Michael Moore in Liberty Hall last night

by Dave D Fri Dec 13, 2002 17:36

Unfortunately I've only got a minute to respond to the above post, perhaps check back on Monday and I might have added more (although after today i don't have the same level of internet access avaiable for a week or so)

You ask question which deserve an answer and i'll try to oblige, but can't now.

As for any provocation - certainly I have no complaints, and nothing I said should be interpreted as anything other then robust debate -let's not be too sensitive.

Also - I have no gripe with indymedia, I believe it is a very worthwhile forum

by Phuq Hedd Fri Dec 13, 2002 16:28

Dave D, as I read through this thread I see one question from me "what are YOU going to do about it?" and a comment about Orwell's donkey (was it Benjamin) that could be taken as slightly provocative (although I still think it was a fair question). And I see several suggestions from you of "moral cowardice" and "self-righteousness" and "sneering" etc. coupled with generalised attacks on how bad the left is and indymedia. Probably you didn't mean to present your viewpoint in such a hostile manner (if you did then this discussion is futile and will just be a pissing match between you and me and Ray). Just to make my position clear: I think you are mostly wrong, but that's your perogative. I apologise for any ill-feeling my comments may have generated. Let's concentrate on the issues instead.

1. You present anarchism/left-libertarianism as a "disengagement" from mainstream politics

2. You argue that voting for the lesser of two evils creates a better situation than abstaining from voting and engaging in direct, unmediated political action.

On the first point I think a fair case can be made that "mainstream politics" is heavily influenced by strikes, boycotts, demonstrations, sit-ins, sabotage and revolutions. Popular opposition to the Vietnam War, to Carnsore Point, to the Divorce Laws, to the bias of the educational system against the working class in France'68, to the rule of Russia by despots changed all those societies by action that ignored voting for the lesser of two evils. Some of those examples involve the spectacle of politicians running to keep up and retroactively implementing changes that the people have already decided upon. Some of them involve the removal of the exisiting political order. In none of those cases was "voting for the lesser evil" a strategy that produced change. There are other examples of "non mainstream" action such as (in some cases) charities and community groups that enable people to make changes that they need instead of what someone else decides they need (admittedly these have become less so as these groups have become part of a professionalised NGO/charity nexus with obligation, culture and training taken from governments).

Second point: This strikes me as an empirical question. I've given some evidence that it's very hard to distinguish the lesser of two evils and I've pointed out that e.g. Greens in Germany or New Labour in Britain or Chirac in France falsify your contention. An interesting experiment might be for you to state (note we don't know who you are) whom you intend for vote for in the next election, what it is that they are going to do, and what policies are being avoided by not voting for your candidates opposition.

So, you could state that your greatest fear, for example, would be that if you didn't vote for Labour then a Fianna Fail Ireland would allow our neutrality to be violated. Or that a FF government would engage Ireland in the PfP, or that a FF government would support the double-taxation of Bin Charges etc. (Of course, this would only be useful if your preferred government gets elected!).

by Ray Fri Dec 13, 2002 14:26

""I'll vote for things that aren't perfect, as long as they're an improvement on the alternative."

This was the point I was making all along..."

But again, I have to point out that when you vote for Chirac you're not voting for one law over another. You're voting for a _person_, and you're _hoping_ that he'll pass the better law. This is what I've been arguing against - you're not actually making a decision, you're giving somebody else the power to decide for you, which is very different.

- This is fine, stand in an election, on that very platform, that you will not make any decision for anyone else. You won't do this because it would be a futile exercise, not because the system in corrupt, but because there is no popular support for your politics

I'm pretty sure some anarchists have stood on openly abstentionist platforms, and I don't have a problem with that - it mightn't be the most effective way of getting your ideas across, but it doesn't do any harm. I agree that I wouldn't win an election on that basis, I haven't said anything else. _At the moment_ anarchism is a fringe current in society. That's something I'm trying to change.

- You cannot claim to legitimately represent the poor, only that you passionately believe that your policies would be in their interest. But this is a claim anyone can make!

I don't think you understand my position. I don't think people should elect me, so that I can put 'my policies' into practice. I don't think people should elect _anyone_. I want to see the undemocratic parliamentary system replaced with a democratic system.

- I have judged, however, from looking at the political system, that engagement is the best, if imperfect, means of achieving political aims

I _am_ engaged in politics, and in political actions that attempt to secure the support of a majority of people. There's no contradiction between that activity and not voting in elections - indeed, the fact that I don't waste my time worrying about elections means I've got more time and energy to put into other campaigns. And that hasn't, so far as I can see, included 'sneering at your complicity', so there's no reason for you to be alienated from, for example, campaigning against the war.

by Dave D Fri Dec 13, 2002 14:04

"I'll vote for things that aren't perfect, as long as they're an improvement on the alternative."

This was the point I was making all along, and it informs my approach to the EU/French/US and Irish politics. I don’t accept that a vote for a certain political party/person is necessarily a ringing endorsement of all their policies, the far left always assert this point. Time and time again it is stated on indy that FF are letting down the people, despite the fact that many voted for them.

You add, and I don't want to quote you out of contest

"What I won't do is vote for someone else to make my decisions for me"

This is fine, stand in an election, on that very platform, that you will not make any decision for anyone else. You won't do this because it would be a futile exercise, not because the system in corrupt, but because there is no popular support for your politics. You cannot claim to legitimately represent the poor, only that you passionately believe that your policies would be in their interest. But this is a claim anyone can make!

I admire your dedication, and I also share many of your concerns over specific issues.

I have judged, however, from looking at the political system, that engagement is the best, if imperfect, means of achieving political aims. If this provides you with the self-righteous ability to sneer at my complicity with the ‘corrupt’ system, (and in doing so, alienate me from your popular struggle) so be it, but my conscience is clear. All this attitude does is to further reduce the chances of every securing the support of the majority of ordinary people. You exist on the fringe and your tactics and approach condemn you to stay there, ultimately your approach is self-defeating.

by Ray Fri Dec 13, 2002 13:27

- You are NEVER going to be presented with exactly the choices you want

The difference between us is that you're more or less happy with the choices presented to you, and so you'll choose the lesser of two evils. I want a more fundamental change, and I realise that voting for Pat Rabbitte (or Joe Higgins) isn't going to bring it about.

If I'm ever going to get the society I want, I'm going to have to go out and convince people that its better than what we already have. In other words, I have to take my politics from the fringe, and spread them among a much wider constituency. That's fair enough, that's what it will take.

But voting in elections? That runs completely contrary to my wider goal - its not only pointless, its encouraging exactly the sort of behaviour I want to change. Why would I want to do that?

Oh, and one small point -
- Can you not see that, because you politics exist on the fringe it is unlikely that you will ever be presented with a European Treaty that you like, expecially given that it is designed for a constituency that doesn't share your political outlook.
What this means is that your no vote is not an act of grand defiance, but rather a vote for the status quo.

Not at all. I'll vote for things that aren't perfect, as long as they're an improvement on the alternative. What I won't do is vote for someone else to make my decisions for me. Because whatever they _say_, I've no way of making them _do_ what I want. Its not that I'm refusing anything that isn't exactly what I want - I'm refusing a system where other people get to tell me what I want.

by Dave D Fri Dec 13, 2002 13:00

Fuck work, its Friday.

You approach referendums with the attitude that you'll keep on saying no until you get the referendum you want.

Can you not see that, because you politics exist on the fringe it is unlikely that you will ever be presented with a European Treaty that you like, expecially given that it is designed for a constituency that doesn't share your political outlook.

What this means is that your no vote is not an act of grand defiance, but rather a vote for the status quo.

If a realistic chance exists of a better treaty coming as a result of a no vote then I can accept your argument. But this scenario is unlikely to ever happen to your satisfaction, because Ireland remains a conservative nationalist society.

If you had your way every European treaty would have been rejected. The isolated, backward, illiberal country that this would have facilitated would have been much worse that the one that currently exists.

