UCD SU elections get underway

by red sp Sat Feb 08, 2003 20:43

Some other candidates that have been active against fees include Aidan Regan for Deputy President and Paul Dillon who is standing for president.

by Election Ear Sat Feb 08, 2003 20:44

So the candidates from the left "include" the people you mentioned?

is it any coincidence, then, that you just happen to mention the SP/Trot candidates?

Students in UCD have shown that they don't want SU officers who are tied to a party line, whether it's FF or SP. SP members have a track record of putting their affiliations first, and failing to recognise that the SU is not like the Dail, you don't get elected to represent your party only. If these candidates are prepared to promise that they will take their lead from their members, not from Joe Higgins, then they might get deserve to be elected.

Aengus, Oisin, they're all the same...servants of their political masters. Would be better to have a left-wing clone than a right-wing clone but even better without either of them.

by red - sp Sat Feb 08, 2003 20:55

"is it any coincidence, then, that you just happen to mention the SP/Trot candidates?"

- See the second posting, I didn't leave out other left candidates.

"Students in UCD have shown that they don't want SU officers who are tied to a party line, whether it's FF or SP."

- There is quite a difference between the SP and FF. FF are a bourgeois party they represent the interests of the bosses and can't represent the interests of ordinary people. I think most sane people do not see the SP as a bosses party.

"If these candidates are prepared to promise that they will take their lead from their members, not from Joe Higgins, then they might get deserve to be elected."

- Of course SP members will comply with any mandates that council or the student body put on them. To think that Joe Higgins is some kind of guru that tells everyone to do in the SP is absolutly ridiculous and quite childish. Unlike some other groups on the left, the SP is a democratic organisation and all our positions and tactics etc are discussed democratically by the membership.

"Aengus, Oisin, they're all the same"
- Do you really think that?! Some people may have difficulty with distinguishing between bourgeois parties and workers parties but most people that have a political brain cell and a bit of cop on don't have that problem.

by conor - ucd branch international socialist alternative tendancy socialist alternative ireland Sat Feb 08, 2003 21:17 conor at ziplip dot com only a dictatorship of the prolateriat can............ on the bottom of any iawm/gr/swp poster (of your choice)

and paul dillon hardly follows any strict party line either.i hope they win,and i hope yall get out and help them to.they are both non carreerists,ant theyre both great,and neither of them are trots (oh no!!)

who is red? im sure i know you. i wish the millies wouldnt hide themselves on the interway.

i think the point was that a trot state would be little (or no , or not even as) happy/good/peaceful as a ffled capitalist state
- 5 month old kids arent in the fireing line here for anti trot activities anyway!

bicker bicker bicker

the cream of the prolateriat hath spoken

the vanguard of the vanguard ........... he he

by shafting sands Sat Feb 08, 2003 21:34

Conors writing style has turned into Iosaf's style - only less coherent and more spiteful.

What are connors politics we wonder aloud?

Liberal-leftwing-humanitarian-liberatarion-socio-anarchism-but without the guns?

I'm an arts student and no-one takes me seriously (grrr), but i won't support the left in the elections in my university cos of my non-party 'movement' ideaology?

Or just bullshit?

People such as yourself annoy me more than the apathetic fucks I went to uni with. (yes, it was an arts degree)

by Interested observer Sun Feb 09, 2003 00:31

So a question which was asked some time ago on the newswire has been answered... incoherently.

The Socialist Alternative members are supporting the Labour Party in the UCD SU elections against a socialist candidate. Very "Revolution, Anti-capitalism and Socialism from Below" boys.

The SWP was well rid of you.

by Gaz - cfe Sun Feb 09, 2003 00:57 garyman at hotmail dot com

"The Socialist Alternative members are supporting the Labour Party in the UCD SU elections"

Socialist alternative are not supporting the Labour Party. Dillon and Regan are running as independent, not Labour candidates. SA as a party has not made a conscious decision to back any particular candidates, its left up to its members who they support.

All left wing parties oppose the re-introduction of fees and cutbacks in education. Who are SWP gonna get behind? Abey Campbell & Donnacha Wolfe? Whatever happened to workers of the world unite?

It is a result constant bickering like this which has left the Left in a weak position in Irish politics.

by Election Ear Sun Feb 09, 2003 01:10

Voting for SP candidates is a bad thing to do coz they will put their personal politics first, the Labour guys (or any left wing candidate from outside the SP/SWP - anarchists are honest people as well) will have no problem saying things that the party disagrees with, and probably directly criticise their party. If you elect Oisin and Paul they will use their jobs to put forward their ideas, and they will just parrot the party line.

by Joanne Sun Feb 09, 2003 01:11

Dillon is a member of the Labour Party as far as I know. The Labour party are not a revolutionary party. He may not be running as a Labour candidate and he may not be a careerist but his politics are reformist, Labour are not revolutionary. If any SA people are genuine in their claims to be revolutionaries they would be giving support to the SP candidates.

by Oisin Kelly - SP/CWI Sun Feb 09, 2003 01:20

How can anyone 'leave their politics behind'? I am a member of the Socialist Party, I never hid that and never will. My membership of the SP is in my manifesto, people know what they are voting for.

I know that some people in UCD had a bad experience with the SWP. The SP is NOT the SWP. We are a democratic party, the policy of the party is fully debated by the membership. Most people criticising the SP in this thread have no experience of being a member of the SP.

I find it puzzeling that revolutionaries can back a reformist candidate, I dont know how that can be justified. I suspect it comes down to personality rather than politics.

by Interested Observer Sun Feb 09, 2003 02:39

So Socialist Alternative won't be supporting the Labour Party candidate against the socialist candidate as a group. You will be doing it as a collection of individuals. Which makes it less pathetic how exactly?

I repeat, the SWP was well rid of you.

by Huge Hugh Sun Feb 09, 2003 02:47

Amazing. Our brave "revolutionaries" line up to support the labour party against a socialist. Dillon seems like a nice lad, but was it really worth pimping your remaining political principles for him?

by Hugh - Formerly of UCD SWSS Sun Feb 09, 2003 03:57

That was not me posting there!

But it is remarkably similar to what I would have said.

If its true its not surprising from a group who wouldnt hand out anti-capitalist literature or campaingn against the abortion referendum 'cos it might have lost Danny votes.

This is a great lesson in how to alientate people who supported you nine months ago!
And Im sure this squabbling helps mobilise against fees and the war.

Its all so pathetic and grubby!!

by Bob the trot Sun Feb 09, 2003 12:17

Oisin wrote:

I know that some people in UCD had a bad experience with the SWP. The SP is NOT the SWP.

