, but when those articles were rewritten to take account of the 'no advertising' rule they were allowed back up. Is this the censorious IMC you are attacking?
- but the swp asserted their right to ignore the wishes of a small group of rts activists & are still being metaphorically pilloried for it
What are you suggesting Pat? Are people to be prevented from criticising the SWP? Is that the 'anti-censorship' position? Deleting any opinions you don't agree with?
Criticism (whether you think its unfounded or not) is not censorship. Banning criticism is censorship.
- asking imc to stop deleting ... ads for "bloody sunday" films
That article wasn't deleted. Its still on the newswire for everyone to see. It was criticised (by me) but its still there.
Pat as you might remember I agreed that the removal of the Shelly ad was silly although the fact that the ad minus the book cost was not removed suggests that the claimed objection ('commercial material') was genuine if perhaps silly. The sometimes crude anti-SWP stuff here is not in fact censorship but rather the opposite, free speech. Free speech after all is people saying stuff you don't like, everyone supports free speech for people saying stuff they agree with (maybe even Luke!)
However when you say above "but the swp asserted their right to ignore the wishes of a small group of rts activists & are still being metaphorically pilloried for it." You are doing what I was complaining about - calling 'metaphorical pillorary' censorship which it is not. But if you consider such 'metaphorical pillorary' censorship then surely by metaphorically pilloring the 'small group of rts activists' you are engaging is what you consider censorship of them.
The problem here is the same problem with calling everything you don't like 'fascism'. It just serves to debase the meaning of the term to 'something I don't like' - in this case your suggesting that people saying something you don't like is censorship.
"There is a bit of a problem running though a lot of IMC threads. This is the tendency to label someone or some organisation expressing an opinion as somehow being in itself equivalent to censorship"
the shelley ad was deleted; this was a case of actual censorship.
"It would have been censorship if RTS had decided to react to the SWP decision to sell anyway by driving them away, beating them up or setting fire to their papers! This didn't happen. "
no, that didn't happen. but the swp asserted their right to ignore the wishes of a small group of rts activists & are still being metaphorically pilloried for it. those who wanted to, voted with their money & bought swp goodies.
"I've been thrown out or threatened to be thrown out of Marxism on a few occasions for distributing (free) material at it. That is much closer to censorship (and rather a good example of how the SWP are rather hypocritical in this thread - they recognise a 'right' for organisers of an event to control what is distributed there, providing of course they are the organisers!). "
i'm not a swp fan & i condemn the actions you mention above. however, i would remind you that the rts event was on a public street which had not been "hired" by the rts activists.
"It leads one to a contradictory positions where in order to stop what you consider censorship you end up demanding what you consider censorship - what is being said here often appears to be 'people who call for what I consider censorship should be censored'! "
i have been calling for less censorship on imc; not more. asking imc to stop deleting swp book ads or ads for "bloody sunday" films cannot be logically thought of as censorship.
U's r right . Most of these people are looking for attention that y the dress like freaks and march around th ecity centre . Y can't they go of to somewhere in the county. Because they will not get attention out there.
THe garda have a hard eneough job with out having to deal with freaks like the rts.
I couldn't have said it better myself!! A bunch of misfits including ill mannered thugs you have little respect for anybody else. Talk about how not to win support. I can see why the Gardai had to use force with that shower.
... the only 'penalty' being imposed on those who sell stuff is unpopularity, its not censorship.
There is a bit of a problem running though a lot of IMC threads. This is the tendency to label someone or some organisation expressing an opinion as somehow being in itself equivalent to censorship
On Sunday for instance RTS has asked the SWP to respect the nature of the event and not to sell material. I have mixed feelings about this request but it is NOT censorship
It would have been censorship if RTS had decided to react to the SWP decision to sell anyway by driving them away, beating them up or setting fire to their papers! This didn't happen.
I've been thrown out or threatened to be thrown out of Marxism on a few occasions for distributing (free) material at it. That is much closer to censorship (and rather a good example of how the SWP are rather hypocritical in this thread - they recognise a 'right' for organisers of an event to control what is distributed there, providing of course they are the organisers!).
But I don't think even this is 'censorship' in any serious fashion as to an extent I agree that the organisers of an event have a right to exercise some control over what happens at it. Mind you calling something 'a weekend of socialist debate' could be conceived as waving that right but anyway ...
