Socialist Party of Ireland support Imperialism

by troll-hater Wed Nov 13, 2002 21:47

"When the issue of the British Army at the Union’s open Day recently came up Mr Ward supported this imperialist army."

And would you care to enlighten us as to the actual words that were exchanged? you cant come on and make such a statement without some actual proof.
but a) i think you are possibly a spart troll and
b) you are calling the socialist party pro-imperialist? hahahahahahahaha. if i was in the SP i'd be VERY offended by that comment.

by QUB SU Executive Member Wed Nov 13, 2002 23:19

No. It is true. Mr Ward at two Student Union executives demanded that the British army be allowed have a recruitment stall at the Students Union open Day for first Year Students. For a supposed socialist this is a disgrace. The minutes of the SU are available to QUB students.
P.S.
They're are no Sparts in Belfast and simply put if the Socialist Party (whose politics seem okay on most issues) don't support allowing the British Army recruit at college open days while killing civilians around the world why will they not answer queries about this?

by Shite Thu Nov 14, 2002 00:59

There is not party called "the Socialist Party of Ireland". But I presume that this person is having a go at the Socialist Party (which is the Irish section of the CWI)

I think that this kind of personal attack on parties and organisations is something that should be taken off indymedia. I for one am sick of indymedia being taken up with lefts attacking each other online. It's meant to be news, not gossip and personal attacks. I can nearly gaurentee there will be a posting up by Damien Lawlor entitled "10 reasons to hate the SP"

by Intransigent Thu Nov 14, 2002 01:44

Why do so many on Indymedia feel the need to attack other left wingers? It seems absolutely ludacris! I thought the idea was to fight the actual enemy, that being the right wing! Right now they are laughing at us cause we are doing their job for them. It doesn't matter if you are anarchist, SF, SP, SWP or spart or whatever do you not think your energies/anger would be better focused in another direction?

by pete ranks Thu Nov 14, 2002 09:30

This sort of thing goes on every day, doesn't it? And as the previous comment states, the energy of all the groups and individuals who frequent this site is focused on having a go at each other, when this forum should be somewhere that we can all exchange info and ideas, and perhaps have the odd debate on fundamentals, but its always nag, nag, nag. Very few contibutors here, it seems to me, are willing to come together and get the 'people' rallying against the state and the system. This is what pisses me off, and sometimes stops me from being actively involved in a lot of the things that go on, because it always ends up being a rant against SWP, sparts, anarchists etc. There will definitely not be a revolution soon at this rate.

by pat c Thu Nov 14, 2002 11:56

the sp is not a pro imperialist organisation. but they refuse to confront the reality that the protestant working class are slaves to an imperialist mindset.

workers unity is a meaningless slogan unless you are prepared to combat pro imperialist ideologies.

to justify their position on the north. the sp have to ignore everything marx, engels, lenin, trotsky and the comintern wrote on ireland.

even during the civil war the communist international supported the republican side and regarded the treaty as a betrayal. the comintern had no sympathy for the backwardness of the protestant working class.

in 1936, trotsky reaffirmed his support for the republican cause and certainly did not call for a socialist federation of the british isles.

yet the sp persist in quoting from an old trotsky pamphlet "against individual terrorism" which was not written about ireland, did not refer to national liberation struggles and in fact was about the narodniks & their like.

it is precisely because the sp refuse to confront some of their members backward positions that you have a situation where one of their members supports a british army recruiting stall in qub.

by Finghin - Socialist Youth Thu Nov 14, 2002 13:12

How dare SF/SWP etc call us pro imperialist. We were the only group in the late 60s to oppose the British Army going into the north. Many SF supporters supported the army going into the north, the SWP cheered on the troops as they came onto the streets.