The SWP has discredited the left. We need to do something about it before it's too late. We must isolate the SWP. We must boycott their meetings.
We must boycott their paper. We must set up a new group, the Irish Anti-SWP Movement.

by Daithi Sun Feb 09, 2003 15:20

Oisin, are the elections in UCD run under P.R.? If they are, then hopefully it doesn't matter how many left candidates are running, if it's a left vote it should hold together and transfer along as candidates get eliminated...

Good luck to you and the other three candidates mentioned at the top - who else is running? are any of the incumbents standing again?

by Gerry - UCD student Sun Feb 09, 2003 15:53

"We need to do something about it before it's too late. We must isolate the SWP. We must boycott their meetings.
We must boycott their paper. We must set up a new group, the Irish Anti-SWP Movement. "

This is just stupid. I am a member of the SP I obviously have important differences with the SWP that are political and organisational. But to call for a boycott of the SWP is sectarian petty childish crap. They are a left wing party that have many genuine activists.

Those on the left should attend their meetings and discuss any difficulties with their politics/tactics with them and others at their meetings and then put formward your own ideas. This is the way that we should conduct ourselves on the left, sectarian boycotts should have no place in the workers movement. They are not fascists.

Daithi, the electoral system is the alternative vote. So voters can transfer to other candidates. But there will be votes lost, as I'm sure you are aware there never is a 100% transfer rate. But I don't think it's the fact that there are 2 anti fees candidates that is annoying many people on this thread, it the bizarre position taken by SA that is doing this.

by Socialist Alternative Admirer Sun Feb 09, 2003 17:01

Exactly. Nobody expects a member of the Labour Party to worry about splitting the "left" vote. Labour aren't really a very left wing party by anybodies standards are they?

The rest of us might expect better from the boys who split from the SWP claiming to still be revolutionaries though.

by Angrier Activist Sun Feb 09, 2003 17:27

Kelly will take his line directly from not just the SP HQ but from the Imperial Committee of the IWC in London.

Ever tried talking to him about anything? Its the next best thing to having a parrot in the bar or canteen.

Anything is better than that hack.

by Shorty Sun Feb 09, 2003 18:41

This is class, the amount of bitchiness already. And it's only the first weekend.

by Interested Observer Sun Feb 09, 2003 19:13

Now we have the Socialist Alternative boys unable to defend their disgusting behaviour resorting to throwing anonymous personal abuse at one of the SP members standing in the election.

Why don't you just come out and say it? Socialist Alternative isn't a socialist group at all. It's a bunch of vaguely left wing mates who would rather support the labour party than a socialist.

Yet again, the SWP was well rid of you.

by conor - ucdsa Sun Feb 09, 2003 19:52 conor at ziplip dot com blackrock (why no!) -out of touch with the prolateriat - BETTER JOIN THE TROTS !!!

my name is only with one n,and im not an arts student or hack!

sa have no official "sa" candidates in this election (election.......why we do have "anarchist tendancies" to borrow a phrase from one or more anon postings by any ucd trot of your choice)

im voting dillon and regan, because of theyre politics,not personality,but then again that matters little to any trot.either my politics are wrong,or their personality is,but never the socialist party line.(thats sp - not swp,oisin)

would everyone (including sa members,who i hope always do it) please give their names and party (if any) on the internet.otherwise youre just a "far left" gi radical cutting edge trot(and maybe other-otherwise)

see yall in the real world.good luck everyone - espically paul (dillon) and aidan.

by Cian Sun Feb 09, 2003 21:01

The Student Union elections are not about any party gaining control of the SU. They should be about reclaiming the union for students so that we can fight united against fees and cutbacks in education.

The most important thing is that right wing Fianna Fáil careerist scum are booted out of the union once and for all.

Aidan Regan, Oisín Kelly, Paul Dillon and Paul Murphy have all been active in building the Campaign for Free Education this year along with dozens of other student activists.

Students managed to pull off direct action at the demo outside the Dáil last Wednesday because we all worked together and were united. I for one would have been pulled off by the cops at the start of the sit down and possibly arrested if Oisín had not grabbed on to me and refused - as only perhaps a hardened SP member might - to let go.

We are all involved in the SU campaigns because we want a genuine students union that will fight for students rights through grassroots activism. And we'll all be supporting all four candidates for the three positions they are contesting in the order of our choice. So sorry to all those looking for a row, because the only row genuine activists in UCD have is with the careerist Fianna Fáil scumbag right.

by Ger Mon Feb 10, 2003 11:34

The new Orwellian Double speaker. He tried to smear the Labour Party over the racist article, when he knew exactly how they had voted. Then when, it was revealed that an SY member had refused to burn copies of the paper (in case he lost his column) , Kelly blustered and wanted people to write to him if they had any complaints about the SY!

He doesnt just believe that only his opinion is the correct one; he doesnt believe you have the right to disagree with him. This guy is a Stalinist stooge of SP head office and if hes elected its their line he will implement.

Anything is better than this baby Beria.

by lil ol student Mon Feb 10, 2003 13:18

He's only running for education. It doesnt make any difference who wins, they dont do much. Funny that. Worrying...
Anyway the other candidate is far more likely to win. He's a middle-of-the-road spa but is definately the hack type.

by Disgusted Mon Feb 10, 2003 13:27

A socialist (who by the way had to be dragged off the streets by cops at last week's anti-fees demo) puts up a posting about the SU UCD elections and gets nothing but childish abuse flung at him. How disgusting, you guys are in serious need of intellectual potty training.

by Noel - USI Mon Feb 10, 2003 13:35 dep_president at usi dot ie

On a related note, USI Congress is taking place in Killarney on the week beginning 24th March.

Congress, for those not in the know, is USI's supreme decision making body and Policy deciding body.

You can submit motions for debate if you like, deadline for submitting them is 21st Febuary. Details of how to go about submitting motions can be found on www.usi.ie.

To be a delegate you must have been approved by your Union Council.

Hope to see some of you guys there!

by james redmond - socialist alternative (personal capacity) Mon Feb 10, 2003 14:04 antrophe at hotmail dot com

So once again, an independent media network has been abused and misused as a collection of cyber activists sit around and vent their frustrations at each other through infantile slagging disguised as political discourse. Nothing new there, eh Comrades? interesting to note members of socialist alternative are being accused of refusing to come online and engage in bickering with the rest of you. Despite the accusations of cowardice and i can only speak for myself, the reason i haven't replied probably has more to do with the fact that i don't have weekend access to the internet, limited as i am mid week with the UCD crashing computer network and that my sphere of political activity extends beyond internet bulliten boards.