The problem with labelling all expressions of 'I don't think that is appropiate behaviour for this event' as censorship is two fold
1. It trivalises real censorship which is where the state bans you expressing yourself and proceeds to fine, jailor otherwise punish those who defy such bans.
2. It leads one to a contradictory positions where in order to stop what you consider censorship you end up demanding what you consider censorship - what is being said here often appears to be 'people who call for what I consider censorship should be censored'!
the party was organised by a small group of hard working people. they deserve credit for what they achieved.
however, while they have the right to ask the swp not to sell papers; the swp equally has the right to ignore the wishs of the small group of (hard working) rts activists.
the rts activists don't own the streets anymore than the swp own the anti war movement.
no one was forced to buy swp materiel. however rts activists were wrong to try & deny people the choice as to whether to buy or not to buy. people who wished to, voted with their money.
if the rts were serious abot a free party then why didn't they demand that all shops in thee locality give out goods for free or else close?
no, obviously they didn't do this.
this is just yet another swp bashing exercise.
(again, due to the mccarthyism prevalent on this site, i hasten to add i am not a swp supporter.)
(SWP selling papers)
-If they want to do so at a street party then that's their choice
Of course it is, and I don't think anyone has suggested that they be banned from the next RTS, or anything like that.
But if they choose to sell papers at an event where people said they'd really prefer it if everything is free, well then they're obviously going to annoy some people. That's their choice to make - sell papers and be unpopular, or don't sell papers and be less unpopular.
There were a couple of people at RTS who weren't impressed with me either. I was giving out anti-Nice leaflets, and one woman told me that she wouldn't take one, because she wanted RTS to be about the party, not leafletting. I don't agree with her, but I can see where she was coming from, and it was a fair enough point. By giving out leaflets, I was making myself unpopular with some of the people there. That was the choice I made, and those are the consequences.
The SWP made a different choice, and annoyed more people. If they're happy with that, then fine.
Brian once again spectularly fails to miss the point.
Your "Why can't the SWP just sell the paper whats the big deal", the fact is RTS were trying to arrange a completly free paper and the SWP ignored the politely worded request of the organisers of an event GR have already stolen alot of wind from.
It's about respect the wishes and requests of the RTS, which the SWP blithing ignored. Thats essentially what people find so objectionalble about the SWP there can be no dialogue or discussion with them because they simply ignore criticism leveled at them.
If the SWP had any respect for any other group in the left they'd have agreed to the simple request of RTS, but no they marched in formation (and looked like prats by the way, with their flags, undoubtably very impressive if theres a few hundred, but the 2 dozen of you was just weak) and then hawked their paper.
Yet again it's an example of the blithe ignorance and lack of respect for the rest of the left wing community.
Is it any wonder that you're nearly universally loathed?
MISFITS? speak for your self, freakboy
GOOD JOB GOOD LIFE and an RTSer
I know that the SWP can be a bit irritating with the heavy handed way in which they "sell the paper and recruit", but try to be fair here for a minute.
The SWP have every right to sell their paper or to ask people to join. If they want to do so at a street party then that's their choice. Nobody is forcing anybody else to either buy their paper or to join them.
Capitalism is not about selling things. It is about profit and accumulation. Selling something is not inherently "capitalist". Is anybody seriously suggesting that the SWP sell their paper because they are trying to make profits?
I think you fail to understand that RTS is organised by volunteers (who are, fair-enough, probably misfits of some description), and that it's a completely inclusive party - organisers have no control over who comes (nor want to have) nor any jurisdiction. Personally I'd prefer if stupid people didn't do stupid things, but hey, what can be done?
And why would anyone want to have a party in Phoenix Park (where a large party might damage the surroundings & wildlife) when it can be had in an area which is supposedly "public" but never used for public events? That's where RTS comes in...
r
Solomon Hogg asks some questions which, I think, badly need to be debated, especially when in any sort of political sphere, where political pressure groups of all descriptions are likely to put their own spin on the 'meaning' of RTS.