SF are in fact pro imperialist. SF are the party that go to the US establishment cap in hand organising $500 a plate dinners everytime they need a bit of cash.

by pat c Thu Nov 14, 2002 13:45

come on now fin deal with the issue.

what is the sp position on your members supporting british army recruting stalls in qub?

but regarding your comments: only a few days ago you were predicting a bloodbath if the british army withdrew. make up your mind, should they stay or should they go?

by Derek Thu Nov 14, 2002 14:47

Finghin: "How dare SF/SWP etc call us pro imperialist" As far as I can see the SWP has not contributed to this particular controversy. Why drag them in when a simple denial from the SP can clear this up.

Finghin says: "SWP cheered on the troops as they came onto the streets" That's a lie, Finghin.

I've no idea whether your members in Belfast supported the police having a stall or not but the SP has not denied it.

Instead you publish a lie about the SWP. Do you and your comrades not realise that conscious dishonesty of this sort destroys the reputation not only of the SP but damages the whole left?

A bit of integrity from you would be welcome.

by Derek Thu Nov 14, 2002 14:50

I should of course have written British Army not Police in above comment

by Rosa Thu Nov 14, 2002 15:00 clem_osf at hotmail dot com

As a member of QUB students Union and a Socialist I am disgusted at the fact that a member of the Socialist Party, has supported the British army coming into the Students Union to recruit.

To my knowlegde I thought that the Socialist party were anti-Imperialist, that they were against the war in Afghanistan and the war on Iraq. So why allow one of the main Imperialist armies supporting these wars to recruit?
This seems a little contradictory to me?

Its make up your mind time are the Socialist party anti-Imperialism or not? All left wing groups should be united but how can we be when some support Imperialist armies and wars?

by Finghin Thu Nov 14, 2002 16:44

It is a fact that the SWP supported the British army going into the North. Look at some Socialist Workers at the time. When Catholics welcomed the British Army, the SWP (and many Republicans) were silent about the role that troops would play. Only when they used repressive methods did you turn this support into opposition. Throughout we pointed out the real role of the British troops and opposed them.

For SF to call themselves anti imperialist is a complete joke. SF gets is bankrolled by US imperialism.

The QUBSU officer in question may well be taken up wrong, I really don't know the details of the case in question. The fact is that the SP would not support the British Army having a stall in freshers week. But we would not oppose it in the crude sectarian way that SF would.

by Pat C Thu Nov 14, 2002 17:19

"The QUBSU officer in question may well be taken up wrong, I really don't know the details of the case in question. "

dont you think you should have found out the details by now?

"The fact is that the SP would not support the British Army having a stall in freshers week."

So what disciplinay action will you take if it turns out that an sp member did support the stall?

"But we would not oppose it in the crude sectarian way that SF would."

so theres a non crude way of opposing the imperial british army? what will you do? put flowers in their gun barrels?

you still havent answered the question: should the british army now leave the north?

by Damian Thu Nov 14, 2002 17:42

Mr Ward a former councillor for the Militant Labour tendency in Brighton and now Socialist Party member in Belfast argued strongly at two executive meetings of QUB SU to allow the British Army have a recruitment stall.

Also i am not going to get into any slanging matches. I just want an official response from the SP and to ask if this is not SP party policy why has Mr. Ward not been kicked out.

by Gatsby Thu Nov 14, 2002 17:56

Isn't perfectly obvious by now that the SP will not give a straight answer to the question posed?

In this long thread nobody from the SP has denied the allegation. They don't think you deserve an answer!!!

Finghin just like any bourgeois politician simply dodges the question: He dishonestly accuses others, hedges and turns onto the attack but refuses to answer a simple question:

Did your man do what he is accused of, Yes or No?
Is this SP policy, Yes or No?
Why won't you give us straight answer?

Is any SP head prepared to answer???

by Truth teller Thu Nov 14, 2002 18:03

SP member Finghin continues to tell lies:

Lie number one: Finghin says: "SWP cheered on the troops as they came onto the streets"

No they didn't "cheer on troops". Give us evidence or retract.

Lie number two: Finghin says: "It is a fact that the SWP supported the British army going into the North."

No they didn't "support the British army going into the North". Give us evidence or retract.

