Revolutionary Marxist Groups in Ireland.

by Kompass Thu Dec 26, 2002 23:45 Kompassfi at aol dot com

I thought this group had broken up many years ago. Might you give us more information about it?

by David Walsh - Socialist Workers Organization (US) Thu Dec 26, 2002 23:35 davidrail at aol dot com Boston, MA USA

The correst name of the Irish Fourth Internationalist section is "Socialist Democracy" not Social Democracy.
They have an excellent website which they keep up to date with news and commentary on key issues in Ireland and internationally.
They have also produced some important books on topics like the Good Friday Agreement and the social partnership in Ireland. They also produce a journal called Socialist Democracy as well as anti war bulletins.
IMO they have the right Marxist approach to the national question as well as the fight for a socialist republic. Worth checking out.

website: http://members.tripod.co.uk/socialistdemocracyie/Homepage.htm

by Des Sat Dec 14, 2002 12:33

Might I respectfully suggest that YFG be included in the list of "revolutionary" organisations given their magnificent effort on the issue of homelessness. They are really committed to a "Just Society", the only problem is, when are they going to get back into government so that they can implement policies to bring such a "Just Society" about.

by Irony is dead Sat Dec 14, 2002 01:22

Actually Cliff attributes the origin of the term State Capitalism to Marx and Engels in the second half of the 19th Century. He applied the theory to the USSR under Stalin.

As for bickering boy wonder, I am but a dwarf in the presence of such a giant.

by jenny b Sat Dec 14, 2002 00:41

kings of kings, lords of lords, conquering lion, tribe of judah, elected of God, mighty Jah, earth's rightful ruler, Jah rastafari.
Father today i cry to thee, let not my enemies overcome me, but the harder the battle, the sweeter the victory, for who god bless no might shall curse thee, and i know one day i'll get my reward, when i see them come crawling at my feet, but i won't do like them, for i'm a righteous man, i will show them what a good man shall do, showing them we are one skin, one blood and so we should love one and all.

by Daltun Fri Dec 13, 2002 22:26

Saor Eire is 70yr. old radical republican group that believes that Ireland's problems have to be seen as the result of Imperialism. The new imperialism, that of Anglo-America, shows that the emperor has only changed his clothes. The Stormont Agreement has to be seen in this context.The assimilation of Irish America to the white ruling power structure in the U.S. made possible the incorporation of Provisional Sinn Fein into the ruling clique in Ireland, and thereby strengthened Britain's grip on the North of Ireland.

by OK - SP Fri Dec 13, 2002 21:03

this is really a pathetic discussion about other groups etc. The original poster wanted to know any other groups etc. But people are just coming online and giving out about others.

On SA, I know most SA members. To describe them as belonging to one particulr school of thought is not correct. SA members come from a wide spectrum of beliefs.

by Are all the left groups necessary? Fri Dec 13, 2002 20:53

it has been suggested that all the left groups should come together and stop the bickering.

A laudable aim.

But just to point out that there are at least 15 right-wing parties in this country, that have far less differences between them than the left groups and they spend just as much time, if not more, bickering among themselves.

Another interesting point is that there are far fewer left groups in ireland now than there were 20 years ago. groups like the LWR and IWG to name just two are gone by the wayside (at least I haven't heard of them in years)

by iosaf Fri Dec 13, 2002 20:51

one of the weirdest things about the end of Albania was the ending of the Hoxha´s ban on normal citizens owning or operating a car.

Tirania had the widest streets in Europe and I remember this one as an anti-car activist (hee-hee) in one week Albania became a mess of thousands of first time drivers crashing into each other, before they got (hee-hee) out priced of petrol and the country went fuel dry. (not funny but hee hee hee). The Albanians I most remember were economic refugees in southern Italy who still adhered to a barbaric custom of chopping off fingers and earlobes to persuade others to marry them.
I remember this little woman stunted from malnutrition with out little finger and earlobe which she had cut off herself to "shame her boyfriend" into marrying her. She told me in sicilian that her nose would be next. I felt tall, disgusted and well incomprehension.