I think it's very naive and pathetic of individuals and groups (with emphases on SWP) who perpetually intertwine their own political struggle with *anything* that involves a somewhat controversial gathering of people, as if both are somehow linked. It suggests that such people are hyped-up kids who have just become over-whealmed by the 'glory' of their 'party' or new-found ideology and can't help but to see every slightly political incident as a new source to pour their own political meaning into.
RTS is (at least to me, and many of the organisers) a party. Sure it's about reclaiming space for ourselves from a capitalist system which divides and conquers our cultural city and sells it off to the highest bidder. It's also, I suppose, about loss of identity, the division and pollution of our cities and societies, and the need of creating an autonomous zones where people can freely associate, have fun and be themselves (or someone else for that matter - I wore cheesy 'girly' earrings for the first time in my life!). RTS is a party that works outside the system - no asking for permission, doing it ourselves, making sure it's free and non-commercial, and most importantly making sure that it's fun and completely non-exclusive.
Organisers didn't "ban" an activities (such as paper selling), they simply asked that people have a bit of taste and not try to manipulate the party as a "fun" way to recruit and appease those working masses that never listen to us, but who we sorely need! It's not a vehicle to advance an ideology. If it has any ideology it's about doing it yourself. Good ole DIY!
All this text - an just to justify a party, that's crazy!
r
Sorry folks, but your "party" on Sunday was crap. Basically a collection of oddballs and misfits talking shite about freedom. Why dont ye all go up to the Phoenix Park where you will find plenty of freedom instead of taking away the streets from our citizens for the day. Funny thing is that many of those I saw there have filthy rich parents with several properties. In a few years they will be just the very same as mumsy and Dad. Get real!! And where was indymedia when a scummer spat at a Guards back to the applause of the oddballs and misfits. No, you wouldn't like to show that, just show your usual slanted censored versions of events.
I don't thik this is people saying,
"This is why the SWP should be banned"
To me it looks more like,
"This is why the SWP are unpopular"
In fairness to the AFI, WSM and individual's handing out free material. It was in the end free, no charge, just free. The Socialist Worker on the other hand was for sale and the SWP had at several points set up stalls to sell Socialist Worker and SWP badges, this is just rediculous, utterly rediculous to that at a FREE party. But the SWP still refuses to accept this criticism, saying things like we are planning to ban them from street parties and the likes.
You "sell" the paper, that means it's commercial. It doesn't matter what's in it. The Guardian features articles against the war, that doesn't mean it's not commercial.
Not me.
From what I have read it seems that Sunday was a great success, unfortunately I could not be there. I understand the aim (or one of) of RTS is to show how we should have control of our own spaces and not leave them (streets) as arteries for capitalism that can cause death and decay on the roads. I would think that the 'we' is anyone who doesn't have interests in business in this country, so i suppose i am mainly talking about the working class.
Did indeed Sunday advance the cause of the working class?
Was it a liberating experience for all involved?
Did everyone taste a sense of how they could run there own lives free of the shackles of capitalism?
Was it just 1,000+ people enjoying themselves on a Sunday afternoon?
Just questions that popped into my head after seeing a similar discussion about Mayday events this year in London.
the swimmers weren't the only ones there. Sinn Feain were selling spark and sticking up stickers and the WSM were knocking out there material as well as afi. no one had to buy a paer if they didn't want. whatever about swimmer controlfreakery they never tried to stop us giving out our stuff at mtheir marches (although they never let Joe higgins speak!)
I gave out to one of those reds for selling badges. BADGES! He just didn't get that the day was free. Then someone came along and spraypainted "The revolution is not for sale" and pointed a big arrow at them and their spiffing merchandise.
Whoever spraypainted that: thanks.
Those bastards better cop on.
"what could be more authoritarian then attempting to ban a left wing newspaper off a political event"
no one said ban it, what people were asking, was could the swp not have a bit of common sense and not sell their newspaper at a free party!
", or any kind of event for that matter?"
well there has been complaints of hounding people before, but of course the SWP in its greatness cannot take criticism, eh?
"The Socialist Worker is not a commercial newspaper."
would i not be right in thinking the SWP is funded majorly by sales of the SW? would i not be right in thinking that SW is not free therefore a commerical outlet of the SWP?
"It makes no profit as the cost price is simply ploughed back into the next issue."
exactly into the pockets of the SWP, perhaps if the profits of the sales were going to workers on strike, then that would be okay, but no, it goes into the next boring issue of SW which will be rolled out in time for the next demo the SWP would love to get their hands on!