'The Socialist Alternative members are supporting the Labour Party in the UCD SU elections against a socialist candidate. Very "Revolution, Anti-capitalism and Socialism from Below" boys.'

So the usual vangaurd of the left are once again vilifying us wee 'bunch of vaguely left wing mates.' It has to be admired how people always defer to the authority of certain terms and slogans, when engaging in debate, as if the phrase we use to describe SA 'anti-capitalism, revolution and socialism from below' carry any real weight in its own right. Revolutionary political theory means fuck all if it does not lead to revolutionary action and revolutionary practice. Socialist Alternative has tried its utmost to formulate position papers, news bullitens and maintain a website since we left the SWP. however we have made certain sacrifices in terms of building our own collection of ideas and sorting opurselves out organisationally becuase this was a year, where revolutionary students had to make a step away from being consciously revolutionary to being revolutionary in practice. Socialist Alternative, is revolutionary in both practice and ideology. For those who want to find out exactly what stand for, email me and i'll forward you a copy of our position papers. Funnily enoigh for a bunch of student muppets who seem to solely immerse themselves in the world of student politics, we have neglected to finish our paper on the student movement. Instead our perspcetive on that will be outlined after an examination of the events that have taken place this year, and the movement emerging at a grass roots level among students. Socialist alternative members have been instrumental in the creation of the Campaign for Free Education, however, we find no need to broadcast this fact far and wide by showing up at demos with placards and hoping students will take them. Maybe trots think that the battle of ideas can be won by trying to outdo other groups in terms of how many placards they can foist on unsuspecting students. We however dont. Attepmts to be seen to be in control and leading demonstrations do little more than disempower and alienate students from campaigns, if you criticise USI and others for turning demonstrations into mass photo opportunities, then please stop doing this yoursleves. No matter how many people are holding your placards in photographs, this changes nothing. Fundamentally the Campaign for Free Education plays an emancipatory role in the student movement, it has engaged more and more students in actions against the government, empowering them to create change themselves and not wait for official representatives and the usual vangaurds of the left to show up with papers and placards and do this for them. Ideologically, this is something both the SP (who ahve played a genuine enough role in CFE) and the SWP seek to do. We all know that no one can liberate the working class but the class itself, and just because some of the vangaurd claim to be 'mass workers' parties doesn't neccesarily mean you are the class. Revolutionaries, should seek to work within campaigns and the class, building confidence and intervening to push those movements in a genuinely socialist direction by engaging in debate, not by claiming or seizing leadership, but by creating a leadership of our ideas. And thii is exactly what socialts Alternative have done in the CFE.

'To call for a boycott of the SWP is sectarian petty childish crap. They are a left wing party that have many genuine activists. Those on the left should attend their meetings and discuss any difficulties with their politics/tactics with them and others at their meetings and then put formward your own ideas.'

I see no reason to boycott SWP meetings, but the SWP really seem to be some absurd monty pyton-esue sketch made flesh. In UCD they seem to have developed a habit of calling meetings while students are taking to the streets and fighting back. If i recall correctly the SWP were having a meeting while 300 students were dramatically blockading the education minister in UCD's Vet Building. A similar pattern emerged at the Brian Lenihan demo, where they handed out anti-nice leafletts. Seize the key links, eh comrades? Of course, we in SA were to cowardly to confront the issue of Nice, tahts we handed out over 4000 LAN leafletts on campus, donated our frsehers week money to fund the student section fo that campaigna dn postered widely on campus...really swappers, please don't tell me a palcard 'no to fees-no to articles 133' was the pinacle of your UCD Nice Capaign?
At the first USI demo, a groups of SWSS-ies stood around talking about direct action, then disappeared off to have a mass occupation of trinity i believe, while the CFE were occupying the department of transport. At the USI demo last week, i heard calls of 'no to fees, no to war' wafting across Mount Joy Square, i was subjected to the 'pathetic' sight of a bunch of SWSS-ies marching around aimlessly, they'd lost the main demo, having arrived late. After qucikly informing GR Joe Carolan of the CFE bloc on the demo, i ran to join in the mass occuaption of O'Connell Bridge, leaving the vangaurd to bewilder passers-by as they marcehed politily along the foot path. That was all i saw of them all day, untill two swappers arrived over two hours late, with bundles of papers, leafletts and placards, they looked a bit taken aback, while they were off probably giving out about how USI had operated and 'bourgeois legalities', ordinary students with the CFE at the heart, were waging war on two fronts, like any good grass roots rank and file union movement, in the space of two hours they had confronted and fought both the USI leadership and fallen victim to 'bourgeois legalities' being dragged off the streets by those 'bodies of armed men' the trots are alwasy talking about at meetings. It seems that all year i've been forced to ask myself where the hell are the vangaurd? I usually find that they are off taking about revultion while the rest of us are actively creating it, on whatever small scale we sow the seeds. Thw SWP are fond of creating a distance between themselves and the Stalinists by using Paris '68 as an illustration of how the CP had become a spent revolutionary force, ideologically and in practice, by diverting struggle and containing it in the ballot box. These episodes described above strike me like a detail from '68, in 68 the Cp was revolutioary only in name, no where to be seen supporting the barricades. Today the SWP remains revolutionary only in name, teh sooner we become aware of this the better.

Lets return to this stick we keep getting about refusing to hand out anti-capitalist leafletts on campus. After retruning from genoa, the SWP jubilant at the prospects of imminent revolution artificially attempted to import the anti-capitalist mood sweeping Italy. However, some of us thought different. Marching around dublin aimlessly, chanting in italian does fuck all to create an anti-capitalist climate here. For revolutionaries, the SWP seems to spend a hell of a lot of time trying to intice us into fighting the abstract and to ignore the real. In a sense they have created a politics of political dualism, theory versus practice. At the Anti-war teach in in UCD, Allen and Higgins did what all great leninists did and made those key links, however they always seem to fail in linking the abstract to reality and seemed a wee bit disgusted when Dan finn had the cheek to bring discussion away from their verbal verbosity and pomp to the concrete by suggesting that anyone really interested in fighting neo-liberalism should get involved in the CFE and fight fees, a secterian little shit is our Dan, interupting the two great irish Lenins with a gentle dose of reality. We can not smash the WTO, by venting our fury at those three letters W, T and O but by fighting it concretely where we can organsie against it in the campsuses and communities, by fighting and winning on issues like the Bin tax and Fees.

