SP: 2 Parties Or 2 Nations?

by Andrew Wed Apr 30, 2003 11:25

Magneto while I appreciate you wanting to ask the SP these questions it would be better to ask them in one
of the existing threads then to post them as a news item which they are not.

by Magneto Wed Apr 30, 2003 11:31

I must disagree, the Sottish piece is indeed news. The decision of the SSP at the urging of the CWI to withdraw their candidate in Dundee East at the last moment is news, it certainly hasnt been covered on Indymedia before.

Its important that people on indy get to hear about this. How come Labour is a bosses party everywhere in England, Wales and Scotland except in Dundee East?

by Justin Moran - Sinn Fein Wed Apr 30, 2003 11:34 maigh_nuad at yahoo dot com

I have to admit that at first, when the tirade of anti-SP articles ans comments spewed forth I read it with that strange kind of sectarian glee that comes from some-one who is often defeding their own party.

As time went on, the minutae of who said what to whom and whether John Throne is right or wrong began to get a wee bit boring, and then tedious, and now frankly irrelevant.

Two points, first off, as some-one who slags off the SP every now and again I think they've been getting it in the neck a little much over the last couple of days when frankly, I can think of more interesting, and certainly more politically important issues to be discussin, from the Convention on Europe to Evian to the Peace Process.

Secondly, I think there is a need for a fundamental rethink about the way we look at Indymedia. Is the newswire a newswire or is it a bulletin board? If the latter, then fair enough, but we should try and change the name. I have no problem with an article on newswire starting a debate, the more debate the better, but it clogs up the newswire with the sectarian ranting that, deep down, we all like to indulge in now and again.

Secondly, the newswire should be for news, and just that. Maybe we need to look at putting in place a far, far stricter policy on the newswire, restricting posts to news and announcements and keeping the comments on subject, or restircting the number of them. Simeltaneously, anyone who wants a row, can go to a bulletin board elsewhere on the Indymedia site.

I was thinking about this last night after talking to a journalist for an establishment paper I'd persuaded to have a look at Indymedia. Though he was impressed with it in the main, more than he had expected, he thought the Newswire was poorly run and off-putting. I can think of two or three people who logged onto Indymedia during the anti-war marches who complained, as people who logged on for information, how hard it was to get any and how off-put they were by the infighting. If three people posted that, how many others glanced at it and wandered away.

I am all for navel gazing, I'm all for a rehash of who did what to whom at Kronstadt or which is the one true International, I'm all for sectarian fights about who sold out who and how my party or faction is better than yours. But it's not news. And maybe it's time since, clearly, Indymedia's users (And I number myself in this statement) are not mature enough to use a Newswire properly, that we set up a bulletin board for that kind of stuff and leave the Newswire for, dare I say it, news?

by Janus Wed Apr 30, 2003 11:39

Good use of that word. I think Justin is right in that there is a case for restructing and I am sick of the SP bullshit but at the same time I have been following the Scottish elections with some interest hoping to see the SSP make the break-through. I'd heard about the decision not to run against a Labour 'rebel' and seen it debated in some of the British left wing stuff. I think it's certainly news.

by Andrew Wed Apr 30, 2003 11:42

The problem Justin is 'what is news'. The Shinners would for instance be pretty aware of things being reported as news that were in fact the invention of someone sitting in a government office somewhere.

I can see why a journalist or even an anti-war protester might come to indymedia and be disappointed. Part of the reason is the shortage of people bothering to write news articles for the site but this IMHO has got a lot better. Put part of the 'problem' is the ability to disagree with what has been posted as news and say 'thats not the way things were'.

I think if indymedia lost that it would lose its soul. After all the quality of the original articles if often roppy and one sided - its the cumulative effect of the comments that make it worthwhile to treat as a true version of events.

Anyway so my 10c is keep the comments (but perhaps require people to log in to reduce impersonation and multiple ID's). And keep a stiff editoral policy hunting down and hiding non-news items. This seems to be happening at the moment in any case.

by PK Wed Apr 30, 2003 12:11

Justin is probably right that the SP are getting it in the neck a bit too much lately.

Where I disagree with him though is that the piece about John Throne has become irrelevant.
If you claim to be a revolutionary socialist party with all the answers well then the internal regime is extremely relevant. No point in espousing a better society when you can't act like socialists and democrats within your own organisation or maybe that doesn't worry you Justin.

As to the news about the CWI (Harvey Duke) standing aside for McAllion well this is news.
I'd love to know the CWI explanation for this or perhaps they were afraid of Harvey not doing as well as other SSP candidates.

by Justin Moran - Sinn Fein Wed Apr 30, 2003 12:21 maigh_nuad at yahoo dot com

Janus: Yeah, in retrospect the SSP thing is certainly news.

PK: Acting like socialists and democrats concerns me in my own party, I have to admit to not being hugely interested in whether the SP act democratically or not. I am interested in the SP and how it works, but not to the point maybe that others seem to be. It's a bit like my attitude to the SWP, they're interesting from a curiosity standpoint, they have a certain novelty value, but eventually you just get a wee bit bored reading about them.

Andrew: I don't think I suggested doing away with the Comments section entirely, though in retrospect I should have thought a little more thoroughly about my suggestions. I agree the ability to comment on a news article is vital and one of the best things about Indymedia, but too often, comments on an article ends up in a personalised slagging match. Certainly it is galling to read an article about something in an establishment paper that you know to be untrue and being restricted to taking part in the lottery to get a letter to the editor printed.

