Green TD in unethical investments scandal

by Hilda Robinson Mon Jun 09, 2003 01:43

I think that this scandal shows us that the Greens are not anti-capitalists. They believe in ideas such as 'shareholder democracy', they wish to 'tame' the market.

The Green TD Cuffe has been shown up as having 'unethical' shares. He says that he will re-invest. The question should be asked are any shares 'ethical'? Why does Ciaran Cuffe have millions in shares of any company?

Do the Greens not realise that the environment is best served by breaking with the profit motive?

by J C B Mon Jun 09, 2003 03:48

And who do you support, Hilda?

by The Digger Mon Jun 09, 2003 10:03

What's the relevance of your question JCB ?
Her comments and criticisms are valid.

Does anyone of us need the sham of "representative democracy".

Speaking for myself I don't feel any particular need to be "represented" by some rich little daddy's boy with a big wad of 1.3 million worth of shares (probably worth a lot more before the slump in the market), regardless of whether or not he is a do-gooder "grrenie" or whatever other flavour-of-the-month political label he might like to attach to himself.

The proof that the Greens are no different than any other "establishment" political party can be clearly seen from Germany where they have been full-coopted into the establishment and the former street-fighter (and stone-thrower at police) Joschka Fischer is happy to agree to sending German troops out to Afghanistan to be killed off by suicide bombers ........

Lokk around, see what's going on and wake up ...

by SPySPotter Mon Jun 09, 2003 10:34

The SP condemned Direct Action at Evian. THey take side of the cops and G8 over the anti-capitalist demonstrators.

by barrie creamer Mon Jun 09, 2003 10:50

so who are the good guys these days?

by The Digger Mon Jun 09, 2003 10:52

We'll just have to split a few SP skulls as well on our way to freedom then won't we ....... what's the problem ......

Thanks for the enlightenment ......

by pc Mon Jun 09, 2003 16:01

i know three years is a long time but their not really his shares, i doubt his picks who be squeaky clean but he did not pick out all thsoe shares

by stinking rich Mon Jun 09, 2003 18:52

Is it not more informative that Cuffe is worth more than 1.3million. How many politicians do you know, with that much wealth, that represent ordinary people?

by Agitator Mon Jun 09, 2003 19:25

The SP did NOT condemn direct action in Geneva. The SP believe that DA is a tactic that can be used by a movement not an end in itself. Like all tactics it is sometimes best not to use it.

by hunter Mon Jun 09, 2003 22:11

I see that an article exposing the sickening double standards of a Green TD has somehow been turned around to an SP slagging match. Honestly, I think that says a lot about the nature of this site. Does everyone hate trotskyist parties THAT much? And Mr SPySPotter is really getting on my tits. He's made an appearence on virtually every thread 'exposing' members of the SP and making some mad claim that Mr Waine condemned the actions of some activists in Geneva. I've read the article, and I disagree that he condemned the actions. He said he didn't support them, and wouldn't defend them. Well I don't disagree with that.

Perhaps a question is who is 'SPySPotter'? I wonder if it could in fact be our friend magneto? who seems to hate the SP more than anyone else on this site. Haven't seen him/her round in a while. Though up an oh-so clever name and decided to come back?

To 'pc', I did a little checking and it seems that on average, it takes about a year and a half for a full will to be processed - and considering the amount of money involved in these shares, you would assume that once processed, the first thing Mr Cuffe or his lawyers would do is go through these shares and see what they were in. That they were inherited is of little consequence. Unless we are to believe that Mr Cuffe is too lazy to bother checking where his assets lie. Mind you, he is a TD afterall.

But the real question, which some have picked up on, is how can a millionaire claim to represent the down-trodden in society? The only chance most people have to get shares are share options for workers. And how does Mr Cuffe explain away the fact that while professing to beleive in the 'local economy', he has shares in some of the world's largest multi-nationals?

