Easter Commemoration

by Janus Thu Apr 17, 2003 11:54

Doesn't the Labour party plan and Republican Sinn Féin's plan mean both of them will arrive at the GPO at 12pm?

So entertaining I just might bring popcorn.

by Hebe Thu Apr 17, 2003 12:10

Actually how about setting up a stall and selling popcorn?

by Paddy Thu Apr 17, 2003 12:25

Right comrades lets see what strands of Connolly's thought the Labour Party of today has even the remotest link to:

1. The need to apply a Marxist analysis creatively to studying the problems of the time: No go here, nobody in Labour interested in what they continuously term 'outdated dogma'

2. The necessity to maintain working class independence: Oops, thats another no no, since Labour are clear that they will enter coalition with right wing parties including Fianna Fail.

3. Implacable opposition to imperialism: Labour has no problem with , indeed actively supports the creation of a Euro Imperialism under the guise of a common security and defence policy.

4. The necessity of progressive organisations to engage in illegal activities depending on the circumstances, hence the founding of the Citizen Army: Oh dear, a Party that wont even countenance a wee bit of graffiti or the odd denting of a US warplane!

5. The need for militant trade union activity in opposition to the bosses and their state protectors: Lets see: Who are the ardent champions of Social Partnership and the opponents of grass roots militancy in unions today, yep, you got it the Labour Party hacks who dominate ICTU and SIPTU.

No one argues that Connolly works are sacred texts or that his thought is exactly applicable to todays conditions but it is just rich that a Party whose actions contradict almost every core principle of Connollys revolutionary socialism get up to this spurious 'commemoration' lark. Why do they do it: Fairly obvious, they want an aura of radicalism, they want to attract young radicals to their ranks by angaging in 'revolutionary dramatics' while their politics remains firmly in the Blairite mode.

The best way to commemorate Connolly is to engage in the struggle for a socialist transformation of society, and the Labour Party aint where thats at?

PS Spotted outside Doheny and Nesbits last night holding forth with the movers and shakers? Yep you guessed it Comrade Bunny. As the song says: Where oh where is James Connolly?

by Janus Thu Apr 17, 2003 12:38

"2. The necessity to maintain working class independence: Oops, thats another no no, since Labour are clear that they will enter coalition with right wing parties including Fianna Fail."

Just a thought on this, more one for debate than anything else, but whatever about Labour's decision to enter coalition with Fianna Fáil, Connolly's ICA allied itself with the IRB and the Irish Volunteers during Easter Week.

Now there were progressive members of both bodies. I'd describe Pearse as progressive for example, but I wouldn't describe him as socialist. And certainly the bulk of the Irish Volunteers and IRB were more interested in the teachings of the Pope than Marx.

I always thought of Connolly as a practical man who while holding to his principles as tightly as anyone else, was prepared to work with people who didn't hold those principles if it moved the movement forward.

We can argue whether Labour/FF coalition did that, but I think if it had, Connolly might not have been as disapproving as you might think.

I do agree with the central point that whatever else, James Connolly and the modern Labour party are very far away from each other ideologically, and accelerating.

by Magneto - Labour Hacks Thu Apr 17, 2003 13:00

Paddy

Where were the SP last night during the march to the Israeli Embassy. What gin palace were you carousing in.

Am I wrong or do I remember the SP failing to support a lobby of the ICTU conference lately? Maybe you were afraid you would upset your Bureaucrat friends.

The only time the CWI ever held power was in Liverpool. There they introduced cutbacks in local services and sacked thousands of workers.

You are in no position to attack Labour.

Connolly would turn in his grave at how yopu have twisted his message regarding the North.

by Paddy Thu Apr 17, 2003 13:26

Well, Ill give you this Magneto, your obviuosly not one of those indie-media nerds whose main talent is sect spotting. Paddys definitely not one of the Peter Taafe fan club, nor the Calincos cult either. Paddy prefers to maintain his independence and sanity, and doesn'nt feel the need to have a party card (leninist or social democrat) as a soother. As for sittin in pubs instead of working for the Palestinian cause outside the Israeli embassy, wrong again Magneto, Paddy was there, so lets not get into a pissin competition about who's the 'better' activist.

Now Magneto, we'll leave your gripe with your former comrades from the CWI aside and ask you this: Why can't you answer even one of the political points regarding the Labour Party and Connollys legacy, instead of seeing imaginary Trotskyites everywhere (If it keeps happening I can recommend a very good psychiatrist called Eoghan Harris)? Go on give it a try, you might even come to the conclusion that you dont need to be in Labour at all!

by Magneto Thu Apr 17, 2003 13:42

Reveal your true political colours!

by Zak Thu Apr 17, 2003 13:48

Anybody can see his true political colours.

