Irish Anti-War Movement National Assembly

by Anarcho Mon May 05, 2003 19:08

Hey, Dominic,don't you think a discussion of direct action should top the agenda? Why have you ignored this? If you, Rich Boy Barrett, and the rest of the saps in the IAWM had engaged in DA we would have a victory on our hands rather than a pathetic and defeated movement. All that other stuff you list is just more bullshit.

by Kitty Spillane Mon May 05, 2003 19:24 kittyspillane at eircom dot net

Hey, Anarcho – if that IS your name – which part of Dominic's contribution rules out or rules in direct action? Perhaps you were too busy engaging in DA to actually read the above. Don't sound off just for the sake of it.

by Dominic Carroll - Clonakilty Against the War Mon May 05, 2003 20:03 clonakiltyagainstthewar at eircom dot net

Anarcho blames me – among others – for the failure of the anti-war movement. “If you, Rich Boy Barrett, and the rest of the saps in the IAWM had engaged in DA”, he says, “we would have a victory on our hands rather than a pathetic and defeated movement. All that other stuff you list is just more bullshit.”

Where to start?

Direct action: Obviously I support it – that’s why I joined the Grassroots protest at Shannon on 1st March (check the photos – I’m in the front row as we marched to the airport, though there’s no sign of Anarcho anywhere). Health Minister Micheál Martin would probably have also vouched for my direct-action credentials as I and others chased him out of his constituency office a few weeks ago. But I wouldn’t like to make a fetish out of direct action. I’m for a diversity of tactics and unity of the movement. Not always easy to balance the two – witness the time spent attacking other sections of the anti-war movement by many direct-action proponents, and the disgraceful baiting of those at Shannon on March 1st by SF, the Greens, the SWP and the SP. In other words, everyone was at it.

Regarding the “victory” awaiting us if we had just done it Anarcho’s way: surely it’s letting the US military off light to blame me and a few others like me for the decimation of Iraq. I suspect that America was always going to win this war. The success or failure of the anti-war movement must surely be judged according to some other criteria other than whether we closed Shannon or stopped the war. In my case, I think I succeeded – I set out to oppose the war, and I did – I opposed the war. Stop the war? Close Shannon? Yea, right! Me and Anarcho! Truth is, the global anti-war movement has some way to go before we can be truly effective. Some material “victories” were recorded, but mostly the US/UK got away with it. Not my fault. Hardly Richard Boyd Barrett’s. Changing the way America does business won’t happen overnight.

“All that other stuff you list is just more bullshit”, says my friend, Anarcho.
Hmm … I proposed the following items for the IAWM national assembly agenda:

1.The Irish Anti-War Movement: Who was involved; what were our successes; what were our failings; what were our differences

2.The Irish Anti-War Movement: What next? Our direction, our activities, our structure

3.Resolutions pertaining to the establishment of a democratic Irish Anti-War Campaign

4.Elections to interim Steering Committee

And from this, Anarcho deduces hostility on my part to direct action. I suspect that the problem with Anarcho – and a few others of like-mind – is that he simply detests the IAWM and therefore can’t stop himself from lashing out at anyone he associates with it. Whether they deserve it or not. Whether they actually have anything to do with the IAWM. Whether they approve of disapprove of the IAWM’s approach. Anarcho couldn’t be bothered with the detail – we’re just a load of “saps”.

If it helps, Anarcho, I think the IAWM has a mixed record: did a lot of good organising, pissed off too many people by excessive SWP showboating. I think the same applies to you and your pals: did a bit of good organising, pissed off too many people by excessive anarchist/direct-action showboating AND excessive abuse of your ‘opponents’.

So here’s what I suggest:
First: Get off my back.
Second: Get serious.

by John Meehan Mon May 05, 2003 21:13

This is a very good initiative.

While the IAWM did a lot of good work, the structure was not democratic enough - Dominic's proposed agenda is a step towards correcting that weakness.

Political and tactical differences will remain - but they should be accommodated within one anti-war structure that is democratically controlled by its members, and has structures that people can get involved in at several levels, rather than be at the mercy of a needlessly top heavy leadership structure that depends on the different apparatuses that make it up.

by Agallamh Mon May 05, 2003 22:19

ar bheagán cúise.

by Jonno - SY Mon May 05, 2003 22:35

I don't agree with every point which Dominic made, but I do think that he raises some good ideas.

The National Assembly as planned is already massively slanted towards discussion. The bulk of each session is set aside for discussion and each session has platform speakers from a number of different backgrounds. The platform speakers don't represent the entire span of the anti-war movement but they do represent a large section of those who were a part of the IAWM - with the exception that the list is too Dublin centred.

That said, Dominic is right to point out that there was a democratic deficit within the IAWM and that advantage could be taken of this meeting to take motions, elect a steering committee etc.

by Aidan Mon May 05, 2003 23:48

This is one of the best and most rational articles published on the newswire in ages. Making measured rational points, and asking some solid questions.

Good luck

by Magneto Tue May 06, 2003 00:28

Why shoud. Joe higgins be allowed to speak at the IAWM meeting? His party have doen absolutly nothing for the IAWM, the Labour Party are the real party of socialism and the anti war movement. Our members have lead direct action in Shannon and elsewhere.

by Phuq Hedd Tue May 06, 2003 00:39

and not stoop to your usual past time of SP bashing. Personally I have little time for the SP, but I think that if there are any posts going up on this interesting thread that steer it toward pro/anti SP/SWP then they should be treated as diversionary measures by those that are afraid of the important issues being confronted.

I think most regular contributors have become a little suspicious that both the pro/anti sides of some flamebait articles here are produced by the same person for their own malicious enjoyment.

Good post Dominic, thanks.

by Fintan Lane - Cork Anti-War Campaign Tue May 06, 2003 01:37 corkantiwar at hotmail dot com

At tonights meeting of the broad-based Cork Anti-War Campaign, many of the points made in Dominic's posting were also put during a discussion on the national assembly. In general, the format of the conference was considered to be misjudged and the selection of speakers inappropriate.

The Cork Anti-War Campaign is affiliated to the IAWM and we will be approaching this 'assembly' with a positive attitude. We intend putting forward the following motion at the 'open forum':

"The Cork Anti-War Campaign recognises the need for a broad-based anti-war movement at this time and proposes that a full-day conference be called that determines the future direction of the movement and elects a representative national steering committee"

We believe that this is a time for consolidation and re-organisation, and do not believe that the movement should simply lurch from one protest to the next.

Fintan Lane,
Chairperson,
Cork Anti-War Campaign

by Fintan clone Tue May 06, 2003 06:30

Our broad-based anti war broad-based campaign, chaired by Fintan broad-based chairman of the broad-based steering broad-based committee.
Why do you need to say it so many time?

by Old timer Tue May 06, 2003 06:41

Unfortunately they won't listen. Don't know how long you and Fintan have been around, but if you expected the SWP to abandon the good old methods, then you were in for an unpleasant surprise.

by Magneto Tue May 06, 2003 10:51

That comment was not by me. Who gained by it?

I generally respond to SP/SY distortions and theres plenty of that about.

by Hilda Robinson Tue May 06, 2003 11:03

"The assembly will be the first national gathering for the anti-war movement in Ireland"

This statement is wrong. There have already been a number of IAWM national meetings.

I think that the IAWM is democratic. The main people involved are on the steering committee or are represented on the steering committee.

If the Committee was to be more representative MORE members of the SWP and SP would be on it.

by Someon who was in Labour Youth in the 1980s Tue May 06, 2003 11:11

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 Joe Tue May 06, 2003 11:11

Dominic I agree with your criticism of the conference and I broadly agree with your alternatives if its intended as an IAWM only event. However if it was actually intended to reflect the 'movement' and the debate that actually went on in the course of the war then there is a need to have a speker who would obviously be identified with the direct action crowd. This would 'prove' that the event was intended to be inclusive of all who opposed the war and not simply those that were part of the IAWM.

