Neo-nazis on Joe Higgins and the Socialist Party

by Kev Mon Jun 30, 2003 01:34

Associate the socialist party with nazism?

and where the fuck did O'Toole come from?

by ep - none Mon Jun 30, 2003 04:56 paddywack at dol dot ie

I have been hitting into the Irish Indymedia a lot of recent weeks. I have been hoping to get the kind of 'fairly' intelligent debate I have seen in other indymedia sites around the world. Strangely enough, for a nation of supposed literaties, the irish indymedia website has been lacking in substantive argument but copious on insulting inuendo. It seems that this site is mainly set up for those who wish to divide the various socialist arguements, rather than debate the merits of the various tenets of the current capitalist hegemony. Oh well, I guess that means that Ireland will be the first to be re-colanised by this new hegemony and the last to know about it. Ooops, I believe it has happened, otherwise explain to me why I am looking at extremely stupid comments about elected TDs.

by ep Mon Jun 30, 2003 05:03 paddywack at dol dot ie

P.S. I would be far more interested in hearing about the special business interests of our TDS and councillors and how it effects political decision then stupid comments so far discussed on this site.
i.e.: Is there any truth that the councillor for Co. Wicklow: Mr. Liam Lawlor is a consultant for the newly re-organised National Waste Company (or Greenstar as they call themselves in Wicklow). He by the way helped push through the privatisation of Waste Disposal in this county. Now there's a question worth investigating/answering. And there are many politicians around the country who have similar questions hanging over them, and are in far more influential positions than Mr. O'Toole (with not much disrespect to himself. Anybody?

by pat c Mon Jun 30, 2003 10:54

But your Federation idea leaves you open tp attack, both fair and unfair. It is a bit odd for socialists to suggest federation with an imperialist oppressor. Can anyone imagine Algerian socialists proposing a federation with France?

by IMC reader Mon Jun 30, 2003 12:24

The SP have no links with the nazis (as far as we know), but I wonder if they would defend the proletarians in brown shirts as they defend teh proletarians in uniform.

by Mark - SP Mon Jun 30, 2003 13:14

Our position is a Socialist federation- ie: not with the current British state but with a Socialist Britain and most organisations claiming to be Marxist would share this position.

by Pat C Mon Jun 30, 2003 13:36

Might a Socialist Scotland and a Socialist Wales have something to say about this? Or do you even acknowldge the right of Welsh and Scottish independence?

Still dont see how it makes any sense for federation with an imperialist oppressor.

by Magneto Mon Jun 30, 2003 14:05

During the Malvinas War, the CWI called for a Federation of Britain, the Falklands (sic) and Argentina! This with a straight face.

by Confused Mon Jun 30, 2003 16:03

But why does SP insist on a socialist federation with Britain? Why not with France, Germany, Belgium, etc etc. Any chance it has to do with an inability to face up to the reactionary politics of northern unionism. Allows them to tell loyalist workers that they are unionists too!

by Mark - SP Mon Jun 30, 2003 17:06

We are right beside Britain. We do acknowledge the right of self determination. So yes Scotland, Wales and England if you like, and we also pose the necessity of a European Socialist Federation. Actually, why don't you just read our position yourself, its not as if its not widely available. Go to the website.

by pat c Mon Jun 30, 2003 17:12

Its better to engage in debate rather than to refer people to websites. A Socialist federation of Europe makes some sense. A Socialist Federation of the 'British' Isles doesnt. Why directly federate with a former Imperialist oppressor when you can form a European federation.

You could also tell us why the CWI called for a federation of Britain, the Falklands and Argentia. Last time I checked there was a gap of about 6,000 miles.

by Black Rod Mon Jun 30, 2003 17:15

Hes got some questions to answer at
http://www.indymedia.ie/newswire.php?story_id=60180#comment38679

by Mark - SP Mon Jun 30, 2003 17:21

That slogan was aimed at encouraging international solidarity between British and Argentinian workers while the ruling classes of those countries were at war. Also the people living on the islands saw themselves as British - remember the right of self-determination?
The right of self determination should hold for all peoples, for you it seems that they can choose their nationality so long as they don't want to be British.

As for your other point, you have a huge problem if you identify British workers' and any future workers' state in the British Isles with the Imperialism of British capitalism.

by pat c Mon Jun 30, 2003 17:29

You still defend a nonsensical slogan of a federation between 'Britain' and Argentina! I thought you were quietly crawly away from your pro-imperialist backing of the invasion fleet during the malvinas war.

You still have to use smear tactics. My point is that it makes no sense to call for a direct Socialist federation between states that were formerly oppressed by English Imperialism.

As I said, a Socialist Federation of Europe makes sense. So why do you continue with your fetishisation of a Socialist Federation of 'Britain'and Ireland? Your use of the term 'Britain' makes me doubt your committment to Wales and Scotland having the right to Self Determination.

by pat c Mon Jun 30, 2003 17:33

You seriouisly believe that a bunch of ENGLISH PLANTERS who were planted on the Islands by force when the Argentinians were driven out have a right to decide their fate? Are you unaware that this settlement is uneconomic and is only maintained by military force by the Brits so that they can claim ownership over Antartic mineral and oil rights?

Imperialism is alive and well in the CWI!

by senior civil servant Mon Jun 30, 2003 17:35

What a handy number you have, sitting do fuck all and all day to do it.

by pat c Mon Jun 30, 2003 17:40

!

by Joe Mon Jun 30, 2003 17:47

The attempt to intimidate Pat above is disgraceful and in the light of the other shit the SP has pulled just further drags the party down in everybodies eyes.

And now we can wait for the 'but senior civil servant' is not an SP member etc, etc

by Top Civil Servant Mon Jun 30, 2003 17:49

Why does he spend all day working for the Socoalist Party?

by pat c Mon Jun 30, 2003 17:56

Any of this type of stuff is wrong. M O'B is as entitled to be as free from this crap as I am.

by Stephen Boyd - Socialist Party Mon Jun 30, 2003 18:12

The Socialist Party advocates a socialist Ireland, and a socialist federation of Ireland, Scotland, England and Wales, on a free and equal basis, as part of a socialist federation of Europe

by pat c Mon Jun 30, 2003 18:25

Some of the SP Drones like Mark take the Anglo-Centrism of the CWI too much to heart. Hence their talk of a federation between Ireland and 'Britain'. Or their old (non-pc) slogan a Socialist Federation of the 'British' isles.

Still cant see the need for a federation of these islands if you are going to have a Socialist federation of Europe.

I still cannot imagine any Algerian Socialist suggesting a federation with France.

by Gaucho Rivero Mon Jun 30, 2003 18:33

Is this another admission of a mistake from within the ranks of the CWI?

by Black Rod Mon Jun 30, 2003 18:34

Stephen you havesome questions to answer at
http://www.indymedia.ie/newswire.php?story_id=60180#comment38679


and

http://www.indymedia.ie/newswire.php?story_id=60081

by robert Mon Jun 30, 2003 18:58

media power
"Hannibal the cannibal' to star as Irving the Holocaust denier

By Catherine Milner and Chris Hastings

THE trial of David Irving, the British historian branded a Holocaust denier by a High Court judge, is to be turned into a £10 million drama, expected to star Sir Anthony Hopkins.



David Irving comments:

The Telegraph newspaper group was once famously owned by the Berry family.
It was purchased by the Hollinger Group and came thereby under the control of the fiercely pro-Zionist Conrad Black and his wife Barbara Amiel [but just look what they once made her write about me!].
Hence their Freudian lapse in the opening line, "The trial of David Irving..."
I have sent this corrective letter to the newspaper . . .

So Sir Anthony Hopkins is to portray me in the coming HBO film of my libel action. I thought it was already old history. He's one of our finest actors, and I have no fears on that score -- but I couldn't help noticing that while your online edition provided helpful links to every website hostile to me, including the Holocaust Educational Trust, the "charity" which first put secret pressure on Macmillan Ltd to destroy all my books in 1991 -- you did not provide a link to my own huge award-winning website, which now ranks in the top 20,000 of the World Wide Web. Chris Hastings can't claim ignorance of it -- he told me it was from here that he picked up the story in the first place.


Anthony Hopkins with friends

Related file:

Macmillan Ltd capitulates and secretly destroys all Mr Irving's books in July 1992

Ridley Scott, the director of Gladiator and Alien, is to produce the film, based on the libel trial three years ago in which Irving was called an "anti-Semite and racist" who "distorted historical data to suit his own political agenda".

The declaration effectively ended Irving's career, during which he had argued that Hitler did not plan a "Final Solution" for Jews. His court defeat was hailed by campaigners against Holocaust denial.
The film is being scripted by Ronald Harwood, who won an Oscar last year for the screenplay of the Holocaust drama The Pianist. Scott is keen for the role of Irving to be played by Hopkins, who won fame as the cannibalistic serial killer Hannibal Lecter in The Silence of the Lambs.

One senior executive involved in the project said: "The film will be the definitive story of the trial and its role in the Holocaust story. As far as both Scott and Harwood are concerned, Hopkins has the first say on the role. The part is his for the asking."

The drama is being produced by HBO, the American production company behind The Gathering Storm, the recent award-winning drama about Churchill starring Albert Finney, on which Scott was the executive producer. The Irving libel trial came about after the American historian Deborah Lipstadt condemned him in her 1994 book Denying the Holocaust: The Growing Assault on Truth and Memory. Irving sued, saying the description of him as a man prepared to bend historical evidence "until it conforms with his ideological leanings and political agenda" was damaging to his career.