Dishonesty and lying are not acceptable ways for socialists to argue. Why do the SP lie?

by Bob the Party Builder Thu Nov 14, 2002 18:15

Yet again the issue of the SWP and the troops comes up. What actually happened is that they didn't oppose the troops being sent in, and described them as "providing a breathing space".

That isn't quite the same as "cheering on the troops", although it isn't that far off.

by Finghin Thu Nov 14, 2002 19:15

I am NOT a liar, it is the leadership of the SWP that are lying to you. They are obviously concealing a previous position that was incorrect from their membership instead of being honest and explaining their change in position.

The FACT is that the SWP did indeed support British troops going into the north as did most of the catholic population at the time. They only later opposed the British troops when they becames unpopular in catholic areas for using repressive methods.

Ask any honest member of the SWP that was around at the time or look at a copy of Socialist Worker published at the time. They will tell you this.

by pat c Thu Nov 14, 2002 19:23

do you think the british army should pull out?

why havent you checked re the qub situation?

what action would the sp take against a member who supported a british army recruiting stall in qub?

by Finghin Thu Nov 14, 2002 19:32

I am not going to comment any further on the QUB situation because I do not know the details. It would be better for someone from the party that did know the details to reply.

I do suspect that SF were raising the issue in an extremely sectarian issue as usual and that he was opposing that approach.

by mal Thu Nov 14, 2002 20:27

as bob says they said the army gave a the breathing space but to organise and keep the barracades.

check out their archive thingy called 'reds'

by mal Thu Nov 14, 2002 20:44

check out
www.marxists.de/ireland/swaug69/troops.htm

has peter hadden being telling a few porkies?

by mal Thu Nov 14, 2002 20:45

check out
http://www.marxists.de/ireland/swaug69/troops.htm

has peter hadden being telling a few porkies?

by Amused as fcuk Thu Nov 14, 2002 21:26

Finghin says:
I am not going to comment any further on the QUB situation because I do not know the details.

Ditto SWP and August 1969, but that didn't stop you commenting in that situation - did it.

Hypocritical SFB.

Now, where's the SP's front page from Aug 1969 for our scrutiny.

by trolls live Thu Nov 14, 2002 22:14

why is the first reaction of sp and swp muppets to call for even more censorship on indymedia in order to prevent criticism of their perfect little trotskyist sects? Their other tactic is to talk about everything else under the sun except the origional points raised. For good measure they ramble on about trolls, they seem to think this is some kind of 'bad word'that will frighten the kids off to bed early.

by doheochai - Socialist Party Fri Nov 15, 2002 00:44

As a member of the Socialist Party I will be asking for details about what happened in Queens. If a member of the Socialist Party supported the British Army Stall, then in my view he made a mistake. The Socialist Party is an anti-imperialist party but is not a republican/nationalist party.

Should this person be expelled from the Socialist Party. Most definitely not. People make mistakes, and if a mistake has been made here it should be acknowledged. If people were to be expelled for making mistakes there would be very few political activists left.

No political organisation or activist can go through life without making mistakes, I have made plenty, however when we do make mistakes we acknowledge them and do our best to correct them, unlike others who deny that they ever make mistakes.

by SU executive member Fri Nov 15, 2002 10:43

This was not a mistake. This was a member of your party expressing his genuinely held view. Any party calling itself socialist should not tolerate imperialists.

by Fortune Teller Fri Nov 15, 2002 12:25

The SP will not give an answer today, tomorrow, next month, sometime, never. Instead the will quietly let the matter drop and hope everyone forgets. Priceless!

by hs sp Fri Nov 15, 2002 15:59

As an SP member I oppose completely the action of a comrade prssing for a recruiting stall in QUB. Its bad enough to fail to prevent it for whatever reason but to call for it is a disgrace. It can easily be opposed in a non sectarian way. Don't know if it actually happened or not yet, but if it did action must be taken. A disgraceful position for socialists to take. If its true it is more than a mistake. We would not call for this in the south or in any other country and NI of all places we should not support it. Presuming it actually happened. If it didn't, more crap on indymedia. Which is degenerating into a slagging site. So I might as well join in seems all its good for anymore:

"but they refuse to confront the reality that the protestant working class are slaves to an imperialist mindset."