Answer the questions! Stop diverting.

by Paddy Thu Apr 17, 2003 13:51

Already revealed Magneto, an individual socialist that does'nt need a party card to prove Im an activist. Now come on Magneto give us your response to the political questions or people will rightly see that you simply are unable to respond.

by Paul M - Socialist Party Thu Apr 17, 2003 15:02

This whole post seems to be a bit of a piss-take, seeing as they have a member of SA signing off as Labour Party, and giving out his number, which I'm sure he'd prefer not to be given out?
So Magneto, is this for real at all??

by FK - SP Thu Apr 17, 2003 15:39

Yet agains more lies against the SP. Here is a list of some of the achievments of the Liverpool Militant lead council, I'd hardly call it cuts. These were achieved despite opposition from the Tory national government and the fact that other Labour councils did not back up the Liverpool council

6,300 families rehoused from tenements, flats and maisonettes
2, 873 tenement flats demolished
1,315 walk-up flats demolished
2,086 flats/maisonettes demolished
4,800 houses and bungalows built
7,400 houses and flats improved
600 houses/bungalows created by ‘top-downing’ 1,315 walk-up flats
25 new Housing Action Areas being developed
6 new nursery classes built and open
17 Community Comprehensive Schools established following a massive re-organisation
£10million spent on school improvements
Five new sports centres, one with a leisure pool attached, built and open
Two thousand additional jobs provided for in Liverpool City Council Budget
Ten thousand people per year employed on Council’s Capital Programme
Three new parks built
Rents frozen for five years

by Justin Moran - Sinn Fein Thu Apr 17, 2003 15:45 maigh_nuad at yahoo dot com

I think the march is legit in that I got a couple of emails about it from the organisers.

Could we also, just for laughs, maybe all go a week without arguing about whether a Militant controlled local authority in the 1980s institued cuts or not?

For the last couple of days SP members and SP haters have been clogging up the newswire with an ever increasing form of nonsense about who did what to who in the Trotskyite past.

I am seriously beginning to think we need a place on Indymedia for sectarian infighting. A separate newswire where a debate that is degenerating into the stance of the SWP and the SP to an electoral front or the debate about how SF is full of bourgeois nationalists can be siphoned off to allow a modicum of news to slip through on Indymedia.

Indymedia is for news, if I wanted rampant sectarianism I'd go to other people's meetings and start rows.

by FK - SP Thu Apr 17, 2003 15:55

Justin, a few good point there. The reason I posted the last post and why I replied to other 'sectarian' posts was because they were telling blatant lies about the SP. Surely you don't expect me to let it go. If a blatant lie was posted about SF would you not correct it?

by Magneto Thu Apr 17, 2003 16:04

Militant councillors as part of the Labour Group of Liverpool City Council voted to implemeny cutbacks.

The Militant councillors could have:

1. Voted against the cutbacks.

2. Esigned the Labour whip.

They did neither. They were opposed to the cuts; but when push came to shove, their priority was to remain part of the Labour group. To do so they had to vote to implement cutbacks.

No amount of Stalinist style rewriting of history is going to change these facts.

by Magneto - Labour Hacks Thu Apr 17, 2003 16:12

Paddy

My apologies for tarring you with the SP brush. Like many in Labour Youth I disagree with Labour on Direct Action. Unlike the SP, members of Labour Youth have engaged in DA against the war.

I am also opposed to the Euro empire project.

You feel happier as an Independent as do many. Others like a space in which they can organise without being ordered around by little lenins.

Justin

The next time the SP attack SF over cutbacks in the North, you might point out to them that SF never had a majority in the cabinet.

So, like Militant you reluctantly went aong with the cuts. Just an idea. ;)

by Justin Moran - Sinn Fein Thu Apr 17, 2003 16:40 maigh_nuad at yahoo dot com

FK: I have to admit you're right, when nonsense about SF is posted I just find myself forced to leap into defending the party line. Not mature enough to duck out I suppose ;) but it's the standard knee-jerk reaction of everyone in a party I suppose to instantly leap to the defence.

Magneto: The thing people continually forget about the Six is that it has no tax raising powers. There's no excuse for cutbacks when a State has the power to raise taxes. I'm proud of our time in power in the Six just like I'm sure the SP are proud of Liverpool Council and from all I've read have reason to be.

by FK Thu Apr 17, 2003 16:49

To say that the LP have a better record regarding Direct Action than the SP is a complete lie. I doubt whether you are actually a LP member because even a LP member would not even attempt to make such a statement.

The SP have a long record of Direct Action.
For example the SP worked in the Anti Water charges campaign which saw the defeat of water tax through Direct Action ie not paying the tax. Meanwhile the Labour Party voted for Bin Tax and Water tax up and down the country and encourage people to pay the tax. Is this what the LP believes is direct action?

On the war, the SP with YAW orgainsed walkouts in many schools against the war. The SP also participated in DA at the Dáil on Day X and at the time of the 'ring around the Dail'. The Labour Party did not support these actions. Remember it was the LP that pulled out of the 1 March demo at shannon, this severly undermined the demo. Another thing many members of the LP in fact would have supported the war if it had UN backing, the Lp even produced leaflets supporting sanctions in Iraq. The LP are not really opposed to this war, the LP were just jumping on the anti war banwagon because it allowed them to appear anti establishment and was an attempt to get votes for the next election.

Magneto I suggest you read up on the history of the Liverpool council. The fact is that the Liverpool council was infact effectivly dissolved by the Tories and a Liberal-Tory junta imposed to implement cuts.

by Magneto Thu Apr 17, 2003 16:51

The trots savage SF about the cuts in the North, they see nothing wrong with the cutbacks they implemented.

by FK Thu Apr 17, 2003 16:53

Justin, I know this debate has been had already, the assemby did not have tax raising powers but you should have appealled to your membership, to the trade unions etc and engaged in a fight against the New LAbour government who are underfunding the Assembly. SF did not do this. Militant did do this in Liverpool

by iosaf Thu Apr 17, 2003 16:53

i can't find one.

by FK Thu Apr 17, 2003 16:55

You'll find it was Thatcher and the Tories that imposed cuts. Read up on it.

How can you speak on these matters when you are member of the Labour Party, will you defend your parties inaction on the bin tax or your stance on the war

by Magneto Thu Apr 17, 2003 16:56

You might not like it but the South of Ireland is no longer ruled by Britain.