China was the main funder of Albanian stalinism.
the closest equiv today is North Korea.
check my SCUD missile list for Albanian scud stockpiles.

by Just wondering Fri Dec 13, 2002 20:45

Who do they cheer for now that their paradise on earth, Albania, is gone?

by Bookworm Fri Dec 13, 2002 19:48

OK Andrew, but the SWP claims that Tony Cliff's critique of the orthodox Trot theory of the USSR as a degenerate workers' state was his own original idea. It wasn't, except in the SWP orwellian rewriting of history.

by iosaf Fri Dec 13, 2002 17:25

another thought who invented "anti-capitalist".

I remember the Daily TElegraph using it after RTS June 18. 1999
Before that the largest ever RTS was 1997 (my memory is thrashed could have been 98) when the liverpool strikers met up with everyone in Trafalgar sq. but then we weren´t called anti-capitalists.
The reason why is this year The Economist mag, referred to "a particular type of anti-capitalism" as being responsible for the Soviet Union.
I shuddered when i read that, in the USA anarchists are "gangmembers", in Europe they are on "no-entry" lists or "handle with care" lists, we have seen that in Denmark.
Yet the authorities also seem intent on giving organisational structure to their opponents.
those arrested in Denmark are "spokespersons" not leaders. Anarchist groupings do not have leaders.
But we do have spokespersons, the folk who go say things to ther radio and TV and troll for the facts and intellectual back-up.
Andrew is a spokesperson for WSM but not a leader.
I´ve been a spokesperson for a whole load of various squatters and protesters but god forbid i be a leader, now our comrades are being described in Europresses as "leaders".
And we are being described as "anti-capitalists", I smell a trap in this.
please let us not be trapped.
Release the spokespeople of gli dissobedienti.
but remember that there are more disobedienti out there who can speak on behalf of their movement.
The disobedienti are like the wombles and yomango high profile attention attracting groupings becuase of their wit and fine fine tactic, so therefore targets for the repression heads, but hey they gave us a martyr, and I remember at the time thinking very soberly (it was not a long period after the Swedish police had opened fire at the REclaim the City gig) that Carlo was a martyr we did not need in any sense.
I mean no disrepect to Carlo, nor to the disobedienti, but in comment to the news of Sisifis´arrest in Greece (next year´s Sup€r$tate venue is THessalonika) the net is out for activists both dirty and clean throughout Europe.

I rather feel that they will choose to scratch off the names on their list carefully.
but give it time.... we are all on that list.

So talk about repression.
don´t email politicians coz that doesn´t work.
talk about repression.
in open places, on radio, on TV, in papers, in churches.
because Neimeyer put it very well.
there will be no-one left to speak out.

by Ray Fri Dec 13, 2002 16:56

I'd make a joke about 'taking my ball with me', but I just know where that would end up...

by iosaf (who has an annoying habit of hitting the return key) - when not ready. Fri Dec 13, 2002 16:48

and as I love to say it reflects the Palestinian flag.
Black - Red - Green (coz i really believe that all our different groupings with their legitimate concerns about Marxist intepretation) agree that the present 21st century struggle is as much ecological as social.
and White.
coz we all agree on PEACE, and ending the WAR.

at least I hope so.
Now in Ireland, peace is usually taken to mean the Peace process, I´m not going to harp on about that, rather I would point out that the WAR and PEACE ought be understood as the present conflict between Western Civilisation (which we all agree, bolshevik, anarchist, green, socialist needs to be changed....we disagree how much it need be changed and how quickly) and countries united by one thing...
opposition to the Washington´s project of full spectrum dominance.

Now if the WAR which I believe on very striking evidence is in a full covert swing, is to be stopped or reduced, then we need to decide on some tactics which we ought not use.

This message is more for those closer to my home.

In the last week groupings of the wide "anti-capitalist" movement have been alledged to have sent letter bombs to a variety of newspaper and media outlets in Europe.
Italy and Spain to be specific.
The cover letters were in Italian.
Now I don´t think this is very helpful to any of us. Washington and her allies in state governments all over Europe are stepping up their overt war. Opposition groups are a required part of their "democratic contract".