Perhaps your suggestion to use a stiff editorial policy, which I btw do not see being applied, is a better way of approaching it. I am getting a bit sick and tired of the level of bullshit though, admittedly, by not writing more articles it is as much my fault as anyone else's.

by Andrew Wed Apr 30, 2003 12:30

Seems to be taking place on the level of articles rather then comments. I've noticed quite a few articles either vanishing fast from the newswire or being removed and reappearing as comments in the thread they should have been in the first place. No idea if this is
1. My imagination
2. New policy
3. Better enforcement of existing policy

(Well OK I think its probably 3).

by Ray Wed Apr 30, 2003 12:45

Comments are rarely edited at all, unless they're clearly racist and/or insulting (and sometimes not even then). Articles are a much higher priority, because they're so much more visible, because the lack of search facilities makes it more important that good articles aren't pushed down the wire too quickly, and because there are so many comments that it would be a lot more work to edit them as strictly as articles.
Perhaps the site needs a clearer, more visible explanation for newcomers?
Perhaps some more editors? (Someone from the republican tradition, for example, who has long experience with indymedia, but also receives regular feedback from outside sources?)

by Andrew Wed Apr 30, 2003 12:51

That way newcomers could easily work out what was going one, repetive arguments could be addressed with 'read the fucking FAQ' and updates/changes would be more transperent to old timers.

by Ray Wed Apr 30, 2003 13:46

There was some discussion about an extended editing FAQ, to come up as a buffer page before the publication form. That kind of ran into the sand a while back, but it may be resurrected...

by Jake Wed Apr 30, 2003 14:14

I think anyone with any knowledge of the CWI or the SP would know that there were originally problems establishing an organisation within Israel in the first place. It is obiviously not that the CWI would have a problem in setting up an organisation within Palestine; it is an undeniably hard task to acheive. Also in regard to the SP, don't they hold their yearly conferences between North and South? Aren't they both linked in a very close way? I hardly think the CWI or the SP would have a problem with a Palestinian organisation; the fact is, one has to be created before it is claimed that it exists. The politics of the Israeli organisation reflect both peoples as best they can, as a movement of the working classes; until an independent Palestinian section can be established, we will have to try and take this into account. After all, the PLO is hardly a democratic organisation; we have to remember that the Palestinian people live in a lot more daily fear than the Israelis, and as a result we also have to realise that it is therefore an incredibly difficult task to create a Palestinian section.

by Anonymous Wed Apr 30, 2003 14:21

Ideally I would like to see the newswire broken up into different sections.

For example:-

The UK site is broken up into Upcoming events and Headlines

The San Francisco site is broken up into Local, Global and Other (Breaking) News.

I would like the newswire broken up into something like:-

Upcoming Events
'Original' News Articles
Links to News Articles in other media/information sources.

by Ray Wed Apr 30, 2003 14:34

... is being worked on. See (and join) the mailing lists for more details.

by Magneto Wed Apr 30, 2003 14:34

" After all, the PLO is hardly a democratic organisation; we have to remember that the Palestinian people live in a lot more daily fear than the Israelis, and as a result we also have to realise that it is therefore an incredibly difficult task to create a Palestinian section."

The Palestinian people live in fear because of Terror from the Israeli Military and the settlers who the CWI support.

It is unbelievable that someone would have the nerve to claim that the PLO is responsible for Palestinians living in fear and hence this absolves the CWI from having to esytablish a Palestinian section.

Is there no lie to great for the SP/SY to spew forth.

by Oisin Kelly - SP Wed Apr 30, 2003 14:39

As 'Magneto' attacks me personally I think I have to reply to his rablings.

'Magneto' asks about the CWI position on the national question in Ireland and in Israel and Palestine. 'Magneto' also asks about our attitude to the Scottish Labour Party.

The reason why the CWI website has two links for Ireland is probably because there are two websites- simple as that. And we don't subscribe to the "2 nations theory" as 'magneto' suggests. We do not have seperate sections North and South. We stand for a socialist Ireland as part of a wider socialist confederation of Britain and the rest of Europe. It's only through workers unity between Catholic and Protestent, between North and South, and between Britain and Ireland can socialism come about in this country.

The CWI section in Israel and Palestine is the one section. The reason for this is because we are not a large organisation in Palestine. This does not mean we stand for a unitary state as other groups do. We call for a socialist Israel and a socialist Palestine (ie two separate states) as part of a socialist confederation of the middle east.

'Magneto' why dont you read our position on the national question before you come onto indymedia to attack the CWI. 'Magneto', as you are a UCD student why dont you go to the Belfield library and take out some of the books that we have produced on the national question here in Ireland?

On Scotland. That is the first I've heard of Harvey Duke standing down! I dont know the ins-and-outs of the SSP and their electoral strategy. We are trying to build the SSP into a mass force. The CWI have consistently stood for revolutionary socialism in the SSP.

The Labour Party in Scotland are a bosses' party. 'Magneto' can you justify the Labour Party's implementation of the big business agenda in the Scottish executive and parliament?

Unlike you I have no problem in standing over the actions of my comrades anywhere else in the world. As socialists we are proud of our international connections. Unlike the Labour Party we have very strong connections with our comrades around the world.

The fact remains that the Irish Labour Party's 'comrades' elsewhere in Europe have consistently been implementing neo-liberal policies for years. Your party have been in government throughout Europe and have been to the forfront of implementing the agenda of your paymasters in big business. In Ireland the Labour Party have not been in government for a while, hence people like you have false illusions in their 'left credentials'.

I would agree with Justin when he says that Indymedia should really revise the newswire situation.

by Oisin Kelly - SP/CWI Wed Apr 30, 2003 14:44

The fact is that the CWI do NOT and never have supported the Israeli Army.

We do not support the Zionist settlements in Palestine.

We stand for the self-determination of the Palestinian people. We support their right to a state and we support them in their struggle for a palestinian state. We make the call for a socialist Palestinian state that will be in solidarity with the Working class of Israel.

I think that 'Magneto' should look at the record of his party in Israel. The Labor Party in Isreal have a shameful record in Israel. Will he defend is Israeli 'comrades'?

by Magneto Wed Apr 30, 2003 15:06

'As 'Magneto' attacks me personally I think I have to reply to his rablings.'

Where was the personal attack? I pointed out that you had fumed against the British Labour party.

'It's only through workers unity between Catholic and Protestent, between North and South, and between Britain and Ireland can socialism come about in this country.'

Who said otherwise? You wont build that unity by calling Catholics sectarian because they oppose Orange Order parades.

Technical explanation re website accepted.