In reality I suspect all this is academic. You were a long time member of the SWP so you have a pretty good idea of how they operate and how parties like the SP and the Green Party operate. This assembly is part of a pattern of activity whose aim is not to empower those who opposed the war and allow them to prepare for the future. It is was then the agenda would look a lot more like your proposal.

Instead the assembly has the usuail aims
1. Allow the parties to assert their leadership by having the speakers who addressed almost every single anti-war march addressing the people who will have been on almost all of these marches.
2. Provide a last opportuninty for the parties to recruit new members out of the 'anti-war' mileu. This mostly applied to the SWP of course.
3. Attract media coverage that will enable the same parties to further build up their profile.
4. Direct activists to other party front groups. Most obviously people are being pushed in the direct of the SWP front Globalise Resistance in the mirror image of how GR people were pushed in the direct of the IAWM back at the start of the wars.

Of course there is always a question as to whether the non-party activists can seize control of the event and impose and agenda that would be useful. But as you already know the SWP et al are well used to heading off and neutralising such moves. That said good luck in trying to do so - there is certainly a need for a real open conference of the anti-war movements. May 10th is liable to be a rally for the IAWM faithful though.

by Magneto Tue May 06, 2003 11:35

I already gave these answers on another thread. But to satisfy you:

More on New Direction From Another Thread.
by Magneto Mon, May 5 2003, 3:33pm

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 ?

Magneto - please reply to my comments above?
by Someone who was in Labour youth in the 1908's Mon, May 5 2003, 8:20pm

If you are able to.

You Were In Labour In The 1908s?
by Magneto Tue, May 6 2003, 10:13am

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 Badman Tue May 06, 2003 12:32

The Steering committee is democratic?

When was the election? When did my local anti-war group get a chance to have any input into national policy. The only chance we had was at the meeting in Wyn's, when it seemed to me that the only motions that were actually passed were the ones that had already been agreed by the SP and SWP.

Your comment that "if the Committee was to be more representative MORE members of the SWP and SP would be on it" reveals a lot. Currently the SP and SWP have a majority on the steering committee. If true representivity would mean more SWP and SP, then you are saying that the anti-war movement consisted of no more than a couple of hundred people.

The speakers at this rally break down as follows:
SWP - 3
SP - 2
GP - 2
others - 4

This is utterly unrepresentative since all the independents bar one are not representing any group at all, and the political party speakers will inevitably reflect the lines of the party leaderships rather than representing the anti-war movement.

So it seems to me that this is yet another in a long line of events that, while being promoted as anti-war, are in fact conceived to promote figures in political parties. Not only are the platforms dominated by the same old hacks, but I'd be willing to wager that the attendance will be dominated by the SWP and to a lesser extent the SP membership. I'd say that they'll pull out all the stops to get their members along. You can expect any dissenters from the floor to be ignored, of if that is not possible, systematically attacked by the party hacks. Finally I'd be willing to bet that there will be a raft of motions passed and that every single one of them will have been written by the little lenins, Allen and MacLachlin, or somebody acting on their orders. Anybody willing to bet a hundred quid?

by PK Tue May 06, 2003 13:03

Can Hilda name any national meetings other than the 9th March in Wynn's? I can't.

And as Badman alludes to, the meeting was packed with the faithful.

And as to the assertion that the steering committee is representative. How do you make that out? There is nobody on it who lives in a non-01 phone number area and it's still supposed to be a national steering committee. Pull the other one!

And guess what the SWP have three members on that committee. At least one more than any other group represented and lo and behold when it comes to the speakers at the rally on Saturday, they have one more speaker than any other group. Mere coincidence - no doubt?

by IAWM activist - Only the IAWM Tue May 06, 2003 16:24

Firstly will "Magneto" and "Someone who was in Labour Youth" and anyone else who wants to discuss the internal politics of Labour Youth twenty years ago please fuck off to one of the many threads that Magneto has already derailed into talking about it. The ideas raised here are actually important and we could do with you putting your empty spite in quarantine somewhere else.

On the actual article and the comments made:

Whoever said that the SWP and Socialist Party have a majority of the members of the present steering committee is incorrect. The SWP has 3 representatives and the Socialist Party has 2 on a steering committee of more than a dozen. Why you would count the two together in any case is beyond me given that the SP and SWP reps disagree with each other at least as much as anybody else does.

That said, the way in which the IAWM was established has left it with some real problems with regard to democracy. Bluntly it was established by the SWP in a way which suited the SWP. The initial steering committee was effectively selected by the SWP (although they did restrain themselves from filling it with their members), they awarded themselves the chair and secretary positions and many of the local groups in Dublin were established by a prominent member of the SWP declaring him or herself the "convenor" and never had any more democratic structure than that. The IAWM became a genuinely broad group but that doesn't mean that all the usual problems associated with SWP involvement didn't arise. There were multiple "national meetings" of the IAWM by the way, and at all of them a number of SWP members showed up representing phantom groups or groups which hadn't met to elect a delegate.

The IAWM escaped the total control of the SWP (unlike the many and various fronts) mostly because to some extent it took off and because others in the IAWM fought for a more democratic approach. I think that all of the things being discussed at the IAWM National Assembly are important but would agree with Dominic that there needs to be more time devoted to the complete democratisation of the IAWM.

by Magneto Tue May 06, 2003 16:47

It wasnt me who brought it on to this thread. If the SP dont give answers then questions are going to follow them though.

by Berlin Bob Tue May 06, 2003 18:05

Dominic´s criticism of the ´rally´are good, but lets face it... we´ve all been down this road before with the SWP (etc..)

My advice is press hard for democracy... as soon as you are any where near success the SWP will diappear - either declaring that the ´campaign is over anyway´or by just disappearing. Also do note: the campaign is now in winddown so don´t waste too much energy. The real debate should´ve been had months ago (but I´m sure that it wouldn´t have been ´tolerated´then as it would´ve been devisive.

by IAWM member Tue May 06, 2003 18:10

Magneto I really can't imaginve giving less of a shit who started it. Just take your shit off the thread and off all of the other threads you are polluting.

In fact, why not just start a thread called "Magneto/Pat C/Some dickhead in the Belfast SWP/whoever else hate the Socialist Party. The SP don't like them either" and then you can all just put whatever bile you like in there and stay the fuck off every other thread.

I admire lots of the work of the SP do and I disagree with lots of other stuff they do but really like everyone else here I am really fed up of every single fucking thread turning into an extended row about how the SP are shit/the SP are great. Just take it someplace else.

by Someone who was in Labour Youth in the 1980's Tue May 06, 2003 19:30

This is copied from the other thread and if Magneto is anything other than a shit stirrer then he will go back and answer the question that I left there

by Brendan Young Wed May 07, 2003 03:04

With the war now effectively over, the anti-war
mobilisations are winding down. It is clear however, that the US
plans to remain in occupation of Iraq and subsequently
retain control through an appointed ruler. Resistance
to US occupation is already evident. And the threats
to Syria and Iran, while not likely to lead to
invasions in the short term, indicate US intentions
in the region. It is important therefore, to sustain
and build on the achievments of the anti-war
movement.

Next Saturday's conference is an important event
and the debate on the agenda reflects differences
as to the future of the campaign. In my view the
anti-war movement can evolve in either of two directions:
a campaign increasingly dominated by and composed of the far
left; a more pluralist campaign in which the far left
plays an important part, but which includes and
relates to the various organisations and groups
that mobilised against the war over the past months.

I would like to make three points in the 'agenda'
debate.

First - the political basis of the campaign. The 100,000 +
who marched on Feb 15 were demonstrating their opposition
to the war. The same is broadly the case for the
large demo's in the week when the war began. While
a small number were socialists / anti-globalisation
activists, the majority were not. So while
propaganda linking capitalism to imperialism to
neo-colonial domination to war is appropriate,
we must beware of collapsing an ongoing campaign into
general anti-capitalist activity. There are many
people who oppose war but who do not wish to see capitalism
overthrown, and the anti-war movement must not cut
itself off from them.