Members of Labour Youth have taken part in Direct Action against the war. The SP opposed this action and even started scare stories against Direct Action at Shannon.

You cant change history, Militant voted to implement cutbacks in Liverpool. Other members of the SP have admitted this on Indymedia. Their excuse was that Militant was in a minority in the Labour Group.

by pat c Thu Apr 17, 2003 17:00

and the sheep bleated:

Trotskyist cutbacks good!

Republican cutbacks bad!

by FK Thu Apr 17, 2003 17:17

How can you critisise the SP when the LP boycotted the entire shannon demo not just the DA. Individual members may have been involved in DA at Shannon but so were individual members of the SP. The fact remains that the LP's position on the war was awful and to claim that the LP are better thatn the SP on this issue is just simply stupid.

The SP opposed DA at shannon for very good reasons which has already been discussed at great length. The SP see direct action as a tactic not an end in itself.

I know that Blair is not a member of the Irish Labour Party. But he is a member of the British Labour Party which in my opinion is not significantly ideologically different from many in the leadership of the Irish Labour Party. Do you really think that if the Lp was in coalition with FF they'd oppose the use of Shannon for US troops? Remember at an anti wr meeting that took place in Liberty Hall De Rossa praised Blair for being a resrtaining influence on Bush.

I don't think anyone said Militant implemented cuts, give the link if this is true. Again I suggest you read up on the Liverpool council, but can I suggest taht you steer clear of the right wing Tory tabloids of the era. The council was effectivly dissolved to allow the Tory cuts go through. Do you seriously deny that the Militant cllrs did not do all that they could to oppose the Tory underfunding and cuts? To equate the Liverpool council with SF in stormont is wrong, as I have said in the previous post SF did not mobilise in any way to oppose the underfunding of the Assembly.

by Magneto Thu Apr 17, 2003 17:22

The SP deliberately sabotaged the Shannon DA. Labour Youth members have been active in DAs.

Your attempts to rewrite history regarding this and Liverpool are not working. This sort of Stalinist revision might work within the CWI but not in the real world.

Many more home truths are in the Throne Letter, Tourish Article and comments from other ex members of the CWI. All to be found on the John Throne Letter thread.

by FK Thu Apr 17, 2003 17:41

The SP opposed the use of DA tactics at that time because we felt that it would alienate workers in Shannon from taking strike action, which is the most effective form of Direct Action. This has all been discussed at length elsewhere we are all familiar with the arguments.

The SP did not sabotage the demo in Shannon that day. We worked with the IAWM in organising buses to Shannon how can you see this as sabotage?

It was the Labour Party that added greatly to the scares in the right wing media by pulling out of the demo altogether.

Labour Youth members have been involved in DAs I am not denying this. But this does not take away from the fact that the LP as a whole has played an awful role in the movement against the war.

I am not rewriting history it is you that is misrepresenting history. If what you are saying is true why not give your sources?

by Paddy Thu Apr 17, 2003 18:14

Ok Magneto, you're personally against the euro-empire project but you are missing the point: the problem poesed was the fact that a section of the Labour Party is organising a commemoration of James Connolly and the Citizen Army when that organisation holds contrary positions to almost all of Connollys core principles, as outlined in my original five questions. Now ask yourself this, if all these points regarding Connolly and the Labour Party are correct, why stay in it?

Given that you are obviously an activist socialist why waste time in what is essentially a liberal party?

Go on Magneto, throw away the soother, neither Lenin nor Bernstein but revolutionary socialism!

PS Its a good thing that SP members are sometimes found in Gin Palaces, not like some of the dour bastards that pass for radicals these days.

by Paul M - Socialist Party Thu Apr 17, 2003 19:04

Magneto could you just answer my simple question please- what's the story with a member of SA being signed off as 'on behalf of Labour Party UCD'?
Thanks in advance :)

by OK - SP Thu Apr 17, 2003 20:00

The fact is that Connolly did not dissolve the ICA into the Nationalist organisations of the day. The ICA participation in the Rising was very much along the lines of "afterwards hold on to your guns". Connolly was a marxist revolutionary, he was on the left of the international movement. Unlike the LP's 'colleagues' throughout Europe Connolly opposed the First World War alongside marxists such as Lenin, Luxembourg and Trotsky.

The Labour Party cannot really lecture the Socialist Party on Direct Action. Throughout our existence in the labour movement we have always supported mass Direct Action. Where where the LP in the high of the Water Tax struggle? In the Anti war movement many of your members would have supported the war if it was backed by the UN.

The Labour Party support social partnership, the Nice Treaty, bin tax, tax amnesties, coalition wheeling an dealing... the list is endless. In Britain your 'colleagues' supported Bush's war, in the Netherlands your 'colleagues' where willing to back the war as a part of a coalition deal with the Christian Democrat CDA.

The slurs about the "cuts" of the Militant Council in Liverpool is nothing but Tory slander that appeared in the gutterpress tabloids of the day. Visit the website linked below, Read the 'Rise of Militant' and/or Derek Hatton's book (both available in UCD library- I suspect that 'Magneto' is a UCD student)

by KG - SWP Thu Apr 17, 2003 20:35

It seems some of SA are now members of the Labour party. I said it at the time that they'd end up in the Labour Party within a year. One of the comrades know owes me a drink.

by Magneto - Labour Hacks Fri Apr 18, 2003 16:00

I dont stand over all of Labours policies, I and some others belong to Labour Youth, its a space where we can be with like minded people who want to change society but do not want to impose a Leninist Dictatorship.