This quote though is ridiculas , prodestants and only prodestants are slaves to capitalism, they didn't have the luck to be given all the wonderful catholic teachuing that makes us oh so superior. You should join Forza Nouva Pat they love all that catholic superiority too. They even have the celtic cross as a symbol, suit you right down to the ground.

by pat c Fri Nov 15, 2002 18:26

hs unlike u i am an anti imperialist.

so you think i should join forca?

well,marx, engels, lenin, trotsky & the comintern had no sympathy for the backwardness of the protestant working class. this is a fact. in none of their writings will you see any suggestion that socialists should make concessions to an imperial mindset.

even in 1936 trotsky quite unambiguosly supported the republican cause.

so i guess marx, engels lenin & trotsky were catholic nationalists.

you are truly pathetic.

by pat c Fri Nov 15, 2002 18:31

is it now sp policy to slander your opponents as fascists because of opposition to your policies in the north?

i stated that i did not think the sp as an organisation was pro-imperialist.

by Angrier Activist Fri Nov 15, 2002 18:44

The sticks in RTE used to call anyone who disagreed with then regarding the North, provo fascists or provotrot neo-fascists.

Interesting to see the baton has been passed on to the SP. What next, the SP supporting a return of Section 31?

by Mags Fri Nov 15, 2002 19:11

What is hs on about. All Pat C said was:

"but they refuse to confront the reality that the protestant working class are slaves to an imperialist mindset."

And the majority of the protestant working class are. For God's sake - most of them vote for the DUP, a party which is led and directed by members of the Free Presbyterian church. Now if people want to be members of the 'wee frees', fair play - but it is a church which believes in the ABSOLUTE LITERAL TRUTH of every word in the Bible and that society should be governed by the Bible precepts. It is also a deeply sexist and homophobic institution. Also against evolution. And these points are carried over into the policies of the DUP. And most urban working class people of a Unionist background vote for them.

They DO NOT vote for the PUP, which does claim to be a 'left wing' party and the SP used to do a bit of cheer-leading for them. Moderate as the PUP are in their 'socialism' they are castigated as 'communists' within the vast majority of loyalist areas.

The majority (all?) of Unionists also support the British Monarchy and Empire (such as it is!). This is before you get into the spitting down on their neighbours of a different religion. Some go further and murder nationalists soley because of their religion.

I can't quite see how anything 'progressive' can be salvaged out of this at all, but the SP refuses to address this. From a liberalist position we get points about condemning 'both sides', etc. Must be a lot of splinters in your collective arses.

If Pat C pointed out that most working class people in the 26 counties voted for Fianna Fail, would he also be seen as a 'fascist'. It's true, but that does not mean he agrees with them doing so.

Stop throwing the term 'fascist' about like snuff at a wake. It is childish and politically dangerous.

by Finghin Fri Nov 15, 2002 20:48

To write off all the Protestant working class as one large reactionary block is absolutly ridiculous and shows the bankruptcy of Republican thinking.

What do SF propose? Should we just exterminate all Protestants if they do not all suddenly realise their Irishness come a united Ireland?

by doheochai - Socialist Party Sat Nov 16, 2002 00:15

SU executive member Fri, Nov 15 2002, 9:43am

"This was not a mistake. This was a member of your party expressing his genuinely held view. Any party calling it socialist should not tolerate imperialists."

Firstly I doubt that this was posted by a member of the SU executive, if I was they should have the bottle to put their name on their posting. Clearly this posting is mischief making.

Clearly this is an attempt at SP bashing, the increase in sectarian posting is really becoming a pain on indymedia. However a number of accusations were hurled at the SP and I tend to take the bait when this happens.

by Fortune Teller Fri, Nov 15 2002, 11:25am

"The SP will not give an answer today, tomorrow, next month, sometime, never. Instead the will quietly let the matter drop and hope everyone forgets. Priceless! "

I have briefly discussed the matter with a leading member of the SP in Northern Ireland. I will (briefly) outline below my understanding of what happened and I have asked if he has the time to post a fuller explanation later. I think you can appreciate that members of the SP do not have all day to sit down and answer back to the sniping of political rivals.