The rethoric the rest of us are subjected to by the vanguard, must be seen as what it is, an empty vulgarisation of the aspirations of genuine revolutionaries. While they may talk of exposing the state as an entity far from neutral, they are usually too busy condemning the 'violence' of those actively engaging and confronting it, wheter this be the black bloc, direct action against war or where ever. In reality, it seems the 'viuolence' of the oppressed, does not differ from that of the oppressor. Lets deal with concrete facts, i'm sure many of us looked a little puzzled when they saw Labour Youth handing out leaflets calling for direct action at Shannon. Could those representing the vangaurd on these forums please stop your petty obsession with teh politics of Socialist Alternative, i'd be far more worried about your own politics, being out-flanked on the left by those social democrats in LY, and its happened more than once.

To quickly wrap up, on to the elections in UCD. The ideal situation would have been for the Campaign for Free Education to nominate from within itself as a student movement, a slate for the SU positions. The CFE had 76% support a numbe rof months ago, and suck a slate would have perhaps carried some of this with them, it would have been a direct outgrowth of the stuent body, and have represented a genuine 'reclaiming of the union.' However, we arrived back after christmas to find that SYUCD had decided that it would go alone and seek the support of students in the election, a party political decison so fair enough, but from the perspective of really buiding and sustaing a movement a huge fucking cock up. Declaring themselves for election over 8 weeks in advance of any nomination deadline, they switched focus away from the method of engaging the government through mobilisations of students, and once again we returned to that world of student politics, hacks pitted against hacks, individuals who represent no one versus individuals representing noone. That mindset, the idea of the union as a playground for hacks was being shattered by reaching outside the existing body of activists and involving students was replaced with election fever. Maybe the SP should start listening to it's own advice? Some prick once said 'an ounce of struggle is worth a tonne of votes', but SYUCD felt differently and decided to place themselves ahead of the emerging grass roots student movement, in the expectation that we would all run to bask in the sunshine of their leadership.
None of these bullshit calls for left unity, unity on whose terms? those who constantly seek to put themselves artificially at the head of the movement?
Before the accusations of far leftism emerge, of course i see taking union positions as part of the proceduare of fighting for free education, however, i see no reason why i should support it on the terms of the 5 Ucd Millies, who decided that some objective condition had changed and decided we all better follow them to the promised land, they do have a unique insight into the working class at all periods of its history you know? The SYUCD Election Campaign carrys no real base in this college, hence the need to import outside millies to poster and leaflett, meanwhile the campaign of Paul Dillon (LY) and Aidan Regan (an independent socialist) has grown with more and more momentum, campaign meetings see usually packed out rooms of over 40 UCD students made up of CFE and other activists involve themselves in the campaign. As Paul has constantly explained to me, their decision to run was not an attempt to put themselves ahead of the movement but to involve more and more people in the CFE, and judging by the support both are getting, it seems to be working. I personnally will vote for Dillon and Aidan, not because they're revolutionary, but because they are genuine activists who have played an honest and democratic role within the CFE and never once resorted to the usual trot bull shit people have to put up with as they grasp out at any power within their reach. Let the election manifestos speak for themselves, they are the mandate they are seeking, so judge them on that. If the manifestos were posted here, i think most of you would join me in voting this way.

by Magneto Mon Feb 10, 2003 14:07

'A socialist (who by the way had to be dragged off the streets by cops at last week's anti-fees demo) puts up a posting about the SU UCD elections and gets nothing but childish abuse flung at him.'

How do you know its him? Why doesnt he use his name? Why dont you for that matter? Why do the UCD SY have to use silly names all of the time?

by conor - ucd socialist alternative (in a personal capacity) Mon Feb 10, 2003 14:30 conor at ziplip dot com

hes a lot better at articulating himself than i.

-and he uses his real name on the net! woopee

by james rdmond - Socialist Alternative Mon Feb 10, 2003 15:29 antrophe at hotmail dot com

By their calls for us all to jump through the same hoop, accept their imposed leadership on the student movement and vote their way....are the lads in the SP attempting to suggest that by having one or two revolutionaries seize the top positions in a union, that the union suddenly becomes a revolutionary force? Fuck, thats a new one on me......

by silo Mon Feb 10, 2003 17:16

(This is a remarkably bitter and rancourous debate over something that simply isn't worth arguing about, isn't it?

If nothing else, most of the people posting comments assume that the SU elections in UCD (average voter turnout 10-20%) are somehow vitally important in the "revolutionary struggle". That's quite delusional.

It would appear that the SA/SWP bitterness is really just affecting the terms of debate to a ludicrous degree, meaning that every action of every candidate has to be analysed to a high degree of abstraction to see if it complies with some unwritten code of revolutionary action. Which is also pretty delusional.

It's perhaps pointless to appeal to the better nature of the parties involved in order to stop the bullshit, but that's what's left to say.)

by Dan - SA Mon Feb 10, 2003 20:53 rogerprotzlives at yahoo dot co dot uk

I think James said all that needed to be said, really. Ive said it before and ill say it again, if either the sp or the swp want to have a debate with SA about our criticisms of their ideology, we are available at any time (I myself offered to debate with someone at Marxism last year, in place of the doubtless fascinating talk "Trotskyism after Trotsky", a subject which I feared Kev Moran would not mine for its rich comic potential - there was a deafening silence in response from the Cliffites). After disposing of childish attempts to smear us (which we have already answered ad nauseum on various discussion boards), we can get onto the subject of why the Leninist left in Ireland has nothing to offer anyone and does more harm than good. If either of the twin towers of the Irish left feels confident they can demolish our modish anarcho-reformist clap-trap with a few pithy quotations from the classics, they should surely be glad to accept the invitation.

I had the opportunity of a brief argument with Comrade Kieran Allen at the recent anti-war teach-in in UCD (which was worth the trouble just to see him pretending not to know my name - no doubt this is what characterises a serious marxist revolutionary). After describing people who take direct action against the war as "elitist", he then affected to be astonished that anyone could be so petty and sectarian as to criticise this view. To judge by KA's heroic refusal to accept that the direct action brigade are not in any way opposed to mass action, the complacency of the SWP leadership has not been disturbed in any way by the real world, even though they must surely feel a little embarassed at being outflanked to the left by Labour Youth.

Im supporting Dillo despite his party affiliation cos i dont think it matters a damn in this context. For what its worth, Paul is a great admirer of Benn and Scargill and a supporter of direct action, whether against the war or against fees. Ive had many argumnents with him about the radical potential of the labour party, the parliamentary road to socialism and so on (at least he thinks we need a road to socialism of one kind or another, unlike many labour members), but weve generally seen eye to eye about what needs to be done at student level. Aidan is not a member of labour; at one time the millies were eager to recruit him. They told us he had "great class instincts" (ie he comes from Tallaght and hates Fianna Fail) but was "very raw". Somewhat bewildered by this patronising flattery, Aidan decided to join SA, perhaps because we make no claim to be the vanguard of the working class.