So the campaign should set
out the political platform on which it is to proceed. I
would suggest that the central demands of the
campaign should be: end US Occupation of Iraq; for
political and military withdrawal of the US from Iraq
and other countries of the Middle East; self
determination for Iraq, the Kurds, and the
Palestinians - no US-imposed 'solutions'; end
Irish support for / facilitation of US war
mongering.

Campaigning activities should reflect the
political basis of the movement, not the concerns
of activists within it at any given time - eg:
the G8 summit at Evian.

Second, the split in the anti-war movement. The
split in the movement over direct action at Shannon
weakened and undermined the campaign against the
war, and the Irish government's support for the
US. The split was / is over a purely tactical
question: how to stop the US using Shannon. This
will remain an issue. But is is time to take steps
to begin to overcome the divisions in the movement.

Steps in this direction could include:
inviting participation by the GNAW in the IAWM conference,
including a speaker to address one of the sessions;
opening out the meetings of the IAWM. While there remains
the need for a national steering committee to
co-ordinate activities, the model of the Cork group
should be adopted at town and city level as the best
way to include all those who want to participate
in opposition to the war.

Third, the agenda itself. I agree with the aims of
Dominic's proposal - the far left is heavily over-
represented in the IAWM proposed agenda. The alternative
agenda however, does not necessarily rectify matters.
I think there should be specific times allocated during
the debates to speakers from organisations that were active in
the broad campaign - the NGO's, the various parties,
the GNAW, etc. Otherwise their views may not be
heard.

Finally, a number of people have commented that its
not worth fighting for proposals such as Dominic's.
My view is that if you don't fight for your politics,
you end up isolated and demoralised. By fighting
for a democratic and active campaign, the conditions
are created for more democratic, effective and
inclusive campaigns in the future - irrespective
of the outcome. So even if you 'lose', it is always
worth the fight.

Brendan Young

by Shane - SP/SY Wed May 07, 2003 09:53

Magneto writes "If the SY disagreed with the SP then they would be dissolved."

This is an absolute lie. I find it a pathetic attempt to smear both the SP and Socialist Youth.

Magneto get your facts right. Socialist Youth is a seperate body to the SP in support of its policies. We have members who sit on the NEC of the SP and we have a say in how its run - its not the other way around.

The Socialist Party allows us to criticse it. We strongly believe that democracy to socialism is like oxygen to the human body - its needed. As such we have raised criticisms of some SP policy and they have been listened to and taken onboard.

I resent what your comment ment. You clearly have the opinion that all SY members of mindless gombeans and drones. This is not the case.

My opinion of Labour Youth has been well get into it. LY has some good members but the movement is stagnent and sour. Its inactive and lacks any form of vibrancy, confined largely to moderate student politics from my observations and experience with it

Magneto you were never a member of the SP or Socialist Youth therefore these comments are void as you have no experience with us nor with our internal structures.

Finally is you are to criticise our policies and organisational structure from the sidelines with no experience of our movement perhaps you could give your real name.

by Magneto Wed May 07, 2003 10:09

When have SY ever publicly criticised the SP?

(I wont hold my breath.)

"Magneto you were never a member of the SP or Socialist Youth therefore these comments are void as you have no experience with us nor with our internal structures. "

By the same logic then SP/SY comments by Osin etc on Labour Youth are void because they were never members.

"Finally is you are to criticise our policies and organisational structure from the sidelines with no experience of our movement perhaps you could give your real name. "

If members of the SP/SY such as Angry Activist, Red, HS etc are going to criticise Labour from the sidelines perhaps they would give their names.

You really made a hash of that Shane, Try harder next time.

by Magneto Wed May 07, 2003 10:15

You dont care who started it but you get stuck into me instead of those who started it. How impartial of you.

I posted an article about a Labour Party Easter Commemoration it weas immediately attacked by the SP. This happens all the time.

Why do you have a problem with people responding to SP attacks?

The SP also have a habit of ignoring questions. This obviously doesnt bother you.

by Magneto Wed May 07, 2003 10:42

'Someone in Labour in the 1980s' has now put the exact same comments on four different threads. Seeing as you are so concerned with threads being derailed perhaps you would admonish him for this.

I suppose it would be paranoid of me to suppose that this guy was actually in the SP.

by Cato Wed May 07, 2003 10:57

Seeing as the SY are derailing this thread:

Reformism v. Transitional Demands

(taken from an article entitled "Party Building"
CWI-SP Members Bulletin No21 Feb 1997)

"As a rule our transitional demands do not in general pose that much of a problem on the doorstep. The question which creates the most angst is posed usually at the end of a conversation:
'What does socialism mean?' At the very least it would mean quality affordable housing with all mod cons, a secure well paid job, ensuring a couple of holidays abroad every year, a new car.
A fully funded health service freely available to all, proper education for our kids. This would ensure the welfare of our communities."

"This is a generalised answer which would need to be adapted to the area you are campaigning in"

i

by Durutti Wed May 07, 2003 11:29

IAWM Activist is just another trot clone pretending to be independent. Theres a few of them around. Not members of the SP of course, no, they just have some respect for the SP.

If anyone is critical of the SP they come in throw up a smoke screen and scatter red herrings. By the time they are finished, everyone will forget the original questions the SP were dodging.

by Hilda Robinson Wed May 07, 2003 12:58

You may think it's strange but it is possible to agree with parties and groups and have respect for the work they do without being a member.

I find it strange how some people cannot get over their hang-ups and recognise that Parties and Trotskyists do do good work. The people attacking the SP should realise that the SP do have alot of respect of ordinary people- probably more than most other groups on the left.

Most activists on the left have not got hang-ups about 'trots' and do get down and do work with others.

by Badman Wed May 07, 2003 13:15

But 'Democratic' centralism demands that all of the members parrot the party line, even when the party line is devoid of sense. So, for example, I have yet to come across a single person who is not in the SP who thinks that the SP line on direct action at Shannon ("bad coz it makes the workers less likely to strike") is anything other than silly. So, although there are probably some leftists who do have some sympathy for the SP, you won't find them parroting the sillier aspects of the party line. So, Hilda, here's a test: what do you think of the SP line on Shannon?

Also, if you read the thread above, you will see a load of independent lefties criticising the trot stranglehold of the IAWM, including several who have publically identified themselves. How many independent lefties do you think are defending the little Lenins?

by John Wed May 07, 2003 13:29

Don't give us your centralist argument against democratic centralism. Any time the revolutionary left is involved in something outcomes the accusations of dc. The truth is without it you have the shambles of so called autonomous projects that become dominated by the biggest mouths and tactics that allow the ever willing cops to wade into marches.

by Durutti Wed May 07, 2003 13:31

I was talking about his actions: he was pissed off about the SP versus the World being brought on this thread. But instead of criticising the (pro SP)person who brought it on the thread, he attacked the (anti SP) person who RESPONDED.

This happens quite a lot.

by Badman Wed May 07, 2003 13:52

I love the way that SP arguments are evidence free zones. So without DC you have cops wading into marches - evidence? I didn't think so. Without DC you have the biggest mouths dominating? When & Where - maybe in the Labour party - they are not a dc organisation?

It's funny that you have very obviously got absolutely no experience of what you are talking about (or do you?). You are doing exactly what I was writing about - regurgitating a party line, despite the fact that the party line bears no relation to reality, at least in Ireland. Why don't you sit down and think about what you write. The only time in recent history that cops waded into a march in Ireland was when Joe Carolan led a bunch of youth into a beating on Dame street last year - sure he's got a big mouth, but it's a 'democratically' centralised mouth. The recent leftist campaigns that have been the most succesful, like the ANV, have been explicitly non-dc and have hardly degenerated into shambles.