"None of the major chains will sell the socialist worker in Ireland because it is a radical newspaper which is anti-racist, anti-war, supports strikes and so on."
So we'll sell it at a free party!
"This issue contained a lot of anti-war material to counter the propaganda currently being disseminated through all the outlets of the commercial media. It also countained an eyewitness account of palestine by well known activist caoimhe butterly as well as interviews and information about a whole range of struggles in Ireland and abroad."
Very good, i know what was in it, the streets of Dublin were littered with it for a few blocks from Baggot Street afterwards for the plebs to read!
"Among the other material we were selling on a not for profit basis were anti-war and free palestine badges."
Again, selling, not for anyone but the SWP, nothing like "all profits go to westbank children starving" or anything!
"I enjoyed the day yesterday and spoke to many activists who also got a kick out of taking over a street for a couple of hours and having a party."
Oh, dont get me wrong i enjoyed it too except for an attempt by the chosen few to use it as a recruitment drive!
"However it would worry me greatly if any of us in the movement were to try and start imposing rules and regulations on our demos or street parties."
There was no rules, just respect for an open FREE, gettit, FREE day!
"If we want to convince the majority of people that another world is possible shouldn't we be encouraging people to disseminate information and to fly the red or red and black flags?"
Sure but why sell the paper at a free party?
"The RTS crew asked people to assist in the creation of a mutual-aid, anti-commercial space by not selling things. Lots of people ploughed their money and time into the event. RTS did not forbid the SWP from selling its paper, they merely announced that, since it was a free party, with free food, free music, free entertainment..., people selling stuff at the event were not welcome. Most people had no problem with this and several groups handed out literature, but the SWP insist on their divine right to sell the paper. RTS censored the SWP like they censored Mcdonalds - they didn't."
Exactly, and the point, they just didnt get the point of a free fucking party!
this is a boring discussion
i had fun at RTS, that's all that matters
That SWP member who moans about hippy censorship has found a new technique - fill the comments full of unrelated entire articles. Grace, Joe, Kevin, or whoever you are, you are a disgrace. How do you justify this type of activity to yourself? Divine right of the proletariat's party?
The RTS crew asked people to assist in the creation of a mutual-aid, anti-commercial space by not selling things. Lots of people ploughed their money and time into the event. RTS did not forbid the SWP from selling its paper, they merely announced that, since it was a free party, with free food, free music, free entertainment..., people selling stuff at the event were not welcome. Most people had no problem with this and several groups handed out literature, but the SWP insist on their divine right to sell the paper. RTS censored the SWP like they censored Mcdonalds - they didn't.
By Michael Albert
Sending a commentary on a topic other than today’s horrific events has seemed untenable. Addressing today’s events has also seemed untenable. That our web and email server has been inaccessible all day, depriving us of internet communications and of access to update ZNet hasn’t helped. It seems web traffic was so great that it caused problems in Washington State, around Seattle, where our servers are located.
A simple chronicle of the day’s events would be superfluous. Known facts are displayed on every TV station. Reliable deductions are relatively obvious.
After routine take-offs four planes were commandeered by terror teams and simultaneously flown on dramatically distorted trajectories to demolish pre-selected targets. The devastation is not yet known, but is certainly horrific. What can one conclude other than that devastating suicidal terrorist attacks are eminently doable? Annihilating skyscrapers in the U.S. or other developed countries is harder than the U.S. bombing cities in targeted nations, but it is evidently far from impossible.
Good-hearted Americans will mourn these innocent and horrible deaths with dignity and with respect. Media analysts and politicians, however, will soon use pictures of the rubble to seek increased police and military spending and greater state interventionary and surveillance powers. They will intone that killing civilians is cowardly and warrants swift and merciless punishment. They will however ignore having themselves supported the recent assault on Yugoslavia that terrorized that country’s civilian population to topple its despised government. They will also ignore that the U.S.-led embargo of Iraq has caused hundreds of thousands of civilian deaths, again to destabilize a hated government. Today’s terrorism was horrendously vile.
It arose in a terror-infected world.
People throughout the third world have long had their destiny held hostage by distant rulers. First world diplomats and entrepreneurs year after year pursue power and profit imposing nearly unimaginable third world calamity.