You are NEVER going to be presented with exactly the choices you want, because the political system is designed to also represent multitute who do not subscribe to your set of political beliefs. And the revolution is getting no nearer.

by Ray Fri Dec 13, 2002 12:36

- Firstly, the notion that there is not guaranttee that Chirac is better than Le Pen. This is feel is moral cowardice.

Moral cowardice? That's a new one - what's your resaoning there?

- Clearly Le Pen pursues a racist agenda that Chirac does not subscribe to with the same degree of fervour.

But its not as simple as "Le Pen will pass racist laws, and Chirac won't", because Chirac will also pass those laws. The laws that will be passed don't depend so much on the president, but on the balance of social forces. So if you want to make sure that racist laws aren't passed - or that they can't be enforced - you should be getting involved in anti-racist work, not putting up Chirac posters.

- I would be interested to hear the thoughts of those on the far left who took part in the anti-Le Pen rallies at the time.

I don't have a problem with anti-Le Pen rallies, I think its good to say that his policies are shit and that he should be opposed. My problem is with those who think the way to oppose Le Pen is to support Chirac.

- As for referendums you say "the result itself is non-negotiable" but then concede later that it is rarely such a black and white issue. Thereby acknowledging that you are never really presented with the political options that you truely want, even if this is phrased in a yes/no question.

I agree, this is a problem with referenda in this country - the questions to be put are framed by the government. That's why I think you fight racism (for example) by distributing leaflets, holding meetings etc, not by lobbying politicians to get them to call a referendum.

- Take Nice for example, clearly if the vote was No some interpretation must be made as to what were the concerns of the Irish public with a view to addressing these.

That's true, BUT whatever interpretation the government put on it, if they renegotiated the treaty that renegotiated treaty would have to be put to the people again. So even if they said, "Right, Nice was defeated because people don't like immigration. We'll insert a clause into the Treaty that bans immigration", they couldn't just pass that treaty. It would have to go to another vote. So, while the decision about which question to put would be with the politicians, the answer to that question would be with the people. That basic level of democracy is why I'll work on referendum campaigns.

by Dave D Fri Dec 13, 2002 12:29

Also to clarify a couple of accusations levelled at me:

You say:
“ I get the impression from your post that you believe that not endorsing someone to make decisions about your life means that you must automatically do nothing.”

No I don’t think this, I accept that many on the far left are dedicated activist, that often take part in campaigns I agree with. What I do question is the wisdom of disengaging with mainstream political system, which currently enjoys the support of the vast majority of people who, despite reservation, who do not subscribe to anarchism.

Also:

“Most of us are spending a good deal of time on it. If you feel that you can do a better job and that the "left" can be improved then it'd be great if you and other like minded people would do the right thing”

As I’ve said I am politically active, you don’t know me or what I do, why do you continue to press the point after I’ve already dealt with it, I don’t question your motives or dedication, just your tactics.

Also:

“Whatever one may feel about e.g. the SWP they are acting on their beliefs”

So what, the BNP act on their beliefs, it’s not an inherently worthy trait.

Also

“My personal fear is of ending up like the donkey in "Animal Farm", standing on the sidelines, seeing many of the problems and doing nothing”

As I’ve said, I also see the goal of politics to create a just and equal society

Also:

“Is there any way of making Bertie keep his manifesto promises?”

No of course not, but as much as I dislike Bertie, I find it hard to envisage a system of accountability where this could be achieved. The Irish public voted for FF knowing its record, they only have themselves to blame. FF were accountable for their record at the last election, but their support increased? Perplexing, yes, a corrupt capitalist conspiracy, certainly not.

by Dave D Fri Dec 13, 2002 11:59

OK,yet again I'm in work and only have time for a couple of brief comments or I'll get the boot.

Firstly, the notion that there is not guaranttee that Chirac is better than Le Pen. This is feel is moral cowardice. Clearly Le Pen pursues a racist agenda that Chirac does not subscribe to with the same degree of fervour. France under Le Pen would be a much worse place for the immigrant community than under Chirac. This is a simple fact, ask any African currently living in France.

The failure to even acknowlede a difference is also not supported by many of your allies on the far left who were the most vocal when Le Pen made it to the last round. The far left organised demonstrations in Dublin, and Paris - clearly not everyone is willing to assume the 'high moral ground' and in doing so give Le Pen a better chance of getting elected.

I would be interested to hear the thoughts of those on the far left who took part in the anti-Le Pen rallies at the time.

As for referendums you say "the result itself is non-negotiable" but then concede later that it is rarely such a black and white issue. Thereby acknowledging that you are never really presented with the political options that you truely want, even if this is phrased in a yes/no question.

Take Nice for example, clearly if the vote was No some interpretation must be made as to what were the concerns of the Irish public with a view to addressing these. In the case of the far left the vote was against the free market economic tendancies of the Union.

However, from my perspective (and I appreciate we could argue about this for days) the vast bulk of the no vote was made up of parochial nationalists seeking to protect their narrow vesteed interests.

As a result a No to Nice could reasonably have been intrepreted as a vote for isolationism - something I'm sure neiter of you subscribe to.

An example of when a referendum is a clear cut black and white issue is hard to find, because politics and life is rarely that simple.

by Ray Fri Dec 13, 2002 10:16

Since Phuq Hedd is dealing with other stuff I'll just address this...

- I realise that some of you see referendums as an exceptional case for getting involved in mainstreams politics.

Yes, we do, and for a simple reason. In a referendum you vote on a single question, with a definite answer. If you vote Yes to divorce, then divorce will be introduced, no more no less. If you vote No to Nice, then the Nice treaty will not be signed, that's it. It doesn't matter who else is calling for the same result, and who else is voting with you, because the result itself is non-negotiable*.

If you vote for Chirac in France, Blair in the UK, or Bertie here, what are you voting for? Do you have any guarantee that Chirac won't introduce racist laws? No, you don't. Do you have any gurantee that Blair will oppose privatisation? Far from it. Is there any way of making Bertie keep his manifesto promises? Don't make me laugh.

When you vote in elections, you're not actually voting for policies. You're voting for people, who may promise that they'll introduce certain policies, but who are quite capable of breaking those promises right after the election. Once a politician is elected, you have absolutely no way to make him do what you want.

For any meaningful sense of the word, that's not democracy. Democracy means making decisions yourself, not picking someone to make decisions for you.

* In theory, anyway. Irish referenda have a way of not living up to the theory, but I think they come close enough to justify taking part.

by Phuq Hedd Fri Dec 13, 2002 05:14

I'll post more later if this isn't sufficient.

I would not have voted for Chirac in order to stop Le Pen getting into power.

That would have given a mandate to the right-wing policies of Chirac which involve the abuse and detention of North Africans and Arabs, a semi-fascist "Anti Terrorist" police force which was found guilty of abusing the wide powers they were "entrusted" with by the liberal moderates, a right-wing economic policy which has been slowed but not halted by direct action (in the form of strikes and slowdowns) by workers, etc., etc.

Instead I would be involved in effective and direct resistance as many French anarchists have been.

I get the impression from your post that you believe that not endorsing someone to make decisions about your life (even when that person is someone of whom the best you can say is "he doesn't openly declare himself rightwing") means that you must automatically do nothing. Just sit at home and sneer at people that vote! In fact you'll find that those that are most active in demonstrations, campaigns, direct actions, education, outreach etc. are "the left" whether they be the AFI, SWP, SP, WSM, AFA, SF, Greens, or the non-affiliated such as myself. On the other hand there are a large number of people who go out and tick-away their freedom and effectiveness even though there are hundreds of years of history and galling recent examples to suggest that this is a mistake.

Rather than standing on the sidelines shouting anarchists and left-libertarians are engaged in trying to construct through trial-and-error a different way of doing things. Parts of it won't work and haven't worked, but large parts do: the idea that consensus and avoidance of atrophied bureaucracy could work in situations that require large-scale co-ordination was rubbished until it was demonstrated in, among other places, militias in Spain 1936.

