'Revolution, Anti Capitalism and Socialism from below'... the truth

by Intransigent Mon May 26, 2003 18:02

You people need to get out more!

by Troikawatcher Thu May 22, 2003 18:26

Exclusive - tired of John Throne's rantings on indy Little Lenin McLoughlin has apparently dispatched Stephen Stalin Boyd to the US of A to top Mr. Throne. Watch this space and maybe even CNN for further updates on the assasination attempt!!!

by Democrat Tue May 20, 2003 22:05

I am not particularly involved in the SP versus John Throne debate, but I would suggest that it is wrong to dismiss it as a petty squabble devoid of any interest, and that for example we should advise Throne to go fishing. In my opinion, it is important because it raises issues about how the far left has organised internally over many decades, and in particular how it handles dissent. It seems to me that the SP, the SWP and other groups despise internal discussion/ debate/ dissent, and respond to it by expelling those involved and demonising them in various ways. Maybe this is why it has remained so ineffective! Such tactics produce small churches of devout believers, but do not create mass movements. So the issue really is why has it come to pass that supposedly socialist movements have such a dismissive attitude to democracy (in practice, if not in theory), when it is such a hard won gain by the working class, and when workers will not submit en masse to the diktats of petty popes (be they called John Paul, or Taaffe/ Hadden/ Cliff etc.

Worth some more open debate than what we normally see here, I would have thought.....

by Irony is dying Tue May 20, 2003 18:58

Get a life Throne. No one really gives a shit about your petty squabble with the SP. It was fun while it lasted but enough is enough. Go fishing or something

by Irony is dead Mon May 19, 2003 21:45

You lot are funny. Some dickhead put's KG - SWP on three postings about a student group in one college and then argue for about 200 postings until James suddenly realises someone might be stirring the pot. Catch a grip people.

by Dan - SA Mon May 19, 2003 15:57

Consider this: a political group totally obsessed
with criticising others on the far left, which spends
all its time digging up quotes and taking them out
of context to "expose" the "reformism" of its enemies.
The Irish Spartacist Group? No, the SWP!

Can it be long before Phil the Spart is co-opted onto
the Cliffite PC? He could be a real asset for you boys

by james redmond - SA's armed (soon, comrades) insurectionist ultra left anarchist wing, at least we allow factions. Mon May 19, 2003 15:19

could the ramblings of 'KG' be an attempt to make the SWP look like incoherant idiots, in reality that is all he is achieving here andis certainly not doing his party any good. enjoy your set down when ever the leadership find out who you are, hopefully one of your more sensible comrades will shop you before you continue to bring your group into ridiculous levels of disrepute.

by Ray - as editor) Mon May 19, 2003 13:17

Can Socialist Alternative survive?
by KG Mon, May 19 2003, 11:46am
It is well known that this little reformist sect by the name of Socialist ALternative are riddled with divisions.

On nearly every issue there are deep divisions between their conservative wing of Donal Lyons (recently joined Labour) and Finbar Dwyer and the leader of their ultra left anarchist wing of James redmond.

The only thing keeping them together is their intellectual leader Danny Finn who wrote all their position papers. However Danny is leaving UCd this year, also the fact that the SU kickbacks will start flowing for the conservatives of Lyons and Dwyer
will mean big divisions over the summer in SA. The question for everyone is, can SA survive?

add your comments

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
COMMENTS
How SA sold out
by KG Mon, May 19 2003, 11:49am

Read on the links below how this group went from being revolutionary socialists to supporting and joining Labour.

http://www.indymedia.ie/cgi-bin/newswire.cgi?id=43848&start=50&sid=48581

http://www.indymedia.ie/cgi-bin/newswire.cgi?id=47473&start=40

Can the SWP get a fucking life
by Badman Mon, May 19 2003, 12:00pm

And stop attacking the SA on indymedia. We have already trawled through this argument ad infinitum.

Far from being the "question for everyone", this is the question for some sad bitter little shit in the SWP who can't get over the fact that the SA left the beloved party. Leave it out, enough already, piss off, shut up or however you want to put it.

Moving this to the last SA article
by Ray - (as editor) Mon, May 19 2003, 12:15pm

Get a life

by Gordon Mon May 19, 2003 12:29

It has been posted elsewhere. If you want people to read it post a link. People can't be allowed to clog up the newswire with pages and pages of stuff they may not want to read, it ruins it for everyone else

by john throne - labors militant voice Mon May 19, 2003 03:27 loughfinn at aol dot com

Could I have some advise please. I have tried to start a discussion on the issue of building a united front against the capitalist offensive by sending two pieces to the newswire. These were edited versions of some material that was on this thread earlier. The editing was to pose the issue to all of us not just one or two groups. These have been removed from the newswire. Could anybody tell me why this might be so. Is it some technical mistake I am making or can somebody, has somebody decided to take them off. I would appreciate any information I can get on this.

Comradely, John Throne.

by Finghin - SP Mon May 19, 2003 00:22

James,
I agree that CFE should have run the USI campaign. It would have meant that the campaign would have been independent of the USI officers and would have been able to raise the critisisms that were needed. SP members, some independents and yourself argued for this.

But at the CFE meeting that decided not to run the campaign we were unfortuanatly in a minority. The majority that argued for a non CFE campaign were made up Labour members, some independents and members of Socialist alternative.

by Finghin - SP Sun May 18, 2003 20:37

The point I was making about Jordan being critisised by a student was that ordinary non aligned students were far more critical of the USI leadership than the No campaign was.

The No campaign should have used the referendum to make the political points of where the studnet movement needs to go if it going to defeat this governemnt, it did not do that, it took a moderate line reused to be critical of USI and in effect acted as cheerleaders to the USI bureacracy.

James, I am aware that you were very annoyed by that leaflet but others in SA and the leadership of the No campaign were not. They are the people I am critisising.

by james redmond Sun May 18, 2003 18:12

In the above you criticise two people, Cantilon and Jordon, did you really expect the USI leadership to launch a scathing criticism of itself?

Where that referendum went wrong in my eyes, was CFE voting against carrying out the NO side leading to a load of USI hacks parachuting in and bossing us all around.

Of course the rest of us, were not defending USI's record-but defending the ideological basis of a 'fighting, democractic' united student movement, while calling for a reclaiming of USI, just like you said to that student who criticised Jordon. Nothing special about that.

by james redmond - socialist alternative (personal capacity) Sun May 18, 2003 18:05

'This shows that criticism of the USI did not have to be dropped in order to win the referendum.'

Well, done on that realisation. But who exactly are you levelling criticims at here?
As anyone involved in the last days campaigning around this referendum was aware, i was doing my nut over the issuing of that leaflett. Fundamentally it missed the whole basis of the referendum, the referendum was not simply one of whether or not UCD stays affiliated to USI-but one on which direction the student movement should go in.

The question asked at the polls was one of whether we should remain affiliated or leave and plough money saved into services on campus. The question itself was loaded with pro-disaffilaition propaganda. Presented with an option between two models of unionism, an american service model and the 'fighting democratic student unions' you call for (of course USI doesn't represent this in its current state), the leaflett for the last day missed the point of the referendum by ignoring the propaganda inherant in question and the actual question itself.

By posing the funding of on campus services provided by the union as an alternaive to USI you can see the whole ideological project of Hourihanes term in office, moving the union away from addressing the root causes of student problems and simply addressing the symptoms. Providing cheaper sandwiches through competition on campus, instead of campaigning for a grant increase which is the root cause of why we can't afford college food prices.

The issue at hand was not one of the successes or failures of USI, but one of where now for the movement.

by Finghin - SP Sun May 18, 2003 14:55

I've found the leaflet produced by the No campaign in the USI disaffiliation referendum. It is titled "5 Reasons to vote No", the third point is particularly notable.

"3 - USI has a strong record of delivering for students. USI has won:
a) The abolition of tuition fees
b) A doubling in the amount of student purpose accomadation in the last 4 years
c) The introduction of additional top up grant for thousands of disadvantaged students worth in excess of €1,000
d) Abolition of fees for student nurses."

This clearly shows that the leadership of the No campaign did act as cheerleaders for the USI bureacracy and did downplay the role played by students in winning concessions from the government.

Free fees for nursing students were won by the students taking action themselves- not the USI leadership. The Nurses strike was also a major factor as free tuition was one of the demands of this strike.

Point b seems to give the impression that the situation with student accomadation is fantastic. The doubling of on campus accomadation was from a very low base and over a lengthy 4 year period. The percentage of on-campus accomadation in Ireland is still one of the lowest in Europe and students every year face an accomadation nightmare and rack renting landlords in the private sector. USI has not done enough.

Again the top up grant is still extremely pathetic and an additional €1,000 for the most disadvantaged although welcome is simply not enough. USI have not launched any serious campaign for truly free education.

The other points of the leaflet are similarly cringing for example, the fourth point states "It is essential that UCD students retain their voice where key decisions are made on issues like grants, fees and accomadation". The leaflet seems to be claiming that UCD students already have a voice in USI, the fact is that they do not. USI is in general unrepresentative of the views of students, which was evident at the last USI congress. A majority of students see USI as an irrelevent, bureacratic and undemocratic organisation that is made up of hacks electing hacks. The leadership of the No campaign should have acknowledged this and called for a more democratic USI as well as for students to become active in creating a fighting union in UCD in order to reclaim the national organisation.

As I stated earlier many students were instinctivly opposed to the USI leadership and were drawn to the Yes side. For example one lecture that I was in was addressed by Colm Jordan, he asked if anyone had any questions for him. He was promptly savaged by one student who said he has done nothing for ordinary students and that the USI campaign against fees was inadequate, this student said she was going to vote Yes. Later I talked to her and won her over to the No side on the basis of criticism of the USI leadership and raising the need to reclaim USI. Something similar happened to Bernard Cantillon (USI equality officer) in a packed Theatre M.

This shows that criticism of the USI did not have to be dropped in order to win the referendum. In the Law faculty where SP members campaigned with these arguments it had a very high turnout and the highest No vote of 91%.

by (A) Sun May 18, 2003 01:21

Look,it is impossible to unite the anarchists and the partyleft. We just believe in diffrent things. Anarchists DO NOT accept the idea of a party representing the intressts of the workingclass and we DO NOT buy into the idea of a "United front" wich only serves right into the hands of the stalinists.

And thats the end of it. Basta!

by Finghin - SP Sat May 17, 2003 23:40

Firstly the SP were not absent from the campaign. It amazes me that there seems to exist a desire to re-write history among some of those on the UCD left. It is fact that the SP members in UCD were activly involved in the anti USI disaffiliation campaign. We concentrated in the Law faculty during the campaign which got one of the highest turnouts and the highest No vote of 91%.

We argued for a No vote on the basis that it would weaken the movement against fees by seperating UCD from the national union as any effective campaing needs to be on a national basis. We sowed no illusions in the USI bureacracy and it's social partnership approach to dealings with the government. We also put forward the idea of reclaiming the USI to become a fighting democratic union.

by cfer Sat May 17, 2003 22:42

were sp members not involved in what was a very important campaign to keep ucd in usi and if not then how does their abscence reflect on their politics and sense of priority?

by Finghin Sat May 17, 2003 18:44

Cian I would suggest that you look at the leaflets and the manifesto produced by the No campaign, they do suggest that the USI alone won concessions for the student nurses. From what I remember the leaflet produced on the last day is particularly guilty of this.

I have a copy of that leaflet, when I find it I'll put up the relevent quotes so people can make up their own minds.

by Cian Sat May 17, 2003 17:45

Student nurses won their campaign for abolition of fees for studying for the nursing degree through direct action by the student nurses.

I was involved in the campaign myself at the time as a full time officer in USI. There was never any claim by anyone at any stage that the abolition of fees was won by anything else but direct action by the student nurses. It was never achieved through USI "lobbying" and USI never claimed this.

To suggest that anyone in UCD claimed otherwise is absurd to say the least.

by john throne - labors militant voice Fri May 16, 2003 21:23 loughfinn at aol dot com

To me the issues that are central in my opinion flow from the needs of the working class and the potential for meeting these needs as much as is possible at this time. The dominant feature of the world situation today is the advancing offensive of capitalism. The central need of the working class today is a movement to take on and throw back this capitalist offensive. Please Comrades i know it needs a revolution and revolutionary party and lots of other things but i think anybody seriously looking at the situation today will see that in order to begin to change the world situation and the mass consciousness some defeats will have to be inflicted on the capitalist offensive. This is what is concretely posed as necessary more than anything else at this time. A few significant defeats of this capitalist offensive, a few sizeable victories for the working class, would open up the situation and begin to pose again in a mass way what is the alternative to capitalism and how do we get there.

This in my opinion means building a united front against the capitalist offensive. It means in my opinion putting this issue on the agenda of all activists and all activist anti capitalist groups. It means putting this on the agenda of the most active and thinking sectors of the working class. The SP could do this in Ireland given its resources. So could the SWP. So could a combination of other small groups coming together to make this an issue.

Comrades let us pose in front of those who follow events and are seeking ways to struggle and there are many of such people not in any group, let us pose in front of the working class as a whole, the reality that there are up to 20 anti capitalist groups in Ireland and the working class is under attack and these groups cannot get together to build a united front against this offensive. Making propaganda around this idea is in my opinion a very important task at this time. The groups will tend to blame each other as we see here. But this is an excuse. Taking up this idea means taking this idea to the working class and to the activist groups and making these groups face the issue IN FRONT OF THE WORKING CLASS at least the working class activists. Look at how weak all groups are on this if the issue is posed correctly and it is posed in the working class. I would like to see any group standing in front of workers and explaining how it was impossible for all these anti capitalist groups to build a united front and it was not going to try and it was the others fault but they themselves were not to blame etc etc and to sound credible while doing so.

Simultaneous to taking up the battle for this idea and forcing it onto the agenda of the movement would be showing in action how to confront the capitalist offensive. This in my opinion raises the issue of direct action. I believe that the collapse of stalinism, the move to the right of all the reformist organizations, the crisis and ineffectiveness of the left organizations all have increased cynicism about all groups that fight for an alternative and about there being any alternative. I think therefore that to build a base for the overthrow of capitalism today means more than ever demonstrating by deeds that we can fight the offensive. This means taking up the day to day issues in a direct action fight to win manner. That is when workers are under attack then we have to identify all the forces involved and take the issue to those who make the decisions and make it clear that they will pay an economic and political price. One struggle here we are involved in is against a vicious landlord. We have been taking the issue to wherever he is. Most recently we are at his church on sunday mornings giving out flyers and explaining his actions. Earlier we were helping evicted tenants go to his swanky hotel and book in. The direct action approach in my opinion means taking action which is effective in confronting the attacks and in doing so helping to convince people that they can have an affect and they can win victories and that they can join together in struggle to achieve these ends. And such direct action helps to build a working class combative movement.

These are just details but the point is that we have to show that we are prepared to take serious action which can be participated in by the workers involved if we are to begin to crack the cynicism about all activist groups and about the possibility of defeating the capitalist offensive and there being an alternative. This is why direct action of the kind that is rooted in specific struggles and that helps build a movement is so vital to the struggle today. From the work in the Ontario Coalition Against Poverty this has begun to become known as "Direct Action case work". That is taking up specific issues and addressing them in a direct action fight to win manner and i would add linking these to the capitalist offensive and the struggle against capitalism.

I am interested in the north and the points raised by the Comrade above. I was thinking there for a while recently that given the defeats of the past 30 years it would be impossible to begin a new movement in the North, that this would have to start in the South or Scotland or England or Wales and spread to the North. But this is not so. A group of activists taking up every issue in an area and using direct action and being prepared to get arrested and go to jail and to follow those who were making the decisions of the capitalist offensive locally then this would begin to change the dynamic in the North. As long as part of this struggle was an offensive to pose the issue of united front action and to force the various groups and activists to face this issue and to show the many many workers and activists that there was a force they could join that was not sectarian and that was not just talk and looking for a way to recruit.

This is what i am arguing for being put on the agenda of the movement. To build local action committees on the basis of taking on the capitalist offensive through direct action fight to win tactics. And as we do this pose continually the scandal of all the anti capitalist groups and their unwillingness to work together in a serious manner. The response initially will be that the various groups and left activists will blame each other. But Comrades a group of activists taking up the type of struggle i suggest and making the issue of united action central and taking this to workplaces, union locals and acftivist, to left groups and their public meetings at the same time as having some victories on the ground, Comrades this would begin to force the sectarianism to the surface where it can be faced up to and with the help of increased roots in the working class where it can begin to be defeated.

Comrades the Socialist Alliance in England and Wales does not work because it will not take up the local struggles on the ground in a fight to win manner. It is at best an electoral alliance. Therefore it has no credibility. I am not suggesting a repeat of this. The SP Comrade Brian correctly identifies the faliure of the SA. He also correctly idientifies the approach of the SWP. But then he surrenders in front of this. The SP is helpless in front of this is his explanation. And in this way justifies the SP policy of the occasional united front on a specific issue and recruit to the SP and that is that. This only confirms the cynicism that exists.

Brian also responds to my point about the CWI and the SSP and the different approach in Ireland to Scotland. But Comrade Brian i think that you are not being fully open on this. Sure you agree that the SSP is a good thing and that the CWI is in the SSP. But the point is Comrade that the SSP would not exist if it had not been for the actions of the ISM group which was condemned and is still condemned by the CWI. If it had been left up to the CWI then there would be no SSP. I think that the character of the SSP is not fixed yet. i think that the more is grows the more reformist pressures that will be exerted upon it. I think that the more successful it is the more the need for the building of the revolutioary socialist core within it. I think and have said so now for some years that the ISM leadership is not building the ISM as it should be. However the CWI position has its own problems the most glaring is that if it was up to it there would be no SSP and the scottish working class would be that much weaker.

Comrades it is very easy for long time activists to lose sight of the the issues and how the working class and especially working class see these and the left and the anti capitalist activists. It is utterly ridiculous to the working class that there could be up to twenty anti capitalist groups in Ireland and they could not see the way to work together in a united front against the capitalist offensive. The force that begins to take up working class struggles in a serious way and at the same time puts this issue of united front in action on the agenda will be addressing the needs of the working class and will deserve to grow and develop.

Finally on how the working class and the active workers see revolutionary groups. I was recently banned from attending a social in a bar in Ireland for political reasons. Two union activists came along as they had been invited. They spent the night talking to me outside the door as they said they would not go in when I was banned. One of these Comrades I knew and he had been in a revolutionary group years before. The other I did not know and he had not been in a group. The point was made to me a number of times that this was worse than the leadership of their union. Banning somebody from a social in a pub. This was how the revolutionary left was seen, less democratic than the union bureaucracy. I am not agreeing with this but I am trying to explain the reality and how until this perception is changed then success will be hard to come by. As well as taking up the struggles that I mention above the group or groups that take up the issue of the mistaken internal regimes of the revolutionary left, these will be the groups that will begin to put down roots in the working class and deservedly so. They will be responding to the needs of the working class and to the democratic traditions of the working class.

Comradely John Throne.

by Irony is dead Fri May 16, 2003 18:55

Brian you're repeating yourself. I'm sure many in Lutte Ouvriere in France would put forwarded like minded rationale. The point is the question of unity is thrown up by the movement. The results in the recent Holyrood election demonstrate that a united formation can take things forward. Obviously you think this is not the case in Ireland. Perhaps you are keen to see the gradual increase in Dail representation of the SP - one TD this decade, 2 maybe the next. However what you leave out is revealing. What is your srategy of a breakthrough for the North? Why in your opinion does the SP work alongside the SWP in other campaigns but in the election arena it is taboo? Is your position the will of the majority of the Irish SP?

by Dan - SA Fri May 16, 2003 16:07

Thought Id take a break from this for a couple of
days see how it went on. I suppose reading this
thread would tell you more about the Irish far left than you could possibly ever need. Ill just saw a few things to summarise what Ive been ranting about for the last week.

Firstly, the SP in general. Its only fair to say that I regard the SP as a cut above the SWP in many respects. For example, they ARE prepared to post under their own names and defend their party, unlike the SWP. And they have achieved some worthwhile things over the last few years. But they still possess many of the same vices. The hypocrisy of complaining about personal abuse has been pointed out. I have given a detailed account of the political record of the SP in the CFE. This is personal in the sense that Paul Murphy was the person who carried out this strategy, and the manner in which he carried it out added to the resentment which it caused in a not insignificant way. If you cant deal with this, tough. Im only interested in someones personal traits insofar as they are relevant to and effect political work. Calling someone a "muppet" is quite different from calling someone a "motherfucker" or a "cunt". That would be meaningless name-calling, whereas calling someone a "muppet" suggests a lack of humility and cop-on that can (and did) become a serious political problem. If using this word prevents people from seeing the real political argument being advanced, by all means ignore it. But this still leaves the fundamental points standing. The whole business about "baby-killing" is partly a wind-up; I dont think Murphy really would kill a child, just that he hasnt bothered to think through his arguments properly. But it is a sort of reductio ad absurdam of the SPs uncritical defence of the Soviet regime under Lenin, including the Cheka, so again, there is a serious point lurking beneath the surface.

Then theres the SSP. Im not a spokesman for the ISM/SSP, obviously, nor am I necessarily a partisan of theirs. There would be a few things I find problematic about the SSP; what Ive heard about Tommy Sheridans behaviour after the poll tax riots, and his Castroite sympathies, for example. But none of the begrudgery directed at the ISM/SSP by the CWI can be seriously justified. Brian Cahill said a while ago that "reformism is a broad church", which I suppose is a sophisticated way of saying that "reformist" is a catch-all term of abuse used by the CWI and their ilk to describe anyone who disagrees with them. The best they can manage is to take a few quotes out of context. I dont think it would be possible to apply the model of the SSP in Ireland lock, stock and barrel; the days of following a blue-print established in another country should be long past (except for the IST and the CWI, of course). But it might be a good idea to look at the Scottish example without a dogmatic filter in the way.

The GNAW/IAWM debate has reached a sort of stalemate, I suppose. I doubt either the SP or the SWP will admit that they were wrong. But I think Andrew was right to suggest that March 1st might prove to have been a decisive moment for the far left in Ireland.

I notice the Swappers dropped out of this thread a long time ago; Im not really shocked. I expect we will continue to hear the same slanders and lies about SA for some time to come. I dont know if we will bother replying in future; perhaps it gives them more attention than it deserves. I suppose the main point is that weve moved on; we arent obsessed with what the SWP are up to these days (not much in Ucd, anyway). They really should grow up.

Finally, I just thought I should say to the bloke who posts under "Phuq Hedd": about this time last year I wrote something saying "Phuq Hedd is a fuck head" cos I thought something you had said was wrong. Regardless of whatever you said, It was a fairly stupid and aggressive thing to write so apologies. I think I was a bit cranky and hungover at the time, so that might explain a little.

Is it possible that the infighting on the newswire has now been exhausted by this epic thread? I cant think of anything that HASNT been said here over the last week. Maybe we should give it a rest for now and leave this space for news stories. We could have a big conference for shouting at each other some time; maybe the SWP would be generous enough to dedicate Marxism 2003 to this purpose? Just imagine the meeting titles: rather than "Jesus: The First Revolutionary?" or "Who are the working class?", we could have "Peter Hadden: Hero or twat?" and others in that vein.

by Brian Cahill Fri May 16, 2003 14:27

Firstly a minor correction. I would agree that all serious socialists in the countries I mentioned have no choice but to be involved in the workers parties I was discussing. I'm glad that Irony is Dead can see that too.

Perhaps he (or she?) could tell the SWP's sister organisation in the Netherlands which is trying its best to maintain a splendid sectarian isolation outside the Dutch Socialist Party. Just as the SWP tried to do in Scotland until it became blindingly obvious that they had no choice but to join the SSP. Slow learners I suppose.

Returning to Ireland again, what Irony is Dead proposes amounts to little more than an electoral pact between the Socialist Party and the SWP. With a lack of self awareness all too typical of the SWP s/he taunts us about the absence of other left "forces" and "credible" campaigns to ally with... while putting forward the SWP as a prospective alliance partner. Irony truly is dead.

Sorry to break it to you "comrade" but the SWP represent precisely nothing. You have no influence in the unions. You have no base in working class communities. In electoral terms you are the fifth most important force on the Irish left, behind the Socialist Party, the Workers and Unemployed Action Group, The Workers Party and Finian McGrath on his own. That's without counting Sinn Fein, the Greens or Tony Gregory on his own because I'm feeling generous.

The Socialist Party isn't interested in any lash up with the SWP because by tying ourselves to you we would actually be lessening our own effectiveness and if you played a prominent role it would ensure that no genuine forces were willing to touch any broader structure with a barge pole.

Not wanting anything to do with the SWP and it's ever present sell the paper and recruit approach to every facet of politics isn't "sectarian". It's anti-sectarian. Sectarianism has to do with your attitude to the workers movement not your attitude towards a sect.

The SWP is irrelevent to any discussion of broad structures on the left in Ireland except in so far as you have the capacity to play a destructive role in your ceaseless lust to control everything that moves.

by Irony is dead Fri May 16, 2003 12:41

Johns posting aims to put up for debate left unity in Ireland. Brian rather defensively dismisses unity with the SWP. Perhaps he imagines other left forces or credible independent campaigns emerging on the horizon.
The point of France is that it shows in concrete form the dangers of sectarianism. Brian sidesteps this example. If unity is important there (and Scotland etc) then in Ireland there needs to be a similar debate.
The examples of the CWI existing in formations labelled 'real workers parties' are where they have little choice but to operate in much broader formations.
We have seen through the anti-war movement that the cooperation of the left was vital to its impact and Feb 15. Now imagine the scenario if we united under an umbrella organisation for elections - think bin tax campaign etc. The same logic applies in the North. Water privatisation can have an impact that can break the sectarian consensus in the assembly. A united socialist force could be instrumental in opening up new ground there. If not explain please how a break through will emerge in the North in the next 10 years?

by Brian Cahill - Socialist Party Fri May 16, 2003 00:35

Well it looks like we have a brand new winner in the longest thread competition here. As is to be expected there are a lot of anonymous insults, personal abuse and other crap but in amongst the dross there have been reasonable points made by people from a number of different perspectives.

Just to clear one thing up before I respond to him, I'm not John Throne. I could never hope to grow such a big white beard :-).

Seriously, John's question is fair enough. The Scottish sister organisation in of the Socialist Party is a part of the SSP. The CWI in Scotland has been a part of the SSP since it was founded and plays an important role in that party. (I'm glad that we can leave aside the issue of the ISM here as John accepts the flaws in its approach.)

John suggests that there is a discrepancy between our involvement in the SSP and the fact that we don't operate "a similar approach to that of building the SSP" in Ireland.

First let me clear something up. In almost every country where there is a real workers party or something which we think could develop into a real workers party, the CWI is involved in it. That means that we are members of the SSP in Scotland. It means that we are members of the Dutch Socialist Party (which evolved from a Maoist organisation). It means that we are members of the PT in Brazil etc etc.

For the CWI, being involved in those parties is perfectly natural. After the collapse of Stalinism and the destruction of Social Democracy, there is a gaping need for new workers parties in most parts of the world.

That need exists in Ireland too. We would love to see a broad socialist organisation in this country which involved thousands of people. The question is how do we get there.

In 1997, the Socialist Party made some tentative moves towards establishing broader structures on the Irish left. The Taxation Justice Alliance involved the SP, the Workers and Unemployed Action Group and some independent activists who had been involved in the water tax federations. The alliance did quite well electorally but the other major componenet wasn't interested in closer cooperation and there just weren't the forces there for it to go anywhere.

That last phrase is important. The Socialist Party is in favour of launching some kind of broader structures again, but not just for the sake of doing so. We want to be moving down a road which could eventually lead to a real mass organisation. We know that we can't do it alone but we also don't think that there is any point in setting up something which would consist of nothing more than ourselves and a few of the usual suspects. Still less are we interested in an "alliance" which would involve nothing more than saddling ourselves with the burden of the SWP.

The question here is one of timing. What can we do that would have a serious impact? Where would the necessary forces come from? I've seen John talk as if the activists were just sitting around already waiting to be organised. The problem with that line of argument is that everyone on the ground here is well aware that they aren't. There are no large numbers of people who would be willing to get involved in broad structures at the moment.

That situtation isn't static though. There are more people around now than there were in 1997 - reflected in the growth of the Socialist Party but for the most part outside our ranks. The anti-war movement introduced a lot of people to political activism for the first time. In my view there still aren't the forces there for a broader formation to be more than a waste of eneryone's time - but that's changing.

When we think that any broader formations could involve more than just holding hands with the likes of the SWP or beating our heads against the brick wall of indifference then we will move. In the meantime I've yet to encounter pressure to form broader structures from the unaffiliated people you would expect to be crying out for them if the mood really was there.

by Backstabber - Nonhumans Unpopular Back Thu May 15, 2003 22:43

Good one John Throne! Just the right combination of condescencion and ignorance to get the thread started again. Hopefully this will divert attention from the whupping the Socialist Party are getting.

I have to ask: are you Brian Cahill or someone else?

Still, I doff my hat in your general direction.

Now, back to the colour of Finghin's underwear.

by john Throne - Labors Militant Voice Thu May 15, 2003 20:29 loughfinn at aol dot com

I have been ill for a few weeks and only now I have seen this long thread. In reading it over i see that at least twelve anti capitalist groups are mentioned. These include revolutionary socialist and anarchist groups and include groups from different traditions of revolutionary socialism. While the issues discussed here in the main have importance i would like to suggest that the we consider are we not missing the most important questions.