In general, SA have found it easier to work with both labour left and anarchists than trots, not because our ideology is an odd blend of Proudhon and Tony Crosland, but because they dont have the same self-centred myopia as the SP or the SWP. As someone once said about the Ayatollah Khomeni, its very hard for someone who believes himself to be speaking for god to see the other side of the argument. The same goes for those who believe they possess a unique insight into the working class, that they alone represent the true marxist tradition, and any number of other quasi-mystical quotes from the pens of Taaffe, Callinicos and co.

by Finghin - sp Tue Feb 11, 2003 00:17

"SP attempting to suggest that by having one or two revolutionaries seize the top positions in a union, that the union suddenly becomes a revolutionary force"

James your talking a load of crap. The SP never argue this. Look at all our election material we never say that electing people will transform the union. We always stress that student need to become active if it is to be reclaimed. You know that what you are saying about the SP is not true, it seems to me that you are throwing mud and spewing out bitter personal attacks (something that we can all do) at the SP simply to distract from the disgracefull position taken by the rest of SA.

One theme of the attacks of the SP is that we are undemocratic. This is an utter lie and is not based on any real experience and is again just mud throwm up to distract attention. The SP is democratic, as other posters have said, we discuss our positions democratically and come to conclusions democratically. Is this the case in the Labour Party? It seems to me that democracy in the Lp is dead, conferences are ignored by the leadership, factional and minority rights do not exist and massive power lies in the Parliamentary Party which is not elected by the members. Maybe we should be calling into question the democracy of the LP?

Many also seem to believe that the SP will abuse its positions if elected. Again this is more lies not based on reality. The SP has many positions in Trade Unions and community groups etc. Can you point out one example of an Sp member abusing their position? The LP also have many positions in Trade unions, can you point out where the LP have abused these positions, of course the list is endless. They have continually betrayed working people. I have to add, before somone attacks me, I don't think the Paul Dillon would abuse his position in anyway.

People have also said that oisín threw racist slurs at Aidan Regan. Agains this is complete crap. If you go back and read what EXACTLY was said instead of the Chinese whispers system that people seem to have a lot of faith in, you will see that Oisín actually said the he thinks Aidan and Paul Dillon are NOT racist. He then went on to say that if people are wondering why they voted a particular way that they should ask Aidan and Paul. This is not saying that they are racist, he was simply aknowledging that it was a complex motion and they must have had good reason to vote the way they did.

I havn't read the rest of your posting but I will later. This really isn't the best place for this crap. It's turning indymedia into a load of crap and is making a joke of the left in UCD. I am willing to discuss these points with SA if you are willing to do so in a polite and reasnable manner.

by Finghin - sp Tue Feb 11, 2003 00:35

"The SYUCD Election Campaign carrys no real base in this college, hence the need to import outside millies to poster and leaflet"

Again a load of bollocks. We have 20 students involved in our campaign team that are students in UCD, I can show you the names tomorrow if you wish. We did get some support from outside on Saturday for the poster race bu this was becauise much of the campaign team have jobs on sat, or were engaged in activities in town re the war etc.

We will be getting some support from friends and memebers of the party during the campaign, I make no apologies for that, I think every campaign will have some support of this nature. But it will only amount to a few hours during the week. A vast majority of the work will be done by UCD students.

I think you should wait until after the count before you declare whether we have no real base. I think you may be surprised by the result.

Dan, you call SP in UCD 'self-centred', we are not the one that are self centered. We are not a clique that have failed to recruit and consolidate in a genuine way those that do not form our group of friends. We don't just concentrate all our energies onto campus based activities. Our members are active in community campaigns such as bin tax and in campaigns agaisnt the war. We are also internationalist in our outlook, As far as I know Sa have not attempted to forge international links.

by Brian Cahill Tue Feb 11, 2003 03:47

I've been reading this absolutely mental thread with a feeling somewhere between astonishment and hilarity. Somebody from Socialist Youth posts that the UCD students union elections are taking place and that two Socialist Youth members are standing. He then adds that there are two other candidates who have also been involved in campaigning against fees. What follows beggars belief.

Instead of any kind of reasoned discussion of the elections we have had an enormous quantity of near-hysterical bile. I can only suggest to James, Conor and Dan that they have a doctor attend to those chips on their shoulders.

James' essay towards the end of the thread rambles semi-coherently about the supposed flaws of the left parties in Ireland. It's tempting to go through it point for point but really it isn't worth the time or energy. I can't let some of the points go without response, though:

In his bizarre diatribe against raising big issues or discussing what he regards as "theory", James proposes two alternatives - involvement in campaigning against fees through the CFE and involvement in campaigning against the bin tax. Now let's make this clear: Socialist Youth helped set up the CFE and has consistently argued for and applied militant tactics within it. The Socialist Party is at the heart of the anti-bin tax campaign. James' supposed alternatives turn out to be things which the Socialist Party has always done.

He criticises the hamfisted way in which the SWP sometimes seeks to "link" issues without adequately explaining the connection and to an extent he has a fair point. What precisely this has to do with the Socialist Party or with his decision to back a Labour candidate against a socialist he doesn't make clear, unless he is criticising raising bigger issues at all.

In fact a theme becomes apparent throughout the recent posts by the various Socialist Alternative members: attack the SWP for some idiocy, real or imagined, and then move on as if some point had been made about the Socialist Party. Now I don't agree with all of the attacks SA make on the SWP (although for the most part I'll leave them to defend themselves), but this method of debate is simply dishonest.

Whatever Kieran Allen said about direct action - and you'll have to forgive me by the way if I'm less than inclined to accept Dan's version of Allen's views at face value - has nothing to do with the Socialist Party. As the various members of Socialist Alternative are aware the Socialist Party does not see any inherent contradiction between "mass" and "direct" action. Our involvement in various non-payment campaigns, the involvement of Socialist Youth in every CFE action, the various jailings of Socialist Party members for taking part in illegal picketing and countless other examples are evidence enough of that. But it appears that any stick will do for Dan.

Only two points which any of the SA crew make could conceivably apply to the Socialist Party or Socialist Youth:

1) Evil of evils, we sometimes bring extra placards along to demonstrations with our slogans and name on them and, wait for this... give them to people who agree with the slogans and want to hold them. How shameful.