The stock-market itself is a disgusting invention. A shaky stock market means that people lose their jobs. There is no two ways about this. Some companies artifically inflate their value, and when the bubble bursts - its payoff time for the directors (and on to new pastures) while for the average worker it means the dole queue - and to hell with theri share options/pensions (if they have any). Or have we all forgotton about Enron already?

The Greens, well Mr Cuffe at the very least, rightly deserves to be criticised for this scandal. And serious questions need to be raised about the true nature of the Greens. Are they, despite their claims to the contrary, just like their co-thinkers in Germany?

Instead, it turns into a trot bashing session. yet again - I wonder will this line of attack ever get old? It really does make indymedia a pain in the whole sometimes.

I noticed also that on one thread (it may be this one in fact) that some people advocated beating up the SWP/SP on protests - or something to that effect. Good to see these people are thinking along the same lines as the state. And wouldn't that look wonderful on the TV. People in, for example, Dublin West, sitting at home watching their tellies seeing black clad 'revolutionaries' attacking members of the socialist party. I'm sure that would go down well.

And then the media turns around and says "look we told you so, they are all violent anarchists. They can't even agree to be civil to each other. And they expect people to listen to them?"

Mmmm, good strategy - if you a cop.

by Squelched Tue Jun 10, 2003 00:07

How many "downtrodden" does Ciaran Cuffe represent anyway? Green Party support comes from the middle classes- just like indymedia and whatever the SWP calls itself these days.

by Raymond McInerney Tue Jun 10, 2003 01:10

Its not who supports you thats important, its who you help.

by Albo Tue Jun 10, 2003 09:44

Maybe he could use his good fortune to replace Caoimhe Butterly's stolen money!

by SPySPotter Tue Jun 10, 2003 10:37

The only difference is that Labour doesnt shoot their opponents when they are in power. Now if the SP ever got into power...

Waine made no distinction between the 'Violence' of the Black Bloc and that of peaceful demonstrators who defended themselves against police attack. His comments came immediately after and in the context of police assaulting demonstrators on the bridge.

Here are some other comments from SP members and responses.

putting the record straight
by OK - SP Mon, Jun 9 2003, 1:38pm

Yet again I feel compelled to delve into the murky world of indymedia to put a few things straight.

The Socialist Party do not oppose direct action. In the Water Charges campaign and in the ongoing bin charges campaign we are calling for non-payment (direct action) and we support direct action tactics to prevent non-collection.

What was said in the Irish Times article was that some people in the Black Block were police agents- this is widely accepted and does not mean ALL were police agents.

Widely accepted?
by Ray Mon, Jun 9 2003, 1:40pm

That is not a claim that should be thrown around lightly. Where is your evidence?

Widely accepted
by Joe Mon, Jun 9 2003, 1:49pm

It is widely accepted that some people in the Socialist Party are police informers.

How does it feel OK-SP when the boot is on the other foot?

Oisin
by pat c Mon, Jun 9 2003, 1:52pm

I fully accept that the SP have participated in direct action in anti charges campaign. I'm sure that Matt said a lot more than was reported in the times. But what he did say suggested a condemnation of the Black Block and implicitly all of those who had been involved in the violence whicj had just taken place. To put it mildly, Matts comments were mistimed. This was just after the police had attacked peaceful demonstrators.

If Matt differentiated even between the actions of the BB and other demonstrators it would be something, but he didnt even do this. Once again the SP attitude to a clash between the cops and demonstrators has ended up with the SP criticising the activists.

It really would help if Matt would come on here and explain his attitude to the police vioence.

SP and police violence
by Mark - SP Mon, Jun 9 2003, 2:48pm

SP position on the police is that they should be democratically controlled by communities thus being directly accountable. There are numerous instances of SP condemning police violence (RTS last year and during anti-war protests) and of SP members participating in mass direct action. It is they type of action that we condemn, specificly the actions of the Black Block which are little different to acts of individual terror.

