|
|
Blog Feeds
The SakerA bird's eye view of the vineyard
Public InquiryInterested in maladministration. Estd. 2005
Human Rights in IrelandPromoting Human Rights in Ireland
Lockdown Skeptics
|
Australian SWP splits national |
miscellaneous |
news report
 Monday May 26, 2003 19:28 by Paul J. - Ex-ISO
 Why is this being censored? The Australian affiliate of the SWP has just split. For a long time the membership has been slowly draining away. Yesterday, 21 members including founder members resigned en masse. The British SWP has been pushing political perspectives onto other organisations in the IST that are unrealistically up beat and quite out of keeping with the real situation around us. Instead of a sober analysis of the world, we have been told that this is the best time ever to be a socialist. Any questioning of this idea has been met with hostility. The ISO has submerged itself in every movement, but we have refrained from arguing our politics properly. Socialist Worker became more frequent although the circulation wasn't great at a lesser frequency. The organisation has been hyper-active without stopping to think. Those who have resigned from the ISO remain committed to building a socialist organisation on the basis of IS politics. This is of direct relevance to Ireland because the path pushed by the British SWP on compliant leaderships throughout the IST is the same in Ireland as it is in Australia. In Ireland too, the SWP's perspectives are unrealistic. The similarities go as far as the launching of a more frequent newspaper despite low circulation. To the International Socialist Organisation Dear Comrades, It is with reluctance that we have decided to resign from the International Socialist Organisation. The downward spiral of the group over the last two years shows no sign of abating. The respite from the general atmosphere of hostility and defensiveness following our last conference in December 2002 was only temporary. The resignations of long-standing comrades since conference have been met with indifference from the ISO national leadership. Despite a stated commitment at conference to resolve our differences in the context of building the movement and the ISO, we have seen heavy-handed organisational measures and a refusal to discuss differences in a comradely fashion by the ISO leadership. "Looking reality in the face" is the starting point for correcting mistakes, but there is a complete failure to acknowledge the scale of crisis that confronts the group. Critical comments are dismissed out of hand or met with allegations of factionalism. We have no confidence that this is about to change. Following conference, we saw the emergence of a massive international anti-war movement and the largest anti-war demonstrations in Australia's history. That the ISO failed to grow out of this movement, has no greater political coherence, no larger established periphery and if anything smaller meetings is a serious indictment of the current practice of the group. This compares poorly with the dramatic political response and growth the organisation experienced in the first Gulf War. In itself, this recent failure should cause serious self-reflection on the part of the group. That this follows two years of intense internal crisis is why we have decided to act today. Similarly, despite the resilience and significance of the refugee movement, the group seems unable to systematically integrate the campaign into its political work. On campuses, we have failed to build out of any of the very significant movements that have punctuated political life on campus. Discussion of the ISO's failure to build has been limited and discouraged. This failure to analyse the current period or to reflect and appraise our own successes and failures in relating to the period, must cause confusion for all members at all levels of the ISO and may go some way to explain the malaise we believe is endemic in the organisation. "A good militant today is an informed militant,” wrote Susan George soon after Seattle. Yet the underplaying of politics has been a persistent feature of the group's perspective in recent years. Conference itself recognised that there had been a one-sided emphasis on activism that had depoliticised the group. However, there has been no attempt to systematically redress this problem. At the last conference, many comrades attempted to identify the issues underlying the crisis in the ISO. This was an attempt to assess the state of the group and try to understand the causes of our lack of growth in a period that is a very positive one for socialists. Many of the issues raised in the pre-conference document An Urgent Need to Take Stock remain relevant. Two of them are of particular importance. (i) Ideological intervention and the role of a small group. The emphasis on building the "next big event" means that the question of political intervention is constantly down-played. Consequently, despite overstatements about the possibility of "leading the movement" the organisational response means that we don't offer a political lead on campuses, local groups or in