Labour Leader calls for suspension of Shannon facilities

by MG Fri Jan 10, 2003 17:00

Cathy,

Do you think the people who use this website are stupid?

Do you think we can't see your cynical attempt to pretend that you're a left-wing party?

Do you think we can't see your cynical attempt to win votes by latching onto an issue that many honourable left-wingers have been working on for months, with no support from the so-called Labour Party?

Do you think we're going to be fooled into voting for a bunch of capitalist hypocrites just because Rabbitte calls for a debate on Iraq (after which he and his goons will no doubt support the Govt's stance and tow Bush's line).

People, please ignore the above propaganda. It is lip service to the anit-war cause and nothing more.

by remember Fri Jan 10, 2003 17:06

the anti war movement must be broad and wide. It must include all.

All this crap about who should be in it or out of it is counter-productive.

by Andrew Fri Jan 10, 2003 17:07

Call for peace and solidarity among workers of all countries initiated by a number of auto workers in the Ford Twin Cities Assembly Plant in Minnesota.

Workers for Peace

(We invite everyone in our world to sign this call for a conversation about
peace. It doesn't matter if you are a housewife, farmer, teacher, office
worker, union or nonunion or unemployed. We are all Sisters and Brothers
here and we must rely on each other to get the Solidarity World we deserve.
To add your name, send an email to: [email protected]).

In our workplaces and poverty lines across our world, plutocrats and
corporate royalty and their union lackeys collude to persuade us to see
other workers as competitors and enemies.

We are pushed by powerful labor sellouts to believe that it is now the
business of trade unionism to put our brothers and sisters out of work.

We see how this dog eat dog attitude towards all workers - with whom we
have everything in common - is on the same evil, competitive continuum as
war itself.

We see that competition against other workers diminishes those workers in
our eyes.

We see that in war, soldiers - the production workers of war - lose not
only their jobs but also their lives while the rich profit.

We say that war is the eventual endgame outcome of worker against worker,
dog eat dog competition which workers lose so the rich can be richer.

War is the ultimate, evil competition.

We call on workers everywhere to stop the competition between us and to
fight for a world based in solidarity.

Everyone can at least talk and we ask that our talk include what we can all
do to make the world a safe and happier place. We call on workers to simply
talk about the traditional direct action tools of the labor movement.

Can we call for and have international conversations about redeveloping our
traditional weapons - slowdowns, sitdowns, and strikes - to bring down
those who kill us; and, to equalize wages and working conditions at the
highest possible levels throughout the world?

If we must fight, let us fight against those who constantly divide us and
play us against each other for their own profit even to the point of
forcing us to kill each other.

If we must fight a war let it be a war against selfishness and poverty.

Let us fight to unite all workers against the destructive, dictatorial
greed of corporate moguls. Let us fight to see that those who have the
least gain equality in wages, health care and education and the right to a
happy life.

A simple conversation started amongst workers who believe in the working
class values of solidarity, equality and democracy can change the world.

Let our war begin with the peaceful exchange of words and ideas.

- Signed, Workers for Peace

Dennis Serdel, 11th Light Infantry Brigade, Americal Div., Vietnam 1967-68
, UAW Local 5960 Pontiac, MI * Gregg Shotwell, Editor Live Bait & Ammo,
UAW Local 2151, Grand Rapids, MI * David Yettaw, Vietnam Vet, Strike
Leader, Fmr. Pres (now retired) UAW Local 599 , Flint, MI * John Kiel,
Pipefitter, UAW Local 1111, Indianapolis * John Martinez, Editor, UAW
Local 22 * Trish Staiger, Anti-Poverty & Peace Activist, Hastings, MN * Al
McKinnis, Fmr. USMC, UAW Local 879, St. Paul, MN * Barbara
Laney, Commercial Closer, Mpls. * Tom Laney, Fmr. 82nd Airborne, UAW
Local 879, St. Paul * Carolyn Lund, Trustee and Exec. Board Member, UAW
Local 2244, Fremont, CA * Barry Sheppard, Steward IAM Local Lodge 1781,
UAL Mechanic, Oakland, CA * Nancy Schillinger, Fmr. Committeewoman, UAW
Local 879, St. Paul * Wendy Thompson, President, UAW Local 235 Detroit *
John Spritzler, New Democracy, Boston * John Cabral, New Democracy, Chicago
* John E. Lewis, U.S. Navy 1945-46, Vets for Peace, Traverse City, MI
* Dale A. Richardson, USMC 2nd Battalion, Echo Co., 1st Marine
Div., R.V.N. 1969 * Bruce Sanderson, WWII, Svc. 1st ARMD Corps (Patton's
own) N. Africa, Sicily, Later Okninawa, President Veterans for Peace N. MI,
Jordan, MI * Dave Stratman, Editor, New Democracy, Boston * Maria Josefina
Saldana, PSC City U. of New York AFT Local 2334 * Greg Mondry, Fmr.
Bargainer, UAW Local 879, St. Paul * Ben Moore, Tri Level UAW Local 879,
St. Paul * David Payne, TriLevel, UAW Local 879 St. Paul * Mary Henehan,
Foreign Exchange Trader, US Bank, Mpls. * Martin Schreader, Local 707,
National Production Workers Union, Detroit *