You reacted to my "what are YOU doing about it?" comment in a reasonable manner. However, if you look back through the thread you'll see that it's a reasonable question. Most of us are spending a good deal of time on it. If you feel that you can do a better job and that the "left" (a useless designation IMHO) can be improved then it'd be great if you and other like minded people would do the right thing. Whatever one may feel about e.g. the SWP they are acting on their beliefs. On the other hand, you are arguing that we should be supporting the current system. So, you're attacking a large number of the people on the site including me. Don't get peeved that we don't accept it! You say that indymedia is just hot left-on-left live-acts, well welcome to the mudpit honey! Isn't your post _exactly_ an example of that? (I don't think there's anything wrong with it, it's just that to someone that doesn't want to engage it is easily written off as petty squabbling).

My personal fear is of ending up like the donkey in "Animal Farm", standing on the sidelines, seeing many of the problems and doing nothing. I've done a lot of stuff that tactically and morally I'd like to be able to take back.... but I've also done a lot of which I'm proud.

by Dave D Thu Dec 12, 2002 23:57

Right, first to address the points raised by Phuq.

You offer me the choice of two options, and suggest that I will pick neither of them, but rather continue to argue. You are right of course I would pick neither, if neither was the third option. If there were only two option (which you said initially) I would chose to lose money rather than risk my physical well being.

To relate this theory to politics, I guess you are suggesting that it is best not to engage in the established political process at all because it will never provide you with the options you really want. The problem with this attitude is that to resist engaging is itself affecting the process that you wish to have nothing to do with.

One simple example. Recently the French presidential, following a popular vote, came down to a two horse race between Chirac and Le Pen. Both are deeply tainted politicians, Chirac is up to his neck in corruption allegations while Le Pen is a dangerous fascist and racist; and I’m sure much more criticism could be levelled at both of them.

Given your argument I presume you would condemn both of them, and not vote. The danger of such an attitude being adopted by a sizable number of left-leaning French people is obvious. Most on the left in France however bit their lip and registered a vote for Chirac, thereby stopping the dangerous rise of the far right in Europe. It would be morally reprehensible to do anything else in my opinion.

The question therefore is whether an opt out of the mainstream political process is a viable and worthy decision. In many cases I feel it is little more than an act of self-righteous indulgence that can, as in the case of France, have deeply disturbing consequences . Afterall, despite the flaws of various political and voting systems, they provide a real, if imperfect means of ensuring accountability and representation.

Also, I realise its hard to grasp, and it also baffles me as to why, but Fianna Fail can legitimately claim to represent ordinary workers more than many of the fringe left wing groups. If people are unhappy with the current government, as I am, they only have the electorate to blame. Their record was obvious to all, they’re a gang of crooks and cowboys.

As for the point about what I’m doing about injustice. I find it somewhat unnecessary to prove my credentials before I engage in political debate. There is also an inference in what you say, intentional or not, that you are in some way more righteous because of your campaigning. For the record I was active in student politics and campaigns while in college, I have campaigned heavily in national referendums and been involved in civic society political organisations. I genuinely believe the goal of politics should be to create a fairer and more equal society.

The inference I took from “what are YOU doing about it” is similar to the attitude I’ve got from dealing with those on the far left in the past, it is evident in the above thread, and it really pisses me off. Admididly I’ve encountered more members from the SWP than from other outfits, but I think it is an attitude represented in all groups on the far left – this notion that if your not with us your against us, your part of the corrupt capitalist system. It’s similar to the attitude of Bush in his black and white analysis of foreign relations.

It’s a line constantly trotted out on indymedia, where more time is spend giving out about the Labour Party than Fianna Fail. The funny thing is that contributors on indy spend most of the time slagging off each other, and I have to admit, I don’t blame them. When I see individuals defending the INLA and suicide bombers, I realise they’re the last people I want to have anything to do with. Similarly, my few encounters with the SWP don’t endear me to them. I'm happy to acknowledge that most are probably well meaning and dedicated activist. The notion that this “discussion” or “debate” strengthens the far left, as Phuq said, is a joke however.

It’s funny I find that Ray boasts of a successes of the far left as being the divorce referendum, for example, without acknowledging that the for the success of such an referendum was the liberal left and right along with the influence of the European Union. Evidently, to achieve the desired result you often have to attach yourself to a person/group that you don’t agree with. This was exactly my point in the first place. You guys were an the same side as Barrett and Dana during the Nice campaign for fuck sake, and I get criticism because I’d prefer Chirac to Le Pen and a Labour to a Tory government in Britain.

Would you have celebrated a No to Nice knowing that the majority who voted alongside you were simply small-minded nationalist (a horrible crowd) – of course you would have.

I realise that some of you see referendums as an exceptional case for getting involved in mainstreams politics. But others, such as the SP, do engage in representative democracy and are happy to defend going into a technical alliance with Lowry in the Dail; and although I don't agree, I can see why they did it. They realise that to best achieve your aims you must often engage with a system that you don't always particularly like.

While I don't think there is any value getting into an in depth debate about anarchism/revolutionay socialsim v. social democracy (which I would broadly subscribe to, for the record) - but if you feel the urge go right ahead; I would however like to know how you (Ray and Phuq or anyone else still reading this thread) would have voted in the French presidential election.

by PHuq Hedd Thu Dec 12, 2002 17:51

OK, choose between the following:
1. Having me take your cash or credit card
2. Having your legs broken or crushed
etc. etc.

I've offered you the choice. I can be round to your place tomorrow and if you agree to any of the above options then you'll have agreed won't you?

I suspect that you will (reasonably) reject any of the above and opt to argue with me instead.

You say that you'd vote for Blair over Duncan Smith. And I'd ask you, have the last few years in the UK differed in any meaningful sense from those in the grip of the Iron Lady?

Finally on the "disunity of the left" question I consider it to be a good thing. If we all agreed with each other then there'd be no chance for adaptation to new conditions and challenges. And of course, the question remains "what are YOU doing about it?".

by Dave D Thu Dec 12, 2002 17:01

Yea but..

I'm in work and can't really respond now,

I've got a few points I'd like to hear your response to though. I'll probably get a chance tomorrow morning!

till then...

by Ray Thu Dec 12, 2002 16:47

(Some of) the criticism of the far left is justified, but i'll need a lot more convincing before I think Gore/Labour/whoever offer anything more than the same old shit wearing a shiny new hat.

The far left isn't united. But that hasn't stopped left-wing campaigns against the bin charges, abortion and divorce restrictions, the Nice treaty, racism, etc, etc... from having some impact. They haven't created a socialist utopia (yet) but some, at least, have done more good than harm. Its hard to say the same thing about Tony Blair, or Al Gore.

by Dave D Thu Dec 12, 2002 16:26

Your right Ray, that is no fucking choice

But you say then try to overthow the system. And replace it with what? If the far left in Ireland can't even sort out a simple anti war movement how the fuck are they going to agree on a way in which society can be better organised. And these are supposedly the folk who plan to begin the revolution and bring the rest of society with them.

Indymedia itself is a refreshing platform, but the differences between the various left wing factions constantly aired make the notion of a mass coherent uprising almost laughable. As someone who doesn't buy into the arguments of the far left (although I would be left of centre) it interesting to watch and throw in my opinions now and again. But if I really believed in revolution I would be a very depressed or else dilusional chap.

The criticism of Gore is justified, but i'll need a lot more convincing before I think the far left offer anything more than blinkered utopian rethoric.

by Ray Thu Dec 12, 2002 15:54

Say "That's no fucking choice" and try to overthrow the system.
Instead of choosing between two liars who'll just fuck you up in different ways, get organised, take direct action, and change things yourself - by getting involved in anti-war actions, environmental actions, whatever else you can.

by Dave D Thu Dec 12, 2002 15:04

Of course it's easy to slag off Gore as I already admitted. And I don't think that Gore would have adopted a perfect policy.