campaigns where we can find an audience for our ideas and have some influence. The group shifts from issue to issue often without any political discussion and without a sustained commitment to the campaigns. This makes it impossible to build long term relationships with other activists. (ii) An organisational structure that fits with the period and the needs of a small group. The period demands a high level of political discussion and debate, yet current Marxist Forums are often devoid of theory, polemic, traditions and historical experience. These are crucial to respond to and to explain the political questions thrown up in campaigns as well as general questions presented by the crisis in capitalism which comrades face when interacting with classmates, co-workers and friends. There is also a lack of political space for the very thing that is crucial to developing members' confidence to understand and to lead - discussing and learning from intervention in the campaigns themselves. It has become impossible for us to discuss our differences with the current perspective and practices of the ISO within the framework of the ISO. Attempts to do so are met with animosity. In turn this animosity clouds the issues, avoids responding to the substance of any criticism and most importantly impedes the process of understanding the world and our role in it. We hope a resolution of these differences will become possible as we work together in future struggles. We remain committed to the need for revolutionary organisation, the essential elements of socialism from below and the fundamental politics that distinguishes the International Socialist Tendency. We take seriously the task of bringing Marxism to the layers of people influenced by anti-capitalism and who are politicised by the anti-war and refugee movements. We will shortly convene meetings to discuss how we can begin that task. By establishing a practice of working alongside others on campus, in trade unions, in campaigns and other work, we hope to make socialist ideas relevant to the struggles in which they are involved and to show the links between those immediate struggles and the capitalist system. We believe that a lively, comradely and political practice of discussion and debate is central to building a socialist movement. We don't underestimate the difficulties, but there is no doubt that the questioning of the prevailing world order holds many opportunities for socialist ideas to gain a significant hearing. The sheer numbers of people who came out again and again to oppose the war on Iraq against the lies of our rulers and their media as well as the determination of the refugee movement are evidence of that possibility. We therefore tender our resignations from the International Socialist Organisation. Emilie Awbery
|
printable version
Digg this
del.icio.us
Furl
Reddit
Technorati
Facebook
Gab
Twitter
|
View Comments Titles Only
save preference
Comments (48 of 48)
Jump To Comment: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48I put this message up and it was instantly taken down. I don't understand why. It is news. It contains original comment. It's relevance to Ireland is explained. Who is censoring it?
A petition to put pressure on Blair for war crimes was also unfairly (in my opinion) removed. I have posted it on the following link if anyone wishes to sign it:-
Sign Blair War Crime petition
http://www.indymedia.ie/cgi-bin/newswire.cgi?id=50021&start=0&sid=45430
www.petitiononline.com/iraqwmd/petition.html
http://www.petitiononline.com/iraqwmd/petition.html
A lot of this seems very similar to the things that the International Socialists in Belfast were saying about the SWP here.
It looks as if their Australian equivalents have completely fallen apart. I wonder is that because the Australian organisation was worse than the Irish one or maybe it means that the Australian membership were just more capable of questioning bullshit or maybe the same fate awaits the SWP here. Does anyone know?
For that matter does anyone know if the IS in Belfast are still going? Their website seems to to be dead.
they are desperate. that's why they attack every independent movement, slander direct action activists in the corporate media, and generally behave like cia agents. the swp is on the way out and they know it. their full timers are trying to save their jobs.
imagine a world without the swp...
The ISI (ahem) only existed in cyberspace. Independent(?) your constructive critism is helping to build the widest anti-cap and anti-imp forces on this island. When ever a posting like this appears you jump in with your tremendous insight. Surley you must be a threat to the system simply by your very existence. Your epitaph should list the wondrous feats you have achieved. Please pen some more brilliant words of sheer genius...
You are a real threat to the system. Tell us more about your r-r-revolutionary strategy. what would that be? smear anti-capitalist and anti-war direct action in the mainstream media? side with bush, bertie and blair against violent activists?
Seems to me your the only one smearing....