Firstly it appears that Sinn Fein raised this matter in a blatantly sectarian fashion and unfortunately it appears that the SP member responded in an inappropriate way. My understanding that discussions have taken place and it has been pointed out that the SP counteract the sectarianism of Sinn Fein by opposing the question in a socialist manner. Although I cannot speak for the SP member in question, it has been indicated to me that he accepts that he should have dealt with the situation differently. People make mistakes, we are all human. Those perfect lefts who are correct in everything they do, could probable benefit from making a few mistakes, they might learn something.

by pat c Fri, Nov 15 2002, 5:26pm

"well,marx, engels, lenin, trotsky & the comintern had no sympathy for the backwardness of the protestant working class. this is a fact. in none of their writings will you see any suggestion that socialists should make concessions to an imperial mindset.

even in 1936 trotsky quite unambiguosly supported the republican cause."

My suggestion, pat c is that you go back and read Marx, Engels, Lenin and Trotsky again, if you ever have in the first place. In particular I would suggest their writings on imperialism, self-determination and the tactic of individual terrorism. I would point out that Marxism is not a dogma to be interpreted literally but a method of analysis, something that many on left seem to have an enormous difficulty understanding.

by Mags Fri, Nov 15 2002, 6:11pm

"And the majority of the protestant working class are (…slaves to an imperialist mindset). For God's sake - most of them vote for the DUP
T
hey DO NOT vote for the PUP, which does claim to be a 'left wing' party and the SP used to do a bit of cheer-leading for them.

The majority (all?) of Unionists also support the British Monarchy and Empire (such as it is!). This is before you get into the spitting down on their neighbours of a different religion. Some go further and murder nationalists soley because of their religion.

I can't quite see how anything 'progressive' can be salvaged out of this at all, but the SP refuses to address this. From a liberalist position we get points about condemning 'both sides', etc. Must be a lot of splinters in your collective arses. "

Firstly, the SP were never cheer-leaders for the PUP. We did consider that it might be possible for a left current to develop within the PUP, just as we also discussed the possibility of a left current developing within Sinn Fein. Clearly neither happened but we were right to consider the possibility.

It amazes me how “republican” socialists write off the protestant working class. In reality there is also a dismissive attitude towards catholic working class people as well. Can anyone really suggest that when 100,000 people came onto the streets of Belfast last January, to protest at the murder of a catholic postman by the UFF, that they were all catholics on that demonstration. Why, when the sectarian Sinn Fein “lord mayor” of Belfast call for an anti-sectarian demo, did only a couple of thousand turned up. Had it anything to do with the instinctive understanding of the working class, both catholic and protestant, that it was ridiculous for a sectarian politician to call an anti-sectarian march. The attitude of “republican” socialists (and liberalists) is that 1) protestants are sectarian, catholics are progressive, 2) protestants launch sectarian attacks against catholics, catholics only defend themselves from protestant attacks 3) the protestants (all?) are slaves to their imperialist masters, catholics under the guidance of republican socialists will lead the way to a socialist Ireland. So-called republican socialists consistently refuse to address the issue of the rise of sectarianism among the catholic population. It is a reality. The battles at the interfaces in Belfast are battles about territory and Sinn Fein are openly pushing forward this battle. Incidentally, I was recently at a Sinn Fein public meeting where a member of the audience stood up and said “I don’t care about the protestants, if they don’t want to live in Ireland let them piss off back to England where they came from”. Did Martin Ferris (the main speaker at the meeting) or any other member of Sinn Fein objected to the comments, NO, but I was heckled by members of Sinn Fein when I did.

