The SP, Direct Action and Strike Action

by pat c Fri Mar 28, 2003 16:59

i would ask IMC to leave this up as it raises serious questions about the committment of the SP to anti war activity. The SP have not dissoiciated themselves from their members attacks on Direct Action.

by blisset4 Fri Mar 28, 2003 16:59

1. Have Siptu Head Office been lobbied at any stage to take action about Shannon Airport in some way by any of the following -Greens / SP / Labour ?

2. Have they been asked by any of the above (Greens / SP / Labour) to clarify wether or not they would support shannon workers if they downed tools?

3. Would Siptu support a shannon or other worker who laid down tools in a workplace saying they would not be complicit in this war(crime)?

4. Which is more important to SIPTU in deciding wether or not to support members - The Industrial Relations Act or the Nuremburg Charter?

If the awnsers to the above are as follows
(1. No 2. no 3. No 4. the first)
then the following conclusions apply:

Greens / SP / Labour are interested in votes
and along with siptu are putting themselves (and their members) in a position of complicity with activities which may be defined as warcrimes under the Nuremburg Charter without making their position clear to their respective memberships. They are also transparently trying to distance themselves from those brave activists (From all over the planet) who are following the Nuremburg principles in letter and spirit by trying through Non Violent Civil Disobedience to halt this Illegal (according to Father of UK Parliament Tom D - if you don't believe this writer)War.

Complicity is insidious and usually comes with a paycheck attached.

When are those local Irish Elections again?

Who else is using the war to harvest a future election victory/gain?

I'll give y'all a clue - he's from Texas (or at least he pretends to be).

So what does one do in such a situation? Readers Please give us some suggestions

by Gaillimhed Fri Mar 28, 2003 17:25

forget about the blasted sp, do yourselves afovour and stop wasting energy bickering over who is or is not doing what where and when they should or should not. If theyre a bunch of useless tossers as you keep insisting at every opportunity then forget about them. you dont need them to legitimise you. Am I wrong, do you need them? if there were 400 other TU reps there who's gonna miss em, especially if their so inept. The future is about pulling the wool down from over the eyes of the public and gaining their support, and not about crucifying the SP. I dont care if the SP dont support direct action, whats important is getting PEOPLE to support it. Let the SP go take a jump if thats what they want to do.

by pat c Fri Mar 28, 2003 17:34

The problem is that the SP along with the SWP have a stranglehold over the IAWM. They have used these positions along with Joe Higgins to publically denounce those who support direct action.

The SP claim that only strike action will stop the US warplanes at Shannon. But now the SP have sabotaged attempts to secure strike action.

It is being raised so that people will see how unprincipled the SP leadership are. I posted a new article because the SP were carrying out personalised attacks on me instead of answering questions.

by Mags Fri Mar 28, 2003 17:35

The Dublin rally last week had a SIPTU Vice President giving a (poor) speech against the War. There has also been the odd statement from Des Geraghty opposing the War. Thats seems to be it.

I work in a large SIPTU controlled workplace, but there has been no distribution of information from SIPTU regarding their policy, or urging members to support protests.

The suspicion lingers that the stance of the SIPTU leadership is one adopted as a back up for the Labour Party's stance, which I suspect is an involvement to stem a total public identification of the anti-war stance with the Greens, SF and other elements further to the 'left'.

Any word from the Socialist Party regarding their position on strike action, etc. would be interesting.

by Brian Cahill - Socialist Party Fri Mar 28, 2003 18:06

This is really getting tiresome. It appears that there are a couple of people who post regularly to this site who, not content with having a go at the Socialist Party over things we actually do or say feel the need to invent the most amazing rubbish.

The Socialist Party have been the most consistent advocates of strike action against the war. We have raised the idea from countless platforms and at countless union meetings and in workplaces. Socialist Youth played a very big role in organising a lot of the most significant strike action which has so far occurred in this country - the walkouts amongst school students.

The idea that we are against strike action against the war is one of the most ridiculous things which has ever been posted on this site and a lot of ridiculous stuff is posted here (along with a lot of useful stuff). As for why we didn't take part in Pat's protest, there is no conspiracy. Despite the small base which the SP has built in some unions and working class communities we remain a small organisation. We can't cover every event and every action and the Socialist Party's main priority at that meeting - a meeting about the partnership deal - was the fight against the new partnership deal. If Pat and some others found the time to leaflet about the need for strike action against war at the conference then well done to them.