Irving - a heroic figure to some far-Right groups - represented himself during the trial, in which he argued that the number of Jews killed by the Nazis had been exaggerated and that there had been no programme of "systematic extermination".
However, Mr Justice Gray ruled that Irving was an anti-Semitic racist whose claims were demonstrably untrue, and ordered him to meet the £2.5 million costs of the case. An appeal by Irving was rejected and he has since been declared bankrupt.

Professor Lipstadt has discussed the script with Mr Harwood and is very enthusiastic about the film project.

"I am very pleased that Ronald is involved and that the film is being done by the team behind The Gathering Storm," she said. "There is always a danger with things like this that they can end up generating publicity for people who don't deserve publicity. I don't think that will happen here: these are serious people who will bring a professional and committed approach to the story."

Irving, 63, told The Telegraph he had not been approached by anyone connected with the project, but added that he would be happy to help whoever was going to portray him.


"I'm relatively relaxed about the whole thing," he said. "If it is an accurate portrayal, they'll have to reflect some of my arguments and show that I was fighting on my own against a massive team of lawyers."

He thought the American public found Holocaust dramas "a big turn-off", but added: "I think a story like this will work best as a courtroom drama. I just hope they give me a fair crack of the whip."

by Stephen Boyd - Socialist Party Mon Jun 30, 2003 19:18

The Socialist Party has never advocated a Socialist Federation of the British Isles, that is the position of the Irish Sparticist League.

by Durutti Mon Jun 30, 2003 19:20

"I really admire the SP, when it comes to rewriting history they put me in the ameteur league."

by pat c Mon Jun 30, 2003 19:24

to paraphrase the old soviet joke:

With the SP only the future is certain, the past is constantly changing.

by Judge Mon Jun 30, 2003 19:43

Stephen you still have some questions to answer at

http://www.indymedia.ie/newswire.php?story_id=60180#comment38679


and

http://www.indymedia.ie/newswire.php?story_id=60081

Are you that afraid of John Throne and John Reimann?

by Stephen Boyd - Socialist Party Mon Jun 30, 2003 21:18

I have no intention is wasting anymore of my time with this trivia except to say that the Irish Section of the CWI whether publicly known as Militant or the Socialist Party has never called for a socialist federation of the British Isles. Those here who claim that we have should provide evidence to back up their claim or withdraw it.

by Killian Forde Mon Jun 30, 2003 23:44

Ok lets just say that the Socialist Party(s) in Ireland, Scotland, England and Wales allwin enough seats in their repective parliaments to be in a position to sit down together and construct a socialist federal republic of Britain (or the western european isles - or whatever).

They sit down and design a new flag, build a new parliament, and write a constituion. All is going swimmingly for a couple of years and then as a parliamentary democracy they have elections in the new super state and the Tories return to power in England!

Well - hey hey the SP have managed to return to us paddies to being the downtrodden mass that is our birthright.

Oh I remember the last time a similair project was tried

It was called Yugoslavia!!

I have always wondered how many people who voted for Joe Higgins last time round know about the SP 'big idea'.

by pat d Tue Jul 01, 2003 01:48

Pat, it is fairly clear that teh SP are NOT advocating a federation between a capitalist Ireladn and a capitalist Britain neither are they advocating a federation between a workers Irealdn and a capitalist Britain. It is clear that they advocate a voluntary federation betwenn TWO SOCIALIST states.

What is your problem with that pat?
I can understand your hatred of an imperialist Britain but why are you extending this to a workers Britain?

Why would putting forward the demand of a federation between a workers Britain and a workers Ireland be worse than putting forward the demand for a federation between a workers Ireland and any other democratic workers state?

If there was a revolution in the UK and in Ireland would you not be in favour of co-operation and solidarity between the two states?

Pat you seem to be the one hung up on this not the SP. Get over your hatred and distrust of the British workers movement.

by Pat d Tue Jul 01, 2003 01:56

Pat c, I have one further point.

I would much prefer to be part of the same state with workers from Britain (or any country for that matter) running the state in the interests of working people than having my country being run by Irish capitalists in the interests of profit.

Would you pat?

Which would you prefer?
Be in the same state with foreign workers in power or to be in an Irish capitalist state?

ANSWER PAT

by eirsatz Tue Jul 01, 2003 05:48

If we are to reject the idea of a federation with Britain (an insane idea), why then would we embrace a federation with Europe, a cess pit of unreconstructed imperial powers?

by pat c Tue Jul 01, 2003 10:59

The fact that the anonymous fool continuously refers to Britain says it all. He has no conception of what self determination means. After throwing off the English yoke why would the Welsh, Scottish and Irish want to voluntarily re-enter a federation which would be dominated by the English?

It_does_not_make_sense.

I want socialism not sort of reformism that the SP really stand in spite of all their revolutionary rhetoric.

Stephen Boyd you are fooling no one. Your application of Stalins Airbrush is less than complete due to the fact that you are not in power. Your general attempts to rewrite history does not auger well for how the SP would carry on if they ever had any rea; power.

by Patrick Tue Jul 01, 2003 11:15

"Stephen Boyd you are fooling no one. Your application of Stalins Airbrush is less than complete due to the fact that you are not in power. Your general attempts to rewrite history does not auger well for how the SP would carry on if they ever had any rea; power".

Ah! But it would be a centralized nirvanna for the chosen few with concentration camps for the workers and bullets for the dissidents. Who knows JT would more than likely be ice-picked to settle scores and to hush the infidel from asking questions we can't answer.

And for the inner circle a majestic palace for the concubines. Oh what revolutionary bliss!!!!!
We can expropriate Buck House because the inner circle will of course be running the federation from London.

by Nemesis Tue Jul 01, 2003 11:18

You are avoiding dealing with the points raised by John Throne. Do you feel guilty about stabbibg him in the back?

by Magneto Tue Jul 01, 2003 12:50

What the CWI stands for is the re-creation of the British Empire, this time around it will be a "Socialist" one. The Sun will never set on the realms of the Committee for (English) Workers Imperialism and their God-Emperor, Peter Taafe.

The Imperial Capital will be London. Their Yugoslavia style Federation of the "British" Isles is the first step on the creation of this new Empire. That the CWI and the SP defends holding on to the Malvinas, Gibraltar, Ascension, Islands in the West indies etc says everything about their Neo-Imperialism.

by Mark - SP Tue Jul 01, 2003 13:01

Here's what I said:
We do acknowledge the right of self determination. So yes Scotland, Wales and England if you like, and we also pose the necessity of a European Socialist Federation.

Heres what Stephen said:

The Socialist Party advocates a socialist Ireland, and a socialist federation of Ireland, Scotland, England and Wales, on a free and equal basis, as part of a socialist federation of Europe

So not much difference really is there?

But of course PatC still doesn't understand:

"After throwing off the English yoke why would the Welsh, Scottish and Irish want to voluntarily re-enter a federation which would be dominated by the English?"


Pat, what don't you understand about a federation on a free and equal basis? Where did we say under English domination?
Your moronic nationalistic rantings are getting tedious. And you have the audacity to call me a drone!

by Gaucho Rivero Tue Jul 01, 2003 13:07

ER
by Mark - SP Monday, Jun 30 2003, 12:14pm


Our position is a Socialist federation- ie: not with the current British state but with a Socialist Britain and most organisations claiming to be Marxist would share this position.

by pat c Tue Jul 01, 2003 13:30

I_disagree_with_the_SP_policy_of_federation.

Is that not allowed? I made it clear that i support a Socialist Federation of Europe but not your project of a federation of these isles.

How does that make me a nationalist?

As has been pointed out, it is you and other members of the SP who keep reffering to "Britain" and the "UK".

by pat c Tue Jul 01, 2003 13:39

I wonder how many people who voted for Joe Higgins knew about the big picture - the SP plans for London being capital of these Islands?

A lot of those who voted for Joe and Clare would also be ignorant of the SP policies on the North. In particular, the SPs belief that the Orange Order have the right to march down the Garvaghy Road.

The SP will be very busy next year with both the local and European elections, they wont have much time to tell people about their glorious plans to put us all back under the English yoke or to celebrate Jaffas wading through rivers of Taig blood. So how about some of us getting together to help them out with press releases, posters and flyers on these issues?

I am sur the people of Dublin will relish the idea of once more being ruled from London. I look forward to seeing the SP spindoctors answerting questions about this.

by Republican Tue Jul 01, 2003 14:08

Failure to understand the nature of the English bias of British Imperialism has led the Socialist Party and its predecessor to follow other anti-national elements on the `left' into the most bizarre coalitions. Armed with a Disneyland model of class struggle, these so-called revolutionaries have cosied up to genuine reactionaries and fascists in the trade union movement and the loyalist paramilitary organisations in the pursuit of `Workers' Unity'.

But of course they were not acting entirely without some form of logic. In the case of the Militant/Socialist Party, that logic was the strategic goal of a `Socialist Federation of the British Isles'. Now doesn't that sound like a good plan! This is the same type of nonsense that has led left-wing revisionist historians to argue that the arrival of that progressive republican, Oliver Cromwell, to our shores was a good thing really.

So instead of Whitehall securocrats we could look forward to being ruled by chaps immersed in the classics of scientific socialism and who at the end of the day agree with Dame Thatcher that Finaghy - and sure why not Finglas for that matter - is as British as Finchley. After all, workers have no country.


It time the voters of Fingal and Blanch were alerted to what supporting the SP really entails.

by Mark - SP Tue Jul 01, 2003 14:54

That I did say what I said I did. It just takes a small bit of scrolling up.