Members of Labour Youth will openly disagree with Labour Party poicies. Thats why we took part in DAs.

SY members will never disagree with the SP no matter how reactionary the policy.

When the SP in QUB voted against naming a bursary after Pat Finucane, the SY was fully behinf them. They said it would have been sectarian to support such a bursary.

I suppose they think the Stevens Report is sectarian.

The SP sabotaged any possibility of DA at Shannon on March 1, Domnic Haugh spread wild scare stories of the Army and Gardai firing into the crowd. The SY fully supports this sabotage.

Keep up your lies about Liverpool. You are fooling no one.

by OK - SP Fri Apr 18, 2003 16:18

Labour Youth was re-established relatively recently after the Party leadership abolished it! During the 1980s LY was fairly vibrant and had an active membership, the Militant Tendency had a large amont of support in LY. What did Labour do? abolish LY and re-establish it a few years later with a compliant membership that only play at being 'radical'.

Magneto (I think I know who you are) shows up his own ignorance of SY when he says that there is no debate. SY is entitled to disagree with (and support) the SP. Socialist Youth is the only youth organisation in Ireland that is open to all young socialists to openly discuss ideas, actions etc. SY is the only political youth organisation in the North that is uniting young people from the two communities.

I think that 'Magneto' is disgraceful when he says that the SP and SY where 'sabotaging' direct action in shannon. This comes from a LABOUR member! Labour even refused to go down, Labour whipped up scare stories in the media about 'violent' protests. In SY and in the SP there was discussion about Direct Action in shannon. We decided that at that stage it was not the best tactic to adopt. We dont 'condemn' those that were in favour of direct action in the form of pulling down fence etc. We do recognise that the only threat of violence was coming from the State.

by Magneto Fri Apr 18, 2003 16:33

Is my life at risk? Should I buy an attack dog?

The fact is in the 70's and 80's Militant ruled Labour Youth with a Stalinist style grip. They were eventually beaten by the New Direction group who wrested control of LY away from Militant. ND was a left grouping and was not backed by the LP leadership.

I have already explained my reasons for being in LY. I can only smile at the idea of SY disagreeing with the SP line. They would swiftly get the John Throne treatment.

Members of LY have taken part in DA. Domnic Haugh , on Indymedia raved about the danger of the army and Gardai shooting into the crowd.

As GNAW was face to face with the Gardai, Army and the (SIPTU members) airport police, Joe Higgind refered to them as virtual warriors.

You are not in power and you cannot rewrite history.

by New Direction - Old Bastard Fri Apr 18, 2003 22:02

I'm amazed to see that the politics of Labour Youth in the mid-to-late 80's of the last century are being debated, and it's nice to see someone cares, but if OK - SP wants to fill in the gaps of what he knows he should start by asking someone who was there and not by inventing the most convenient (for his/her politics) version.

Labour Youth wasn't abolished, but it had been systematically ignored as irrelevant and membership was quite low and had an enormous turnover (lots of people joined, were very active for about 6 months, and when the world-wide revolution didn't happen before the end of their mid-term break as promised went back to their life). The structure of the time meant that every Dail constitutency party of the LP couldset up 1 youth section (and no more) if they had 10 members under 26 and each of these had the same number of delegates (8 I think) irrespective of their membership. Donegal North East (10 members) ended up with the same number of delegates as Kildare (150). This made the organisation more than a little unrepresentative, but that didn't bother the party leadership, it made it all the easier to ignore them.

A group of folks around Labour Left (you'd probably describe about half of them as 'stalinist' if you're a troskyist)the rest were generally 50/50 between hard left/republicans and soft-left anti-coalitionists came together, set up a group called "New Direction" as mentioned above, got a new constitution where it was 1 delegate per 5 youth members (and which allowed rural constituencies split their youth section, e.g. North Kildare etc) passed (against the Militant at the time, although beyond the fact that it would result in them losing power I can't recall a single reason they came out with against the rule changes other than the fact that they didn't come up with them) and they lost the leadership the following conference, by about 63;37 again if I remember correctly.

For the following few years LYth became a support base for Labour Left, a grouphat I presume has long since collapsed.

This led to a couple of purges in the Millies at the time, with one prominent member being banished to the Gulag of Cork, and soon after a number were expelled for 'incorrect' views on what was happening in Eastern Europe (one guy ruefully remarked to me at that time that he'd been expelled form a party that didn't exist ! ;-)
Soon after they ceased to be much of a force in LYth, their share of the following youth conference vote was lower.

Looking back, it was an odd time, as the Millies while undoubtedly on the left of the party still had bizarre blindspots. They refused to second a motion on the right to choose that a Dublin South East delegate proposed for example, and they also refused to second a motion calling for gay rights. On both occasions their official position should have been to support it, but they felt these issues were 'diversions'. They also seemed to think that anyone who disagreed with their then position on the North (A motion from a millie delgate at youth conference '88 described working class unity in the north as "a reality")
was demonised as a provo.

by OK - SP Fri Apr 18, 2003 23:06

1. If you where in the LP in the 1980s would you have supported the expulsion of Militant supporters?

2. Where you in favour of the Nice Treaty?

3. Do you support your party's position on the War in Iraq? i.e. believeing that Blair is a restraining influence on Bush, and support for sanction on Iraq.

4. Do you support the LP's stance on not going to Shannon on March 1st.

5. Do you support the LPs support on bin tax? especially with regard to telling people to pay, not calling for mass non-payment etc.