But in a two party system you have to choose between two options, difficult I know for anarchists to get their head around as they condemn everyone except themselves as slaves to the system. You can complain till your blue that the whole system is flawed, but all this means is that you stand on the margins shouting and achieving nothing.

Simple question. Who would you prefer as president of America gore or bush. If, as some of you seem to think, this is Bush, then vote for him.

For my part, I would have been out campaigning for Gore. In Britain I'd vote Labour above Tory, and in France I vote for Chirac above Le Pen.

Either way in the US a vote for the greens was a wasted vote, simple as that.

by Ray Thu Dec 12, 2002 10:05

- I really don't see how Gore or any of the Democrats from Clinton on down are "better" in any meaningful sense than Bush

There's actually a chapter about that in Stupid White Men, which lists all the crappy things that Clinton and Gore did. The basic point is that at least Bush is honest, while Clinton and Gore would say they were doing one thing and do the complete opposite.

by Henry Thu Dec 12, 2002 08:37 hmurphyiv at hotmail dot com

"Thats like saying that the American working class are responsible for the war against Iraq"

Actually, the American working class is responsible for the war in Iraq, or at least they are complicit in it (and thank God). The vast majority of regular folks in America support war with Iraq right now. Sorry, but it's true. Most of the people here who are against the war are wealthier folks and college students.

by John Thu Dec 12, 2002 08:16

America's Marxist League for the Revolutionary Party seems to disagree strongly with Michael Moore on gun control: "We say to working people: defend your constitutional right to bear arms . . . what's needed is organized, mass, self-defense."

I challange Michael Moore to create a comic documentary about left-wing gun ownership in America. Working title: "When Guns Are Outlawed Only Cops Will Have Guns."

by Phillip McAvity Thu Dec 12, 2002 07:07

Some people aren't fans of Moore.

by Phuq Hedd Wed Dec 11, 2002 21:41

Dave D argues that Moore's one-dimensional politics are a problem because they, for example, led him to support Nader which "took votes away from Gore" and this is bad because "Gore is better than Bush".

I really don't see how Gore or any of the Democrats from Clinton on down are "better" in any meaningful sense than Bush. Clinton introduced the Welfare to Work "reforms" that Moore poignantly points out are responsible for robbing working class children of their parents, leading to a lack of supervision and care and (in at least the one famous case mentioned in BFC) gun deaths. Clinton introduced legislation that paved the way for the PATRIOT Act. Clinton authorised the firing of Cruise missiles into the Sudan. Clinton...oh, do I really have to go on?

Gore has sat on his fat, Occidental Oil funded arse during the whole 9/11 thing and done NOTHING to opposed that PATRIOT Act, TRIPS, the Afghan Invasion or ANY of the gross abuses of power. People are out in the streets in their tens of thousands protesting the possible invasion of Iraq. There are weekly peace vigils, people are driving around with bumper stickers saying "War is not the Answer", there are billboards with "War is Terrorism". Gore and the rest of the Democrats, with the exception of Barbara Boxer, have done NOTHING, NADA, ZILCH to oppose the Bush Junta. They have voted FOR every reprehensible measure. Their last major national convention in was in Los Angeles and was attended by an unbelievable wave of police repression which involved the mass arrerst of 71 Critical Mass cyclists who were held for two nights with no legal counsel, denied medication, the women strip-searched and ridiculuous and inappropriate bail set. The democrats run Los Angeles, it's a powerbase and they systematically attack and attempt to intimidate anti-war protests.

Gore/Democrats are the same big money scumbags as the Bush/Republicans.

Nader/Greens have saner policies because they have no power and have to listen to their "constituency". But even so, as soon as the "voters" agree to let Nader/Greens run their lives then Nader/Greens will start doing what THEY want and not what the voters want: it's called Representative Democracy and it doesn't do what you think it does. If your bridling and butting at this rant then I invite you to look at the history of any radical/reform government eleceted under a rep.dem. system, take the Greens in Germany for example (can you believe there are still nukes in Germany after all that!?). As a small foretaste of the sort of things the Greens might do to upset you you could also take note of the fact that the campaign workers in the Green's L.A. offices who tried to unionize were gotten rid of by the simple expedient of closing the campaing office.

Moore's one-dimensionality, to my mind, comes from the fact that he's good at saying what the big, obvious wrong things are, but his proposed remedy is to go back for another turn at the wheel of the system that produced the inequity.

B.t.w. PatC thanks for answering my post. I don't agree with what I perceive as your lumping of all non-Irish-nationalists into loyalist/fascist. But I do agree that the thread seems to bave been diverted into an attack on republicans.

by pat c Wed Dec 11, 2002 18:49

its rather odd to refuse to agree to disagree. are you just lokking for ongoing conflict?

i'm suggesting we agree to disagree by not attacking every posting, no maqtter what the subject, of people who happen not to agree on the national question.

if it is to be continuously raised in every campaign t, then joint work will be impossible.

a campaign against the gulf war is just that. if people use the campaign & postings about the campaign to attack each other about other issues then it will not be possible to have a joint campaign.

it would not have been possible for a lot of people to work with the sp in various campaigns if we shouted at each other about the north all the time.

it doesnt make sense to start a polemic about the north on a thread about moore & the anti war movement. remember it was an anti republican who started it.

In the name of sanity and to prevent indymedia from degenerating even further into squabbling, lets act like adults and agree to disagree.

by Eamonn C Wed Dec 11, 2002 18:28

Pat C- your last reply is interesting. It does expose your lack of real knowledge of what actually is happening in the North and also a lack of understanding of people's consciousness be they from a catholic or a protestant background. To say that a majority of protestants vote for the UUP and DUP and are therefore complicit in what these parties say or do is incorrect. Thats like saying that the American working class are responsible for the war against Iraq or that people in the South are responsible for the cutbacks of the FF/PD government. Or that nationalists who voted in the past for Sinn Fein were complicit in the killings they carried out - an excuse often used by loyalist paramilitaries to justify there sectarian killings of catholics.
Protestants vote for the UUP and the DUP because there is no alternative. In the past East Belfast had a Labour MP, in fact up until the early 70's - when an alternative is given people will vote for it.
There are about 55,000 "protestants" living in East Belfast, no more than a few hundred at the most have been involved in the attacks on Short Strand. I know Short Strand well and in fact have carried out political activity in that area over many years. I have spoken to people in the recent months who live in both areas and have a clear picture of what has been taking place. Sectarianism is not a one way street. It is a monster created by British Imperialism which affects both sections of the working class. It needs to be fought and campaigned against no matter were it originates. And lastly I will never agree to disgree on any political issue, least of all the national question.

by Eamonn C Wed Dec 11, 2002 18:27

Pat C- your last reply is interesting. It does expose your lack of real knowledge of what actually is happening in the North and also a lack of understanding of people's consciousness be they from a catholic or a protestant background. To say that a majority of protestants vote for the UUP and DUP and are therefore complicit in what these parties say or do is incorrect. Thats like saying that the American working class are responsible for the war against Iraq or that people in the South are responsible for the cutbacks of the FF/PD government. Or that nationalists who voted in the past for Sinn Fein were complicit in the killings they carried out - an excuse often used by loyalist paramilitaries to justify there sectarian killings of catholics.
Protestants vote for the UUP and the DUP because there is no alternative. In the past East Belfast had a Labour MP, in fact up until the early 70's - when an alternative is given people will vote for it.
There are about 55,000 "protestants" living in East Belfast, no more than a few hundred at the most have been involved in the attacks on Short Strand. I know Short Strand well and in fact have carried out political activity in that area over many years. I have spoken to people in the recent months who live in both areas and have a clear picture of what has been taking place. Sectarianism is not a one way street. It is a monster created by British Imperialism which affects both sections of the working class. It needs to be fought and campaigned against no matter were it originates. And lastly I will never agree to disgree on any political issue, least of all the national question.

by pat c Wed Dec 11, 2002 17:50

i really have no desire to see the national question raise its head under every topic. this was about the anti-war movement; it arose here because someone chose to use the thread to attack republicans.

i'm not afraid to debate; in the past i suggested to sp members that we agree to disagree, & thats what they accused me of. at that time the sp were attacking every republican posting on indy. they also called me a fascist, catholic nationalist etc when i disagreed with them.

they then seemed genuinely surprised when republican socialists retaliated against them.

they now seem to have calmed down but others havent. it should be possible for us to discuss other issues without the national question being raised.

lets agree to disagree.

i will comment on your posting in a non-confrontational manner.