Now on the London thing you are just proving that you really are idiots. Lets see you find any real evidence to back up that claim. Really I'm amazed you know how to turn on a computer. Thats my lot on the subject because you are just being stupid.

by Gaucho Rivero Tue Jul 01, 2003 15:24

"That I did say what I said I did. It just takes a small bit of scrolling up." (er?)

I think you will find that only by scrolling DOWN from your first intervention did you say that.
For your benefit here it is again.

---------------------------------------------
ER
by Mark - SP Monday, Jun 30 2003, 12:14pm

Our position is a Socialist federation- ie: not with the current British state but with a Socialist Britain and most organisations claiming to be Marxist would share this position.
----------------------------------------------

In other words you corrected yourself - or to put it another way you made a mistake. You are probably unfamiliar with the concept being a member of the CWI.

But just like Stephen Boyd who hasn't answered John Throne on another thread you have difficultly with admitting that your interpretation of your own parties mumbo jumbo federation plans were mistaken.

As to London the onus of proof rests with you I'm afraid - give proof that London isn't the centre of the international (the CWI one that is) and that it doesn't influence its world view.

by Stephen Boyd - Socialist Party Tue Jul 01, 2003 16:32

The type of criticisms of the Socialist Party position on the national question are a clear reflection of the lack of understanding of the even the most basic ideas of socialism by those who are making these “attacks”.
The level of this criticism is base and idiotic with ridiculous claims being made that the Socialist Party advocates the imperialist re-conquest of Ireland and that London would be the capital of some form of a new state which would encompass these islands.
Marxists have always argued for the greatest unity between socialist states. Marxists in the last analysis are opposed to the existence of the nation state which is an outdated economic entity and results in the oppression of minorities. The ultimate goal of socialism is a world federation of socialist states with a global planned economy. It is the belief of Marxists, starting with Karl Marx, that eventually all states will cease to exist, as Lenin said they will wither away in an advanced socialist society, a society of super abundance were even money would no longer be necessary and everyone would have the capacity to contribute to society and have all of their needs met by that society.
Of course such a society cannot be achieved in the immediate aftermath of a socialist revolution. The process of achieving socialism on a global scale will be both complicated and fraught with many difficulties.
But on the road to achieving global socialism, the idea of encouraging socialist states to have economic and political links, is in order to share resources and assist each other in eliminating poverty and inequality. During this process of voluntary co-operation, and as a result of the existence of democratic workers’ control with full protection of the rights of minorities, national antagonisms and chauvinism will also wither away. The past crimes of imperialism and capitalism in consciously creating national and religious divisions in order to dominate countries and regions will be overcome during this process. Co-operation between socialist states would assist in the building of trust between Arab and Jew, Hindu and Muslims, Catholics and Protestants, the Irish and the English etc.
When looking at the idea of what a socialist federation of Ireland, Scotland , England and Wales would be like it is necessary to first of all remember that the working class would be in power in all of these countries. Also that all of these states would be independent and would completely determine what is best for their own interests. A federation as stated in the Socialist Party demand would be on a free and equal basis it would also of course be voluntary. There would be no central capital or none of the states would have a dominant role, they would all be independent and would come together to agree how they could economically co-operate, share resources even have some joint planning of their economy’s that would mutually benefit one another.
Another important advantage would be to have, if the necessity arose, a joint defence against imperialist powers who would try and invade and overthrow these states as was the case in Russia after the October Revolution. The socialist revolution will not take place simultaneously throughout the world. Socialist states across the world will be faced with having to defend themselves from counter-revolution and from imperialist invasions.
As is also stated in the Socialist Party’s programme we also stand for a socialist federation of Europe. This would be for the exact same reasons as stated above. Instead of a capitalist European Union the aim of which is to assist the capitalist class to increase its exploitation of the working class, as is clearly seen by the neo-liberal agenda of the EU, we would have co-operation between socialist European states who would utilise the vast resources of the European continent for the needs of all of its peoples.
The position of the Socialist Party on these issues is based on programme of Lenin, Trotsky and the Bolsheviks on the national question. I know that there will be some on this site who are from an Anarchist tradition and even the “liberal left” such as the SWP who will argue that the USSR was an imperialist entity. But we would not, the USSR before the Stalinist Thermidor when a bureaucratic caste ceased power and eliminated democracy, was a socialist federation which provides us with the best model (so far) for how various socialists states can work together.

by Black Rod Tue Jul 01, 2003 16:36

Its not just 'lack of understanding'. Some of us disagree with some of your ideas. One of those being your Four Country Federation. Is not that I dont understand you, I have different ideas, simple as that.

Its not idiotic to suppose that London would be your favoured capital. Its the CWI HQ and where all of your wisdom seems to emanate from.

by Nemesis Tue Jul 01, 2003 16:50

He hasnt gone away you know.

From your turgid piece on federation I presume you will be happy to have your policy highlighted in the euro and local elections. I can just imagine Micael Murphy trying to convince a sceptical David Hanley on Morning Ireland.

Your Northern Marching policies should be fun as well. The elections coincide with the start of the marching season.

by Durutti Tue Jul 01, 2003 16:59

Others call him the gangster of the left.

"the USSR before the Stalinist Thermidor when a bureaucratic caste ceased power and eliminated democracy, was a socialist federation which provides us with the best model (so far) for how various socialists states can work together."

So, the banning of Soviets, the banning of unions, militarisation of labour, shooting strikers. This is your idea of a model democratic society!

Let me off this planet!

by Andrew Tue Jul 01, 2003 17:01

This is a fairly pointless discussion in any case so seeing as Stephen has offered to re-fight the Russian revolution and I have time on my hands I'll take the bait.

Stephen writes "I know that there will be some on this site who are from an Anarchist tradition and even the “liberal left” such as the SWP who will argue that the USSR was an imperialist entity. But we would not, the USSR before the Stalinist Thermidor when a bureaucratic caste ceased power and eliminated democracy, was a socialist federation which provides us with the best model (so far) for how various socialists states can work together."

The SWP will LOVE being called the 'liberal left' but we'll push that to one side and leave them to respond.

Stephen has two problems with his snapshot above. The first is that the 'history' element is based on wishful thinking rather then objective reality.

Stephen reckons that up to the "Stalinist Thermidor" which is probably some time after 1926, the USSR was a democracy. He tells us that it was after this date that "a bureaucratic caste ceased power and eliminated democracy".

The problem is that there was NO democracy at any level in Russia by 1921. Not EVEN in the bolshevik party.

In 1918 they started physically suppressing the left press and left parties. 1918 also saw the first suppression of a faction within the Bolshevik party.

In the Summer of 1918 the Bolshevisks dissolved soviets where the elections had gone against them.

In the spring of 1918 the Bolsheviks ended the election of officers in the Red Army.

In 1918 the Bolsheviks started to impose one man management on the workplaces and shut down workers self-managment.

So by 1918,the start of the civil war democracy was already in deep shit.

By 1919 tens of thousands of leftist prisoners were in gulags, in exile or executed by the Bolsheviks.

By 1919 Trotsky had introduced the militarisation of labour on the railways, essentially subjecting workers to military discipline including concentration camps.

By late 1920 significant number of strikers were being jailed and executed.

In March 1921 two parallel events happened

The first was the Kronstadt uprising, basically a demand for freedom for the left parties and re-election of the soviets. This was put down by the officer core of the red army and hundreds or even thousands executed. Ironically Kronstadt fell on the same date as the Paris Commune had fallen.

The 10th (Bolshevik) party Congress was on at the same time. This congress banned factions from the party.

From March 1921 there was no democracy outside the party and there was no democracy inside the party. The totalitarian state had been established not by Stalin but by Lenin and Trotsky. Trotsky later fell victim to his own creation in a similar fashion to the way the SA fell victim to the Nazis on the 'night of the long knives'.

Anyway much more on the detail of all this at http://struggle.ws/russia.html Really there is no questioning of the history here - the traditional trot line is to try and justify the suppression of democracy, this denial that it ever happened is very odd.

The second problem is related. In the course of the Civil war the Russian state in order to protect its interests invaded other nations and imposed its way of doing things on those areas. This was often a disaster for the left (as in Poland) where the Red Army was defeated. But it was also a disaster for the left (as in the Ukraine) where the Red Army won and proceeded to suppress the local left. By suppress I mean the execution of hundreds if not thousands and the sending to the gulag of tens of thousands.

Later on of course the soviet state was to draw up a secret agreement with Hitler and invade eastern Poland and the Baltic states as he invaded western Poland. After the war the red army was to hold onto Eastern Europe and to suppress rebellion in East Germany and Poland in 1953, in Hungary in 1956, in Czechslovakia in 1968 and again in the Baltic states in 1991. And of course they got 'invited' into Afghanisatan in 1979.

No idea when Stephen starts to consider these imperialist interventions, if ever. But the pattern goes back to 1919, not the rise of Stalin.

by Gaucho Rivero Tue Jul 01, 2003 17:06

Thanks Stephen for giving your views on that.
I understood your line on the formula all along.
I just don't happen to agree with it.

Would you not agree that Mark was wrong with his first intervention? What is a British person?
Would you call somebody from the Ardoyne - British? Somebody from Coatbridge, British? Somebody from Penrhyndeudraeth, British?

I take it your formula allows for an independent Scotland?