6. Are you against coalitions with FF or FG?

Magneto, please answer these questions.

by Gary - SP Fri Apr 18, 2003 23:32

Magneto what the hell do you know about the internbal democracy of the SP or SY. Yo were never in these organisations and have no idea.

There are many differences over many issues, they are discussed through the structures of the party and is completely democratic.

This can not be said about Labour. Labour do not have any real internal debate on any issues. The membership is seen by the leadership as election fodder to go out every other year to knock on door and lick stamps. How can you say the practice of the parliamentary party having all effective power in the LP is democratic? TDs are not elected by the membership.

Another thing, how can you say that the witchhunt carried out by the Labour Party leadership on genuine socialists around the Militant was democratic. Surely if your party was democratic it would allow internal debate and freedom of association.

by Paul M - Socialist Party Fri Apr 18, 2003 23:50

Please :) ?????

by J - * Sat Apr 19, 2003 10:48

Mention has been made about a group/party called SA for those of us who have never heard of them could someone say who they are? what they stand for?

by KG - SWP Sat Apr 19, 2003 19:27

SA= Socialist Alternative. They are a few students that left UCDSWSS this time last year. They were a right-wing split off and I predicted they would be in Labour within a year (that seems to be an accurate prediction)

by Magneto Sat Apr 19, 2003 20:07

Why dont you comment on the New Direction history piece?

I wasnt in LY in the 1980s just as you werent in the SP in 1996 when John THrone was expelled.

I have made my position on NIce & the WAr clear.

Do you oppose Domnic Haughs scare tactics?

Do you oppose Joe Higins description of GNAW as virtual warriors?

Do you still think it sectarian to name a Bursary after pat finucane? Do you think the Stevens report is sectarian?

by Magneto Sat Apr 19, 2003 20:11

I never said that the witch hunt against Militant wasa democratic.

Now that is a Stalinist tactic, putting words in my mouth.

Come on now, comment on the real history of how Militant lost in LY.

Or do you still believe the fairytales?

MB is still in the gulag of Cork!

by UCD head - CFE + others Sat Apr 19, 2003 20:47

Its hard to see how SA are right wing... If anything I'd say the major differance between them and SWP is ones authoritarian (SWP) the other Libertarian (SA)

Id suggest looking at their website
www.socialistalternaitive.cjb.net

I wonder if KG can tell us HOW they're right wing... or is it another shallow attempt by the swp to poison debate???

by Just wondering Sat Apr 19, 2003 21:16

I have asked this on another thread without reply. Some people are suggesting that the SP expel people all over the place. Just wondering if anyone can answer my question.

by KG - SWP Sun Apr 20, 2003 14:13

A symptom of this is your support of a leading Labour Youth member in the UCD elections, this was despite a member of the Socialist Party was standing.

by KG - SWP Sun Apr 20, 2003 14:22

I also note a number of their members seem to have jumped ship into Labour. If SA are a left wing split why does this seem to be the case.

by OK - SP Sun Apr 20, 2003 15:12

"Why dont you comment on the New Direction history piece?"

Here is my comment: 'New Direction' as you call it was a witch-hunt against left-wingers in LY in the 1980s. Magneto has still not said where he stands of the expulsion of Militant supporters from LY, I bet you would have been one of those careerists that 'reclaimed' LY for your ilk.

"I wasnt in LY in the 1980s just as you werent in the SP in 1996 when John THrone was expelled."

John Throne was never expelled from the SP. Throne was voted out of the leadership of the US section of the CWI.

"I have made my position on NIce & the WAr clear."

No you have not. Please tell us all how you voted in the Nice Treaty referendum- and why. Do you think that Blair has been playing a 'restraining' influence on Bush?

"Do you oppose Domnic Haughs scare tactics?"

Dominic's comments were taken out of context. He was making the point that where there is Direct Action there should be provision for different reactions from the authorities. Where where the Labour Party on March 1st?

"Do you oppose Joe Higins description of GNAW as virtual warriors?"

Joe never described GNAW as 'virtual warriors'. Again Joe is taken out of contexst. The point was that the net is not the correct forum for discussing Direct Action, for obvious reasons. In Joe's speech he was scathing of Labour, SF and the Greens who played into the hands of the media in whipping up scare stories of 'violence' at the demo. Again I ask where where Labour on March 1st?

"Do you still think it sectarian to name a Bursary after pat finucane? Do you think the Stevens report is sectarian?"

I dont think that the Steven's report is sectarian. I think that it exposes the nature of the capitalist state quite clearly. I dont know the details of the Pat Finucane Bursary in QUB- and I'd say you dont either. I do think that you are taking it out of context.

MAGNETO- I've answered your questions. Will you answer mine? Here they are again in case you forgot:
1. If you where in the LP in the 1980s would you have supported the expulsion of Militant supporters?

2. Where you in favour of the Nice Treaty?

3. Do you support your party's position on the War in Iraq? i.e. believeing that Blair is a restraining influence on Bush, and support for sanction on Iraq.

4. Do you support the LP's stance on not going to Shannon on March 1st.

5. Do you support the LPs support on bin tax? especially with regard to telling people to pay, not calling for mass non-payment etc.