A number of other untrue things have been said about our views in this thread. I'm not going to go through them all as I have no desire to wade through the predictable bile which would ensue. I'll leave that to another time.

by Pat C Fri Mar 28, 2003 18:30

"This is really getting tiresome. It appears that there are a couple of people who post regularly to this site who, not content with having a go at the Socialist Party over things we actually do or say feel the need to invent the most amazing rubbish."

What is invented? Brian, all you have to do is point it out.

"The idea that we are against strike action against the war is one of the most ridiculous things which has ever been posted on this site and a lot of ridiculous stuff is posted here (along with a lot of useful stuff)."

Brian, the SP voted against this lobby at the IAWM meeting last Sunday. Why did you do this?

"As for why we didn't take part in Pat's protest, there is no conspiracy. Despite the small base which the SP has built in some unions and working class communities we remain a small organisation. We can't cover every event and every action and the Socialist Party's main priority at that meeting - a meeting about the partnership deal - was the fight against the new partnership deal. If Pat and some others found the time to leaflet about the need for strike action against war at the conference then well done to them."

But Brian, the SP have counterposed strike action to direct action. You have stated on numerous occasions that strike action is the only action which could permanently drive US warplanes out of Shannon?

What was more important than lobbying the ICTU conference? You claim to have hundreds of members in Dublin. What were they all doing on Wednesday?

If you think we did well, then why did the SP oppose the lobby when it was proposed at the IAWM meeting?

Also, it wasnt my protest. It was organised by those who proposed this action at the IAWM meeting. At that meeting the SP opposed a lobby of the ICTU Conference.

As usual, Brian is tying himself in knots.

"A number of other untrue things have been said about our views in this thread. I'm not going to go through them all as I have no desire to wade through the predictable bile which would ensue. I'll leave that to another time."

If anything is untrue then just point point it out.

The only lies on this thread come from you.

by Brian Cahill - Socialist Party Fri Mar 28, 2003 18:45

Pat, I am trying my best to be polite with you here yet you seem to be unable to go ten minutes without accusing me of lying or posting some other attack on either me personally or the Socialist Party.

The Socialist Party did not take part in a "lobby" of the partnership conference on the war because there was a bigger priority at that meeting than leafleting some trade unionists about the war. Defeating "partnership" is the single most important issue for the trade union movement over the next few years. You might be expected to understand that as a trade union activist.

As I stated above the Socialist Party has been the most consistent advocate of strike action against the war. We have raised the issue in workplaces, in union meetings, in our publications and leaflets and from an array of platforms. Our youth wing was instrumental in building the strike actions which has taken place amongst school students. It is frankly some cheek for you to turn around and claim that we "oppose strike action".

by pat c Fri Mar 28, 2003 18:58

"Pat, I am trying my best to be polite with you here yet you seem to be unable to go ten minutes without accusing me of lying or posting some other attack on either me personally or the Socialist Party."

Brian, personalised attacks on me are not going to make people forget whats at issue here: the SP hypocrisy.

"The Socialist Party did not take part in a "lobby" of the partnership conference on the war because there was a bigger priority at that meeting than leafleting some trade unionists about the war. Defeating "partnership" is the single most important issue for the trade union movement over the next few years. You might be expected to understand that as a trade union activist."

Brian the SP voted against a lobby of the ICTU conference at the IAWM meeting last Sunday. Why?

If defeating partnership was so high on the SP agenda, then why werent you building that campaign? There were only 2 people at the last TU against the deal ctte meeting.

"As I stated above the Socialist Party has been the most consistent advocate of strike action against the war. We have raised the issue in workplaces, in union meetings, in our publications and leaflets and from an array of platforms. Our youth wing was instrumental in building the strike actions which has taken place amongst school students. It is frankly some cheek for you to turn around and claim that we "oppose strike action"."

fair dues to the school students, but their actions arent going to stop planes at shannon. direct action has.

but the SP opposed this DA & counterposed strike action to it.

Talk about industrial action is cheap. Why did the SP oppose any loby of the ICTU conference?