Maybe you can try to squeeze the facts into your theory or, shock horror, you could try to question the theory and ask if it really is a useful way of describing reality. It's up to you, keep bleating the mantras of the cult, or have a bit of dignity and try to think for yourself.

by Shane Wed May 07, 2003 14:00

"Magneto" our friend from Belfield writes the following. This is probally really boring to everyone reading this wire but I feel I have to answer in reply to his lies and absolute misconceptions about both the Socialist Party and Socialist Youth
__________________________________________________
MAGNETO WROTE IN REPLY TO ME:
"Shane
by Magneto Wed, May 7 2003, 9:09am

When have SY ever publicly criticised the SP?

(I wont hold my breath.)

"Magneto you were never a member of the SP or Socialist Youth therefore these comments are void as you have no experience with us nor with our internal structures. "

By the same logic then SP/SY comments by Osin etc on Labour Youth are void because they were never members.

"Finally is you are to criticise our policies and organisational structure from the sidelines with no experience of our movement perhaps you could give your real name. "

If members of the SP/SY such as Angry Activist, Red, HS etc are going to criticise Labour from the sidelines perhaps they would give their names.

You really made a hash of that Shane, Try harder next time."
__________________________________________________

"Magneto" fails to answer any of the issues that I raised above. Instead he plays childish tit for tat in response to my points. He responds:

"When have SY ever publicly criticised the SP?

(I wont hold my breath.)"

Well at least we wont try to shut down our Youth section when we dont like who runs it. If "Magneto" was aware of the internal running of Socialist Youth and indeed the party he would fully understand the basis of internal democracy. Since this kind of democracy doesn't exist in Labour I wouldn't expect him to do so.

Every member of Socialist Youth and Party has a right to express dissenting views. While co-operating with the majority vote, a minority has the right to campaign within the party and within the Youth section for something which they feel is wrong or other members are unaware of, internal factions are also allowed the right to form and put forward a platform.

Secondly, can you actually tell me without laughing that LY, publically criticises its leadership. If you can i'd like to know what drugs your smoking. At a recent visit of Haidar the Far right Austrian politician. I stood outside on a picket. Quinn the former leader of the LP a speaker at the event turned up. He was heckled, and rightly so for sharing a platform with a far right populist. As he arrived Labour Youth went quiet and soon afterward disappeared.

According to your Party website:

"Labour Youth has its own constitution which sets out membership and organisation rules. Branches of Labour Youth meet once every 1 Ð 2 weeks. Labour Youth holds an annual conference to decide its programme and policy. This conference also selects the two youth representatives to the Party's General Council.

Labour Youth campaigns actively on youth issues, especially employment. It organises a summer camp once a year.

The Party has a Youth Education Officer with special responsibility for youth affairs."

My God Magneto, you had better try and swap your magnetic powers with that of Charles Xavier as you surely are not fooling anyone. From reading the above you cant help but see how "defunct" LY is.

"Branches of Labour Youth meet once every 1 Ð 2 weeks"

Branches of SY meet hold activities and discussion and branch meetings every week.

"Labour Youth campaigns actively on youth issues, especially employment."

Is this some joke? Is anyone laughing? LY active on Youth issues! LY is confined to colleges and Universities. Even there they arent as "active in youth issues" as they claim. In comparison SY has campaigned vigoursly against racism, low pay and has setup firm branches in Secondary schools, Colleges and Universities, were we are extremely active.

In my orginal posting I wrote:

"Magneto you were never a member of the SP or Socialist Youth therefore these comments are void as you have no experience with us nor with our internal structures"

In reply "Magneto" takes part in more childish tit for tat:

"By the same logic then SP/SY comments by Osin etc on Labour Youth are void because they were never members."

Personally I dont know what you have against Oisin nor do I want to know. Oisin is a good comrade of mine and I respect the work which he does as do many other SY members. Vindictive comments like this are not welcome.

I will be the first to hold my hand up high, I never have been nor ever will be a member of the Labour Party or Labour Youth. However "Magneto" once more your comment is incorrect. You state that "By the same logic then SP/SY comments" are void in relation to Labour.

"Magneto" you are forgetting that many members of the SP are former members of the LP and the militant tendency. I think they at least have a right to criticis the LP and its internal structures which they bore the brunt of it for exercising their democratic right.

Finally I asked "Magneto":

"Finally is you are to criticise our policies and organisational structure from the sidelines with no experience of our movement perhaps you could give your real name."

"Magneto's" response was testement to the ideological "excellence" of the Irish Labour Party. Its really childish:

"If members of the SP/SY such as Angry Activist, Red, HS etc are going to criticise Labour from the sidelines perhaps they would give their names"

Well thats not what I asked of you "Magneto" I asked YOU to unveil your name. Your answer reminds me of a child who demands a toy because all the other kids have it.

by Magneto Wed May 07, 2003 14:49

You are the one who is being childish. I pointed out that your comments about me not being in a position to comment on SP/SY were only valid if you accepted that SY members by the same logic couldnt comment on Labour Youth because they werent members.

Does logic work one way for the SP and another for everyone else?

I was also outside the Haider meeting, but I must point out that the SY/SP do not believe in no platform for Haider. No platform means stopping someone from speaking. Your speaker at the protest Waine (?) said he didnt think Haider was a fascist. At no point did any of the SY members try to get into the hall.

Members of AFA, ISN and Labour Yth got in and caused as much disruption as possible before being thrown out.

Yes, I think Quinn was wrong to debate with Haider. But Tommy Sheridan shared a platform with the BNP in Scotland when he was still in the CWI.

Your points about LYs meeting are infantile.

Try and get some ideas of your own

by Magneto Wed May 07, 2003 14:55

Are you still claiming that Labour Youth was dissolved? I thought even the SP Stalins Airbrush had given up on that.

Looking again at your comments, I am amazed to note that you think I am vindictive to suggest Oisin is not in a position to comment on Labour Yth, because he is not a member.

Yet its ok for you to suggest that I cant comment on SY because I'm not a member. What a funny parallel universe you live in.

Why dont the members of the SP who were in Militant come and comment on how they lost power in Labour Youth?

Are they afraid of what will come out in the wash.

To finish 2 words:

John Throne

by Pat C Wed May 07, 2003 15:14

Shane

I am not getting involved in the main argument, I just want to comment on the Haider meeting. I already did a report elswhere

SY had a banner and their speaker Matt while he stated he didnt think Haider was a Fascist outlined how Haiders words and actions led to an increase in racist attacks and how his Party hasd tried to institutionalise racism while in government. At no point did he call on people to attempt to stop the meeting. Neither did any of the other speakers I heard.

I didnt see any members of SY try and storm the doors ( I could have missed them doing so). Members of AFA, German and Austrian students, ISN got in and at least made an attempt at halting the proceedings. Members of LY certainly tried to get in.

Members of Labour Youth definitely stayed till the end. Matt and other members of SY headed off before the end, you may have stayed, I dont know what you look like. (I'm talking about the protest inside TCD.)

Its worth pointing out that the crowd inside TCD comprised members of AFA, SF, ISN, SY/SP, SWP, ANL, WP, WSM, LY, SA ( sorry if I missed any group!)and indepedents. The Labour members were just as enthusiastic as anyone else in their noise making. No one organistion dominated the event.

by Durutti Column Wed May 07, 2003 15:26

The SP are hardly in viable position to demand that posters reveal their identities when some of their own gallant band choose to retain anonymity.

Ditto for criticisms of organisations. If a criteria is being applied to Labour Youth then you cant realistically demand that Socialist Youth be judged by different standards.

Its a funny argument though that implies only those who are members of an organisation are fit to judge it. A tad introspective.

Anyway that reminds me of another issue. When was the last time Socialist Youth disagreed with the Socialist Party in a public manner?

by IAWM Activist - IAWM Wed May 07, 2003 15:55

Well yet another interesting thread has been completely destroyed by Magneto/Shane/Pat C/Hilda/Durrutti and the other wankers involved in the "SP are shit no SP are great" feud. TAKE IT SOMEWHERE THE FUCK ELSE!