'We call for a socialist Israel and a socialist Palestine (ie two separate states) as part of a socialist confederation of the middle east.'

Why do you oppose the freedom struggle of the Palestinians against the armed settlers? Why do you call Palestinians who kill armed settlers, terrorists? Do you believe that ALL of the Illegal Colonists should be forced to leave the occuoied territories?

"'Magneto' why dont you read our position on the national question before you come onto indymedia to attack the CWI."

Oisin, why dont you read up on Labour Party policy before you come on to indymedia and launch your frequent attacks?

"On Scotland. That is the first I've heard of Harvey Duke standing down! I dont know the ins-and-outs of the SSP and their electoral strategy. We are trying to build the SSP into a mass force. The CWI have consistently stood for revolutionary socialism in the SSP. "

Well read up on it and answer the question! It was the CWI IS group who are boasting how they got the SSP to stand down.

"The Labour Party in Scotland are a bosses' party. 'Magneto' can you justify the Labour Party's implementation of the big business agenda in the Scottish executive and parliament? "

No I dont justify it. But your comrades apparently do by standing down.

"Unlike you I have no problem in standing over the actions of my comrades anywhere else in the world."

Yes, SY never disagrees with the SP. You wouldnt be allowed to.

" In Ireland the Labour Party have not been in government for a while, hence people like you have false illusions in their 'left credentials'.
"

Militant were in the Labour Party during the 73-77, 81-82 and 82-87 Coalition Govts. What does that make you? You were encouraging people to join a party that was implementing cutbacks.

Also you still havent comeback on New Direction. Any new lies?

"I would agree with Justin when he says that Indymedia should really revise the newswire situation."

Not too happy with the John Throne issue being publicised are you?

by Magneto Wed Apr 30, 2003 15:11

"We do not support the Zionist settlements in Palestine."

Could have fooled me! When have you ever supporterd those who fight the armed settlers?

"We stand for the self-determination of the Palestinian people. We support their right to a state and we support them in their struggle for a palestinian state. We make the call for a socialist Palestinian state that will be in solidarity with the Working class of Israel."

Lies. The SP, Brian Cahill in particular, have frequently attacked the SWP on Indymedia because of the SWPs support for Palestinian Freedom Fighters.

"I think that 'Magneto' should look at the record of his party in Israel. The Labor Party in Isreal have a shameful record in Israel. Will he defend is Israeli 'comrades'?"

The Israeli Labour Party is not the Irish Labour Party. We have only the loosest of links with them. I think they are scum, they are not my comrades.

by Brian Cahill - Socialist Party Wed Apr 30, 2003 16:41

Wonderful. More anonymous attacks on the Socialist Party, this time from one of our "friends" in Labour Youth. The main thrust of the article is just more mud throwing but on the off chance that anyone is seriously interested here are some brief factual responses.

1) The Socialist Party in Ireland is the same organisation North and South of the border as pretty much everyone who uses this site is well aware.

2) The Committee for a Workers International (CWI), which the Socialist Party is affiliated to, also has one affiliate in Israel/Palestine. That affiliate is called Ma'avak Sozialisti in Hebrew or Nidal Eshteraki in Arabic. Both mean "Socialist Struggle" in English.

Ma'avak Sozialisti campaigns for Israeli troops out of the occupied territories, for an end to the settlements and for a socialist solution to the national question there - an independent socialist Palestinian state alongside a socialist Israel. Again pretty much everyone who uses this site is well aware that we don't "support the Israeli army".

3) A number of members of the International Socialists (the CWI affiliate in Scotland) are standing for the Scottish Assembly or in the council elections for the Scottish Socialist Party. The SSP is a broad socialist organisation which encompasses the overwhelming bulk of the left in Scotland.

The SSP is standing in every constituency in the Assembly elections with three exceptions. They are standing aside for a Hospital cuts campaign, for Denis Canavan (a former Labour activist turned left wing independent) and for John McAllion in Dundee East.

John McAllion is a member of the Labour Party, but he is also one of only a handful of socialist activists left in that organisation. He has consistently voted with the SSP and against his own party on every major issue and he is quite clearly on his way out of the Labour Party.

Dundee East is a marginal seat between McAllion and the Scottish National Party. The SNP candidate has made McAllion's sympathy for the SSP an election issue in her campaign. On balance, the International Socialists (the main SSP platform in Dundee) and the rest of the SSP in the city decided that it would be best to stand aside. Standing candidates in an election is always a tactical issue.

This doesn't mean that either the Scottish Socialist Party (which shares the CWI's view of New Labour as just another bosses party) or the International Socialists are softening their stance on New Labour. Neither does it mean that any other supposed Labour "lefts" can expect similar consideration - unless of course they have a record like McAllion's and are likely to find themselves outside of the Labour Party as a result of it. Of course, very few members of the Labour Party (none in fact) fit that bill.

by ipsiphi Wed Apr 30, 2003 17:15

as such you must be rude to them tomorrow.
it is for their own good.

by Scot Wed Apr 30, 2003 21:04

This is officially denied but from what I heard McAllion has promised to leave the Labour Party if elected tomorrow. And I also believe McAllion is calling for a SSP vote in the regional list vote.

by MG Wed Apr 30, 2003 21:05

Magneto you are a member of the Labour Party should you not be glad that the SSP are not standing against a Labour candidate?

by Jake Wed Apr 30, 2003 22:01

The reason why i stated that the Palestinian people face more daily fear than the Israelis is a result of Israeli state oppression. I at no time stated that the PLO were the main oppressive force. My statement that the PLO is undemocratic and unrepresentative however is quite correct. Some supposed left-wingers seem to hold the PLO in too high a regard. A foolish mistake, if you ask me. Let's not forget the problems with the PLO as well as the Israeli state, even if they are of albeit lesser importance. It is our job as socialists and intellectuals to do so.

by A Thicko Wed Apr 30, 2003 22:20

Nice to hear a socialist AND an intellectual put us straight. Me I'm just a thicko.

by PUZZLED Wed Apr 30, 2003 22:38

At the risk of being personal, for me one of the big puzzles here is:

How can any serious member of the SP take that idiot Hadden seriously? First prize of a tenner goes to the most convincing answer.

by Impressed Wed Apr 30, 2003 22:47

I think it's mainly because of his charm, sence of humour and charisma. His incisive leadership has meant that hundreds of comrades are happy to to throng into the SP branches in throughout Northern Ireland.
Only the most miserable begrudgers would seek to lessen the authority of this modern day Gramsci.
I personally was impressed by his handling of a critic who foolishly attacked the SP at a public meeting in Belfast some months ago. Peter's witty repost was "Fuck Off". How we all laughed.
Can I have the tenner now please?

by PUZZLED Wed Apr 30, 2003 22:53

Your tenner is in the post, and I sincerely appreciate the fresh insights into this problem that you have given me. On reading your account of Peter's witticisms, I too laughed my socks off. The man exceeds my expectations daily.

by puzzled Wed Apr 30, 2003 22:56

On second thoughts, your thirst for my tenner betrays an acquisitive instinct alarming in a socialist. I have decided to withdraw your reward.

I am however tempted to wonder if anyone has any better demonstrations of PH's wit and insight.

by Mauled - Socialism in our time. Wed Apr 30, 2003 23:41

Breaks my heart when I see the comments attacking the poor old SP. In fact I wonder how we can keep going when we are under such an attack of such sharp wit, political analysis and clearly wonderful ideas.
Please please please LP supporters leave us alone we cant take any more. We give up you win you where and are just right to sell out the working class for a few quid.:)

by Confused Thu May 01, 2003 00:05

Here puzzled you are one tight fucker arnt you live up to your promise you miserable shit give up a tenner or is it to much to part with.

by Jake Thu May 01, 2003 09:41

Of course, we could also ask how any member of the SWP could take that idiot Davy Carlin seriously? But of course we all know who the real revolutionaries are.

by Magneto Thu May 01, 2003 10:38

I welcome the support for Labour in Dundee East.

Is it not a dicothomy for you though? Saying Labour is a bosses party everywhere in England, Wales and Scotland except in Dundee East?

by Count Cavour Thu May 01, 2003 10:41

Thats probably why the CWI call Palestinians who kill (armed) settlers terrorists.

by Aunty Party Thu May 01, 2003 10:53

Its good of Boy Bolshevik Brian Cahill to hand down his wisdom to us from Revolutionary Rathgar.

by Magneto Thu May 01, 2003 10:57

Any comments on these?

Militant were in the Labour Party during the 73-77, 81-82 and 82-87 Coalition Govts. What does that make you? You were encouraging people to join a party that was implementing cutbacks.

Also you still havent comeback on New Direction. Any new lies?

by OK - SP Thu May 01, 2003 11:10

Magneto is correct to say Militant supporters were in Labour in Britain and Ireland when Labour was in government.

If you know anything about Irish politics you will know that in Ireland Militant supporters were at the forefront of the battle against coalition. In Labour our members always argued for a Socialist programme to be adopted by Labour, for no coalition deals, and for the building of a mass membership.

In Britain similarly our comrades were at the forefront of arguing for a socialist programme in the Labour party. We were also to the forefront on arguing for the right of members to re-select MPs.

In the 70s and 80s Labour in Ireland had the potential to be a mass force in Irish politics. In the 70s and 80s Labour had an active membership and they had a vibrant youth section (both of which they have since lost).

Labour have long since sold out, they dont have a democratic organisation, and they dont have the respect of left-activists in the trade union movement. The task now id to build a new mass workers party.

by Magneto Thu May 01, 2003 11:34

Labour was a vibrant party until Militant parted company with it! You are not even fooling yourself with your line of argument.

You still havent said why you lied about New Direction? Or were you just passing on the lies handed down to you?

What else do you think the Troika might have lied to you about?

by Interested Thu May 01, 2003 11:44

SP members sometimes (I say, sometimes) raise worthwhile points about their programme and orientation. However, since it has been sometime since anyone here has mentioned the name John Throne I will do it now. However good your ideas are, or you think they are, your failure to follow decent democartic princuples in your internal life (ie your leadership's habit of demonising, expelling and slandering its opponents) undermines you completely.

The evident reluctance of SP members to call them to account or ask how come someone like Throne was treated so badly also suggests a narrow sect mentality rather than a vibrant political force. I am afraid these issues are going to hound your party until they are honestly resolved, and you admit the mistakes that were made. Why the big deal in acknowledging this? Everyone makes mistakes - but people like Hadden etc just refuse to admit it. Is it really believable that you can imagine such people have always been right - about everything? You will simply never grow as a serious force on this basis. It is time to ask your leadership some pointed questions, and redsicover the soul of socialism.

by Curious Thu May 01, 2003 13:02

Now that their lies have been exposed the SP seem to be unwilling to comment further.

by Stephen Boyd - Socialist Party Thu May 01, 2003 13:37

The Socialist Party also has websites based in Cork, Limerick, Omagh, UCD. Going by the pathetic logic of the original posting above does that mean these branches are also sections of the CWI?

by Magneto Thu May 01, 2003 13:46

Stevie, those branchs dont have links on the CWI site.

How about some answers about John Throne, New Direction.

by Mmmmmmmmmmm Thu May 01, 2003 17:29

The one thing that strikes me in all this Throne thing is how come everyone has accepted everything that Throne has said without so much as an eyebrow raised. This reflects the pathetic state of the irish left. If some nice old man claimed he was wronged by the evil empirialists in the SP, well god damn it, he was. Great logic comrades.

Wait..... whats that? I think I can hear some bleeting in the background............"four legs good, two legs bad"

by FK - Socialist Party UCD Thu May 01, 2003 18:39 finghin at syucd dot cjb dot net

So magneto do you think that the constitution of the CWi states that a section is a full section when it has a link from the website? If that is the case I'm gona send an email of to London straight away to try and get the UCD site linked.