Was it because you were afraid it would upsey the burocrats?

by Phuq Hedd Fri Mar 28, 2003 19:30

QUOTE:The Socialist Party did not take part in a "lobby" of the partnership conference on the war because there was a bigger priority at that meeting than leafleting some trade unionists about the war. Defeating "partnership" is the single most important issue for the trade union movement over the next few years

So, there you have it. The SP opposes the war in theory, argues for a strike in theory, argues for mass direct action in theory. In practice they oppose direct action, and opposed strike action.

Quite clear. I think the point has been made. Virtual, theoretical utopian socialism.

by Brian Fri Mar 28, 2003 20:04

The leafletting of a trade union meeting is not strike action "in practice". School students walking out is an example of strike action in practice and Socialist Youth played a significant role in building that "in practice".

Leafletting a meeting is another useful example of something which we have done a lot of: raising the idea of strike action. We have done so in union meetings, in workplaces etc. If groups of workers take strike action we will support them wholeheartedly. We will continue to argue for strike action in the meantime and to try and push the unions into supporting it.

Pat asks what the Socialist Party was doing about partnership. We have been campaigning in every union in which we have members for rejection of the deal. The work of our members has been very important in convincing a number of unions to oppose the deal - more unions than ever before. Our strategy was to try and assemble a serious campaign based on those unions which oppose the deal rather than yet another rerun of the not very effective campaigns which have been run against all of the deals by the hard left. Unfortunately, acting as they are prone to do, sections of the bureaucracy in some of those unions prevented that from happening.

Which brings me to the last point. The idea that the Socialist Party is afraid of upsetting the union bureaucrats is laughable. Our very existence in the unions upsets the bureaucrats. In every union, North or South, where there is a serious organised left we are at its core and we are engaged in a serious struggle to break the bureaucracy. In NIPSA, the North's biggest union, almost the entire union bureaucracy took time off to campaign against a Socialist Party member in the General Secretary elections. They didn't feel the need to do that because they loved the incumbent. They did it because the SP is leading a fight to transform that union into an organisation which fights for its members and in which all officials are subject to election and recall.

by Paul c Fri Mar 28, 2003 21:43

didn't des gerathy and iawn announce the siptu atleast would support dayx actions ?

it was unclear how many did anything that day

by Cleo shoukri Fri Mar 28, 2003 22:34

The SP have consistently campaigned for workplace Strike Action against the war. The head of the FBU in northern ireland, a SP member consistently voiced his support for strike action. The SP has a link on the CLASS WAR site, unlike the piss poor SWP, thats how hardcore we are. If CLASS WAR backs us, this is measure of the respect we command in working class communities in the UK and Ireland.

by Longinus Fri Mar 28, 2003 22:37

Fools bicker over points of order, have strength go forth through evil and subsume unto your creed. Enough.

.

by honest Bill lowry Sat Mar 29, 2003 00:27

Shocking news!!, SP connected to hardcore CLASS WAR thugs. shocking news!! SP members connected to INLA thugs, shocking news!! SP members UDA gangstas, shocking news!! shocking news!! SWP say we hate 'Peter hadden cos he's a socialist, we hope that someone will put a bullet in him soon, after we brand him an elite SAS, FRU, TOUT, yes we've seen Peter in action, needless to say, he's an action man, with the physical repetoire of Andy McNob. shoot him now, what I say is true, believe me I'm a peeler!!

by Ld Sat Mar 29, 2003 03:46

Why is it that the only time we hhear any whinging is when there is only the above at it!

by TJ Sat Mar 29, 2003 10:56

The head of the FBU a SP member?. Now thats news to him. Nipsa the SP are fighting for its transformation now thats news to the membership as they failed to vote for the return of many of the 'change for time' group members because they did fuck all last year for the membership and they showed this at the ballot box.It proved one thing getting people voted into high places changed nothing in the union it just pissed people of when they did not deliver on promises.

by waiting for godot Sat Mar 29, 2003 12:19

We have been waiting a long time for the SP and their strike action. Mags is correct about the trade union leadership and the Labour party singing off the same hymn sheet, they will do even less than the SP to shut Shannon even though it is well within their power if they wished to.

by Bearded leader Sat Mar 29, 2003 14:27

The Troika will find out who you are and swift action will follow - shock and awe to all of our opponents.