In my opinion being clear on what are the most important questions and tasks demands we start from the objective situation and the position and needs of the working class. The dominant feature in the world situation is the offensive of capitalism which is throwing back the working class movement worldwide. The working class is being driven back because the reformist pro capitalist ideas and methods that dominate in its organizations have no answer to this offensive. In my opinion the key task facing the working class movement therefore is building a movement that can halt and throw back the capitalist offensive. The key task for revolutionaries in my opinion is to address this need.

At the same time as the capitalist offensive gains ground there has been the development of the new international movement against global capitalism and against the invasion of Iraq. There also seems to be the development of a movement to the left in Latin America. Earlier this year ten million plus people took to the streets throught the world. In my opinion the beginnings of a new mass international is already taking shape. Part of the task for revolutionaries is to be part of this movement and seek to put forward ideas which can develop and clarify the ideas and strategy and tactics of this new movement.

I believe that all revolutionaries should be campaigning for a new anti capitalist international, for this developing movement to clarify its ideas and move to transform itself into an anti capitalist international. In the various countries such as Ireland, the USA etc we should be seeking to help the movements in these countries develop into anti capitalist working class movements. Within such movements the various revolutionary organizations can have their place and put forward their ideas.

Unfortunately it appears that most of the revolutionary groups and individuals on this list do not see this as an important issue. I would like to suggest that it is and that the struggle to put this issue on the agenda of the left and activists and the working class is a priority. This means a conscious struggle against sectarianism.

One thing that is of interest to me is how little discussion there has been over the past year around the last Presidential elections in France. In the first round Chirac got 19.8%. Le Pen got 16.9% and went into the run off. The combined left parties (I am not including the SP in this category) got 14%. That is the LCR, the LO, the PT, the CP combined got 14%. The run off was between Chirac and Le Pen. Imagine instead if the run off had between Chirac and one of these left candidates. In my opinion it would have been a major contribution to building a new left movement in Europe. I consider the sectarianism of the various left parties that resulted in this to be a crime against the international working class. I also consider that the reason there is so little discussion on this is that the various left groups consider that the way the French left acted would be the way they would act.

I would like to suggest that the task of the left in France was to ensure they had only one candidate. That either one of the left parties should have made this the major issue of the run up to the elections. One of the left parties should have said they were prepared to stand down their candidate if necessary to get a single left candidate. They should have taken this to the working class and put the issue to them and in this way forced the various left groups to address the issue in the workers and activists movement.

I am raising this here because i feel that we need to conduct a campaign against the sectarianism and business as usual thinking that dominates the approach of the left and that we can see here in many of the contributions to this discussion. In Ireland I consider that a major task is to put the issue of the need for a new anti capitalist workers movement on the agenda. I consider that the left group that is basing itself on the needs of the movement today will take this issue up, take it to the working class and from this base take it to the various left groups and activists. And in this way over a period of struggle begin to bring together the most serious of the activist groups and activists into a new anti capitalist workers movement that can begin to prepare to halt the capitalist offensive.

In my contributions to the last thread I suggested that the struggle was to mobilize the activists into local neighbourhood and workplace action committees based on confronting the capitalist offensive through direct action and from this build an anti capitalist political front and at some stage hopefullya a new left workers party. In my opinion the defining issue for direct action which has beed discussed on this thread is that it has to be direct action that helps build a movement, that helps build a working class movement. I still stand by this position. Looking at all the organizations and activists contributing to this discussion and talked about in this discussion and seeing so little attempt to build a movement of activists which could begin to put down roots in the working class and build a new anti capitalist workers movement is not encouraging.

Here in the US with tiny forces we are trying to put this issue on the agenda. The ideas we are raising is the need to build an anti capitalist working class direct action movement against the capitalist offensive. The basis of unity we are suggesting is that the movement be anti capitalist, that it is orientated to and based on the working class, that it confront the capitalist offensive through direct action fight to win policies not token protests, that it respect diversity of tactics, that is is opposed to racism, sexism and patriarchy. I would be interested to see what people on this list think of this approach. I think it is very unfortunate to see the many many activists and groups who have no suggestions of any kind for how to bring together in struggle the anti capitalist forces and build a new workers movement. It is also very encouraging to see that there are a few small groups in Ireland who are trying to address this issue.

As a revolutionary socialist I am committed to building a revolutionary socialist organization. But to offer this up as the only alternative to the new movement that is developing would be sectarian, it would be to hold the movement back. It would fail to realize the potential of the movement.

There are many other issues I would like to comment on but I will confine myself to just a couple. Brian C said in this discussion that the CWI was part of the SSP and proud of the role it played in building it. I would like to ask Brian to explain then why when a similiar approach to that of building the SSP is suggested for Ireland this is rejected by the CWI out of hand. The SP had and has the opportunity and resources to transform the agenda of the activist movement in Ireland. To put on the agenda the need to build a new activist ant capitalist direct action fight to win working class movement, to take the lead in addressing the needs of the working class movement, to realize the full potential of the movement. If it took these steps then it would also transform the fortunes of its own organiation. Then it could really build and grow. But more importantly it would be addressing the needs of the working class and realizing the full potential in the situation.

In Scotland any left organization which seeks to put down roots in the working class and youth has to to be part of the SSP or they are exposed as sectarian. The SWP is also in the SSP as far as I know. I would like to be convinced that the CWI position is not just one of them having no realistic choice but to be in the SSP if they are to be credible. But the problem I have in believing this is that in other countries where the CWI has a base and could move to build a broader anti capitalist working class movement it does not do so rather confines itself to specific united front campaigns on occasion and to recruiting to the SP. To be clear in passing let me say that i think the ISM in the SSP in Scotland is not being built as it should. But this in no way negates the positive development of the SSP. In fact Brian C says this himself and claims some credit for the CWI for this. Then CWI Comrades why a totally different approach in Ireland.

I hope we can have some discussion on the responsibility on all of us to give a way forward to the new international movement, how we can build the greatest possible united movement of activists against the capitalist offensive and how we can learn the lessons of the past. Including the lessons of the internal regime of the revolutionary organizations. Comradely John Throne.

Comradely John Throne.

by Finghin Thu May 15, 2003 18:17

I for one want to see an end to personal attacks on indymedia whether it be on Pat c or a SP member. It's pathetic and simply goes to ruin the site. Debates on the site should be carried out on the basis of politics. If any member of the SP or any other group has stooped to personal attacks on Pat that is wrong and the person responsible should apologise.

by Dec McCarthy Thu May 15, 2003 16:29

I share Conor's disgust over the way elements of the IAWM undermined GNAW in the lead up to March the 1st. However, although the debate about March the first is important it doesn't mean very much unless we examine the behaviour of the SP/SWP throughout the anti-war campaign.

One definition of integrity in politics is being consistent in what you practice and in what you preach. By these terms the SWP and to a lesser extent the SP come out of the recent anti-war campaign without a shred of political integrity.

If the March the first debate was simply about the advisability of a certain tactic then I do not think it would of caused so much genuine anger and bitterness. GNAW attempted, in an admitedly fairly haphazard fashion, to take meaningful direct action against the US war machine. This attempt was cynically and inexplicably undermined by the Trots in the IAWM. Despite a load of blather about the Shannon workers taking strike action the SP/SWP did sweet fuck all to build for this. Shoddy political theorising was used as a pretext and excuse for complete inactivity. The way Michael skates over all this by saying it was a simple and honest disagreement over tactics is disingenous and indicates either a total disinterest in open debate or a discomfort with the behaviour of the IAWM. I hope it is the latter.

The IAWM did fantastic work but failed to achieve any of the realizable goals it set for itself because, as I have said before, the Trotskyists put politicking and recruitment before the effectiveness of the anti-war movement. That is why March the first was significant and not just another tiresome ideological spat.

So for the umpteenth time I will repeat questions that none of those keyboard happy virtual Bolsheviks have deigned to answer over the past few months. Why did the SP and the SWP refuse to lobby ICTU over the war if they wanted to build trade union opposition to the war?. Why did they feel they had to undermine other anti-war intiatives?. Why did they rarely bother to turn up to anything that wasn't organised by themselves?. Why were they so lily-livered in Hillsborough?. Why, in short, should anyone trust people who always insist on prioritising their party's needs over the effectiveness of the campaign itself?

by Andrew Thu May 15, 2003 15:35

Can we expect an apology to Pat C. for some of the personal shit you guys have thrown at him on indymedia?

Or is suggesting someone is criticising the SP because they have been dumped by a SP member less personal then the suggestion AS refused to support somebody in an election because of their authoratarian politics.

Just thought I'd ask

by Paul M - Socialist Party Thu May 15, 2003 13:55

Ok, someone further up the thread asks why I haven't answered these points - exams is the reason, but here I am.

First of all, on the Republican Sinn Fein thing, that's a load of shite, and no one will actually claim it under their own name. Same obviously applies to Omagh.

Then on the Paul "I eat babies" Murphy story- first of all, Dan is wrong about that conversation, as far as I know it was in a heated conversation I had with Finbarr. We were discussing revolutionary morality v. bourgeois morality, in the context of the Russian civil war as Dan says. The exact question (because I asked Finbarr to qualify it several times) was if you killing a baby would save millions of lives every year through a successful revolution would you do it? I answered yes to this extremely hypothetical question. I now realise it was not tactful of me to pose revolutionary morality in these terms, especially to people who would attempt to use it as a red scare against me in the election. The Tribune was fully informed of my comments, becuase in the interview I did, they asked the question repeatedly trying to get me to trip up, and so reward them with a "Red eats babies" front page headline. I didn't trip up, instead they gave me "The most militant candidate" headline!

Then on my arrogance, well what can I say I just know I'm better than everyone else! :)

But on a more serious note I would obviously reject that allegation, and say that it is obviously only a red herring, because another candidate from the SP with less of a supposed ego would in reality not have been backed by SA either. Another point - Dan originally raised a question about me negotiating on behalf of the group while we were sitting down in front of the Dail. Firstly, it is a tactical question whether to talk to the Gards or not, and I consulted those around me before going up. Secondly, the reason the Gardai requested me to come up is because I was the first one to sit down.

Also, Dan continues to argue that his personal insults are political - they are not, but unfortunately they are quite typical of his argumentation. What SA agrees on above all else is that the SWP is evil evil evil, the SP is evil evil (and I think we're close to earning the third evil:), and these hatreds are given a personification primarily in the persons of Kieran Allen, Rory Hearne, and now it looks as if I've joined those hallowed ranks!

These methods of argument are not healthy for an organisation which claims to be socialist. To quote Ted Grant (somewhat out of context admittedly!):
"I have seen these methods before. This is Healyism! This is Cannonism! This is Stalinism!"

Finally though, seeing as I have answered these points and personal slanders (which I have to say I was disappointed to see), we should now move on. Clearly a major attack on education is being hinted at by Ahern and Dempsey. Clearly also it is SA and people who were closer to Dillon's campaign than mine who are in the majority of the activists in CFE at this stage, and so the leadership is effectively in your hands. Let's use the differences in a positive way, by you proving that you are capable of coming up with plans capable of at the very least putting up a serious fight against the government's attacks.

by Gaz 'Petty Bourgeois Reformist' Barrett - cfe - personal capacity Wed May 14, 2003 20:50

Dan - “of all the active CFE members who were neither members of SA, Labour or the SY, not onesided with the Murphy campaign: Erin, Caoimhe, Dave, Gaz, Gar, Eoin and everyone else went with Dillo.”

SU politics hater - "these people (who to are petty bourgeois reformists themselevs)"

growing up on a coucil estate where the paths were lined with glue sniffers and gas huffers (cos heroin was too dear) makes me petty bourgoeis?

Believing in the gerneral beliefs of Marxism and the crticisms levelled at it by Proudhon and Bakunin makes me a reformist?

Well dip me in shit and roll me in breadcrumbs its news to me!!!! (note the use of revolutionary exclamation marks!)

by Finghin Wed May 14, 2003 18:54

On the class rep piss up. It was a very confused meeting. There were a minority of CFE people who did support attending the piss up after it had been supported by council, it did include PD and some members of SA. But I don't see why this is very important, CFE now have 3 sabbat officers and I'm sure the practice of class rep piss ups will now be ended this year.

by ciaran - sa- in apc Wed May 14, 2003 18:51 ciaranmurray at violentsky dot com

hahahahahahahahaha....oh deary me.... god, haven't laughed so much since before my exams started!! thats better... those petty lies and accusations only serve to amuse me!

by Finghin - SP Wed May 14, 2003 18:49

I've just read the post above mine, there's one thing that needs to be clarified
the poster states

"He (Paul Dillon) failed to condemn the racist comments Enda Curren published in the Obsever yet claimed in his manifesto that he would fight racism"

That's not true, of course Paul Dillon opposed the racist article. PD also played a good role with others in kicking a fascist off campus. I'm not sure whether or not he voted for Enda Curren's resignation, but I'm 100% sure that his reasons for voting either way were not because he was some kindo of racist

by James SA Wed May 14, 2003 18:44

'He failed to condemn the racist comments Enda Curren published in the Obsever yet claimed in his manifesto that he would fight racism, he hypocritically argued against the union wasting money on the class rep training piss-up and then decided not to boycott it, unlike the SP members of cfe and he decided that while fighting for hard pressed students it was ok to participate in this SU/ Fianna Fail junket.'

Well, the charges of racism have been answer4ed here on countless occasions, considering both Pauls particiapted in the physical removal of a fascist from campus, their actions perhaps belie any charges, dillon did vote to condemn and call for Curren to resign, fact.

Regards class rep training, well the cfe meeting we had on that was quite confusing, as im sure the SP heads in UCD will remember, SA argued for a boycott, i proposed the motion in council, however the idea of a CFE mandate and an organised prescene in council with discussions and acting like a bloc didn't hold sway with the majority (note: at public CFE meeting those present voted to allow individuals to chose to boycott or not, while CFE councillors voted to boycott...whose decision carries sway?) Some say it as a useful platform for advancing our ideas, fortunately many who did attend confirmed my own experience from last year, a total lack of interest in activism and pursuing the interests of students by a majority of reps...this realisation poushed us to pursue the CFE agenda autonmously of the union, using the councill only for what we can get.

by Finghin - SP Wed May 14, 2003 18:38

I agree that this thread on the whole is a waste of time. Personally I couldn't care less whether or not SA have gone to the right, the left, up or down and don't want to be dragged into that debate. At first I did not want to get involved in this thread but felt compelled to do so given some slurs put up about PM and the SP.

James, thanks for your reasoned reply, which did not descend into personal abuse and gave political arguments. There are a few things that you brought up I'd like to comment on, please forgive the length.

The question of whether you would have supported another member of the SP if they had stood is indeed hypothetical. You can't be involved in politics and avoid hypothetical questions. For example the whole basis of any manifesto is 'what I would do if I was elected' - that's hypothetical.

James you seem to raise problems with how we carried out our election campaigns. I would have thought that you would have supported a campaign that through the process of collecting nominations attempted to build support from the broader student body not just the usual hacks. By the way nomination forms were out in January for the elections and that is when we launched the campaign.

We had been talking about standing since the beginning of the year; I can't see where the big surprise was. If people on the left were opposed to us standing or wished to stand themselves why did they not raise it with us beforehand? Paul Dillon did not consult us about standing, the first I heard of it was a couple of weeks after we publicly declared we were standing. By the same standards is this not an example of Paul Dillon putting himself at the head of the movement?

"Radical student unions cannot exist where there is no radical student body... A student movement cannot be created or formed from the top down, it can only grow from the base... "

I agree totally with the above statement. If the union is to be transformed it has to be done by the membership not simply by electing a few radicals. We pointed this out throughout the election, have a read of our manifestos. For example we said,

"Your vote can help to build a Students' Union that is prepared to give a fighting lead and will mobilise the student body to repel these attacks instead of the sham, ineffective SU that has existed for years.
"
We also said

"We need a union that bases itself on the active participation of students..."

And
"The union must mobilise the power of its members to exert the maximum pressure on the college authorities, the on-campus franchises and the government. Limited campaigns or lobbying this government as if they were our 'partners' is simply not enough."

There are many more extracts which I could quote, nowhere do we give the impression that by electing PM a transformed union would be born overnight and nowhere do we downplay the need of ordinary students to get active.

James you also say, "Revolutionary political theory means fuck all if it does not lead to revolutionary action and revolutionary practice". Again I agree totally, I don't think you can accuse PM and the SP of being inactive in CFE or in other campaigns.

On USI, it was indeed a broad campaign. Which means that you must make even more an effort to put forward criticisms of the USI leadership. In that campaign I found that many ordinary students were very critical of the USI for the right reasons, they saw them as being bureaucratic and removed from real students. Many of these instinctively were drawn to the Yes side. These students could only have been won over with very critical support of USI together with putting forward the idea of USI being transformed into a fighting democratic organisation. Its not the case that the referendum would have been lost if this position had been taken, in the law faculty were we put forward these arguments, there was one of the highest turnouts and there was the highest No vote of 91%.

by SU politics hater, don’t vote – it only encourages them. Wed May 14, 2003 18:18

The fact remains that SA have moved significantly to the right. They backed the election of Paul Dillon, a Petty Bourgeois Reformist. Lets take a look at his actions.

PD was in favour of the Niced Treaty – just like his reformist party. He failed to condemn the racist comments Enda Curren published in the Obsever yet claimed in his manifesto that he would fight racism, he hypocritically argued against the union wasting money on the class rep training piss-up and then decided not to boycott it, unlike the SP members of cfe and he decided that while fighting for hard pressed students it was ok to participate in this SU/ Fianna Fail junket. At the sit in protest outside the Dail while many activists resisted the wishes of the Gardai and had to be dragged off the streets Dillon co-operated and willfully stood up.

Very revolutionary indeed!

“of all the active CFE members who were neither members of SA, Labour or the SY, not onesided with the Murphy campaign: Erin, Caoimhe, Dave, Gaz, Gar, Eoin and everyone else went with Dillo.”

The fact that these people (who to are petty bourgeois reformists themselevs) campaigned and voted for Dillon over Murphy somehow makes it ok for the SA revolutionaries to do the same? Eamon O Lionnain and the SA fighting for the same candidate? Now it appears that SA ‘revolutionaries’ are becoming members of labour. SA have unquestionably moved to the right.

Ok the next point is about Murphy using cfe to become president.

Yes Paul Murphy undoubtably used CFE to push forward his election campaign but Paul Dillon did the exact same, but in a slightly cleverer way. As far as I know cfe decided not to have a ‘leader’ as this would only lead to problems. PD was then elected as PRO which ment that anytime the media wanted to talk to cfe, it was Dillon they dealt with. This in turn ment that Dillon became the voice and in effect, the leader of cfe and appeared and was quoted in the natinal media on a number of occasions. It was perhaps unsurprising that Dillon was the most vocal member in cfe in his criticism of Murphy, as Murphy threathened to take the spotlight way from him. Not content with using cfe Dillon then used the No campaign in the USI referendum to raise his profile. By running a campaign, which would have won even if Ross higgins had have been running it, he gained publicity and praise from the press and students in general. If people are going to criticise Murphy (rightly so) then the same criticism must also be levelled at Dillon. It seems to me that the only difference was that Dillon was more calculating in his approach.

by james (SA Personal Capacity) Wed May 14, 2003 16:41

'Most SA members agreed with a more moderate stance on many issues. As given above some where against an occupation "even if the mood was there". There was also the case of the uncritical support many SA members took of the USI- even going as far as saying that concessions that Student Nurses won on fees were due to USI lobbying and not the Nurses taking action and going out on strike.'

Where are you getting this from? A more moderate stance on many issues? My head is strained from the constant repeation of arguments on indymedia so ive taken the liberty of cutting and pasting things i've said before. As i've said before on this forum, militant phraseology does not equal actualised militancy among students. 'It has to be admired how people always defer to the authority of certain terms and slogans, when engaging in debate, as if the phrase we use to describe SA 'anti-capitalism, revolution and socialism from below' carry any real weight in its own right. Revolutionary political theory means fuck all if it does not lead to revolutionary action and revolutionary practice.'

If we opposed the use of the phrase 'bloated bureaucratic machine' during the USI referndum it was for reasons very different to those you put forward, which as usual imply a degeration of our politics. The USI referendum was a broad based campaign, which for reasons i opposed CFE refused to carry out under it's own banner. Given the broad nature of the campaign, we may not have agreed with some of the more moderate stances within it, nonetheless, trawl through teh archives and our site and you can see what we've consistently argued for in terms of students unions.

'Radical student unions cannot exist where there is no radical student body. To move towards activist based student unions willing to take stands for students, rather than remaining neutral, making finances available to grass roots initiatives-those running for office will have to come from a student movement which does not wholly exist here yet. A student movement can not be created or formed from the top down, it can only grow from the base. Our job as students is to create such a movement here.' http://www.educationet.org/z0281.html

Would we have supported another SP member for president? Given that it's a totally hypothetical question, is it worth answering? Would another SP member have declared themselves for election 8 weeks before polling and place themselves artificially at the head of the movement. You see, this really is not a question of individual personalities BUT the manner in which you carried out the election.

Anyway, all this is very tiring and amusing. But do we really want to waste a summer sniping back and forth. Last summer provided a breathing space for an examination of the problems within the student movement and ucd, from whence the CFE sprang. Treat this one the same.

by conor (wsm personal capacity) Wed May 14, 2003 15:54

"andrew: must say the continued heat of feelings around this over two months later makes me suspect that March 1st was a bit of a defining moment for the far left here."

it was where I personally decided I will NEVER work with the SWP again where I could avoid it and my trust in the SP is pretty much at a low ebb !

"brian: It had no chance of success and ran a very real risk of violence (that would almost certainly originate with the cops)."

yet on the day there was no REAL violence and it was clear that with another 1000 or so people it would have succeeded

"durrutti: It is something entirely different to sabotage it by suggesting that Cops and Troops might fire into an unarmed crowd .
"

I did hear this being loudly TRUMPETED by Brid Smith of the SWP after a meeting

"If you can't take being called "virtual warriors" after spending weeks on the internet planning a futile stand off with the cops I would advise you to be rather less free with the vitriolic abuse which you heap on others"

people in GNAW are mostly highly experienced activists who do an enormous amount of work "in the real world" as Joe and Brian are WELL AWARE

"Were they as inflammatory as SP members Domnic Haugh when he suggested cmany times on Indy that Police and Troops might fire into an unarmed crowd?"

this I didn't know but it doesn't surprise me !

"dr haugh: The media and the establishment were able to use the “direct actions” as a propaganda weapon against the anti-war movement. This coupled with a local campaign by media and business about the threat of job losses in the airport and the region at large also had an effect on the mood of ordinary people."

There may be some truth in this but its no surprise.

Direct Action is a tactic which aims to mobilise large numbers to have a direct and real effect which breeching the fence would have done.

As usual DA is offered as an excuse for the rapidly dwindling numbers at ALL ANTI WAR activities towards the end of the war.

People lost faith and interest because we were not HAVING AN EFFECT.

Its not just about winning media battles who are rarely on our side any way its about achieving results. The direct actions DID - temporarily scare those air lines away.

The IAWM led 3-400 people past those people who faced down the cops on March 1. They ignored and continue to ignore ALL the Shannon defendents including CW 5 and Mary whom you claim to care for.

But most of all they TURNED THEIR BACKS on people who had struggle with them for many yeras.

They didn't just disagree on indymedia or left fora - perfectly legitimate they used their position in the media the belitle and denigrate an action - which with more support could have worked.

Its UNFORGETABLE AND COMPLETELY UNFORGIVABLE. To disagree with an action is legetimate to belittle, condemn and refuse solidarity is the act of CRAVEN reformists more beholden to the likes of Des Gergarty then to their natural allies. As we move on the bigger and better things I hope these people will reap the rewards of their cowardice. i know which way my back will be turned when THEY come looking for solidarity.

" haugh: but few of those locally participated, reflecting the lack of support in the region for this particular “direct action” and the impact of the media campaign."

Actually on the day about 500 (many bewildered) obeyed their SP and SWP stewards and marched past - about 300 people took part in the action - those are the real numbers

"However, despite the fact that 3 airline companies pulled out of Shannon, the number of US troops moving out of Shannon has doubled in the month of March."

Because they were no SUCCESSFUL direct actions BECAUSE they wre not supported - don't blame the people who ACTUALLY ATTEMPTED to do some thing for the UTTER FAILURE of the IAWM to get a result on Shannon

WAKE UP

Conor

by Oisin Kelly - SP Wed May 14, 2003 14:48

"SA fan" stated:

"The SA stated reasonable arguments for their support for this man (his activism and work record) and compared the rather poor work record of the "revolutionary socialist"."

This is a complete slur. The fact is that Paul Murphy has a good record on fighting fees in UCD. I also acknowledge that Paul Dillon does, but in my opinion he does not see the need for abandoning the failed social partnership-style tactics taken by the student movement in the past.

These anonoymous people that say that the SP in UCD haven't done much work in the CFE should ask themselves who produced the posters? who put them up? who lecture addressed? who organised demos? If you look at who actually did what you will find that SP members did quite alot of the work.

The reasons for SA backing PD were political. Most SA members agreed with a more moderate stance on many issues. As given above some where against an occupation "even if the mood was there". There was also the case of the uncritical support many SA members took of the USI- even going as far as saying that concessions that Student Nurses won on fees were due to USI lobbying and not the Nurses taking action and going out on strike.

I think that some people should ditch the personality rubbish that is evident in this thread and look at the politics behind their positions taken in the SU elections.

by Curious Wed May 14, 2003 14:34

Perhaps Brian and Lord Haugh Haughs noses have grown too long for them to get to their PCs.

by pat c Wed May 14, 2003 10:42

For once I find myself in agreement with Brian, the SP were correct to engage with the PUP. As were the CP, DCTU and Trades Councils around the South.

The possibility of a new oportunity opening up in the Loyalist Working Class could not be ignored. When Ervine spoke at the Dublin Council of Trade Unions he helped me to better understand where loyalists were coming from.

It is a pity the PUP has retreated into a sectarian ghetto.

by Durutti Wed May 14, 2003 10:31

Ray has already tracked down the relevant threads where Lord Haugh Haugh thundered forth his scaremongering and attacks on DA.

What is it about the SP? Do you go on a course on how to lie?

The GNAW list has a mail (reply to Chekov) where Michael O'Brien weasels on about the need for medics.

by pat c Wed May 14, 2003 10:20

but mr haughs intervention must be answered.

he accused me of having contempt for workers because i criticised the airport police.

i think these wretches are indeed templemore rejects. its telling that haugh decides to take the side of the AP against activists.

AP members have gone way beyond any call of duty in harassing and assaulting people who were just taking details of planes.

The AP were also in riot gear and manning the water cannons whenever demos took place. it is beyond me as to how haugh can take the side of the AP and still consider himself a revolutionary socialist.

does the fact that the AP were once porters mean they wopuld be more gentle in their use of batons and water cannon?

haugh indeed suggested that the cops and army might shoot into an unarmed crowd.

andrew is correct, the SP indeed have a problem in deciding which side they should be on in confrontations with the state.

by Ray Wed May 14, 2003 10:18

doheochai
"I agree with the suggestion that the Army will not be deployed (they will be kept in reserve), but there are large numbers of armed plain clothes cops in this region who will be there and it is also likely that the Emergency Response Unit will be redeployed from Limerick (and remember what they did at Abbeylara). "
(this is clearly scaremongering, hinting that the gardai may shoot people at Shannon)
"The workers in Shannon Airport have been subjected to constant threats to their jobs and livelihoods over the past 10 years or so. They are facing an uncertain future. The behaviour of the Trade Union bureaucrats have reinforced these feelings, particularly in the last few months. We have spoken to several workers who have told us that their boss has said if the planes pull out of the airport then their jobs are gone. It takes time and events to counteract these attitudes and the “direct action” activities recently have played straight into the hands of those wishing to undermine the support for the anti-war campaign among Airport workers and in Shannon. This is FACT and cannot be ignored"
http://www.indymedia.ie/cgi-bin/newswire.cgi?id=30560

All of the similar threads are here
http://www.indymedia.ie/archives/arch1.html

by A troll? - Belfaster Wed May 14, 2003 10:00

What is this about the SP calling the police [is this all police RUC etc.] workers in uniform. I don't believe that, this is a lie isn't it?

by Phuq Hedd Wed May 14, 2003 04:18

Boy oh boy oh boy.......

Two main points Dominic:

1. You did indeed suggest that armed police would shoot at the crowd and that there should be medics.

2. Your gnomically short "yes" and "no" answers to my questions did nothing on Feb.26th to explain why you were anti this DA. (Obviously you have that thread bookmarked and it would be useful if you would post the URL so that we can all see it.) You suggested that there would be some sort of airport worker strike action and that DA would put them off it because it put their jobs on the line. When pressed on the likelihood of a strike you had to admit there wasn't going to be one any time soon. Yet you still opposed the DA. So instead of doing anything you argued for waiting for some unspecified time when airport workers would decide to put their jobs on the line. See the circular logic Dominic? No DA because jobs threatened, must wait for workers to threaten own jobs.