Finally, I am still awaiting a Sinn Fein response to my posting about Sinn Fein’s international links.

http://www.indymedia.ie/cgi-bin/newswire.cgi?id=17420&start=80

I wonder how long it will take. I wouldn’t be surprised if this thread was an attempt to divert attention away from this issue. I won’t hold my breath while I wait for a response. Incidentally it appears that a posting demanding a reply from Sinn Fein to my comments was removed from indymedia. I wonder why?

by SU executive member Sat Nov 16, 2002 12:10

If this is an official reponse from the socialist party its laughable.

Sinn Féin members did raise the issue. They obviously would oppose a British Army presence. But how can opposing a British Army presence be sectarian or done in a sectarian way.

What is obvious is that due to a complete lack of bottle or maybe politics the SP in the north are refusing to deal with the issue.

The socialist party regularly lecture everybody about what revolutionaries do but can't accept any criticism.

by hs sp Sat Nov 16, 2002 17:30

No pat I don't think you are a fascist, I am taking the piss, and its not an sp tactic, it is me taking the piss. I don't think SF or republicans are fascists and neither does the sp.
Apologies for the misunderstanding, but comments on indymedia generally aren't the sp program. They are comments on indymedia. apologies again.

by hs sp Sat Nov 16, 2002 17:39

he said he had a quick chat with some comrades in the north, this isn't obviously an official answer. How is it pathetic, he said the SP comrade was mistaken, and after talking with other comrades has accepted it. I trust he will put forward the party position in future. It would be pathetic if we denied everything but we haven't, we've admitted a mistake and are correcting it. What did you actually want? Isn't this why you brought it up? or was there another reason?

by su exec member Mon Nov 18, 2002 18:21

The issue of the SP allowing an Imperialist and Oppressive British force to recruit in QUB has been ongoing for a number of days. So when are we actually going to get an official reponse from the SP?

No doubt it did not take them so long to jump on the 'Don't attack Iraq' campaigns. So we know that the SP support the British army recruiting for war on Iraq, however they don't support war on Iraq. Does this seem a little contradictory to anyone else?

by pat c Tue Nov 19, 2002 12:42

yes huck i have read trotsky lenin etc.

you dont explain how your application of the "marxist merthod" requires you to reject entirely their analysis of the irish question.

when did the majority of the protestant working class cease to be pro imperialist?

in 1920 trotsky supported the ira.

in 1922 the comintern supported the republican side during the irish civil war. they saw the treaty as a betrayal.

in 1936 trotsky unambiouously supported the republican cause. despite the experience of the outdoor relief riots, trotsky made no suggestion that republicans or socialists should moderate their demands. instead he stated: "the revolutionary tradition of the national struggle is a precious good."

of course you will just continue to ignore all of marx, engels, lenin & trotsky on ireland. the comintern resolutions are also discarded by you.

cheers to your ignorance.

by Finghin - Socialist Youth Tue Nov 19, 2002 18:40

You will get no official comment from the SP re: QUB. Why should you expect one? If I announced on indymedia that the SF cumman in UCD were calling for a Yes vote in the Abortion referendum, which would be agianst their party line, I would not expect an oficial response nor should I get one. (They wernt calling for a Yes vote in that refeendum, I was just using it as an example)

To give critical support to the IRA in the 1920's is very different to supporting them now.For one the whole world situation has transformed,the British state does not rule over a thrid of the planet anymore, the British establishment do not have any strategic reason for being in Ireland and would prefer to dominate Ireland through economic ways, like it has and is doing in Africa for example.

Trotsky's support was critical, he did point out the conservatism of the leadership and the lack of a clear socialist programme amongst other things.

We apply the method of analysis used by Trotsky to today's situation. We don't crudely take some quote completley out of context and rigidly apply it to today. This doctrinaire childishness is typical of republicanism.

The majority of the protestant working class may support the union this does not mean they are one large homogenous reactionary group that can't be won over to Socialism. The fact is that a united Ireland is impossible without winning over the Protestant working class (Unless you want a civil war or mass deportations of course) The protestant working class can ONLY be won over on the basis of fighting for socialism, they will not suddenly see the light and flock to SF's banner no matter how much you would like it to happen.