Either set up a thread devoted to your mutual bile and stop spreading the contamination everywhere else or swap email addresses and abuse each other in private. Pricks like you lot - and I don't give a fuck about your political affiliations - are doing more damage to Indymedia at the moment than anything else.

by pat c Wed May 07, 2003 16:03

I came on here just to correct misinformation. I made no attack on the SP. Your own role has been questionable. Why didnt you attack the original person who brought the dispute on to the thread?

by IAWM Activist Wed May 07, 2003 19:22

Pat you may not have been involved here but you have been involved in this kind of shit on dozens of other threads. As I said in my first post here I don't give a fuck which of you "started it" on any particular thread, I just want the whole lot of you to stop polluting the newswire. That goes for You and Magneto and Hilda and Shane and Durruti and all the others who I'm forgetting about.

This was a thread which could have been interesting but very quickly it turned into yet another "the SP are shit no the SP are great" squabble which nobody apart from the five of you and a handful of others are likely to read. So we don't get a discussion of the IAWM National Assembly and what it should or could achieve we get yet more of this shit. The same shit which has been killing thread after thread. JUST FUCKING CUT IT OUT! NOBODY CARES! Thank you.

by Magneto is a s###St##### Wed May 07, 2003 20:04

Stop throwing it and put your #### where your mouth is.

"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 ?

The reality is that all of the leaders of New Direction moved to the right with Stagg, Burton and all the rest. Spring knew what he was doing.

by GNAW supporter Wed May 07, 2003 22:46

What an alliance: dissident trotskyist clones Dominic Carroll, John Meehan, and Brendan Young, allied to Fintan Lane (Cork's version of Rich Boy Barrett). Ha ha ha!

Any fool could see what the SWP were up to! You people spend too much time trying to be 'neutral' - this is black and white. Either the anarchist DA view is right or the SWP recruiting shit is right. One or the other. The truth is none of ye are truly neutral - ye're all just a bunch of fucking Marxist trot-lovers!!

by Norrie Wed May 07, 2003 23:47

Fintan Lane is Cork's RBB? Right, here's two major differences:

1. Fintan actually engages in Direct Action and is currently banned from county clare.

2. He's not in the SWP - or anything else as far as i know.

Nuff said.

by IAWMer Thu May 08, 2003 01:14

I have no doubt whatsoever that Richard Boyd Barrett and Fintan Lane have done more work for the anti-war cause than all the anarchists and whingers who populate this site, with their negative crap, put together. Why can't 'GNAW supporter' (who is probably a troll anyway) look for the positive? I reckon he/she just wants to have a go at the IAWM and will throw all sorts of undeserved muck at good activists along the way. What did 'GNAW supporter' do to oppose the war? Fuck all, or almost fuck all, I'll bet.

by pat c Thu May 08, 2003 10:16

so i am to be attacked because i disagreed with the sp on past threads?

you actually brought my name into this thread, i ignored that. i then came in to correct some stuff about the haider meeting. you have been doing some shit stirring on this thread .

by pat c Thu May 08, 2003 10:18

iawm supp says that 'gnaw supp' did fuck all in the campaign. as iawm supp chooses to remain anonymous, how can anyone know what s/he really did?

by Shane - SY/SP Thu May 08, 2003 10:30

I was outside the GMB till the end as was "Magneto" who I could see standing close by.

I never said Labour Youth were quiet to Haidar they were quiet to Quinn from what I could see.

By the end Labour and SF have disappeared there were some of us, the SWP and a fewq independents.

Once more Magneto has failed to answer anything I raised above. Talking to him is like talking to a brick wall.

I wish him luck in his future career in the establishment politics.

by Shane Thu May 08, 2003 10:32

"Yes, I think Quinn was wrong to debate with Haider. But Tommy Sheridan shared a platform with the BNP in Scotland when he was still in the CWI."

Well Im no fan of Sheridan but at least he didnt give tax cheats a way out of jail.

by Joe Thu May 08, 2003 11:20

'GNAW supporter' is either an idiot (or they would know that Fintan unlike RBB was not only there for most if not all of the DA's but has been also been fined) or a trot pretending to be a GNAW supporter for rather obvious reasons.

I'd bet on the 2nd option as there is a rather obvious set of disruptive trot postings using labels like 'anarcho-boy', 'eco-anarchist' and others. This stopped for a while after it was pointed that whis sort of disruption was a cop tactic. Mind you maybe it is a cop (or a fascist) but my money is on a really dumb trot who hasn't thought through the consequences of doing this sort of thing.

A good rule of thumb is that if you see someone post something stupidly disruptive then assume they are a cop, a fascist or a fool until you see evidence to the contrary.

by Dominic Carrroll - Clonakilty Against the War Thu May 08, 2003 11:25 clonakiltyagainstthewar at eircom dot net

Unfortunatly, this important discussion on the future of the Irish Anti-War Movement has been derailed by an unconnected debate being conducted on this thread.
Therefore,I have resubmitted my original statement and all relevant comments to Indymedia. Click on this link to take you to the new thread. http://www.indymedia.ie/cgi-bin/newswire.cgi?id=47274&start=0
regarding the agenda

by Dominic Carrroll - Clonakilty Against the War Thu May 08, 2003 11:26 clonakiltyagainstthewar at eircom dot net

Unfortunatly, this important discussion on the future of the Irish Anti-War Movement has been derailed by an unconnected debate being conducted on this thread.

Therefore,I have resubmitted my original statement and all relevant comments to Indymedia. Click on this link to take you to the new thread. http://www.indymedia.ie/cgi-bin/newswire.cgi?id=47274&start=0

by Chekov Thu May 08, 2003 11:31

The opinions expressed by "GNAW supporter" are way off what could possibly come out of the GNAW milieu. The people in GNAW either a) don't know the politics of the 'dissident trots' or even of their existence or b) enjoy pretty good relations with them. The language used also sounds much more like the type of thing that a trot would imagine anarchists say in private -pretty far from the reality. "fucking marxist trot-lover" is a class of insult that I have never seen expressed by an anarchist in Ireland. In fact the adjective 'marxist' is not used here as an insult at all.

Also the black & white approach DA or Recruiting is silly and is not something that I have ever heard among GNAW people - it looks like an attempt to polarise debate, although thankfully it's not sophisticated enough to let anybody fall for it.

by pat c Thu May 08, 2003 13:35

who is magneto then??????

by Magneto Thu May 08, 2003 13:47

Which of your questions didnt I answer? I pointed out that if I couldnt comment on the SY then by the same "Logic" , SY could not comment on LY.

So you are happy that Sheridan as a member of the CWI shared a platform with a Fascist. Why then are YOU making such a fuss about Quinn sharing a platform with somebody who the SP say is not a Fascist?

Some questions you might care to answer:

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?

As for ex members of New Direction; do Militant/SP keep a register of where their hundreds of ex members went?

ND members who are not in the right of Labour or right in general have a right to privacy as do ex Militant members. I am sure you will agree.

by conor (wsm personal capacity) Thu May 08, 2003 15:58

"Brendan Young: Steps in this direction could include:
inviting participation by the GNAW in the IAWM conference,
including a speaker to address one of the sessions;
opening out the meetings of the IAWM"

well done to Dominic and Brendan for their genuine contributions

but God bless your innocence even mention the word GNAW to them and they start foaming at the mouth. Invite us to their confernece to speak he he ..is that a flying pig
- nah though not !

"What an alliance!
by GNAW supporter Wed, May 7 2003, 9:46pm

What an alliance: dissident trotskyist clones Dominic Carroll, John Meehan, and Brendan Young, allied to Fintan Lane (Cork's version of Rich Boy Barrett). Ha ha ha!