But to quote that seanfhocal "ná leathnaigh do bhrat muna féidir leat a chosaint = don´t fly
your flag if you can´t defend it".

this week that has much meaning for me.
I leave these thoughts here because i know that ye readers have contact with "the left" from "anarko-freaki to ML trots" throughout europe, and I really feel we need to get the message out that sending letter bombs is a very very stupid thing to do.

España was assisted to fly its little flag by the USA the other day in seixing the SCUDS, and todays Irish independent says it all.
red faces all round. the Spanish papers are gleeful, humiliation on the seas again.
But consider, Washington shotitself in the foot?
i wonder, was it not very opportune to seize even though illegally these weapons, I´ve issued a complete list of the global stocks of SCUDS elsewhere, there are lots, but something suggest to me that their transport is now so commonplace that España could ill-advisedly be handed a military propagnada point by Washington.
As I said the real winners are / will be France.
but leave it till January for me to give you detailed account why.
But Washington showed itself to be idiotically hawkish, idiotically given to military propaganda, and Madrid played the game. or did they?
I happen to believe that we are already in a covert global war, and that all our fates are in the balance. I think of Dr. Kissenger´s words on liberty and how it´s denial can be justified if only the threat admitted to.
Please tell the "revolutionary comrades" of "our transantional struggle" that sending homemade letterbombs to newspapers is really really stupid and in these times does no-one any favours.

and I really think the LEFT and the GREENS and the WHITES (peaceniks not counterrevolutionary russians, one of whom ended up in westmeath and spoke English with a strong Dublinese accent I met him in the 70s)are building a global movement I am optimistic, but I am mindful that our struggle must use different tactics from those favoured and perhaps neccesary in other "less free" parts of the world.
I am mindful of Venezuela where those who speak as we speak live daily in fear of persecution and death as do our comrades in all of south america.
if I´ve foolishly taken up space here I´m sorry, but this is worrying for many of us here.
We don´t want to be "taken out of circulation" because someone connects us with whomever is doing these very stupid things.
and facetious as ever, jokingly, when Ray left the WSM did he go right?

by Andrew Fri Dec 13, 2002 16:37

Actually Lenin himself described the tasks of the Bolsheviks as one of building state capitalism back in 1918. And it was in common use as a description of the USSR by anarchists and the 'ultra left' Marxists from 1921 on. The first use probably goes to the World Socialist Movement which called it state capitalist from October 1917 because it didn't follow their model.

Cliffs version is an attempt to recognise the reality of what was happening in the economy in a way that would place the blame on Stalin rather then lenin or Trotsky. The attempt to claim this is the first definition of 'state capitalism' is simply part of the attempt to camoflage the real source of the problem.

by Bookworm Fri Dec 13, 2002 16:22

The definition of the USSR as "state capitalist" was not invented, as the SWP claims, by Tony Cliff. It was worked out in the early 40s by Raya Dunayeskaya and CLR James. Read CLR James's _State Capitalism and World Revolution_ (1950) or Dunayevskaya's _Russia as a State capitalist Society_ (1942), you'll learn more than from all Cliff's books and pamphlets put together. CLR James broke with the trots and the vanguard party model in the 50s.

by Andrew Fri Dec 13, 2002 16:14

First off its inevitable that the discussion aspect of the site will high light conflict and difference rather then agreement and points in common. Who bothers to post 'I agree with you' for instance. The news articles themselves should of course give a better impression and to a limited extent they do. You will find in many if not all of the reports part of the story is that a number of different groups have workerd with each other to build for something.

Beyond that though we are not all fighting for the same thing. Some (the Leninists) belive that socialism can only come about after a transition period when their party is in charge. Some (the social democrats) belive that they can chnage things by getting elected to the Dail. Some (the anarchists) belive that change can only come about when the mass of the people take over the running of society with representives doing it 'for them' through either reformist or revolutionary governments.