I won't keep you I'm sure you are busy compiling as concise an answer to questions raised by John Throne.

by Woody Tue Jul 01, 2003 17:09

Alright Stevie, lets take it that you are correct in your description of what the Federations would entail. Now we get to the core of the problem. Why the need for a socialist Federation of these islands and a socialist Federation of Europe. surely a the reatined by a socialist state in Ireland would be the same in both Federations would be the same?

So are you arguing for a double Federation with the Islands Federation being subordinate to the European one?

The key question here, is not the concept of a voluntary federation but why the need for the federation which cvorresponds exactly with the old British state? Wouldnt it be equally as valid (or equally as daft) to have a socialist Federation of Celtic States made up of Ireland, scotland, Wales, and Brittany or a socialist federation of the North Atlantic with Irealand, Iceland, Scotland, Faroes etc.

The fact is of course that such vast'federations' would entail a centralised bureaucracy a la the Soviet Union (even in Lenins time) and would be anthitical to real worker democracy. The real argument therefore is what form socialism would take here at a local or even national level. Now there, methinks we would find Stevie, Richie etc. on the one side and the rest of us reds on the other.

by Socialist democrat Tue Jul 01, 2003 17:16

It is not entirely right to say that Trotskyists have traditionally denied that democracy was suppressed by the Bolsheviks. In a good example of doublethink they rather argue:

1. The Bolhsheviks created the most democratic state in history
2. They suppressed democracy but had no choice.

Hmmm. Quite a difference - that between totalitarianism and democracy (womething workers rather value). I used to argue this myself. Now I say: what on earth was the point in having a revolution, if the only way to hold onto power was to suppress every vestigae of workers democracy? It is like dieting to be healthy, only to starve to death

But I do think the above copntradiuction in Trotskyist argument is very revealing. Explains much about why they can insist with a straight face that they are democratic in their internal regime, while purging dissidents.

It also explains why they will never acquire mass influence. People reason that if they behave like that when they don't have state power, what on earth will they be like with it? It is a gamble few will be prepared to take.

by Mr Tito Higgins Tue Jul 01, 2003 19:26

Somewhere above Killian pointed out that if the socialist (CWI) affilated parties took power in the four states and in that event the SP's achieved their dream, then what would happen when the next parliamentary elections took place and, for example, the Tories were returned to (English) government.

Now in that event the Irish, Scottish and Welsh socialists, I imagine would be fairly upset. So to prevent this occuring they would have to ban all proper elections (ala USSR, Yugoslavia and any other socialist federations) and become a dictatorship with the associated repression of freedoms.

I suppose the federal army that Stephen Boyd advocates above "Another important advantage would be to have, if the necessity arose, a joint defence against imperialist powers who would try and invade and overthrow these states" would be well equipped to prevent any 'democratic coup' happening. (ala Milosevic and the SRJ)

The SP policy is ludicrous, dangerous and makes no sense what so ever. I would fully endorse Pat C plan to inform the voters of Blanchardstown and Swords of what they are voting for in next elections.

by Anon Tue Jul 01, 2003 22:26

Actually, the point of my posting was to provoke a discussion on the SP's idiotic fascination with a federation between Britain and Ireland, but things seems to have veered off in other directions.

Question: are the SP anglocentric?

Question: does this have anything to do with the origins of their organisation (in Britain)?

Question: does their interest in federation with Britain have anything to do with an unwillingness to confront the reactionary loyalism/unionism of many northern Protestant workers?

Question: why does one of their members (see above) think that Britain is geographically closer to Ireland than France?

Question: who gives a shit about geography - shouldn't we be looking for something a wee bit more adventurous than a re-establishment of the old colonial relationship (argued for, unsurprisingly, by an anglocentric organisation)?

Question: doesn't the development of the anti-globalisation movement and the anti-war movement point the way forward to new alliances between countries across Europe, and across the world? Why is the SP still blattering on about a socialist federation of Britain and Ireland within a socialist Europe etc?

Git with the change boys and girls or you will become as redundant as those neo-nazis who seem able to find common cause with youse!

by Dismayed Tue Jul 01, 2003 22:38

Apart from Andrew, none of you have tried in any credible way to argue against the above posting by Stephen Boyd. Why? Is it because you are incapable of putting forward a coherent argument based on your own ideas to refute socialism?
Or is it because you aren't actually interested in debate simply the illusion of calling for one as an excuse to entertain yourselves by slagging off the Socialist Party?
For some of you it is unfortunately because you are not intelligent enough to put forward a credible argument. For example has anyone ever saw a posting from the majority of the "snipers" above which actually put forward a positive independent political position or argument on anything?
All that most of you do here on this site is mentally masturbate. There are notable exceptions. Andrew may be putting forward the same tired old discredited anarchist line on the USSR, but at least he takes his politics seriously.
My advice to the "snipers" would be to take your hands of your keyboards and stop the mental masturbation and have a good wank instead, the world would be a better place for it!

by Tito again Tue Jul 01, 2003 23:58

Dismayed,

No-one is trying to refute socialism, just seriously daft ideas that Stevie Boyd and his SP comrades have.

His 'alternative' isn't an alternative ideology just different geography.

The premise of the Socialist Party is that the Nation State remains the building block of the geo-political globe.

And if he is saying that the Nation State is not the building block of the geo-political globe then what or earth does he mean?

I know that SP thinks this policy/idea is a very bad one, but they are unable to drop it for fear of being castigated by CWI with likely expulsions and a split.

And anyway Dismayed, lets not pretend that the Stephen Boyd posting is a 'debate' or something new and radical. His post is a re-hash (pun intended) and mix of his interpretation of Russian socialists scribblings from a long while ago. A bit like the Jesuits and the bible - interpretations of a long while ago.

Come to think of it Jesus was probably the first recorded socialist.

Socialism in 21st century europe should not need the crutch of Marx and Lenin for authenticity.

We need to make socialism both accessible and relevant to ordinary people.

How we do it - now that is debatable!

by Anon Wed Jul 02, 2003 00:16

I'd be dismayed too if I were Steven.

by Intrigued simpleton Wed Jul 02, 2003 01:51

If Pat c's comments are sooo off the wall can any SPers anser the following question?

The Irish SP is larger (in proportion to population) than the English/Welsh/Scottish SP. I assume that among the SP's fraternal parties (CWI) affaliates worldwide there are even bigger Parties? Then why is the CWI located in LONDON?

by Intrigued simpleton Wed Jul 02, 2003 01:54

Who the fuck is Peter Toffe?

by Anon Wed Jul 02, 2003 02:18

The question is why do the SP SPECIFY a socialist federation with Britain? Why not say the party's aim is a socialist Ireland within a global socialist 'system'? Why SPECIFY a federation with Britain? Why mention Britain at all?

by Des Capetall Wed Jul 02, 2003 16:50

Judging by Stephen Boyd (aka Dismayed) silence I think it is safe to say that the SP has scurried off to their ideological safe room, content in their belief that all of us are wrong and indeed too stupid to see there wisdom and vision.

Remember the SP's most wacked ideas will always be protected by their comfort blanket that is "das kapital".

The scene from a true SP rally

What do we want?

More rhetoric!!

When do we want it?

NOW!

by Black Rod Wed Jul 02, 2003 17:32

The 2 Johns still await your answers.

by Curious Thu Jul 03, 2003 14:35

Stephen Boyds undercover work for left unity? Who is he bonking?

by hs - sp Thu Jul 03, 2003 19:28

is anyone against the idea of a independent scotland and wales, in a federation with ireland and england. Which is basically what is called for. And we do call for a european federation always have Which makes sense to me too.

by hs - sp Thu Jul 03, 2003 19:37

The cwi came was organised by militant labour at first which were quite big in england in the eighties. This isa why the headquaters is here. Although the irish section may be proportionally bigger theres still more people in england. But everything isn't based in london, we also have a weekly paper in sweden and lots of monthlys around europe and the world Every year there is a conference in belgium (because its in the centre of europe) and another in greece, for the south.
If we do ever get a bigger party somewhere with lots of people and money the centre can move. But with modern technology it's not really so important. While people may believe we are based in london cause we're unionists! why do you think we have belgians swedes nigerians sri lankans etc in the party do you think irish nationalism vs unionism is why they got involved in politics. Most european countries were and are impearilist, if we were based in paris would people have the same arguments. No but what about french imperialism. Anyway why are we in London, two reasons ! thats where we started, 2 the english section is still the biggest.

by venny bean Fri Jul 04, 2003 01:37

What I would like to ask Pat C is why do you have a distrust of British workers?

Can you not understand the fairly simple idea that a British or any other state that is ruled democratically by WORKERS is of a completely different nature to a Britsh state lead by capitalists.

This is a fairly simple idea to understand and Pat C's complete inability to grasp this concept shows three things in my opinion, 1. His irrational and blind hatred of the SP. 2. His complete lack of an ability to analysise society on a class basis. 3. His nutty, dangerous and backward nationalism.

Another thing i would like to ask Pat C, what exactly do you propose? Do you think that if socialism came about tomorrow we should ignore and punish British workers for the crimes of their bourgeoisie? Or do you think we should all abandon internationalism, retreat back to our farms, start dancing at the cross roads and dig turf. Pat PLEASE outline how you would like to see the world run, or do you only care about Ireland?

by Gaucho Rivero Fri Jul 04, 2003 11:48

One more time - just for the sheer hell it!
Was Mark wrong when stating the following?