by MG Fri Jan 10, 2003 17:19

I never said that membership of the anti-war community should be limited to certain people and I resent being misrepresented, Mr Remember...

All I did was point out that Pat Rabbitte is jumping on the bandwagon as soon as the Indo and the Irish Times start writing about Shannon and therefore he is not genuine - he is seeking to win votes by pretending that he opposes the war on Iraq...

His motivation for the above press release was votes, not the well-being of the Iraqi population...

He is a hypocrite who kept his gob shut for the last six months, while many people have been making gargantuan efforts to stop the war and stop the Irish Government's collusion in it...

I have two questions for the so-called Labour Party:

1) Should the Dail be asked to vote on US use of Shannon Airport, will all your TDs vote against it? Yes or no? I don't want to hear any rubbish about UN resolutions and weapons of mass destruction or "ifs" or "buts". Yes or no, that's all.

2) This is a simple ideological question. Do you or do you not (as a political party) suport the imperialist war for oil that the supreme terrorist George W Bush is currently planning? This applies even if the Western-controlled United Nations "approves" such a war. Again, I want a simple yes or no, without conditions.

Looking forward to a reply...

by Andrew Fri Jan 10, 2003 17:34

It is to be expected that as opposition to refuelling at Shannon grows BECAUSE it has been made an issue of by 'crusty fence pullers' and 'hippy peace campers' (as they have been called here)that mainstream politicans will climb on board. The bin tax is another example of this, now its become clear that most of Dublin are not paying the politicans are scrambling aboard in order to claim 'credit' for its defeat.

And when the bin tax is defeated and if Shannon refuelling is stopped then the odds are lots of ordinary people will belive this is due to the politicans. To an extent this happened with the Water Charges after the near election of Higgins in the bye election.

But some will have taken part in the protests themselves, in the case of the bin tax tens of thousands have not paid for the last couple of years. In the case of Shannon a few thousands will have already been reading about the protests for the last year online or in printed publications like Workers Solidarity. Those at least will know there is a bigger story and they will be even more inclined to act next time.

If Labour climbing on board is a sign we are near to victory then great as this is more important then who gets credit for that victory. In the longer term we need to improve our media and our organising, this is always true. Right now we need to get the message out that the only way to stop refuelling at Shannon is to take action against it, at the airport (IAWM demo Jan 18th, any details of buses available yet) or elsewhere.

by iosaf Fri Jan 10, 2003 17:50

they ask you some questions.
= ----------we ask some questions.

1.do you think you´re a global, urban, provincial, international leader?
answer yes you´re blackballed.
2.do you think you´re going to achieve the evolving revolution on your own?
answer yes you´re blackballed.
3.do you expect to inspire and feed soundbites for generations to come with wit, subversion and occasional pure genius?
answer yes you get one point.
(we let you roll your trouser leg back down and take off your blindfold).
4.are you used to the free exchange and interplay of ideas the common inheritance of humanity being claimed by careerists and journalists?
answer yes we give you an internet connection.
answer no we give you an internet log.

Thank you LABOUR for climbing on the bandwagon.
It´s a very big bandwagon and has been trundling along quite happily for a long time now.

You may have noticed we have made it comfortable for the fellow travellers by suggesting many different ways of opposing the WAR.

1. you can direct action the United States Airforce and armed forces.
2. you can cause coup d´etat in a variety of marginal interest countries around the globe and thus manipulate stock exchanges.
3. you can get God who is Dave on your side.
4. you can call for only humanitarian aid to pass through Irish defence resources.
5. you can call for the Irish constitution to be respected and honoured.
6. you can write letters fax emails and make long distance phone calls they may not work for Mr Ahern or MR Kenny but they worked for Mr Kennedy and Krushchev.
7. you can suggest three candidates for new Iraqi president (make sure they´ve got wide spectrum support so as to split the permanent security council members). smug and terribly clever.
8. you could join secret orders and exert dark and sinister pressure on Mr Bush.

that´s just a few of the options I wouldn´t presume to trouble professional politicians with the more interesting ones as they would possibly be too specialised for you to understand.