"Pat C - You use the terms loyalist and unionist in the above statement in relation to where catholics are allowed to live and in relation to the fair employment laws etc.
When you use these terms, loyalist and unionist are you referring to members of the loyalist paramilitaries and to the UUP and the DUP or are you referring in general to protestants?"

the uup & dup get the votes of the vast majority of the protestant working class. there is little point in any of us pretending otherwise. the loyalist paramilitaries would not be able to carry out their sectarian attacks w/o at least the tacit support of local residents.

"I think the main reason why sections of the loyalist paramilitaries have not moved to full scale pogroms against catholic areas is not because they fear the retribution of the Provos or other republican groups. The reason is more complex. Loyalist paramilitary groups are split on the current political impasse. Sections favour trying to provoke a republican backlash in order to bring the peace process crashing down and to end the Provo ceasefire. Others are involved in these attacks as part of their campaign to gain control in protestant areas in order to maintain their criminal activities i.e. by becoming the dominant paramilitary force."

a large scale pogrom attack on the short strand would result in a lot of dead loyalists they know this. loyalists had to to some extent curb their pogroms after the casualties they suffered in head on attacks in 1970. this is why they largely switched to sectarian killings.

" But there are other sections of the loyalist paramilitaries who are opposed to these attacks because it undermines their political strategy i.e. support for the GFA and a parliamentary political path. At present the former section would be in the majority and have moved against sections of the loyalist paramilitaries who favour a return to open naked sectarian warfare. We have witnessed this in the last year by the moves by some loyalist paramilitaries against Johnny Adair and the LVF in particular by elements within the UVF. "

i do accept there are differences in loyalism, but the uvf have been involved in a lot of the attacks on the short strand.

"But the most important reason why these elements have not carried out pogroms is because there is NO SUPPORT amongst the majority of protestants for such action. Paramilitaries do not exist in a vacuum. The get away with most of their activities because the majority of protestants genuinely fear the consequences of standing up to them, i.e. getting shot! "

there was no reaction in the protestant working class against the siege on the garvaghy road for several years. loyalists & orangemen effectively shut down the north in several different years & the mrch was forced through. this could only have taken place with the tacit support of large sections of the protestant working class.

"But if these elements went on a sectarian killing spree then I believe we would see what happened in January of this year re-occuring. When the catholic postal worker Danny McGolgan was murdered 100,000 protestants and catholics protested on the streets of Belfast. The majority of workers protestant and catholic are opposed to sectarian killings."

there was no large scale events after the mass murder of catholics following the inla execution of king rat. i think your figures above are somewhat exaggerated. but lets not fall out over that.

"Also Pat to have a pogrom who need to have large numbers of people involved. 40 or 50 of Adairs supporters going into the Short Strand for example would be incapable of carrying out a pogrom, they could kill alot of people but a pogrom is driving hundreds and thousands of people out of their homes and comunities, these people haven't got the numbers or support to carry out such an act. "

it wouldnt be adair supporters , it would be the uvf. they would need a lot more than 50, but i do belioeve that there are thousands of loyalists in east belfast who would ethnically cleanse the short strand. they realise that they are not bulletproof though. thats what stops a full scale pogrom.

"Protestant workers in East Belfast would be completely against the idea of driving catholics out of the Short Strand and if you find that hard to accept then I would suggest that you might go there sometime and actually ask ordinary protestants what they think of such an idea and what they think about the loyalist paramilitaries, I hope you would be pleasantly surprised by their answers."

i suggest you go and speak to some of the people who live under permanent siege in the short strand. you might learn a few unpleasant home truths from them.

eamonn, i have always been prepared to work with other organisations in single issue campaigns.
i've worked with the SP in pro-choice, anti-racist, anti-nuclear, save abu jumal, anti service charges and other campaigns. our respective positions on the national question were irrelevant to the advancing of the campaign itself in each case.

the problem arose on indymedia because certain SP members in ucd were attacking every republican posting or comment and calling republican socialists: "nationalists", "catholic nationalists" and even "fascists"; just because we disagreed with them on the north.

in such circumstances retaliation was bound to take place. this is not a desirable situation.

lets concentrate on what unites us.

by Eamonn C Wed Dec 11, 2002 14:03

Pat C - You use the terms loyalist and unionist in the above statement in relation to where catholics are allowed to live and in relation to the fair employment laws etc.
When you use these terms, loyalist and unionist are you referring to members of the loyalist paramilitaries and to the UUP and the DUP or are you referring in general to protestants?
I think the main reason why sections of the loyalist paramilitaries have not moved to full scale pogroms against catholic areas is not because they fear the retribution of the Provos or other republican groups. The reason is more complex. Loyalist paramilitary groups are split on the current political impasse. Sections favour trying to provoke a republican backlash in order to bring the peace process crashing down and to end the Provo ceasefire. Others are involved in these attacks as part of their campaign to gain control in protestant areas in order to maintain their criminal activities i.e. by becoming the dominant paramilitary force. But there are other sections of the loyalist paramilitaries who are opposed to these attacks because it undermines their political strategy i.e. support for the GFA and a parliamentary political path. At present the former section would be in the majority and have moved against sections of the loyalist paramilitaries who favour a return to open naked sectarian warfare. We have witnessed this in the last year by the moves by some loyalist paramilitaries against Johnny Adair and the LVF in particular by elements within the UVF. Another reason why moves towards pogroms has not happened is because the British state have in the last few years moved against, on occassions, these elements of the loyalist paramilitaries because at present people like Adair threaten to undermine their (British) strategy - the GFA. I actually think that if Adair and his "kin" attempted to go down that road that the state would use its full force to stop them, not for moral reasons but because they would see this as a major threat to the peace process which the state has invested all of its "hopes" in. But the most important reason why these elements have not carried out pogroms is because there is NO SUPPORT amongst the majority of protestants for such action. Paramilitaries do not exist in a vacuum. The get away with most of their activities because the majority of protestants genuinely fear the consequences of standing up to them, i.e. getting shot! But if these elements went on a sectarian killing spree then I believe we would see what happened in January of this year re-occuring. When the catholic postal worker Danny McGolgan was murdered 100,000 protestants and catholics protested on the streets of Belfast. The majority of workers protestant and catholic are opposed to sectarian killings.
Also Pat to have a pogrom who need to have large numbers of people involved. 40 or 50 of Adairs supporters going into the Short Strand for example would be incapable of carrying out a pogrom, they could kill alot of people but a pogrom is driving hundreds and thousands of people out of their homes and comunities, these people haven't got the numbers or support to carry out such an act. Protestant workers in East Belfast would be completely against the idea of driving catholics out of the Short Strand and if you find that hard to accept then I would suggest that you might go there sometime and actually ask ordinary protestants what they think of such an idea and what they think about the loyalist paramilitaries, I hope you would be pleasantly surprised by their answers.

by pat c Wed Dec 11, 2002 13:01

"Pat Cochrane "

if you are going to use my full name, then at least spell it properly, Corcoran.

"raises a number of points which he states are facts, however they are in reality opinions, not facts."

your statement above is an opinion.

"For a whole historical period catholics in Northern Ireland were discriminated against by the Unionist dominated government at Stormont. "

i'm glad that yopu recognise this; so many on indy would deny it.