So while we should all be able to work together to oppose war or the bin tax (we mostly do on the second, the differences on the first have taken up enough space already) our real long term differences will rightly keep us apart over the longer term.

by AL Fri Dec 13, 2002 16:06

There seem to be so many groups holding shared aspects of each others ideologies yet no form of consesus seems possible between you. Which is a waste of your time and you intellegence as you clearly (from this site and from others) share goals. Yet all that seems to come across is reactionary politics in opposition to the dominant. why not create a semi-isolated (from the dominant) ideology and goal independant of reactionary politics, then build it to create a real alternative to the neo-liberal politics of today. look back to history, pull the rabbit out of the bloody hat and hay presto, you have yourself a real alternative (if only it was so easy, but thats what neo-liberalism seems to have done over the past 50 odd years)

by Andrew Fri Dec 13, 2002 15:56

It's quite dishonest (but consistent with the SWP method) to imply rejection of Leninism is the same as rejection of the Russian (October) revolution. There were a number of groups to the left of the Bolsheviks that were pro-October but against Lenins dictatorship and suppression of workers democracy and the left. Rays has already mentioned the CC's but of course the anarchists also fall into that camp.

From what members of SA have already written they clearly 'reject Lenin from the left'. There is a rather long discussion on this starting from comments one made attacking anarchism for implying all marxists were leninists (we don't actuallY) at http://flag.blackened.net/wwwthreads/showflat.php?Cat=&Board=revoltnew&Number=11432&page=0&view=collapsed&sb=5&o=&fpart=

by Ray Fri Dec 13, 2002 15:48

Do the SA criticise the Russian revolution, or just the part played by the Bolsheviks?
The Bolsheviks were also criticised by the council communists, right? And Lenin addressed those criticisms by writing "Left-wing communism - an infantile disorder?" So if the SA are similar to the council communists, then they are to the left of the Bolshevik tradition that the SWP claim to be carrying on.
That makes them a left-wing split.

If they're 'nearer to the Labour Party now' they might have gone to the right. So what evidence do you have that they've moved closer to the Labour party? Or is that just the line being pushed by the SWP Political Committee?

by always anon Fri Dec 13, 2002 15:44

agreeing with 'oh my name is very very secret - coz i´m very very paranoid' (shorten that name would you! omnivvs-civvp? ns-vp?), i thought anarchists were neither left or right. they are outside of politics, in the sense that they do not get institutionalised. if there is a need to pigeon-hole then its difficult seeing as the many groups cover the whole of the political spectrum

by SA hater Fri Dec 13, 2002 15:41

I thought that SA split on organisational problems, not political problems. The position papers of SA didn't change their politics from the politics of the SWP. They still say USSR was "state capitalist". So in this way they still are Trotskyists (Cliffist Trotskyists)

The SA are a right wing split, as they reject the russian revolution. They are nearer to Labour Party now from what i've heard.

by Andrew Fri Dec 13, 2002 15:41

Hi isoaf,

I wouldn't get too excited about the historical origins of the political usage of right and left as just about nobody in the world uses them in that way. And if they did as I say in the title its not just anarchists who missed them but also marxists and social democrats.

In terms of the popular understanding of the word left you have to jump forward around 150 years to the period from the 1848 republican revolutions to the Paris Commune of 1871. Here you have the emergance of a range of new ideologies that put the working class at the centre of the project of political change not just in terms of foot soldiers (all previous revolutionaries also wanted us to fight for them after all) but also in terms of decision makers.

By the late 1860's these new ideologies were emerging in several clear forms which still come down to us (in a modified form) today. Many of course also had the concrete experience of working with (and against) each other in the First International. That really is where the socialist or left movement emerges from, from it we have anarchism, marxism and social democracy and of course all the movements and parties that sit between and across these labels.