Now just a wee bit of clarification.
I love the wee bits of clarification.
(Martin Manseragh used to say that during the Irish Peace process when he got a bit tipsy and enthusiastic but that´s another day´s story)

Ireland´s defence resources are

Shannon
Cork harbour
Baldonnel
Knock airport
Dublin airport
Airmotive air repair complex.
the Foyle lough. indeed all three of our wonderful little island´s fjords could be considered defence resources.

I do have a list you could peruse, but you probably won´t trouble me, and sure there´s no need as I´ve already popped the data into your flow.
go with the flow!

Peace = Shalom = Saleem
now if you don´t mind Mr O´ asif is going to go on intefering in the affairs of the Levant where the keen readers will recall I have called for SHaron to lose office at the end of this month, and I hate not keeping my promises.
that sort of pisses me off.
say hi to the careerists for me.

by pharmer luver Fri Jan 10, 2003 18:08

I don't think he is an opportunist - but - mr. Rabbit certainly is -

Andrew - why not as publically as possible ask these bandwagon jumpers to put up some of their salaries for a few free buses on the next jan demo

Is GG planning to sort a bus?

by Ois Fri Jan 10, 2003 18:09

Although an anarchist my self I am of Stickie->Labour stock so I know a bit about how Labour works and what it's ideology is.

First of all Labour is left wing, it is not socialist although it includes socialists. What I mean by socialist is someone or something that has a socialist society as thei political objective.

Labour is anti-war, and as such is anti-war in iraq. However Labour is not anti-war on for any ideological reason (i.e any reason based on their analysis of society) and as such if in power could quite possibly be convinced of the nessecity of war by lobby groups and various diplomats etc.

And for MG the frist answer you asked is silly becasuse the labour party doesn't vote en bloc, because it is a party of Lefty people not strict centralist or platformist organisation. However seeing as they do have a certain degree of ideological unity, it does normally vote together, and my guess is that if your hypothetical vote did come up they would all vote against Shannon being used.

The second question is again silly because it ignores labour ideology. The labour party believes in representative democracy, not direct democracy. In other words they believe in the necesity of a democratically elected adminisitrative group (I use the phrase grup becasue although when arguing against Labour I would use the phrase class, Labour in typical SocialDemocratic-Leninist fashion fail to see that you can have democrtically elected political classes (and they remain classes) as well as economic and social classes (I for one don't believe in social classes)). And they believe that this administrative group has completly soverign rule, becasue this group has a democratic mandate to do as it will. Thus Labour believes that the UN makes democratic decisions and that the Labour party is free to debate this decisions Labour does not how ever have the right to contradist or deny the validity of these decisions. They would view it as going against the will of the people.

So their you have it. Good people with the best interests of the world at heart but essentially lacking any concrete political analysis of our society. Their problem is social-democracy is dead, you can't have a middle road between capitalism and communism when communsim is dead.

Anyway thats my two cents so can take it or leave it, my eyes hurt.

by MG Fri Jan 10, 2003 18:24

Ois,

I realise you were merely parroting Labour Party policy, but in my view the following sentence (taken from your posting) highlights how far removed Labour is from reality:

"Labour believes that the UN makes democratic decisions."

Labour's definition of democracy (again, taken from your posting) is representative parliamentary democracy - i.e. elections and leaders.

I don't remeber ever being asked to elect members to the United Nations. Do you?

Furthermore, the UN does not make democratic decisions. You and I both know that the US bought resolution 1441 by offering aid, trade and other incentives to the small Security Council members. This is bribery, not democracy (no matter what your definition of it).

by MG Fri Jan 10, 2003 18:26

If Labour don't vote en bloc why are they talking about expelling Lacey for refusing to adopt the party line re: bin charges?

by Brian Cahill Fri Jan 10, 2003 19:38

Labour are a shower of right-wing hypocrites, no different from Fianna Fail or Fine Gael.

Ois is wrong to suggest that they don't vote as a bloc: Labour like all of the main right-wing parties use a whip system, requiring their representatives to vote as one.

Labour showed no interest in the war or in Shannon right up until the last few days, when they realised that there may be some votes to be had. The same goes for Fine Gael. As Andrew points out though, the fact that sections of the political establishment are trying to attach themselves to the Shannon issue now is actually a good sign: it means that they think it is popular. We have to be careful not to let the likes of Rabbitte reduce the campaign into a series of photo opportunities and not to let him raise illusions in the United Nations.