Any fool could see what the SWP were up to! You people spend too much time trying to be 'neutral' - this is black and white. Either the anarchist DA view is right or the SWP recruiting shit is right. One or the other. The truth is none of ye are truly neutral - ye're all just a bunch of fucking Marxist trot-lovers!!"

I personally would like to distance myself from the above - I think Domminic and Brendan are working hard to do something useful - whether its possible or feasable or even worth whaile AT THIS STAGE is another question
the attack on Fintan is bizare and unfair
- the above post has all teh hall marks of a professional shit stirer

"For fucks sake!
by IAWMer Thu, May 8 2003, 12:14am

I have no doubt whatsoever that Richard Boyd Barrett and Fintan Lane have done more work for the anti-war cause than all the anarchists and whingers who populate this site, with their negative crap, put together.
"

I'd defend Fintan but the wierd blanket attack on anarchists does no one any favours - you'd almost have to go round with a huge filter on this site just to edit out the 90% noise from the 10% debate could we get back to the substance of Dominic's post which made a lot of success - I would also advice first of, in general - ignore or skip posts that are signed "anarcho", "iawmer" "activist" etc and focus on people who admit to real names and affiliations - it might speed things a little

"btw
by pat c Thu, May 8 2003, 9:18am

iawm supp says that 'gnaw supp' did fuck all in the campaign. as iawm supp chooses to remain anonymous, how can anyone know what s/he really did?"

so ignore would be a useful general rule

"joe A good rule of thumb is that if you see someone post something stupidly disruptive then assume they are a cop, a fascist or a fool until you see evidence to the contrary."
yupe now maybe we can get back to Dominic's analysis of teh IAWm which does raise good points

"dominic: Therefore,I have resubmitted my original statement and all relevant comments to Indymedia. Click on this link to take you to the new thread. http://www.indymedia.ie/cgi-bin/newswire.cgi?id=47274&start=0"

nice one I'll stop now as well

Conor

by pat c Thu May 08, 2003 16:08

put your the first part of your comment on the new thread.

by Bertie - Fianna Fail Thu May 08, 2003 16:56 iwin at youarelosers dot com Victory lane.

God bless. The Judaean People's front is showing those nasty People's front of Judaea just exactly what they deserve.

Splitters!

Muh hahahahah!

by Dominic Carroll - Clonakilty Against the War Thu May 08, 2003 18:13 clonakiltyagainstthewar at eircom dot net

[This post to the newswire and the comments below it by Aidan and Daithi were moved by R Isible]

Did I put my alternative agenda to the IAWM? Yes. I sent an e-mail on Monday, the text of which I posted on Indymedia and the IAWM Website. I received no reply. Today, I phoned Aoife Ní Fhearghail, a member of the Steering Commitee. I was informed that the Steering Committee has met yesterday (Wednesday), and that my e-mail had been mentioned, but my amended agenda was not accepted. I was the only one that Aoife had spoken to (she spoke to the Tullamore, Mayo and Kildare groups) who had any problem with the agenda. Cork City, it seems, were confused about the timings but there will be plenty of time for discussion. In fact, lunch is to be truncated and more time allocated to the final session because of the need to report back from the workshops (this had been overlooked).

It seems that when I characterised the forthcoming National Assembly as a rally rather than a forum, I was right – the IAWM has intentionally planned a rally. Apparently, my estimates regarding time allocations for speakers are way off – each speaker will only get 7–10 minutes, so as to allow plenty of time for discussion.

Regarding SWP/SP/GP domination – this criticism is rejected.

Though resolutions will be voted on this Saturday, I’m told that the Steering Committee won’t feel itself bound to implement them. Instead, “we will do our best to prioritise resolutions”. I was informed that if, for instance, a resolution was passed calling on the IAWM to organise a boycott of US goods, or to organise a campaign in defence of the Shannon 6, this would not be considered a priority by the Steering Committee, and therefore not acted on.

As regards a conference, the the AGM will be held in September. At that conference, the Steering Committee will be up for re-election.

I explained to Aoife that several anti-war activists in this neck of the woods feel that the conference is not worth attending, for all the reasons I outlined in my initial statement and because we have been made to understand that it is nothing more – nothing less – than a rally. Nevertheless, we are concerned about the anomalous nature of the National Assembly: a rally with resolutions that aren’t binding. I informed Aoife that, on that basis, I won’t be attending. Instead, I will wait for the AGM in September. I was reminded that this would only be open to the 100 or so paid-up members of the IAWM.

In conclusion, my critique of the forthcoming IAWM National Assembly has been rejected in its entirety by the Steering Committee of the IAWM.

COMMENTS:

IMC
by Aidan Thu, May 8 2003, 5:41pm

Your thread was removed because it was a repeat posting of a previous thread, and you wanted to repost it because you were unhappy with the thread had degenerated.

While we sympathize, under our editorial guidelines, repeat posting are not allowed.

Focus...must focus....
by Daithi Thu, May 8 2003, 5:53pm

And there is a direct link from the front page to your article. Hopefully people will cut through the fog and respond to it critically or supportively but in any case with relevance!

by IDS Thu May 08, 2003 21:41

Unite or die

by barry Thu May 08, 2003 23:36

The editorial collective have no problem cutting an article and attaching it as a comment to a previous related article, why not use the same method and edit obviously disruptive comments and attach them to some previous related article (this crap SP thread has lots of possible homes) instead of putting up a feature which has already degenerated.

I got bored of this bullshit last night and hoped when I saw this item as a feature that some cleanup had been done ar a new article started. Instead I (and no doubt many more people) have to try and pick through dozens of irrelavencies to follow this debate.

by Just pick and choose. Fri May 09, 2003 00:33

Nice one for featuring this. I think its a good article, with lots of well thought out arguments and suggestions.

by Dominic Carroll - Clonakilty Against the War Fri May 09, 2003 00:38 clonakiltyagainstthewar at eircom dot net

I'm losing track of Indymedia. Earlier, I posted a story regarding the IAWM agenda for the National Assembly (see above, under 'Amended Agenda Rejected'. The new posting has since been deleted – perhaps because I also added it as a comment to this thread, thus breaking a rule that I'm only slowly beginning to comprehend (something about duplication). I posted it as a new story as this thread is now so long and confused. However, the other version contained one final paragraph missing from the above version. This is it:

My critique of the forthcoming IAWM National Assembly has been rejected in its entirety by the Steering Committee of the IAWM. And – call it an admission of defeat if you like – I know that, at such short notice, there's not a chance of denting the cast-iron outer casing of any SWP-controlled campaign – I was a member long enough.

However, I am still interested in being part of a democratic, broad-based anti-war movement. Turning the IAWM into such a movement will require time and planning. If you wish to join with me in a long-term campaign to build a broad-based anti-war movement in Ireland, please contact me.

by Dec McCarthy Fri May 09, 2003 15:10

I think that you have clearly set out some of the problems that the broad anti-war movement are facing and everything you have written matches my own personal experience. We do need to have a proper debate on these issues but people seem to either derail these discussions or not answer criticisms at all.

I tried to start a similar debate, albeit in a more provocative manner, and the response from the SP and and the SWP left a lot to be desired.

Perhaps the trot trolls and the correspondent who claims that the IMC are publishing a non-story with the article above will revisit the debate below and provide some honest answers to the questions put to them but I doubt it. That is a pity because we undoubtedly will be faced with the exact same problems will the US leviathan starts up the war machine again.

by Anonymous Fri May 09, 2003 15:48

I asked earlier had the IAWM been approached with this agenda - and as per your comment Dominic, I am glad you did. It is very dissapointing that it was rejected in its entireity, though I guess the notice was a bit short.

Will you be attending nevertheless, and continue to try and influence the running and direction of the IAWM?

