A bird's eye view of the vineyard
 Alternative Copy of thesaker.is site is available Thu May 25, 2023 14:38 | Ice-Saker-V6bKu3nz
Alternative site: https://thesaker.si/saker-a... Site was created using the downloads provided Regards Herb
The Saker blog is now frozen Tue Feb 28, 2023 23:55 | The Saker
Dear friends As I have previously announced, we are now “freezing” the blog.? We are also making archives of the blog available for free download in various formats (see below).?
What do you make of the Russia and China Partnership? Tue Feb 28, 2023 16:26 | The Saker
by Mr. Allen for the Saker blog Over the last few years, we hear leaders from both Russia and China pronouncing that they have formed a relationship where there are
Moveable Feast Cafe 2023/02/27 ? Open Thread Mon Feb 27, 2023 19:00 | cafe-uploader
2023/02/27 19:00:02Welcome to the ‘Moveable Feast Cafe’. The ‘Moveable Feast’ is an open thread where readers can post wide ranging observations, articles, rants, off topic and have animate discussions of
The stage is set for Hybrid World War III Mon Feb 27, 2023 15:50 | The Saker
Pepe Escobar for the Saker blog A powerful feeling rhythms your skin and drums up your soul as you?re immersed in a long walk under persistent snow flurries, pinpointed by The Saker >>
Interested in maladministration. Estd. 2005
RTEs Sarah McInerney ? Fianna Fail?supporter? Anthony
Joe Duffy is dishonest and untrustworthy Anthony
Robert Watt complaint: Time for decision by SIPO Anthony
RTE in breach of its own editorial principles Anthony
Waiting for SIPO Anthony Public Inquiry >>
Promoting Human Rights in IrelandHuman Rights in Ireland >>
In Welcoming Trump, Let Us Remember Henry VIII Fri Jan 24, 2025 19:00 | Joanna Gray
We're all feeling a little giddy after the inauguration, but let us remember to put not our trust in princes, says Joanna Gray. After all, Thomas More effused at the coronation of Henry VIII, and look what happened to him.
The post In Welcoming Trump, Let Us Remember Henry VIII appeared first on The Daily Sceptic.
Have Covid Travel Requirements Gone Away? Fri Jan 24, 2025 17:00 | Dr Roger Watson
Back in 2022 and 2023 when Covid travel restrictions and vaccine passports were all the rage Dr Roger Watson published his country-by-country guide. Now, in 2025, he takes a look to see if any are still at it.
The post Have Covid Travel Requirements Gone Away? appeared first on The Daily Sceptic.
A Golden Age for American Meritocracy Fri Jan 24, 2025 14:15 | Darren Gee
The second Trump Presidency has already dissolved hundreds of DEI programmes and looks set to herald a new golden age of American meritocracy. It's a movement America and the world are hungry for, says Darren Gobin.
The post A Golden Age for American Meritocracy appeared first on The Daily Sceptic.
Think Tank?s Net Zero Survey Concludes the Public is the Problem Fri Jan 24, 2025 13:10 | Ben Pile
The Social Market Foundation has carried out a survey on public attitudes to Net Zero and concluded that the "uninformed" and reluctant public are the problem. Why else would they say no to heat pumps?
The post Think Tank’s Net Zero Survey Concludes the Public is the Problem appeared first on The Daily Sceptic.
Number of Children Who Think They are Wrong Sex Surges 50-Fold Fri Jan 24, 2025 11:10 | Will Jones
There has been a 50-fold rise in children who think they are the?wrong sex in just 10 years, with two thirds of them girls, analysis of GP records suggests.
The post Number of Children Who Think They are Wrong Sex Surges 50-Fold appeared first on The Daily Sceptic. Lockdown Skeptics >>
|
UCD STUDENTS REQUEST HONEST DEBATE AT MARXISM 2002
 national |
miscellaneous |
news report
 Thursday November 21, 2002 17:54 by conor mc gowan - ucd socialist alternative conor at ziplip dot com
ucd socialist alternative ask the swp for a debate on the role of the swp in irelands left
its been a whole 6 months since the ucd branch of swss left the swp.at that time ,and many many times since,we have posed questions of the role of the swp in irelands anti-capitalist left.these questions are out of general concern for the state of irish socialism,and its possible future directions no answers have been provided.many usual swp tactics and personal bickering by misnamed/unnamed party full timers have been widespread however. today,we call for an open debate on the swps role in irish and international socialism , at the "marxism" conference this weekend.we will gladly provide speakers , and arguments. will the swp?? as former "branch secretary" of ucd swss , i had left the swp (for reasons outlined below) well before the following statement: The UCD branch of the Socialist Workers Party have recently decided to disaffiliate from the main party and form an independent socialist group, Socialist Alternative. Since most people active on the left in Ireland have to deal with the SWP, we believe the reasons for our decision may be of general interest.