Due to our distance from the victims and the endless mass media obfuscation of their plight, we first world citizens fail to realize that when a million people starve because a poor country’s energies are commandeered to benefit multinational capital, it is murder. But, it is murder, and so third world populations have long endured near total dependence on choices made by distant authoritative leaders who are callous to their futures.
The same abysmal condition has arrived, to a degree, for populations in developed countries. Those who died in today’s attacks also suffered a choice made by far away actors callous to the carnage they imposed. First world populations may henceforth share not the degrading conditions and daily poverty of the third world, but some of the fear of being held hostage by others. To try to overcome this condition, but even more to enlarge their already grotesquely bloated powers, first world leaders may in coming weeks challenge decades of gains in civil and legal rights, trying to turn back freedom's clock.
Can anything curtail the carnage of capital, the carnage of terrorism, and the carnage of repressive reaction? Our best hope is to win institutional change that reduces profit-seeking and political subordination, while also reducing desires to lash out with mindless and inhumane terrorism.
In coming weeks we may suffer a kind of celebration in America, a celebration of security and of power, a celebration of surreptitious information retrieval, a celebration of arms growth, and perhaps of assassination, all described as virtuous goals rather than uncivil abominations, all touted as if the terror victims will be honored rather than defiled by our preparing to entomb still more innocent people around the world. Normal good-hearted Americans will weep for the suffering that today’s events exacted and hope to create a world in which such hate and callousness disappears. But I fear that America’s leaders will cynically bulk up their ammo belts while seeking to make ubiquitous their listening devices—trying to relegate public freedoms to an incinerator.
In this environment, people of good will must explain as often as necessary that terrorism is horrific and insane, but so to is capitalist business as usual. And we must not step back from dissent, but must instead work harder to oppose all kinds of injustice with massive public demonstrations and civil disobedience.
The British ruling class quit India in 1947. But as it did so, it divided the subcontinent between two independent states, India (supposedly secular) and Pakistan (a homeland for Muslims). Pakistan was a bizarre entity which had 1,000 miles of India separating its western and its eastern wings-a state of affairs that would last until 1971 when, amidst tumult and war, the east broke away and became the state of Bangladesh.
The partition of the subcontinent was utterly avoidable, and based on the acceptance of the so called 'two nation' theory of Jinnah's Muslim League which claimed, only from 1940 onwards, that Muslims and Hindus were separate nations. The subcontinent was divided amidst terror. One million died in the communal killings that accompanied partition, and millions more were forced to transfer to one side of the new borders or another.
But what was to become of Kashmir? This beautiful valley dotted with lakes right in the far north borders Pakistan, Afghanistan and China, with the former USSR a stone's throw away. It has historically been a bulwark for whoever has controlled it. The majority of the population were Muslim peasants who suffered at the hands of the Hindu Dogra kings. But they were Muslims who, generally speaking, did not want to join Pakistan. The leader of the independence forces in Kashmir was Sheikh Abdullah, a secular socialist with a vision of land reform to improve the living conditions of the majority of Kashmiris. This hugely popular figure rejected Jinnah's Pakistan, rightly fearing that a Pakistan dominated by landlords and the military would stand in the way of land reform, and indeed other social and political reforms. Whilst Hindus, Muslims and Sikhs slaughtered each other in the Punjab during partition, the League did not gain a foothold in Kashmir. How was the question to be resolved?
Kashmir presented an ideological problem for both states created by partition. If the Muslims of Kashmir did not want to be part of Pakistan, there was little left of Jinnah's two nation theory. And if a Muslim majority state could not survive in India, there was little left of Indian National Congress leader Nehru's vision of a secular independent India.
But it was not just a question of ideology. Also at stake was the securing of the strategic boundaries of the new states and controlling the important mountain passes which run to Kashmir. To this day China controls a mountainous eastern zone of Kashmir, taken after a short war with India in 1962. The ruler of Kashmir had the power to decide which way the state would go. He avoided making such a decision for two months after independence until tribesmen invaded northern Kashmir at the behest of the Pakistani army. So the king hastily gave his consent to join India so that Indian troops could 'legally' enter Kashmiri territory to rebuff Pakistan's forces.