ER
by Mark - SP Monday, Jun 30 2003, 12:14pm


Our position is a Socialist federation- ie: not with the current British state but with a Socialist Britain and most organisations claiming to be Marxist would share this position.

by pat c Fri Jul 04, 2003 12:17

"Pat, a British worker is NOT the same a British Boss
by venny bean Friday, Jul 4 2003, 12:37am


What I would like to ask Pat C is why do you have a distrust of British workers?"

Why do you not use the terms: English, Welsh and Scttish workers?

Where have i ever said I distrust any of these workers? Why do the SP have to resort to slander when they are losing an argument?

Your use of the imperialist term British worries me.

" 1. His irrational and blind hatred of the SP. "

I disagree with the SP on a federation, that amounts to blind hatred!

"2. His complete lack of an ability to analysise society on a class basis."

Where have I done so?

"3. His nutty, dangerous and backward nationalism."

How is it nutty nationalism to disagree with the SP policy of a federation of the islands? I said i agree with a socialist federation of Europe.

When the SP run out of rational arguments (which is fairly quickly) they resort to abuse.

By the same token it could be said that you are pushing British Nationalism by demanding a rebuilding of the old 'UK'.



'Another thing i would like to ask Pat C, what exactly do you propose?'

a socialist ireland as part of a global libertaran socialist system.

" Do you think that if socialism came about tomorrow we should ignore and punish British workers for the crimes of their bourgeoisie? "

where did i say this? it is you who seem to wish to make the Welsh, Irish and Scottish subsrvient to the English once more.

You keep slipping back to the use of the term British. If you truly believed in self determination you would not do so.

by Magneto Fri Jul 04, 2003 12:48

The English led CWIs attitude towards its various sections cis little different than that of the British Empire towards its colonies. Expelling the entire Pakistasn section, undermining the South African section and forcing them out, forcing the majority of the Scottish section out, expelling the US minority. Sending CWI fulltimers around the World like Viceroys to purge and force lines on the various sections.

And at the end of it all the CWI has fallen from 15,000 to , at best, 2,000 members world wide.

by Chekov Fri Jul 04, 2003 16:45

I love the use of the word 'discredited'. It is the same use that I remember being applied to Bob Fiske during the war. It is a term stolen from science where a paper is discredited if it is proven to contain falsified results. When the right wing use it about fiske, it means that a bunch of right wing op-ed writers found a tiny inaccuracy in one of his articles and covered the US in diatribes against him. When the SP use it, it means that one of their theorists has written an article refuting the arguments. The net result is the same, it is intended to let people know that there is no point in reading the argument since the author is dishonest and is making up facts.

Dismayed, what are the falsifications? Why is this line discredited? Do you honestly believe that dismissing an argument as discredited does you any justice, or does it lower you to the level of the US right in their attempts to ignore critical comment?

by venny bean Sat Jul 05, 2003 02:12

"Why do you not use the terms: English, Welsh and Scttish workers?"

- Because the island of Britain contains England, Scotland and Wales therefore if they like it or not Scottish Welsh and Enlish people are also from Britain. In the same way Germans are European and Liberians are African. There is no imperialist conotation intended simpl an expression of geographical fact.

"Where have i ever said I distrust any of these workers? Why do the SP have to resort to slander when they are losing an argument?"

If you don't distrust English workers why are extremly wary of a socialist English state which is run by English workers?

"Your use of the imperialist term British worries me."

As I stated above I intended it as being a geographical fact, you knwo this but are just stirring shit.

"I disagree with the SP on a federation, that amounts to blind hatred!"

No it does not, but when taken in context of every single posting about the SP being attacked with lies insults and blatent rubbish I would say that you do have a blind hatred of the SP.

"2. His complete lack of an ability to analysise society on a class basis."

"Where have I done so?"

This thread is a clear example. You fail to see that an English workers state is fundamentally different to an English capitalist state. Anyone with an ounce of class analysis would identify that it is English capitalism that is the enemny not English workers.

"How is it nutty nationalism to disagree with the SP policy of a federation of the islands? I said i agree with a socialist federation of Europe."

It is not nutty nationalism to disagree with the SP on federation per se but it is nutty nationalism to have a distrust of English workers.

"When the SP run out of rational arguments (which is fairly quickly) they resort to abuse."

Pat are you really claiming that you have never thrown abuse at the SP or SY? those in glass houses etc

"By the same token it could be said that you are pushing British Nationalism by demanding a rebuilding of the old 'UK'."

It is not and has never been the policy of the SP to 'rebuild the old UK'. Again can you not see that an English workers state is of a completely different nature to an imperialist capitalist England?

"a socialist ireland as part of a global libertaran socialist system."

Would you include English workers?

"where did i say this? it is you who seem to wish to make the Welsh, Irish and Scottish subsrvient to the English once more."

Firstly any federation would be on a free equal and voluntary basis. Secondly it would be with a Socialist English state not a capitalist one. So the whole question of being subservient simply does not arise. Again I ask you Pat, why do you have a distrust of English workers? and would you include a socialist England as part of a federation with Ireland?

"You keep slipping back to the use of the term British. If you truly believed in self determination you would not do so."

What!? This is crazy! When has the term British been a by word for imperialism. Britain is a geographical entity whether you like it or not. England Scotland and Wales are part of that entity.

by hs - sp Sat Jul 05, 2003 20:36

it won't be the first time in ireland that socialists have been attacked for not being irish enough. you can go back to connolly for that one


ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS

Question: are the SP anglocentric?

No, you could ask yourself the same question.

Question: does this have anything to do with the origins of their organisation (in Britain)?

Of course the org. being founded in briain will have some effect. Obviously the bigger party will have more resources papers etc than a small group. And obviously everyone is effected by where they come from. Unless you just poped out of marx's womb. But I don't think we are anglo centric if you look at any number of our paper theres very little bout england.

Question: does their interest in federation with Britain have anything to do with an unwillingness to confront the reactionary loyalism/unionism of many northern Protestant workers?

No it is because we want to try and unite working class people, we do not want to fight with one side against the other. There is also a big socialist movement growing in scotland which can appeal to n. i. protestant workers.

Question: why does one of their members (see above) think that Britain is geographically closer to Ireland than France?

ANSWER ??? it is, scotland and NI are closer than the south of ireland to france. who,s being partitionist now?


Question: who gives a shit about geography - shouldn't we be looking for something a wee bit more adventurous than a re-establishment of the old colonial relationship (argued for, unsurprisingly, by an anglocentric organisation)?

I haven't seen a western european socialist federation for a while now? But unfortunately unlike the cyber warriors some of us live from time to time in the real world. And yes geography matters there.

Question: doesn't the development of the anti-globalisation movement and the anti-war movement point the way forward to new alliances between countries across Europe, and across the world? Why is the SP still blattering on about a socialist federation of Britain and Ireland within a socialist Europe etc?

We don't the sp is in fact part of the cwi which has parties and groups in something like 35 countries in the world, one of the biggest parties is in africa, nigeria. We've taken part in elections there since we were legalised, european countries. Really we have a world outlook. For this you should look at the cwi website rather than sp websites. www.worldsocialist-cwi.org

Of course we need to look at all ways possible to unite workers internationally including ireland. For me that means dumping nationalism whether green or orange.

For example in Sri Lanka the tamils are called reactionaries and fascists and all the rest by the majority of the left. We are the only leftists that publish in tamil. Yet i imagine most irish people could sympatise with the tamil right to self determination. By this our party there had to dump sri lankan nationalism.
But anyway we are called the socialist party not the irish socialist party or republican socialist party. The socialist party, just like it says on the tin.

by hs - sp Sat Jul 05, 2003 20:41

"Our position is a Socialist federation- ie: not with the current British state but with a Socialist Britain and most organisations claiming to be Marxist would share this position. "

Is it wrong, yep, sorry mark!!! Its not really how we put it. Although we're really nit picking now. Sorry Mark off to the gulag with you!

by hs - sp Sat Jul 05, 2003 20:49

Looking at the cwi websit now, the english language part, I see one article about Britain. One about Iraq, one about england and wales, one from Italy one from Ireland one from zimbabwe two from Nigeria with a lovely picture of cwi "colonialists" one about israel palestine, one about france one about north korea, two about greece one about germany and one from Iran.
www.worldsocialist-cwo.org

by Pat C Sun Jul 06, 2003 21:04

they resort to abuse.

You continuously use the Term British? Why?

If you believed in self determination then you wouldnt be reffering to a federation with Britain.

The fact that you have to send on anonymous fools like Venny Bean show how little belif you have in your politics.

Yes, its a very English sort of Socialism that is preached by the CWI. One that would put Wales , Scotland and Ireland back under the English Yoke as the first step towards building your English Empire.

by pat c Sun Jul 06, 2003 21:13

I dont see how opposing your federation idea makes me anti English. You seem all too unaware that the British Empires first colonies were Ireland, Wales and Scotland. W

by Curious Mon Jul 07, 2003 11:57

The English still occupy them. Dont you think that the English should leave Ireland before you put forward ideas of federating with them? Perhaps you are happy with the English retaining their control in Ireland.

I think the SP would be happier to see Ireland back in a capitalist United kingdom rather than see a Socialist Ireland which was seperate from England.

by Venny Bean Mon Jul 07, 2003 13:47

PAt you have failed to READ my posting.

This bullshit from you either further shows your complete blind hatred of the SP and/or your inability to analyse society on a class basis.

The SP's position is a federation on a FREE, EQUAL and VOLUNTARY basis. This means self determination. If a majority of people in any given country oppose a federation for whatever reason it will not happen.

The term British (in the case where I used it anyhow) I was using to describe a geographical fact. England Scotland and Wales ARE on an island named Britain, have a look at a map it is true.