QUOTE:The media and the establishment were able to use the “direct actions” as a propaganda weapon against the anti-war movement. This coupled with a local campaign by media and business about the threat of job losses in the airport and the region at large also had an effect on the mood of ordinary people.
[...]
Business figures waded in with dire warnings of job losses and the closure of the airport as a consequence of the GNAW intentions.

ANSWER: Business figures weren't the only ones. Also to speak of "ordinary people" in this way is elitist.

QUOTE:One important question remains. Does this type of “direct action” work?
Shannon Airport continues to be used by US warplanes. Supporters of “direct action” argue that it has forced the withdrawal of 3 airlines that were carrying troops.
ANSWER: And that's because it did. The concrete effect of the threat of destruction, delay and disruption of munition and troop ferrying aircraft had an actual effect as opposed to appealing to the Dail not to let it happen.

QUOTE:This may be the case (although there are indications that, at least in the first case, the “direct actions” were not the reason). However, despite the fact that 3 airline companies pulled out of Shannon, the number of US troops moving out of Shannon has doubled in the month of March. The reality is that the number of US troops and the amount of military hardware moving through Shannon continued to increase. And the airlines have returned (No doubt some will suggest because of the SP “sabotaging” the “direct action” on March 1st)
ANSWER: No doubt they will. Leaving that aside, the fact remains that US troops and munitions are able to travel through Shannon because our criminal government is letting them. As published further up the newswire in a much more interesting thread Eoin Dubsky points out that the only recourse law-abiding citizens have, as determined by a competent judge, is to take direct action at Shannon. If, instead of attacking GNAW, all the "anti war" parties had weighed in to support the Shannon DA then this flow of US forces/munitions would have been more disrupted. A strong, united front would have threatened the government. Instead the chuhuahua's of Leninism yapped at the "non ordinary" protestors in order to obtain a few "good doggys" and avoid being beaten by their conservative Trade Unionist constituencies.

QUOTE:In relation to the accusations and criticisms that have been made on indymedia, both against me personally and against the Socialist Party, there are important points to be addressed.
1) Dominic Haugh will not campaign for a removal of US planes from Shannon because it would cause job losses.

Phuq Hedd on Feb 26th “Am I right that this is what you meant. DA is to be avoided because it will cause USAF to pull out of Shannon with a resulting loss of jobs to the Shannon Airport workers?
My reply “No”

Phuq Hedd on Feb 26th “Do you and/or the SP accept that even if the Shannon workers could not be convinced that it is essential to interests of the working class that the USAF be forced out of Shannon even at the expense of specific jobs and that it is the duty of socialists to argue for the creation of real jobs instead?”
My reply “Yes”

ANSWER: As I pointed out then. "Yes" and "No" did little to illuminate the matter at that time. So you opposed DA but not because of job losses, yet in your post above you allude to the fear of job losses again. Is it then that "DA is to be avoided because the workers will _fear_ resulting job losses"?

Again, post a link to the thread please as you obviously have it.

Finally, you appear to be trying to have your cake and puke it back up. Luckily logic dicates that you either you supported the DA or you didn't. The actual events show that you didn't. (Why do I bother? I don't believe you are even remotely sincere at this stage.)

by SA Fan Wed May 14, 2003 02:41

This thread started with a pathetic attack on Socialist Alternative.They were accused of moving to the right but they have proven that this is not the case. For a relatively small group they are impressively active in a number of campaigns were they have shown they are willing to engage in Direct Action.

Subsiquent contributions from SWP/SP generally attempted to bolster the argument that SA were turning rightward on the grounds that they opted to support a Labour Party member for a SU post rather than a "revolutionary socialist". The SA stated reasonable arguments for their support for this man (his activism and work record) and compared the rather poor work record of the "revolutionary socialist". Personally, I think SA would have done students a disservice to support someone on the basis that they claimed to be a "Revolutionary socialist" when they knew that the LP candidate was the best person for the post. The USSR was full of "revolutionary socialists" in positions of power who had neither the ability or the inclination to carry out their jobs but were given these posts because they were loyal Party members.

The SWP and to a lesser (not much) extent, the SP, have done a dis-service to socialism by attempting to marginalise and demonise Anti War demonstrators who opted to participate in direct Action. You both have taken the same position as the "Irish Independent" instead of at least supporting their actions and, if you had any balls, participating.

HANG YOUR HEADS IN SHAME

by Finghin - SP Tue May 13, 2003 22:56

The reason I engaged in this thread was not because I wanted to score sectarian points, but because there were blatent lies and insults put up about PM and the SP. I don't really care what people say about us in private but this is a public forum and I just can't let it go unchallenged.

Myself and the rest of the SP will of course be working with Paul Dillon in the upcoming year. We have well documented differences with him but we have worked with him this year on CFE and on other issues. He is a decent activist and his election could create the climate for a trnsformation of the union. It was on this basis we called for transfers to him, something which was not recipricated.

I do not think that PM tried to dominate the CFE, I think the account that Dan has given was exagerrated in the extreme. I could also point to instances where similar behaviour was being played out by others in CFE.

by Dominic Haugh - Socialist Party Tue May 13, 2003 22:04

I have not seen the relevance of reading or participating in this forum over the past couple of months, but today a friend suggested I look at the comments being made on this thread. I felt it necessary to correct the lies being peddled here.

We all know the way the national media portrayed the demonstration on Mach 1st and the reaction of PANA, NGO’s, Labour, Green Party and Sinn Fein. It is not necessary to go into the reasons for this as they are well documented. However, it is also necessary to consider the reaction of ordinary people in Shannon and the mid-west in the run up to the demonstration and in the aftermath of March 1st.

January 18th saw up to 3,000 demonstrating in Shannon. Approximately 700 came by bus, many more by car, but at least 1,500 who attended were from Shannon or the surrounding area (Limerick, Ennis and East Clare). Widespread support for the anti-war movement existed in the region, including among airport workers, as indicated by the support received by the peace camp during its existence. The actions by Mary Kelly and the CW5 had an impact among ordinary people in the region, more so in the mid-west than in other parts of the country. The media and the establishment were able to use the “direct actions” as a propaganda weapon against the anti-war movement. This coupled with a local campaign by media and business about the threat of job losses in the airport and the region at large also had an effect on the mood of ordinary people. Local establishment figures started to call for an end to protests in Shannon, saying demonstrate in Dublin this is where the Government is. Public support for the anti-war movement did not dissipate, but there was a questioning about the targeting of Shannon for protests (and more particularly for “direct action”). While it had an affect on the mood, particularly in Shannon, the mood changed in the run-up to the January 18th demonstration. War was viewed as inevitable and people wanted to protest their opposition. There was widespread support in Shannon for the demonstration that culminated with a significant number of people from the region participating.

The declaration that GNAW would be organising a “direct action” on March 1st involving attempting to tear down the perimeter fence was widely broadcast in the region. The local media engaged in a constant barrage of attacks on the anti-war movement. Selective quotations from indymedia were used by right-wing elements within the trade unions and by other establishment figures to attack to anti-war movement (indeed they are still being used in the airport). Business figures waded in with dire warnings of job losses and the closure of the airport as a consequence of the GNAW intentions. Questions were also raised about the safety and security of passengers at the airport. In the run-up to March 1st the atmosphere in Shannon and the surrounding area was negative and by the morning of the demonstration there were even signs of outright hostility emerging in the town. Some protestors that arrived early the morning of the demo were subjected to abuse and there was even the rumour of a counter demonstration being organised by residents in the town. The negative attitude was not directed against the campaign against the war but against the type of “direct action” being proposed.

The police were well prepared. 8 buses full of guards left Shannon Garda Station between 9.30am and 11am. They were followed by 8 vans of police kitted out in riot gear, 12 or so paddy wagons, a boat, 2 army ambulances and a Garda doctor. Members of the ERU and special branch officers were also on duty (at least half a dozen unmarked cars).

The low turnout resulted primarily from the lack of participation from Limerick, Shannon and the surrounding area. The same number of buses came in from around the country but few of those locally participated, reflecting the lack of support in the region for this particular “direct action” and the impact of the media campaign. Practically everyone from Shannon that attended the demonstrations participated in the IAWM march.

In the aftermath of March 1st, the anti-war movement and in particular the GNAW were ridiculed in the local media. The argument being made was that the entire thing was a publicity stunt and that it was a disgrace that €1 million taxpayers money was wasted as a result of a publicity stunt by a group of “cranks, middle-class student types, careerist agitators, eggheads and nutters”. It was unrelenting. It is no coincidence that the Government chose this time to announce that Shannon Airport will be privatised in the near future. The Trade Union hacks in Shannon Airport blamed the GNAW action for facilitating the Government’s decision.

One important question remains. Does this type of “direct action” work?
Shannon Airport continues to be used by US warplanes. Supporters of “direct action” argue that it has forced the withdrawal of 3 airlines that were carrying troops. This may be the case (although there are indications that, at least in the first case, the “direct actions” were not the reason). However, despite the fact that 3 airline companies pulled out of Shannon, the number of US troops moving out of Shannon has doubled in the month of March. The reality is that the number of US troops and the amount of military hardware moving through Shannon continued to increase. And the airlines have returned (No doubt some will suggest because of the SP “sabotaging” the “direct action” on March 1st)

In relation to the accusations and criticisms that have been made on indymedia, both against me personally and against the Socialist Party, there are important points to be addressed.

1) Dominic Haugh will not campaign for a removal of US planes from Shannon because it would cause job losses.

Phuq Hedd on Feb 26th “Am I right that this is what you meant. DA is to be avoided because it will cause USAF to pull out of Shannon with a resulting loss of jobs to the Shannon Airport workers?
My reply “No”

Phuq Hedd on Feb 26th “Do you and/or the SP accept that even if the Shannon workers could not be convinced that it is essential to interests of the working class that the USAF be forced out of Shannon even at the expense of specific jobs and that it is the duty of socialists to argue for the creation of real jobs instead?”
My reply “Yes”

2) Dominic Haugh used scare tactics to prevent people participating in the GNAW action.

by Phuq Hedd Tue, May 13 2003, 12:55am
Doheochai's arguments that the police were going to shoot at the GNAW crowd

by Durutti Column Tue, May 13 2003, 2:37pm
Domnic Haugh raved on Indymmedia about the liklihood of Gardai and Army firing into an unarmed crowd. He also raved on abou the need for medics as did Michael O'Brien.

by Durutti Tue, May 13 2003, 3:30pm
GNAWs remarks were inflamatory? Really?
Were they as inflammatory as SP members Domnic Haugh when he suggested many times on Indy that Police and Troops might fire into an unarmed crowd?

Produce a quotation please. I argued against the notion that the RTS would prevent the cops from using violence against the protestors. They were prepared to use violence. They were prepared and willing to inflict injury on protestors. They were also prepared for their own forces to be injured. The states’ mobilisation for Shannon included 2 ambulances and a doctor. These were not for protestors but for to treat the cops if injured. The ERU and special branch were both mobilised for Shannon on March 1st. GNAW made a mistake in their analysis of the willingness of the state to take action against the “direct action”.

3) Dominic Haugh will not condemn the airport police.

by Durutti Column Tue, May 13 2003, 3.30pm
Domnic Haugh attacked DAs because Airport Police were disciplined

The Airport Police are not as has been suggested “Templemore rejects” or “pretend police”. Most if not all the APO’s in Shannon have worked in other jobs at the airport, baggage handling, ground services, mailroom etc. “Airport Police have harassed peace protestors and participated in the police blockade on March 1st. Firstly, on the March 1st demo, the information we have received indicates that some garda were dressed in APO firefighting gear and that most of the APO’s that participated were supervisors. Like any other job the APO’s have a management structure. Most of the harassment that has been carried out has been by managers within the APO’s. Like any other job you will also have a small fraction of the workforce that will support management in their activities. To tarnish all APO’s with the one brush is a disgrace. I condemn any member of the Airport Police that engages in any action against demonstrators. I did not attack “direct actions” because Airport police were disciplined, but felt that these actions had a negative effect among airport workers and among the people of the Mid-West as a whole, and I said so. Any disciplinary measures taken against the APO’s would only have contributed to this.

by Durutti Tue, May 13 2003, 4:08pm

(About Brian Cahill): I am glad that you are dissociating the SP from Domnic Haughs comments in support of the Airport Police.
I wonder how Mr Haugh feels about it.

Dominic Haugh has been around a long time and has borne the brunt of far more serious attacks by opponents of Marxism than have been dished out here. As regard the Comments by Brian Cahill about my “so-called” opposition to “direct action”, maybe it goes to disprove a point that members of the SP never disagree on anything.

4) Dominic Haugh does not support “Direct Action” and condemns it at every turn.

You will not find a single word of condemnation from me or any other member of the SP about the actions of Mary Kelly and the CW5. However, if I feel that an error has been made tactically, I will say so.

5) Direct Action works.
Yes it does. The question to be asked is “has the direct actions at Shannon Airport succeeded at stopping US warplanes landing at Shannon?” The answer is NO.

6) The Socialist party, Joe Higgins and Dominic Haugh were responsible for the failure of March 1st.

by Durutti Column Tue, May 13 2003, 2:37pm The SP did everything in their power to ensure that the Direct Action on March 1 would be a failure.

by Phuq Hedd Tue, May 13 2003, 12:55am
QUOTE from Brian Cahill:We opposed the GNAW plan to tear down a fence in Shannon because we thought that it couldn't work and carried with it serious risks for the movement in so far as it could hand a huge propaganda victory to the government and the right wing media if something went badly wrong.
ANSWER from Phuq Hedd: The government had no need of a propaganda victory when your fellow party members Doheochai (Dominic Haugh) and Joe Higgins were handing them one on a plate. In your disgusting efforts to maintain control over a situation that would be easily reconcilable with your parliamentary respectability you sabotaged the event.

by Andrew Tue, May 13 2003, 2:50pm
The bad feeling here arises mostly from the fact that SP and SWP members used their media access to undermine the GNAW protest in forums where they KNEW we would be unable to answer them (eg RTE and the Irish Times).

Firstly this is an interesting change of attitude. After March 1st the GNAW were claimed that the Shannon demo was a success.

I am not aware of a single member of the Socialist Party that spoke to the media attacking the GNAW action in the run-up to March 1st. In fact we condemned the decision of PANA, Labour, Greens, SF etc to withdraw support from the IAWM demo.

The only implied criticism that can be made is over Joe Higgins remarks at the Airport on march 1st. Given the events of the previous week I believe the remarks were very apt, and continue to be so. The suggestion that Joe Higgins was attacking people at the same time they were being arrested is outlandish. The remarks were targeted at the idea that if a handful of people plan some action on the internet then somehow it becomes a mass action. The scuffles at the fence were more a case of handbags at 10 paces than anything else. I do not see the benefit in getting arrested for the sake of it.

Lastly, isn’t it interesting that the SP can be condemned on this forum for being irrelevant and at the same time the Socialist Party is responsible for the fact that thousands of people failed to turn up the a GNAW action in Shannon. The reality is that March 1st was a failure precisely because of what was proposed.

by Durutti Column Tue, May 13 2003, 2:37pm
This is all on both Indy and on the GNAW list, so if you deny it, it can be reposted on this thread).

Repost the comments and we will see who is correct. (By the way I am not on the GNAW list so I don’t know what lies were told about me there.)

by thread - monster Tue May 13, 2003 20:52

Why dont we all just shut up and *be* the right and then well have no nasty disagreements. Unity brothers unity. (Except for the splitters).

by whatever Tue May 13, 2003 20:27

cant you see most of this is pointless bulshit we get the picture dan doesn't like paul or brian finghin doesnt like dan and you are fogeting that you are doing what all right wingers want you to do --fight amoung yourselves. paul dillon and paul murphy seem to be the only ones with sense they dont engage in your stupid who's dick is biggest contest--- i pity paul dilln trying to get anything done in your union--with support like that he'll spend most of his time at mediation --- stupid twats

by Dan - SA Tue May 13, 2003 19:56

Im touched by Brian Cahills innnocence. The poor wee lamb
wishes the nasty man would stop saying all those hurtful things
about poor little Paul Murphy. As I pointed out, "acting like a
muppet" is a political problem, whether it derives from someones
personality or not - an issue which doesnt interest me at all.
My worry was not that Paul would do something that earned him grief from
the conservative press, but something which earned him (and everyone
else) ridicule. The idea is to put the fear of god into them, not to
make them laugh. They should only be pissing themselves from fear, not
amusement. I also gave a lengthy account of PMs attempt to dominate
the CFE.Nobody has tried to contradict this; no doubt because its true

Id be interested if Brian Cahill could give an exact definition of the word
"reformist" and the word "revolutionary". Is a revolutionary a member of the
CWI? Or is it a slighly broader church than that?

by sean - s.a. Tue May 13, 2003 19:49

Nice to see SP members posting under such accurate titles.

by Finghin - SP Tue May 13, 2003 19:22

Dan again I feel compelled to come on and refute your blatent lies.

1. You claim that "not one (of the CFE independents) sided with the Murphy campaign".

That is wrong. Caroline, Niamh, Aisling, Shane Smyth, David Murphy, Paul Ennis were all active in supporting the Murphy/Kelly campaign and were not members of the SP. We also had support of many others in CFE who said that they would not get active because of the bitter petty personalised politics they had experienced from some.

2. "The SP candidates WERE dismissive of anyone elses record of fighting fees"

This is bollocks, we never claimed that PD did not oppose fees. What we said was that we believed that PM had the correct strategy to oppose fees. PD and a whole number in CFE regularly took a moderate line. For example at a meeting prior to a demonstration (I think in Nov) one person said "We should not occupy a building, even if the mood is there", when I asked for clarification on what he was saying he said "Yes, even if the mood is there".

The fact is that PD actually said, ( I heard this myself) "(He) was the only candidate to oppose fees". He said it in Theatre M in the Arts block. he later apologised.

There were also plenty of other slurs put about such as the claim that Oisin went to a private school and there was the case of the disappearing posters. I could mention many many other examples of blatent lies put about by rival campaigns but as i mentioned earlier election campaigns are stressful affairs and people sometimes say and do things that they wouldn't normally do.

3. You point out that if elected PM would get "ridicule from conservatives itching to put the boot in and discredit us". I'm sure he would, and if PD does a decent job next year he will also. But who cares what a few right wing hacks think? It is the wider students that would support a real fight on fees, accomadation, on franchises etc are the people we should be concerned about.

4. "Both the SP and the SWP defend the early Soviet regime uncritically. "
I can't speak for the SWP but in relation to the SP this is completely wrong. We never supported the bureacracy, we called for a political revolution in the USSR. What we did defend was the state owned and planned economy. The task was to bring it under deomcratic workers control. The early soviet regime was far from a workers paradise, if you read the history of this time you will find Lenin and Trotsky had serious difficulties with the emerging bureacracy and called for greater democracy.

5. The reason Paul has not been on indymedia defending his name has been because he has exams all this week.

6. We do not think that CFE is dead. The point we were making was that by christmas the peak of the anti fees mood had passed. The increase in the registration charge had happened a few months previously.

7. I still believe that SA's reasons for not supporting PM were essentially political, which I have no problem with, you are entitled to your own political beliefs. I think that if another SP member stood for president with the same progamme and a decent record you still would have supported PD.

by Phuq Hedd Tue May 13, 2003 19:03

You half-answered some of the points that I made and I don't know whether it was deliberate evasion on your part or a lack of clarity in presentation on mine, but the questions still remain.

I retain your numbering scheme for clarity:

1. The point is that PM was _not_ elected and _not_ backed for personal reasons, in the same way that Joe Higgins _is_ elected for personal reasons. I don't know PM personally and have no axe to grind against him, he may be a grand lad for all I know, but you've been clearly told by SA members that they felt that they couldn't back him because he was not willing to behave in a reasonable manner. Just accept it: people get (non)elected for personal reasons. Andrew suggested why in his post -- it's because they are holders of temporary dictatorship, of unaccountable authority, of power. There's very little that can be done (or it's very hard achieve) about correcting or removing them once they've been elected. Someone that has an appearance of behaving poorly will suffer as a result of that.

2. I accept your clarification that the SP was not solely "central" to the water-charges struggle. Your phrasing is ambiguous and tends towards disingenuity though, because _everyone_ involved was "central" to the campaign, the SP wasn't "more central" than anyone else. More importantly you evade my point that it was thousands of individuals with no party affiliation or interest, many of whom probably don't even identify as left-wing, that defeated the water-charges. This is not to take away from the fact that the SP and its members played a very useful role in supporting these people and being involved.

3. You went for the low-hanging fruit on this one and avoided the more interesting questions. a) how large is a "mass demonstration"? b) under what circumstances are "mass demonstrations" more effective than "direct actions"

4. We're repeating the heated row because you are refusing to accept the disgusting role the SP played. I heard no SP condemnations of RBB remarks on the radio. I only heard Higgins getting the knife well in during the event. It would be a massive step forward both for you personally and your party if you could admit that you were wrong.

Finally, I would point out, that like you I was attempting to ignore this thread although I feel that the position of SA is reasonable and rational. Your entry to the fray with its distortions and invective against SA members meant that I could no longer leave it. I'm sure that this pointless pattern will repeat itself many times.

by Chekov Tue May 13, 2003 18:03

It is saddening how the mental strait-jacket of the party line forces apparently thoughtful people into defending the indefensible. It is more saddening to see how they must abandon honesty in doing so.

The chairman of the IAWM - the SP's vehicle for anti-war work - attacked the GNAW action in the mainstream media on at least 3 occasions that I know of. On the day of the action Joe Higgins attacked the protestors in a public address to a crowd of hundreds. Both cases show the IAWM (through both SWP and SP members) using their access to people to attack another section of the movement, with the knowledge that we couldn't respond or defend ourselves (there were over 3 meetings when the GNAW approached the IAWM and asked for a direct action speaker to speak at one of their demonstrations - all were refused).

Are you seriously expecting us to believe that the SP didn't support, or at least accept, the line expressed by the IAWM? If you did disagree with it, where were the protests? Where were the dissenting press releases? Was Joe's speech a cunning ruse to make us all think that there was unity while, behind the scenes, the SP defended GNAW valiantly?

Do you really have the gall to suggest that, because the spokesperson of the IAWM was not a SP member, they are not at all associated with his public statements? If the PRO of the South Dublin bin charges campaign started issuing press releases that attacked one of the other campaigns, the SP would just sit back and shrug their shoulders as he's not a member, wouldn't they?

I agree that March 1st will turn out to be a defining moment for the Irish far-left. It certainly opened my eyes. I used to think that Joe Higgins was a decent type. He has stood on pickets and demonstrations side by side with many of the people who stood at the fence on march 1st.
Refering to them "internet warriors" dragged him back down into the slimy heap of principle-free politics. I also used to think that the SP and SWP had at least an ounce of revolution between them. I was proved wrong on this too.

by Brian Cahill - Socialist Party Tue May 13, 2003 17:43

Well this is a welcome change - Dan actually responded to some of the points I made.

Sadly, I don't have time for a full discussion of the issues today but I can make a start. I want to make it perfectly clear though that if Dan continues with his campaign of personal abuse of Paul Murphy he can consider this discussion terminated. I want no part of any polite debate with someone who uses vicious and poisonous personal attacks on other activists as a central part of his argument.

The SSP is a party which includes both real revolutionaries and real reformists. I can personally testify to this having been a member of it and knowing the wide range of political views amongst its members. As well as self-proclaimed revolutionaries, senior members of the SSP include open reformists like Hugh Kerr, the former Labour MSP. Reformists and revolutionaries of different stripes coexist around what the SSP leadership aptly calls a "class struggle" progamme.

The SSP isn't a revolutionary organisation with a revolutionary programme because it isn't supposed to be. It wants to include both revolutionaries and reformists and its leadership makes programmatic compromises to allow both elements to coexist. In other words it "leaves open the question of revolution or reform".

Dan's attempts to redefine reformism our of existence serve only to confuse here. Of course most of the reformists in the SSP are well to the left of even most "old" Labour reformists (not all but most). Reformism is a very broad church.

Dan's willingness to absolve Tommy Sheridan from responsibility for his remarks about wanting "a highly motivated workforce for big business" is touching, but really the words are as plain as the nose on your face. Particularly when the content of his series of increasingly reformist interviews in the run up the election are taken into account. The regular references to other capitalist countries as showing what an independent Scotland could achieve with higer taxation were particularly woeful.

Dan's points about Northern Ireland were, of course red herrings. The Socialist Party has raised various forms of state oppression on a large number of occasions. We have never argued that taking up such issues would drive Protestant workers into the hands of reaction. Instead we have argued that such issues are regularly taken up *in a sectarian way*.

As for the PUP, I'm left wondering exactly where we were supposed to have been so complimentary about them. We never considered them socialists and we never forget their backgrounds. We did engage with them and argue with them as we would any new working class formation coming out of either side of the sectarian divide. The PUP have largely retreated back into their sectarian political ghetto but that doesn't mean that it was wrong to engage with them in the first place.

by Magneto Tue May 13, 2003 17:12

Read Cahill again. Its his usual twists. Nowhere does he critcise Haughs support for the disciplined Airport Police.

Remember the SP call the AP 'workers in uniform'. Despite the AP manning the water cannons and being ready to attack GNAW, the SP have never criticised ant actions of the Airport Police.

by Durutti Tue May 13, 2003 17:08

I am glad that you are dissociating the SP from Domnic Haughs comments in support of the Airport Police.

I wonder how Mr Haugh feels about it.

by Brian Cahill - Socialist Party Tue May 13, 2003 17:03

1) Now I get it.

When I argue that the discussion on Indymedia was unnecessarily vitriolic on both sides and that it had little bearing one way or another, I am told that the real complaint was about things which the Socialist Party said in the mainstream media.

When I point out that nobody from the Socialist Party said anything in the mainstream media about the GNAW action at all, I am told that the real complaint was about things which people who are not in the Socialist Party said in the mainstream media.

So the Socialist Party's "sabotage" amounts to... people who are not in the Socialist Party saying mean things about the GNAW action in interviews which we had nothing to do with. We've been blamed for a lot of things on Indymedia, but this really takes the biscuit.

2) If I was unclear in my remarks about the airport police issue then I apologise.

What I meant was that the Socialist Party supported the actions which were criticised for getting airport police disciplined. If a member of the Socialist Party was opposed to those actions then he wasn't reflecting the attitude of the SP as a whole. The Socialist Party applauded those actions publically and repeatedly.

3) I'm really not interested in rehearsing the "what Tommy Sheridan said in an interview more than a decade ago" argument. What Tommy precisely meant by what he said is an issue which you should feel free to take up with him.

I gave my own personal opinion which is that saying that the Poll Tax federations would have their own enquiry that would name names wasn't a wise thing to say. If Tommy meant naming the rioters, then he was clearly wrong. If he meant an enquiry into cop violence then the sentiment was correct but the way it was expressed was stupid.

Either way, of course, Militant did not argue for any internal enquiry by the federations and certainly didn't name any names. As Andrew is well aware.

by Dan - SA Tue May 13, 2003 16:59

Oh, Brian Cahill claims I "threatened" Paul Murphy.
Well, Ill say this. If Murphy tries to dominate the
CFE next year in the same way, I will not hold my tongue
in the name of being "non-sectarian". I will certainly say
"Hey Paul didnt you say the CFE was finished a few months ago
and go off on your own?Whats changed since?". Thats not a threat,
its a promise. If he wants to participate in the CFE on the same terms
as everyone else, as an memeber not a leader, there wont be a problem.
But if he is unwilling to admit that his behaviour this year was unacceptable,
then Im pessimistic.

BTW, the whole "killing a child" question isnt off the wall. Both the SP and the
SWP defend the early Soviet regime uncritically. This mainly concerns me for its relevance
to the present day. When John Rees was asked by Robin Blackburn if the SWP believe in
pluralism after the revolution, he said "Of course, but first we have to win the civil war, and
stern measures may be necessary." The phrase "stern measures" is meaningless in the abstract, but coming
after a lengthy article defending the Cheka, it is a little worrying to say the least.
The question surely is, if the SP cant bring themselves to criticise Lenin,
not why does an SP member consider it acceptable to kill people without trial, even children, but
why would any member of the SP NOT consider it acceptable? An interesting one to ponder, Im
sure youll agree.

by Dan - SA Tue May 13, 2003 16:43

Again the SP are unable to distinguish between "character
assassination" and a critique of someones political record.
I gave a detailed account of the way in which Paul Murphy
tried to set himeself up as leader of the CFE and use it
as a launch-pad for his SU election. This is a serious political
point. If you dont believe me, consider this: of all the active
CFE members who were neither members of SA, Labour or the SY, not one
sided with the Murphy campaign: Erin, Caoimhe, Dave, Gaz, Gar, Eoin and
everyone else went with Dillo. Since these people have political views ranging
from semi-anarchist to moderate to Communist, I think the common denominator
must have been dislike of Murphys domineering behaviour and greater respect for Dillo
based on the fact that he tried to run a genuine grassroots campaign.
The SP candidates WERE dismissive of anyone elses record of fighting fees; you
should have seen Dillo and Aidan spitting blood when they heard this.