I refer readers to the 1999 discussion between the Socialist Party and Socialist Party which culminated in the document published by the Socialist Party- "The Struggle for Socialism in Ireland" - illustrating the SP position on alliance, left blocs with the SWP and realignment.
The document is basically a call for an alliance on basis of politics not an unprincipled all friends never mind the weather alliance which might have offered the convenient short cut as the SSP model offers in Scotland.
socialist party and socialist workers party
The resigantion is very disapointing. The real problem here seems to be the members tired of building the 'next big thing' at the expense of party building. Funny how the opposite accustaion thrown at us alot on these pages.
But some of what was said has to be taken on board, and in one respect you people will be pleased to know that the Irish group has and thats improving the comrades politics. Also we will not launch a weekly paper without there been a increased network of people reading it.
Also those that read this notice that in practice although they are resigning from the ISO thay are still influenced and guided by the politics of the ist and no doubt the two groups will work toghther when george bush arrives in OZ
"For a long time the membership has been slowly draining away. Yesterday, 21 members including founder members resigned en masse."
Are the Irish contingency taking note? Take example from your Australian comrades and follow suit. The utilitarian in me believes that such a loss for a minority will in fact be a gain for the majority, where the global justice movement can then really take shape...
Starting to hear more about your “recruitment” processes over the past few weeks from people who sincerely believe they were duped into signing… such policies and actions are sickening...
you are the only swper who has ever written an honest reply on this newswire. hope your comrades will learn from you. your australian comrades write: "The group shifts from issue to issue often without any political discussion and without a sustained commitment to the campaigns." every activist in ireland has complained about this. will you change your attitude? will you stop attacking the campaigns you don't control? does the party realise that their attack on direct action during the war was a massive mistake? do you realise that you have alienated the most radical sections of the movement?
Thats nothing. The CWI(SP) lost 1,000 members in Pakistan, the entire South African Section, most of the SSP, the SP in England is down to a few hundred members. The CWIhas fallen in membership from 14,000 to 2,000 members over the past 12 years.
Despite my long term dissent with the IS (starting from when I was a member) I honestly wish those that have left the best (even Ian R), and I hope that they are able to remain ardent activists. I know that I have appreciated the contributions of several of those that are leaving.
Perhaps now is the time to reappraise the political landscape and re-evaluate the heriarchical and mechanistic ideas of Marx, Lenin & Trotsky. It is not that the ideas are old but that they NEVER had true relevance to revolutionary practice, (ie smashing the state, not replacing it). Although Marx et al have a good critique of the capitalist system, Marxists always seem to fall foul of beareucratic paralysis, both as groups and when they gain power. Maybe it is time not to "ditch" Marx & Lenin but to go beyond them...
The majority of social revolutions (including your beloved Russian revolt) were sparked NOT by some vanguard of the working class but by the poorest and most oppressed members of society (the lumpen proletariat that Marx & Lenin despised). Although it is true that the working class has massive material power (economic & technical) they are (especially in Western countries) bought off by reforms (that are later taken away) and consumer comfort. Maybe it is time to have some faith in the people that have a TRUE material interest in revolution rather than trailing the traditional LEFT.
Unfortunately it seems that one of the criticisms you have of the ISO is that they failed to "capitalise" (my words) on the recent Peace movement and the Refugee crisis. This "growth at all costs" philosophy is too close to that of capitalism for MY comfort. Maybe small political groups should focus on quality of participation NOT quantity. Maybe the idea of ANY monolithic group, party or class should be critically re-evaluated....
"the only good Trotskyist is an ex-Trotskyist"
All 21 comrades have signed a statement that includes
"We remain committed to the need for revolutionary organisation, the essential elements of socialism from below and the fundamental politics that distinguishes the International Socialist Tendency."
One would think therefore that the signatures had a shrewd grasp of what these fundamental politics are. Not so, one of them has posted on UK indymedia in response to an attack from an SWP hack "I wouldn't have a clue what is going on in the SWP - I think our problems are home grown."