The fact remains that a socialist England run by workers is of a completely different character to an imperialist England run by capitalists. PAt, can you not see this? The SP are NOT calling for a federation with any capitalist state.

Pat do you really see English workers as the enemy and not allies to Irish workers? if this is your position you are quite pathetic and are not worthy of calling yourself a socialist.

Again I will ask you Pat, please answer, if tomorrow there was a socialist revolution in England and a workers state came to power. Would you accept assistance from that workers state? and vice versa if there was a workers state in Ireland following a socialist revolution would you be in favour of assisting the English working class overthrowing their bourgeosie?

by Get B Mon Jul 07, 2003 13:57

Pat's a stalinist, he believes he can create socialism in Ireland without having to have a workers revolution in Britain.

Actually PAt would probably be agaisnt socialist in Britain as he would like to see the English working class suffer for their crimes against Irish workers (sic) That is of course if he acknowledges that there exists a workign class in Britain, he probably has the position that they are one large reactionary mass.

by pat c Mon Jul 07, 2003 14:05

"Pat's a stalinist, he believes he can create socialism in Ireland without having to have a workers revolution in Britain. "

no, i am a libertarian socialist. whats this Britain? Have you ever heard of England , Scotland and Wales.

you the cwi are the stalinists. you prove that with your internal party regime. as john reimann, john throne and brian tourish have written so well about.

"Actually PAt would probably be agaisnt socialist in Britain as he would like to see the English working class suffer for their crimes against Irish workers (sic)"

I'm all for socialism in Wales, Sctland and England. I wouldnt be surprised if England was still capitalist when socialism had been achieved in Wales and Scotland.


What would you propose in those circumstances? That socialism be exportede at the point of a bayonet like Trotsky tried in Poland.

by pat c Mon Jul 07, 2003 14:16

"PAt you have failed to READ my posting.

This bullshit from you either further shows your complete blind hatred of the SP and/or your inability to analyse society on a class basis."

Iread your stuff, i just disagree with it.

at the start of this thread, i defended the sp against the suggestion of links with neo-nazis, on the fire-fighter thread i defended the sp against false charges.

are those the actions of someone who has a blind hatred of the sp?

"The SP's position is a federation on a FREE, EQUAL and VOLUNTARY basis. This means self determination. If a majority of people in any given country oppose a federation for whatever reason it will not happen."

i think it is very odd that you even raise the idea of such a federation when part of ireland is still militarily occupied by the English. the welsh and scottish do not at present have the right to secede.

you really have some odd ideas.

"The term British (in the case where I used it anyhow) I was using to describe a geographical fact. England Scotland and Wales ARE on an island named Britain, have a look at a map it is true."

yes, but Wales, Scotland and England are seperate nationalities. even stephen boyd admits this and does not use your offensive terminology.

"The fact remains that a socialist England run by workers is of a completely different character to an imperialist England run by capitalists. PAt, can you not see this? The SP are NOT calling for a federation with any capitalist state."

but part of ireland is still occupied by the english. in that context your federation idea is premature to say the least.

"Pat do you really see English workers as the enemy and not allies to Irish workers? if this is your position you are quite pathetic and are not worthy of calling yourself a socialist."

i dont see english workers as being the enemy , you are pathetic in your attempts to misrepresent me. you have no understanding of imperialism or you would not suggest that a country should federate with one that is still an imperialist aggressor.

after scotland, wales and ireland are fully free from england the whole question can be readdressed.



but your idea is a travesty given the present realities of english dominance.



"Again I will ask you Pat, please answer, if tomorrow there was a socialist revolution in England and a workers state came to power. Would you accept assistance from that workers state?"

assistance yes, invasion no. i do accept that socialism can be exported at the point of a bayonet.

"and vice versa if there was a workers state in Ireland following a socialist revolution would you be in favour of assisting the English working class overthrowing their bourgeosie? "

yes, & by the same token would not attempt to export the revolution by bayonet in a trotsky-like fashion.

by IMC troll monitoring unit Mon Jul 07, 2003 15:38

Oh look! Anonymous trolls posting abuse about the SP. I never thought I'd see the day.

by pat c Mon Jul 07, 2003 20:21

i think if you check, you will see that it is the SP who are carrying out the anonymous trolling.

by hs - sp Mon Jul 07, 2003 20:41

So you think we started a thread with Joe Higgins and neo nazis??????

by venny bean Tue Jul 08, 2003 02:15

". I wouldnt be surprised if England was still capitalist when socialism had been achieved in Wales and Scotland"

It would be impossible for socialism to come about for any prolonged periods in Sctoland or Wales and not England. The economies of these three countries (They are seperate nations) are absolutly tied together as are their bourgeosies and their workers organisations. Pat do you really think that socialism could flourish in Scotland or Wales without a revolution in England? If you do it is you that is the stalinist.

Why do you think that a revolutionis less likely to occur in England? Do you think the English working class are more reactionary? Surely it is in England that a revolution is most likely to occur first, it has afterall the largest working class population.

"i think it is very odd that you even raise the idea of such a federation when part of ireland is still militarily occupied by the English."

You forget that it is not an English workers army that is in the North but an English capitalist army. Can you not understand this basic point?

Nowhere does the SP advocate a federation with a capitalist state. Any future federations would be on a free voluntary and equal basis and would only be with democratic socialist states.

"the welsh and scottish do not at present have the right to secede."

Nice to see you have found an expertise in British constitutional law. I would have thought that this is not the case under the statute of westminster. But it's not that important really as it is not in the interests of the British bourgeosie to see a break up of the UK and therefore it wont happen in the foreseeable future.

by john throne - labors militant voice Tue Jul 08, 2003 06:12 loughfinn at aol dot com

Stephen Boyd and CWI members have been on this thread quite a lot. Stephen on this and other threads has very extensively given his defense of the CWI's internal life in relation to the debate on the Scottish Socialist Party and the then Scottish section of the CWI. According to Stephen and the information he gives, how many articles, debates etc., the internal life of the CWI is entirely democratic.

But Comrade Stephen why select the Scottish debate to make your defense. Why do you not explain the actions of the CWI and the SP leadership in relation to the way the US minority were treated. Why do you not chose to explain the role of the Irish SP leadership in my expulsion and the denial of my rights. Why do you not explain why I was not allowed to appeal against my expulsion at the Irish CC and the Irish conference. This would surely be worth clearing up. Nor was I allowed to appeal against my expulsion at the congress of the US section which took place after I was expelled by the US CC. Why select the debate in Scotland to "prove" the CWI is democratic.

And on a more general issue. In my opinion it is impossible to build a mass revolutionary workers party without that party having serious differences and sustained factional struggle. But the CWI cannot tolerate this. Every difference of any significance that begins to take the form of a faction leads to expulsion and seperation. The CWI is thus kept monolithic and its internal life close to stagnant. I am not saying that there are no differences. I am not saying that everybody who raises a difference is stamped on. Many individual Comrades will find that their differences will be dealt with very diplomatically. What I am talking about is what happens when differences develop amongst leading experienced members who have no intention of letting these differences slide and who move to setting up a faction.

Imagine the SP being an organization of one hundred thousand in Ireland. Imagine the internal life. This party would have tens of thousands of experienced activists. It would attract to it all the other existing groups of activists and left groups. It would be in continual debate and internal struggle around all kinds of issues. This is absolutely inevitable and in fact desireable and essential. But the people at the top of the CWI and the Irish SP preside over an internal life that could not tolerate this, therefore the SP becoming a mass revolutionary party is ruled out and in fact ruled out for all the existing left groups. The existing internal life and culture of the CWI makes it impossible for that group to meet its own objectives and the same applies to left groups in general.

CWI leading members such as Hadden claim I am an enemy of the CWI and the SP. I am no such thing. I do not want the great work and struggles that the SP and the CWI have been involved in and in many cases led, to lead to nothing but a small left group with many of the features of a sect. I do not want the political work of the majority of my adult life to lead to a situation where the organization I helped build becomes a sect. I do not want the working class to be left without a party through which it can clarify and debate its ideas and through which it can struggle.

I believe that the SP in Ireland cannot change its internal life without an open struggle and debate around these issues. I do not think it can achieve what it has to to move forward without openly dealing with its actions in relation to our expulsions. I believe that the members of the CWI and SP leadership who cover up its undemocratic actions in relation to our expulsions are doing extremely severe damage to the SP and the CWI and the struggle of the working class. I believe that the present leadership of the CWI and the SP are doing real damage to these organizations and they rather than I are closer to being enemies of these organizations.

The only way the SP and the CWI can deal with the problems they face is by admitting that it was involved in undemocratic activities and in this way open the debate on the the general issue of the internal life of the SP and the CWI. Of course the CWI leadership would move to expel the SP if they did so. But then they can take the struggle throughout the CWI. And if at the end of the day they fail to transform the CWI then they will be expelled but from there they can join the forces that are concluding that the internal life of the CWI and in fact just about any left group has been influenced by stalinism and bears little resemblance to what is necessary if a real mass party is to be build. They can then help lay down a new tradition and build something new.

Stephen you took quite a lot of trouble to deal with the CWI debate on the SSP giving references number of debates, articles etc. Please do the same concerning our expulsion, the numbers of secret discussions before I ever spoke to the Irish Comrades about what was going on, the secret visits, the distributing of organizational documents and the holding back of political documents, the vicious lies and slanders told about myself and other minority Comrades, the refusal to let me appeal to the British, German and other sections, the refusal to let me appeal to the World Congress. Stephen and other CWI Comrades these issues have to be dealt with if you are going to go any way to changing your organization into the kind of organization the working class can move into and use in its struggle.