6. Are you against coalitions with FF or FG?

by narby Mon Apr 21, 2003 15:01

I note Magneto or any of the other LY hacks have not replied to this. Maybe they are too busy with their religious observances to engage in politics?!

by Daithi Mon Apr 21, 2003 16:19

OK, I'll bite. First of all, there are people of all parties and of none that are adherents of various religions. Your point? Secondly, some people, even if not attending religious services, have wonderful things called 'families'..and "honey, I can't stay, there's a pressing debate on Indymedia that I need to attend to" won't get you very far. Thirdly, most people have better things to do on a bank holiday weekend than hang around on Indymedia. Also, this article is buried back in the inner reaches of the newswire. Finally, believe it or not, there is a real world outside of the web, never mind this particular website, and a failure to answer question X (irrespective of how sensible the question is) is hardly conclusive evidence of diddley-squat in a context where things matter, never mind on the comments section of a particular newswire!

by Old new direction Mon Apr 21, 2003 23:13

OK - SP said the following earlier

"Here is my comment: 'New Direction' as you call it was a witch-hunt against left-wingers in LY in the 1980s. Magneto has still not said where he stands of the expulsion of Militant supporters from LY, I bet you would have been one of those careerists that 'reclaimed' LY for your ilk."

Were you around at the time of not? I'm just interested in whether this is the result of a faulty memory or if you've been deliberately lied to. "New Direction", as I call it and everyone else did (they produced a manifesto under the name, referred to themselves as New Direction candidates and were called that (amongst other things!) by the Militant candidates. They were *not* a witch hunt. They were a coalition of young people, broadly supportive of Labour Left, who had been excluded from the leadership of Labour Youth by undemocratic structures (outlined above, particularly in the context of youth conference delegations not being proportionate to the membership of youth sections. They organsied to take control, and they were sucessful. That doesn't constitute a witch hunt, that constitutes a defeat for a group that never had the support of more than about 40% of the young members of the Labour Party. Now maybe you believe they *should* have had that support, and that's your right to believe that, but New Direction *also* had the right to compete with them and that they did. When the vote on expulsion of Militant/RSL/SP from the Labour party came up, most New Direction people voted against the leadership proposed vote to expel them, with some also voting aginst a holding/compromise prpoosed by Labour Left that the claims (denied at the time by them) that they were a seperate party (the constitutional basis of the expulsion) be examined before there be any vote on expulsion. As with most votes at that conference, the leadership won the day.

Of course, if Labour are so crap, surely RSL/MT/SP are better off outside of it? Eh ?

by meme Tue Apr 22, 2003 02:01

OK=second year UCD student, was probably playing with his Action Man when all this was going on!

by gg Tue Apr 22, 2003 09:44

Magneto = 2nd Social Science student

by Paul Dillon Tue Apr 22, 2003 19:44

Re: Magneto is a second social science student. I presume, and I may be wrong, that you mean me becuse Im in Labour and Im in second social Science. Not that its the most important thing in the world but Im not Magneto. Just thought Id clear that up. Also worth pointing out that LY is autonomous from Labour so we take positions on things independent of their policy. Worth pointing out to that despite rumbling from some, official party policy was oppossed to the war on Iraq with or without a UN resolution as clarified several times by Micheal D Higgins.

by Oisin Kelly - SP Tue Apr 22, 2003 20:05

Just in case some people think that I am "gg", I want to clear it up. Yes "meme", I am a 2nd year arts student. And I dont know who "magneto" is. For all I know it could be a 2nd year Social Science student. All I have to say is that from what "magneto" has said I suspect that s/he is a UCD student.

by james redmond - socialist alternative (personal capacity...of course) Wed Apr 23, 2003 18:00 antrophe at hotmail dot com

'It seems some of SA are now members of the Labour party. I said it at the time that they'd end up in the Labour Party within a year. One of the comrades know owes me a drink.'

Sick of replying to this type of bollox on this forum. If Donal has taken a decision to join labour, then thats his problem not one of SA collectively.

Kevin, if you insist on calling us a right wing split, can you please clarify how exactly this manifests itself in our politics, read catylast and our position papers and then fucking answer and stop pissing about with accusations. Why is it that twats on the left assume that throwing out terms like 'right wing' and 'middle class' at each other is sufficent for intelligent debate?

The record of SA stands, and in terms of UCD it is a whole fucking more worthy and successful than whatever phantom branch it is you have out here. Maybe we can have an intelligent discussion about politics whenever i see you at the next major demo, whatever it may be. But of course Kevin..probably not as you'll be pissing around with your 'comrades' chanting for revolution, handing out placards and trying to sell papers in the SWPs eternal marketing war while the rest of us are busy actually trying to get shit done and win, as opposed to 'building the party.' Of course, it is here that we split...youu believe you and your party will change things on behalf of the rest of us, well i say fuck that, we don't need your help, peopel can do it for themselves.

As i said let our record speak for itself..

by KG - SWP Thu Apr 24, 2003 12:16

I contend that you are a right wing split from the SWP.

Lets look at your record since you split. I am not 100% familiar with the ins and outs of UCD politics but the fact that your group backed a senior Labour Party member for the student union elections shows that you are to the right of the SWP. This is even more glaring when a member of the SP who has by all accounts a very good record in fighting fees was standing against him.

Also another indication of your politics is the fact that you have only concentrated on students. You really believe that UCD is the centre of the universe! Surely do you not think that most revolutionary class is the working class? I would contend that it seems that you do not believe this anymore and as a result have done no work whatsoever outside of student activism.

By the way to hide behind excuses that Donal joining labour is not a collective decision of SA and has no relevence therefore to the debate is rubbish. His joining Labour is highly relevent, he is as far as I know one of the officer in your society and was one of the main opponants to the SWP last year, his joining Labour is an indication of something.