It is a pity, and a shame on the ISO, and the leaders of this group that time was not taken to really look and investigate what went wrong. That investigation would have revealed that these seemingly cherished fundamental politics were in actual fact the cause of the problem.
The fundamental politics of the IST are the politics of centrism, revolutionary in word and reformist in deed.
This is not a gloat over the diminishing ISO but if it furthers the comrades who have left, who are still members and others on the left to re-examine what is happening or not in the fight to bring down capitalism then it is a healthy split. If it is just an exercise which is frittered away then it will be a sad day for the left.
The SP are always boasting about how they are part of an international that has members in 30 odd countries. What they dont admit is that most of them are two men and a dog outfits. I wonder how they explain the decline?
Especially the continuing decline, Pakistan, Scotland and South Africa cant be blamed on the fall of the USSR.
The SWP bosses in London have also been busy expelling/splitting the IS sections in Canada, Turkey, Greece and the USA in the last few years.
All these splits in the left make it harder to watch you all... still, I'll leave you to play in your little playpen.
Looking forward to the next split in the Irish Trots.
I think you misread my post.
the jist of it is that the mistakes made in oz will not be repeated in ireland the reason being that we will not jump the gun in launching a weekly paper nor will fail give the members of the party a suffiecient political education.
As i said they complained about the building for the next big thing which seems to have been done at the expense of party building. in ireland were accussed of building the party at the expense of the movement. a nice vice versa.
anyway i'm pretty sure a nice home for all the ex memebers of the ISO can be found in other sections of the IST.
Terry I thought the SWP HAD launched a weekly paper a couple of months back? Or is this now being spu nas just being for the course of the war?
"As i said they complained about the building for the next big thing which seems to have been done at the expense of party building. in ireland were accussed of building the party at the expense of the movement. a nice vice versa."
I suspect you are 'not getting it' rather then being dishonest above.
The Aus. split are clearly complaining about the lack of internal education in the ISO. That is what they mean by 'building the party'. It's rather obvious to anyone that has followed the IST (and the Irish SWP) that the strategy of the last years has been RECRUIT to the party by 'building THE movement'. So one month the Rathmines SWP is calling itself the Rathmines Alliance for a No Vote while later its calling itself Rathmines Against War or Rathmines against the Bin Tax.
Whatever the SWP decides is THE movement of the moment is turned on or off like a tap. The way GR has blinked in and out of existance in accordance with the needs of the moment as defined by the SWP being one example of this. The ANL being another (but this time as comedy.)
Now perhaps SWP members sincerely believe this is 'building the movement' - others outside the SWP think it is wrecking it. In terms of genuine campaigns (bin tax or ANV) it is very disruptive. In terms of SWP fronts when active the front tries to declare itself as 'THE movement' and undermines the efforts of other movements that keep going through the points when the SWP leadership has put 'THE' movement into hibernation.
I think that this group of 21 are not really commited to building a revolutionary party.
They say that they are opposed to the SWP flitting from issue to issue- this is a criticism of the SWP that any revolutionary would raise. However we also see in their resignation letter that they wish to work with broad formations in the colleges, communities etc.
I think this group are very like Socialist Alternative in UCD. They may appear to be a left based split. But in reality their differences on organisation and flitting from issue to issue may be left-cover for their own lack of confidence in revolutionary politics.
I'll certainly take an interest in this split. I reckon they will go down the reformist path of UCD Socialist ALternative and Tommy Sheridan's ISM.
They dont move as far right as the SP/CWI.
I think that this group of 21 are not really commited to building a revolutionary potty.
They say that they are opposed to the SWP flitting from issue to issue- this is a criticism of the SWP that any revolutionary would raise. However we also see in their resignation letter that they wish to work with broad formations in the colleges, communities etc.
I think this group are very like Socialist Alternative in UCD. They may appear to be a left based split. But in reality their differences on organisation and flitting from issue to issue may be left-cover for their own lack of confidence in revolutionary potty training.