"However it is incorrect to say that this discrimination still exists today in the same way. The British government over the last 20 years in particular has had a conscious strategy of introducing legislation and pumping in billions of pounds in funding to create a situation where discrimination on religious is the exception rather than the rule. The "Orange State" no longer exists. "

i didnt say it still exists in the same naked way. unionist councils no longer control housing. but loyalists effectively control where taigs can live by burning them out. however even mainstream unionists oppose the fair employment laws. unionists mindsets to a large extent have not changed.

"The British state implemented these changes as part of a strategy of "normalisation", firstly as an attempt to undermine the base of Sinn Fein and the republican movement and to bolster the SDLP, but then later as part of their strategy to bring the republican movement in from the cold. Their investment in the North in social housing, public sector employment, state funded community jobs etc was part of the build up to the process of getting the Provos to call a ceasefire."

yes but whats your point?
"Discrimination on religious and political grounds still exists in the North but not on the scale it did under Unionist rule. If a similar level of discrimination still existed then there is no way that catholics would have voted in such big numbers for the Good Friday Agreement, which in essence accepts the continuation of British rule, albeit through powersharing."

i agree its not on the sdame state level but loyalists still prevent catholics from living or working in certain areas.

"On his point about republican guns preventing bosnian style ethnic cleasing - this is pure fantasy. I don't believe that even the republican movement would attempt to make such a claim. Not since the very early days of the "Troubles" has the Provos campaign had even a hint of being of a defensive nature. Their campaign was consciously offensive - "the long war" to remove British Imperialism. "

are you denying the amount of sectarian attacks on catholics? catholics are being cleared from areas of carrickfergus, larne, antrim, etc etc. the short strand would be ethnically cleansed if the loyalists could get away with it. they know they would suffer heavy casualties if they launched a full scale assault on the short strand, they learned this lesson in 1970
the ruc/psni & the british army have done little if anything to stop the attacks.

"The main reason why there hasn't been a civil war in Northern Ireland has not been because the Provos were armed. It has been because the working class refused to be dragged down that path. If the situation ever arose that a civil war was inevitable then the arms of the republican movement would be irrelevant as they don't have even weapons to "defend" catholics. The reality of that legally held protestant weapons, the weapons of the RIR, the PSNI, Shorts missile factory etc dwarf the weapons held by the Provos."

and for this reason the trepublicans should give up their arms? to facilitate the massacre?

"On every occassion in the last 30 years that the North has move towards the brink of civil war the working class, catholic and protestant has united, gone out on to the streets in their hundreds of thousands and has forced the sectarians (loyalist, unionist, republican and nationalists) to retreat. In fact it was this type of action by workers that was the main catalyst for the republican and loyalist ceasefires. The working class told the paramilitaries on both sides that they had enough of the sectarian killings, and that they wanted a better life."

this is fantastical nonsense. its amazing that you can still spout it given the reality of whats going on in the north.

"A united working class is the only way to secure a socialist future for this island. "

i agree; but this is not going to come about by adapting to the pro-impperialist prejudices of loyalists. read your trotsky , lenin, marx & the comintern, oh trotskist one.

"Self appointed defenders of the community can't acheive defence or a real change in people's living conditions."

are you going to defend the short strand?

"When the Provos disarm, and possibly even disband, then Pat Cochrane's point will be shown up for what it is a myth."

there will still be other republicans with arms;(no, i dont support the cira or rira) in any case i dont believe the ira are going to go away as long as the threat of loyalist pogrom hangs in the air.

"Regarding his points on loyalism and fascism. This is old news. Everyone knows that elements within the loyalist paramilitaries have had links to fascist organisations. But not all loyalist paramilitaries have these links."

apparently its new news to a lot on indy, including people would call themselves trotskyist.

"The many people in or around the UVF/UDA would be opposed to fascism. This opposition would come from, amongst others things the fact that many of their fathers and grandfathers fought in World War 2 against fascism."

hopefully the WWII memory will help to stop them.

"In the 1980's the NF bookshop (centre) on Templemore Avenue (off Newtownards Road, East Belfast) was burnt down by loyalist paramilitaries for this very reason."

actually i think, it was a turf war.

"Many members of and leading members of the PUP believe they are socialists, although admittedly confused on many issues, they are attempting to crope towards a different political analysis it is yet to be seen if they will achieve this move away from sectarianism."

i agree, people like ervine have taken great strides. he made me understsnd where he was coming from. but i hope they progress further along the road.

"Having said that of course the loyalist paramilitaries are abhorrent organisations, mainly engaged in gansterism and drug dealing and sectarian attacks on catholic communties and are a blight on the protestant community and must be completely and absolutely opposed."

here here.

" Every attempt by the NF or the BNP in the last 25 years to organise in the North has ended in abject failure because unlike the impression sometimes given protestants workers are not a homogenous reactionary group. The vast majority of protestant workers are opposed to fascism, and also opposed to the loyalist paramilitaries. In fact the people they find most abhorrent are those referred to by Pat such as Johnny Adair etc. "

hopefully you are right, but the present links are more worrying.

by Eamonn C Wed Dec 11, 2002 12:26

Pat Cochrane raises a number of points which he states are facts, however they are in reality opinions, not facts.
For a whole historical period catholics in Northern Ireland were discriminated against by the Unionist dominated government at Stormont. However it is incorrect to say that this discrimination still exists today in the same way. The British government over the last 20 years in particular has had a conscious strategy of introducing legislation and pumping in billions of pounds in funding to create a situation where discrimination on religious is the exception rather than the rule. The "Orange State" no longer exists.
The British state implemented these changes as part of a strategy of "normalisation", firstly as an attempt to undermine the base of Sinn Fein and the republican movement and to bolster the SDLP, but then later as part of their strategy to bring the republican movement in from the cold. Their investment in the North in social housing, public sector employment, state funded community jobs etc was part of the build up to the process of getting the Provos to call a ceasefire.
Discrimination on religious and political grounds still exists in the North but not on the scale it did under Unionist rule. If a similar level of discrimination still existed then there is no way that catholics would have voted in such big numbers for the Good Friday Agreement, which in essence accepts the continuation of British rule, albeit through powersharing.
On his point about republican guns preventing bosnian style ethnic cleasing - this is pure fantasy. I don't believe that even the republican movement would attempt to make such a claim. Not since the very early days of the "Troubles" has the Provos campaign had even a hint of being of a defensive nature. Their campaign was consciously offensive - "the long war" to remove British Imperialism.
The main reason why there hasn't been a civil war in Northern Ireland has not been because the Provos were armed. It has been because the working class refused to be dragged down that path. If the situation ever arose that a civil war was inevitable then the arms of the republican movement would be irrelevant as they don't have even weapons to "defend" catholics. The reality of that legally held protestant weapons, the weapons of the RIR, the PSNI, Shorts missile factory etc dwarf the weapons held by the Provos.
On every occassion in the last 30 years that the North has move towards the brink of civil war the working class, catholic and protestant has united, gone out on to the streets in their hundreds of thousands and has forced the sectarians (loyalist, unionist, republican and nationalists) to retreat. In fact it was this type of action by workers that was the main catalyst for the republican and loyalist ceasefires. The working class told the paramilitaries on both sides that they had enough of the sectarian killings, and that they wanted a better life.
A united working class is the only way to secure a socialist future for this island. Self appointed defenders of the community can't acheive defence or a real change in people's living conditions.
When the Provos disarm, and possibly even disband, then Pat Cochrane's point will be shown up for what it is a myth.
Regarding his points on loyalism and fascism. This is old news. Everyone knows that elements within the loyalist paramilitaries have had links to fascist organisations. But not all loyalist paramilitaries have these links.
The many people in or around the UVF/UDA would be opposed to fascism. This opposition would come from, amongst others things the fact that many of their fathers and grandfathers fought in World War 2 against fascism. In the 1980's the NF bookshop (centre) on Templemore Avenue (off Newtownards Road, East Belfast) was burnt down by loyalist paramilitaries for this very reason. Many members of and leading members of the PUP believe they are socialists, although admittedly confused on many issues, they are attempting to crope towards a different political analysis it is yet to be seen if they will achieve this move away from sectarianism. Having said that of course the loyalist paramilitaries are abhorrent organisations, mainly engaged in gansterism and drug dealing and sectarian attacks on catholic communties and are a blight on the protestant community and must be completely and absolutely opposed. Every attempt by the NF or the BNP in the last 25 years to organise in the North has ended in abject failure because unlike the impression sometimes given protestants workers are not a homogenous reactionary group. The vast majority of protestant workers are opposed to fascism, and also opposed to the loyalist paramilitaries. In fact the people they find most abhorrent are those referred to by Pat such as Johnny Adair etc.