As most people will remember, this time last year there was a genuine buzz on the radical left. Globalise Resistance was founded and brought together many disparate groups and individuals. Two buses of Irish activists went to Genoa and returned full of ideas and enthusiasm. The general outlook seemed positive. Yet soon things turned sour. GR was torn apart by squabbling; Gluaiseacht and the WSM walked out, along with many others. The SWP has generally been blamed for this degeneration, and with some cause: by using GR purely as a recruitment front, they alienated potential allies and squandered a promising opportunity.
However, it would be wrong to attribute this behaviour to malice or stupidity on the part of the SWP; the real cause lies deeper . For the last few years the SWP leadership has adopted a daft approach of predicting the imminence of revolution at any given time and driving the rank-and-file membership into a frenzy of activism. Eventually they get tired and disillusioned and a new crop are recruited. With party members dropping like flies and the revolution always just around the corner, recruitment takes priority over anything else: certainly over the task of creating a broad-based anti-globalisation group.
The turnover of membership is so high that few party activists have the experience to challenge the leadership, so their political analysis is free to wander ever further away from reality. Wishful thinking and hyper-activism take the place of any realistic assessment of the situation. Since party members spend all their time running around from campaign to campaign, they have little time to read and discuss about politics; if you get the impression that someone from the SWP is just quoting from a leaflet, its probably because its true.
This sort of thing was going on long before Seattle but the last two years have seen matters get steadily worse. The SWP is heading for collapse within a few years if it doesnt change course. Unfortunately, because of the partys undemocratic internal regime, a debate could only begin if it was initiated by the leadership. Since most of the Belfast branch of the SWP were expelled a few months ago for raising similar points, the chances of such a debate taking place are slim. Therefore weve decided that the only course open to us is to leave and work as independent socialists. Weve published a much more detailed account of the problems within the SWP at our website for anyone interested. The UCD branch of the Socialist Workers' Party have recently decided to leave the main party and re-name ourselves Socialist Alternative. From now on we will operate as an independent socialist group; we aim to work with other activists on the anti-capitalist left and would like to help build up an activist network of left-wingers who have been alienated by the sectarianism and dogmatism of the existing far-left parties.
The UCD branch of the Socialist Workers' Party have recently decided to leave the main party and re-name ourselves Socialist Alternative. From now on we will operate as an independent socialist group; we aim to work with other activists on the anti-capitalist left and would like to help build up an activist network of left-wingers who have been alienated by the sectarianism and dogmatism of the existing far-left parties.
Our decision to leave the SWP was not taken lightly; like any intelligent socialists, we deplore the propensity of the far left for splits which paralyse our ability to fight against the system. For a long time, we disagreed strongly with the party leadership yet aimed to reform the SWP from within. Only after realising that this was an impossible task did we opt to break away. There were three main reasons for our decision:
1) The party's approach to propaganda and recruitment is so misguided that it does more harm to the socialist cause than good; its paper, leaflets, posters and slogans give the most unattractive image of revolutionary Marxism to potential sympathisers that could be imagined
2) The party's general political perspective is completely out of line with reality; by exaggerating the scale and depth of radicalisation in Ireland and Europe, the SWP leadership is distracting attention from the work necessary to sow the seeds of a genuine revolutionary upsurge in the future
3) The internal regime of the party makes it impossible for SWP activists to correct the inadequacies of the party line; policy decisions are the prerogative of a self-perpetuating clique who discourage internal debate and isolate dissenters in order to prevent a meaningful challenge to their authority
A brief account of our experiences as SWP members will explain how we came to the above conclusions. We joined the party on arriving in college (or in one case a year beforehand) because we saw it as the natural home for hard-left socialists like ourselves. None of us became socialists because we were convinced by the arguments contained within Socialist Worker; we all made our own way to the far left, and had our own ideas of what a socialist organisation should be. It soon became clear that the SWP left a lot to be desired; however, we found the arguments of Socialist Review and the ISJ generally congenial and felt a broad affinity with the party leadership and its aims, even if we disagreed about certain tactical questions.