I'll certainly take an interest in this split. I reckon they will go down the rebellion against toilet training path of UCD Socialist ALternative and Tommy Sheridan's ISM.
terry wrote:
"the jist of it is that the mistakes made in oz will not be repeated in ireland the reason being that we will not jump the gun in launching a weekly paper nor will fail give the members of the party a suffiecient political education."
so if people join your party, you will give them a 'political education'. the party believes that the rest of us are ignorant morons who need to be 'educated'. i'm glad i never joined.
You're glad you didn't join? Stop whining about it and live your life and your own politics. A political education is what we all get, be it conscious or not, organised or not, marxist or not. Even those comrades in Australia who have left the ISO are in favour of educating people in the marxist tradition. You however choose not to. So what...? get on with it. Non marxist you maybe, independent you are not.
there is no need for any socialist parties whether it be SP, SWP or other in the UK.
they are unproductive and have achieved nothing, even the BNP are beating them now.Its time for change and complete reform of these practices.
I've been to a few SWP forums over here in England, there's some good people there but they are missing the point, they are not revolutionaries and never will be.
what we need is to move away from the nation state concept of a poltiical party and start in Europe on a Europe wide political, social, economic org; we need to further develop the European Social Forum and expand it and make a non-party political org.
the party's go nowhere, we'd be better off all in a huge transnational loose entity group.Where we fight for what we believe together accross borders rather than campaigning for seats on the local council which frankly will fo f*** all.
the first demand of a new, reformed global Social Forum should be global citizenship.
what you think.ciao
'I think this group are very like Socialist Alternative in UCD. They may appear to be a left based split. But in reality their differences on organisation and flitting from issue to issue may be left-cover for their own lack of confidence in revolutionary politics. '
Whne have SA flitted from issue to issue? Considering they face enough criticism of over-involvement in student campaigns like the CFE which have quite a record behind them? Then there's war, their involvement in LAN and building for and arguing for direct and action at Shannon.
its time to get over this 19th century version of socialist politics, , Marxists, Leninists, Trotskyists,
All dead.
Time for more than a rethink. Let go of the past , trying to reinvent the failures of socialism into a new era is not working.
"Whne have SA flitted from issue to issue?"
He did not say that SA flit from issue to issue, he said that they are using that critism of the SWP as cover for their own lack of revolutionary politics. In other words instead of being confident in arguing the political differences they have they hide behind organisational questions. Why are they not confident in their politics? I would guess it is because it is of a more right wing nature.
"Considering they face enough criticism of over-involvement in student campaigns like the CFE which have quite a record behind them?"
CFE does have a decent record and SA seem to have played some role in it but from what I've read on other posts most members of SA seem to have always taken a conservative position on most issues in CFE.
"Then there's war, their involvement in LAN and building for and arguing for direct and action at Shannon."
Leaving the rights and wrongs of Shannon aside for a minute SA see direct action as an end in itself not a tactic. Going by their logic if Áine Ní Chonnaill took some 'Direct Action' against some asylum seekers she would be more left wing than the SWP. Sometimes Direct Action is not always the correct tactic to use.
Where in earth does this 'seeing direct action as a principle rather then a tactic' come from that the trots keep bringing up? It's a really odd fake argument to try and hide behind but can anyone explain what its based on?
And Greg if you think about it the 'organisational question' is what politics is all about. How we organise production for instance is hardly incidental except to those who think all that matters is who is at the top.
What did I tell you Davy whose next Belfast?
What was said was that they used organisational difficulties as a smokescreen for political differences. There is no denying that organisation is very important.
SA (and probably this SWP split) used organisational differences and other common criticisms of the SWP as a shield to their political differences with revolutionary politics.
Anyone that leaves the SWP automatically 'has differences with revolutionary politics', becdause only the SWP are really revolutionary.
But Greg the problem is that the political positions taken by SA have in general been to the LEFT of the SWP.