In that context anarchism cannot be anything other then part of the left, being a central component of the birth of the left as we understand it today. Like it or not we are indeed distant cousins to the likes of Stalin, Trotsky and Lenin even if they belong to another branch of the family.

by oh my name is very very secret - coz i´m very very paranoid. Fri Dec 13, 2002 15:20

hi I´m an anarchist writer in Barcelona,
and tired of post-graduate studies in linguistics and musicology I´ve decided to pursue a career in defence analysis and now count SCUD missiles.
But I´m taking time out from this important work to ask....
How many revolutionary groupings are there in Ireland who should be put on the list?

as we have seen in the past few weeks mostly Italians are being arrested throughout Europe.
23 in Italy began the swoop.
6 more yesterday in Denmark.
now some of them have decided to send letter bombs to the a variety of newspapers.
Italian newspapers in the last week.
El Pais in Spain yesterday.

Do the revolutionary groupings in Ireland have anything to say about this sort of thing?

and are anarchists on the left?
I thought we were alternatives.
like really alternatives.
I thought we didn´t even turn up to the tennis court of the French Revolution.
I thought we arguing the futility of a social dialectic analysis of capital based on reified vaules such as "$" or "€" ignored crucial factor such as the attribution of property value to thought or living organisms.
(copyright on intellect or genes)
I thought anarchists were like the international Green conspiracy sort of well not left nor right.

Though I could be wrong, & I would in that case bow to the superior knowledge of the Irish Left and representatives of the 4th international of marxist leninist trotskisyty revolutionaries.

by conor mc gowan - sa Fri Dec 13, 2002 15:06 conor at ziplip dot com

id never have thought we were trots-although due to the structure of sa i speak for myself here,not the party.
i dont really think it matters if were "more right or left" than the swp.we are very different,mainly orginisationally,structurally etc.i wouldnt ever have considered centralism as ever being empowering to people myself.

which of the said groups would be considered socialist?the irsp,the sp,the swp,the sa?

none of them are significant anyhow

by Andrew Fri Dec 13, 2002 13:41

From what is written here I guess the answer is 'we are the left so anyone splitting from us must be doing so to the right'.

I'm also curious as what is being used to define this rightwardness - or is it simply something they are telling curious members to shut them up?

by Ray Fri Dec 13, 2002 13:35

How do you define a split to the right or left?
Andrew distinguished between the SA and SWP on the basis of their organisational views. (Which I suppose makes them 'infantile' communists, and so a left-wing split)

But even aside from the SA, are there any agreed Trot criteria for distinguishing left-wing and right-wing splits?

by Spaceshipman Fri Dec 13, 2002 13:22

Nope Wayne got it right the first time. Socialist Alternative are definitely more a shift to the right than to the left from the SWP.

by Andrew Fri Dec 13, 2002 13:11

'Irony is dead' all you ever post is various bickerings (at least under that name), SWP members who live in greenhouses shouldn't throw stones. BTW anyone else noticed that when the SWP publishes reems of material attacking anarchism that is 'vigorus debate' but when anarchists criticise the SWP it is either bickering or slander!

Secondly on the actual list I know the SA crowd wouldn't accept they were a 'right-wing' split from the SWP. I'm pretty sure they would also no longer see themselves as trotskyists (but I could be wrong). Probably most accurately they are a split to the left from the SWP, in particular in favouring democratic over centralist forms of organisation. Some of them speak favourably of the 1921 Workers Opposition program (a faction banned by the Bolshevik party) if that is any help in labelling them.

by Irony is dead Fri Dec 13, 2002 11:47

Yeah you just bicker about everything else

by silo Fri Dec 13, 2002 10:24

Is there actually 6 Trotskyist groups in Ireland? I find that bizarre. Though I also find it bizarre that there are more than 6 Trotskyists in Ireland.

I presume you're going to mention the Worker's Solidarity Movement (and other anarchist/libertarian/anarchosyndicalist groups) as a contextualising element: serious non-Marxist left activist groups who do not see the need to bicker about who best "understands Marxism".

by Doodle Fri Dec 13, 2002 05:46

were you at Duke?

by Wayne Lee, B. A. Fri Dec 13, 2002 03:04 wlee at hotmail dot com

IRISH SOCIALIST NETWORK. broad socialist group, split from Democratic Left.