2) James and Dan claim that Socialist Youth members standing for elected union positions demobilises students. They even have the brass neck to put this smear forward while claiming that Labour members (or Socialist Alternative members!) standing for the same positions have the opposite effect. Some of us may at this point detect the sickly-sweet odour of hypocritical nonsense. As has been made clear in their manifestos, Paul and Oisin are standing for their respective positions as one part of a struggle to transform the students union into a democratic, fighting organisation - a struggle which will have to involve large numbers of students.

In the meantime, our various Socialist Alternative members have decided that Labour are to be supported ahead of socialists. That is your right. But don't be surprised when others think that this confirms all the worst things the SWP said about you.

by Judaean People's Front Tue Feb 11, 2003 11:19

It's the People's Front of Judaea!

Splitters!

by objective Tue Feb 11, 2003 11:57

will paul murphy be able to lead the revolution from home because you know you he has to be home for dinner at 6 every day... the rest of the middle class trots better find alterm=native transport to because murphy will also need daddys car to get home for dinner... none of yo0u represent working class interests you theoretical twats

by cm Tue Feb 11, 2003 17:02

hahahahahahahaha!!!!!!! trots represent trots and no more...

by Dan - SA Tue Feb 11, 2003 19:08 rogerprotzlives at yahoo dot co dot uk

Brian Cahill accuses me of attacking the SWP then blaming
the SP for the faults of the Cliffites. Well, its true that
the IS have moronic vices all of their own. But im always
amazed that the SP can be so sharp in criticising the SWP for
flaws which the Militant has always possessed themselves in abundance.

Take sectarianism, for example. Ive heard Brian quoting Marx several times
on indymedia to the effect that sectarianism is defined as
putting the interests of your own small group ahead of the
working-class movement; demanding that said movement accept
whatever shibboleth defines your group before it can
be authentic. Well, I had a look over Taaffes "The Rise of Militant" (a useful
book in many ways, I might add). The last paragraph reads (im quoting
from memory here): "the ideas of militant labour will be accepted by first tens
then hundreds of thousands, then millions of workers throughout Europe. This is
the necessary precondition for the liberation of the working class
and the victory of socialism," (the wording may be slightly different,
but I know I have the sense right).

So the workers of Europe can only achieve socialism if they accept the leadership
of the CWI? Can we get any other meaning from that passage?

This is not the only interesting quote I could cite. How about "This forms the seed of
a mighty workers international which within the next decade will
become the decisive force on this planet" (Millies, 1974). Or "we possess a unique insight into
the working class at all phases in its history, in both its objective and
subjective dimensions," (Taaffe or Grant, I forget who).

This is what I was getting at when I made a facecious reference to Khomeni. This sort of evangelical
narcissism which defines most Trot groups to a greater or lesser
extent. They may deny it, but at the end of the day they all
believe themselves to be the only ones who can lead the proletariat to the
promised land, the vanguard of the vanguard. Its just mysticism passing itself off
as hard-headed historical materialism.

This, to cut a long story short, is why I will not lift
a finger to help Paul Murphy get elected. After several months
of irritating attempts by the SY to dominate the CFE, Pauls
decision to run without consulting anyone in the CFE was the last straw, especially
when he made the laughable claim that the CFEs potential had been exhausted
because of ill-defined "political differences" (ie nobody accepted millie
leadership). Dillo, on the other hand, consulted with lots of people, got the support
of most CFE activists and drafted his manifesto in consultation with everyone.
As Ive said before on this thread, although I have had many arguments
with Paul since meeting him, I believe him to be a serious left-wing socialist
who is more meaningfully radical than someone who would consider
it a victory if SYUCD got ten more members. To say that SA are "supporting Labour against the SP"
is meaningless; Pauls campaign has had no input from the Labour leadership whatesoever.
You might as well say that by supporting Mick O'Reilly against the TGWU, the SP is
accomodating to reformism. The choice is not between a "soft" and "hard" left candidate; the choice
is between a candidate who represents the vast majority of CFE activists and an SP candidate
who has shown himself over time to give his party priority over building a serious
student movement. That sort of sectarian vanity is one of the reasons why we left the SWP,
and were certainly not going to endorse it today. And you can whine all you like, thats just the way
it is.

By the way, I have no intention of visiting a shrink (the suggestion has something of a Brezhevite
flavour anyway), but anyone who believes the quotes from millie ideologues i mentioned above (or who believes
that Taaffe is a more substantial thinker than the "pseudo-Marxist" Ernest Mandel) might consider it themselves.
SA havent tried to build up a mickey-mouse international of IS malcontents, despite offers from the ISO-US, because
that sort of thing is for people who want to play games, not serious radicals. Having foreign links does not make you a true
internationalist; so does the British Labour party (christ, so does Alleanza Nationale!). For the record, one of
the foreign groups i would sympathise with would be the ISM Sheridan-McCombes faction in the SSP.
Reading the mildly pathetic attempts of the SP to smear this group was one of the reasons
I never considered becoming a millie.

by aidan Tue Feb 11, 2003 21:06

what a long draged out argument,but without doubt the swp and sy have shown themselves for what they are- control freaks with no right in theory and practice to claim the farcical notion that they have a "unique insight into the working class", you are all control freaks... a member of fine gael is going for president and it is claimed that he is obbssessed with control and his own ego... this is due to the fact that he gloats about sitting on 23 committees, if i am not mistaken Paul Murphy sits on the majority of SY committees in Ireland. YOU ARE A CLONE OF YOUR PARTY JUST LIKE every member other member of a tightly nit political party e.g Fianna Fail, Equally the trots argue that they are not selfish controling freaks, what about Oisin claiming today while lecture addressing the law faculty... he claimed that the only two students who fought against fees this year were himself and his commander in chief Paul Murphy- BULLSHIT. This illustrates the disregard they have for every other student in the CFE. I know its hard to accept lads but this is why u never approached and most likely would never have gotten the backing of Cfe, You dont have any other interest other than building up your party... every march was another excuse to sell your sensationalist rag aka `THE VOICE`. No matter how hard people try to work with you, you make it quite obvious that if your not a Trot- Your not in,and dont understand the struggle.... SA dont back the Sy candidates for this very reason... you brought it on yourself, its kinda like the self destruction of the bourgeoise by creating the working class.. the self destruction of the Trots by their sheer abstraction from reality.... I am a born and bred working class, so dont attempt to patronise me as an individual that you have a unique insight into OUR class destination.... come down to my local pub and preach your squabble to find out what working class people really want, and it is certainly not some middle class college boy with a paper in his hand... Redmond said it and so will I... the working class will liberate themselves without the help of you boys. The SA know who are the best candidates and who are in it for the right reasons. Hence NOT supporting the Millies. Equally every other trot who gets on to condemn SA for not supporting the Millies are fools and another example of the clone instinct that dominates the mindset of you all..... To finish i am not a member of a political party because i know what is best for me and my class... so hurry up the fuck lads and make yourself extinct.

