|
|
Blog Feeds
Public InquiryInterested in maladministration. Estd. 2005
Human Rights in IrelandPromoting Human Rights in Ireland
Lockdown Skeptics
Voltaire NetworkVoltaire, international edition
|
The State of the Anti-War Movement national |
miscellaneous |
news report
 Wednesday March 12, 2003 16:13 by John McAnulty - Socialist Democracy socialistdemocracyie at lycos dot co dot uk
 Analysis of the current political direction of the Irish Anti-war movement The State of the Anti-War Movement Enough time has passed since the mass mobilisation that occurred in Ireland and across the globe on February 15th for it to be possible to recover from the astonishment that this sudden mass upwelling of popular sentiment produced, and begin the task of analysis. The mobilisations indicated the potential of working class and mass organisation but it has become clear since then that the demonstrations fall quite a bit short of a mass movement. They lacked structure, so there was no way that those taking part in the demonstrations could reflect on the action and plan a way forward. One of the main reasons for the lack of structure is that the majority of demonstrators see no need for it. They have not broken from the existing political leaderships but were simply repudiating the tawdry excuses for war and asking the political establishment to think again. The task now is to turn the mass sentiment into a mass movement. Unfortunately the existing structures make that difficult. They do not facilitate either debate or united action, a reality demonstrated by protests at the beginning of March. Essentially what happened was that the organising structure fractured into three parts. One part, led by the anarchists, staged a demonstration at Shannon airport which involved a component of direct action. Another section, the anti-war a coalition organised by the Socialist Workers' Party, staged a separate demonstration to indicate their horror at the thought of direct action. Another section, involving ICTU, the Greens, the Labour Party and Sinn Fein were so horrified by the thought of direct action that they held a low-key vigil in Dublin rather than at Shannon. The idea that Sinn Fein or the SWP object to direct action will be news to many, or that we should be seriously concerned about damage to a fence or a few aeroplanes at a time when the US intends to devastate an entire country. What the argument indicates is a routine sectarianism, opportunism and lack of seriousness in the opposition forces. The question facing everyone is what can be done to stop the war after people were told that demonstrations by themselves could do so. This, after all, is what the SWP for example claimed at meetings before the 15th. The anarchists are not serious in proposing direct action as a strategy - they simply undertake it as individuals. The other components of the anti-war structure reject it without discussion or alternative and many did not hesitate to condemn the anarchists for what was a quite mild action. In fact there is no openly admitted political justification for separate campaigns. Sinn Fein, the Labour Party and ICTU have a history of collaborating with US capital and with its local representatives. From their point of view a protest campaign without any real strategy is a lot more comfortable than all-out resistance. The anarchists are happy with the freedom to do their own thing. The left are either anxious to remain close to the trade union leadership or see the mobilisations as an opportunity to recruit. The result is that strategic and political questions are not being answered. To need to build a specifically working class resistance, to demand that ICTU call for industrial action to target the local machinery of war - which is centred in the Dail rather than in Shannon, the need for a united democratic campaign - all these have been passed over. Blair and Bush have lost the argument. This war will not pass by without a radicalisation of many working people, especially young people. The danger is that the failure to build an open democratic campaign may well lead to a long detour through the existing political organisations that have already failed the test of this imperialist war. |
printable version
Digg this
del.icio.us
Furl
Reddit
Technorati
Facebook
Gab
Twitter
|
View Comments Titles Only
save preference
Comments (9 of 9)
Jump To Comment: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9I dont think that there is much risk of the new numbers of radicalised young people moving into the failed parties of the past (such as Labour). Labour are not seen as a credable force. In my experience Labour's most 'radical' members are in reality careerists that are living up to a certain image. The Radicalised Youth that will be a product of this war are likely to be drawn into no particular party, or if they do it will be into the Socialist Party and SWP.