Genoa proved to be a turning-point, though not in the way we had hoped. The SWP's full-timers came back from Italy convinced that the revolution was nigh and that it was necessary for party activists to shift up a gear and build a mass revolutionary party as quickly as possible. They also felt it essential to curtail any autonomy which had been allowed to branches in the past; a rigid, military-style discipline was now required for the tasks facing the party.
In September of last year the first of many blazing rows erupted when we questioned this analysis. After we argued against the idea that revolution was on the short-term agenda, and the ultra-left slogans and propaganda which accompanied it (we were particularly vexed by the needless proliferation of exclamation marks, as if revolutionary socialism could be sold by the same methods used to promote supermarket clear-outs), our commitment to the cause was questioned by two PC members. Reference was made to the recent expulsion of the ISO-US from the International Socialist Tendency (mystifying to us at the time, this now makes perfect sense, as we were unwittingly repeating the argument of the ISO almost word for word).
So our year was off to an inauspicious start, and matters quickly got worse. Our differences with the party leadership concerned two main issues: the paper and the party's style of recruitment. As one SWP pamphlet put it, the party's essence can be summed up in one sentence: sell the paper and recruit. It's unfortunate therefore that their approach in these areas is atrocious. The Socialist Worker is a trashy, sensationalist rag, not a serious left-wing newspaper. Its editors ignore the most basic principles of journalism; there's no distinction between reportage and opinion, and stories are written in a crudely didactic style which drives home the message with all the subtlety of a sledgehammer. Anyone who suggests a lighter touch is accused of wanting to dilute the SWP's principles. We know many people through friends and family who'd like to buy a good leftist paper; none of them have any desire to buy Socialist Worker.
This would be bad enough in itself; but given the importance which the paper holds in the party's activism, its dire quality undermines everything else. The jewel in the party's crown should hardly be a lump of coal. Selling the paper is supposed to be the most important way of recruiting new members; if nobody wants to read it, a problem presents itself. Our solution was simple: we opted out of paper sales. This was greeted with near-hysteria by the SWP hierarchy. They were similarly perturbed by our criticisms of their recruitment style.
As soon as a person is foolhardy enough to tick the box reading "Yes, I'd like to join the SWP" and leave a phone number, they're besieged with phone calls at all hours of the day and night urging them to attend a meeting/paper sale or whatever else. Rather than being allowed to find their own level of involvement, new members are immediately hassled into becoming full-time activists; the party leadership sends them out to sell papers and distribute leaflets before they even understand fully what the SWP's politics are about. Many concluded that they had stumbled across some sort of bizarre religious sect and never came back.
The SWP's approach to recruitment in broad, united front groups is similarly inept. In an anti-war group, for example, it's quite easy to make the argument linking war with capitalism if it's done well; but shouting a few slogans and standing outside the meeting afterwards selling papers is futile. This approach is particularly inappropriate in a college, where you'll find the same faces coming to several meetings throughout the year. It's possible to build up relationships with sympathetic people and convince them that socialism isn't just for nutters. If they want to come along to SWP meetings, our posters are up and they'll know where to go; constant pressure to join won't do any good. Selling papers on such occasions would be perfectly acceptable if the paper was any good, but we've covered that ground already.
It should be noted that nowhere in this indictment will be found a questioning of the principles of revolutionary Marxism; this should be stressed since any questioning of the party's tactical approach is usually met with irrelevant (not to mention impertinent) insinuations about the strength of the questioner's commitment to socialism. It should be clear to any intelligent person that it is quite possible to be a committed Marxist while rejecting an evangelical style of recruitment (as it was described to us by a member of the SWP's Political Committee during one discussion; this individual made clear his contempt for such a style at the time).
We saw recruitment and propaganda as tactical issues; there was no need to change the party's ideology, merely its way of presenting the case for socialism. So we were bemused and increasingly irritated by the consternation which our arguments caused. "Sit-downs" became ever more frequent; this absurd ritual, whereby an errant party member is summoned for coffee and sternly informed of the error of his/her ways, is supposed to correct any deviation from the party line. It proved ineffectual because we argued back and declined to recant our heresies. The leadership were shocked by this response; despite their consistent failure to persuade us of the correctness of their position, they expected their superior authority to be sufficient argument. Dark mutterings went on behind our back; we were described as "reformists" and "indistinguishable from Socialist Youth" among other things.