I totally support such mature and incisive critical comment, as an attempt to move the whole movement forward in as best a way as possible - but I continue to echo a comment made by a reader a few postings up:-

"Suggestion
by IDS Thu, May 8 2003, 8:41pm

Unite or die"

Capitalism must not win.

by Joe Fri May 09, 2003 16:11

We've been told that any decision made on Saturday by the conference that the steering committe don't like will simply be ignored. Now scroll back up to my inital response to Dominic on what I reckoned the real purpose of the conference was.

by Dominic Carroll - Clonakilty Against the War Fri May 09, 2003 17:54 clonakiltyagainstthewar at eircom dot net

We had a good public meeting in Clonakilty last night: 30 in attendance, many of whom had travelled up to 50 miles to be there. The meeting, for me, crystallised my estimation of the anti-war movement and my concerns about the direction its primary organisational element – the IAWM – is taking. Our speaker was John Maguire: thoughtful, articulate, unorthodox, stimulating, awe-inspiring. Would it surprise you to hear that the word ‘Iraq’ was hardly used during the course of last night’s meeting. Nor ‘Bush’, ‘Pentagon’ or ‘Project for a New American Century’ – not because these things don’t matter, but because it’s possible to discuss the meaning of war – the last one, the present one and the next one – without necessarily focussing on these factors. John Maguire treated us to a discourse on the nature of power, disempowerment, our complicity, our culpability, our responsibility, the use of language, abusive relationships (in this case, us as the abused, the state as the abuser) and the possibilities of resistance. Halfway through his notes, he stopped and opened it up to the audience. It was our night and his – not just his.

The audience was a good mix of people who have fought the good fight one way or another for their entire adult lives – people who have been active around environmental issues, issues of justice, against war, in the unions, by making music + film + drama + art; people who have been around the globe – to Africa and the Middle East. People who are trying to make changes in the way we live our lives. I don’t often use the word energy, but if I could bottle what was in that room last night … It was quite enthralling.

Contrast that to what’s on offer this Saturday. The familiar format: I speak, you comment (if there’s any time left): ‘Bush, Blair, B-52s, resolutions please comrades, see you in Evien.’ It’s just not good enough. We live in a diverse society – our movement is nearly as diverse. Overwhelmingly, it is composed of thoughtful, confused, meaningful, unconvinced people (I include myself in that contingent). The people I trust most are those who are not sure where we’re going. Those with the answer to everything rate a poor second with me, and I refuse to be led by them. The forces they can muster are minuscule, yet they refuse to settle for anything less than a massively disproportionate role and influence. The real body of this movement lacks – or has forsaken – an organisational existence, and for this it is to be punished or ignored.
Essentially, what’s really absent is imagination. There’s only one way to do a thing in Ireland – the old way. As for democracy? ‘Jesus, we’re all so busy, we never have time for that, comrade.’
My critique of the National Assembly rests on these two pillars: the need for imagination, the need for democracy – and the two are wholly interlinked.

To discuss the detail of Saturday is, it seems to me, quite mundane. But we have to start somewhere.

Richard phoned me this morning (Friday), and we spoke for more than an hour. His clarifications included the following:

1. The purpose of the assembly is to reinvigorate a demoralised movement and to draw in new people.
2. The slight imbalance speaker-wise was caused by the Labour Party and SIPTU being otherwise engaged (at their annual conference), and other speakers being unavailable (e.g. Bob Fisk, John Pilger, Andy Storey, Harry Browne). Richard, himself, shouldn’t be included as an SWP speaker, as he’s representing the Steering Committee. The regional imbalance was regrettable.
3. There is opportunity aplenty to discuss whatever’s on your mind. A similar gathering in England turned into an all-day rolling debate, and so can this.
4. The Steering Committee will be bound by resolutions.
5. The Steering Committee will co-opt from active groups around the country.

My response, in order, was more or less this:
1. People involved in the movement expected something different: an opportunity to pore over the record of the anti-war movement, to debate the differences, to chart a course of sorts for the future.
2. The slight imbalance speaker-wise is nothing less than unacceptable domination by 3 parties (and for Richard to de-catagorise himself won’t fool anybody). To arrange this assembly so that it clashes with the Labour Party conference – regardless of who got their dates mixed up and how late the clash of dates was realised – is symptomatic of a failure to encompass the entire movement. I suggested that the assembly would not have gone ahead if it was suddenly realised that the SWP conference was on. And I was incredulous regarding the dearth of speakers beyond the ranks of the left parties. This failing, I mentioned, had been evident at all IAWM-organised marches/rallies.
3. In order to be a rolling, all-day debate, something like my agenda would be required. I asserted that, with the current format and schedule, time will be severely limited and that contributions regarding the dynamics of the anti-war movement will appear to be out of context and a diversion from the topic of the various meetings.
4. To say that the Steering Committee will be bound by resolutions is being offered as a concession. A) I don’t believe it. B) I queried with Richard why resolutions passed at a gathering of the general public (as Saturday’s assembly will be) should have any validity. Only a delegate-based conference should have such a mandate.
5. Co-opting people from the regions onto the Steering Committee is, in one sense, positive. I didn’t bother debating this with Richard, but would say that there’s no need to co-opt – just hold an EGM in recognition of the movement having grown and having changed in character. A new Steering Committee could then be elected. However, there is a crying need to construct a model of democracy that goes beyond Dublin-based, weekday meetings that will be rarely attended by people from outside the capital. This has been a major failing of every movement in Ireland. It’s time – and has long been the time – to find a solution to the democracy deficit, and then put it into practise.

Finally, I acknowledge here the sterling work of Richard Boyd Barrett and his Steering Committe colleagues; of people in the SWP, the SP, the Greens, etc. I wish them well at tomorrow's National Assembly. I won't be attending, but I look forward to a more thoughtful gathering of all and anyone opposed to war – one at which they'll feel welcome and included.

by Sean Fri May 09, 2003 19:23

I'll be going to the assembly tomorrow because I live in Dublin and its likely to be interesting. That said, I don't expect much and I can sympathise with what Dominic is saying. The IAWM needs to get its act together. The G8 is all very well but I'm not going to France (can't afford to for work reasons) and, anyway, I'm more interested in what we can do about Shannon and what the government is implicating us in.

by Activist Fri May 09, 2003 21:04

An interesting thread expect for all that sniping and sectarian shite. I've been active in a local group of the IAWM and reckon it's okay. I must admit that I can't relate to the Grassroots people, though I know they mean well.

I'd have prefered Dominics agenda for tomorrow. All this focus on Evian is doing my head in. The anti-war movement needs to focus on its own priorities and not issues that, while related, are the business of somebody else. Why can't Global Resistance host tomorrows conference and the IAWM hold something more relevant to activists like me who intend staying with anti-war issues? Maybe I'm just confused and talking shite here. Just isn't the conference I expected I suppose.

by Aoife Ni Fhearghail - personal capacity Fri May 09, 2003 22:42 aoifenf at yahoo dot co dot uk D6W 087 7955013

on the off chance that anyone genuine and in particular, the Shannon defendants reads these threads through, I should point out that my 22-minute conversation with Dominic has been grossly misrepresented by him. Nonetheless, as I explained on the phone, tomorrow's event is the best place to clarify any misunderstandings and do still hope that representatives from Clonakilty will come along.

While I did mention that the Steering Committee might have to prioritise motions passed (depending on the number) I explained that motions were binding and that groups/individuals were more than welcome to put resolutions to the assembly (there will probably be a 4.30pm deadline so that all resolutions can be fully discussed and voted on in the final session).

It is a blatant lie to suggest that the IAWM would not support the Shannon defendants or a boycott campaign. I explained to Dominic that we would support the Defend the Shannon 6 campaign and its fundraising events, but explained that in my own personal opinion I did not think it was our role to organise the defence campaign. It was clearly stated that this was my opinion only as was the case with the boycott campaign, perhaps he was too busy writing notes and misheard me

I note that none of the events I mentioned the Committee were planning were mentioned here, nor the fact that while the event clashes with the Labour Party conference, messages of support have been received from Michael D Higgins and SIPTU, nor that we were hoping that 2 of the Cork activists mentioned above might chair some of the workshops, but maybe my anti-war friend is hard of hearing

As explained to Dominic, the IAWM AGM will be held at the end of the summer (as it was last year) when, as with any democratic organisation, elections will be held to the committee.