I agree that the focus should now be building up the Anti-war forces in the Unions and in the Workplaces. I also agree that Shannon is no longer a place where there can be protests, largely due to the GNAW misjudgement on tactics in Shannon. But Shannon workers still have a key role to play. And why the Dáil? that's not a place where the 'machinery of war' is located. The Dáil should be a venue for protest, but the main places we should orientate towards is the workplaces, the schools etc.
PS
John is your organisation "Social Democracy" or "Socialist Democracy"? Arn't you guys the Irish section of the USFI?
Your party is a farce. All you have is 2 members to my knowledge. You have no ability to build your party in any real way, in a climate in which we are entering we will see the radicalisation of thousands of people especially young people. But mark my words Socialist Democracy will not recruit in the next period, simply because your politics are a pile of piss.
Are you the Benny from Crossroads? You sound like the idiot. Shannon is no longer a place for protests because of GNAW?
And you still think the Airport Police might go on strike? Well its kind of the SP to take in the educationally sub-normal
Benny HillBenny HillBenny HillBenny HillBenny HillBenny HillBenny HillBenny HillBenny HillBenny HillBilly HillBilly HillBilly HillBilly HillBilly
WAH...
Social Democracy, the Irish section of USFI, does not have 2 members. They in fact have 4. 2 in Dublin and 2 in Belfast.
I would not usually not waste my precious time on Ireland's smallest Trotskyist group (smaller than the Sparts for heaven's sake) But I think I should because they are the Irish section of the USFI, which is not insignificant when it comes to Trotskyist Socialism.
Social Democracy are characterised by completely throwing themselves into broad formations without raising their own politics. For example the IAWM, one of their Dublin members threw himself fully into the IAWM structures without attempting to build Social Democracy. Last year in the ANV their other Dublin member went Full-time for Alliance. He did this without raising the USFI's positions or politics. Another characteristic of the USFI's Irish section is their crappy and weak name (which is an indication of the politics of their 4 members).
I really wonder sometimes what Social Democracy tell others in their international organisation. At a time of great growth in Trotskyist ideas in Ireland, Social Democracy are being left on the sidelines. Sometimes I wonder if the International are told of their dipping of the USFI's banner in these broad groupings. They probably told them that they are leading these groups and are indispensible due to their hard work in these broad liberal formations!
I also heard a rumour that one of their Dublin members tried entryist tactics into Pllaid Cymru when he lived in Wales. I wonder if this is true or if the USFI HQ know about it. They may be one comrade down if they find out!
You're just jealous of the Socialist democrasy because you don't have any paramilitary clout and or recieve popular support. I think it's great that paramilitaries and community workers are moving into politics to express themselves. Whats wrong with that. The world would be a better place, if everyone admited their politics, instead of trying to mislead and decieve others. Don't you wish you could reveal your true political views, instead of having to play games, beat about the bush, pretending, snivelling and sneaking about. But I suppose it is difficult for policemen having to knuckle under, follow orders blindly and do what your superiors tell you to do unflinchingly, you're only doing a job after all, you're not entitled to express a personal political opinion, you're just here to do your job. Yes it's a boring, stifling, soul destroying job, but still someday you may get promoted, the perks, privileges, the uniform, make it all worthwhile? You'lll end up in a semi in Bangor, with a blonde bimbo airhead slivia hermon trophy wife and 2 pasty kids, and membership of an exclusive golf club, how exciting!, where you'll spend the rest of your nasty days, jealously bitching about your neighbours, locked in petty territorial next door neighbour disputes.
Hey John, take my word for this: you don't actually know what you're talking about. Your analysis of the IAWM is utter shite, and the march in Shannon involved many others besides the IAWM anyway.
A political party/movement that gets involved in things but doesn't try to recruit?
Not even sell papers?
When can I join?
Surely if you agree with a certain programme or position it's alright to go out there trying to get others won over to your position. Why dont they go out there and try to convince people of their ideas, build the movement and build their party.
What's the problem with this? and Why dont Social(ist) Democracy do this?