After a few months of this, it was clear that UCD SWSS was regarded by the party leadership as a rogue branch; we later discovered that SWP members who came to UCD had been advised not to join us lest they be infected by heresy. When we ran a candidate for president of the Students' Union, the only college branch in Ireland capable of doing so (and polled 40%), we were offered no assistance or encouragement from the leadership (although they did expect to be granted a veto over the manifesto). We were increasingly forced to ask questions about the party's internal regime.
We were never given reliable information about the activities of other branches, let alone about the discussions they were having; we were only informed once of the time and location of a meeting of the party's National Committee. No opportunity was given to us to offer constructive opinions about party policy (the details of which are rather obscure for the uninitiated); any attempt to improvise our own approach was sabotaged by ever-closer supervision of our activities. The party's student organiser seemed to think it his business to attend meetings of united front groups in UCD and speak on behalf of our branch despite not being a UCD student; he justified this behaviour to one party member by explaining that he had to "substitute himself" for the student members.
Anyone with a smattering of Marxism should be familiar with Trotsky's remarks about "substitutionism", remarks which seem remarkably apposite when considering the SWP. The party leadership decide what the SWP is to be, based on their close study of the first volume of Tony Cliff's biography of Lenin (apparently all the knowledge which is required); a mould is constructed into which rank-and-file members must fit. No flexibility or autonomy can be permitted. So the ideal member of a "revolutionary" party is a compliant drone. Anyone who emerges from the rank-and-file membership confident and articulate enough to challenge the leadership is expelled; the infection is contained by the lack of horizontal communication between branches. The PC is a self-perpetuating elite, re-elected year after year; new leaders are co-opted, not chosen by the membership. The contradiction between this type of organisation and the SWP's ostensible ideology ("socialism from below", remember) need hardly be stressed.
Since we began to question the nature of the SWP, the knowledge gained from our direct experience has been enhanced by research on the Internet, the fruits of which can be found elsewhere on this website. Briefly, the last decade has seen a rapid degeneration of the International Socialist Tendency; affiliated parties from New Zealand to the USA have been expelled for disobeying orders from London. Shortly before Christmas, most of the Belfast branch were expelled from the SWP for opposing these developments (no attempt was made by the PC to inform us of this decision; it would be surprising if other branches were informed either). Currently Alex Callinicos is conducting a shameful vendetta against the Zimbabwean ISO. The roots of this degeneration can be found in the ideas of party organisation formulated by the SWP's theoreticians in the late sixties and early seventies. This was compounded by the adoption of a catastrophist perspective reminiscent of the third-period Comintern. The whole sorry story can be traced in the documents assembled here. The only reasonable conclusion to be drawn is that the SWP is heading for disaster and all serious Marxists would do well to abandon this sinking ship.
Despite its innumerable flaws, the SWP is the most prominent and active group on the far left both in Ireland and in Britain; until an alternative group emerges, it will continue to recruit idealistic young people attracted by socialist ideas and turn them into burnt-out cynics within a year or two. At a time when events in Seattle, Genoa, Palestine and Venezuela are leading more and more people to question the capitalist system, the ineptitude of the SWP is positively criminal. The task of creating an alternative home for socialists is urgent. Anyone who shares our views should get in touch.
Signed:
Donal Lyons, Daniel Finn, Ciaran Murray, Finbar Dwyer, James Redmond
(UCD SWSS Branch Committee) Friday 27th, April 2002.
|
printable version
Digg this
del.icio.us
Furl
Reddit
Technorati
Facebook
Gab
Twitter
View Comments Titles Only
save preference
Comments (29 of 29)
Jump To Comment: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29If you want to debate at Marxism 2002, why were you pulling down the posters in UCD this week? Is that not undemocratic? you also argued against SWSS (and SY) doing political activities at the recent CFE march, is that not undemocratic?
If there's anything worse than the SWP, its the Popular Front of Judea!! Splitters!
Jesus H, get a life the lot of ye. Should you be off getting pissed and chasing skirt like regular students? And as for the the SWP, their plicy seems to be: "how many posters can we litter Dublin with in a single week?"
The worst thing is when you realise is that most SWSS-heads are posh Dublin middle-class types with guilt trip over their comfortable upbringing and a few too many Che Guevera t-shirts in their wardrobe.
Socialist Alternative are a bunch of unactive fucks that decided to wreck the SWSS. They are politically under-developed, they don't have any consistent arguments, they have no method, no ideas, they are nothings.