Another thing I am not Kevin. I am a member of the SWP from the Northside of Dublin who has been observing the degeneration of your little clique from afar.

Lets see your policy documents so we can discuss these thingsin more depth

by KG Thu Apr 24, 2003 12:21

"Of course, it is here that we split...youu believe you and your party will change things on behalf of the rest of us, well i say fuck that, we don't need your help, peopel can do it for themselves."

As you well know history is littered with examples of revolutions failing due to the absemce of a revolutionary party. How exactly do you think the revolution will happen? do you think it will be achieved by simply building resistance to capitalism? If you do think this you are mistaken. The working class need a strategy and clear programme to take power when the time is right.

I aknowledge that you may think that the SWP does not have the correct programme, but why are you not trying to build a party that will be armed with the right programme? You seem to have abandoned this idea, and are content with just building the broad a anti capitalist movement, which I believe is another indication of the right ing nature of our split.

by working class hero Thu Apr 24, 2003 18:31

you guys (and youre all blokes, but thats another issue) always talk about 'collective action' but have you never made a collective decision in your lives? everything in 'personal capacity... of course'. we are still to see your 'position documents'.

by james redmond - socialist alternative Fri Apr 25, 2003 14:26 antrophe at hotmail dot com

Position papers are avalible there. Any chance i can have a glance at some co-herant statement of the SWP's politics and not just the where we stand column? Of course, no i cant, as youre politics are about as consistent as you're membership, a constant state of flux....

As to why we didn't support Paul Murphy over Dillon read http://www.indymedia.ie/cgi-bin/newswire.cgi?id=28047&start=100

Now, where did i state an opposition to the need for revolutionary organisation? I think you missed my point, of course on purpose, but thats debate with a swapper for you.

The history of revolution is also littered with examples of partys like yourselves forming little more than a ruling class in waiting or as putting the brakes on social change. have a read of the following and stop wasting my time, it always amuses me how every book published by bookmarks ends with a paragraph outlining the need to build the revolutionary party today, arguing with you lot is about as boring as it is fucking predictable.

Have a read of
The Bolsheviks and Workers Control
http://www.spunk.org/texts/places/russia/sp001861/bolintro.html

Paris 68-An Eye Wityness Account
http://flag.blackened.net/revolt/disband/solidarity/may68.html

As for our focus on student issues, well fucking duh....seen as we are all currently students, wouldn't it strike you as odd if we didn't make some attepmt to operate and influence peopel here. Of coutrse we are realistic with our resources, and can only do so much outside of college. Hence our involvement in iniatives like LAN, ISFN and GNAW and GG outside of college. See unlike you lot, we don't exactly see the fucking point in setting up phanton branches left right and bloody centre in some daft attempt to create a credible activist base.

Anytime one of us find our time having these ridiculous debates with one of you lot, we are only to willing to extend an open invitation to having an actual real time debate with one of your representatives. Stop pissing around and take us up on it...

by KG - SWP Fri Apr 25, 2003 18:40

I have read the postings regarding your support for a leading Labour Party member over a revolutionary socialist and it still does not make sense. Paul Murphy and the SP have a fine record in fighting fees and building the CFE. Murphy was a fairly prominant member of CFE. Paul Dillon is a leading member of the Labour Party and seems to represent the conservative wing of CFE. So why did you back him? You claim because it was because he had more support from CFE, why do you not think Murphy would have got support if he was chosen as the CFe candidate and Dillon went for another position? It is also fairly interesting to see that Dillon was backed by much of FF in the election.

You did not answer my points about your lack of an orientation to the working class. I do aknowledge that most of your work will be student orientated but if you believe that the most revolutionary class is the working class you would be making an effort to orientate to the working class. You have not doen this. All your work outside of college has been involved fringe organisations that have no real support from workers. And you do not raise the ideas of socialism in these organisations.

Another thing, could you please clear up the position of Donal Lyons. It seems he has joined Labour. If this is the case it does indicate that SA members have drifted significantly to the right in the past year. Unless of course you think Labour are to the left of the SWP.

I'd like to you to answer the questions I raised instead of simply replying with swear word laced babblings and rants.

I'll go and try to get the position papers now, and will reply in greater depth later.

by KG Fri Apr 25, 2003 18:42

Your position papers are not online. It says:

"Socialist Alternative have now completed all there position papers, they will be added to the site as soon as they are cleared by the annual general meeting after xmas"

Could you please post a link to them? Thanks.

by Punter Sun Apr 27, 2003 20:35

Question for the SWP
If the views of individuals are perfect reflections on a group they are members of, is it the SWP line to say:

Working in homeless shelters is reformism - we should try and make the homeless rise against the government - Grace Lally (where is she these days she makes thing fun)

or

Dont get me wrong, of course we support terrorists
Aoife Ni Ferret-gaul

We should take those (drug) pushers into the street and shoot em, no trial, no nothing, jus' shoot the fuckers - Dennis Whatever-the-hell

Oh so many more... give me time

by Magneto - Labour Hacks Mon Apr 28, 2003 11:03

I took a rest from this because it was getting too heated, more light needed. I'm not in 2nd year guess again.

Funny how OK and the rest of the SP have gone silent about the New Direction.

OK, since your leadership lied to you about this, dont you think they may have lied about other things?

by KG Mon Apr 28, 2003 15:33

I agree that views of individual members do not always reflect the group they belong to. However the fact that Donal Lyons has joined Labour* is significant as I think it does shed some light on the nature of SA.