I again emphasise Stephen you choose to make your defense of the internal regime by discussing the debate over the SSP. But if you are to have any credibility and the SP to have any credibility then you have to give the same detailed explanation of why the CWI treated the US minority and myself totally undemocratically. You have to explain what kind of an internal life it is that kept me standing outside the CC meeting in the North Star hotel for a weekend and refused to allow me to come into the meeting to explain to this organization which I more than any other individual had built why I thought I should not be expelled. Comrade Stephen these issues will not go away. If you do not face them openly then they will continue to corrupt the internal life of the organization as you continue to lie about what happened and to police your own membership to make sure that those who would openly take up these issues are either driven out or isolated. And of course if you are to have such an open discussion on these issues then you would have to belatedly invite myself and other members of the expelled minority to explain our position.

There are many people on this list who hate the SP and will use and have used the ideas I raise such as those above to whip the SP. I would say to these Comrades to consider how is this constructive, how is this helpful to the struggle of the working class. But I will also say to the CWI that I will not be intimidated into silence just because others may use the issues I raise to attack the SP. The way to resolve this is to openly face up to the mistakes that were made and the wrong methods that were used and that are still used.

In Febuary 1917 there were three different Bolshevik papers being produced out of Petrograd. They had different positions on a number of issues. These were produced and distributed publicly amongst the working class. Imagine if this sort of thing happend in the SP or the CWI. Imagine if this was happening in the SP in Ireland at this time. Such an approach is totally foreign to the internal life and culture of the CWI. It is not I who is an enemy of the SP and CWI. It is not I who defends a regime that is contrary to that of the healthy revolutionary organizations of the working class of the past. It is not I who keeps the CWI and the SP locked in an internal regime which prevents the development of a real collective internal life and a real collective leadership. It is not I who defends an internal life which makes it impossible for the SP and the CWI become mass revolutionary organizations. It is not I who represents the block in front of the healthy development of the SP and the CWI.

John Throne.

by qwerty Tue Jul 08, 2003 16:32

John,
I do have some serious differences with your politics but I have alot of respect for the work that you did in the workers movement and in building the CWI.

If I may I would like to give you some advice. If you wish to be taken seriously by Socialist Party members it would be best to raise these issues in a proper way with the party ie through communication with the formal party structures rather than on indymedia. Most SP members rightfully see indymedia as a waste of time and most comrades have stopped visiting this site with a hanfull of exceptions.

Please take up this advice as you are only discrediting yourself particularly among the young members of the party.

by Get A Life Tue Jul 08, 2003 17:02

If John communicated through SP HQ then the emails and letters would go no further.

by qwerty Tue Jul 08, 2003 17:04

He has never done it, how would he know.

by left observer Tue Jul 08, 2003 18:16

I did not know whether to laugh or cry when reading qwerty's letter, suggesting that rather than post opinions openly on this site (and presumably anywhere else), John Throne sjhoudl engage in a private correspondence with the SP leadership. There are a number of obvious problems with this:

1. Typically, the SPO= deals with criticisms of its internal regime by two methods. The first is personal abuse - eg that Throne is a worn out crank, hostile to the CWI. The second is to suggest that your method of raising a disagreement is inappopriate. Note: not that the issue is addressed, but that your method of raising it is wrong. The catch is that whatever method you use, this is the case. Thus if you correspond with teh SP leadership they jeer and say: you are an ex0-member. Do you seriously expect us to cicrulate your views to our members? We have better things to do. If you don't.... This is a classic diversionary tactic, and one unworthy of debate.

2.

by Left observer Tue Jul 08, 2003 18:23

I did not know whether to laugh or cry when reading qwerty's letter, suggesting that rather than post opinions openly on this site (and presumably anywhere else), John Throne should engage in a private correspondence with the SP leadership. There are a number of obvious problems with this:

1. Typically, the SP deals with criticisms of its internal regime by two methods. The first is personal abuse - eg that Throne is a worn out crank, hostile to the CWI. The second is to suggest that his or anyone else's method of raising a disagreement is inappopriate. Note: not that the issue itself is addressed, but that the method of raising it is wrong. The catch is that whatever method you use, this is argued to be the case. Thus if you correspond with the SP leadership they jeer and say: 'you are an ex-member. Do you seriously expect us to cicrulate your views to our members? We have better things to do.' If you don't.... This is a classic diversionary tactic, and one unworthy of serious debate.

2. It implies that the issues riased are only of concern to a few SP people and John Throne. They aren't. The internal regimes of leftist organisations are of interest and importance to anyone involved in a struggle to change society. The issues should be discussed openly. The SP's hostility to this notion, and to debate on this site (or anywhere else not under their jurisdiction), testifies only to an impoverished view of debate, discussion, democracy and the needs of movements for social change. In passing, it actually illustrates the wretched nature of their internal regime.

3. Yet again, it is implied that you are only worthy of derisioon in the minds of SP members, if you raise issues fro discussion outside their internal bulletin (a forum closed to non-members or ex-members in any case). If SP members really swallow this, I would be very concerned about them. The response here in no way addresses Throne's opinions, it just tries to belittle them. I would hope that some SP members anxious to develop independent thinking reflect on this, and see the previous posting for the smokescreen it is.

by john throne - labors militant voice Tue Jul 08, 2003 22:52 loughfinn at aol dot com

I would like to thank Comrade Querty for his / her advice. But I have to say I am a bit like Left Observor that I do not know whether to laugh or to cry, and in my case after all these years and struggles to be given this advice, I would add whether or not to commit suicide. This last point is a joke. I do not want depressed and suicidal to be added to the list of slanders.

Use the formal structures of the SP and the CWI Querty says? Absolutely. I want to do this. But does this correspondent not see that an absolutely central part of this whole issue is that the CWI and the SP closed and keeps closed these formal structures to me. They expelled me and refused to allow me my right to appeal against this injustice through the formal structures of the organization. They refused to distribute the document we drew up in which we tried to bring together and draw conclusions from the debate through the formal structures of the organization. I would be more than grateful Querty if you could explain to me how I can take the issue up in the formal structures. I have been trying to do this since I was expelled, around seven years ago. Let me remind you I travelled at my own expense to the British CC, and the British conference, the Irish CC and other international meetings of the CWI precisely to try and use the formal structures of the CWI to raise these issues. The CWI refused to allow me access to these meetings, to these formal structures.

Querty if you are a member of the SP I would like to ask for your help and suggest the following. If you are not then I ask SP members who read this to take this action. At your local SP branch meeting propose a motion. This should explain how events have shown that the positions that the US minority held and around which we were expelled have tended to be proven correct by events. (note the change of position of the CWI on the US LP and the San Franciscan group central issues in our faction debate). The motion would also explain that our expulsion was carried out in a way that did not afford us our full rights. That therefore this SP branch decides to reopen this discussion. And the branch also decides to call on the CWI and the SP to reopen this discussion. This should allow us all to see to what extent it is possible for the formal structures to be used to discuss these issues.

You say that I am being discredited amongst the younger members of the SP. I would hope that this is not the case. But if I am why would this be so? It could not be because I use this medium of the indymedia to express myself. After all if I was using this medium to praise the SP and the CWI I would not be discredited in the eyes of the young SP members. No if I am being discredited in the eyes of the younger SP members it is because they are being told a load of lies and slanders about me by the SP leadership. I know for example that some new members were told at one time that all that happened in the struggle in the CWI was that "another boss was fired" this was how my expulsion and firing was described. I know for example that I have been called all the names I previous listed worn out, sectarian pathetic etc., etc., by the SP leadership. I know that I was written out of existance. If I am being discredited it is because of a campaign of slander against me by the SP leadership meanwhile the SP leadership keep the formal structures of the organization closed to me so that I cannot give my opinion.

Consider the situation when I went last year to the SP conference and asked to be allowed to attend as an observor, not even to speak. Hadden gave a ten minute speech explaining how I was an enemy of the organization and should not be allowed in and then a vote was taken. No chance was given to anybody to speak in favor of allowing me to attend. Then after seeing me discuss with members in the bar on friday night I was not allowed to go into the bar on the saturday night. I was stopped at the door by a young member who had been given this instruction by the CC. He explained it was a decision of of either it was the EC or the CC I am not sure which. Comrade Querty it seems to me either you have some serious problems following the issues in this debate or Left Observor is correct when he/she says that your suggestions are just to divert attention away from the issues. If I am wrong on both these and you are a member of the SP then please show this by moving such a motion as I suggest to your local SP branch.

Let me add another detail for consideration. I get the odd email trying to advise me to "get over it" that is my expulsion, as if I have some sort of psycological blockage and cannot let the issue drop. For me there are many aspects to this issue but most important is to try and draw political conclusions from it. And specifically to be clear that we do not build into the organization that we are now building the same internal regime as existed in the past. I am also committed to trying to build an anti capitalist international within which different views can be openly expressed while we work together as an anti capitalist international on the issues on which the anti capitalist revolutionary forces agree. Somewhat similiar to the First International. I will not let this issue drop within the CWI and the Irish SP. The reason I will not is because I believe that that organizations internal life condemns it to remaining an organization with many aspects of a sect and therefore its many very positive features are negated. Along with this the working class in my opinion needs an anti capitalist movement at this time. And of course I believe in building within this the different opinions etc., that is a different internal life in the anti capitalist international and in the various organizations within this.