I would take issue though with Andrew's comparison with the Water Charges and Joe Higgins. Joe was heavily involved in the struggle from the first day, and was chair of the campaign. There was no question of him suddenly trying to jump on a bandwagon. The Socialist Party is quite clear that mass non-payment beat the water tax. Why wouldn't we be, given that we were the main political organisation involved in building non-payment?

by Manus Bree Fri Jan 10, 2003 19:56

I reaffirm (A posted on other Shannon comment page)

You would be better advised to vent your criticism at the Fianna Fail government and US military machine!

If I'm not mistaken we all want the same result, a peaceful end to the Iraq issue and the reversal of the decision of the government in allowing Shannon being used by the US.

As a member of the labour party I reject the opinion that recent statement by our leader is opportunistic. The Labour party has been vocal on this issue since the US started using Shannon in October 2001,indeed Michael D. Higgins has raised this matter on numerous occasions and has been to many protests at Shannon and Dublin.

Labour Youth, including myself has been at Shannon on every occasion of a protest, including the first, following Sept 11th. Party members and public representatives from Sligo, Galway and Dublin have also been frequent visitors.

Labour youth members have been involved in peaceful direct action at Shannon in the past. One of our members in Limerick has spend most of last week at the camp and I myself have been there this week also.

I am grateful of any support from elected parliamentary representatives, whether it be the Green Party, Socialist Party or Labour Party, it highlights the issues and helps the progress of this campaign.

look fwd to seeing at the camp and in Shannon on the 18th, I presume you'll be jumping the fence?

by Manus Fri Jan 10, 2003 20:29

Unfortunately for Brian Cahill, MG and Andrew we live in a parliamentary democracy (centralist and undemocratic as it may be viewed), Where the views and opinions of national politicians make an impact on national opinion. That is how civil society works in Ireland.

For the large majority of the public who are not politically active and fully aware of the issue particular politicians like Pat Rabbitt and Michael D. Higgins can sway opinion.

Politicians in the Dail incl.the Greens, SF, FG, Labour and SP have raised this issue in the past twelve months. Although you may not believe in the system it's work taking a glance at Oireachtas Report or logging into the Dail reports. Most of these statements and Press releases never made it to the pages of national newspapers. I know Michael D. issued a few which the press made no reference to.

There are a few reasons why the issue is hitting the headlines now. Its a quiet time of the year for the media, a good and interesting story to latch onto (the peace camp has been inundated with reports all week). The Dubsky Trial, the events when the fence was breached. Plus the proximity of the final report day of the inspectors.

It is unfair to say the Labour Party is jumping on the band wagon.

These Comitern views are well out of date lads.

I'm a firm believer that people with similar views should unite rather than criticise. Debate is healthy and consensus is important.

by Activist Fri Jan 10, 2003 21:54

I have no time for Labour. They are only trying to gain 'left wing credibility'. They are a CAPITALIST PARTY they have NO socialists in their ranks.

The current Labour leadership are trying to portray themselves as Left wing. They are nothing of the kind. They still support coalition with FF-FG-PD etc. They are only interested in their own seats in Parliament.

Labour wish to be seen as left wing. They are jumping on the bandwagon of the Irish anti-war movement. When all across europe they are supporting the war, BLAIR is a member of this party! SCHROEDER is member of this party!

I dont think that genuine anti-war activists should tolerate for one momenet a capitalist big business party on demos. Michael D Higgins, Pat Rabbitte, Eamon Gilmore, Dick Spring, FUCK OFF!

by Tim Fri Jan 10, 2003 22:09

Lets face it Ois, you are not an anarchist, you are just a careerist that is just rebelling before you inherit your Daddy's Labour seat.

Labour are NOT left wing and they are NOT socialists.

If they are socialists why do they not call for mass non payment of bin tax/water tax?

If they are socialists why is a leading member of their voting for bin tax as mayor of Dublin?

If they are socialists why have they gone into coalitions with FF & FG and would be prepared to do a deal with the PDs?

If they are socialists why have they championed tax amnesties when in power?

If they are socialists why do they not call for the democratic planning of the economy and nationalisation of the tos of industry?

If they are socialists why do they support Bush's war in Iraq? as pointed out earlier Blair and Shroeder are members of the same international party as Labour, there is no fundamental difference between these parties.