They are quickly drifting to the right, and I predict they'll be in Labour by this time next year.
They can't really call themselves socialists, as they are not active n the workers' movement. They are nothing outside college. I challenge them to try to recruit and build outside of UCD. What's your approach to the workers? and internationally?
I'd like to echo those calls for a debate between the former members of UCD SWSS and members of the SWP. Frankly, I'd pay to go to Marxism 2002 if I could get the chance to watch in somewhat horrified fascination as the two of yese went for each other in a bitter, divisive, personality fuelled clash.
But do you really think it's a good idea? While no fan of the SWP it seems to me the Socialist Alternative people seem to spend more of their time attacking the SWP and defining themselves as being the opposite of the SWP than setting out heir own agenda. The SA's attitude should be to develop and evolve as an organisation without constantly harping on about the SWP. That seems the logical, reasonable, mature approach.
That side of me that enjoys political bloodsports hopes the debate goes ahead and that knives are allowed.
"Socialist Alternative are a bunch of unactive fucks that decided to wreck the SWSS. They are politically under-developed, they don't have any consistent arguments, they have no method, no ideas, they are nothings. They are quickly drifting to the right, and I predict they'll be in Labour by this time next year. They can't really call themselves socialists, as they are not active n the workers' movement. They are nothing outside college. I challenge them to try to recruit and build outside of UCD. What's your approach to the workers? and internationally?"
This is utter rubbish.
The Socialist Alternative are a group who left the SWP because they were fed up with their ridiculously authoritarian approach to the running of the UCD SWSS. (Perhaps a member could post up a link to the webpage where they explained their reasons for doing so?) To say that they are "drifting to the right" is equally ludicrous; if anything they are taking an antiauthoritarian approach tending towards anarchism and anarchosyndicalism.
And no, I'm not a member of the SA. If "SA hater" is a member of the SWP it would be honest of them to be able to admit it now.
Apart from that, it is ridiculous to be at this people's-front-of-judea-judean-people's-front lark again, but that doesn't mean that the unsubstantiated and grossly misleading statements made by "SA hater" above should not go unchallenged.
I'm interested in finding out exactly what ideological differences SA have with the SWP. Prehaps one of them could give a link to some of their material outline it here?
From what I have read so far it seems that the differences are mainly organisational. If the differences are only about how the party is run and some of their methods, Why didn't they raise critisisms within the SWP and try to reform from within?
Another thing I'm interested in is whether or not SA have established any international links or been involved in the wider workers movement.
Silo,
The vitriolic statement slating SA is obviously the work of some one with an irrational grudge against SA, however from what I've heard there is a grain of truth in what he is saying about them.
they have not built in UCD, they are not involved in the workers movement and I believe they do not function as a party or distinct group at all. Some of them have gone to the right also, I would view their adoption of anarchistic ideas as a sign of this (not everyone would agree with that one though).
But they deserve to be debated with. If the SWP leadership don't think they are up to much they should be able to wipe the floor with them. If they do have genuine difficulties they should be raised so members of the SWP can hear them.
Jaysus Eh you are totally wrong about the swp, when you say they:
"Should you be off getting pissed and chasing skirt like regular students?" Joe Carolan spend years doing this, the only problem was his politics are shite!
As for your other comment "....a few too many Che Guevera t-shirts in their wardrobe"
Again you are way off the mark the swp are afraid of the legacy of Che Guevara and have regular sermons and articles denouncing Che and all his works.
getting pissed and chasing skirt like regular students? And as for the the SWP, their plicy seems to be: "how many posters can we litter Dublin with in a single week?"
The worst thing is when you realise is that most SWSS-heads are posh Dublin middle-class types with guilt trip over their comfortable upbringing and a few too many Che Guevera t-shirts in their wardrobe.
i asked for a debate?
by the way,thats debate,not "forum" , or whatever passes for a brainwashing session these days
will the swp debate with us? yes or no ?
im sure a party full timer has read this here request (if not commented on it under some patethic covername)
the sa are in the process of "defining ourselves" writing position papers etc.i hope defining ourselves dosent mean becoming an un democratic highly structured "block" of collective thought.try our library page online to see where were at ? tha papers will be on the web in a few weeks.
we have been "active" - by my interprutation thats occupying government property,all of us getting involved in settting up the cfe-and not fucking it over as a recruitment front (hence the poster ripping,hugh,joe?) - not getting fatterr selling toilet roll.
i leave with a final question
WILL THE SWP DEBATE??
or will they keep the doors to the cult shut behind a haze of silence(apart from the odd unnamed rant)?
www.freeeducation.cjb.net - where most sa members time goes
www.socialistalternative.cjb.net - our ,as yet underdeveloped site.
www.swp.ie - worth it for the laugh
Interesting that we didn't get a debate, honest or otherwise, at the SWSS 'agm' last year. Pot, kettle and black conor!