Magneto we are not saying that the Labour Party was perfect when we were members of it. We raised our critisisms of the party at the time and we did lead the opposition to the right wing bourgeois politicians that lead the party.

The decision of the SSP not to stand in Dundee does not contradict the CWi position on the Labour Party. From what I have heard McAllion is going to join the SSP if elected and i also calling for a vote for the SSP on the 2nd vote. We do acknowledge that there are a handfull of lefts left in the Labour Party, it seems McAllion is one of them.

As for 'New Direction' to tell you the truth I am not familiar with the details of Labour Youth politics in the 1980s. Even if militant were democratically elected out of the leadership, what doesthat prove? It does not mean that 'New Direction' was left wing. It does not mean that Militant sold out.

MAgneto, I would be interested to know exactly who you are. i know you are a member of the Labour Party in UCD maybe you could send me an email and tell me who you are. I do have a good idea.

by Just wondering Thu May 01, 2003 19:10

I have asked this question before and I am still waiting for an answer. Given the amount of comments been made about how undemocratic the SP are and how badly they treat their members, can anyone give the name of a person expelled by the SP in Ireland?

by LEFT OBSERVER Thu May 01, 2003 19:29

Comrade

I think you have missed the point. It is not a question at all, at least for me, of believing everything Throne or anyone else says re. his expulsion. What does strike me however is this:

1. SP members keep changing their story on this (if they deal with it at all)- one minute he wasn't expelled at all, just left; the next he was expelled etc. This suggests a guilty conscience to begin with.
2. If they have nothing to hide, then why not openly debate the whole thing, and noreover give this man his right of appeal to their conferences? It is this point which is ultimnately so telling. Moroever, why not have other people from outside there for the occasion, showing everyone that justice has been done.
3.The trite manner in which the SP deals with this indicates a closed circle mentality, common on the left, in which it seems ok to deal with important issues away from prying eyes - such as the rest of the working class.

None of this is viable. In fact it stinks. And because it stinks it will follow the SP around until they wise up and deal with it honestly.

by KaM - LSP (CWI) Thu May 01, 2003 22:15

May greetings from Belgium to al my Irish comrades on Indymedia Ireland who bother to answer the same questions and accusations again and again.

If the number of attacks on the SP made by those 'virtual warriors' ;) on Indymedia are a good indication it can only mean that you are doing a terrific job in Ireland.

It's a little bit unfortunate that none of you speeks Dutch because I could use some help on Indymedia Belgium (or Maomedia like we call it here).

Comradely.

by Phuq Hedd Thu May 01, 2003 22:21

personally I suspect the SP of posting some of the attacks themselves so that they can claim to be victims.

Being in Holland you probably aren't aware that the "virtual warriors" quote refers to the phrase used by Joe Higgins (SP) in a speech refering to the activists in GNAW who were attempting to take direct action not too far away. It was an unfortunate misstep. Probably not a good idea to bring it up again.

by KaM - LSP Thu May 01, 2003 22:52

I am from Belgium and not from Holland. We have been part of Holland (and a dozen other countries :)but that was 160 years ago. Maybe it's time to update geography books, but I kwow lack of funding etc..... :)However I would not mind a Socialist confederation of The Netherlands. ;)

by confused Fri May 02, 2003 01:04

Shit hot on the national question there phuq.

by confused Fri May 02, 2003 01:08

then again phuq could be that you are caught up in one of those devious SP plots you mention?

by anty panty Fri May 02, 2003 01:31

don't you think it's highly suspicious that at one stage the newswire was crawling with the SWP and now there are none? Either they are the ones attacking the SWP or, in fact, the SWP and the SP contain the same counter-revolutionary elements that are seeking to split the Movement in Ireland.

was RBB was seen with a brown paper bag?

if he was then was it given to him by C6?

is it true that the SP and SWP both support failed totalitarian statist ideologies?

has anyone ever slept with a member of the SP?

was it as good as with a member of the SWP?

how come no one from the Masons ever posts on Indymedia?

by hen Fri May 02, 2003 04:54

the results from dudee east predict a sad future for Statist socilism;

Shona Robison SNP 10428 39.5 +5.3
John McAllion LAB 10358 39.3 -4.0
Edward Prince CON 3133 11.9 -2.1
Clive Sneddon LD 1584 6.0 -0.8
James Gourlay IND 865 3.3 +3.3

MAJORITY 70 0.3
TURNOUT 26368 46.6 -8.2

ELECTORATE 56535

by Magneto Fri May 02, 2003 10:31

You cant say that Labour is a Bosses Party and then go on to support a candidate of the same bosses party.

I am glad that the SSP stood down but I'm just pointing out your inconsistencies.

You havent dealt with the substance of the New Direction issue: why did your leadership lie to you about this?

Only one of the leaders of New Direction has ended up in what might be called the right/centre of Labour, Michael MacLoughlin, he is International Secretary.

by Ms. Marples - Seekers Fri May 02, 2003 12:59

Just worked out who you are. Your not actually a member of the Labour Part at all old chap. How could I not have seen it sooner. Silly little poppet, you gave yourself away, now I shall have the pleasure of also giving you away.

WATCH THIS SPACE...... ALL WILL BE REVEALED!

by Magneto Fri May 02, 2003 13:41

You dont know who I am. Get help from Poirot.

by Magneto Fri May 02, 2003 14:32

For the time beong I wish to remain anonymous as do several SP members who post here.

by Curious Fri May 02, 2003 15:26

Well? Where is the promised scoop?

by Finghin - SP UCD Fri May 02, 2003 18:48

If you read the literature produced by the SP on this issue (www.syucd.cjb.net 'case for a new mass workers party') you will soon discover that we have always said that a few lefts remain in the Labour Party, McAllion seems to be one of them. Labour remain a bosses party, they represent the interests of the British bourgeoisie. They have no link with workers due to their complete sell out and the attack on democracy within the party.

What exactly is your point about this 'new direction'? Are you claiming they were more left wing than the Militant?

The leadership did not lie to me about anything. The fact is that I have not asked anyone in the party about New Direction. As I have stated earlier I am not an expert of the politics of Labour Youth in the 80s.