by do it yourself Sat Mar 29, 2003 18:31

away and fuk yourselves, what is happening here is anti war protestors are trying to get trade unionists to support anti war workplace strikes and walk outs. You want us to support your protest actions, to lose our jobs, wages etc to support the overall anti war movement. This would be ok, but for the fact that some of the people calling for trade unionists and working class people to walk out in support of the anti war movement, couldnt care less about trade unions or workers. Some of these people are employed in well paid jobs, and wouldn't allow trade unions into their work environment, some of these people don't give a fuk about workers rights and would given half the chance ride rough shod over workplace employment, health and safety legislation. Why should we put our jobs, wages under threat to support the anti war movement. What have these people done for union rights lately,nothing except arse lick and back their employers against workers etc.

by captain sensible Sat Mar 29, 2003 18:38

You can't expect working class people to do your dirty work for you once again. We don't jump when wooly hippies throw a tantrum. Looking at the bigger picture, we need to convey and inform workers here that the US/UK's aggression is bad for workers rights all over the world. The UK/US's multinational expansionism or empire building will result directly in job losses locally for us, as multinational corporations relocate to third world countries to exploit cheap labour sweat shops and lax health and safety regulations.

by Oisin Kelly - UCDSU Education Officer elect - SP Sun Mar 30, 2003 05:45

Pat,
At the USI Congress last week I along with others in UCD and WIT supported a motion against the War in Iraq and supporting the demonstration of Saturday 29th and on Wednesday.

Unfortunatly the motion was not taken and was axed after a couple of speakers because of the right-wing nature of the majority of the delegates.

Pat C, why were you not there lobbying all the deleates to get them to vote for the motion? Surely you are against the war? if so why were you not there? Your absence from the USU Congress shows that you're not really committed to opposing the war! I bet you're actually in league with Bush and Blair Pat!

Pat, catch a grip of yourself. It's not possible for everyone to be everywhere and do everything. To say that the Socialist Party doesn't really oppose the war is simply mad, and it just shows you up to be someone that's pathetic and has a grudge against us for not apparent reason.

by pat c Mon Mar 31, 2003 10:16

"At the USI Congress last week I along with others in UCD and WIT supported a motion against the War in Iraq and supporting the demonstration of Saturday 29th and on Wednesday.

Unfortunatly the motion was not taken and was axed after a couple of speakers because of the right-wing nature of the majority of the delegates.

"Pat C, why were you not there lobbying all the deleates to get them to vote for the motion? Surely you are against the war? if so why were you not there? Your absence from the USU Congress shows that you're not really committed to opposing the war! I bet you're actually in league with Bush and Blair Pat!"

I'm not a student, but are you really suggesting that student walkoputs can stop the war?

Workers action can.

Why did the SP OPPOSE a lobby of the ICTU Conference?

"Pat, catch a grip of yourself. It's not possible for everyone to be everywhere and do everything. To say that the Socialist Party doesn't really oppose the war is simply mad, and it just shows you up to be someone that's pathetic and has a grudge against us for not apparent reason."

But the SP has said that strike action is the only thing that can stop the US Warplanes from using Shannon.

Why then did they pass up on a perfect opportunity to lobby 400 trade unionists from all over Ireland?

I have ni grudege against the SP & your use of words like mad shows that you are incapable of political debate.

Do Blisset & Phuq Hedd also have grudges against the SP?

I keep raising points about the SP because they use Revolutionary Rhetoric but are Reformist in Reality.

Brians points dont make sense:

1. The vote had already been taken aand lost in the unions. So campaigning doesnt explain why the SP were absent from the conference.

2. Actually, if the SP were committed to campaigining against partnership, their abscence was all the stranger. Surely this was a perfect opportunity to make contact with delegates who were opposed to partnership? Why no an anti-partnership leaflet then?

3. This is the first time in living memory that the SP wqere not at least doing a papersale at an ICTU conference.

4. Talk is cheap, but the SP want to keep the ICTU burocrats on side. Therefore they were terrified of embarassing the ICTU burocrats by doing an actual lobby of the conference.

I dont expect to get any straight answers from the SP.

But more & more people are seeing the true nature of the SP.

by OK - SP Mon Mar 31, 2003 12:41

Pat C,
you do have a grudge against the Socialist Party. You are someone that criticises the SP for no apparent reasons. In your arguments you are irrational. You seriously think that the SP are supporters of the Orange Order, and that we really want to see the war continue in Iraq. This is pathetic.