Labour is a capitalist party, they are trying to pose themselves as against the war in a cynical attempt to hijack the massive anti war movement. DONT TRUST THEM! All they care about is themselves they are careerists and have sold out the working class on many occasions.

by JJ - SWP Fri Jan 10, 2003 23:40

...that the leader of the parliamentary reformist socialists comes out in criticism of the the war effort in Shannon?

Will that not encourage some of the tens of thousands of people who regard themselves as supporters of Labour to come into anti war movement? Perhaps some of the more sectarian anarchists are only interested in a movement that consist of their own political friends?

To welcome Rabbitte's statement is not to imagine that the Labour front rank will give consistent leadership to the anti war movement. But it helps enlarge the movement and gives the rest of us an opportunity to work alongside some of their supporters and by example demonstrate the superiority of our politics.

Those of us who are revolutionary socialists will continue to press the leaders of LP and SF to come out and make anti war statements and associate themselves with the anti war movement. It's called the United Front. And there is no other basis on which to build a serious movement with any hope of smashing Bush's war.

by Raymond McInerney - Global Country of World Peace Sat Jan 11, 2003 00:18 raymond.mcinerney at ul dot ie

Prevention is the only answer

The only way to stop war is to prevent enmity from arising, and that can be accomplished through Vedic defence, which will transform today’s stressed world consciousness – a breeding ground for negativity and conflict – into a coherent, harmonious family of nations. By establishing throughout the world several large groups of 8,000 experts practising his Transcendental Meditation and Yogic Flying, including one larger group of 40,000 experts in India. In addition, 3,000 Peace Palaces are to be built in the world’s largest 3,000 cities, each Peace Palace to be home to 100 to 200 Yogic Flyers.

http://www.invincibledefence.org/

by Mary Sat Jan 11, 2003 02:48

The Labour party do not have any kind of "rank-and-file" as they may have had in the past. The Labour Party are nothing more than a group of TDs, Senators, Councillors, candidates and a few middle-age/middle-class cranks. Nothing more than that. They have emptied out of active workers and young people.

Labour Youth has approx 30 active members nationwide, previously in the 70s and 80s LY was vibrant and militant. Now it's made up of wannabe politicians in universities.

Labour dont bring anything to the Irish anti-war movement. I was one of the people that booed the UK Labour speaker when his name was mentioned outside the US embassey at the last demo.... And I'd do it again.

Labour offer nothing for the movement. They are a capitalist party that support bin tax, Nice Treaty, war on Iraq, tax amnesties, coalitions with FF and FG.

LABOUR YOU'RE NOT WELCOME!

by Manus Sat Jan 11, 2003 12:23

I'm sure if my comrades above reviewed policy documents/press releases from all the broad left parties i.e. LP, SF, SP and GP they would discover that on many of the main policy areas they agree. Contrast them with FF, PDs and FG and I'm sure one would find a distinct difference. One doesn't have to be a political scientist of comparative politics to see that. All democratic parties are faced with the realities of representative politics. Its alot easier to reject the system and claim the high moral ground, put your name on a ballot paper and see how you fair.

I respect your views as Anarchists/Marxists-Leninists/neo-Marxists but I'm afraid that without an inclusive broad coalition this movement will find it hard to achieve anything, know wonder we live is neoliberal paradise with all this negative attitude!

The LP does not support bin charges/water charges, reference to Eammon Gilmore or Tommy Broughan this week. Cllr Lacey whip is likely to be removed for his actions, as we are not a Stalinist party, individual members do from time to time vote against party policy.SF (Sligo) and GP support the bin charges!

During the recent nice referendum many constituencies came out against the party's stance and very few members actually canvased to the issue. But this decision was taken at national conference by a small majority, as democraic party i have to respect that!

Labour party members have publicly stated that they regret agreeing to the tax amnesty.

The LP has in the past called for a planned nationalised economy, In the current environment that is difficult as our laws prohibit it (EU Competition policy, which the majority of the Irish people supported in 1972, SEA, TEU etc.), Labour has been a strong supporter of the EU Social Charter and has remained a strong advocate for state intervention.

LP do not support Bush's war in Iraq and never have! One our our comrades in LY was representing the Peace Camp on the Late Late, everybody there is welocome of our support and help. No more Negativity Please!

by iosaf jedi of the widebandwagon Sat Jan 11, 2003 14:28

let them on the wide band wagon if it stops SHannon and Iraq / WAR.

beyond that destroy their party.

that is real politics.

there are many big pary machines to smash.