This political criticism has been ignored by SP members who focus on the fact that I
accused Murphy of "acting like a muppet". Well, he did. The "O-C-C-U-P-Y!" incident is merely
the most notorious. This was relevant to the SU campaign because I suspected, along with
many others, that Murphy would continue such behaviour once elected, exposing himself and, more
importantly, the left in general, to ridicule from conservatives itching to put the boot in and
discredit us. Weve tried to be tactful about this. For example, when Paul insisted on leading every
demo with his megaphone, we gently suggested that he was only exposing himself to victimisation from the
cops; he didnt take the hint. They say the first step towards recovery is admitting you have a problem.
I dont know if "acting like a muppet" is an incurable condition; for Pauls sake I hope not. But someone has to
tell him what people have been saying about him all your. Its only manners.

Back to the SSP: when Murray Smith said that the SSP left the question of "reform or revolution" open,
he meant it in a certain sense only. The SSP make clear in their programme that they stand for public
ownership of the financial sector, the north sea oilfields, manufacturing, chemicals and so on; the commanding
heights of the economy. They also make it clear that this cannot be achieved through the ballot box alone; as well
as a strong parliamentary presence, socialism requires a mass movement in the workplaces and the communities of Scotland.
This can all be read on their website for anyone who cares to read it. Furthermore, they make clear that their "Scottish road
to socialism" will not be limited by bourgeois legality; hardly surprising from a party which owes its origins to the
poll tax campaign. With this agenda, there is an impenetrable barrier between them and Labour, not only in its present
Thatcherite incarnation, but the old Labour party of MacDonald, Attlee or Wilson too.

The question of "reform or revolution" is only left open in the sense that, say, Ralph Miliband and Ernest Mandel
could be said to differ over the question. In other words, there is no ambiguity about whether public ownership
of the key sectors of the economy is needed, or whether mass agitation outside parliament is needed, or whether
it is acceptable to defy the law. There is an open question of whether parliamentary institutions can be the channel through
which a popular movement achieves socialism, without in any way relying on MPs to liberate people (this would be the
Miliband position); or, on the other hand, if parliament must be eventually by-passed and replaced with new structures of
democracy, "soviets" or whatever you want to call them (this would be the Mandel position). As far as I can gather, Smith
favours the second option; but it is quite proper for the SSP to leave this question open, as it will have to be resolved through
practical experience. I suggest anyone who confuses the first position with classical reformism should read what Ralph Miliband, its
most articulate exponent, had to say, in particular his article on the Chilean coup and the last chapter of his book "Marxism and Politics".
Im sure people who have time to trudge through all the debates between the CWI and the ISM will have time to do so.

The position of the ISM is that within a broad socialist party, there should be a coherent Marxist platform of activists with a good
grasp of the history of the socialist movement. This is essential to prevent the SSP repeating the errors made by socialists over the last
century. There is, of course, a real danger that as the SSP grows it will be swamped by genuine reformists and pushed to the right. There was an
irritating article in the Guardian last Saturday, for example, offering patronising praise for the SSP but urging them
to abandon this anti-capitalist blather and concentrate on "real" issues. This will no doubt become a clamour as the SSP becomes more of a threat.
I hope the ISM are aware of this danger; they seem like an intelligent group of activists so I suspect they are.
If the SSP falls into the hands of people who think the bulk of the economy should be left in private hands, or who want to
focus on elections while ignoring activism, that would be a serious error, and they would have to be criticised harshly.
But I hope that never happens, and its development to the present gives good reason to expect that it wont.

Sheridan made his remarks about a "motivated workforce" while being hassled by an obnoxious BBC journalist who wanted to shout
down anyone who doesnt venerate business; he was challenging the idea that the only way to compete in the global economy is to have the
lowest labour costs. By rights there should be social democrats around to make this argument, but the Labour party has
abandoned its traditional ideology. So not only does someone like Sheridan have to argue for anti-capitalist policies, but
he even has to argue for the idea that business should be controlled or regulated in any way, since neither Labour nor the SNP will.
It is perfectly acceptable to challenge Thatcherite ideology at its weakest point. Ive often found myself doing the same thing during arguments
about globalisation; you often end up blending radical and moderate positions because someone like Moore McDowell is so far to the right, it would
be wrong not to hammer him on every weak point. So Sheridans remarks dont worry me a great deal, since in the same interview he again defended public ownership
of the key sectors of the economy.

Another claim often made by the CWI is that the SSP have abandoned internationalism. This,in their minds, is proven by the fact that Sheridan, Smith, McCombes et al
are unwilling to accept the leadership of Peter Taaffe. In the real world, the SSP have a strong internationalist record. They have campaigned strongly against racism and
in defence of asylum-seekers; in Scotland there is a party with a real presence in working-class communities willing to challenge racism, whereas in England, the BNP often
have a clear run. They have links with socialist groups all over the world; they have helped fund socialists in Pakistan and Afghanistan, and established a good relationship
with other European socialists such as the LCR and Rifondazione (Murray Smith is now an active member of the LCR). To me this does not sound like the behaviour of "social-patriots".
While the CWI boasts about its intenationalism, its various affiliates all take their line from London. Ive heard SP members argue that to raise the issue of state repression
in the north is wrong because it will drive Protestant workers into the arms of reaction. The SP had much praise for the PUP in its early days, despite its UVF past and its
proliferation of union jacks. Now that the PUP has joined the coalition of fuckheads behind George Bush, and perhaps more importantly, Billy Hutchinson has been seen urging the RUC to
"clear those fenians" off the road at Holy Cross, perhaps they might care to admit they were wrong. I wouldnt mind if they didnt attack the SSP as "nationalist" on the basis of scanty evidence.

by Durutti Tue May 13, 2003 16:30

"1) That the airport police might be disciplined doesn't strike me personally as much of an issue.

Actually, if I recall correctly, this point was raised with regard to the earlier "over the wall" actions rather than directly in connection with the GNAW plan. Given that the Socialist Party's view of the actions by Dubsky, Kelly etc was entirely positive this particular criticism isn't one which stems from any position of the Socialist Party."

Brian, the above is gobbleygook. Domnic Haugh attacked DAs because Airport Police were disciplined.

Are you saying that Haugh was not expressing SP policy? Why didnt the SP say so at the time?

"2) Joe's remarks were certainly colourful but they were a much less inflamatory than a good deal of the discussion which occurred on this site. If you can't take being called "virtual warriors" after spending weeks on the internet planning a futile stand off with the cops I would advise you to be rather less free with the vitriolic abuse which you heap on others"

You are not dealing with the substance of the matter. There was a real confrontation going on at the time. Real people were being arrested.

Joe Higgins chose to attack those real people.

GNAWs remarks were infkamatory? Really?

Were they as inflammatory as SP members Domnic Haugh when he suggested cmany times on Indy that Police and Troops might fire into an unarmed crowd?

Do you approve also of Haughs words in this instance?

by Andrew Tue May 13, 2003 16:29

Brian the SP were part of the IAWM and therefore share responsibility for the way the IAWM choose to portray the March 1st action. And Joe's remarks were not 'colorful', in the context they were made they were disgraceful and disgusting. I used to think he was all right, now I think he is just another back stabbing politican. Not quite on par with Tommy Sheridans promise* to name names after the poll tax riot perhaps but part of that general CWI pattern of not quite knowing what side you should be on when state repression is coming down.

* On Sheridens promise to 'name names' I followed it at the time and find the modern CWI spin incredible. These remarks were not made at an internal meeting but to a media that at the time was printing pictures of rioters under headlines like 'Name these yobs'. Some people did long jail terms as a result of this. Sheriden clearly intended to scapegoat certain people and organisations in the media for the riot and if he had not been stopped would have seriously added to the witchhunt in progress.

This is all the clearer because after it became clear that the riot was actually quite popular the inital CWI spin was that he actually meant he would name the cops responsible for the trouble. The fact that even that spin has been changed not only reveals the CWI to be full of crap but shows the contempt it has for its own members and those who read its publications.

by Brian Cahill - Socialist Party Tue May 13, 2003 16:22

1) That the airport police might be disciplined doesn't strike me personally as much of an issue.

Actually, if I recall correctly, this point was raised with regard to the earlier "over the wall" actions rather than directly in connection with the GNAW plan. Given that the Socialist Party's view of the actions by Dubsky, Kelly etc was entirely positive this particular criticism isn't one which stems from any position of the Socialist Party.

2) Joe's remarks were certainly colourful but they were a much less inflamatory than a good deal of the discussion which occurred on this site. If you can't take being called "virtual warriors" after spending weeks on the internet planning a futile stand off with the cops I would advise you to be rather less free with the vitriolic abuse which you heap on others.

3) See above. I am not aware of any member of the Socialist Party commenting on the GNAW action in advance anywhere other than here.

by Durutti Tue May 13, 2003 16:08

"As I said above the Socialist Party thought that the GNAW plan was foolish and dangerous for the movement and we said so. It had no chance of success and ran a very real risk of violence (that would almost certainly originate with the cops). Others disagreed as is their right.
"

It is one thing to disagree with an action and think it foolish. It is something entirely different to sabotage it by suggesting that Cops and Troops might fire into an unarmed crowd .

You have not dealt with

a) Haugh criticising DAs because Airport Police were disciplined.

b) Joe Higgins calling GNAW 'Virtual Warrior' as thet were face to face with the cops and army.

c) The SPs use of mainstream media to sabotage the DA.

by Brian Cahill - Socialist Party Tue May 13, 2003 16:04

Andrew, I concentrated on the debate which took place on Indymedia because this was the only forum as far as I can recall in which members of the Socialist Party expressed any view of the GNAW action right up until Joe's colourful remarks on the day itself.

If you want to discuss some comments made by members of the Socialist Party somewhere else you will have to show them to me.

by Brian Cahill - Socialist Party Tue May 13, 2003 15:59

I'm not misleading anybody about anything.

As I said above the Socialist Party thought that the GNAW plan was foolish and dangerous for the movement and we said so. It had no chance of success and ran a very real risk of violence (that would almost certainly originate with the cops). Others disagreed as is their right.

The debate which took place on Indymedia was vitriolic on all sides, again reinforcing the point I made about the difficulty of serious and reasoned discussion here. That anybody could argue though that the discussion which took place here had an impact on the success or failure of the action strikes me as at best somewhat silly and at worst an attempt to find scapegoats for what was an entirely predictable failure.

But lets not get sidetracked.

by Socialist Tue May 13, 2003 15:56

I am sorry that describing Peter Hadden in these terms is simply dismissed as predictable. Lets put this another way. Do the personal qualities of the leaders of revolutionary organisations matter, or do they not? Was Stalin's temperament one of the reasons Lenin wanted him removed, and was he right to have this as one of the reason he thought the man should not be General Secretary of the Russian Party? To put it yet another way, do we mean it when we say that the subjective factor is an important part in the historical process or do we not?

The fact is that everybody who has worked closely with Hadden in the North has eventually come away bruised, battered and very often disillusioned with revolutionary politics. His subjective qualities are a part of this. I am trying to suggest that if the SP wants to grow then they must address the issue. Of course, politics are important and teh objective situation is important - but if this was all that is important in determining the transition to a new society, then you would not need a party in the first place!

I should add that Hadden has other things in common with Stalin. Of course, in addition to being a proto-stalinist authoritarian meglomaniac, he a very bright guy (though not the genius he thinks he is). Stalin too had his qualities. However, there is an old Russian proverb often quoted by Trotsky, to the effect that a spoonful of tar spoils a barrelful of ghoney. The authoritarianism of Hadden, ignored by the other SP leaders because they have been blinded by his political insights, is a very serious problem for your organisation, one that it has always ignored - and one that will continue to hinder your growth so long as you do so.

by Andrew Tue May 13, 2003 15:50

The idea that people vote in election purely on the basis of the program presented by the candidate is laughable. As important is the judgement they form of the character and record of the candidate or party. Elections after all are famous for being times when people say one thing before polling day and do something else when elected afterwards.

Which ties into Brian Cahill's curious idea that the bad feeling over the SP/SWP undermining of March 1st is mostly to do with indymedia. In fact more regulars here accept that people say pretty harsh things BUT at least here you get the chance to reply to people who can follow all sides of the debate.

This is not what happened with March 1st. The bad feeling here arises mostly from the fact that SP and SWP members used their media access to undermine the GNAW protest in forums where they KNEW we would be unable to answer them (eg RTE and the Irish Times). The shit some SP members were coming out with on indymedia we could tolerate beacause we could call them on it.

I must say the continued heat of feelings around this over two months later makes me suspect that March 1st was a bit of a defining moment for the far left here.

by Durutti Column Tue May 13, 2003 15:37

You are not yet in a position to rewrite history; you have to hold State Power before you can effectively wield Stalins Airbrush.

Domnic Haugh raved on Indymmedia about the liklihood of Gardai and Army firing into an unarmed crowd. He also raved on abou the need for medics as did Michael O'Brien.

Domnic Haugh also attacked DAs which had taken place because they had gotten Airport Police into yrouble!

(This is all on both Indy and on the GNAW list, so if you deny it, it can be reposted on this thread).

The SP did everything in their power to ensure that the Direct Action on March 1 would be a failure.

Even on the day, Joe Higgins reffered to GNAW as Virtual Warriors. At that very moment, real GNAW activists were confronting real cops, real soldiers and real Airport Police, as they attempted to get through a real fence. Real cops then arrested 10 real GNAW activists.

by Amused Tue May 13, 2003 15:36

At 2:14 by Indymedia's incorrect clock Brian posted the following:

"As I stated above, I don't think that having contentious discussions on Indymedia in its present format is particularly helpful as the anonymous insults which start flying almost immediately have the effect of raising the temperature"

At 2:16 by the same clock, "Socialist" made his point again.

by Socialist Tue May 13, 2003 15:16

I don't know Paul Murphy from adam, and therefore have no idea whether is is a 'proto-stalinist authoritarian meglomaniac'. However, based on numerous conversations with numerous ex-SP members in Northern Ireland (including former full timers), this seems to be an excellent description of Peter Hadden. You might say this is personal abuse, and I have to say that if ever there was anyone who deserved some it is the forementioned Greatest Marxist Writer on the North. However, I would say that no organisation led by a 'proto-stalinist authoritarian meglomaniac' can possibly succeed in becoming an influential force capable of delivering positive social change. A stalinist nightmare, maybe (though after what happened in Russia, even this 'achievement' is unlikely), but a socialist demoracy - never. It is a terrible reflection on the SP/CWI that such a character can play a prominent role in its deliberations - and after 30 years have achieved so little. Equally, the complete inability of the SP to admit its mistakes, to recognise that its internal regime could possibly bear some improving, is quite grim. History, evidently, stopped at 1917. A sect the SP is, and one it will remain.....

by Brian Cahill - Socialist Party Tue May 13, 2003 15:14

1) There is no point in continuing any discussion with you if your primary interest is in attempting the character assassination of another CFE activist. Your barely veiled threats about the continued involvement of Socialist Youth in the CFE campaign which they helped to establish and which they were mainstays of throughout the last year do you even less credit.

2) You return to the issue of the ISM and the SSP, give out about the causal use of terms like "reformist", describe my "elaborate discussion" as atypical and then refuse to engage with any of the points I made. Ignoring the other person's arguments and repeating your own views over isn't a serious way in which to argue your case, Dan.

By the way, similar explanations can be found in the wealth of articles which the CWI has produced about the SSP.

The only point you engage with at all concerns Tommy Sheridan's "mixed economy" remark. I think that the contruction you put on his statement doesn't really fit given the broader point he was making but even if you are entirely correct about that particular formulation it would make little difference. Can you find a similarly comforting way to explain away his desire for a "highly motivated workforce for big business?"

More to the point, you evade entirely the more basic issues raised - Murray Smith's acknowledgement that the SSP "leaves open the question of revolution or reform", the presence of both revolutionaries and reformists with the SSP, the SSP leadership's acceptance that their programme is not revolutionary and so on.

Instead you seek to portray any realistic assessment of the merits and flaws of the SSP as hostility. I point out that the CWI in Scotland is a part of the SSP and works to build that party as best it can. You ignore that. I point out that we welcome the successes of the SSP and are proud of the role which our sister organisation in Scotland has played in helping to bring them about. You ignore that too.

If you want to convince anyone of your view of the ISM or the SSP you will have to do better than just describing other views as hostility. The SSP's successes are a big step forward for the left in Scotland. That should not make the SSP immune to rigorous analysis.

3) The disagreement which the Socialist Party had with GNAW over GNAW's plan to tear down the fence in Shannon were indeed tactical. We thought that the plan was foolish and dangerous for the movement as a whole and we said so. We did not argue that every direct action of every type in every circumstance was inappropriate. We hardly could given our long record of involvement in direct actions. There is no other way to accurately describe that than as a tactical disagreement.

The harsh words which were exchanged, mostly on Indymedia, probably did create some bitterness amongst some of those involved in the arguments. On all sides. I doubt if all that many members of the IAWM or the Socialist Party or the SWP or anyone else who disagreed with GNAW found the vitriol and bile heaped upon them on this site any more amusing than GNAW members found the harsher arguments from the other side.

If the arguments have led to lasting bitterness amongst any of the groups and individuals in the anti-war movement then that is unfortunate. As I stated above, I don't think that having contentious discussions on Indymedia in its present format is particularly helpful as the anonymous insults which start flying almost immediately have the effect of raising the temperature.

by Cato Tue May 13, 2003 14:56

Why doesnt Paul Murphy come on indy himself to answer the childing killing, RSF, saying he was the only one in CFE to do work etc allegations?

by Finghin - SP Tue May 13, 2003 14:45

DF: "Paul Murphy went around during the election, telling everyone that he was the only candidate who had done anything to
oppose fees."

Dan that is a blatent lie. At no point in the campaign did we claim this. What we said was that we believed that Paul is the best candidate for opposing fees, that is quite a different thing.

The fact is that many mistruths were spread and dirty tricks were carried out by the Dillon and Regan campaigners which I could list out but I will resist the temptation as I know elections are stresssfull affairs and people sometimes say do and say things that they would not otherwise do.

I think it is quite pathetic that those who are defending SA's positions have descended into throwing insults and spreading lies against Paul Murphy and the Socialist Party in UCD.

To portray PM as some kind of proto-stalinist authoritarian meglomaniac who has not played any role in opposing fees or has no organisational ability is complete crap. Anyone on the left in UCD, if they where honest, would acknowledge that this is not the case and that PM and the SP have played a very positive role in building CFE.

The reasons for backing any particular candidate in an election should be political. It should be on the basis of their programme, of their record and what a victory for that candidate would mean for the movement. The candidates personality should not be an issue. The reason the SP backed Dan Finn in the 2002 elections was on a political basis, we believed that his victory would act as a catalyst for building a fighting democratic union and campaigned for him on that basis. We did not consider the personalities of the two candidates, if Aonghus Hourihane was a really nice guy and Dan Finn was a right bastard we still would have called for a vote for Dan.

I do believe that the reasons for SA backing Paul Dillon were political. So if SA are to explain their position could they please do it on the basis of politics.

by Dan - SA Tue May 13, 2003 14:16

Its a little odd that members of the SP and the SWP object to
personal attacks. Surely you must be familiar with the way in which
Lenin (especially) and Trotsky would attack their opponents (eg Trotsky calling
Lenin a "slovenly attorney" before they kissed and made up in 1917).
Back a few weeks ago on this newswire, an SP member described John Thorne
as a "pathetic" individual. So theres no point taking the high moral
ground now.

There are many ways in which personal traits become relevant to political
questions. For example, the aforementioned John Thorne thread contained
many references to Peter Hadden as arrogant, elitist and intolerably vain.
I cant say whether this is true, never having met the man. But it obviously would
affect the way in which the northern SP operates if their leader possessed such
"qualities". To take another obvious example, there are clearly two types of person
among left activists: people who can have a conversation about something other than politics
and people who cant. This obviously has political relevance; the latter group will
find themselves unable to relate to anyone who isnt a political activist.

I have justified my remarks about Paul Murphy at length. If there was no political
relevance to what I said, I wouldnt have bothered saying it. Im not a psychologist.
I dont know if Paul has an arrogant, domineering personality, and thats why he joined the
SP, or if the SPs ideology has inclined him to be arrogant and domineering, with its arrogant
claim to represent the "true marxist tradition" rather than any other group on the left. Frankly,
I dont really care. All I know is that PM behaved from the beginning of the year in an arrogant
and domineering manner in the CFE. Theres no doubt that he put a lot of work in, but theres equally no
doubt that he intended this work to be a launchpad for his electoral campaign. SA have no problem running
people for positions in unions, quite the contrary, but we believe strongly that an electoral campaign should
be subordinate to grassroots organisation, not vice versa. The main reason we backed Paul Dillon is that he
gave every sign of believing this too. Paul Murphys behaviour damaged the CFE, which is the best activist group
UCD has seen since Ive been here, although thankfully not irreperably. I suspect that if SA hadnt been there to oppose
what he was doing, the CFE would have fallen apart. I know that people were reluctant to attend demos and meetings
because they were beginning to see the CFE as the Paul Murphy show. Every time there was a protest, Paul would bring along
the megaphone and set himself up as leader. If anyone else had a megaphone, he would chant louder to drown them out.
The papers in UCD were plastered with photos of Paul in action; at one point there were at least three articles in the
university observer concerning PM. People who werent involved in the CFE assumed that Murphy was our "leader", an impression
he had deliberately cultivated. A backlash had already set in against this behaviour before the new year, which is no
doubt why Paul plastered the campus with posters announcing his campaign launch, a move generally seen as egotistical and
absurd.

The thing is, Paul Murphy went around during the election, telling everyone that he was the only candidate who had done anything to
oppose fees. And he expected people who supported Dillo not to resent his lies. Its the old trot classic, I suppose: claiming the right
to attack everyone else, while holding up your hand in horror and indignation if they have the temerity to respond in kind. Im afraid it just wont
wash. Paul, did you really imagine you could behave like that and not provoke resentment? Having dismissed the CFE as a "spent force" because it wouldnt
row in behind your leadership, do you now imagine that you can return and try to dominate it again. To a considerable extent, bridges have been burnt -
and you were the one with the can of petrol.

Im not going to talk about the SSP in detail; that would require a whole new thread.
But when Brian Cahill says that the CWI are not attacking the SSP in any way, hes being rather
economical with the truth. If either the CWI or the IS have a serious critique of the SSP, thats one thing.
But most of what they say is mere begrudgery; the word "reformist" is thrown around casually, as if
the ISM were in the tradition of Bernstein and Tony Crosland. When social democrats talk about a mixed economy,
they mean it as a cover for accepting private dominance of the economic system; but Sheridan, in the interview which he has been
attacked over, used it as a cover for justifying public ownership of the key sectors of the economy.
A subtle difference. Sometimes the CWI refer to the ISM as "well-meaning" or even "left" reformists; but more
often than not the conciliatory adjective is dropped. It all seems very petty, I have to say. Of course the ISM are not
infallible; your own celebrated dissident John Throne expressed reservations about their strategy. But the public
statements of the SP certainly give the impression that the SSP/ISM have abandoned Marxism, which is nonsense. Brian Cahills
elaborate discussion is very untypical.

The discussion about direct action is going round in circles at this stage; neither the SP nor the SWP are
willing to acknowledge that their attacks on the GNAW went well beyond tactical disagreement, and were in fact
cowardly and dishonest. Perhaps they too are unaware of the bitterness produced by their behaviour. Wake up boys.
People are going to be talking about Shannon and March 1st for a long time. Joe Higgins' quote about
"internet warriors tearing down virtual fences" will be remembered.

In conclusion, nobody denies that Militant/SP have achieved worthwhile things in their history. But
this does not give them unlimited cover for their less admirable carry-on.

by Ciaran - SA- in a personal capacity of course... Tue May 13, 2003 13:44 ciaranmurray at violentsky dot com

I think its quite funny the way that the SWP choose to post yet another completely unprovoked attack on Socialist Alternative... I mean what have we ever done to you? (oh yeah... woops) But are you really that insecure that you have to go stirring shit, saying how we'v "shifted to the right" and other such random accusations? Its been a year now, come on, just get over it!

This year, for a small group, we'v been instrumental to the ucd anti-racist and anti-deportation campaigns, we'v played a huge role in the CFE, along with SY and other autonomous activists, we spent any money we made at Freshers week on the LAN campaign and have orchestrated other internal campaigns here in ucd... Don't see anything particularly right wing there... theres no need for juvenile bickereing so just quit with the ol' bitchin an' lets all get along yeah?

by iosaf Tue May 13, 2003 13:01

this thread has proved more interesting than all the giagbytes they've uploaded as websites since James Connoly went cyber.

great.
earmark this page.
but don't forget they aren't anarchists not even a little bit libertarian, oh no, they are all bolsheviks every single one.

by Daithi Tue May 13, 2003 05:19

There are many Indymedia users, including some involved with editorial/admin functions, that choose not to use their real name when posting to the site. Bearing in mind the use of the Internet in law 'enforcement', the constraints placed on Internet use by some employers, traditional privacy concerns, and even simple things like the reach of a Google or AllTheWeb search, I find it more than reasonable for those who post to the site to make use of a 'handle'. This is in my opinion quite different from anonymous attacks that pop up with names like 'curious', 'me' and 'xxxx watcher'. Not everyone is in a position, employment-related or otherwise, to speak freely about politics in an environment of recording and wholescale monitoring, and using a consistent 'fake name' should not invite criticism.

by Brian Cahill - Socialist Party Tue May 13, 2003 03:41

I am not getting derailed into a discussion of the anti-poll tax movement but James' assertions are blatantly untrue. Militant (as the Socialist Party then was) was instrumental in setting up hundreds of local anti-poll tax unions. Again, before PH jumps on me, not all of them but a huge number. It dedicated enormous time and resources to helping to build the biggest movement of civil disobedience which Britain has ever seen. Large numbers of its activists were imprisoned, mostly for physically preventing bailiffs from carrying out the seizure and sale of the possessions of non-payers.

Few Militant candidates stood in any elections during the poll tax struggle (with the exception of a handful elected to councils mostly from their prison cells) which makes the allegation that they tried to divert the campaign into electoral support for its candidates just bizarre.

And no Militant did not call for the rioters to be jailed. The old sectarian attack which James is failing to quite recall is based on comments which Tommy Sheridan made in an interview. He said that the poll tax federations would be making their own enquiries and would if necessary name names. For what it's worth, in my view he shouldn't have said that. Militant of course never pressed for any enquiry in the federation let alone for any names to be named. Still, it wouldn't be in keeping with the spirit of debate on Indymedia to let mere fact get in the way of a good sectarian swipe as the 120 odd posts on this thread demonstrate once again.

So do the Socialist Party have a proud record in the Poll Tax struggle? Only if you count playing a central role in a succesful campaign of mass non payment which involved millions of people and having many of your activists imprisoned for preventing warrant sales as a proud record.

by Brian Cahill - Socialist Party Tue May 13, 2003 03:17

Well I try to be polite and engage in a reasonable discussion and the first reply is... somebody using a false name to tear into the organisation which I belong to. Predictable I suppose.

Taking this point by point:

1) Your comments about elections amount to little more than another personal attack on Paul Murphy and I have already made clear that I'm not going to get involved in that kind of argument.

2) I have never claimed that only the Socialist Party was involved in the campaign of mass non-payment of the water charges. A large number of individual activists and some groups, for instance the WSM, played their role. However Militant Labour (later the Socialist Party) certainly played an absolutely central role in the campaign as anyone who was involved in it can tell you.

3) I do of course accept that a revolution is a move effective type of direct action than a strike. How forgetful of me.

4) Here we are just repeating the heated row which occurred at the time and again I have no interest in getting involved in this with you except to deny completely your dishonest and vicious claim that the Socialist Party "sabotaged" the GNAW action. You know tht isn't true so try to leave the little rhetorical flourishes out of this discussion.

Your additional claim that we carried out this supposed sabotage to preserve our parliamentary respectability seems somewhat odd coming just after the long list of examples which I gave of various actions which the Socialist Party has been involved in. Perhaps your local parliamentarians think that being sent to prison for physically confronting fascists or helping to organise an enormous campaign of tax non-payment is more "respectable" than declaring that you are going to tear down a fence and marching up to police lines but I rather doubt if the ones representing this constituency discriminate much.

by james - some stuff Tue May 13, 2003 02:52

The Socialist Party have a proud history in the Poll Tax campaign?

all through the struggle they tried to convert anti poll tax support into votes for their candidates, after the riots they demanded that the participants be jailed!!

revolutionary indeed comrades...

by Phuq Hedd Tue May 13, 2003 01:55

QUOTE:I think that it's a pity that a left wing group backed a Labour Party member against a socialist in a students union election ... [Joe Higgins] received votes because [he was a] respected fighter[s] for ordinary working class people.
ANSWER:Maybe non-respected socialists lose votes for the same reason. In other words, no ones going to vote for someone just because they fly the red flag.

QUOTE:We were central to the campaign of mass non-payment against the water tax and apart from non-payment itself
ANSWER:That really deserves clarification Brian. Are you claiming that no other groups were "central" ?
Also, wasn't the _core_ of the campaing the _mass_ non-payment? In other words the decision of thousands of people that couldn't give a hoot about SP involvement to resist payment?