On another matter, I did not in fact speak to anyone from Mayo, but mixed westport up with another group, hopefully this mistake will not generate another endless indymedia thread. Perhaps both myself & Dominic could do with getting our ears syringed before our next half hour nark ... until then, I'm sure the Clonakilty will continue with their great work and I look forward to meeting them at the AGM

Aoife

by Indo Sat May 10, 2003 00:49

Aoife, I agree with you regarding the rally but I can't see how it's fair to call Dominic Carroll a liar. Where did he lie exactly?

by Mary Sat May 10, 2003 02:38

One interesting feature in terms of those invited to speak is the low priority given to those from outside Dublin. Aoife mentions that Cork activists have been asked to chair as if that's enough, and as if that's the issue. The Cork Anti War Campaign was built with virtually no imput from the IAWM. It affiliated later, though not as a branch but as an equal partner. They've done great things, had huge marches, involved people from all walks of life, and all this as a virtually separate movement. Likewise, here in Galway we went our own way and networked together a really good anti war group that was only loosely connected to the IAWM in Dublin. It worked exceptionally well (with one or two gliches). I'm sure the same is true for other parts of the country.

What I'm saying is that its not just the IAWM that built and sustained the movement. Perhaps people in Dublin need to remember this. With regard to Dominic's other points - maybe the G8 is what we should focus on. The anti war movement seems to be in freefall and it might raise morale if we organised around G8 because the protest is bound to be huge. Where does the anti war movement go? Probably nowhere for the moment but a network should be permanently established so that the Shannon issue is kept alive. The government needs to be stopped before they abandon Irish neutrality altogether!

by Observer Sat May 10, 2003 03:10

Emm...Mary, perhaps this might have passed you by but Nuria Mustafa from Galway is speaking. Or perhaps you want somebody from every village in Ireland?

by Awad Nasser Sat May 10, 2003 12:47

“On the off chance that anyone genuine … reads these threads …”

Tut, tut, Aiofe. Do you really think that little of us?

by Anonymous Sat May 10, 2003 13:38

To make a few comments on the debate between Dominic and IAWM individuals:-

I concur with Dominic’s point that it is disappointing indeed that the conference is clashing with that of Labours and SIPTU’s. This does not augur well for the creation of a broad based movement. And though I do not know the full story from the IAWM side, I think I would concur as well with Dominic’s points of the unacceptable imbalance of speakers and the lack of speakers beyond the ranks of the left parties.

But I would have to say that I am equally disappointed that following your extensive critique of the IAWM’s agenda and organization that you would not attend the conference yourself to raise all these points, as Aoife had suggested. (then again maybe for reasons that you didn’t point out maybe you just cannot attend! – as I cannot either!)

I am glad of Dominic’s acknowledgement of “the sterling work of Richard Boyd Barrett and his Steering Committee colleagues; of people in the SWP, the SP, the Greens, etc. I wish them well at tomorrow's National Assembly”.

Yes, everyone will have their own differing opinions on just about everything but the work, and the huge importance of this work, that people put in (from all different strands), must always be acknowledged and remembered – especially when we are about to launch attacks on people or groups that we disagree with.

I also strongly concur with Dominic’s point that:-

“We live in a diverse society – our movement is nearly as diverse. Overwhelmingly, it is composed of thoughtful, confused, meaningful, unconvinced people (I include myself in that contingent). The people I trust most are those who are not sure where we’re going.”

Indeed I have become increasingly confused and unconvinced on the war issue as a whole. I used to be a staunch anti-war advocate & activist, but I have become increasingly unconvinced to the extent that now, regarding the rightness or wrongness of the war – I simply do not know anymore.

I have voiced these opinions and questioning of the anti-war movement on this newswire on several occasions – Namely that, though I have little or no doubt that the intentions of US/K are malevolent, self-interested, evil etc. – their actions may inadvertently be to the favor of the majority of the Iraqi people. Many Iraqi people from both within and without, have voiced this opinion – and yet it seems to have been totally ignored by the anti-war movement. I am ardently opposed to the general policies of US/K, but maybe in this one instance, people have allowed their hatred of the above cloud their judgement – I don’t know.

Regarding the meeting which John McGuire spoke at in Clonakilty on Thursday night – I was a student of his once upon a time. And once again I find myself in agreement with Dominic in his opinion of him, i.e. “thoughtful, articulate, unorthodox, stimulating, awe-inspiring”.

Finally I once again re-iterate my comments of a few postings ago that I totally support such mature and incisive critical comment, as an attempt to move the whole movement forward in as best a way as possible.

But I hope differing opinions, bitterness, distrust, sectarianism and hatred will not divide the movement and destroy it, as has happened with so many other left-wing movements both locally, nationally and internationally.

I was not able to attend today’s IAWM conference, but I hope everyone who could, did. And I hope it was a great success.

Stick together people!!

Regards and best wishes to all.....

by Phuq Hedd - none Sun May 11, 2003 06:54

I don't see the point of anyone asking Aoife (or anyone else in the leadership of the IAWM) to commit to supporting Shannon defendants if the IAWM is a democratic movement. Surely such a decision is not in their gift and would have to be put to a plenary session of the IAWM?

Or is this decision actually in their hands? Suppose those turning up wanted to make sure that this decision were passed at the conference is there any way at all under the IAWM constitution that this could happen?

(A sidepoint to the last "anti-war" poster: 1. US/K is a coinage by iosaf-ipsiphi and means something weirder and deeper than US/UK -- I think it's the nexus of neoliberal power or something ;-) 2. I'm interested in exactly how many and which Iraqis are saying that the war was a good thing. A specific source would be nice.)

by Fintan Lane - Cork Anti-War Campaign Sun May 11, 2003 20:46 corkantiwar at hotmail dot com

This thread contains a couple of references to the Cork Anti-War Campaign, which seem to imply some sort of falling out with the IAWM. I reckon some clarification is needed:

CAWC were unhappy that the 'national assembly' was planned as a rally because we felt that a national conference was required that would spend all-day discussing the past, present and future of the anti-war movement. We also wanted a conference that would elect a representative national steering committee that would reflect the massive development of the movement over the past few months. Moreover, we were very dismayed to discover that 'speaking rights' were dominated by three political parties, all of whom have done good work but are not necessarily representative of the broad alliance that now exists. The diversity of the movement was not adequately represented.

However, disagreements occur in all movements and shouldn't be blown out of proportion. Our concerns remain - no matter how successful the assembly was or wasn't - but members of CAWC did travel to participate in the assembly and we will continue to work closely with the IAWM to which we are affiliated.

'Mary' from Galway (I wish people would give their full names!) claims that CAWC worked separately from the IAWM over the past few months. That's true to some extent, but we've also had a very close relationship with the IAWM from the beginning - indeed, our foundation meeting was addressed by Richard Boyd Barrett, as well as by James McBarron (Cork Peace Alliance) and Caoimhe Butterly (Shannon Peace Camp). There's no schism between CAWC and the IAWM, and we retain very good relations. There's no split folks!

by Cork activist Mon May 12, 2003 18:50

Fintan is right. Cork problems with Dublin assembly are meant as constructive criticism and there is no edge or subtext to it. The three-party thang definitely jarred.

by Cheka Tue May 13, 2003 14:30

Lane and company are splitters.

by Cheka decoder Thu May 15, 2003 16:07

anyone who disagrees with the one true church of the socialist workers party is a heretic. woops I mean a splitter. but rich boy is a god of love, come and worship at his feet and he will forgive you and give you a place in the kingdom of heaven aka iawm committee