Get A Grip
by pat c Mon, Jun 9 2003, 2:55pm

Comparing the Black Block to terrorists is taking the side of the state. Its a short step from calling direct action at Shannon terrorism.

Is this the offical SP line?

Lap dogs
by Joe Mon, Jun 9 2003, 2:56pm

Europol is busy arguing for and creating a database of summit protesters on the grounds that they are terrorists.

Now SP Mark happily posts here that the Black Bloc are nearly the same as terrorists. Well done Mark, your cheque from EuroPol is in the post! We have great problems criminalising protest, we love it when you 'good' protesters join us in criminalising those nasty Black Blocers. A doggy treat for you when we get them all locked up. And as for those who suggest you are next, why no, as you keep telling us you are harmless good protesters.

by SPySPotter Tue Jun 10, 2003 10:58

Another charming contribution from the SP.

Never said they were terrorists
by Mark - SP Tue, Jun 10 2003, 9:41am

I said the tactic was little better than the tactic of individual terror because it alienates the working class, gives the cops and state an excuse to clamp down on the rest of us and pose themselves as liberators that take the place of mass action. I don't feel I need to apologise for this statement and I fully stand by it.
Their tactics, like terrorist or Guerrilla tactics imply a substitute for mass action of the working class. This does not mean that these three distinct tendancies are one and the same thing but that they have a similar effect in denying the role of mass organisations of the working class and they hand the state a stick to beat the anti-capitalist movement with. So I would argue that it is the Black Block sympatisers who should be expecting a cheque in the post from europol not to mention Bush, Blair, Azanar, Bertie and Co. not me or Mathew Waine for that matter.

by Joe Tue Jun 10, 2003 11:50

As long as the SP run around accusing other activists of being cops, terrorists or as good as either then every time then strike some 'holier then thou' pose as in this thread they will be pulled down.

Face it guys, if your politics is the politics of the dung heap then you should not be surprized if we think you smell like shit. If you keep calling people cops then sooner or later someone will take a swing at you. Or perhaps you fail to realise what a serious accusation this is to make (particularly in Ireland).

by OK - SP Tue Jun 10, 2003 13:33

I'm sick of shit stirrers on indymedia deliberatly misquoting and misunderstanding what SP members say on indymedia.

We are not supporters of the Gardaí. We beleive that the State is an instrument of capitalist rule. We have always defended lefts that are attacked by the State.

We do not think the Black Block tactic is a good one. That is our legitimate opinion. They do play into the hands of the capitalists (does not mean they are police agents). It is widely accepted that some people in the BB in Genoa were police agents (again does not mean all are police agents).

Pat C et al I'm sure you will continue with your groundless attacks on the 'degeneration' of our 'misleaders'!

by SP Bot Tue Jun 10, 2003 13:47

10 PRINT "It is widely accpted that some of the Black Bloc are police agents"
20 IF response = 0 THEN BREAK
30 ELSE GOTO 10

see http://www.indymedia.ie/cgi-bin/newswire.cgi?id=51541
for the response ot OK's 'cut n paste' above

by Ray Tue Jun 10, 2003 13:49

"It is widely accepted that some people in the BB in Genoa were police agents "

"It is widely accepted that the SP favour the Stalinist tactic of smearing people with whom they disagree. 'Other revolutionaries are cops or dupes of cops'. 'Anti-war activists are in league with Youth Defence'. No need for any evidence, throw enough mud and some of it is bound to stick"

One of these assertions has some evidence to back it up. Hint: not the one about Genoa.

by OK - SP Tue Jun 10, 2003 16:10

I think it's downright shit stirring and childishness to say that Trotskyists engage in "stalinist tactics". Who was it that struggled against Stalinism? Who was it that were sent to the Gulags? Who was it that were the main victims of stalinists purges? It was Socialists, many of which were Trotskyists.