Nehru promised that the decision to join India, made by an undemocratic Hindu king, would be put to the people at a later date, but that 'later date' has always been denied. Kashmir was granted a concession, however. Provision 370 of the Indian constitution, giving 'special status' to Kashmir, dates from this time and is much loathed by the Hindu chauvinist BJP today.
Pakistani forces were forced back by Indian troops and a ceasefire was brokered by the United Nations in 1949. The 'line of control' which today divides Indian-occupied Kashmir from Pakistani-occupied Kashmir is the ceasefire line that was drawn at the end of this, the first of three wars India and Pakistan have fought over the control of Kashmir. For the first 40 years after partition there was little support for joining Pakistan. Shaikh Abdullah's National Conference swept the board in elections in 1951, winning everything-pro-Pakistan candidates were wiped out. But it soon became clear that the Indian state was not going to withdraw its troops, and nor was it going to allow the population of Kashmir to have any say over its future.
Troops fire on demonstrators
The Indian central government engineered the ousting and imprisonment of Sheikh Abdullah in 1953-but not before he enacted widespread land reform which broke the power of the Kashmiri landlords and allowed land in the state to be owned only by Kashmiris, something else much resented by the BJP today.
Abdullah's imprisonment was met with a 20 day general strike, during which Indian troops repeatedly fired on demonstrators, killing as many as 1,000. When he was released six years later, one million people lined the streets to welcome his return. Abdullah was imprisoned again, after visiting China, and again there were strikes, demonstrations, arrests, repression-and growing bitterness against India. Pakistan launched a second war in 1965, thinking it could exploit this situation and spark off an uprising. But it was wrong about the mood in Kashmir-the movement was not expressing a desire to be part of the thoroughly undemocratic state of Pakistan.
The 1972 Simla agreement between India and Pakistan renamed the ceasefire line as the line of control and both sides agreed to respect it, cementing further the division of Kashmir. Sheikh Abdullah was released from prison and, in 1977, was re-elected with a huge majority. But he was, by then, prepared to make his peace with India. His regime was increasingly corrupt, and when he died in 1982 his son Farooq simply took over. Growing numbers of Kashmiris were frustrated by the corruption, which was compounded by the lack of jobs-especially for educated Kashmiris-and growing authoritarianism of the state government. At the same time Kashmir's 'special status' had been systematically eroded.
During the 1980s the Indian government increasingly intervened in the state, dismissing elected governments, imposing states of emergency, and installing hardline anti-Muslim governors. The fiddling of the 1987 election created deep bitterness, but it was really in 1989 that a huge insurgency began against India. 'We felt that if the Berlin Wall could be dismantled, so too could the line of control,' said one participant. But India and Pakistan certainly did not want the reunification of Kashmir, and Russia and China feared the effect a successful movement in Kashmir would have on minorities within their borders.
When the Indian army massacred 100 demonstrators in Srinagar in 1990, rebellion seized the whole population of the valley. Some 400,000 marched, then a million, of whom 40 were shot dead. A younger generation of Kashmiris decided to fight, and began a guerrilla army campaign. This partly reflected their frustration, and partly the impact of the end of the war in Afghanistan against Russia which meant a ready supply of arms and volunteers. So alongside guerrillas who were fighting for an independent Kashmir and were inspired by Che Guevara, were groups of Islamist guerrillas fighting to join Pakistan. The Pakistani state, via the ISI intelligence service, armed and sponsored a number of the groups, particularly Lashkar-i-Tayyaba and Harkatul Mujahadeen. But it was Indian army repression which drove the young Kashmiris into the arms of Pakistan and the jihadis.
The fight for independence
The Indian army used classic counterinsurgency tactics, taught to them by the British. One explicitly anti-Muslim governor imposed by the central Indian government declared: 'Every Muslim in Kashmir is a militant today... The bullet is the only solution for Kashmir. Unless the militants are fully wiped out, normality can't return to the valley.' Some 600,000 troops were stationed in the area in the 1990s. During this period it had the highest ratio of troops to population anywhere in the world, and 70,000 Kashmiris were killed. There were mass arrests, disappearances, widespread torture and rape. A 1995 poll in the Economist assessed that 75 percent of the population of the valley supported the fight for independence. But the insurgency was concentrated only in the valley. Indeed the valley's Hindu population-some 140,000 people-fled after the insurgency began. The rich went to their second homes in Delhi, the rest to miserable refugee camps in Jammu. There was also fighting between Muslims and Buddhists in Ladakh at the end of the 1980s.