by Pat C Wed Dec 11, 2002 11:25

"Pat C
by Phuq Hedd Tue, Dec 10 2002, 5:00pm

so far you've failed to demonstrate anything but a knee-jerk reaction to any criticism of the use of terrorism by Republicans."

i've made it clear that i believe any armed group should be answerable to the community & should take their lead from a political organisation.
but i also live in the real world, if it wasnt for the guns held by republicans, catholics would be ethnically cleansed on a bosnian scale in the north.

"Here's one for you to digest: the Republican terrorists and the Loyalist/Unionist terrorists and the "official" armies of both sides are all using murder and force to impose their will on the people that they want to control."

why havent my critics here (other than you) addressed any of my questioins about state murder, miscarriages of justice, denial of housing, denial of voting rights, state death squads, state aid to loyalist death squads?

"It is true that the Catholic working-class has been especially singled out for discrimination and violence and that the brunt of the oppression has been born by them. However the Republican terrorism which exploded bombs in pubs in Birmingham (as one small example) murdered and maimed people that did not deserve that any more than the Catholic working-class."

i agrree, the birmingham bombings were wrong, i've made it cleatr that i dont uncritically support the ira or inla.

but again you concentrate on the reactive violence of republicans rather than state oppression.

In your failure to honestly admit that both sides are using reprehensible methods to achieve their aims you vitiate any moral argument that relies upon a litany of wrongs."

i have admitted the ira & inla have committed actions i cannot support, so stop misrepresenting me. again, you are unable to differentiate between
imperialist violence and that of those who resist them.

""More importantly than that you have apparently failed to realise (as a self-declared libertarian) that allowing the power of violence to reside in the hands of coterie of Revolutionaries is to support an embryonic State (the brute engine of force and terror)."

AGAIN: i've made it clear that i believe any armed group should be answerable to the community & should take their lead from a political organisation.
but i also live in the real world, if it wasnt for trhe guns held by republicans, catholics would be cleansed on a bosnian scale in the north.

"I find it hard to credit your description of yourself as a libertarian while you support the undemocratic and tyrannic actions of elitist revolutionaries."

see above. a libertarian would not stand by while the truth is twisted. people here try to pretend that the 700 loyalist attacks on the Short Strand over the last 7 months did not take place.

as a libeertarian, i am not in a position to defend these people. a call for a workers militia would be childish. live in the real world. it is the loyalists who have links with fascism. (see my recent AFA posting)

"It is strange that you haven't realised where all this violence is leading: the embedding of a professional group of controllers of the Catholic working class in the shape of Sinn Fein (the voice of the Catholic working class)."

i am neither a member nor a supporter of sinn fein
but i will defend republicans from the sort of attack which happens on indymedia. sf is not a confessional party, they are also not responsible for this violence.

if libertarians & trotskyists have not won over their support base then thats our failing. what protection can we offer them from howling loyalist mobs?

"I'm sure that you're well aware of their accomodation with the Capitalists that run Ireland and the occupied Six Counties."

yes i am; i am also aware that there are many genuine socialists in sf who are opposed to this.
i have more in common with them then i will ever have with lifestyle-"anarchists" or "trotskyists" who believe the orange order has the right to march down the garvaghy road.

i didnt bring the national question into this debate, jerry did. some people will use any opportunity to attack republicans.

with his subsequent comments, jerry has displayed the sullen arrogance of ignorance.

i suggested that we should agree to disagree on the national question; but the likes of jerry makes that impossible when he uses a discussion on moore & the anti war movement as a platform to attack republicans.

by Declan Tue Dec 10, 2002 18:05

Jerry, I am not having a go at you here 'cos I know what you are saying is correct. Many people won't go on these protests and the one of _reasons_ (in my mind this one is an excuse) they give is they don't want to be associated with left wing, liberal, crusties or anarchiest, who they probably prejudge as chaos causing violent middle class students, or some such shite.

I am not a crusty. Nor am I waiting on Daddy to give me his inheritance. I hold down a job that I hate but I hold it down cos I need the money.

But I know in my heart that this war on Iraq is wrong on all levels and Ireland cannot and should not be used to aid it. In any way, least of all in ways that make a mockery of our constitution.

So these people you describe, may have good intentions, but they are simply lazy and apathetic when it comes to doing something about stopping Irish participation in this war. Anything else is just a smokescreen. Look, you have to deal with all sorts of people all through life in all sorts of situations. To use the excuse that "I don't like their type" for not doing anything is sad, pathetic and moral cowardice. But mostly it's just laziness.

Although it might be lack of self belief.....

"Nobody makes a greater mistake then she or he who
does nothing because she or he could only do a little".-- Edmund Burke.

Very pissed off I missed this talk. Wasn't very well advertised was it?

by Phuq Hedd Tue Dec 10, 2002 18:00

so far you've failed to demonstrate anything but a knee-jerk reaction to any criticism of the use of terrorism by Republicans.

Here's one for you to digest: the Republican terrorists and the Loyalist/Unionist terrorists and the "official" armies of both sides are all using murder and force to impose their will on the people that they want to control. It is true that the Catholic working-class has been especially singled out for discrimination and violence and that the brunt of the oppression has been born by them. However the Republican terrorism which exploded bombs in pubs in Birmingham (as one small example) murdered and maimed people that did not deserve that any more than the Catholic working-class.

In your failure to honestly admit that both sides are using reprehensible methods to achieve their aims you vitiate any moral argument that relies upon a litany of wrongs.

More importantly than that you have apparently failed to realise (as a self-declared libertarian) that allowing the power of violence to reside in the hands of coterie of Revolutionaries is to support an embryonic State (the brute engine of force and terror). I find it hard to credit your description of yourself as a libertarian while you support the undemocratic and tyrannic actions of elitist revolutionaries.

It is strange that you haven't realised where all this violence is leading: the embedding of a professional group of controllers of the Catholic working class in the shape of Sinn Fein (the voice of the Catholic working class). I'm sure that you're well aware of their accomodation with the Capitalists that run Ireland and the occupied Six Counties.

by blisset Tue Dec 10, 2002 17:46

vermin = gooks = towelheads = knackers

by Oh no, what have you done Tue Dec 10, 2002 17:28

Pat's not going to be happy with that. As a strident defender of the INLA I fear he'll take the vermin jibe as a personal insult. Better watch your knee caps or they could fall victim of some community policing in the not too distant future.

Pat, you see, is not REALLY a fan of Moore. He believes that holding private arms is a form of legitimate political expression. Not unlike the American far right really.

by Jerry Tue Dec 10, 2002 17:12

Actually, the axes I'm grinding is an anti militant-republican axe and anti militant-loyalist axe. I depise both equally. Honestly, the type of people that support either ideology are worse class of vermin in this country.

by pat c Tue Dec 10, 2002 17:02

i think moore is a bit chaotic at times. but read his book if you want to do justice to his politics.

by Dave D Tue Dec 10, 2002 16:57

Pat, I think we established weeks ago that we disagree on the north. It would be more interesting to hear your comments on Moore, rather than just grinding your violent republican axe labouriously.

by pat c Tue Dec 10, 2002 16:47

"I find some of his stunts quite lame, and his politics on the North the sort of simplistic caricature American analysis that kept the IRA in money for so many years."

really, are you sugesting that catholics were not denied equal voting rights?
that catholics were not denied housing?
that the british army didnt occupy the north?
that the brits didnt assassinate people?
that the birmingham 6, guilford 4, judith ward etc were not wrongly convicted?
that catholics dont suffer from higher unemployment rates?

you suggestion of a vote for gore is just a scream.