At no point did any SP member say that BBers were all police agents. What was said was that there were police agents among them in Genoa- as I said before this is widely accepted. I'm sure there are police agents in other contingents aswell.

Your reference to Youth Defence has got nothing to do with the SP. Where have any SP members been throwing accusations around about Youth Defence?

Ray, I think your last posting shows up who is the person engaging in smear tactics and throwing mud around. With no evidence you, and others on Indymedia, are trying to portray the SP as a group in league with the cops.

You dont care about the truth or the context in which things are said. You just want to attack the 'trots' and forfill your own ideological belief that all marxists are evil.

by Andrew Tue Jun 10, 2003 16:17

Good question

From 1918 to 1922 it was anarchists and other revolutionaries who were sent to the gulags or executed often under the direct orders of Trotsky.

From 1921 to 26 it was various opposition forces with in the Bolshevik party that suffered this faith. Again in the eary period Trotsky was often the one sending them there.

From 1926 on Trotskyists started to be victims of their own methods. And just as they had earlier labeled revolutionaries as 'objective whites' to justify their actions so now did Stalin label them as 'objective fascists' to justify his.

Trotsy welcomed the inital mass show trials of the 1930's because he thought Stalin was moving against the right.

So OK Ray is quite right. You ARE using what he calls 'stalinist' methods today. My only difference with him is that I would call these methods 'leninist' or 'trotskyist' as they were neither invented nor developed by Stalin.

by pat c Tue Jun 10, 2003 16:20

Hilda robinson who always pushs the SP line was throwing around the YD slur when she she was attacking the CWM

by Ray Tue Jun 10, 2003 16:39

"I think it's downright shit stirring and childishness to say that Trotskyists engage in "stalinist tactics"....What was said was that there were police agents among them in Genoa- as I said before this is widely accepted."

Here's the denial and the tactic used in the same post. How many times have I asked you for evidence of this claim? How many times have you repeated it?
You are using unfounded allegations to smear a section of the anti-capitalist movement. If this allegation has become 'widely accepted', its because people like you have kept repeating it over and over again. But you have produced NO EVIDENCE. Not one shred of proof. Nothing to back up your claim.
So the claim may be 'widely accepted', in just the same way as it was 'widely accepted' that Trotsky and his followers were in league with western capitalism in the 30's.

(Andrew has pointed out that Trotsky was being hoist with his own petard here)

"I'm sure there are police agents in other contingents aswell."

Including the CWI contingent? So you won't mind if, whenever anyone mentions the SP or CWI, I say that "its widely accepted - even by SP members - that their contingents on anti-capitalist demonstrations are heavily infiltrated by the police"

"Your reference to Youth Defence has got nothing to do with the SP. Where have any SP members been throwing accusations around about Youth Defence?"

In this thread
http://www.indymedia.ie/cgi-bin/newswire.cgi?id=51265&start=20&sid=57794
'Papal Bull', 'Jack', 'Kenneth Owende', and 'Lexmark' have all suggested (some in stronger terms than others) that CW members worked with Youth Defence. None of them have given any party affiliation, but Papl Bull at least, judging by his first comment, seems to be a member of a socialist party.

"Ray, I think your last posting shows up who is the person engaging in smear tactics and throwing mud around. With no evidence you, and others on Indymedia, are trying to portray the SP as a group in league with the cops."

Ha! Bloody hell, I didn't think I was being _that_ subtle.
Again and again you have alleged that the Black Block were infiltrated. Again and again you have failed to come up with any EVIDENCE for that allegation. And now you are complaining that _I_ am engaging in smear tactics by making allegations without any evidence.

For fucks sake, do I have to send you an actual mirror?

by Just Wondering Tue Jun 10, 2003 18:41

Has he been forgotten about?

by . Tue Jun 10, 2003 19:11

http://ireland.indymedia.org/cgi-bin/newswire.cgi?id=51818

by Durutti Wed Jun 11, 2003 15:45

This is widely accepted. A taxi driver told me.