by lumpen prole Tue Feb 11, 2003 21:57

maybe the voice would be read by more people if it had some fashion pages and horoscopes! anyway murphy is wasting his time and money(although that might not matter because apparently he has got lots of it). instead of backing a leftie who has a credible chance of winning, i.e. dillon, murphy has continued on his path of self indulgence. won't matter though cos its unlikely very many people will vote for him. murphy and kelly aren't interested in gaining power and effecting chance for working people. they just whinge and make grand useless gestures and attempt to soothe their middle class guilt. although murphy's manifesto is interesting, he doesn't tell us HOW he is going to change the union. he makes vague statements. dillon lays out his plan of action. simple choice me thinks....

by Hugh Tue Feb 11, 2003 22:41

You defended these boys during the summer when the SWSS commitee spilt happened, both publicly here and privatly by email. It was all SWSS/the SWP's fault, they were good revolutionaries really.....

Now nine months later they have alienated SY and most other neutrals as well.

They are impossible to work with. It's that simple. An over inflated sense of their own self worth,bizzare politics and sheer arrogance were how I described them to you then. I was told I was being harsh!

Now are you getting a glimpse of what we were dealing with?

by Paul Murphy - Socialist Party Tue Feb 11, 2003 22:44

OK, now while I have been on the campaign trail, it seems that things have gotten slightly out of hand on Indymedia, while everyone has been smiling and saying hello to each other nicely during the day.
Here are a few facts:

In the latest edition of the College Tribune, I was asked if I was not elected who would I call for a vote for - I said Paul Dillon.
Paul Dillon did not give an answer.

We in the SP approached Paul Dillon about a vote transfer agreement, because we want to maximise the anti-fees vote. Paul Dillon declined this offer.

As far as I'm aware those patronising comments about Aidan which Dan alluded to were never made.

A number of comments have been made concerning the fact that the SP has no support other than 'Trots' - this is not true. We have an active campaign team of 20+ people, despite the fact that someone above claims we have only 5 members in UCD. Do the sums yourself - either someone is underestimating our membership figures (which they are), or we have support amongst other activists (which we do)!

In terms of the reasons why we did not approach the CFE for support, there are a number of reasons.

Firstly, there are and always have been serious differences within the CFE and anyone who denies that is completely blind to what happenned within it - it is a fact that the SP were amongst the people arguing for more militant action, and if I could just paraphrase Aidan Regan at a meeting the night before a demonstration, he said: "We should not do an occupation even if there is a mood for it" (or words to that effect). That attitude is an attitude of holding back struggle, and has very little to do with the self-emancipation of the working class etc.
We argued continuously, along with some in SA, independents etc. for the most militant action - arguing for occupations, strikes etc.; others didn't, which is their perogative.

We collectively took a decision, (and you must realise at that time noone involved in CFE had given us any indication that they were going to run for President, and it has been well known for over a year that we were thinking very seriously about standing me) to stand a candidate (me) for President, and Oisin Kelly for Education Officer, as militant anti-fees candidates. If we had stood for and been elected as CFE candidates, we would have been accountable to those in CFE, and we do not wish to be held back by anyone without faith in the power of students. And there I am not at all tarring everyone or even most people involved in CFE with the same brush, including lots of people involved in the Dillon campaign.

Secondly, and I think James Redmond agrees with me on this one - CFE is primarily an activist grouping, and getting involved in elections could damage it.

I think that if we had gone to CFE for support, we would have had a very good chance of getting it, at the very least I think everyone would have to admit it would have been very close.

At the end of the day, students now at least face a clear choice between a very militant anti-fees candidate and a more moderate one (and two more right-wingers who will do absolutely nothing on fees!), they will make the decision and one way or the other we will have to live with that.

I will be voting for myself for President (God the modesty:), Dillon No. 2 for President, Aidan Regan No. 1 for D.P., and Oisin Kelly No. 1 for Education Officer.

At the very least could members of SA please at least vote for Oisin over a right-wing FGer?

by WAAAAAAAAAAAA Wed Feb 12, 2003 10:21

GI JOE IS GREAT.

put your manifesto to tha testo

by aidan Wed Feb 12, 2003 11:47

just a response to paul murphy when he claims i was against an occupation even if there was a mood for it.... im against an occupation as i said that night if it is only going to last a couple of hours... the talk was occupying administration... i asked you if you were willing to spend the night and not just make a fool of ourselves by occupying for a couple of hours...you replied NO, i replied that i would not embarass CFE for a couple of hours for an SY propaganda stunt. You also seem offended when Paul didnt say who else he would vote for... I am as much radical as you, yet more realistic

by Brian Wed Feb 12, 2003 12:58

For fuck's sake, it's like the Judaean People's Front vs. the People's front of Judaea here!

Some advice - fight the people who are trying to keep the Union from doing anything worthwhile, not each other!

COP THE FUCK ON

by conor - ucdsa / cfe / global action Wed Feb 12, 2003 13:20 conor at ziplip dot com

will anyone not in the sp/swp who was in the cfe defend trotty actions?

also i presume the sa's "bizzare politics" involve not looking to the 4th intl before deciding what kind of butter to use on that wheaty bread?

then again - i forgot - anyone who dosent look to the man with the pick axe mark in his skull for political inspiration "should see a psychiatrist"

anyhow - im off campaigning for the wolly labourite and partyless psuedo leftie.my how far the sa has come - to think that but a year ago we were all true revolutionaries - selling papers - building a mood - ucd authorities were shaking in their boots !

before you know it we'll all be wanting "freedom of expression" tusk tusk

by Dan - SA Wed Feb 12, 2003 20:28 rogerprotzlives at yahoo dot co dot uk

It goes without saying that members of SA and everyone else
campaigning for dillo will be voting for oisin and giving murphy
a second preference. I have hated this shower of bastards running
the SU since most UCD activists were still in school and I would even
vote for a swapper candidate if it was going to fuck them over.

Paul makes further vague references to divisions within the CFE. Perhaps
there were disagreements about tactics (although the one example he cites
is inaccurate, as aidan pointed out). I have to say, it was hard to tell
because the major division in the CFE was between SY and the rest of us.
Example; during the USI referendum Paul wanted our leaflet to refer to USI
as a "bloated bureaucratic apparatus" (remember, we wanted to stay in USI). Now,
I am well aware of what USI is. Unlike Paul, I had to sit in USI offices
for two and a half hours listening to Colm Jordan talk shite. But if that sentence
had been included, we would certainly have lost. The only ones to object
to the approach we took were SY, who claimed it would lose the referendum (as it turned
out, the "no" camp won an overwhelming victory). We then proceded to fuck over
Colm Jordan and said bloated bureaucrats by taking direct action at the march last week
(as I said at the time, first we get Aongus, then we get Colm the shit Jordan).