So amongst other things the Irish SP leadership seeks to portray my persistance as some kind of psycological hang up. This is not so. It is based on believing that the present internal life of the SP and most left groups is incorrect and that this weakens the working class in its struggle. The Irish SP, with which I have been most intimately involved in its Militant days, will not be free of these issues. Not only will I ensure this as long as I am around. But the objective situation itself and specifically the needs of the working class will ensure that these issues will not go away. The only hope the SP has to go forward and realise its full potential is to honestly take these issues up and debate them within its organization, honestly and openly accept its mistakes and incorrect method, honestly accept the injustices its leadership were involved in, and draw conclusions from this and move forward on a new basis. I would be delighted, more that delighted, if the formal structures of the organization were open to discuss these issues. An enormous increase in potential would be realized and the working class struggle would be strengthened.

John Throne

by pat c Wed Jul 09, 2003 11:51

"would be impossible for socialism to come about for any prolonged periods in Sctoland or Wales and not England. The economies of these three countries (They are seperate nations) are absolutly tied together as are their bourgeosies and their workers organisations."

the size of the welsh, sottish and irish economies together are at best 25% of the english economy. revolution is not around the corner. there is no reason to believe that the economies "will be so closely entangled in the future.

"Pat do you really think that socialism could flourish in Scotland or Wales without a revolution in England? If you do it is you that is the stalinist."

revolution does not occur to oder or in response to any iron rule. so, i am a stalinist because i disagree with you!

Why do you think that a revolutionis less likely to occur in England? Do you think the English working class are more reactionary? Surely it is in England that a revolution is most likely to occur first, it has afterall the largest working class population."

see above. revolutions do not happen to order. germany, france had bigger working clases than russia, but revolution occured first in russia.

"You forget that it is not an English workers army that is in the North but an English capitalist army. Can you not understand this basic point? "

yes but it is still an english army. ireland is still occupied. can you not understand that basic point?

"Nowhere does the SP advocate a federation with a capitalist state. Any future federations would be on a free voluntary and equal basis and would only be with democratic socialist states."

come on. if you can misrepresent me, then i can do the same to you.

"the welsh and scottish do not at present have the right to secede."

"Nice to see you have found an expertise in British constitutional law."

i claim no such expertise. But it is commom knowledge that the scottish and welsh assemblies are subservient to westminister.

" I would have thought that this is not the case under the statute of westminster. "

that 1930s law applied only to self governing dominions such as canada, australia, irish free state. it did not affect NI, wales or scotland whgich were integral parts of the "UK".

"But it's not that important really as it is not in the interests of the British bourgeosie to see a break up of the UK and therefore it wont happen in the foreseeable future. "

the ssp might have something to say about that.

by VB Wed Jul 09, 2003 21:45

"the size of the welsh, sottish and irish economies together are at best 25% of the english economy."

Does this not highlight the absolute need for a workers revolution in England if a socialism is to succeed in Wals, Scotland and Ireland?

"revolution is not around the corner. there is no reason to believe that the economies "will be so closely entangled in the future."

There is no indication that they will become less dependent upon each other. It is slightly different with Ireland but in Wales and Scotland there is no real desire whatsoever on behalf of the national bourgeosies to seperate from the economic link with England. I would actually contend that the most powerfull Welsh and Scottish capitalists are so closely linked to the English capitalists that in effect it would be hard to differenciate them.

"revolution does not occur to oder or in response to any iron rule. so, i am a stalinist because i disagree with you!"

It is indeed correct to say that revolutions do not happen according to any iron rule. But it would be stalinist to believe that socialism could flourish in one country for a prolonged period of time. I am not sure whether this is your position or not but if it is it is stalinist.

"see above. revolutions do not happen to order. germany, france had bigger working clases than russia, but revolution occured first in russia."

Correct, but why do you think that revolution is less likely in England than in scotland or Wales?

"yes but it is still an english army. ireland is still occupied. can you not understand that basic point?"

The reason English troops are in the North is for the imperial interests of the English bourgeosie, it is a capitalist army. If it was in the interests of the German or French capitalists to occupy a country they will and have done it, this has nothing really to do with where the army comes from but is really about the economic and political interests of the class the represent. If a democratic socialist workers state came about in England it would completly transform the situation in the North.


VB: "But it's not that important really as it is not in the interests of the British bourgeosie to see a break up of the UK and therefore it wont happen in the foreseeable future. "

"the ssp might have something to say about that. "

I'm sure they would. The point I am making is that there is no real desire on behalf of any large section of the bourgeosie in England, Scotland or Wales to see the breakup of the UK. They will not allow it happen unless forced to do so by a massive social movement. It is not in their interests to see the UK breakup.

by pat c Thu Jul 10, 2003 11:21

"Does this not highlight the absolute need for a workers revolution in England if a socialism is to succeed in Wals, Scotland and Ireland?"

Yes, but its not something thats going to occur because you close your eyes and wish for it. Its possible that Englanf could remain capitalist.


". I would actually contend that the most powerfull Welsh and Scottish capitalists are so closely linked to the English capitalists that in effect it would be hard to differenciate them."

With euro scepticism far more prevalent in england, the economies of wales and scotland are more likely to become more closely enmeshed in the EU over the coming years.

"It is indeed correct to say that revolutions do not happen according to any iron rule. But it would be stalinist to believe that socialism could flourish in one country for a prolonged period of time. I am not sure whether this is your position or not but if it is it is stalinist."

my point is that socialism might well flourish in 3 countries in these isles and england might still be capitalist.

why do you keep trying to misrepresent me?

i have made it clear that i stand for a socialist europe and indeed a socialist world.

all i am disagreeing with is your fethisisation of the federation of the isles idea.

you think its a good idea, i have reservations.

leave it at that.


"Correct, but why do you think that revolution is less likely in England than in scotland or Wales?"

why do you think revolution is more likely in england.


"The reason English troops are in the North is for the imperial interests of the English bourgeosie, it is a capitalist army."

agreed. but its still an english army. while part of ireland is still occupied by the english you are suggesting a future federation with the imperialist homeland.

in a future situation where wales, scotland and ireland are totally free of england then the idea of federatiuon could be looked at afresh. but it is folly AT THIS TIME to suggest that it is in the interest of oppressed countries to federate with the old oppressor.

"I'm sure they would. The point I am making is that there is no real desire on behalf of any large section of the bourgeosie in England, Scotland or Wales to see the breakup of the UK. They will not allow it happen unless forced to do so by a massive social movement. It is not in their interests to see the UK breakup. "

And the SSP might just be the spearhead of that massive social movement.

by Hal Silk Thu Jul 10, 2003 11:43

Just noticed a poster advertising the SP/SY summer school. A nice gel Helen Sell is attending from the 'Socialist Party England and Wales'.

If you believe in Self Determination for Wales why do you not even allow them have a seperate party?

by Puzzled Thu Jul 10, 2003 13:39

Enough of that argument, you are both repeating yourselves. It would be more interesting if our Venerable friend addressed the points raised by John Throne.

by VB Thu Jul 10, 2003 17:19

"Yes, but its not something thats going to occur because you close your eyes and wish for it. Its possible that Englanf could remain capitalist."

Of course the revolution wont happen by us wishing it to happen. It is possible that England be capitalist while Ireladn has a revolution, but I would argue that it is absolutly essential that the revolution spread to the rest of Europe and England if the revolution in Ireladn is to be protected and consolidated.


"With euro scepticism far more prevalent in england, the economies of wales and scotland are more likely to become more closely enmeshed in the EU over the coming years."

I would contend that the apprehension among some elements of the English bourgeosie would also exist among the Welsh and Scottish bourgeosie. I do not think that the period we are entering of economic stagnation will see any real futher integration in the EU. In fact the internal differences among the European powers which are made sharper with recession may well see serious difficulties emerging with the Euro project.

"my point is that socialism might well flourish in 3 countries in these isles and england might still be capitalist."

It is unlikely in my opinion especially in the cases of Scotland and Wales. If it is to happen it would need a series of successfull revolutions in Europe and North America.

"i have made it clear that i stand for a socialist europe and indeed a socialist world."

Fair enough.

"all i am disagreeing with is your fethisisation of the federation of the isles idea."

I do not think it is a 'fetish' at all. any it is not a federation of the 'isles'.

"Correct, but why do you think that revolution is less likely in England than in scotland or Wales?"

why do you think revolution is more likely in england.

We can never really say when exactly a country will have a revolution and in which order. What I would like to know is why you think that a revolution in England is less likely, that is what I was questioning.


"agreed. but its still an english army. while part of ireland is still occupied by the english you are suggesting a future federation with the imperialist homeland."

That's why we say a SOCIALIST Federation on a Free equal and voluntary basis.

"in a future situation where wales, scotland and ireland are totally free of england then the idea of federatiuon could be looked at afresh. but it is folly AT THIS TIME to suggest that it is in the interest of oppressed countries to federate with the 'old oppresssor'."

The proposal is a federation with a socialist England. In this state the English working class would be in power. It is not the English working class who are the 'old oppresssor' but the English capitalist.


"And the SSP might just be the spearhead of that massive social movement. "

I would have my reservations about the current leadership of the SSP but hopefully the SSP will become to be the spearhead of a massive social movement. But if that movement is to be successfull they must adopt a clear internationalist programme and link up and fight alongside English and Welsh workers.

by VB Fri Jul 11, 2003 11:25

You are regurgitating the same line again. Why dot you address John Thrones issues?