Magneto, you have been going on indymedia over the past while saying that the SP leaderhship are liars. Well what about the LP leadership, they have continually lied to their membership and to the electorate. Remember the 1992 coalition? remember tax amnesties bin tax etc etc. The SP have never lied to its membership or to the electorate. You have also critisised the SP's internal democracy. These are again lies, you have no experience of how the SP operates, you were never a member. The Sp unlike the Lp democratically elects its leading bodies and decisions are made at regular branch meetings.

Remember it is the Lp leadership that is not elected by the membership, it is the Lp leadership that regularly overturns decisions taken at conferences. It was the Labour Party that deselected Militant candidates and it is the Lp leadership that expelled Militant supporters for publishing their own literature. This is hardly the actions of a democratic party. Now you justify these undemocratic practices.

by Magneto Watcher Fri May 02, 2003 20:43

Magneto is Paul Dillon. Paul, you could at least try to cover it up. If anyone reads what you have written on Indymedia over last while they can see it's Paul Dillon who is Magneto.

by Magneto Sun May 04, 2003 19:39

I already made it clear that I am not Dillon.

Finghin

Oisin and other members of the SPclaimed that Labour Youth had been dissolved to get rid of Militant. Someone spun this yarn to them. So stop introducing red herrings until you have dealt with the substance of New Direction.

Perhaps Oisin would care to reveal who lied to him about New Direction and how Militant lost the leadership of Labour Youth.

by from Someone who was a member of Labour Youth in the 1980's Sun May 04, 2003 21:20

I was a member of Labour Youth in the early 1980's and attended a number of Labour Youth Conferences during that time. I remember the Conference where New Direction won control of Labour Youth from the Militant.

Militant had been in control of Labour Youth for a number of years and had been an absolute pain in the side of the leadership of the Labour Party. I think one of the biggest things was the fact that they had 2 people on Labour's Administrative Council from LY.

New Direction was based around the Labour Left group within the Labour Party. Militant had its base mainly in the city constituencies in Dublin, Cork, Limerick and Galway (Although I do remember Donegal supporting them as well). New Direction were organised in the Colleges.

Dick Spring and the leadership of the LP had been threatening to close down LY for some time but appeared to give Labour Left one last chance to get control of LY. People like Stagg, Joan Burton and others put in a big effort to win the conference, with the help of right-wing TD's, in particular people like Brendan Howlin.

At the Conference, LP headquarters staff took control of the administration of the Conference. Delegates from many of the Militant controlled delegations were ruled out while people who had been members of Labour Youth for only a few days were allowed in as delegates for New Direction. Delegates turned from Constituencies that had never had a Youth Section, like Kerry. New Direction won control of Labour Youth by a small margin with the help of Spring's people, and made no attempt to hid it. While the Militant could come in for some criticism for their role in Labour Youth they never adopted the attitude "if we don't control it we'll shut it down". Some members of New Direction behaved in a very high handed manner. I remember one particular nasty incident when Vinny Byrne (who became national chairman of LY) attacked a young woman with a new born baby because she was breastfeeding the baby. From the podium he demanded she be removed from the hall for daring to do such a disgusting thing, and wasn't it typical of the way the women in the Militant behaved.

I left the Labour Party not long after because of its participation in Coalition but I do recall Labour Youth becoming very much a vehicle for people like Dermot Lacey to climb the corporate ladder of the Labour party. Whatever you think about the Militant at least they attempted to make LY a radical group.

Magento said "Only one of the leaders of New Direction has ended up in what might be called the right/centre of Labour, Michael MacLoughlin, he is International Secretary."

News to me. I suppose people like Vinny Byrne and Mark Little could be classed as defenders of socialism. In fact, as far as I know, the only person who could be remotely classed as left wing is Ivana Bacek. Maybe Magento could enlighten me on what has happened to those leaders of New Direction and the role they have played in defending socialism in this country.

by Oisin Kelly - SP Mon May 05, 2003 14:11

Magneto, I am nearly sure who it is at this stage. I've had a discussion with others and we are nearly certain who you are. You are one hell of a pathetic sectarian.

No-one has ever 'lied to me'. I'm sick of little careerists like you slurring revolutionary organisations by saying that there is some kind of unaccountable leadership. Before you start slinging mud you should look at your own party's leadership, which isn't democratic not accountable (and furthermore have a shameful record in the workers movement).

Maybe you should look into the lies that are peddled about Militant by your leaders. No-one has ever 'lied' to me about the Militant witch-hunts of your heroes in the careerist pit that is the 'Labour' Party.

by Finghin Mon May 05, 2003 14:39

'Magneto' it seems that your leadership has lied to you about the Militant expulsions and the New Direction group. Of course the Labour Party leadership have a long history in lying to their membership and the workers.

by Magneto Mon May 05, 2003 16:21

As per usual SP practice the story about how Militant lost control in Labour Youth has changed 3 times.

1. The Labour leadership dissolved Labour Youth. (This is what Oisin said, either he made it upor someone told him. Which was it?)

2. New Direction were right wing. (This is patently untrue. The year after the constitution was democratically changed, supporters of Spring did not transfer to ND, thus Militant kept 1 of the 2 LY seat on the Labour AC.)

3. LP HQ interfered in credentials, again untrue. If so how come Militant didnt claim so at the time and seek an injunction?

Oisin/Finghin,

Perhaps you would care to comment on why Militant was opposed to a fairer representative structure for LY?

by Magneto Mon May 05, 2003 16:33

OK - SP Rewriting history, is the truth not convenient enough?
by New Direction - Old Bastard Fri, Apr 18 2003, 9:02pm
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.

OK _SP -where did you get this?
by Old new direction Mon, Apr 21 2003, 10:13pm
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 Someone who was in Labour youth in the 1908's Mon May 05, 2003 21:20

If you are able to.

by Magneto Tue May 06, 2003 11:13

Did you Know Connolly and Larkin?

Seriously though, I believe the Old Bastards points rather than yours about New Direction.