Other arguments arose mainly because Paul insisted on hogging the megaphone, putting himself
forward as leader of the CFE, when there should be no question of any one individual
dominating the group. By Christmas, Paul and SY had managed to alienate just about everyone.
If they had had confidence in winning CFE

by Dan - sa Wed Feb 12, 2003 20:52

backing he would have suggested a meeting to discuss the upcoming
elections. Instead he put up posters all over college announcing his
presidential campaign. Everyone else in the CFE, including SA, decided that it
was now clear that the SP were determined to do things their own way without any input
from the rest of us. We had no intention of supporting them on their solo run, so we
all decided to back Dillo. Despite what Paul Murphy claims, Dillo is just as tough and militant
on fees as he is. Meaningful, effective radicalism requires a bit of cop on and humility
and i think dillo is by far the stronger candidate in that regard. So far nobody has seriously
tried to show that Paul Dillon is anything other than a radical socialist with nothing in common
with the shitehawk wing of the labour party. The main difference between labour and the SP in this
regard is that I know many labour members who are bitterly hostile to the Spring-Quinn faction
which has dominated (and still does) their party.

To Hugh i can only say, god help you. Your clumsy attempt at polemic
earlier in the newswire went down like a lead balloon. Just to cover well-trod ground again,
we did not "refuse to give out anti-capitalist propaganda2 in ucd. We argued that a poster
with the slogan "RESIST!REVOLT!SMASH CAPITALISM!" was irrelevant and ultra-left unless
you believe Ireland was actually on the brink of revolution at the time (Sept 2001). Apparently
some people in the SWP did believe this; we were assured that "masses of people want to tear the
head off the bourgeoisie". A year and a half later, with the collective head of the upper class safe
and sound on its shoulders, perhaps I can claim that our skepticism was justified. Or would that be too
arrogant? Funnily enough, i read "Against the Third Way" without hearing one reference to the need to smash capitalism.
Has the leadership of the IST fallen into the hands of craven reformists?

Secondly, we did not refuse to campaign against abortion "because it would lose danny votes".
Heres what happened. Two hours (im not exaggerating) before our manifesto was due to go to the printers,
Rory Herne rang up Donal and demanded that it be plastered with talk of abortion, that we use the campaign
as a platform for a no vote in the referendum. Genuinely bewildered, we exlained that there was no need: the referendum
was already won in Ucd. There was an active no campaign and polls had shown a no vote of at least 70%. In any case, we werent
gonna re-do the manifesto in a couple of hours. Incidentally, there were no references to abortion when terry ran four years
ago. What a reformist sell-out he is! Of course, our campaign was clearly opportunistic; notably, in a cyncial, unprincipled
attempts to win votes, i supported having a halting site on campus. You wouldnt believe the number of people
who said "Im voting for dan because of his pro-tinker policy". Since the margin of defeat was a couple of hundred votes, I think
we could even have won if we hadnt supported travellers rights... but we opportunists have some principles, it seems.

Finally, the accusations of arrogance, coming from groups which claim to represent the working class, not because of any tangible
support (which they dont have, apart from Joe Higgins in Dublin West) but on the semi-mystical grounds that they represent the true marxist tradition
unlike every other sect, are breathtaking. I suppose it does take some arrogance to say that both the SP and the SWP leave a lot to be desired and dont have
all the answers. If so, then the vast majority of Irish workers are arrogant bastards. Damn plebs, thats what i say.

Bizarre politics? I suppose it is bizarre for a far-left group to remain in touch with reality. God help us if it spreads: we might start getting
somewhere.

by Dan - SA Wed Feb 12, 2003 21:01

Oh, and hugh thinks we have alienated Sy "and most other neutrals".
How the fuck would he know? Has he been near ucd in the last few months except to go
to the bar? Where are these alienated neutrals to be found? Yet another example of trots
"embellishing" reality to justify themselves. I never expected that we could get by without
exchanging fire with the SP. But we havent had difficulties with any non-leninist group, and
weve worked with a few (i did have an argument with some AF heads about the russian revolution
over the summer, but we still get on with them fine).

When are the trots gonna wake up and realise that sectarianism isnt a rampant vice
which has infected the left - its just you nobody can work with. The fault is entirely your own

by Andrew Fri Feb 14, 2003 21:24

I've heard a rumour that the SA/Labour campaign is backed by many prominant members of the UCD Fianna Fáil branch? Is this true? If it is what makes Dillon and regan in any way different to the current shower in the union?

by Gaz - cfe -- personal capacity Sat Feb 15, 2003 22:36

maybe even the hacks in fianna fail believe that paul and aidan are the best people for the job.

by Gordon Sun Feb 16, 2003 02:56

...or maybe they are a bunch of careerist fucks that only are using CFE and anti fees demos to push their own careers. Maybe that's why FF scum are supporting those sell out bastards.

BTW
Dillow is an arrogant fuck.

by Simple Simon Thu Feb 20, 2003 10:53

The level of politics here is astounding. News flash for those who forgot. There are millions dying of stravation, WW3 is about to start, Capitalism is destroying lives and the planet, but should we bother about any of these ?

No

Its better if we concentrate on attacking each other. Much better, Im sure the capitalists will just go away after a while

Keep up the groundless personal attacks....

by FUCK DANNY Sat Feb 22, 2003 02:26

DANNY FIN YOU ARE A FUCKING TWAT! YOU THINK YOU ARE AN INTELLECTUAL BUT YOU ARE NOT, THE SWP ARE ALOT BETTER OFF WITHOUT YOU AND YOUR LITTLE BAND OF SECTARIAN BITTER ANARCHO BASTARD FOLLOWERS! YOU WILL ALL BE IN SUITS AND LABOUR WITHIN 12 MONTHS...

by Simple Simon Wed Feb 26, 2003 00:00

To the author of the last comment.

Is that the best you can do?

Have you no political points or suggestions or news?

Why did you bother posting at all?

Have you nothing better to do with your life?

Indymedia is not a place to air your moronic problems like a spoilt little rich kid so fuck off and come back when you have something constructive to say.

Two last points
1) Anarchists in Labour?
2)You spelt his name wrong.

youd think in the time it took for you to type it you would have copped on to these two problems, or are you really that stupid?