"Absolutley correct. Sinn Fein, Pat C and their ilk also know the truth but choose to ignore half of it."

do you mean the truth that catholics are being ethnically cleansed in the north ?
do you mean the 700 loyalist attacks on the shortstrand over the last 7 months which the ruc/psni & british army have done nothing to prevent?

"He may know about American politics, but Michael Moore is certainly ill-informed about Northern Ireland politics."

he knows a lot more than you do. so far you've demonstrated little knowledge of the north.
what did he write which was incorrect?

by Terry Tue Dec 10, 2002 16:39

So we need to be asking the question (and collecting the data), why do people
not get involved in politics. Why do we not get tens of thousands at protests
and why so many other issues get minimal support?

Are people really that selfish? I doubt it.

by Jerry Tue Dec 10, 2002 16:26

"I find some of his stunts quite lame, and his politics on the North the sort of simplistic caricature American analysis that kept the IRA in money for so many years."

Absolutley correct. Sinn Fein, Pat C and their ilk also know the truth but choose to ignore half of it. He may know about American politics, but Michael Moore is certainly ill-informed about Northern Ireland politics.

by Dave D Tue Dec 10, 2002 16:13

The problem with Moore is also his greatest strength. His politics are quite one dimensional, while he's great at highlighting issues he provides no robust political analysis. This means he rarely has to engage in real political debate with those who disagree. His slob attitude and appearance act as a barrier to criticism, but also mean he can get away with stuff that a guy in a suit couldn't.

I find some of his stunts quite lame, and his politics on the North the sort of simplistic caricature American analysis that kept the IRA in money for so many years.

Also Moore backed the Greens in the US presidential election, these votes could have stopped Bush from getting into power (Gore's not perfect, but is A LOT better than Bush).

On TV nation (I think) he spent an entire show trying to show up an insurance company for not paying for some guys transplant, even though his policy simply didn't cover the operation. While I'm not disputing the fact that the guy should have got the operation, Moore self-rigeously paraded around pulling stunts and embarrassing the insurance co. , without really addressing the issue...the guy wasn't insured for the operation, and it was unsupring that the insurance company wasn't going to pay up (although it eventually did for PR reasons). The problem rather was the whole American health system.

Moore attracts the woolly left because he's trendy and populist, he couldn't hack it in the world of politics. He simply doesn't back up argument with a coherent political agenda/response. (Although I accept the issue about guns is quite black and white - ban them)

by pat c Tue Dec 10, 2002 15:59

from "stupid whitemen"

"catholics in nortern ireland are second-class citizens whose rights are continually violated, who are kept on the lowest tier economically, and who live under the thumb of an occupation force of british soldiers."

"a few bombings in london and suddenly the government is allowed all sort of secret powers to do what it weants to combat "terrorism". no one has the time to ask about the terrorism ionstigated by the government or how that may be a factor in why there is so much death and destruction happening."

"how many irish were falsely arrested and convicted? how many irish were assassinated by operatives of the british government? We may never know. this is not what defines a free and open society."

by Ray Tue Dec 10, 2002 15:49

I think there's an element of truth to it - sometimes lefties have a tendency to be self-righteous, to talk in jargon, to act as if they don't really care about people outside the left. The Sparts, with their slogans praising China and Cromwell, and their incomprehensible paper, are a prime example. They're not talking to 'normal' people, they're addressing a tiny fringe of the population. (There are lots of other examples, of course. The deliberately difficult language in 'Empire', or the bombast of the SWP. Signs that people spent too much time with their political group)

But really, most activists aren't like that, unless the WSM were completely atypical. The stuff Moore was talking about - watching Friends, or football, or James Bond films, and being able to have conversations about them - aren't that strange or unusual. And as far as I know, most of the campaigns I've been in have sent press releases out to all the daily papers, plus as many local papers and freesheets as possible. (Not VIP though - we do have some standards)

I'm not convinced though, that if you talk about The Bill for half an hour and then talk about Palestine you'll suddenly get hundreds of people along to the next demo. And I'm not sure how you make getting on a bus to Shannon 'more like a Bond film'.

I suppose the main problem I have is that this all makes it sound like a problem of presentation - making demos more like TV so people will like them. While presentation is important, I think we should be making demos _less_ like TV, getting people involved, instead of presenting something for people to passively comsume.

by pat c Tue Dec 10, 2002 15:48

you dont know much about moore, hes an anti-imperialist and holds the british responsible for the war in the north.

funny you oppose US imperialism but are ambiguous about british imperialism.

read his book stupid whitemen & you're likely to be upset.

by Andrew Tue Dec 10, 2002 15:36

Jerry I think the interesting question here is that if your mates have a problem with the existing anti-war movements then why don't they organise their own? I often think that people who come out with the 'I'd do something but they are all crusties/students/SWP/whatever' line are simply looking for an excuse to stay in the pub. If they actually wanted to do something they could organise themselves as an alternative rather then moaning about those who are 'out there' and doing it.

by Jerry Tue Dec 10, 2002 15:29

Another thing. Would all Sinn Fein supporter STOP pretending to be anti-war? It's hypocrisy of the highest order. When you disconnect yourself from IRA terrorists, *then* you can talk the anti-war talk.

by Jerry Tue Dec 10, 2002 15:27

"His argument was also weakened by using himself as an example - his point was that people listen to him because he's an ordinary slob they can relate to, but his audience was just the crowd of college students and 20-30 year old graduates you'd expect, not ordinary slobs. "

Michael Moore is correct, I'm afraid. Nobody wants to be associated with the Anti-War crowd because they're *considered* to be a bunch of left-wing, middle-class, crusty loons with plenty of money, and a secure future in Daddy's firm in South Dublin when they lose interest in trying to persuade everyone to loike, you know, get along (or become Marxists).

All lot of my friends are also Anti-War, but when they see the lefty Irish protestors, they immediately lose all interest. Most people don't want to have anything to do with the crusty crowd.

Sorry to be so blunt, but that's how I see it.

by Justin Moran - Sinn Fein Tue Dec 10, 2002 15:18 maigh_nuad at yahoo dot com

That thing about engaging with real people, not talking down to them must be a theme of his, read a very good piece he did in The Nation on it years ago and I'm not so sure about its straw quality.

The overwhelming majority of working class people don't read the Irish Times, and yet because it's the paper of record people tend to view that as the paper they want to get into. A press release picked up in the Star, the Sun, News of the World will reach far more people from working class backgrounds than something discussed in turgid analysis by the Times.

An interesting example of this is the Adams interview with VIP. Now when I first saw it my reaction was one of embarrassment to be honest because I hate those magazines. After reading the interview though (Which wasn't great) I realised that the article would be read by huge numbers of people and an audience that was not politically engaged. In retrospect, dooing the interview was a good idea.

Another case springs to mind of a meeting some time ago where an activist from another organisation spoke in very disparaging terms about the GAA. Now, it's not a perfect organisation, but it mobilises hundreds of thousands of people, reaches millions at this stage and provides practical benefits for young children and people in the form of sports, while retaining, amazingly and uniquely, its amateur status. It is one of the most radical and innovative organisations in Irish history. (And I say this as some-one who does have problems with the organisation).

Wandered off the point there for a sec but basically most people are not politically minded, nor are they particularly interested except for issues that affect them directly or at election time. We should do all we can to politicise people but we should also realise that we need to connect with people in more 'normal' ways.