I cant comment on Vinny Byrne and the breast feeding, could be made up for all I know. How rightwing is Byrne? Anymore so than a lot of ex Militant heads?

Mark Little is a long time out of Labour, he is a journalist. Paddy Smyth of the Irish Times is a former leading member of Militant, if Labour is responsible for Littles politics then by the same logic the SP are responsible for Smyths pro EU politics.

I have made clear already that I disagree with a lot of the LP politics, thats allowed in Labour. If the SY disagreed with the SP then they would be dissolved.

by Prone to typing errors Tue May 06, 2003 19:14

Stop being such a smart arse.

"Only one of the leaders of New Direction has ended up in what might be called the right/centre of Labour, Michael MacLoughlin, he is International Secretary."

So which of them has ended up on the left. Or have they all left the Labour Party with the exception of Michael MacLoughlin ?

by FK Tue May 06, 2003 19:29

That's bollocks about SY being dissolved if it disagreed with the SP. SY is a democratic organisation with its own seperate structures that has healthy debate and discussion. Magneto, what would you know about internal democracy in the SP and SY, you have never been a member.

Magneto another thing i'd like to ask you. Are the opinions that you have put forward this site the positions of the rest of UCD Labour? If so I think we should reconsider the relationship between our organisations

by Magneto Wed May 07, 2003 10:31

Prone

What has happened to the hundreds who have left Militant/SP over the years? Do you keep an old boys register?

FK

"That's bollocks about SY being dissolved if it disagreed with the SP. SY is a democratic organisation with its own seperate structures that has healthy debate and discussion."

When have the SY ever publicly disagreed with the SP?

"Magneto, what would you know about internal democracy in the SP and SY, you have never been a member."

FK, what would you know about Labour Youth? you have never been a member.

"Magneto another thing i'd like to ask you. Are the opinions that you have put forward this site the positions of the rest of UCD Labour? If so I think we should reconsider the relationship between our organisations."

What are you on about? Because I exposed your lies about the past relations between Labour & nMilitant you are going to go off in a huff?

What have I written that has upset you so much? You seem a little thin skinned. Remember all the vicious things you have written about LY.

I suggest you ask the UCD LY members. We dont operate under "Democratic" Centralism. We can think for ourselves.

by FK Thu May 08, 2003 00:02

We do think for ourselves in SY, if you knew us you would know this.

The Sp is far more democratic than LY. I have never been a member of LY, however I know many who have been and who are and it is through this experience that I base this judgement on. All our positions in SY are discussed and democratically decided upon by the membership. If any member or groups of members disagree with the majority position they are free to do so and are free to argue their case within the party. this is not the case in the Labour Party where the parliamentary party decide policy and the membership simply have to follow and should they try to organise opposition to any policies in a serious way they are expelled.

by Magneto Thu May 08, 2003 10:25

When have the SY ever publicly disagreed with the SP?

The treatment John Throne got was hardlly a good advertisement for the internal democracy of the CWI.

Or how about the entire Pakistan CWI Section being expelled?

Why did the entire South African Section leave?

Why did the majrity of the Scottish Section leave?

by FK Thu May 08, 2003 22:50

I don't think i can do justice to explaining the several small splits from the CWI over the past 10 years all i can say here is that the 1990s took their toll on many comrades. The 1990s were a time when the ideas of socialism faced massive ideological offensive following the collapse of stalinism etc, not helped by the complete sell out of the trade union bureacrats and the social democratic parties which you (magneto) support. Socialists were under tremendous pressure to either drift into ultra leftism and/or oppurtunism.

As for Scotland, if you are genuinly interested I would encourage you to go to www.marxist.net where you can find the full Scotland debate.

I also note that you have not responded to the accusations of the Labour Party being undemocratic. I presume you agree with this analysis.

by Former Militant member Fri May 09, 2003 11:05

KF

Not only do you not deal thoroughly with the points raised about the CWI's internal reginme, I am afraid that you do not deal with them at all. Irrespective of what you call the objective situation (which is just a polite way of saying that your perspectives have been utterly wrong, without having to acknowledge the atrocious political mistakes made by the CWI), none of this explains the treatment received by John Throne - and others. Even if we accept that the objective conditions have been hard, are you seriously, seriously suggesting that the internal regime of the CWI has been bleyond reproach? If you think that it has had some defects, then why not honestly account for them, and demonstrate the improvements that are now being made?

One of the things that does the left in general a great deal of harm is this pretence that all is wonderful internally when in fact it is not. I know of no organisation that cannot improve how it works, in politics and in other contexts. Many try to address this. Without an honest accounting, how can you overcome problems? But it is this type of honest accounting that your leaders seem determined to avoid. Instead they seek refuge in platitudes about the objective situation, and blame individuals for allegedly capitulating to the pressures of capiutalism. It would seem that everything in the world is imperfect - except the CWI.

This is logically impossible, and I think it is time you and your fellow members faced up to the reality.

But come to think of it - if you try, you would be expelled!

by Magneto Fri May 09, 2003 15:02

SP members cannot publicly disagree with SP Policy. Thats why the LP is mor democratic.

by Magneto Fri May 09, 2003 15:06

You call the expulsion of the 1,000 member Pakistan section a small split? Why are you not prepared to discuss the Scottish split here? You have used up a lot of space on lesser things.

The loss of the entire South African section is also a small split? But you boast of the role the SA section played in the workers movement during the aphartheid years. How can you then write it off so quickly?

by FK Fri May 09, 2003 19:57 finghin at syucd dot cjb dot net

Magneto the reason I do not want to get into a prolonged debate on Scotland is because

1. The material on the split is on Marxist.net which I encourage you to read. Our position is clear from those documents
2. Indymedia is not an ideal forum for these debates
3. If you are genuine, I am willing to discuss these matters with you in person. Just send me an email
4. I've better things to be doing than to be on this site debating especially when I do not knwo who I am debating with.

by spspspspspspsp Fri May 09, 2003 23:56

Can the "former militant member" enlighten us, I am very curious.

none of this explains the treatment received by John Throne - and others.

by Interesting comparison Fri May 09, 2003 23:59

The treatment John Throne got was hardlly a good advertisement for the internal democracy of the CWI.