QUOTE:The most effective form of direct action is strike action ... Just as it is untrue to argue that the Socialist Party is opposed to direct action I accept that it is also untrue to argue that GNAW is hostile to mass protests.
ANSWER: So where do mass demonstrations fit in on the scale of effectiveness? Is it: general strike - local strike - mass demonstration - local direct action ?
How exactly does that work? How big does a demonstration have to be before it becomes a "mass demonstration"? 10,000? 100,000? 200,000?
Surely given the SP's position of evaluating the effectiveness you can't make a dogmatic statement like "the most effective form of direct action is a strike action"? Where does that leave the Russian Revolution? Hardly a mere strike action was it?
What about actively sabotaging direct action in favour of non-existent and non-likely strikes (e.g. Doheochai's arguments that the police were going to shoot at the GNAW crowd?).

QUOTE:We opposed the GNAW plan to tear down a fence in Shannon because we thought that it couldn't work and carried with it serious risks for the movement in so far as it could hand a huge propaganda victory to the government and the right wing media if something went badly wrong.
ANSWER: The government had no need of a propaganda victory when your fellow party members Doheochai (Dominic Haugh) and Joe Higgins were handing them one on a plate. In your disgusting efforts to maintain control over a situation that would be easily reconcilable with your parliamentary respectability you sabotaged the event.

by Brian Cahill - Socialist Party Tue May 13, 2003 00:42

I've stayed out of this thread up until now because to be honest most of the discussion didn't hold a great deal of interest for me. I think that it's a pity that a left wing group backed a Labour Party member against a socialist in a students union election but it isn't really top of my agenda some months later.

Even after some more interesting issues were raised by Dan, I was going to stay clear of the thread because even the more interesting issues came couched in rants and personal abuse. Then I reconsidered.

Indymedia has an unfortunate habit of creating interesting discussions while simultaneously drowning them in pointless invective. The anonymous insults lead participants in debate here to feel under attack and they in turn often become unneccessarily aggressive and I'm as prone to that as anyone else.

I think that Dan's personal abuse (and there's no other way to describe it) of Paul Murphy was disgraceful. I also object to the ranting style of some of the polemics written by Socialist Alternative members which seem to place a higher premium on insult than on serious discussion but given the bear pit nature of Indymedia discussions as mentioned above perhaps that's only to be expected. In any case, none of this means that there aren't serious issues raised in some of Dan's contributions.

For instance, Dan asked a series of questions some of which were addressed to the Socialist Party:

> A) Dispensing with the lie that GNAW are
> hostile to mass protests, at what point does
> direct action become acceptable?

Before getting to the specific it's important to be very clear about a general point. The Socialist Party has a long and proud record of involvement in direct actions.

We were central to the campaign of mass non-payment against the water tax and apart from non-payment itself that involved a large number of smaller scale direct actions to prevent disconnections. At present we are heavily involved in the bin tax campaign which centres around the same non-payment tactic and Socialist Party members have been imprisoned for other direct actions around the issue. In the CFE you yourself have been involved alongside Socialist Youth members in a range of direct actions.

Our equivalents in Britain played a similar role in the Poll Tax struggle and in preventing bailiffs from siezing the possessions of working class families. A few months ago two Socialist Party members in Leeds finished their prison sentences for their part in an anti-fascist action. In Australia, our sister party was heavily involved in the direct action protests at the Woomera refugee detention centre.

The most effective form of direct action is strike action and the Socialist Party has an unparralleled record of involvement in and assistance to various industrial actions - from the Aldi strike to the Term Time workers dispute and the Timex strike in the North.

Within the most recent anti-war movement the Socialist Party applauded the brave actions of Eoin Dubsky, Mary Kelly etc. Our members took part in the blockades of the Dail organised first by the Catholic Workers and then the Irish Anti-War Movement. Socialist Youth, through its work with Youth Against War was central to the organisation of the most impressive direct actions of the war, the school student walk outs.

These are just a few examples of direct actions which the Socialist Party has been involved in. I could list many more. The point I am making is that to start with a claim that the Socialist Party is opposed to direct action is clearly nonsense.

The Socialist Party has a tactical approach to direct actions. If we think that a direct action will be helpful we will support it and take part in it. If we don't, we don't.

That sets us apart from those who see "direct action" as an end in itself rather than as a tactic and it also sets us apart from those who are opposed to direct action in principle.

In the anti-war movement there was one direct action which the Socialist Party opposed and many which it supported and took part in. We opposed the GNAW plan to tear down a fence in Shannon because we thought that it couldn't work and carried with it serious risks for the movement in so far as it could hand a huge propaganda victory to the government and the right wing media if something went badly wrong. Some others disagreed as is their right.

Unfortunately the language used by some on both sides of that debate on Indymedia was intemperate and (again) as discussed at the beginning of this post the heat tends to rise unhelpfully in arguments on this site. That's not a good thing but it shouldn't lead any of us to come away with seriously misleading impressions of each others views.

Just as it is untrue to argue that the Socialist Party is opposed to direct action I accept that it is also untrue to argue that GNAW is hostile to mass protests. As a group it clearly is not although there are a few people involved in it who have a dismissive view of what they call A - B marches.

> B)When we left the SWP it was claimed that at
> least ten members of ucd swss were furious with > the decision. Where have they all
> gone?... ...If you think Paul Murphy is so
> great, why did none of your 'members' take part > in his campaign?

This is a very minor issue, but at least two members of the SWP did help out with Paul's campaign on polling day.

> C)According to the SY, the SSP is a reformist
> party. I suggest we carry out a test. Take ten > working-class people who voted for Joe Higgins, > and ten of their peers from another part of
> Dublin who voted for Finian McGrath... ...The
> truth is, people vote for Joe on exactly the
> same terms as they vote for McGrath, as an
> independent socialist who isnt part of the
> political establishment and puts in a lot of
> constituency work. Given this fact, why is the > SSP reformist and the Irish SP a revolutionary > party?

You make an interesting and at least partially valid point here about the nature of votes which a left wing candidate can pick up in an election but your question doesn't follow from that point.

In fact you could have illustrated the point more clearly by saying that Tommy Sheridan was initially elected on much the same basis that Joe Higgins was elected. Both had earned a great deal of personal respect amongst workers in their areas through a lot of dedicated work as members of Militant Labour, most spectacularly through playing prominent roles in succesful non-payment campaigns against unjust and anti-working class local taxes.

The bulk of Joe's votes weren't any more "revolutionary" than Tommy's ones. Both received votes because they are respected fighters for ordinary working class people. There is a whole new thread and more to be had about why people vote for left wing candidates but little of it would directly influence your question. The Socialist Party has never argued that the SSP is reformist because somehow our voters are revolutionaries and their's aren't.

We do argue that the SSP isn't a revolutionary organisation. It is a broad socialist organisation which includes both revolutionaries and reformists. That isn't some kind of secret. One of it's leading figures, Murray Smith (who I've seen you mention elsewhere) put it best when he said that "the SSP leaves open the question of revolution or reform".

You can scour the writings of any leading figure of the SSP for as long as you like. You will find no references to the SSP as a revolutionary party or to its programme as a revolutionary programme. Instead you will find endless references to it being a "combat socialist party" or a "broad socialist party" with a "class struggle programme". As I said, no secret. And not, I hasten to add, necessarily a bad thing.

Any new workers party is unlikely to spring into being as a fully formed revolutionary organisation. It will necessarily include all kinds of views, reformist as well as different stripes of revolutionary. So our sister group in Scotland does its best to help build the SSP into a real mass organisation while at the same time arguing that to actually get rid of capitalism we need a revolutionary organisation and a revolutionary programme and that any quest to reform capitalism out of existence is doomed to fail.

So we get the spectacle of Tommy Sheridan talking about his support for a "mixed economy" or his desire to see a "high skilled economy, a motivated workforce for big business" or even about how much he enjoyed the "big man's birthday celebrations" (meaning Castro). We get all the plainly reformist references to Norway or Denmark showing how much better an independent Scotland could be. This isn't revolutionary politics Dan.

In fact I'm left wondering what precisely we are being criticised here for? The SSP doesn't act like a revolutionary organisation. It doesn't have the programme of a revolutionary organisation. It doesn't even call itself a revolutionary organisation. Yet you want us to pretend that it is one?

Worse still, refusing to call the SSP something which it plainly is not and which it doesn't claim to be is taken as some kind of hostility to the SSP. As I pointed out above, the Committee for a Workers International in Scotland is a part of the SSP and have been since it was founded (when I lived in Scotland I was a member of it myself). We welcome the SSP's successes and are proud of the contribution which our sister organisation has played in bringing them about. It just doesn't mean that we lose our critical faculties.

That was longer than I intended...

by History lesson Tue May 13, 2003 00:15

IRA> PIRA> CIRA> RIRA
SF> PSF> RSF> ISM
IRA> OIRA> Group B> INLA> IPLO
SF>OSF>SFWP>WP>NA>DL>LP IRSP> ?

by Whoo hooo!! - post 113 Mon May 12, 2003 23:03

And don't pretend that you don't know what I'm talking about!

The SA have already established themselves as splitters re panties.

The SP have also taken a firm stance.

Are the SWP now going to come clean?

(oh yeah, and anarchists prefer them black)

by hunter - pfln Mon May 12, 2003 21:28

the mess that came out like

IRA -> OIRA -> WP
| | |
PIRA INLA DL ->> Lab

was meant to be a simplified version of this

by hunter Mon May 12, 2003 21:08

"Rosie: If there were a vote between Pat Rabbitte and the twin lenins, allen and McLoughlin, I'd vote Rabbitte, on the grounds that he almost certainly wouldn't murder me if I resused to be silent. I couldn't be too sure about the others."

hmmm, little history lesson for you 'gurrier', but you seem to be forgetting that Rabbitte comes from a background that includes being a member of the political wing of one of the most vicious terrorist organisations in ireland, Official Sinn Fein. Or as they are also known, the Sticks.

IRA -> OIRA -> WP
| | |
PIRA INLA DL ->> Lab

Then Rabbitte has the cheek to turn round and call the Shinners in the dail 'terrorists'.

In fact the Labour Troika of DeRossa, Rabbitte and McManus all come from the sticky tradition, a tradition that included wiping out many genuine socialists from the irps, and many other republicans. in fact, in the 70s the sticks probably did more killing of republicans than anyone else. If Dillon is a genuine socialist, then he'd better watch his back. Pat might still have some guns buried in the back yard.

by iosaf Mon May 12, 2003 20:00

wow, see that you know it is
"shitstirring and chatroom bickering".

Matrix 2 the movie is coming out on the 23rd of May, when is it out in Erron?

People in BCN say you shouldn't vote, some say you should vote, and some say it is really really wrong that some people cannot vote even though they wouldn't vote anyway.

Spain is going to vote on the day the MAtrix2 comes out.

I took the blue pill. I also took the red pill as well, just to be on the safe side, which side do youthink the SWM take? oh this is a socialist alternative thread, well which do yo suppose they take/would take?

by OK - SP Mon May 12, 2003 19:28

I've just looked over this thread, it's full of slurs and shit-stirring.

Dan, you seem to have a thing about Paul. You say you've no problem with me or others in the Party. If someone other than Paul Murphy from the SP stood for President would you have backed them? Probably not because behind your resons for not backing PM is politics.

I think that it would be good if you could outline the political reasons for your positions rather that bringing in personality politics.

PS- Dan, I admire your ability to re-call conversations verbatim. Hope that skill does you well for the exams!

by pat c Mon May 12, 2003 19:27

he could give lessons to john throne on open letters!

by Justin Moran - Sinn Fein Mon May 12, 2003 19:22 maigh_nuad at yahoo dot com

I have to say when I initially saw the length of the post I was about to quit the thread, fascinating as it had been, but it is one of the better posts and better pieces on this whole UCD debacle.

by Dan - SA Mon May 12, 2003 19:08

I syspect this thread will soon die of fatigue before we smash the john throne record of posts. Just a few things. The SP seem horrified at being the subject of vicious, unprovoked attacks. Perhaps they are genuinely aware of the bitterness produced by a year of arrogant behaviour. I cant say Finghin or Oisin have been the guilty parties in this regard, which is why I mentioned Paul Murphy specifically. His behaviour in the CFE has sometimes bordered on megalomania. I have no doubt that he was serious when he said he would be willing to kill a child. He even had a manic look in his eyes as he said it. I asked him if he would say that while canvassing for the SP in a working-class area, he said "If the question was asked that way, yes, certainly!" Is this offical SP policy? After the revolution, what will be the minimum age for death sentences? What methods of execution will be permitted? Is torture to be allowed? Im not joking by the way.

On a personal note, Id like to thank KG for providing a useful distraction from my final year exams.

by Minister For Truth. - Socialist ALternative Mon May 12, 2003 18:43

Alas, that eternal question 'Why did SA not back him over a labour party member?' La..la...la..la....knock, knock, open wide and see whats on the other side, knock knock ever more, see whats through the magic door...take my hand and let us trawl through the indymedia vaults together and maybe we can come up with a few answers....

ANSWER ONE FROM Mon, Feb 10 2003, 1:04pm AT http://www.indymedia.ie/cgi-bin/newswire.cgi?id=28047&start=100

So once again, an independent media network has been abused and misused as a collection of cyber activists sit around and vent their frustrations at each other through infantile slagging disguised as political discourse. Nothing new there, eh Comrades? interesting to note members of socialist alternative are being accused of refusing to come online and engage in bickering with the rest of you. Despite the accusations of cowardice and i can only speak for myself, the reason i haven't replied probably has more to do with the fact that i don't have weekend access to the internet, limited as i am mid week with the UCD crashing computer network and that my sphere of political activity extends beyond internet bulliten boards.

'The Socialist Alternative members are supporting the Labour Party in the UCD SU elections against a socialist candidate. Very "Revolution, Anti-capitalism and Socialism from Below" boys.'

So the usual vangaurd of the left are once again vilifying us wee 'bunch of vaguely left wing mates.' It has to be admired how people always defer to the authority of certain terms and slogans, when engaging in debate, as if the phrase we use to describe SA 'anti-capitalism, revolution and socialism from below' carry any real weight in its own right. Revolutionary political theory means fuck all if it does not lead to revolutionary action and revolutionary practice. Socialist Alternative has tried its utmost to formulate position papers, news bullitens and maintain a website since we left the SWP. however we have made certain sacrifices in terms of building our own collection of ideas and sorting opurselves out organisationally becuase this was a year, where revolutionary students had to make a step away from being consciously revolutionary to being revolutionary in practice. Socialist Alternative, is revolutionary in both practice and ideology. For those who want to find out exactly what stand for, email me and i'll forward you a copy of our position papers. Funnily enoigh for a bunch of student muppets who seem to solely immerse themselves in the world of student politics, we have neglected to finish our paper on the student movement. Instead our perspcetive on that will be outlined after an examination of the events that have taken place this year, and the movement emerging at a grass roots level among students. Socialist alternative members have been instrumental in the creation of the Campaign for Free Education, however, we find no need to broadcast this fact far and wide by showing up at demos with placards and hoping students will take them. Maybe trots think that the battle of ideas can be won by trying to outdo other groups in terms of how many placards they can foist on unsuspecting students. We however dont. Attepmts to be seen to be in control and leading demonstrations do little more than disempower and alienate students from campaigns, if you criticise USI and others for turning demonstrations into mass photo opportunities, then please stop doing this yoursleves. No matter how many people are holding your placards in photographs, this changes nothing. Fundamentally the Campaign for Free Education plays an emancipatory role in the student movement, it has engaged more and more students in actions against the government, empowering them to create change themselves and not wait for official representatives and the usual vangaurds of the left to show up with papers and placards and do this for them. Ideologically, this is something both the SP (who ahve played a genuine enough role in CFE) and the SWP seek to do. We all know that no one can liberate the working class but the class itself, and just because some of the vangaurd claim to be 'mass workers' parties doesn't neccesarily mean you are the class. Revolutionaries, should seek to work within campaigns and the class, building confidence and intervening to push those movements in a genuinely socialist direction by engaging in debate, not by claiming or seizing leadership, but by creating a leadership of our ideas. And thii is exactly what socialts Alternative have done in the CFE.

'To call for a boycott of the SWP is sectarian petty childish crap. They are a left wing party that have many genuine activists. Those on the left should attend their meetings and discuss any difficulties with their politics/tactics with them and others at their meetings and then put formward your own ideas.'

I see no reason to boycott SWP meetings, but the SWP really seem to be some absurd monty pyton-esue sketch made flesh. In UCD they seem to have developed a habit of calling meetings while students are taking to the streets and fighting back. If i recall correctly the SWP were having a meeting while 300 students were dramatically blockading the education minister in UCD's Vet Building. A similar pattern emerged at the Brian Lenihan demo, where they handed out anti-nice leafletts. Seize the key links, eh comrades? Of course, we in SA were to cowardly to confront the issue of Nice, tahts we handed out over 4000 LAN leafletts on campus, donated our frsehers week money to fund the student section fo that campaigna dn postered widely on campus...really swappers, please don't tell me a palcard 'no to fees-no to articles 133' was the pinacle of your UCD Nice Capaign?
At the first USI demo, a groups of SWSS-ies stood around talking about direct action, then disappeared off to have a mass occupation of trinity i believe, while the CFE were occupying the department of transport. At the USI demo last week, i heard calls of 'no to fees, no to war' wafting across Mount Joy Square, i was subjected to the 'pathetic' sight of a bunch of SWSS-ies marching around aimlessly, they'd lost the main demo, having arrived late. After qucikly informing GR Joe Carolan of the CFE bloc on the demo, i ran to join in the mass occuaption of O'Connell Bridge, leaving the vangaurd to bewilder passers-by as they marcehed politily along the foot path. That was all i saw of them all day, untill two swappers arrived over two hours late, with bundles of papers, leafletts and placards, they looked a bit taken aback, while they were off probably giving out about how USI had operated and 'bourgeois legalities', ordinary students with the CFE at the heart, were waging war on two fronts, like any good grass roots rank and file union movement, in the space of two hours they had confronted and fought both the USI leadership and fallen victim to 'bourgeois legalities' being dragged off the streets by those 'bodies of armed men' the trots are alwasy talking about at meetings. It seems that all year i've been forced to ask myself where the hell are the vangaurd? I usually find that they are off taking about revultion while the rest of us are actively creating it, on whatever small scale we sow the seeds. Thw SWP are fond of creating a distance between themselves and the Stalinists by using Paris '68 as an illustration of how the CP had become a spent revolutionary force, ideologically and in practice, by diverting struggle and containing it in the ballot box. These episodes described above strike me like a detail from '68, in 68 the Cp was revolutioary only in name, no where to be seen supporting the barricades. Today the SWP remains revolutionary only in name, teh sooner we become aware of this the better.

Lets return to this stick we keep getting about refusing to hand out anti-capitalist leafletts on campus. After retruning from genoa, the SWP jubilant at the prospects of imminent revolution artificially attempted to import the anti-capitalist mood sweeping Italy. However, some of us thought different. Marching around dublin aimlessly, chanting in italian does fuck all to create an anti-capitalist climate here. For revolutionaries, the SWP seems to spend a hell of a lot of time trying to intice us into fighting the abstract and to ignore the real. In a sense they have created a politics of political dualism, theory versus practice. At the Anti-war teach in in UCD, Allen and Higgins did what all great leninists did and made those key links, however they always seem to fail in linking the abstract to reality and seemed a wee bit disgusted when Dan finn had the cheek to bring discussion away from their verbal verbosity and pomp to the concrete by suggesting that anyone really interested in fighting neo-liberalism should get involved in the CFE and fight fees, a secterian little shit is our Dan, interupting the two great irish Lenins with a gentle dose of reality. We can not smash the WTO, by venting our fury at those three letters W, T and O but by fighting it concretely where we can organsie against it in the campsuses and communities, by fighting and winning on issues like the Bin tax and Fees.

The rethoric the rest of us are subjected to by the vanguard, must be seen as what it is, an empty vulgarisation of the aspirations of genuine revolutionaries. While they may talk of exposing the state as an entity far from neutral, they are usually too busy condemning the 'violence' of those actively engaging and confronting it, wheter this be the black bloc, direct action against war or where ever. In reality, it seems the 'viuolence' of the oppressed, does not differ from that of the oppressor. Lets deal with concrete facts, i'm sure many of us looked a little puzzled when they saw Labour Youth handing out leaflets calling for direct action at Shannon. Could those representing the vangaurd on these forums please stop your petty obsession with teh politics of Socialist Alternative, i'd be far more worried about your own politics, being out-flanked on the left by those social democrats in LY, and its happened more than once.

To quickly wrap up, on to the elections in UCD. The ideal situation would have been for the Campaign for Free Education to nominate from within itself as a student movement, a slate for the SU positions. The CFE had 76% support a numbe rof months ago, and suck a slate would have perhaps carried some of this with them, it would have been a direct outgrowth of the stuent body, and have represented a genuine 'reclaiming of the union.' However, we arrived back after christmas to find that SYUCD had decided that it would go alone and seek the support of students in the election, a party political decison so fair enough, but from the perspective of really buiding and sustaing a movement a huge fucking cock up. Declaring themselves for election over 8 weeks in advance of any nomination deadline, they switched focus away from the method of engaging the government through mobilisations of students, and once again we returned to that world of student politics, hacks pitted against hacks, individuals who represent no one versus individuals representing noone. That mindset, the idea of the union as a playground for hacks was being shattered by reaching outside the existing body of activists and involving students was replaced with election fever. Maybe the SP should start listening to it's own advice? Some prick once said 'an ounce of struggle is worth a tonne of votes', but SYUCD felt differently and decided to place themselves ahead of the emerging grass roots student movement, in the expectation that we would all run to bask in the sunshine of their leadership.
None of these bullshit calls for left unity, unity on whose terms? those who constantly seek to put themselves artificially at the head of the movement?
Before the accusations of far leftism emerge, of course i see taking union positions as part of the proceduare of fighting for free education, however, i see no reason why i should support it on the terms of the 5 Ucd Millies, who decided that some objective condition had changed and decided we all better follow them to the promised land, they do have a unique insight into the working class at all periods of its history you know? The SYUCD Election Campaign carrys no real base in this college, hence the need to import outside millies to poster and leaflett, meanwhile the campaign of Paul Dillon (LY) and Aidan Regan (an independent socialist) has grown with more and more momentum, campaign meetings see usually packed out rooms of over 40 UCD students made up of CFE and other activists involve themselves in the campaign. As Paul has constantly explained to me, their decision to run was not an attempt to put themselves ahead of the movement but to involve more and more people in the CFE, and judging by the support both are getting, it seems to be working. I personnally will vote for Dillon and Aidan, not because they're revolutionary, but because they are genuine activists who have played an honest and democratic role within the CFE and never once resorted to the usual trot bull shit people have to put up with as they grasp out at any power within their reach. Let the election manifestos speak for themselves, they are the mandate they are seeking, so judge them on that. If the manifestos were posted here, i think most of you would join me in voting this way.

ANSWER 2 Mon, Feb 10 2003, 7:53pm from http://www.indymedia.ie/cgi-bin/newswire.cgi?id=28047&start=100

I think James said all that needed to be said, really. Ive said it before and ill say it again, if either the sp or the swp want to have a debate with SA about our criticisms of their ideology, we are available at any time (I myself offered to debate with someone at Marxism last year, in place of the doubtless fascinating talk "Trotskyism after Trotsky", a subject which I feared Kev Moran would not mine for its rich comic potential - there was a deafening silence in response from the Cliffites). After disposing of childish attempts to smear us (which we have already answered ad nauseum on various discussion boards), we can get onto the subject of why the Leninist left in Ireland has nothing to offer anyone and does more harm than good. If either of the twin towers of the Irish left feels confident they can demolish our modish anarcho-reformist clap-trap with a few pithy quotations from the classics, they should surely be glad to accept the invitation.

I had the opportunity of a brief argument with Comrade Kieran Allen at the recent anti-war teach-in in UCD (which was worth the trouble just to see him pretending not to know my name - no doubt this is what characterises a serious marxist revolutionary). After describing people who take direct action against the war as "elitist", he then affected to be astonished that anyone could be so petty and sectarian as to criticise this view. To judge by KA's heroic refusal to accept that the direct action brigade are not in any way opposed to mass action, the complacency of the SWP leadership has not been disturbed in any way by the real world, even though they must surely feel a little embarassed at being outflanked to the left by Labour Youth.

Im supporting Dillo despite his party affiliation cos i dont think it matters a damn in this context. For what its worth, Paul is a great admirer of Benn and Scargill and a supporter of direct action, whether against the war or against fees. Ive had many argumnents with him about the radical potential of the labour party, the parliamentary road to socialism and so on (at least he thinks we need a road to socialism of one kind or another, unlike many labour members), but weve generally seen eye to eye about what needs to be done at student level. Aidan is not a member of labour; at one time the millies were eager to recruit him. They told us he had "great class instincts" (ie he comes from Tallaght and hates Fianna Fail) but was "very raw". Somewhat bewildered by this patronising flattery, Aidan decided to join SA, perhaps because we make no claim to be the vanguard of the working class.

In general, SA have found it easier to work with both labour left and anarchists than trots, not because our ideology is an odd blend of Proudhon and Tony Crosland, but because they dont have the same self-centred myopia as the SP or the SWP. As someone once said about the Ayatollah Khomeni, its very hard for someone who believes himself to be speaking for god to see the other side of the argument. The same goes for those who believe they possess a unique insight into the working class, that they alone represent the true marxist tradition, and any number of other quasi-mystical quotes from the pens of Taaffe, Callinicos and co.

ANSWER 3 Tue, Feb 11 2003, 6:08pm http://www.indymedia.ie/cgi-bin/newswire.cgi?id=28047&start=100

This, to cut a long story short, is why I will not lift
a finger to help Paul Murphy get elected. After several months
of irritating attempts by the SY to dominate the CFE, Pauls
decision to run without consulting anyone in the CFE was the last straw, especially
when he made the laughable claim that the CFEs potential had been exhausted
because of ill-defined "political differences" (ie nobody accepted millie
leadership). Dillo, on the other hand, consulted with lots of people, got the support
of most CFE activists and drafted his manifesto in consultation with everyone.
As Ive said before on this thread, although I have had many arguments
with Paul since meeting him, I believe him to be a serious left-wing socialist
who is more meaningfully radical than someone who would consider
it a victory if SYUCD got ten more members. To say that SA are "supporting Labour against the SP"
is meaningless; Pauls campaign has had no input from the Labour leadership whatesoever.
You might as well say that by supporting Mick O'Reilly against the TGWU, the SP is
accomodating to reformism. The choice is not between a "soft" and "hard" left candidate; the choice
is between a candidate who represents the vast majority of CFE activists and an SP candidate
who has shown himself over time to give his party priority over building a serious
student movement. That sort of sectarian vanity is one of the reasons why we left the SWP,
and were certainly not going to endorse it today. And you can whine all you like, thats just the way
it is.

By the way, I have no intention of visiting a shrink (the suggestion has something of a Brezhevite
flavour anyway), but anyone who believes the quotes from millie ideologues i mentioned above (or who believes
that Taaffe is a more substantial thinker than the "pseudo-Marxist" Ernest Mandel) might consider it themselves.
SA havent tried to build up a mickey-mouse international of IS malcontents, despite offers from the ISO-US, because
that sort of thing is for people who want to play games, not serious radicals. Having foreign links does not make you a true
internationalist; so does the British Labour party (christ, so does Alleanza Nationale!). For the record, one of
the foreign groups i would sympathise with would be the ISM Sheridan-McCombes faction in the SSP.
Reading the mildly pathetic attempts of the SP to smear this group was one of the reasons
I never considered becoming a millie.

ANSWER 4 Tue, Feb 11 2003, 8:06pm http://www.indymedia.ie/cgi-bin/newswire.cgi?id=28047&start=100

what a long draged out argument,but without doubt the swp and sy have shown themselves for what they are- control freaks with no right in theory and practice to claim the farcical notion that they have a "unique insight into the working class", you are all control freaks... a member of fine gael is going for president and it is claimed that he is obbssessed with control and his own ego... this is due to the fact that he gloats about sitting on 23 committees, if i am not mistaken Paul Murphy sits on the majority of SY committees in Ireland. YOU ARE A CLONE OF YOUR PARTY JUST LIKE every member other member of a tightly nit political party e.g Fianna Fail, Equally the trots argue that they are not selfish controling freaks, what about Oisin claiming today while lecture addressing the law faculty... he claimed that the only two students who fought against fees this year were himself and his commander in chief Paul Murphy- BULLSHIT. This illustrates the disregard they have for every other student in the CFE. I know its hard to accept lads but this is why u never approached and most likely would never have gotten the backing of Cfe, You dont have any other interest other than building up your party... every march was another excuse to sell your sensationalist rag aka `THE VOICE`. No matter how hard people try to work with you, you make it quite obvious that if your not a Trot- Your not in,and dont understand the struggle.... SA dont back the Sy candidates for this very reason... you brought it on yourself, its kinda like the self destruction of the bourgeoise by creating the working class.. the self destruction of the Trots by their sheer abstraction from reality.... I am a born and bred working class, so dont attempt to patronise me as an individual that you have a unique insight into OUR class destination.... come down to my local pub and preach your squabble to find out what working class people really want, and it is certainly not some middle class college boy with a paper in his hand... Redmond said it and so will I... the working class will liberate themselves without the help of you boys. The SA know who are the best candidates and who are in it for the right reasons. Hence NOT supporting the Millies. Equally every other trot who gets on to condemn SA for not supporting the Millies are fools and another example of the clone instinct that dominates the mindset of you all..... To finish i am not a member of a political party because i know what is best for me and my class... so hurry up the fuck lads and make yourself extinct.