SP members have continually tried to argue with you rationally, but you dont seem to be able to take any points that we make.

At no point did I say that walkouts in the colleges will prevent the war, strikes are the way to stop the war. If you knew what you were talking about (which you usually dont) you would know that the motion that UCD and WIT put down was calling for support of the demo on saturday and was adopting an anti-war position in USI.

Pat, why do you support Sinn Féin and all shades of nationalist opinion without criticism? What is your reply to SF visiting G.W. Bush in the White House? Why dont you chase after SF on that issue? Why do you pontificate on issues you actually have very little experience of? In your Trade Union you have admitted that you are not active. Is it really incorrect to call you an armchair activist?

Most people on the left will recognise that the SP are made up of genuine activists. And most will raise any differences with us in a comradely and friendly manner. But you seem to be obsessed with unfairly and irrationally criticising the SP at any available opportunity.

I'm interested in reading your reply, but I think all we will get is insults and jibes directed at the SP.

by Chekov Mon Mar 31, 2003 13:51

Oisin, you must surely see that your comparisons between Pat C.s non attendance at the USI congress and the SP's non attendance at the ICTU lobbying are spurious.

Compare and contrast.
1. Pat C. is an individual.
1A. The SP is a political party, claiming hundreds of members.
Thus it is obvious that the SP should be able to carry out more.

2. Pat C. has nowhere claimed that Student action is central to the anti-war movement.
2A. The SP has consistently claimed in public, both here and on podiums that strike action by workers at Shannon is the only way to end refueling.
Therefore, the excuse that "we can't be everywhere" does not wash. If we are to take the SP on its word - that it is genuinely attempting to organise Shannon strike then surely trade union lobbying should be prioritised. Perhaps the SP does not think the particular action was effective, but that is not an argument that we have heard from the SP.

3. Pat C. has nowhere done anything to act against winning the USI to an anti-war position.
3A. The SP voted against leafleting the TU delegates.
We have heard no explanation for this vote, apart from Pat's contention that it was for fear of alienating the trade union bureaucracy. If you don't offer alternative explanations, people will believe him.

Finally, Pat C. may have a grudge against the SP, but by concentrating on personal attacks against him and ignoring his questions (which are very valid) or by refuting them with spurious arguments, you are adding weight to his words.

by pat c Mon Mar 31, 2003 19:08

"Pat C,
you do have a grudge against the Socialist Party. You are someone that criticises the SP for no apparent reasons. In your arguments you are irrational. You seriously think that the SP are supporters of the Orange Order, and that we really want to see the war continue in Iraq. This is pathetic."

1.The SP support the right of the Orangr Order to march down the Garvaghy Road. THIS IS A FACT.

2. At the IAWM the SP voted against a lobby of the ICTU conference. THIS iS A FACT.

3. Prior to March 1 the SP spread scare stories about Gardai & Army firing into the crowd. THIS IS A FACT.

4. On March 1 Joe Higgins reffered to GNAW as Virtual Warriors. At this very moment GNAW were face to face with the Cops & Army, ten people were being arrested. THIS IS A FACT.

"SP members have continually tried to argue with you rationally, but you dont seem to be able to take any points that we make."

I have made my points about your sabotage of direct action & how the SP voted against lobbying the ICTU conference,

You havent answered any of my points.

"At no point did I say that walkouts in the colleges will prevent the war, strikes are the way to stop the war. If you knew what you were talking about (which you usually dont) you would know that the motion that UCD and WIT put down was calling for support of the demo on saturday and was adopting an anti-war position in USI."

I in no way criticised your actions in USI.

"Pat, why do you support Sinn Féin and all shades of nationalist opinion without criticism? "

You know that is untrue, it shows how desperate you are.

"What is your reply to SF visiting G.W. Bush in the White House? Why dont you chase after SF on that issue? "

I criticised SF regarding this at least twice on indy. Amazing what you choose to miss.

"Why do you pontificate on issues you actually have very little experience of? In your Trade Union you have admitted that you are not active."

I have 20 years as an active trade unionist, including 7 years on the executive committee of the CPSU and 4 years on the executive of the Dublin Council of Trade Unions.