FF
FG
PD
LAbour.

and so far only
SF SP SWM Greens and Anarchists to do it (in the main)
---
but take what they might be forced to give.
then bite them harder afterwards.
--that´s machiavellian.

by Liberty Sun Jan 12, 2003 12:18

Manus: "planned nationalised economy"
Hey if that's what you want take a boat to North Korea.

by Mary Sun Jan 12, 2003 15:27

First of all Manus you are no comrade of mine. You are a member of a capitalist party, you're not a 'comrade', and you shouldn't be welcome in the anti-war movement so long as you support coalition and you have Tony Blair in your ranks.

"The LP has in the past called for a planned nationalised economy, In the current environment that is difficult as our laws prohibit it ".

This quote from Manus shows that Labour have sold out big time, and have no problem with it. They want to operate within the constraints of capitalism and firmly within capitalist law.

Manus, do you call yourself a socialist? if you do, do you not agree that law is bourgeois law, made in the interests of the bourgeoisie.

Also I would like to knock on the head the idea that Labour are responsable for progressive steps made in Irish and European society. It was the ordinary woman that forced legislation to be changed regarding the Marriage Ban in the civil service. It was ordinary workers that forced change on Working conditions etc. NOT the Labour Party.

Manus should wake himself up out of his dillusionment and realise that the Labour Party have emptied out of active members. Labour are just another careerist party, no different.

by Crux Sun Jan 12, 2003 15:34

It really puzzels me that Anarchists are very easy on the Labour Party. On IMC Anarchists always have a go at SP and SWP. But they are very weak on criticism of Labour when they come on IMC and make arguments.

Anarchists have a go at genuine activists on the left that are Socialists. But they dont have a go at careerist non-activists that are capitalists!

I reckon it's because of the origin of anarchism. Anarchism and Reformism/Social Democracy serves the interests of the Petty bourgeoisie. While Marxism and Socialism serves the working class. I'm not surprised Oisin Gilmore is an anarchist, and I wont be surprised if he takes his Daddy's seat in future. Anarchists and Capitalist reformists have a lot in common.

by Phuq Hedd Mon Jan 13, 2003 04:30

I couldn't have said it better. Labour are not comrades, they're capitalists in socialists clothing.

As for the last post: pffft!! Instead of criticising Oisin's ideas expressed in his post you attack him. Nice! I can't wait for worker's paradise under your "temporary" dictatorship.

by pat c Mon Jan 13, 2003 12:05

being against the war is a one issue campaign. peoples views on other issues or party membership should be irrelevant.

a person can be opposed to war in the gulf and not just be a LP supporter - but! - horors! - could even be a FF, FG or PD supporter! are you dsaying that there is no place for these people in the anti war campaigns?

if so, you are effectively writing off 75% of the population. YES 90%, whether you like it or not, thats the % that votes for LP, FF, FG, PD.

we need to build campaigns here; not the egos of the SP tots & trots.

by Badman Mon Jan 13, 2003 12:25

Crux (a hysterical trot) says:

"Anarchists have a go at genuine activists on the left that are Socialists. But they dont have a go at careerist non-activists that are capitalists!"

Actually anarchists were defending the rights of people from the Labour party to be part of an anti-war movement. They were not defending the labour party's record as an anti-capitalist party. Important difference. Sure anarchists would even defend the right of sinister, manipulative, authoritarian, dishonest, cultish political parties who openly admit their intention to establish a dictatorship if given half a chance, to be members of the anti-war movement.

by marxist Mon Jan 13, 2003 14:19

Anarchists should realise that Socialists stand for the Dictatorship of the Proliariet.

That means the dictatorship of the vast majority of the population, as opposed to the dictatorship of the bourgeoisie.

It should also be noted that Marx and Engels used the term 'dictatorship' long before the term was attributed to fascist rule in Italy and Germany. In the 19th century dictatorship meant "the rule of"

by OK - SP Mon Jan 13, 2003 14:23

In his last posting Pat C has an unprovoked go at the SP. The Socialist Party has a long history in building the workers' movement. We have also played our part in building the anti-war movements over the years. SP have worked with anarchists on a whole range of campaigns down through the years. Pat C attacks the SP without even knowing that it was an SP member behind the anti-labour/anarchist posting!

by pat c Mon Jan 13, 2003 14:55

"who's hysterical?
by OK - SP Mon, Jan 13 2003, 1:23pm"

badman used the term hysterical.

"In his last posting Pat C has an unprovoked go at the SP."

have you missed the "brian cahill" posting?

"The Socialist Party has a long history in building the workers' movement. We have also played our part in building the anti-war movements over the years."

i never claimed otherwise. however certain SPers on indy are dyed in the wool sectarians. they have little in common with the co-operative spirit you find in Joe H, Clare D, M.O,B., Kevin McL, Dermot C.