ANSWER 5 Wed, Feb 12 2003, 8:01pm http://www.indymedia.ie/cgi-bin/newswire.cgi?id=28047&start=100

It goes without saying that members of SA and everyone else
campaigning for dillo will be voting for oisin and giving murphy
a second preference. I have hated this shower of bastards running
the SU since most UCD activists were still in school and I would even
vote for a swapper candidate if it was going to fuck them over.

Paul makes further vague references to divisions within the CFE. Perhaps
there were disagreements about tactics (although the one example he cites
is inaccurate, as aidan pointed out). I have to say, it was hard to tell
because the major division in the CFE was between SY and the rest of us.
Example; during the USI referendum Paul wanted our leaflet to refer to USI
as a "bloated bureaucratic apparatus" (remember, we wanted to stay in USI). Now,
I am well aware of what USI is. Unlike Paul, I had to sit in USI offices
for two and a half hours listening to Colm Jordan talk shite. But if that sentence
had been included, we would certainly have lost. The only ones to object
to the approach we took were SY, who claimed it would lose the referendum (as it turned
out, the "no" camp won an overwhelming victory). We then proceded to fuck over
Colm Jordan and said bloated bureaucrats by taking direct action at the march last week
(as I said at the time, first we get Aongus, then we get Colm the shit Jordan).

Other arguments arose mainly because Paul insisted on hogging the megaphone, putting himself
forward as leader of the CFE, when there should be no question of any one individual
dominating the group. By Christmas, Paul and SY had managed to alienate just about everyone.
If they had had confidence in winning CFE backing he would have suggested a meeting to discuss the upcoming
elections. Instead he put up posters all over college announcing his
presidential campaign. Everyone else in the CFE, including SA, decided that it
was now clear that the SP were determined to do things their own way without any input
from the rest of us. We had no intention of supporting them on their solo run, so we
all decided to back Dillo. Despite what Paul Murphy claims, Dillo is just as tough and militant
on fees as he is. Meaningful, effective radicalism requires a bit of cop on and humility
and i think dillo is by far the stronger candidate in that regard. So far nobody has seriously
tried to show that Paul Dillon is anything other than a radical socialist with nothing in common
with the shitehawk wing of the labour party. The main difference between labour and the SP in this
regard is that I know many labour members who are bitterly hostile to the Spring-Quinn faction
which has dominated (and still does) their party.

To Hugh i can only say, god help you. Your clumsy attempt at polemic
earlier in the newswire went down like a lead balloon. Just to cover well-trod ground again,
we did not "refuse to give out anti-capitalist propaganda2 in ucd. We argued that a poster
with the slogan "RESIST!REVOLT!SMASH CAPITALISM!" was irrelevant and ultra-left unless
you believe Ireland was actually on the brink of revolution at the time (Sept 2001). Apparently
some people in the SWP did believe this; we were assured that "masses of people want to tear the
head off the bourgeoisie". A year and a half later, with the collective head of the upper class safe
and sound on its shoulders, perhaps I can claim that our skepticism was justified. Or would that be too
arrogant? Funnily enough, i read "Against the Third Way" without hearing one reference to the need to smash capitalism.
Has the leadership of the IST fallen into the hands of craven reformists?

Secondly, we did not refuse to campaign against abortion "because it would lose danny votes".
Heres what happened. Two hours (im not exaggerating) before our manifesto was due to go to the printers,
Rory Herne rang up Donal and demanded that it be plastered with talk of abortion, that we use the campaign
as a platform for a no vote in the referendum. Genuinely bewildered, we exlained that there was no need: the referendum
was already won in Ucd. There was an active no campaign and polls had shown a no vote of at least 70%. In any case, we werent
gonna re-do the manifesto in a couple of hours. Incidentally, there were no references to abortion when terry ran four years
ago. What a reformist sell-out he is! Of course, our campaign was clearly opportunistic; notably, in a cyncial, unprincipled
attempts to win votes, i supported having a halting site on campus. You wouldnt believe the number of people
who said "Im voting for dan because of his pro-tinker policy". Since the margin of defeat was a couple of hundred votes, I think
we could even have won if we hadnt supported travellers rights... but we opportunists have some principles, it seems.

Finally, the accusations of arrogance, coming from groups which claim to represent the working class, not because of any tangible
support (which they dont have, apart from Joe Higgins in Dublin West) but on the semi-mystical grounds that they represent the true marxist tradition
unlike every other sect, are breathtaking. I suppose it does take some arrogance to say that both the SP and the SWP leave a lot to be desired and dont have
all the answers. If so, then the vast majority of Irish workers are arrogant bastards. Damn plebs, thats what i say.

Bizarre politics? I suppose it is bizarre for a far-left group to remain in touch with reality. God help us if it spreads: we might start getting
somewhere.

ANSWER 6 PUBLISHED IN FEB EDITION OF CATALYST
On February 5th about 5,000 students gathered in Mount Joy Square to take part in USI’s second only demonstration against the threatened reintroduction of tuition fees in Dublin. At the last USI demonstration, the USI leadership co-operated with the police to move students off the streets and into a police pen. While it was the police who placed a truck between students and the Dail a number of months ago, at this demonstration, when students rushed up Molesworth Street those who had placed the obstacles in our way were our very own leadership. The Campaign for Free Education had leafleted the march all day outlining the need for a shift away from the rhetoric and posturing of the current USI leadership towards real resistance to educational inequality.
The last time we gathered outside government buildings to oppose fees, we were told to go home and write letters to our local TD, as a result the march barely made the news. Posing in mass photo opportunities, rhetoric and individual letters of opposition collapse in the face of the governments plans for our education system. A history of those who made their point respectably and went home has yet to be written. To really stop the reintroduction of fees we have to stop only embarrassing the government every few months on the news, and we must begin to harass them into taking action to remedy the inadequacies and inequalities of our education system. We must shift focus away from responding to their agenda, and force them to respond to ours, an agenda where educational opportunity is not mitigated by your economical and social background.
While the USI leadership was giving their speeches and urging us to visit some website that took 6 months to set up, CFE were organising for direct action. Over 200 students joined the CFE block in charging past cops and barricades and occupying the road in front of the Dail for over 2 hours. While CFE has stood by USI and defeated a disaffiliation referendum in UCD, USI showed no desire to stand by the CFE and completely distanced itself from our ’unofficial’ action. The cops threatened students with prosecution under the public order act, but a mass decision was made not to move, the police then dragged the students off the street.
This is the second time that the CFE has succeeded in mobilising students in direct action at national demonstrations, despite the usual problems of communication this action saw the successful co-operation of students from UCD, Maynooth and Galway. There is now a need to spread the ideas behind the CFE out of UCD to other campuses, so we can begin the national process of moving the student movement away from the shallow protests of our leaders, towards real grass roots resistance against educational inequality.
At the first USI demo, members of the SWP stood around talking about direct action, then disappeared off to have a ‘mass occupation’ of Trinity College, while the CFE were occupying the department of transport. At the USI demo on the 5th, calls of 'no to fees, no to war' were heard wafting across Mount Joy Square, where there was the 'pathetic' sight of a bunch of SWSS-ies marching around aimlessly, they'd lost the main demo, having arrived late. After quickly informing their man on the megaphone of the CFE bloc on the demo, he showed no interest., I ran to join in the mass occupation of O'Connell Bridge, leaving the vanguard to bewilder passers-by as they marched politely along the foot path. That was all I saw of them all day, until two SWP full timers arrived over two hours late, with bundles of papers, leaflets and placards, they looked a bit taken aback when they saw the blockade. While they were off probably giving out about how USI had operated and 'bourgeois legalities', students with the CFE at the heart, were waging war on two fronts, like any good grass roots rank and file union movement, in the space of two hours they had confronted and fought both the USI leadership and fallen victim to 'bourgeois legalities' being dragged off the streets by those 'bodies of armed men' the Leninists are always warning us about at meetings. It seems that all year we've been forced to ask ourselves where the hell are the vanguard? We usually find that they are off taking about revolution while the rest of us are actively creating it, on whatever small scale we sow the seeds. In one rather hilarious incident earlier in the year, the SWP were holding a weekly meeting while 300 students were dramatically blockading the education minister in the UCD Vet Building. The SWP are fond of creating a distance between themselves and the Stalinists by using Paris '68 as an illustration of how the Communist Party had become a spent revolutionary force, ideologically and in practice, by diverting struggle and containing it in the ballot box. These episodes described above strike me like a minor detail from '68, where the Communist Party was revolutionary only in name, no where to be seen supporting the barricades. Today the SWP remains revolutionary only in name, the sooner we become aware of this the better.
Socialist Alternative members have been instrumental in the creation of the Campaign for Free Education, however, we find no need to broadcast this fact far and wide by showing up at demos with placards and hoping students will take them. Maybe Leninists think that the battle of ideas can be won by trying to outdo other groups in terms of how many placards they can foist on unsuspecting students. We however don't. Attempts to be seen to be in control and leading demonstrations do little more than disempower and alienate students from campaigns, if you criticise USI and others for turning demonstrations into mass photo opportunities, then please stop doing this yourselves. No matter how many people are holding your placards in photographs, this changes nothing. Fundamentally the Campaign for Free Education plays an emancipatory role in the student movement, it has engaged more and more students in actions against the government, empowering them to create change themselves and not wait for official representatives and the usual vanguards of the left to show up with papers and placards and do this for them. Ideologically, this is something both the SP (who have played a genuine enough role in CFE) and the SWP seek to do. We all know that no one can liberate the working class but the class itself, and just because some of the vanguard claim to be 'mass workers' parties doesn't necessarily mean they are the class. Revolutionaries, should seek to work within campaigns and the class, building confidence and intervening to push those movements in a genuinely socialist direction by engaging in debate, not by claiming or seizing leadership, but by creating a leadership of ideas.
The ideal situation for the UCD SU elections would have been for the Campaign for Free Education to nominate from within itself as a student movement, a slate for the SU positions. The CFE had 76% support a number of months ago, and such a slate would have perhaps carried some of this with them, it would have been a direct outgrowth of the student body, and have represented a genuine 'reclaiming of the union.' However, we arrived back after Christmas to find that SYUCD had decided that it would go alone and seek the support of students in the election, a party political decision so fair enough, but from the perspective of really building and sustaining a movement a huge fucking cock up. Declaring themselves for election over 8 weeks in advance of any nomination deadline, they switched focus away from the method of engaging the government through mobilisations of students, and once again we returned to that world of student politics, hacks pitted against hacks, individuals who represent no one versus individuals representing none. That mindset, the idea of the union as a playground for hacks was being shattered by reaching outside the existing body of activists and involving students was replaced with election fever. Someone once said 'an ounce of struggle is worth a tonne of votes', but SYUCD felt differently and decided to place themselves ahead of the emerging grass roots student movement, in the expectation that we would all run to bask in the sunshine of their leadership. When calls are made for left unity we should ask ourselves-unity on whose terms? Those who constantly seek to put themselves artificially at the head of the movement?
Radical student unions cannot exist where there is no radical student body. To move towards an activist based student union willing to take stands for students, rather than remaining neutral, making finances available to grass roots initiatives-those running for office in USI will have to come from a student movement which does not wholly exist here yet. Our job as students is to create such a movement here.
The CFE was consciously set up with the immediate aim of mobilising students and involving them collectively in building mass resistance to not just a rise in registration fees, but against educational inequality. In terms of public discourse, the issue facing the student movement at the moment is not the 69% increase, this is just a symptom of a wider problem. The government has long since shifted debate, it has covered itself in the language of social inclusion, a stance which has contributed to the idea of students as some selfish middle class elite out to safe guard our own privileged existence in campuses which remain no go areas for a vast majority of young people.
For this reason activism cannot and must not exist in a vacuum. In order for the activist strategy to foster change it must exist outside the actual event. What we are fighting for must be bigger than what we place ourselves in immediate opposition to, this means realising what the whole picture is before focussing on the smaller. Approaching things from the bottom up instead of chipping away at the symptoms

.....and their response? Well, unfortunately it culminated with this

'DANNY FIN YOU ARE A FUCKING TWAT! YOU THINK YOU ARE AN INTELLECTUAL BUT YOU ARE NOT, THE SWP ARE ALOT BETTER OFF WITHOUT YOU AND YOUR LITTLE BAND OF SECTARIAN BITTER ANARCHO BASTARD FOLLOWERS! YOU WILL ALL BE IN SUITS AND LABOUR WITHIN 12 MONTHS...'

So guess internal education really has gone to shit, with an internal cadre that can't tell their ultra leftists from their Pat Rabbittes...

Heres a list of questions outstanding from the last year of debate concerning SA:

1)If democracy and debate are the "lifeblood" of the SWP, why did a member of your group say on our forum "If a member of the
SWP disagreed with party policy, of course pressure would be brought on them by other members? Why did Alex Callinicos tell the leadership of the Fourth International that while differences over the old class nature of the USSR question would be no obstacle to a merger, he believed that the USFIs internal regime was too liberal, and this would be a major problem? While were at it, what is the constitution of the SWP? Can someone appeal against expulsion? There are quite a few cases in recent years which suggest otherwise.

2)The Socialist Party and the SWP dismissed members of the GNAW participating in direct action as "elitist" and "undemocratic". Dispensing with the lie that GNAW are hostile to mass protests, at what point does direct action become acceptable? When the SWP pc says so? Or the aggregate of the SWP pc and the Socialist Party leadership, otherwise known as the IAWM steering committee? Why did Joe Higgins, Richard Boyd Barrett and other leading Trots slander the GNAW in the bourgeois media? Is this the behaviour of revolutionaries?

3)When we left the SWP it was claimed that at least ten members of ucd swss were furious with the decision. Where have they all gone? Why has the ucd branch of swss not participated in the campaign for free education, even in the smallest way? If you think Paul Murphy is so great, why did none of your 'members' take part in his campaign? Has your level of activity out here fallen so low that an anonymous post on IMC is the best you can offer him?

4)Why is Alex Callinicos allowed to write a whole book without mentioning the need to smash capitalism, but if SA criticise the phrase, it means we are reformists?

5)According to the SY, the SSP is a reformist party. I suggest we carry out a test. Take ten working-class people who voted for Joe Higgins, and ten of their peers from another part of Dublin who voted for Finian McGrath. Then ask them the following questions:
a]What is the difference between a degenerate and a deformed workers state?Which is North Korea?
b]At what point did Labour become a bourgeois party? Why is Labour bourgeois while Sinn Fein is petit-bourgeois?
c]Who is the greater marxist theoretician, Peter Taaffe or Peter Hadden?
d]At what point did Ted Grants theoretical inadequacy become apparent?
e]Is it sectarian to oppose orange marches through nationalist areas? Explain why.

I suspect both sample groups would fail the test of CWI orthodoxy. The truth is, people vote for Joe on exactly the same terms as they vote for McGrath, as an independent socialist who isnt part of the political establishment and puts in a lot of constituency work. Given this fact, why is the SSP reformist and the Irish SP a revolutionary party?

by Gurrier Mon May 12, 2003 17:33

The sectarian snipings of the SWP towards the SA are easily beaten by the sectarian snipings between ex-SP members and the SP, as recently seen in the John Throne story, linked below. 147 comments and still running - the trots sure can type! I think that the SA come across very well in contrast to the dismal failure of the SP to answer their critics.

Rosie: If there were a vote between Pat Rabbitte and the twin lenins, allen and McLoughlin, I'd vote Rabbitte, on the grounds that he almost certainly wouldn't murder me if I resused to be silent. I couldn't be too sure about the others. I can see no evidence to suggest that they would disrespect Lenin's legacy of silencing alternative voices on the left.

by sean - s.a. Mon May 12, 2003 17:26

No ones say that PM and others didn't contribute to CFE but having worked with him in cfe and loads of other campaigns we found dillo to be extemely capable and easy to work with.Paul ran on as a radical anti-fees manifesto as Murphy and the students clearly made thier choice.

by Harry Pollitt Mon May 12, 2003 17:18

101 posts before this one! A record and irony!!!

by rosie Mon May 12, 2003 17:14

That's ok Andrew, easy mistake to make.

Sean, I've read Murphy's manifesto, I can't understand why you did not back him over a Labour member. If you are revolutionaries why did you not back the revolutionary socialist? I just can't understand it, it seems to be based on personality differences rather thatn political ones.

by Finghin Mon May 12, 2003 17:07

Firstly Paul Murphy nor any member of the Socialist Party in UCD supported the Omagh bombing or were members of RSF. The Socialist Party believes terrorists tactics are wrong, they drive workers into the hands of their ruling class and downply the roll of mass struggle. We have always held that position.

Are you really considering the 'killing babies' conversation to be completely serious?! If that is what you base your political decision to back Dillon on it is plain stupid. I'm sure if I think hard enough I can think of some fairly bizarre things that were said by members of SA.

Dan you say that by working with the SP and Paul Murphy in the CFe that you don't think he'd do a good job. From what I remember Dan you were not very active in the CFE this year (which is fair enough being in your final year) certainly not enough to make any proper judgement on Paul's ability to build resistence to fees.

Dan you also seem to forget that the SP members in the CFE were some of the most active and without them I do not think that CFE would have been as much a success as it was. I do of course don't want to downplay the important roles played by others and am not claiming that it was only the SP that did all the work. Who got posters printed, who organised the SU council & non sabbat elections, who put up posters, who lecture addressed, if actually look at the work that SP members did you will find it was quite substantial.

I've worked with Paul in CFE, in SY, the SP, in the bin tax campaign and in various other campaigns and I have no doubt in his ability to organise and build opposition to fees if he was elected as SU President.

I'd also be interested if SA members actually raised critisisms of Paul Dillon's politics with students and within the Dillon campaign or was your support completely uncritical?

by Andrew Mon May 12, 2003 17:02

Rosie I'm not too sure of why the SA decided to back one over the other beyond what they have posted to indymedia. I've no further information in that respect then you have. My involvement here is simply based on opposing the stupid idea that this makes them more 'left' or 'right' in itself. Anyway one of them answer you above.

I thought you were probably yet another anonymous SWP member because you wrote "I'm sure the SWP would say that the Labour Party have changed drasticly in the past 15 years or so. What once may have been the correct position is not necessarily the correct one now." Your odd assumption that the 'correct' position must have changed because the SWP had changed position did seem to mark you out as a member. Apologies for this.

by Sean - Socialist Alternative Mon May 12, 2003 16:48 slats80 at hotmail dot com

"Surely it is the job of revolutionaries to supprt a socialsit revolutionary over a Labour reformist, whatever your differences with him."

We opted to back Paul and Aidan as they were quite simply the best people for the jobs.The S.U. election debate has been exhausted at this stage as has this thread.Like Dan said if anyone wants to debate our politics with us they are more than welcome to do so face to face in public.

by rosie Mon May 12, 2003 16:48

To start off with i am not a member of the SWP or the SP. I'm someone who was a student out in UCd a few years ago and I've taken an interest in this thread. I do consider myself left wing and am very new to indymedia, so please don't bite my head off!!

Andrew, from what i hear and have read Paul Murphy has been very active in the CFE and has played a active role in politics and is not just a 'party man'. I have had a look at his manifesto its on Socialist Party's ucd website (www.syucd.cjb.net), his manifesto seems to be very good.

So it seems Murphy has been very active is a good activist and is a revolutionary socialist. Why did SA not back him over a labour party member?

by Bingo Mon May 12, 2003 15:45

Paul Murphy used to be an RSFer, he thought the Omagh bombing was wimpy. Hardly surprising he'd think kiling kids was ok if it was necessary to advance THE PARTY.

Once a psycho, always a psycho.

by Dan - SA Mon May 12, 2003 15:25

Harry Pollits point about the length of this thread is well taken. Just a few more points;

The SWP called on people to vote Labour in the British elections 2001 whenever the Socialist Alliance wasnt standing a candidate. At the time, I read an article by John Rees justifying this decision and found it persuasive; having thought about it a bit more, I think it was totally wrong. This is not exactly the dim and distant past. If SA stand condemned for telling people to vote for Paul Dillon, then what about people recommending a vote for New Labour after four years of government?

I made a number of political criticisms of Paul Murphy because having worked with him in the CFE
I didnt trust him to do a good job as SU president; he seems to me the sort of person who talks the talk without being willing to walk the walk. I suspect if Murphy had been elected, he would have held a load of protests with nobody showing up, recruited a few people to SYUCD and considered his term a great success. Meanwhile, the government would steamroller ahead with fees and a chance to build a real activist union in UCD would be squandered. Im sick of hearing Dillo denounced by nameless trolls on this newswire while Murphy is held up as a shining revolutionary knight. You want me to justify using the word "muppet"? Ok. I once had the following conversation with the man:

DF: So what right did the Bolsheviks have to ban opposition parties in 1921?
PM: They were a workers' government.
DF: But if the workers had been given a free vote, they would have supported the Mensheviks or the anarchists or the Workers' Opposition?
PM: Well, the most advanced workers supported Lenin. The vanguard.
DF: Who, the people who had read Lenins pamphlets?
PM: No, they would be the vanguard of the vanguard.
DF: So what about killing the Tsars family? I dont mind them killing the Tsar, he was a bastard, but his kids hadnt done anything except being born.
PM: But the Tsars son would have been a symbol for the counter-revolution.
DF: So if there was a revolution in Ireland, and the SP came to power, would you be willing to kill a child?
PM: Yes, if it was necessary to save the revolution.

You can say many things about that. But id call it simply the statement of a muppet. If thats personal abuse, so be it. Murphy should just consider himself lucky I resisted the temptation to write an article for the College Tribune titled "Paul Murphy in his own words". He wouldnt have got a single vote.

"Acting like a muppet" is a political defect common on the far left, and rife in the SWP. It may also be a personal defect, but I blame an ideology that prizes rhetorical radicalism at the expense of getting things done in the real world. When members of the Socialist party and the SWP have attacked the GNAW for taking direct action at Shannon, I think its perfectly fair to criticise people who make a show of confronting the state for its own sake yet lack the balls to do it when something real is involved. There is of course one classic example of this in the SWP. About six years ago, I attented my first ever protest, calling for the release of Peadar O Grady. It was only much later that I heard why hed been arrested. He was (for no good reason) using a megaphone during a paper sale outside the Swan centre in Rathmines. The shopkeepers complained to a passing cop. The guard asked him to turn off the megaphone. Rather than turn it off for five minutes then start again when the cop was gone, he used it to shout "NO I WILL NOT TURN IT OFF!". So he was lifted. The best bit is yet to come. When one member of the Rathmines branch went to bail him out, the cops at the station told her hed already been released. This was used by the PC to justify expelling her for "informing on a comrade". Needless to say, her real crime had been to disagree with Kieran Allen. I think "muppet" is the kindest word that can be used to describe those responsible for such carry-on.

I note that no answer is yet forthcoming to any of the questions Ive asked about the SWP; even the easy one, "What is your name?" (Come on, its the first thing you learn in primary school. Maybe even earlier.) All youve achieved through this thread is to make yourself and your party look even more foolish. Congratulations, comrade! I take it you arent interested in a debate so. Given your performance here, I can understand why.

by Andrew Mon May 12, 2003 15:09

Rosie the SWP has called for a vote for the Labour party a lot more recently then 15 years ago. In Britiah where lots of revolutionary parties used to stand in elections they almost always called for a vote for Labour rather then calling for a vote for these parties. This BTW is another example of the SWP's goldfish memory.

I don't think general/local elections can be discussed in the same way as trade or students union elections. I expressed this at the start of the thread but no one seems to have noticed.

Anyway in either a union or student union election I would not vote for someone based on what political party they belonged to. In fact if they were running as a 'party man' I probably wouldn't vote for them full stop.

What I would look at is what they were standing for and in particular if democratic reforms that would hand decision making power to ordinary members was part of their platform. If it wasn't then again I probably wouldn't vote for them full stop, at least in the case of most trade union elections. I'm am not interested in other words in having a more 'left' leader. I'm interested in having more power in the hands of the members.

If your interested on the WSM take on union elections rather then my own view have a look at http://struggle.ws/wsm/unions.html In terms of our internal debate on elections I tend to be among the most hesitant about backing anyone running for a full time position that is not easily recallable. In others words other WSM members might give a somewhat different view of this question then the one I give here.

by Magneto Mon May 12, 2003 15:07

Paul Dillon would be closer to the SWP on:

1. The North, remember the SP called the SWP sectarian because the SWP organised a counter picket to the bigots at Harryville?

2. Palestine, the SP imply that the SWP support Arafat, driving Israelis into the sea, even that you are anti semitic.

I dont know that the SP position in CFE was to the left of Paul Dillons.

Paul as a member of Labour does not take orders from Pat Rabbitt. He is allowed to disagree with LP policy and has done so publicly.

SP members are not allowed to openl;y disagree with SP policies. They will either follow orders from Little Lenin MacLoughlin or they will be thrown out of the SP.

by Paul M - SP Mon May 12, 2003 15:03

Sorry for taking so long to reply to the personal attack on myself, I've been studying!
But Dan, you really should leave out the personal attacks, and stop the lies about some shit about me arguing for people to leave the road. That is complete bollix and you know it, all I did was explain what the cops had said to me so that we could take an informed decision together, I then also argued that we should stay on the road.

And on this Observer in the lake thing, I for one do not think that freedom of speech should be denied to someone who is a racist. Fascism is altogether different, but I don't think that anyone was claiming that the article was fascist.

Just seeing as I've gotten embroiled in this now, on the SSP posting I notice Dan that you say the SSP is great etc. etc., because they've dropped all the bullshit which the rest of us "Trots" are supposedly laden with. Would one of these things be perhaps the idea that socialism has to be international? Because I heard Tommy Sheridan on Sky News explaining how when there was a socialist Scotland, workers from England and Wales, who hadn't quite caught up yet, would be free to visit! Do you personally Dan believe socialism can be achieved in one country?

by Independent Mon May 12, 2003 14:45

Surely it is the job of revolutionaries to supprt anti capitalists engaging in direct action over building an alliance with Labour reformists, whatever your differences with anti capitalists. I'm sure this is the position taken by the revolutionaries in the anti war movement? The SWP on the conmtrary joined with labour & co to attack, sabotage and condemn Direct Action.

by rosie Mon May 12, 2003 14:29

I agree that it is also about the SWP, you can't discuss Sa without also discussing the SWP. But I think it would not do the discussion any good if we rehashed all the old Trotsky V Anarchy debates, we are probably all familiar with them at this stage. They do tend to get into a bout of 'what about this... well what about that etc'

I'm sure the SWP would say that the Labour Party have changed drasticly in the past 15 years or so. What once may have been the correct position is not necessarily the correct one now. But I don't know much about the SWP calling for votes for the Labour Party.

But the SWP in the past calling for votes for Labour is not the issue the issue is not the fact that SA called for a vote for a Labour member either but that they called for a vote for a Labour member when a socialist with a good record was also standing in the election. Surely it is the job of revolutionaries to supprt a socialsit revolutionary over a Labour reformist, whatever your differences with him. I'm sure this is the position taken by the WSM in trade union elections?

by Andrew Mon May 12, 2003 14:22

John are you actually thinking through the implications of what you write? You say "A least we can say we made of mess of it". This 'mess' created by Lenin andTrotsky not only cost millions of workers their lives but also pretty much destroyed what real opportunity existed of creating communism in the 20th Century. It serves to either scare workers into the arms of western anti-communism or even worse the appearent 'success' meant that many on the left emulated the methods used creating the parody parties of leninism today. What was that Marx said about 'first time as tragedy, second time as farce'?

In terms of the construction of communism the anarchist experiment in Spain was actually a good deal more succesful then what the bolsheviks did in the USSR. That's because most of the anarchists used the one year breathing space to actually try and construct a libertarian society in north eastern Spain from July 19 1936 to May '37 (and somewhat later in Aragon). Lenin and Trotsky on the other had ran around smashing such attempts in Russia from early 1918 on. The more limited achivements in workers self management in that case had to be made AGAINST the bolsheviks.

At the end of the day both experiments failed to result in a free society. The Russian one ended in 70 years of 'left' dictatorship and a 10-20 million mountain of corpses. The Spanish one ended in 36 years of right dictatorship and a 500,000 high mountain of corpses. The difference is you want to stick a red flag into the higher pile of corpses and call it a success!

Further reading on the Spanish experiment at
http://struggle.ws/spaindx.html including a mountain of anarchist critiques of what the Spanish anarchists did wrong (and that is some list!).

For a quick introduction for beginners see
http://struggle.ws/spain/pam_ch1.html

If you already know a good bit about the Spanish revolution and are interested in anarchist criticisms of what went wrong see http://struggle.ws/spain/FODtrans/preface.html which incidentally was translated from the Frence by Chekov

by Andrew Mon May 12, 2003 14:09

Rosie the thread is actually about the SA and the SWP as its rather hard to deal with one rather then the other.

Plus if you check out what I posted from Trotsky it has nothing to do with anarchists. It was workers he considered work shy he was proposing to stick into the labour camps, the anarchists were sent to jail or the firing squad.

But to return to the original point. What on earth is the SWP up to here that several anonymous SWP members are taking the time to come onto indymedia to have a go at the SA for doing something the SWP has ALWAYS done (i.e. called on people to 'vote labour'). Like it's really, really weird man!

So let's add this question to the list

'Whats the difference between the SWP calling for a vote for Labour and SA calling for a vote for a Labour party member?'