Care to share with the newswire what the UCD societies made of your split?
The Belfast SWP are still shocked to learn of their expulsion btw.
read UCD societies commitee in the last one
tell us more Hugh...
In a world that's galloping headlong to war you really have to question the sanity of alleged Socialist Alternatives who would apparently in all seriousness post this drivel.
If you want a debate why dont you ring up the SWP. They can be contacted. You may have already done this, just that you cant just put things on websites and hope that FTers will find it. Give them a call and ask to debate at Marxism 2002.
Ring them? You have to be kidding. A debate requires a level of politics. These clowns just want to raise a rucus on the web.
Who leaves a party and THEN asks for a debate about internal democracy?
There is a delicious irony in SA now requesting a debate after the way they split from SWSS, leaving a note on the net for other SWSS members.
Their sense of self importance is astonishing. The SWP will halt their conference to debate with them after the stunt they pulled? Get fuckin' real.
Once again it has been asserted that there have been expulsions from Belfast. The SA comrade states:
"Since most of the Belfast branch of the SWP were expelled a few months ago for raising similar points, the chances of such a debate taking place are slim."
Where on earth does this stuff come from? 'Most of the branch'. Can you name one?
Perpetuating such myths does not help your 'cause'.
The guy from socialist alternatives challenge still stands. Will they debate with them or not. It seems to me that many of the posters to this debate are swp members who won't own up to it.
eg.1 "Trot"s 'Who leaves a party and THEN asks for a debate about internal democracy?'
---They obviously left the party because there was no internal democracy.
eg.2 "Concerned" 'In a world that's galloping headlong to war you really have to question the sanity of alleged Socialist Alternatives who would apparently in all seriousness post this drivel.
---SA's comments do not appear to me to be drivel. They appear sincere regardless of whether one agrees with them or not. The reference to war should read ' would you like to join the IAWM'
eg.3 "Keith G"'s 'From what I have read so far it seems that the differences are mainly organisational. If the differences are only about how the party is run and some of their methods, Why didn't they raise critisisms within the SWP and try to reform from within?'
---I'm not sure if Keith is SWP or not, his dismissive attitudes towards the organisational problems which the SA experienced makes me think that he is.
eg.4 SA hater is obviously a member.
And most conspicuously- no official SWP response has been made. Do we believe that they didn't see it?
Until recently I honestly had a benign attitude towards the SWP. Probably because in Cork they are all sound fellas. But their antics in Shannon have verified for me the criticisms that I have always heard of them.
I'm sick of their and others squabbling on this site and I think it is making it frustrating and uninteresting to use.
Corkboy
you know America through her movies, propaganda, historiography, logos, emails, websites, her aircraft that first landed with Lindburg in Mayo, her Presidents seven only one of whom invoked New Ross, her flag and her architecture on the Merrion Road some vicious slight to Joycean Lore.
Her propaganda and her hollywood is a poor imitation of any Hazel wand, any seanachaoi, as open to the wind as any naked emperor´s clothing.
hello!
we´re are assembling
Riiiiiight. Okay then....
I think you're all fools. The idea that far-left socialism would be actually good for this country is rubbish. Low taxation, free-market economics, liberal competition have made this country one the most successful in Europe. To become a socialist state would be to go back into an economic backwater. But never, mind... we all know that most student socialists end up getting a life by the time their 25 by voting for the more mainstream/less fantasy-land parties.
The "revolution is near!". Yeah, whatever.
It is ironic to see the SWS and Socialist Youth throwing out the freedom of speech arguement in relation to their constant postering, ridiculous signs and incessant attempts to recruit minions through any cause possible.
This is coming from the people who attempted to block and harass our very own (admittedly hypocritical and racist) Minister for Justice from entering a lecture theather in UCD and debating(you can see the SWS shaking at the very mention of the word.). The auditor of SY in UCD was recently invoved in a confrontation for ripping down posters encouraging USI disaffiliation and Minister Lenihan also was blocked before giving a speech at the opening of the arts annex. SA have also recently been accused of being a right wing split from SWS, by the auditor of SA, due to their own apparent belief in free speech. ("the workers wouldn't need free speech in a workers republic eh Paul?)