"SP have worked with anarchists on a whole range of campaigns down through the years."

yes they have, i have worked in campaigns with the sp but there appears to be a new or rather retro tendency emerging where the likes of Cahill & the Tots n' Trots on indy harken back to the days of Militant when it carried on as if it was the one true church.

"Pat C attacks the SP without even knowing that it was an SP member behind the anti-labour/anarchist posting!"

i was commenting in particular on the anti labour stuff (again i refer you to your esteemed ideologue Cahill), but i do suspect the other postings were also of the tots n trots vintage.

a campaign cant just be built on trots & anarchists.

by Corky Mon Jan 13, 2003 15:18

"if so, you are effectively writing off 75% of the population. YES 90%, whether you like it or not, thats the % that votes for LP, FF, FG, PD"

What about those that don't vote (was it about 40% of the electorate last general election), never mind those too young or not registered?

Not saying we should exclude anyone but we should be aware who we're dealing with.

For example, in the recent abortion and Nice referendums, libertarians found themselves on the same side as right wing reactionaries for very different reasons. There was no co-operation between the two sides because the immediate goals were opposite. This is not the case with anti-war activism although the long term goals of libertarians is far removed from those of FF, FG, LP, PD's etc.

by pat c Mon Jan 13, 2003 16:14

yeah, i should have said % of those who had voted.

I really think its important that no one be excluded from the campaign, people can form their own sub groups.

the problems i have with IAWM are organisational ones not necessarily regarding who is affiliated to it; rather the manner in which it is run.

by OK - SP Mon Jan 13, 2003 18:13

All people (including Brian Cahill) are entitled to criticise the Labour party. I would agree with Brian when he says that Labour's interest in the anti-war movement is an attempt at making their party appear more left wing.

There is also the danger that Rabbitte et al will reduce the anti-war movement to a series of photo opportunities and they will be raising their illusions in the United Nations as an alternative to war.

I would like to see a very different anti-war movement. I want to see a broad movement that will not just be members of particular parties, but will embrace all those opposed to the war. If the movement follows the Labour leadership this will not be achieved.

This is not sectarianism, it's actually the opposite. I would suggest that Labour are the sectarians, not SP, anarchists etc. Labour are the ones that see the Anti-war movement only in terms of what it means to their own group.

SP members know the Labour Party fairly well. Labour Party do not attract radical youth anymore, and could actually turn some people off the anti-war movement. Labour are no longer a party with an active membership. Labour Youth have only 30 or so active members nationwide!

All across Europe the Labour and Social Democratic parties have drifted significantly to the right, and have fully embraced capitalism. They have emptied out of active members, and now only resemble local MP fan clubs. The task for the Left today is the re-build the workers' movement and to form a new mass workers' party that will be willing to fight for workers and youth on a socialist programme.

by pat c Mon Jan 13, 2003 18:39

"All people (including Brian Cahill) are entitled to criticise the Labour party. ."

the anti war campaign is one issue campaign. you should respect that instead of using threads on the topic to launch sectarian attacks.

"I would agree with Brian when he says that Labour's interest in the anti-war movement is an attempt at making their party appear more left wing"

you are being silly, the same could be said about the SP.

"There is also the danger that Rabbitte et al will reduce the anti-war movement to a series of photo opportunities and they will be raising their illusions in the United Nations as an alternative to war."

if they do that , then criticise them for it. your present sectarian attitude doesnt exactly encourage rank & file LP members to get involved.

"I would like to see a very different anti-war movement. I want to see a broad movement that will not just be members of particular parties, but will embrace all those opposed to the war. If the movement follows the Labour leadership this will not be achieved."

who has suggested the campaign should slavishly follow the LP leadership?

"This is not sectarianism, it's actually the opposite. I would suggest that Labour are the sectarians, not SP, anarchists etc. Labour are the ones that see the Anti-war movement only in terms of what it means to their own group."

and you will not use the campaign as an opportunity to recruit? who do you think youare fooling?

The LP arent talking about excluding people, you are. you are the sectarians here.

"SP members know the Labour Party fairly well. Labour Party do not attract radical youth anymore, and could actually turn some people off the anti-war movement. Labour are no longer a party with an active membership. Labour Youth have only 30 or so active members nationwide! "

bullshit. the LP was the only party for the working class until they threw you out.