The challenge here of course is to answer this in a way that 'proves' the SA position is to the right of the SWP one.

by John Mon May 12, 2003 14:02

A least we can say we made of mess of it but what have anarchist to say? To be able to fale you must first be able to accomplish something and apart from some smale scale, temporary 'projects' we haven't seen a lot from anarchists. Afraid of yourselves? Afraid to go over the top? At least we can learn from our mistakes we made in the past.

by rosie Mon May 12, 2003 13:49

Can we please stick to the original posting. The debates about Russia, Trotsky, Anarchists... etc have been well and truely been aired elsewhere.

The thread is about this SA group. From my experience it is generally the case that when a person resorts to personal insults and debates about organisation they have usually lost or are unwilling to debate politics. I would guess that this is the case with Dan Finn and his group. I have still to see the substantial political reasons why they left the SWP and why they supported the Labour Party in the elections.

I also find it hard to believe that the last post that was attributed to Conor McGowan was not written by him. As pointed out by another contributer, he does have a unique writing style and I think it would be hard for some troll to copy it that well.

by Independent Mon May 12, 2003 13:38

The difference is that anarchists use violence against the state and capitalism, Trotsky used violence against workers! Agree with Andrew, party education isn't improving.

by Andrew Mon May 12, 2003 12:44

Ahh John, I see you imagine that the SP's introduction of the USSR is a bit like a school yard 'you smell' taunt to which you can simply reply 'so do you' and we then go our seperate ways. The SWP's internal education hasn't been improved lately then.

Thge problem John is that while you can point that Proudhon for instance wrote "For woman liberty and well-being lie solely in marriage, in motherhood, in domestic duties" just about any anarchist today will reply, well yes but he was wrong wasn't he.

Yet I can point out that Trotsky said "If we seriously speak of planned economy, which is to acquire its unity of purpose from the center, when labor forces are assigned in accordance with the economic plan at the given stage of developement, the working masses cannot be left wandering all over Russia. They must be thrown here and there, appointed, commanded, just like soldiers". In the same speech, he says "Deserters from labour ought to to be formed into punitive battalions or put into concentration camps".

You have two problems here
1. Trotsky was actually putting this sort of policy into practise in 1920.
2. Your party (the SWP) defends the fact that he was doing so. In short you don't say 'ah yes but Trotsky was wrong'.

So yes we can play the game where you pull dodgy anarchist quotations out of the hat, your problem is that you are required to defend the dodgy saying of Marx, Engels, Lenin and Trotsky that I can produce in return. But where some historic or current anarchist comes out with a load of crap I'll gladly call it a load of crap.

The clue here is that we have a rather deep difference of political method. One is based on scripture, defence of core doctrine and exposure of heresy. The other is called anarchism.

by former trot Mon May 12, 2003 12:40

Just for the record, I personally am not an anarchist. But even if we grant that anarchists are no better than Lenin and Trotsky, how precisely does this answer the points made about what I would see as the real history of bolshevism, rather than the sanitised nonsense and rampant myths that float around the far left???

by John - None Mon May 12, 2003 12:16

And anarchists are (were) 'saints' ofcourse. Do you want me to give a list of the attrocities and criminal acts commited by anarchists? Are you interested in some 'nice' quotes from Bakoenin and co to show how peace loving and tolerant anarchists realy are? Or do you have a selective memory?

Who uses the most violence today. Those dogmatic authoritarian 'trotskist' or peace loving tolerant anarchists?

by former trot Mon May 12, 2003 11:42

I enjoyed Andrew's last posting.
The facts about Lenin and Trotsky from 1917 are well known. However often they are restated, Trotskyists or neo-Trotskyists still cling to the myth that the period up until 1923 was a golden age of proletarian democracy, and therefore that the Bolsheviks did not lead to stalin. This prodigious feat of historical reconstruction can only be accomplished by hypocrisy. Thus: capitalists shoot down strikers equals bad. Bolsheviks shoot strikers equals good. This is sold as a necessary step to preserve the revolution! It doesn't seem to occur to them that a revolution that requires dictatorship, massacre and lies is degenerate, and not worthy of presevervation. The truth is that the whole bolshevik experiment was a massive detour for the socialist movement and we are still living with its harmful effects. Maybe Kamenev and Zinoviev were actually right in opposing the insurrection, and (horror of horrors - scarilege heaped upon sacrilege!) - Lenin was wrong! gasp.

But the damage is that it shows how intolerance of dissent and an inability to understand the importance of democracy have rotted the Leninist/ Trotskyist tradition and help render it utterly irrelevant today.

Whatever future shape society takes, and whatever movements are required to realise it, they need to brreak from the authoritarian Bolshevik past to succeed.

by Andrew Mon May 12, 2003 11:30

Just read through the thread after the weekend and I'm oretty amused. After the (fake) confession a number of anonymous SWPers demanded I now admit that the SA have moved to the right. Given that it appears the confession was fake and none of the SA are in Labour perhaps I should now demand that they admit they have not moved to the right.

Or maybe I should just laugh my arse off. The whole premise is weird, after all the SWP have been demanding that people 'Vote Labour' in almost every election in Ireland and Britain for the last 30 years. In campaigns they willingly ditch sections of their own program in order to keep Labour on board. So them anonymously whinging here about an ex-SWP group voting for a member of the Labour Party in an SU election is just hilarous.

The dialogue summary between Kieran Allen and some SA members in UCD over anti-war direct action illustrates where this is coming from. Marxists like to claim that the party is the 'memory of the class'. But in the SWP's case the memory that is cultivated is that of a goldfish (apperantly they only remember stuff for 10 seconds). By today yesterdays slogans and actions are forgotten in all the excitment of what is promised tomorrow. But when tomorrow comes the promises of yesterday have also been forgotten.

Of course its not that all SWP members are stupid. You have a cynical leadership that knows full well the history of its own party but believes by simply saying whatever sounds best at that moment you can 'build the party'. They sell this to long term members as being all about 'accenting the positive'. And then of course the majority of the membership are never members long enough to form an alternative memory. They are told that today is better then yesterday and tomorrow will be still brighter and simply don't know that the sun is setting rather then rising. When they work it out they leave and unfortunatly often draw the conclusion that their experience is a general one of the left rather then a specific one of the SWP.

Finally I see one of the SPers foolishly brought the nature of the USSR into things. He reckons "Stalinism was a brutal and undemocratic system. Socialists do not stand for such a society." The problem of course is that it was Lenin and Trotsky rather then Stalin who first shot strikers, banned left papers and organisations, banned party factions, sent revolutionaries to the gulags and shut down soviets who elected the 'wrong' delegates. But the SP share the SWP's goldfish memory in that respect and not only 'forget' this but will 'forget' it again 5 seconds after they have read this post.

For those who want to know and perhaps give that 'memory of the class' a jog check out http://struggle.ws/russia.html

by Former Trot Mon May 12, 2003 11:10

One good argument that every attempt at Leninist organisation around democratic centralism will lead to stalinism is simply the internal regimes of the SWP/ SP etc that we know so well (many of us, unfortunately, from the inside). There is no such thing as a genuinely democratic orthodox Trotskyist grouping. I know all their arguments about Russia inside out - that the degeneration of the revolution was due to its isolation and the backwardsness of Russia etc. What shows the limitation of that argument is simply such things as how the SWP and SP et al. conduct themselves now, today, when we do not live in a backward country, haven't had a revolution, and are not surrounded by 21 imperialist armies. One can only imagine the horror that people like Hadden and the SWP leadership would perpetrate if they ever fluked their way, as Lenin did, into state power.

by Harry Pollitt Mon May 12, 2003 11:06

Lads 77 posts I think this is a record!!! Myself and Dan's effort this time last year doesn't count as it went on to another bulletin board.

by pat c Mon May 12, 2003 10:26

Anyone who killed that many farmers cant be all bad.

by John - ISN Mon May 12, 2003 01:25

I read the above SA post on their recent activities and am really impressed that such a small group has such a high commitment to activism. Many of the above posts seem to be eminating from the SWP which says lots about their group who wish to punish the SA for having the balls to resign from the SWP and do their own thing. The SWP will probably start argueing for a new left alliance soon. How do they expect to achieve any such alliance when they spend their time attacking groups like the SA?

by John - ISN Mon May 12, 2003 01:16

If the SWP think that the SSP is reformist why are they in the SSP? Why don't they all resign to isolated insignificance and do the SSP a favour!

by Mary Sun May 11, 2003 22:04

Finghin belongs to a sect of Trotskyists that will not recognize that their call for dictatorship of the proletariat is anti-democratic.

There have been attempts by Communists to also be democratic. The early workers Soviets in Russia were democratic. Furthermore there is the whole history of Social Democrats who are essential non-Bolshevik communists working within the parliamentary system.

Apart from those early workers soviets they're all crap because they don't believe in democracy.

by Josef Sun May 11, 2003 21:33

Not one one them had anything like a democracy where people could choose their leaders. If democracy is the linchpin of socialism then surely at least one of the attempts at Marxist socialism would have had some success.

They all failed. Are you not puzzled about this?

by Finghin Sun May 11, 2003 18:45

You clearly do need the 'what is socialism discussion' you have clearly shown that you do not know what socialism is really about.

You state that "Capitalism has been an outstanding success in giving people a good standard of living, education and human diginity..."

Does it? Why are a majority of the worlds population living in poverty and do not recieve anything more than a very basic education? Capitalism was a great advance from feudalism, it has created much wealth and resources however because it is based on private property it is unable to develop society any further.

I take it that you have not read Marx in any depth. If you had you would find that Marx believed strongly in democracy and made the point on many occasions that socialism would be impossible without genuine workers democracy. I suggest you read Marx's 'Civil War in France' especially the 3rd section. There you will find that Marx was very supportive of the democratic structures set up by the workers of Paris.

by Josef Sun May 11, 2003 17:05

but it does beg the question. Do you mean a system based upon the ideas of Karl Marx?

If so, then you must exclude democracy from the apparaus of government. Sooner or later, people will demand some flexibility to adjust to changing circulstances or mores and if true socialism is to be continued it must be done under a dictatorship.

Capitalism has been an outstanding success in giving people a good standard of living, education and human diginity because it is a framework to fulfill the needs of humanity, not the decrees of some long deceased theorist.

Capitalism has it's faults but it's the better than any present alternative and it is evolving all the time as more and more people achieve better incomes and get to have more of a say in how they are governed.

by Finghin Sun May 11, 2003 14:49

"Socialism is a dogma, a rigid system that cannot be diverted from and must be enforced if the people don't want certain policies."

- This is not the socialism that I stand for. What you are describing is stalinism which was not socialism

"Look. Socialism has been tried in dozens of countries now and they've all ended up as failures run by tin pot dictators. Communist governments have killed over 100 million people."

- Agian you refer to Stalinism. Stalinism was a brutal and undemocratic system. Socialists do not stand for such a society. The fact is that genuine socialism has not occured and been allowed to develop anywhere while capitalism exists in nearly every corner of the planet. Most capitalist states are not democracies, they are run by tin pot dictators and 100s of millions dies in war, famine and preventative illness.

Surely it is capitalism that has failed as you state, "Any scientist would tell you that if the hypothesis fails the test again and again and again it's time to ditch the hypothesis and comeup with a new one." Capitalism has failed again and again maybe it's time to ditch it and adopt socialism.

by Puzzled Sun May 11, 2003 14:38

So now we have some backtracking from Dan. He even goes so far as to claim that Conor's post was forged. Well this is Irish Indymedia and forgery happens regularly so I won't dismiss that out of hand. Except to say that if his post was indeed forged then the forger has a remarkable ear for Conor's semi-coherent writing style and a fine memory for the kind of content Socialist Alternative seem to specialise in.

Still, it's nice to get a straight answer from Dan. Even if it did take wading through a sea of abuse for nearly two days to get there.

Dan says that nobody in SA is also in the Labour Party and that Conor's post was forged. Well and good.

Now tell us Dan, what are your alternative explanations for Donal going around signing things "On behalf of UCD Labour Party" and James Redmond's comments that other members of SA joining the Labour Party is none of SA's business collectively? Were they all forged too?

Finally what's wrong with helping socialists to reclaim James Connolly from the provos? Nothing. But that isn't what you boys were doing. You were helping Labour reclaim James Connolly fromt he provos. That's a very different thing.

That your argument quickly descended into little more than personal abuse of Rory Hearne and Paul Murphy is noted.

by Finghin - SP Sun May 11, 2003 14:19

I wouldn't usually reply to such personalised attacks but there are some blatent mistruths that I have to put straight.

First Dan you seem to be questioning that Paul Murphy has not a record of struggle. This is completely untrue. Paul as well as the other members of the SP have been some of the most active people in the Campaign for Free Education and have consistently argued for militant tactics. Paul also has ben very active in the anti war movement both inside and outside UCd. As mentioned on another thread Paul as well as the rest of the SP in UCD are quite active in community campaigns such as the bin tax.

You also raise the issue of the Observer and Donal chucking them in the lake. The SP obviously oppose racism that goes without saying. However we believe that racism is quite distinct from fascism we would therefore not support the throwing of the SU paper into the lake. I also find it interesting that Donal actually argued for complete freedom of speech at the beginning of the year including for fascists.

By the way he did not write any more articles for the Observer after that event in any case. On the SU council Sp members voted for the editor to resign, something that other lefts did not do.

"Murphy took it upon himself to negotiate with the cops".

That again is untrue. The Gardaí took it upon themselves to talk to Paul. I was there and Paul did not suggest that we leave, he simply told people that the Gardaí wanted us to move and they had threatened the PO act on us. Paul Murphy then argued that we should stay on the road and that the Gardaí were unlikely to use the PO act on so many people. I note that Paul Dillon in fact put forward the argument that we should move and comply with the Gardaí, although he did say this was to "put forward both sides".

"But I suppose theres no point coming first in your law class if people dont respect bourgeois
legality."

The reason Paul came first in his class is because he is good at the study, is that now bourgeois? It is not a precondition to be a steroetypical Arts student that scrapes through exams to be on the UCD left!

Personalised attacks do not do any justice to any of your arguments, it only makes you look as though your differences are based on personality not politics. You have stated previously that you have political differences with others, well why not make political arguments instead of making personalised attacks on individuals in UCD.

by Dan - SA Sun May 11, 2003 12:04 rogerprotzlives at yahoo dot co dot uk

This is pathetic. After reading the totally inaccurate
post under conors name, I rang him up, and not to my great
surprise, he said that it wasnt him who wrote it - he was out all
day yesterday training. SA - the truth? Me arse. I wasnt
going to dignify this nonsense about the labour party
with a response, but since the SWP Thought Police are
determined to extract a false confession from our mouths, here
we go. No member of SA believes that the Labour Party can be reformed.
No member of SA has thrown in their lot with Pat Rabitte and co (we
dont even have a chair, anyway).

We have no problem working with people on the left of Labour. The handy
thing about Labour Youth is, they have a few grand to spend,
and we dont, so if we can prod them into spending it on something useful,
we will. For example, if LY were doing a serious anti-racist campaign, Id
be perfectly willing to help out - they have the resources to do that
better than we could. But any long-term project to take over the Labour Party
and make it socialist is out of the question. It didnt work in Britain
and theres no reason why it should work here. This is the SA position; we did have
a discussion about this (the only grain of truth in "conor"s post).

This mindless drivel all seems to derive from the Easter Commemorations, when Donal
helped out some people from Labour Youth who were marching behind a Citizens Army
banner. If anyone can explain to me why its wrong for socialists to try to claim
Connolly and the ICA back from the Provos, please explain why.

"Puzzled/Clueless" still refuses to say whether the SWP are interested in debating with us,
still refuses to reveal his/her name and has not addressed ANY of the criticism of their
party which we have made. So at least you acknowledge that your partys behaviour is indefensible
and being a loyal member is so embarassing that its necessary to hide behind pseudonyms.
But we knew that anyway.

Let me give you a brief summary of the difference between radical rhetoric and radical deeds:
October 2002: Brian Lenihan visits UCD. SA help organise a protest; about 50 students who
arent part of the activist core turn up and throw themselves in front of cops to stop him
getting in. Meanwhile, the SWP hold a meeting on "Karl Marx - The first anti-capitalist".
Two weeks later, Noel Dempsey visits to open the Vet building. 300 students prevent him from leaving for
two hours, blocking off the exits with makeshift barricades. The SWP holds a meeting on
"The revolutionary ideas of Karl Marx" (evidently the first meeting didnt attract much of a crowd). In
fairness, they do come along to join the protest once their meeting is over.
December 2002: national anti-fees demo in town. The SWP hold meeting on "The global strategy
of the American empire" at same time.
February 2002: USI anti-fees demo in town. SA members organise sit-down in front of
dail after main demo is over. Meanwhile, the SWP hold meeting in Trinity. Topic unknown: perhaps
"how do we build a revolutionary party"? No member of the vanguard to be seen when cops drag us
off the street.

Then theres the war campaign. Myself and Finbar Dwyer went
along to the meetings of the UCD anti-war group, which Kieran Allen ran as his
personal fiefdom, and argued for direct action. Here is a brief summary of the discussion:

KA: of course, people who take direct action down at Shannon are elitist. We believe in mass
action.
DF: So do I. Nobody thinks direct action is an alternative to mass protest, but it should be
a complement.
KA: We need to have a campaign of mass protest, not just a few elitists taking action
down at Shannon.
DF: Everyone agrees that we need mass protests. We should also have direct action.
KA: Oh, Im in favour of direct action.
DF: Really? Cos the IAWM stewards down at Shannon tried to stop people from taking part.
KA: That was because it hadnt been agreed upon by the Steering Committee. Anyway, we need
a campaign of mass protest, not just a few elitists taking action down at Shannon.

(Some weeks pass. The war has now begun).

FD: We had a really good mass protest in Dublin, but it didnt stop the government. Now
its time to go beyond that, we have to do something to make them sit up and take notice.
KA: I dont agree with this idea that direct action is "sexy" and mass protests are dull.
DF: Nobody said anything of the sort. The mass protests were excellent, but they didnt stop the war. Now
we need to go one step further.
KA: People who think mass protest is a waste of time are wrong.

At this point you start to feel like screaming. Perhaps "Puzzled", with his/her great theoretical insight into
the faults of SA, could apply it to their own organisation? Maybe youve heard of Karl Kautsky, who seems
to be the guiding spirit of the SWP these days. Or maybe youre familiar with the behavour of the
Frence CP in May 1968; there are some striking parallels. I found a book the other week by some Brit CP
theoretician full of broadsides against "ultra-left, adventurist" Trotskyists who were probably
working as agent provocateurs. You know, it sounded just like a SWP spokesman attacking the GNAW.

The only charge against SA that bears any resemblence to the truth is that we supported a member of Labour
against an SP member in the SU elections. Indeed we did, and Im proud to say it. Paul Murphy seems to be
a hero of the SWP these days; "a proven record of struggle" no less. Heres a couple more examples of the difference between
rhetoric and reality. You may have heard of the incident when one of the college papers carried a racist
story; it was all over the national media. Donal collected the entire print run and threw it in the lake.
On the way, he ran into Paul Murphy and asked him if he wanted to join in. Murphy said he didnt want to lose his
column for the paper. When we were doing a sit-in on Kildare St, Murphy took it upon himself to
negotiate with the cops; then he came back and said "we better get up now, theyve threatened us with the Public Order Act".
I had to point out that there was no way the Gardai would charge 60 people under the PO act. So they dragged us off, and
as I thought, nobody was arrested. But I suppose theres no point coming first in your law class if people dont respect bourgeois
legality.

I can understand why the SWP like Murphy so much. When it comes to acting like a muppet, he gives even Rory Herne
a run for his money. If marching up to a building chantin "o-c-c-u-p-y what ya gonna do OCCUPY" through a megaphone,
thus giving the security guards time to lock the doors, is your idea of serious radicalism, by all means condemn us for not
backing Murphy. But I suspect we made the right choice.

I understand that inoffensive indymedia users who have no connection with UCD must
be sick of hearing about all this UCD crap. But there is a reason: activists in UCD have abandoned the dogmatic
Trot formulas and started getting real work done over the last couple of years. This seems to be a threat to
the sort of stale bureaucratic types who like to come out with blood-thirsty radical slogans about tearing the head off
the bourgeoisie while in practice doing nothing more threatening to the state than collecting petitions. So they
spend all their time whining about what a mess things are in our college. No papers sold, no petitions collected,
no meetings on "How can we smash capitalism?"; just a load of serious activists doing something real for a change. What a
disaster. This also explains why the mickey mouse cod-bolshevik brigade spend so much effort
denouncing the SSP as "reformist" without bothering to explain why.

If the SWP dont want to debate all this with us, can they please shut up now and stop telling lies?
The newswire should really be for news, not "exposes" of our group

by Blue collar Sun May 11, 2003 07:43

Finghin:

"Under socialism I can't see where there would be a disincentive to work."

So we will work more! Then fuck your socialism. We want to work less, not more! If you start with the principle that people are happy to work, you end up with the gulag.

by Josef Sat May 10, 2003 21:49

Democracy means freedom to choose leaders who will make changes that the people want. Socialism is a dogma, a rigid system that cannot be diverted from and must be enforced if the people don't want certain policies.

Look. Socialism has been tried in dozens of countries now and they've all ended up as failures run by tin pot dictators. Communist governments have killed over 100 million people.

Any scientist would tell you that if the hypothesis fails the test again and again and again it's time to ditch the hypothesis and comeup with a new one.

by Finghin - SP Sat May 10, 2003 20:20

It's a bit off the point but I'll answer some of your questions regarding socialism.

I do not believe that Stalin is the inevitable result of socialism. To understand why Stalinism happened in Russia you have to recognise that Socialism needs to be international to succeed expecially when the revolution happened in a relativly backward country such as Russia. Because the revolutions in Europe failed Russia was left isolated and genuine socialism could not flourish, this facilitated the emergence of a bureacracy which cracked down on workers rights. If the revolution was international and certain democratic practices were adopted by the workers movement then Stalinism would not occur again.

AS for work under socialism. What incentive is there to work under capitalism? the harder you work the more money the boss gets. Your surplus labour is used by the capitalist to get rich. Under Socialism a workers surplus would be used to reduce the working week, increased pay and conditions as well as for the common good of society. Under socialism I can't see where there would be a disincentive to work.

It may seem that those on the left are always bickering, but this is not because we are covering up our flawed ideology. We do agree on 80-90% of our ideas but most of us tend to focus on what is different between us this is understandable especially in this forum. However we do work together on many campaigns such as those against the war, bin tax, the trade unions etc.

by Josef Sat May 10, 2003 20:11

Once you switch form a multi party system you're in trouble. Look at how power corrupts leaders, Haughey (snigger), Thathcher (lost the plot), Clinton (quibbled over the meaning of sexual relations after brazenly lying on TV).
This is in countries where there's a strong opposition.

Power does your head in and the inevitable conclusion of unchallenged authority is Mao, Castor, Stalin and all the murder and brutal repression they are synomous with.

by Well read Sat May 10, 2003 18:46

Listen Anne Doyle your post is studid and detracts form an interesting debate on socialism / anti-socialism / capitalism etc. Could any of the faithful warriors of the revolution who will make the production decission in your socialist dream world. Marxists always say "the soviets were not real communists" etc yet is Stalin not the enivitable outcome of communism. Point 2: Other then setting targets how does communism/socialism ensure workers work? Does enforcement of these targets mean the firing squad? With capitalism the incentive to work is maximised by ensuring the individual keeps the spoils of his labour? Answer please? Many wonder why the left groups always fight each other. My answer is that they do so in order to mask the gaping holes in their ideology. So lefties, examine your head - are you really a socialist committed to a controlled tyranny or mearly a disaffected person. How does the capitalist system treat your diologue? it gives you the freedom to engage in it because it knows you do not count. How does the communist system treat dissent - the firing squad.

by Anne Doyle Sat May 10, 2003 17:29

Extra extra read all about it.

Communism fails in Russia.

Breaking story.

Scandanavian model fails

Coming up after the break.

Cuban crackdown.

But now,
Government uses taxes to redistribute income to the needy - i.e. paying, southside, upper class, rugby playing tossers college fees.

CFE = Campaign to Fund the Elite
SWP = Stupid Wankers and Pricks
SA = i'm So Amazing
etc etc

If i went to UCD i'd be sick. But of course that wouldn't be a problem 'cos mummy and daddy pay my vhi or else RBB might drop me a few cuid.

by Puzzled Sat May 10, 2003 16:55

To recap again:

Donal O'Liathain (Socialist Alternative) - "On behalf of UCD Labour Party..."

James Redmond (Socialist Alternative) - "If Donal has joined the Labour Party that isn't the business of SA collectively"

Dan Finn (Socialist Alternative) - "... [some predictable abuse about the SWP]..."

Conor McGowan (Socialist Alternative) - "there are those in SA who think that joining/reforming the Labour Party is worthwhile... ...[SA are] all anticapitalist (including the labour members)"

So there we go. After all the bluster and bullshit, the red herrings, personal abuse and the predictable attempts to throw up any old attack on the SWP, we finally get our straight answer.

Socialist Alternative members (plural) have joined the Labour Party. The rest of Socialist Alternative are just fine with that. Goodbye to "Revolution, anti-capitalism and socialism from below". Hello to the party of tax amnesties for the rich, coalition with Fianna Fail and Fine Gael, corporate donations and betrayal after betrayal for the Irish working class.

On the upside, they do have the consolation of proving the SWP wrong in one way. When they split from the SWP and produced their almost politics free documents they were told that they would end up in the Labour Party within a year. It's taken what? A year and half?

Those on the anarchist left who have defended the Socialist Alternative as a positive move from the "authoritarianism" of the SWP might want to take a long look at what they were defending. This is what happens when you let sectarian bile against the SWP cloud your judgement. You end up as partisans of the newest members of Rabbitte, Quinn and Spring's merry band.

by rachel Sat May 10, 2003 13:15

Andrew are you still claiming that SA are a left wing split from the SWP? If you continue to believe that you are simply making a laughing stock out of yourself the WSM and Anarchists in general.

by Barry T Sat May 10, 2003 12:48

I can't see how SA or Andrew can say that SA are a left wing split after reading the last posting. Their chair has joined Labour, they have discussed it within SA and they are OK with him continuing to be a member of both organisations!

How can anyone continue to think they are a left wing split??

It's mad! Conor could you please clairfy if there are more than just Donal who has joined Labour? You mentioned 'members in labour'

by IMC supporter Sat May 10, 2003 12:37

KG - SWP you had your answer, now do us a favor, do something useful, write a report, article, op ed (no party propaganda please).
IMC is your media, use it wisely.

by conor mc gowan - ucdsa Sat May 10, 2003 12:20 conor at ziplip dot com

i think donal i a member of sa and labour. he was on some labour parade anyhow.

as dan and reddy said, thats ok by sa.we are not going to decide on the politics of other members.there are those in sa who think that joining/reforming labour is worthwhile, there are others (*myself included) who dont.we do discuss these things. you all know dans politics, donals, reddy is an anarchist, finbarr has his own views on stuff, so do i. fundamentally, we are:

all anti capitalist (including the labour members)
all socialist (more so than kev moron or any other isolationist trot/spart/etc)
all hold the freedom of the individiual as being important
all aggree with position papers (see website - our politbureau is open and online)
all twats.
all wasted a few months of our lives having "debates" within the swp,brfore deciding them and their politics are bollox, and leaving it, while individually -

working with lan (very un-labour)
working in the cfe (the first left wing group getting actual ucd students mobilised)
REFORMING the su at the same time (getting candidates ELECTED whereby they can DOSTUFF)

doing stuff at carraigmines,shannon,critical mass,etc .... while leaving our politics and "newspapers" at the door.the list goes on.

this year sa (as in sa members-not the "party") did stuff.

last year ucdswss did fuck all of worth (same this year)

also- we had a fucking top time of it - not answering to some twat every weekend, learning and doing now stuff.developing our politics and direct action experience.

if the swp ever aggree to a debate about our politics etc , i for 1 wouldnt bother going.fucking bif bafg of irrelavant pants theyd talk

im off to do exam work. hope everyone is doing well in theirs - regardless of "petty sectariansim"

sorry about my spelling.this is my first piece of written english for some while

by Dan - SA Sat May 10, 2003 12:18

Ive nothing but sympathy for the comments above. I find this
all very tedious too. But we are not the ones who post the stories,
so its not our fault. I think it would be a great idea to set up a
separate forum for all this sort of business. I know its very irritating
to see different socialist groups having a go at each other, but dont tar us all with
the same brush. As far as SA are concerned, we criticised the SWP when we
left, and since then weve done our best to ignore them and concentrate on doing our own
thing. When we do criticise them or the SP we give some kind of proper argument, rather
than the sort of childish rant you see at the start of this thread.
Im afraid the responsibility for this nonsense lies with the SWP alone.
I hope this is the last time I see a post on Indymedia trying to smear our group.
If its not, then you know who to blame. We might not bother replying in future - maybe
that would shut them up?

by paul calf Sat May 10, 2003 10:43

baga'shite

by Clare Sat May 10, 2003 10:37 Galway

Is there not some UCD board you can have this squabble on?

by Sean Sat May 10, 2003 10:37

I don't agree with the SWP but I will have to let Barbara Muldoon brought up in the heartlands of Crossmaglen in the 70's and 80's or Davy carlin born into Ballymurphy in the 70's and then on the falls Rd in the 80's that they [and would that include their communities?] were actually members of the ruling class. So the unionists were in fact right all along that there was in fact no inequality.

by Noone Fri May 09, 2003 21:56

Yup. It's all quite funny really. It seems like a little bitching match to me. Left wing groups stirring up shit with other left wing groups. Are'nt we all supporting the same thing? A better Democracy. A better way of living. How are we going to achieve this, if the small number of groups that are left wing, cant even get along with each other. STOP all of this. Put aside your little petty differences, and work together.

by Troll Fri May 09, 2003 20:43 troll at wsm dot ie

That's all very well, but what is this about Kieran Allen's father? Details please.

by R Isible Fri May 09, 2003 19:53

OK, the various political groupings like to have a go at each other. Sometimes there are valid questions of difference over tactics and ideology, but much of this "debate" seems to be pointless.