The guerrillas could not beat the Indian state, and the population of the valley became weary. The guerrillas alienated more and more people as they became increasingly bullying, divided, and responsible for random-and communal-acts of violence. Tariq Ali wrote in the London Review of Books last year that in the late 1990s, 'The groups killed each other's militants, kidnapped western tourists, drove Kashmiri Hindus out of regions where they had lived for centuries, punished Kashmiri Muslims who remained stubbornly secular and occasionally knocked off a few Indian soldiers and officials.' Today secular opposition groups have been pushed to the margins.
The dominance of the jihadi leadership of the movement only exacerbates the fear of the Hindu and Buddhist populations that they are going to be dominated by the Muslims of the valley who want to join Pakistan. And the BJP and Hindu communalists are only too happy to whip up such fears. How can communal divisions be prevented from spreading? What should the stance of socialists be?
I believe socialists should say three things. Firstly, neither India nor Pakistan can be supported as a preference. The repression of the Indian state is vile and must be opposed, but there would not be greater peace, freedom or security if Kashmir were to join Pakistan, a country still dominated by the army and the landlords. Both powers must withdraw.
Secondly, Kashmiris must be given the right to genuine self determination, including the choice of independence, with guaranteed rights for Buddhists and Hindus. The Pakistani state claims to support self determination for Kashmir but does so in rhetoric only. It opposes independence, insisting only accession to India or Pakistan are the options. In reality it wants the military incorporation of the state into its boundaries.
Thirdly, socialists must stress the need to build unity of the poor and exploited throughout the region, be they Muslim, Hindu, Buddhist or Sikh. The Baluchis developed quite a sophisticated understanding of this whilst fighting the Pakistani state in the 1970s. 'We will fight for our right to self determination,' they said. But 'what is the point of fighting for my own self determination, if I do not also fight the landlords and the exploiters?'
The legacy of partition is that the people of the sub-continent have been divided on the grounds of religion and nationality. The alternative is undermining these divisions by building unity through class struggle.
I was at lots of carnival over the weekend and saw okupas (squatters) hand out organic homegrown food, and then later sell beers and "spacecakes", "spacecakes" are great, and I´d gladly send on the recipe to the boys in red.
I love how over here in Barcelona they wear red baseball caps as well.
Many times we´ve had a word with their older types to stop them plastering their posters over ours.
We fly the Palastine flag in Placa Real here as a gesture of support for that people but also as reminder that our movement against hyper-capitalism and global destruction comprises constant interaction and co-operation between what is called in the subculture the "blocks".
Thats not simple anarchist thinking its very complicated and inspired anarch-solution.
I usually try and steal one of their newspapers to enter into debate on the nature of property.
END PATENTS. NO MORE CLONES/TRANSGENETICS
FREE THE MEDICINES = INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY
and less of the bitching or I´ll send for Panda Bear.
what could be more authoritarian then attempting to ban a left wing newspaper off a political event, or any kind of event for that matter?
The Socialist Worker is not a commercial newspaper. It makes no profit as the cost price is simply ploughed back into the next issue.None of the major chains will sell the socialist worker in Ireland because it is a radical newspaper which is anti-racist, anti-war, supports strikes and so on.
This issue contained a lot of anti-war material to counter the propaganda currently being disseminated through all the outlets of the commercial media. It also countained an eyewitness account of palestine by well known activist caoimhe butterly as well as interviews and information about a whole range of struggles in Ireland and abroad.
Among the other material we were selling on a not for profit basis were anti-war and free palestine badges.
I enjoyed the day yesterday and spoke to many activists who also got a kick out of taking over a street for a couple of hours and having a party. However it would worry me greatly if any of us in the movement were to try and start imposing rules and regulations on our demos or street parties. If we want to convince the majority of people that another world is possible shouldn't we be encouraging people to disseminate information and to fly the red or red and black flags?
dare to criticise the soliders of destiny!
Come on swimmers, accept the criticism as constructive and engage in some much needed self analysis.