For anyone that actually knows our politics they will know that we have never disregarded MArxism. It is SF and the Republican movement that has done so. Republicans have privitised schools, voted for double taxation, played down mass struggle, opposed striking workers
and engaged in the tactics of individual terror.

by C. Thu Nov 21, 2002 12:27

Can SF please respond to this - please do not censor
by Red Scare Thu, Nov 21 2002, 10:43am
Can SF please respond to this - please do not censor

It's about the true nature of their 'international' links.

http://www.indymedia.ie/cgi-bin/newswire.cgi?id=17665&start=100&sid=94221

related link: www.indymedia.ie/cgi-bin/newswire.cgi?id=17665&start=100&sid=94221

add your comments

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
COMMENTS
Its already on the newswire
by Ray Thu, Nov 21 2002, 10:46am

'Articles' like this are going to be deleted as soon as they appear, and good riddance.

when will the sp issue a statement about their british army recruiting
by pat c Thu, Nov 21 2002, 10:52am

sergeant in qub?

On Imperialism
by OK - SP Thu, Nov 21 2002, 11:01am

In no way does the SP support Imperialism. We do not support the British Army, or any capitalist army, recruiting at a university Freshers' week. At no point ever did we support British troops coming into the North, unlike other groups on the left.

The recent attacks on the SP are because of personal grudges a number of individuals have. You dont like the way we beat you in argument so you just go out and deliberatly mis-interpret the words of a member of ours.

It's pathetic really. Why dont SF, Labour et al argue on the issues. SF what about privatisation, supporting bin tax in sligo, term-time workers, terrorist tactics, your sectarianism, .... Labour what about coalitions, social partnership, tax amnesties, careerism, TU bureaucrats, Nice Treaty...

personal grudges?
by pat c Thu, Nov 21 2002, 11:07am

ahem? who posted the attack on sf above, which i replied to.

members of the sp have been carrying out personalised attacks on me, on members of sf, members of the irsm, and on sf & irsp as organisations.

it was finghin & his rainbow - the willie o'dea of the sp, who started up this recent cold war.

ps you still haven't given a full & rational account of the events at qub.

on personal attacks
by OK - SP Thu, Nov 21 2002, 11:18am

I dont know who 'red scare' is. What I put up in my previous posting was not a personalised attack. I raised the issues that SF do not answer. Who and What are your international links? what about PFIs? What about supporting bin tax in sligo? what about the term-time workers? what about your failed tactics of individual terror? what about your sectarianism?

SP members have given full explainations of the QUB situation. It was an attack on the SP born out of a personal grudge some republicans have against us. When they fail in arguing the issues they resort to taking people out of context and deliberatly mis-interpreting.

btw
by pat c Thu, Nov 21 2002, 11:20am

i hold no grudges against the sp.

certainly all of their members i've worked with in various campaigns are genuine socialist activists.

i prefer to have debate on a more serious level & i realise that there will be things that we just disagree about.

however when a sp member refers to the irsm & sf & independent socialist republicans as rightwing & throws in trotsky quotes, you must expect a comeback.

by Finghin - Socialist Party Thu Nov 21, 2002 21:05

You do seem to have grudges against the SP. The QUB situation has been dealt with.

I don't think all members of SF and other republican groups are right wing, I never said that. What I do believe is that SF has a right wing leadership that has implemented privitisation, bin tax, PFI/PPP, closed hospitals and would go into coalition with FF given the chance. They also have dubious links with big business in the US. SF do however have a base among some of the southern and northern catholic working class, and as a result many of their activists are quite left wing and the leadership are forced into adopting a left veneer, but fundamentally SF are a capitalist party.

I also believe that republicanism is unable to attract the protestant working class which is essential. It is also obviously true that unionism can't win over the catholic workers, this is a lesson learned by the PUP which failed to break with loyalism. It is only Socialism that can unite catholic and protestant workers.
It is you that is unwilling to discuss these issues, you seem to want to distract from them by bringing up the QUB situation even though it has been answered.