Take this current example. Suppose...just suppose...that the KG-SWP article above is correct and that SA are not "properly socialist", now, how does responding with accusations that the SWP aren't "properly socialist" either prove anything about SA?

It's true that not all of this discussion has been like that, it seems that some SA people have actually tried to answer some of the specific points raised as has "Andrew" further up, but this seems to be going the way of all recent discussion on indymedia.ie: a descent into personal abuse and a divergence from the actual discussion.

I'm not writing this to address the people that are _deliberately_ trying to do this, I'm writing in the hope that there are SP, SWP, Labour, SF, Green, @narchist and independents that are being drawn into flame wars. Take a step back, please, no matter what your ideology, no matter the provocation. Argument requires co-operation as much as agreement.

There have been many "online" communities since the net first started. Many of the earliest such as Usenet, innumerable mailing lists, Bulletin Boards collapsed and disappeared due to the problem of flamewars and trolling swamping out discussion and debate.

Try and not let it happen here, no matter what the provocation.

This is my completely personal opinion.

by Finghin - Socialist Party UCD Fri May 09, 2003 19:51

It seems yet again indymedia has been abused by a shit stirrer. I would normally ignore this crap but there is a few things brought up by contributer that I'd like to clarify. I don't particularly wish to get into a lenghty debate on these issues on indymedia, it is not the ideal forum.

The socialist Party members in UCD have taken part in direct action on the fees, on war and in the bin tax campaign. During the year in CFE the Sp have always argued for militant direct action while others did not and even argued against it.

Paul Dillon is a leading member of the Labour Party, he's on the general council I believe. To think that he would not be influenced by his party membership while in office is niave. SP candidates mentioned their party membership in their manifestoes.

the Sp members that stood in the SU elections were the only candidates to mention the war in their manifestoes and were the only candidates to mention it in lecture addresses. The SP members were also involved in the UCD anti war group.

by Dan - SA Fri May 09, 2003 19:42

So no member of the SWP is interested in having a public debate
with us. I know it would have a select appeal, but you could say the
same about many SWP meetings. Im sure all the great and good
of the Irish far left would be interested to see a speaker
from both groups tearing into each other, if only for the entertainment
value.

As I already said, every time the SWP makes something up/takes something out
of context, in order to smear SA, we respond in detail, showing the
accusation to be false. Then the SWP repeat the allegation again, and again,
and again, until it becomes totally implausible. Then they make something
else up. This has been going on for a year now.

I dont see a need to respond anymore because a) the members of the SWP
concerned are clearly so indoctrinated that they would have trouble
seeing that 2 plus 2 equals 4 if Kieran Allen told them otherwise and b)
nobody who is not a member of the SWP seems in any way persuaded by this nonsense.
Ive yet to see anybody post saying "my god, I had faith in these SA boys, but
now I see I was wrong, because the SWP says so." If such a person was to post, I
would see a point in replying. Otherwise, no.

This sort of carry on is a small example of why everybody else on the left, whatever
background they come from, hippie/green, left-labour, anarchist, republican, whatever, cant stand the SWP.
This sort of shrill, smug, intolerant, arrogant, dogmatic, sectarian, hysterical and dishonest
approach to politics may be good for people who want some kind of secular religion. But it has
nothing to contribute to serious radical politics in Ireland.

Why do you find SA so threatening, if we are just a bunch of confused, cowardly sectarian fools
who will join the labour party or drop out of politics in a few years? If that was the case, surely you could ignore
us safely? To be honest, we are only a small group of (at present) nine active members, who mostly operate, out of
necessity rather than choice, within one college. Is the SWP so weak and insecure that it has to devote all this effort
to smearing us?

To judge by the other posts on this thread, I think most people can see this for what it is. I remember Richard BB telling me
that when he was in UCD, the Workers Party and the CP were the dominant presence; he was the only SWM member. Yet within a few
years they were extinct, while the SWM had become the main socialist group. Thats what happens when your politics are rubbish.
I expect that in (at most) ten years time, probably less, the SP and the SWP will no longer exist in their present form. If they can
reform themselves, brilliant. If they cant, then groups like ourselves, the WSM, Red banner, the ISN and others will have to do the job
I suppose.

So to conclude, if the SWP wants to debate with us, we are available at any time. But on these conditions; that you say whatever you have to
say about us in public, without hiding behind false names. That you give us the opportunity to reply. That we have the opportunity to make our own
criticisms of the SWP. And that you offer some answers in response. Best of all, this should ideally take place before a crowd that includes
many of your members, who have doubtless been fed a steady diet of lies about SA for the last year. If you are willing to have a debate like that,
then you can get answers to any question you choose to ask. But dont come out with your diktats when you arent even willing to say who you are.
"Puzzled"? Id say clueless, or maybe just ignorant.

If anybody really wants to know what SA are about, I suggest you check our website, where we
have articles explaining why we left the SWP, some draft position papers, and a few copies of our zine.
I see nobody from the SWP has tried to criticise this material - I wonder why?

by Curious and curiouser Fri May 09, 2003 19:36

What's this about Kieran Allen's daddy?? I know Allen the Ignorant wants to form the next ruling class, but that's not his background surely? He's only some auld eejit from Galway - or am I missing something?

by Cheka Fri May 09, 2003 19:21

[This comment and the one above it edited by R Isible. Please do not use the newswire for personal invective]

by King Mob Fri May 09, 2003 19:09

Is that RBB's dad's office is a stones thrown from the burlington.

Yes the swanky architects office is mere feet away from the site of the SWPs poxy attempt at DA.

What do you say? SWP and DA, no must be some mistake.

Oh look they're flip flopping again.

Look you little shit stirrer, there are so many reasons that your own parties politicals and policys are beneath contempt that it simply defies belief that you'd try and sling mud here.

be a dear, and XXXXXXXXX

by Independent - Independent Fri May 09, 2003 19:07

How do SWP members feel about Paul Foot, their UK leader? He is the son of the former governor of Jamaica. Any answer?

by Curious Fri May 09, 2003 18:50

Come on has he signed the money over?

by hunter Fri May 09, 2003 18:45

Andrew: "there is an argument for saying Dillion (who backed direct action) was to the left of the SP [and SWP]"

No there's not. by this logic, if justin barret decided to take part in direct action he would 'be to the left of the SP/SWP'.

Some anarchists seem to like the SA because they broke with the SWP, and adopted a 'liberatarian' position. In fact from what I can see, they have not embraced 'liberatarianism', but reformism (if support for a Labour candidate and refusing to see the reformist nature of Sheridan are anything to go by) and individualism (as in 'I gonna do whatever I want to and no big bad leader is gonna tell me what to do). If you don't agree with democratic centralism, thats fair enough, but then tying yourself to a labour candidate, and possibly having LP members in the group, i feel negates this 'socialism from below' ideology.

and two question remain unanswered - is Lyons now a member of the LP? and what will happen to the boyd-barret fortune?

and to be honest I'm not that arsed about either question, i'm just bored...

by Puzzled Fri May 09, 2003 18:44

Lots of people have joined the thread and all kinds of red herrings have been introduced but the two basic questions for Socialist Alternative at the core of this thread remain unanswered.

1) Has the chair of Socialist Alternative, an organisation supposedly dedicated to "Revolution, anti-capitalism and socialism from below", joined the Labour Party?

2) Do the other members of SA consider it acceptable for their members to also join the Labour Party?

So far we have evidence from three of the six or so SA activists.

Donal signed a post "on behalf of UCD Labour Party".

James said that if Donal joined the Labour Party too that's his business and not that of the rest of Socialist Alternative.

Dan blustered about the SWP but point blank refused to answer the questions.

Do the other SA activists have anything to add?
Do those who defended SA against the allegation that they have shifted drastically to the right have anything to add other than attempts to change the subject by digging up whatever old abuse they can throw at the SWP?

by Dec McCarthy Fri May 09, 2003 18:17

The SWP have an appaling effect on Irish radical politics because they are authoritarian and dogmatic and consequently lack any imagination. This manifests itself in very obvious and concrete political practices like the way they managed the IAWM.

It is this type of behaviour that should be criticised not who their dads are or the price of their paper. Arguing like that lets them off the hook. They will happily involve themselves in a bit of mudslinging, like the piss poor "article" above, but they will not engage in open and honest debate. Try asking them a simple question like why did they refuse to lobby ICTU about the war or why direct action is a good thing to write about but not a good thing to do and see what happens....

by Fri May 09, 2003 18:13

Is there a SWP in UCD or SWP student society in UCD?

and

Did someone not say something before on the newswire about if Paul Dillon won the presidency he would resign from the Labour Party?

by Curious Fri May 09, 2003 18:06

For someone who demands answers you are reluctant to answer questions about Richie Rich.

Has RBB signed his inheritance over to the SWP?

by Puzzled Fri May 09, 2003 18:04

Nice going Dan. Plenty of words tumble out it's just answering a straight question you seem to have trouble with. Is your peculiarly noisy silence on the Labour Party issue for any particualr reason? Come one here are two very simple questions.

1) Is the chair of SA also a member of the Labour Party?
2) Is it alright by you for members of SA to join the Labour Party?

Sooner or later we will get an answer.

by Puzzled Fri May 09, 2003 18:00

From the original thread:

Donal O Liathain (Socialist Alternative) - "On behalf of UCD Labour Party..."

James Redmond (Socialist Alternative) - "If Donal has taken a decision to join labour, then thats his problem not one of SA collectively."

From this thread:

Dan Finn (Socialist Alternative) - "..."

by Dan - SA Fri May 09, 2003 17:59

By the way, I am not the "leader" of SA. Unlike the SWP we dont believe in rigid hirearchies.
Of course there are some perfectly legitimate reasons for not wanting to sign your real name. But in this case I think its clearly because none of the characters involved has the guts to sign their name to the many absurd and dishonest claims which they make.
Every pathetic smear attempted by your gang, sorry, party, about SA has already been answered on Indymedia ad naseum. Frankly, I find it a little tedious. No attempt has been made to answer the criticisms of the SWP which we have made - no doubt because there are no answers.
At this point, I see no need to respond to childish smears from bitter trots on this newswire. The SWP can put up or shut up. Do you want a debate or not? If you dont, then admit its because you cant defend your party in open discussion.

by Janus Fri May 09, 2003 17:59

Not sure I've met you, think you might be confusing me with some-one else. I don't think I even own a trenchcoat.

by Hebe Fri May 09, 2003 17:50

Well that was a rather ill fitting suit you had on Mayday. Good old trenchcoat that was so battle stained and worn though.

by Curious Fri May 09, 2003 17:48

Who wants to be a millionaire? Does RBB?

Has he signed the money over to the SWP?

by Janus Fri May 09, 2003 17:44

1. The comment about suits was not posted by me which is the second time today that some-one has posted in my name. On an aside, I do look good in a suit, but I wouldn't generally post it.

2. I think the Socialist Worker is now down to eight pages because it's gone weekly, as they have wanted to do for ages. I don't get it regularly but the last copy I saw had 'Anti War News - Every Week' under the title. You can now read what was, is, and will remain, the worst left wing newspaper in Ireland on a weekly basis. Be still my beating heart.

by Puzzled Fri May 09, 2003 17:40

Come on Dan, answer the questions. They are pretty straightforward.

As for the question about the price of Socialist Worker, Curious, the issue is one of the costs of production. The print run of the weekly SW is smaller than the print run of the fortnightly SW which means that the cost per issue goes up somewhat, cancelling out the saving involved in losing four pages. It costs the SWP just as much to produce an issue of a weekly SW as it does to produce a bigger fortnightly one.

by Independent Fri May 09, 2003 17:40

All SWP leaders are members of the ruling class. Ask Kieran Allen aboput his daddy. Their UK leader is the son of the former governor of Jamaica!

2. Why has Socialist Worker halfed to 8 pages but the price remains the same?

Our world is not for sale. Yeah right, but your paper is.

by Curious Fri May 09, 2003 17:32

1. Is RBB a member of the ruling class? Has he signed his inheritance over to the SWP?

2. Why has Socialist Worker halfed to 8 pages but the price remains the same? Dont you think its a con job having a weekly paper thats half the size of the forthnightly paper?

by Independent Fri May 09, 2003 17:30

SWP idea of debate: leader speaks for 40 minutes, party members repeat the line.

by Puzzled Fri May 09, 2003 17:28

Nice to hear from you Dan.

Anonymity is common on Indymedia and there is nothing wrong with it. There are lots of good reasons why people might not want their real names splattered across the internet. SWP posters are normally fairly clearly identifiable either because they say that they are in the SWP or at worst because their political views are recognisable.

Here are some questions for you.

1) Is the chair of Socialist Alternative also a member of the Labour Party?

2) Is it alright as far as you are concerned for a member of SA to also be a member of the Labour Party?

by Janus Fri May 09, 2003 17:27

What's wrong with wearing a suit? I look damn fine in a suit.

by Dan - sa Fri May 09, 2003 17:20

So i see another bored swapper is trying to cause a row. I noticed theyd been quiet for the last few weeks. Maybe with its deep pockets the SWP would consider producing an anthology of their polemics against SA on indymedia (it could be called "when good comrades go bad!"). It would be instructive for a number of reasons:

1)people could note that no member of the SWP is willing to sign on under their real name - pseudonyms of note so far include "monkey man" "cheka" and "interested observer". The latest post continues this trend. Brave boys indeed

2)Many of their arguments are either dishonest or patently absurd (ie SA are anarchists who join the labour party - eh?). Since the dishonesties have been shown up several times, and continue to be repeated, I think we can draw some conclusions about the mentality at work here. No wonder they prefer to be anonymous.

3)When challenged with real arguments, the nameless Cliffite will usually resort to childish abush (ie FUCK YOU DANNY YOU THINK YOU ARE AN INTELLECTUAL BUT YOUR NOT YOU AND YOUR BITTER ANARCHIST SECTARIAN FOLLOWERS WILL BE IN THE LABOUR PARTY WEARING SUITS WITHIN A YEAR - golly!)

4)SA have each time challenged the SWP to a public debate over our differences. The silence is deafening.

It seems the latest charge is that I "uncritically support the reformism of tommy sheridan". If you actually read my post, youd know that I pointed out how moronic it is to call Sheridan a reformist on the basis of the evidence offered. Have you ever wondered why the SSP can win six seats while the SWP lose their deposits? Not even once?

The invitation to a public debate remains open. If SA are what you claim, surely youd love to accept this chance to expose us? If you dont, can we take it as a tactit admission that you have no real arguments, just a lot of slogans and meaningless jargon?

by Puzzled Fri May 09, 2003 17:03

As I understand it Socialist Alternative is a political organisation around an agreed platform which is made up of "position papers" most of which are available on their website so although I take your point about college societies I don't think that it really applies.

The evidence for their chair joining the Labour Party consists of a posting on Indymedia signed by him advertising a UCD Labour Party event. Now impersonation is hardly unusual on Indymedia so that by itself wouldn't be conclusive.

The really interesting part comes in two sections. Firstly despite multiple members of Socialist Alternative posting in that thread not one of them denied the allegation. Secondly the other members of SA all took the view that while they didn't deny the specific allegation, the idea of their chair joining the Labour Party was alright by them.

In other words even in the unlikely event that it turns out that Lyons hasn't joined Labour, the SA people have accepted that it would be fine in principle to do so!

Now you argue that the term "moving to the right" is meaningless. I don't think that you actually believe that. Can you seriously argue that joining the Labour Party as it now stands not clearly a "move to the right" for someone who not long before was talking about "Revolution, anticapitalism and socialism from below"? Is thinking that there is nothing wrong with such a move not equally clearly a "move to the right"?

There are two reasons why emphasis is placed on their decision to support a member of the Labour Party against a member of the SP. Neither is an attempt to dismiss them as just a bunch of students (it isnt as if the SWP havent heard taht one anyway). Firstly they are a UCD based group who do most of their activity there so their actions there have to be seen as central to their nature. Secondly their support for a Labour candidate against a socialist is not an abberation but is of a piece with thinking that joining the Labour Party is acceptable.

Do you accept that moving from "revolution, anticapitalism and socialism from below" to "if our chair joins the Labour Party too that's fine by us" is a significant shift? If you want we can call it a shift to stupidity or a shift to opportunism (a lot more like Trot jargon than a shift to the right but there you go) or a shift for the worse. Your pleasure that some people who used to be in a SWSS now use a bit more libertarian language is obscuring your view.

by Andrew Fri May 09, 2003 16:46

Reading back over the thread I don't think I've dealt with the 'but the WSM have been part of broad based campaigns as well' point.

This is true, some of them have been so broad as to even include members of FG (eg Bail referendum, divorce referendum, abortion referendums). So I'm not having a go at the SWP for doing the same (again I'm actually responding to an SWP poster here who started this thread).

But our approach within these is different from the SWP on a number of points

1. We argue for democratic campaign structures

2. We argue for space within the campaign for radical viewpoints and not 'moving at the speed of the slowest ship'. So in all the abortion campaigns,even the very defensive 'Defend the Clinics' and abortion information ones we argued that there should be a pro choice speaker on every platform.

This is in addition to putting forward our own position within and outside the campaign. If the SWP had done this in relation to IAWM it would have mean a direct action speaker on every platform rather then the careful exclusion of that voice all together.

Thats two differences.

In terms of SU or union elections I'd tend to look on these as being much closer to campaigns then to general elections. Well at least if I was too consider being involved in either that would be the case.

by Curious Fri May 09, 2003 16:39

Do you have to mention New Direction to get them involved?

Come on boys! UCD is being discussed.

by Independent Fri May 09, 2003 16:37

1. Socialist Worker Party attacks Socialist Alliance for supporting a Labour candidate.

2. SWP supports Labou Party in all major political events in Ireland, and joins with labour (and Bush/Blair/Bertie) against Direct Action.

3. SWP attacks WSM for being part of an alliance with Labour. WSM was not part of the Alliance. SWP was part of the Alliance.

And now together, four legs good, two legs better.

by Andrew Fri May 09, 2003 16:35

First off rather then 'scoring cheap points about the SWP' please note that I'm actually responding to cheap points made by the SWP about another organisation. People in glasshouses etc.

My reference to the SWP tying their politics to the labour party was rather obviously not about Nice. (if you remember Labour actually campaigned for a Yes vote). If was about the undermining of the Shannon direct actions in order to keep certain Labour party TD's on board the anti-war front. On paper the SWP were calling for direct action (ie in theie own leaflets) in practise as part of the IAWM they were doing what they could to prevent it happening. If thats not a clear example of tying your politics to labour I don't know what is.

As for Nice its rather obvious that we put all our efforts into LAN and none into the AAN. We were willing to join AAN if it was actually going to amount to something, in fact I think we even decided to join. But we certainly were not going to drop own own positions to avoid offending others in it.

"That's a very different issue to voting and campaigning for a member of Labour against a socialist."

I've already explained why I think this is pretty irrelevant - you might like to address what I say rather then simply repeating the original point.

"Let alone allowing your chair to hold dual membership with the Labour Party!"

Is this actually true though? KG just says he thinks it is and given his obvious axe to grind I'd like to see something that looks a little bit more like evidence. And if it is true does it say anything much about the other SA members?

That all depends on what the SA is? Many years ago I was part of a college based 'Socialist Society' where my fellow committee members were trots, stalinists (it was long enough ago for that label to still have a meaning), labour party members, Shinners and even Sticks. This made for great committee meetings especially as the trots included the nutty end of the spectrum (ie Sparts and similar).

"It isn't as if the WSM would ever campaign for a vote for a Labour candidate even in those election which it might vote in."

My understanding is that Dillion was a candidate who happened to be a member of the Labour Party rather then a Labour Party candidate. Thankfully this is a distinction that makes sense in SU and union elections as opposed to national or local ones. In that circumstance I think we might decide to support and even campaign for someone even though they were a LP member. Ivania Backik at the time of the '87 SPUC cases is a rather obvious example where in hindsight I wouldn't have had a problem helping her get elected as president. Likewise in a union election we might decide to support someone who was also a LP member if part of there platform was a serious fight for union democracy. I can't think of any examples here which shows the sad state of the labour left.

"You certainly wouldn't allow your members to join the Labour Party either!"

Well that is true but is the nature of the SA a political organisation around an agreed platform (like the WSM) or a coalition of socialists (like the 'Socialist Society'). From talking to them they seem to be a little bit of both which means there are contradictions if one of them has also joined Labour. But again we don't know this to be true so this is all a bit hyopthetical for now.

Part of the problem with the SWP attacks on SA which crop up on indymedia is that they are very shallow like the ones in the thread linked to above. They have a sort of universal 'apply to anyone' feel to them that is typical of the trot left. IE 'Group X is drifting to the right and are all middle class students anyway' actually says almost nothing if your used to trot discourse.

Anyway be interested to hear from any of the SA people on the 'your chairman is in the Labour Party' accusation and what they feel that says about the SA. I'm quite interested in how they see the dual nature of the SA described above in theory, that is if they accept it at all.

by Durutti Fri May 09, 2003 16:28

Oh Connfused, you are using the typical trot line, "I'm not a member of (insert SWP or Sp) but they do a great job and dont deserve this slagging" routine.

Fuck off and try it out on someone who is as simple as yourself.

by IMC supporter Fri May 09, 2003 16:28

They get out and do stuff? What would that be? Selling Socialist Worker on Saturday? Listening to Richard Boyd Barrett-Michael D-Patricia McKenna 124th speech? What are they 'doing'? I have never seen them 'doing' anything.

by Puzzled Fri May 09, 2003 16:25

I thought that the WSM affiliated to it at some stage? Andrew?

Even if they didn't the basic point remains. They were part of the Alliance for a No Vote and many other broad campaigns involving much the same people and groups. They were right to be. They took part in the broadest possible coalition while still making their own arguments in their own material. The problem is that in his comments Andrew doesn't seem to be judging the SWP and judging his own group with equal criteria.

by Justin Moran - Sinn Fein Fri May 09, 2003 16:20 maigh_nuad at yahoo dot com

As the Sinn Fein rep on the Alliance Against Nice steering committee or whatever it was called, I don't recall the WSM being members. I do seem to recall a representative, I think it might have been Chekov but having never been introduced to him I might be confused, at the meeting where it was first discussed in the Earl of Kildare Hotel but whether he was there on personal initiative or at the request of the WSM I can't remember.

The Alliance Against Nice was made up of: Sinn Féin, Greens, Sticks, Socialist Party, SWP, Gregory TD, McGrath TD, Healy TD, Mick O’Reilly of the ATGWU, Independent Socialist Network and the Independent Socialist Forum Against Nice.

Personally I thought we did put forward a socialist analysis of Nice and the reasons not to vote for it and while I had problems with the way it was run etc. overall I think it made a positive contribution to the campaign, as did Libertarians Against Nice for that matter who did mextraordinarly well when it must be considered they were operating on less than we would have used in one constituency.

by confused? Fri May 09, 2003 16:13

"SWP nothing better to do but stir shit on indymedia"- what? I could name a list of idiots that spend their time doing nothing but stir shit on indymedia and the swp would be far down that list. I'm not a SWP supporter but at least they get out and do stuff rather than the shite most get up to fighting on a website!

by Puzzled Fri May 09, 2003 16:08

Was the WSM not also affiliated to the Alliance Against Nice or have I missed something?

Andrew argues that the SWP tie their politics to Labour by being part of a broad coalition even though they produce their own material putting their own arguments. When the WSM do the exact same thing are they also "tying themselves to Labour and Sinn Fein"? In the AAN or the Alliance for a No Vote or any other broad coalition?

Your argument here is incoherent. A group which takes part in a broad coalition but also puts its own arguments isn't tying their politics to those of the other organisations in a coalition.

That's a very different issue to voting and campaigning for a member of Labour against a socialist. Let alone allowing your chair to hold dual membership with the Labour Party!

Then again I'm sure you understand that. It isn't as if the WSM would ever campaign for a vote for a Labour candidate even in those election which it might vote in. You certainly wouldn't allow your members to join the Labour Party either! If the WSM started to do either you would be on your way out the door sharpish and I suspect that you would use a harsher description that just "a drift to the right"! You understand that yet you continue to argue to the contrary against your own practice to score cheap points against the SWP. That's just dishonest.

by :¬) Fri May 09, 2003 15:53

you people got exams to do?

Back to the bukes and be off with ye!

by Grow up Fri May 09, 2003 15:50

They are funny. They have even the gall of talking about women's liberation. This the party that opposed the campaign against domestic violence because they said it was divisive!!!

by Andrew Fri May 09, 2003 15:45

We aren't talking about what the SWP did on its own in either case but rather who they choose to work with and what arguments they choose to make as part of that coalition. It's seems daft to have a go at SA for supporting a labour candidate in a UCD election while the SWP actually worked with (and tied its politics to) labour during the way and SF/Greens in the case of Nice. Pointing this out BTW is hardly a 'frenzied attack on the SWP'!

As to Dillions politics I don't really have a clue what they are beyond
1. The war
2. Fees (he's part of CFE, right?0

Perhaps he is to the right of the SP on other issues but it seems rather obvious that in terms of the UCD election (a storm in a t-cup) these were the key issues. I didn't take enough of an interest in these elections to form any definitive judgement on it but on the surface choosing to support one over the other doesn't 'prove' any sort of rightward drift except for those determined to see such things. All the more so when SP members in elected office are under the command of the SP leadership while Labour members are not.

But above all else the UCD student elections were a bit of a non-issue even in UCD (v. low turnout). Why they would excite such interest off campus puzzles me.

by Puzzled Fri May 09, 2003 15:31

The SWP produced its own material putting its own arguments as well as being involved in the Alliance Against Nice (as did all of the other people affiliated to the AAN including the SP and if I recall correctly the WSM!). I'm not criticising LAN on this issue they did some good work too but claiming that the SWP were to the right of SA because of affiliation to the AAN is nonsense.

As for Dillon and Murphy, I have my disagreements with the SP but the idea that they can be described as "to the right" of a member of the Labour Party is just bullshit. Dillon isn't even a particularly left wing member of Labour. I don't think for a second that you would consider supporting a member of Labour against a member of the SP in any election that your anarchist principles would let you vote in (like the UCD presidential elections mentioned in your last post). Labour supported the Nice Treaty if you remember.

I note you don't comment on the chair of SA joining the Labour Party!

I expect all kinds of frenzied attacks on the SWP here but I would have expected something a bit more thought through from Andrew.

by Andrew Fri May 09, 2003 15:31

Sorry Tony but that is a lie dreamt up by your leadership after the event. There was no question of a choice between a FG and SWP speaker at the meeting (in fact there were two seperate votes as to whether each should be invited to speak).

Your leadership invited that lie after the event to justify pulling out of ANV to its own membership.

But of we are bring up old memories how about the SWP (then SWM) at the time of the X-case when they refused to chant 'women have the right to choose' and instead put up posters insisting '14 year old rape victims have a right to abortion'.

by tony - swss ucd Fri May 09, 2003 15:19

and in the alliance for a no vote the wsm voted for a fg rather than a swp memeber

by Andrew Fri May 09, 2003 15:15

I'd a quick read of that thread KG and I'm puzzled as to WHY you would want to bring it to anyones attention. It reflects rather badly on what the SWP means by the label left and right.

The main issue on the left has not been the SU elections in UCD never mind who might have backed who in them. We can isolate two issues amongst many

1. The Nice referendum
In which SA worked in LAN (http://struggle.ws/anarchism/nice/index.html ) which was the only major campaign clearly based on putting forward an unambiguous socialist alternative to the Nice treaty. The SWP hung out with the Greens and the Shinners neither of which you even claim is a socialist party.

2. The war
SA members backed and were involved in the direct actions at Shannon. SWP again hung out with the Greens, Shinners and of course the Labour Party leaders and joined them in trying to sabotage such actions.

These were the major issues of the year, not the UCD elections and on both these SA had clearly moved to the left (and on that other political scale from authoratarian politics to libertarian politics) since leaving the SWP.

In terms of the UCD elections which happened during the war there is an argument for saying Dillion (who backed direct action) was to the left of the SP (who tried to undermine it). Labour not being 'democratic' centralist means its individual members are free to take positions to the left of the leadership. SP and SWP members are required to toe the leadership line.

Incidentally in '91 at the time of the last Gulf War the SWP backed a labour party candidate for SU president to TCD over an anarchist.

by indymedia supporter Fri May 09, 2003 15:04

for feck's sake. has the swp nothing better to do than stirring shit on indymedia? sa left the swp because they were sick of your methods.