Donal Lyons was a leading member of SA in the pst year and from what I remmeber and from what others in the SWP tell he was one of the members of the UCDSWSS that argued strongly to leave the SWP. I am also told he is their Society chair for this year. If the SA were a left wing split why is one of their main founding members now a member of the Labour Party?

I put it to SA again that you are a right wing split. I have outlined my reasons for thinking this above can you please respond.

* I take it that he has as nobody from Sa has yet denied it and Antrophe refused or was unable to answer which shows that is is true or that it could well be.

I also think it is likely that Magneto is Donal Lyons.

by Magneto Tue Apr 29, 2003 10:19

But I'm saddened by the silence of OK and the SY.
Do they now accept that their 'leadership' have lied to them about New Direction and John Throne?

by james redmond - SA Tue Apr 29, 2003 17:34

Position papers avalible at
http://sa.board.dk3.com/viewforum.php?forum=2&21

So we're on the right conservative side of CFE then yeah? I outline some of my own ideas on cfe in an article at http://www.educationet.org/z0281.html and elsewhere on this forum, and once again, i think the difference between ourselves and the SP are those arising from two basic conceptions of how society changes and the role of revolutionary organisations in that process. But then again maybe some SWP people might like to get involved in CFE and find out what exactly it is we stand for and how sa operates.

read the text of a CFE leaflett i wrote and then tell me where i stand and where this conservative infleunce is coming from? http://sa.board.dk3.com/viewtopic.php?topic=46&forum=1&1

But then maybe this http://sa.board.dk3.com/viewtopic.php?topic=65&forum=1&0 will give you some insight into how you lot operate in relation to students.

You continue to make accusations not points *stands up.. wags finger and screams* YOU LOT ARE ON THE RIGHT OF THE ANTIWAR MOVEMENT!!!!

That doesnt make for an arguement now does it? But the article by an SA member on directions for the movement at does http://sa.board.dk3.com/viewtopic.php?topic=50&forum=1&0 and http://sa.board.dk3.com/viewtopic.php?topic=54&forum=1&0

Also http://www.indymedia.ie/cgi-bin/newswire.cgi?id=45521 would be worth reading to enlightne you on the conservative elements of your own group..

So we've been involved in fringe groups with no connection to the working class? that sounds like a description of your own organisation, but i digress, campaigns we have been involved in aim to spread ideas among people and in the LAN campaign 50, 000 leafletts were distributed, that i didnt see miners in boiler suits clutching them in their hands probably says more about your perception of what constitutes the working class than anything else. Just who the hell are this abstraction of the working class you lot chase after all the time anyway?

I'm bored now...

by james redmond - sa Tue Apr 29, 2003 17:44

'And you do not raise the ideas of socialism in these organisations.'

Have you read any material published by any of these organsiations? LAN presented a clear alternative to Nice, while you lot pissed around with notions of national sovergnty and saving democracy in the EU and here...what democracy?

Socialism is as much a method as a theory. While you think it can be brought about by screaming for revolution and mouthing off with abstarct slogans, i'd like to think that people can be won over to ideas and methods of agitation which are intrinsically anti capitalist through the creation of a leadership of ideas, hence a high number of people in UCD agree with the tactics and methods we put forward, but they may not conciously call themselves socialists, nonetheless we edge towards creating an alternative. Meanwhile you seem to think the best way to introduce socialism to people is by standing around a campus or street like some parasitical promotions worker shoving it peoples faces like some product that can be consumed. With that in mind, heres a qoute from 68 'live marx, dont just consume him.'

As for donal, well fuck knows what hes at, i havent talked to him recently. But to reverse the situation, if we are a 'rightwing split'...then does that mean because we left teh SWP all of the SWP have drifted rightwards? Now you see the idiocy of your arguements.

by KG - SWP Wed Apr 30, 2003 10:39

The question of SAs position regarding the UCD elections is important and gives a real insight into where your group is at the moment.

You say you have a different idea of how society operates to the SP. OK, fair enough. I would presume you would also have a different idea of how society operates to the Labour Party?

So which view is closer to yours? The revolutionary socialist or the reformist social democrat view of society? By claiming to stand for 'revolution and socialism from below' I would have thought that you should have backed the SP in the UCD elections. In nearly every trade unions genuine lefts of all hues including Anarchists back SP and SWP candidates in elections and vice versa.

But the fact is that you did not. Why? because you have drifted to the right and are more prepared to back a candidate from the Labour Party rather than from the SP.

The fact that you can not rule out your chair joining the Labour Party is an indication that you think it could well be a possibility. So you must believe that his politics are fairly close to the Labour Party at least, was this the case this time last year?

Please answer these questions.

by KG Sat May 10, 2003 13:13

I note on another thread you have finally admitted that Donal Lyons, the chair of SA, has joined the Labour Party. No surprise there, however what is surprising is the fact that SA also admitted that they had discussed it and they have no problem with Donal Lyons continuing to be a member of Socialist Alternative. They also hinted that more than just Donal Lyons has joined Labour by saying that "there are those in sa who think that joining/reforming labour is worthwhile".

To continue to claim that SA are left wing is simply making a joke out of yourself. I would encourage any remaining decent people left in SA to leave that rightward drifting clique and get involved in real socialist politics.

by Dr Ann Matthews - none Wed Feb 22, 2006 09:36 ann_matthews at ireland dot com 016273611

Where did the MYTH that Patrick Pearse read the proclamation at exactly 12.04 come from.

(My major work Ph.D) The rise and demise of women In Irish politics 1900-1941 (publication pending)