I believe my time is better spent by not being active in the PSEU. I remain to be convinced that the interests of the proletariat will be advanced by my looking after the problems of middle management.

When you have half of my record as a trade union activist, i'll accept criticism from you on that score.

"Is it really incorrect to call you an armchair activist?"

Given my involvement in AFA, GNAW, Turkish Hunger Strike Support, Anti Bin charges, it is obvious that I am a genuine activist.

Its hard to know if the same is true of anonymous SPers on indy like, Red, HS, GK, Angry Activist, "Brian Cahill".

by Red Terror Tue Apr 01, 2003 00:23

surely its the job of socialists and left-wingers to be active in their unions and to argue for left positions and policies.

the pseu does have a left caucus, it is beginning to become more left-wing. why are you not active helping to build the left in pseu?

by pat c Tue Apr 01, 2003 11:30

comrade cant you read? i've given my reasons above. i think my time is better spent on other activities.

obviously some people in the pseu disagree with me. fair dues to them; but i will not prioritise the problems of middle managers. i do not believe the pseu is fertile ground for advancing the interests of the proletariat.

by Cat P Tue Apr 01, 2003 11:59

The task of socialists is to fight in the Unions, regardless of the perceived 'status' of the membership.
The 'middle managers' are members of the working class. They receive wages, they must sell their labour to survive. Surely then you mus be active in the Union and raise these ideas, and to gain respect of your fellow workers.

Pat Corcoran is a joke. He spends more time in work attacking left wingers and not building the left in his own workplace. Look in the mirror Pat, do you not see how pathetic that is!!

Even outside your Union you are a nothing. What activity are you involved in? All you do is hang around the Bachelor Inn and drink with some of the heads in AFA. You are an Armchair Activist and a Barstool republican

by pat c Tue Apr 01, 2003 12:30

TYou are just making fools of yourselves. Not onl are you sent out with a line to parrott, you cannot even adapt it to deal with any answers.

I've answered the points made, if you dont like that, tough.

You obviously dont even know that upstairs in the Batch has been shut for months. You would want to have a steely stomach to constantly drink in the downstairs bar there.

Those who matter on indy know that I am an activist.

The Hole In The Head gang in SYUCD can carry on this stupidity as long as they like. They are showing themselves to be idiots.

by Magneto Tue Apr 01, 2003 13:01

We are still waiting for the Socialist Party to respond to one simple question. Perhaps they have forgotten it.

To recap: the IAWM had a meeting on the Sunday prior to the ICTU conferece. At this meeting a motion was proposed that the IAWM lobby the ICTU conference. The SP opposed this.

Therefore the SP abscence from the the ICTU Conference had nothing to do with priorities or lack of resources. They were hostile to an Anti War lobby of the Irish Congress of Trade Unions.

by Cat P Tue Apr 01, 2003 16:08

ha ha ha

"those that matter on indymedia".

Pat you're pathetic. Anyone with an ounce of sense will know that you are only on the fringes of the Irish Left. GNAW, AFA, BachDrinkersClub et al. That's all you amount to. Youve never been involved in any serious struggle. In your own Trade Union you shy away from activity. That's your approach- you shy away from serious shit, you continue down your virtual warrior/soft left/republican world.

I wasnt at the IAWM meeting (neither were you!), but only 1 group voted for it (the smallest Trotskyist group in all Ireland- Socialist Democracy). Why are you not attacking others at the meeting? maybe there was a problem with resources. Others, unlike you, have committments elsewhere and cant go off and do things on a whim.

Before you start attacking me I@m not a member of the SP, and I dont think there is any evidence of UCD members of the SP attaking you on this website.

by pat c Tue Apr 01, 2003 17:23

and a desperate one at that.

the people in the organistions i named know that i am an activist.

you are an anonymous fool.

why dont you make political points? if you are not in the sp then why are you covering up for them?

they have now changed their reason for voting against the lobby!

they also claim they didnt know it wasnt on.

if you believe the sp you are an even worse fool.

if you want to convince people you are not in the sp, then reveal your real identity.

the fact that you continue to lie on bejalf of the SP suggests that you are a member of the Hole In The Head Gang from SY UCD.

by pat c Tue Apr 01, 2003 17:25

there is evidence of Oisin, UCD SY making personal attacks om me on this thread.