Would magneto describe the treatment of Joe Higgins by the leadership of the Labour Party in the late 1980's as a good advertisement for the internal democracy of the Labour Party

by Former Militant member Mon May 12, 2003 10:14

Dear SP

You seem to need clarification on the statement that John Throne is not alone, and others have been treated terribly. I cite the many who have fled the British SP, including for example Nick Wrack - ostracised by Peter Taaffe for daring to question his line on the changing of the organisation's name. How about the 1000 expelled members in Pakistan, the members on Merseyside, and countless others? The case of John Throne is well documented, but many others decided they had better things to do (such as having a life) rather than deal with all the crap thrown at them. There are now hundreds of ex-members in the SP in Ireland - people like Finn Geaney (former national treasurer, and editor of the Militant for many years) and Clem McCloskey, for instance. I can assure you that they did not disappear because they thought that the CWI internal regime was exemplary. You and your fellow SP members need to delve a little bit more deeply into your own organisation's chequered past....

by Magneto Mon May 12, 2003 10:58

But he had full rights of appeal as had all the other Militant members expelled. If Militant had been open and fought for the right to organise inside Labour, things might have been different.

It was ridiclious to maintain, As Joe and others did, that Militant did not exist as an organisation. They claimed it was merely supporters of the paper, Militant Irish Moonthly.

We all know that Militant was a seperate organisation inside Labour, the RSL. You acknowledge it was part of the CWI at the time.

If you are going to treat people like fools and deny the existence of your organisation then it damages your chances of winning support from independents.

by Magneto Mon May 12, 2003 11:05

'Magneto the reason I do not want to get into a prolonged debate on Scotland is because

1. The material on the split is on Marxist.net which I encourage you to read. Our position is clear from those documents'

You are running away from the debate. You have tied yourselves in knots over the SSP.

'2. Indymedia is not an ideal forum for these debates'

FK, you have srated and joined dozens of debates on Indymedia. This doesnt ring true.

'3. If you are genuine, I am willing to discuss these matters with you in person. Just send me an email'

I prefer to have these discussions in public. You are always prepared to make your attacks on labour in public.

'4. I've better things to be doing than to be on this site debating especially when I do not knwo who I am debating with.'

Again, you have been hasppy to debate in the past on numerous occasions. I respect the right of SO members like Re, HS, Angry Activist etc to remain anonymous. You should respect mine.

by Finghin - SP Mon May 12, 2003 14:16

Remain anonomous if you wish, but you can not expect me to debate with an anonomous person. I am willing to debate these issues in public, you are the one that is not doing so by withholding your name. I do not think this site is the ideal place for serious debate.

We have not in any way 'tied ourselves in knots' regarding the SSP. The CWI took the absolutly correct position which has been born out with recent developments. Again I encourage you to read the debate on www.marxist.net our positions are clear from there.

The fact remains that the Militant supporters/members were serious about wishing to build the LP into a mass workers party. It was the militant members that were the most hard working members of the LP. Lets contrast the militant with the leadership, the leadership of the LP was openly pro capitalists, undemocratic, at one with the bureacracy and supported the careerist politics of coalition. How can you critisise genuine Socialists around the Militant for taking over the Labour Party when creatures like Spring, Quinn, Lacey, Desmond etc were in the leadership.

The reason Throne did not have the right to appeal in Ireland was because he was not a member of the Irish section at the time. Do you think that Joe Higgins should have been given the right to appeal to the German Social Democrats? Of course not.

Why do you think 'Angry Activist' is in the SP. If i remmeber correctly it was 'angry activist' that was throwing insults about me on a previous thread that had to be taken down by the editors. HS is not anonomous, he is a member of the SP and they are his initials.

by Interested Mon May 12, 2003 14:22

Two points:

1. I wonder why Finghin is so sure that this site is no good as a place for debate. It is widely read. It seems as good a place to me as any. The open exchange of views is healthy and democratic.

2/ Regarding John Throne: the point is that he could not appeal his expulsion to the Irish section bexause he was not a member of the Irish section. Right? But this only sidesteps the question. Throne was not allowed to appeal to either the international conference, or that of the US section. Meanwhile, leaders of the Irish section had taken a position on his expulsion - I would have thought their members were also entitled to hear all the ins and outs. This whole episode is a disgraceful reflection on the CWI, and your own lack of concern does you no credit at all.

The CWI has a very, very strange view of internal democracy. WHat would be intolerable if a Labour bureacrat was involved suddenly becomes ok because Hadden and his creatures do it. This brings discredit on your organisation. It is one reason why your influence in the working class will remain taht of a small sect rather than a large organisation.

by Magneto Mon May 12, 2003 15:17

You are confusing "Angrier Activist" with "Angry Activist". I presume Angrier took up the name to annoy the SP Angry.

HS is effectively anonymous until s/he reveals their full name.

John Throne as a member of IEC had a right to bring his appeal to all sections. He also had the right of appeal to the CWI World Congress denied to him.

The SSP has you in knots, you called for a avote for Labour in Dundee East. By what process is the Labour Party a bosses party everywhere in Scotland but Dundee East? Predestination perhaps?

by Magneto Mon May 12, 2003 15:30

"How can you critisise genuine Socialists around the Militant for taking over the Labour Party when creatures like Spring, Quinn, Lacey, Desmond etc were in the leadership."

You are putting wors in my mouth. I pointed out that Militant were dishonest in pretending they were not a party within a party. This is obviously true. How else could they have been the RSL and a section of the CWI?

I would point out that Militant were in Labour during 3 Coalitions in which Labour implemenyed cutbacks. Yes Militant fought against the rteactionary policies. Yet they still stayed in Labour when desmonds cutbacks in Health were killing workers and their families.

I am in Labour and I oppose reactionary politics. Its a judgement call as to whether its worthwhile remaining in Labour. My opinion differs from uours.

You are in no position to criticise me given Militants own record.