I am not condeming the above events and have alot of time for many members of all the parties outlined above, however the request to leave your placards at home is no more an attack on freedom of speech than the standard actions of the socialist brigade.
what did the societies office on ucd (run by an old time ff'er richard butler - friend of ff su pres aonghus ) have to say about us?
i dont honestly know,and couldnt give a toss either way.
how many STUDENTS attend swp "blame it on capitalism" forums these days.i noticed all of 1 ucd students on the swss stand all freshers week - the rest were full timers.
the swss dont help cfe at all at all , but come the day of a march , and out comes joe and co , with papers and swss banners , frightening anyone with an ounce of sense away.fucking up ,you could say.
WANT TO DEBATE ???
youll find all the shit slogans and dated "arguments" in the latest iawm/gr/swp "book"
sometimes the sparts make more sense
sa and sy did "blocade" minister lennihan at the annex - but he wasnt on his way to a debate ,he was there to open some ff archive.
dempsey too was at an opening.
mc dowell was on his way to a debate - we diddnt try blocading him,but confronting him with arguments.-the 14 gardai did all the blockading necessary.
sa , and im sure the millies stand over anything we did
swss werent there (apart from dempseys paper selling visit) - did nothing to regret doing?
Firstly the reason I am in SY is because I believe in their ideas, I make no apology in tying to convince others of these ideas and inviting them to join SY. I am not as if I am forcing anyone to join or am not building CFE at the expence of SY recruitment.
Paul Murphy the Auditor of SYUCD was indeed attacked by the SU president for tearing down posters. But these were not ordinary SU posters. These posters were calling for a Yes vote in the USI referendum, they were illegal under the SU regulations concerning elections as the No side did not have posters. And under the rules each side must have equal resources available to them. In the interests of fairness of the electoral system he was taking them down. Every group has the right to organise, distribute literature and put up posters in college, SY have consistantly defended this right for ALL political groups (except fascists). We will oppose any attempts to derecognise SWSS or SA, we have also defended the right of SWSS to sell their paper at last years grants demo.
I am not sure whether Paul actually said that SA are a right wing split. If he did it would not be because they believe in free speech, it would be because of their politics. I always find it quite ironic when people accuse us of being against free speech, if you think back to your history books, who exactly was it that was being put in the Gulags by Stalin, it was our co-thinkers! Who was it that was expelled from the LAbour party for disagreeing with the right wing leadership? It was us!
I'd like to know exactly who 'dazed&confused' is, it's extremely cowardly to write under a cover name
Who are you? From what you write I have my suspicions. I think it's cowardly not to put your name to postings, I never do it.
I am a member of the Socialist Party. I think that the ideas, methods etc of the Socialist Party are correct. Why do you have a problem with me being involved in this Party? Why do you have a problem with me giving out litrature from my Party? Why is it wrong for me to try to convince others of my arguments? To attack the rights of others to sell papers, have placards, give out leaflets IS undemocratic.
We did take part in demonstrations that involved blockading government ministers. We believe in militant and peaceful direct action is a legitimate form of protest.
Paul was involved in ripping down SU posters, because they were against the rules of the SU and he was entitled to remove them. There are strict rules about referendums in UCD, those posters were agianst these rules.
So we're against free speech! give me one example where the SP opposed free speech. We're only against free speech for fascists (and we're very strict in what we call fascist)
Members of SA had a bad experience in the SWP. I fully accept this. However none of you are or were members of SP. If you were a member you would understand that we have a very open and democratic debate at our meetings, conferences etc.
I find attempts to attack the SP as a personal insult. When someone trys to stop us selling our paper and doing our own activities at a CFE march it's a personal insult and an attack on the work we've done to build up the CFE. These people should take a step back and look at the work and resources that SY have put into this campaign, and we will continue to do so.
Let's fight the real enemy, SWP/GR.
emm i just want to clear this up, i am the REAL "dazed and confused" not this FF sounding fool above. I havent posted in some time here, but i hope mr dazed will accept that it was my name first - in the interests of democracy? just hope no-one thought it was me.
So the medication finally kicked in. Rose - the SWP cop is back, and moaning more than ever.