"All across Europe the Labour and Social Democratic parties have drifted significantly to the right, and have fully embraced capitalism. They have emptied out of active members, and now only resemble local MP fan clubs. The task for the Left today is the re-build the workers' movement and to form a new mass workers' party that will be willing to fight for workers and youth on a socialist programme."

have you ever considered becoming a fundamentalist preacher?

"There is no salvation outside of our ranks!"

by OK - SP Mon Jan 13, 2003 23:58

Pat, even in a single issue campaign it is possible to criticise others. We can criticise the LP, they can criticise us, that's called democracy.

You make the assertation that SP may be only involved in the anti-war movement so that we can "appear more left-wing". We are a revolutionary marxist party, and you think we are "trying to appear" left-wing!

Pat, I think that you dont fully realise what the Labour Party are currently like. There is no "rank-and-file" as in the past. The leadership of the LP are in total control, internal democracy doesn't exist as there is not a vibrant rank-and-file membership.

If the Labour Party want to get involved in the anti-war movement, they are entitled to do so, I'm not "excluding them". I still retain my democratic right to criticise them.

Pat, I dont say that there "is no salvation outside our ranks". In the past the CWI have made mistakes, we acknowledge that, and we learn from our mistakes and our successes. If you read what I write you will see that I advocate a new mass workers party. That would not just be made up of CWI members, but would include a genuine democratic mass working class party.

by pat c Tue Jan 14, 2003 11:24

i do realise whast the LP are like, i have no illusions in the leadership, but i dont accept that their organisational situation is as bleak as you make out.

i dont consider the SP to be a "revolutionary marxist" (hmm, can you be non revolutionary marxist?) organisation.

many of your policies, not least on the national question (but lets not drag that in on this thread) show you to be a centrist organisation.

but that shouldnt matter, lets stick to the central issue:

the important thing here is building a campaign against the war in the gulf; not seeing every article on indy as an opportunity to score points against the LP or SF.

by OK - SP Tue Jan 14, 2003 16:11

Pat, you have your political differecnce with the SP, that's OK it's your own beliefs.

I'm sure you are aware of the Transitional method that is used by serious revolutionaries. We put forward demands that clearly point in a revolutionary socialist direction.

On LP, I do think that their organisation is in the state I say. They are no longer attracting socialists, they more resemble a collection of politicians, wannabe politicians and fans of politicians. They are not any kind of mass party with an active membership.

by Stickie and Proud - WP Wed Jan 15, 2003 11:31

OIS describes him/herself as being of "Stickie->Labour stock" - God get me the sickbag.

As a dyed in the wool Stick I wouldn't be found dead in the company of the Labour Party, and especially of its most recent arrivists the Democratic Theft party which has successfully taken over Labour in many areas. The tail, and it's a very small tail, is wagging the Old Labour dog senseless.

by pat c Wed Jan 15, 2003 12:13

i would share your cynicism towards the LP but i think attacks on their other policies would be more appropriate on another thread.

when we're dealing with opposition to the war, lets stick to that, it is a single issue campaign. if the LP do anything to sabotage the campaign then criticise them for those actions.

of course everyone will retain their own beliefs about the policies & motives of other organisations. but it will be impossible to build an effective campaign against the war if every difference is raised on every occasion.

i dont think it is fair to attack ois because of the political background he has come from. we all travel varying routes to socialism, its not a good idea for any one organisation to claim that they are the one true church.

by dowtcha Thu Jan 16, 2003 20:18 dowtcha at yahoo dot com

So, ....erm.......if Bertie and the Regressive Demons decide to take an anti-war position (highly unlikely but worthy of thought nonetheless) are we to suppose they are bandwagon jumpers? I don't give a shite to be honest because a peace movement is about just that, PEACE.

There are some terrible things being said here, before typing next time how about a quick count to ten, a little more thought, and a concern for creating the best conditions for stopping BUllSHit.

Labour, Greens etc welcome aboard,.... YFG c'mon if you think you have the moral strength to defend your position to your Moms and Dads, and then to convince them to come along and talk to others.

No matter what your political colours get out there on Jan 18th and any other time you can. Write to your TDs, occupy their offices, bring them to meetings, talk to people who don't share your politics, yes TALK to them, keep your vitriol for the real enemies.

Peace

by Paul Mon Jan 20, 2003 15:10

How the hell did the IAWM / SWP stewards allow the Labour blow-ins to head up the demo on Saturday?

All credit to Michael D. He has been consistent and was at several protests, but the rest Rabbitte, K. Lynch, Sherlock, etc are just jumping on the bandwagon. They were entitled to go on the march, but shouldn't have been allowed up at the front.