This was very obviously true on Shannon where the SWP line seems to have been 'don't upset Labour by doing what we say you should do'.
On the fees the SWP seems to have played no part in the CFE unlike SA (and SP and even some individual Labour Youth).
The only thing some anonymous SWPer was able to point to as 'proving' a rightward postion was the SA support for a candidate who was a member of the Labour Party in the UCD SU elections. But this isn't very convincing given that the SWP has spent decades telling people to 'Vote Labour' in both general and local elections never mind union elections.
The SWP's claim to be more 'revolutionary' has no basis outside of SWP branch meetings. It is so weak that we can only presume its just intended to give an excuse to members of the SWP rather then to convince anyone outside of anything.
Leaders in the swp are to leave the party in Belfast.
Come and speak at the Irish SWP conference it is in a few weeks time.
Leaders in Belfast are to leave the party
"But Greg the problem is that the political positions taken by SA have in general been to the LEFT of the SWP.
This was very obviously true on Shannon where the SWP line seems to have been 'don't upset Labour by doing what we say you should do'."
It's not necessarily 'left wing' to want to tear down a fence. Surely it's more left wing to take the corect strategy and tactics. You guys thought tearing down the fence was the correct strategy- fair enough. Others did not.
Not wanting to upset Labour? I believe you guys backed a Labour member in SU elections, and your chair is a Labour member.
"The only thing some anonymous SWPer was able to point to as 'proving' a rightward postion was the SA support for a candidate who was a member of the Labour Party in the UCD SU elections. But this isn't very convincing given that the SWP has spent decades telling people to 'Vote Labour' in both general and local elections never mind union elections."
Yes, that is an indication of your rightward drift. The fact that your chair is now in Labour- a year ago in SWP- is an indication of the rightward drift of a number of your members. There are also other indications. In other threads evidence was given of SA being on the moderate wing of the CFE.
another point.
Its one thing to call for a vote for Labour at a time when they were left wing. It's quite another thing to call for a vote for a Labour member in SU elections when there is a revolutionary socialist standing also.
SA: which do you choose? revolution or reform? you choose reform!
How recently do you think the Labour party (not an individual member, but the party the SWP told people to vote for) was 'quite leftwing'?
How long ago do you think the SWP dropped the 'Vote Labour' line?
In areas where there is neither a SP, SWP or progressive anti-cutbacks candidate who do you suggest people vote for?
Do you call for abstention or spoiled votes?
It is the position of the SP that in general we would call for a vote for a progressive anti cuts candidate who has a decent of struggle in the working class when a SP member is not standing. For example in Tipp South we called for a vote for Seamus Healy while still raising some critisisms we would have of him, same goes for others such as McGrath, Gregory etc.
But what about areas where there is no progressive independent standing? What would you advise people to do in say Cork South West & North West & East. There will also be many Council Wards in next years elections which will not have a SP, SWP, WP or progressive indepentdent candidate.
But will have Labour , SF or Green candidates. What advice would you give in thes circumstances?
if there were no progressive anti-cuts candidates standing in my area I would spoil my vote. It's far more progressive to spoil or abstain than give a vote to the likes of Labour. In the last election I voted for the SP- and will do so again in the next elections.
SA Watcher wrote
"Its one thing to call for a vote for Labour at a time when they were left wing."
Er, your party, the SWP, called for a vote for Labour after 4 years of Blair government and the bombing of Bosnia, in 2001, and there were candidates to the left of labour.
Sadly, in most of the wards in the next local elections there will be no progressive candidates with records of struggle in working class comunities. This was the case in my own ward in the last local election and will be again next year I'd say. We will probably call on people in these areas to spoil their ballots and also to get active in their communities and workplaces to build a real alternative to the capitalist parties.
The SP will not be advocating a vote for the Greens, Labour or Sinn Féin.. unless of course these parties completely transform themselves which I can't see happening in the next 12 months.