Come to the Socialist Youth Summer Festival Resistance

by Appalled! Thu Jul 10, 2003 14:10

Cllr. Ruth Coppinger?

Its good to see that the SP is different from all the other parties. It is the proper Revolutionary thing for Joe Higgins to pass his council seat on to his partner.

by Hal Silk Thu Jul 10, 2003 14:13

'Hannah Sell (author of Socialism in the 21st Century and National Organiser of the Socialist Party in England & Wales),'

I thought the SP/CWI believed in Self Determination for Wales. Why wont you even let the Welsh have a seperate party?

by Durutti Thu Jul 10, 2003 14:18

"1) Police & the State: To serve or to rule? - Brendan Mulholland (SP) and a speaker from the Irish Council of Civil Liberties"

Will George Maybury be along for this session? I wonder if the ICCL are aware of the SPs pro-cop stance? I hope the ICCL dont say anything nasty about the cops, Michael O'Brien, Matt Waine, Peter Hadden and Lord Haugh Haugh will be upset.

by Indy Head Thu Jul 10, 2003 14:21

Is Damien Dempsey?

by chekov Thu Jul 10, 2003 14:37

Putting the anarchism meeting on at 10:30 on a sunday morning. Goodness that means we're gonna have to get up at 7 or so! I don't think anybody needs any further proof that the SP are counter-revolutionary, west-brit loyalists, with a love for all things military and an infatuation for the boys in blue :-)

by pat c Thu Jul 10, 2003 14:41

Who is the unfortunate Anarchist?

by Daithi Thu Jul 10, 2003 14:44

Rollin' dowin
To Dubbalin town
Cummin' from da nort-soyide
Heading south-bowind

(sample at http://www.brassbooty.com/samples/mp3s/Dublin_Town.mp3)

Great album a few years ago called 'They Don't Teach This Shit In Schools'. He has something new out but I haven't heare any of it.

Apologies for disruption. Continue spineless anonymous bickering.

by Ger Thu Jul 10, 2003 14:51

When you say "young", care to define young?

by Forever Young Thu Jul 10, 2003 14:52

The SY have a fulltimer who is 36.

by Curious Thu Jul 10, 2003 14:56

According to Brian Cahill Red 1913 wasnt realy in the SP. Now here he is advertising their events. When it suits the SP they will (temporarily) disown embarrrassing members.

by MG Thu Jul 10, 2003 14:58

His new album is called Seize the Day... It's quite good, actually.

by Sean Heffernan -SP Thu Jul 10, 2003 15:14

We are holding a weekend festival so people can openly come along, here what we have to say, and ask whatever questions they wish. Whehn has Labour Youth, or any other political youth organisations doen that? Lets face it the Ogra FF, Labour Youth and Young Fine Gael Gatheirngs are pre-determined gatherings, with little (if any) critiiscisms of the orgainisation allowed from the floor (Or if someone does critiscise, they get a very severe reprimand.) This festival will be slightly similar to the SP conference last November, as people are free to raise any concerns/objectios to any of the organisations stratgies/policies, if they so wish to do so. When did I ever see that happen at a Labour/FG or FF do??

So Durrutti, Magento, and Checkov -Were are ye from, and what organisations (if any) do ye belong to? What active campaigning work have ye been involved with in the last while??

My name is Sean Heffernan. I am a member of the Dublin South West Branch of the Socialist Party. I am a committee member of the refuse Charges campaign in the area, and of MIJAG (Motor insurance Justice Action Group). I am also secretary of a campaign in my area which seeks the development of a community centre, for the locals to avail of, amongst other things.

You cry out for people to be democratic and honest in the way they/or their organisation deal with things etc. Now is your turn to show us you have NOTHING to hide, by revealing your identities. Otherwise it is plain for all to see that ye ARE hiding something! So what is it to be boys - come clean or run away yet again??

by King Mob Thu Jul 10, 2003 15:23

Ye know it doesn't make ye sound cool if every second word is ye, like.

How do we know you're for real? I could type Sean Heffernan into the author box and it would look just the same. Are we supposed to be intimidated by your record?

But it's ok, because you've hung yourself by bragging about MIJAG (men in Jags?), the group dedicated to enabling spoiled kids to get a car from Daddy and drive it too fast on roads that shouldn't have been built, helped by publicly subsidised insurance. Where's your Justice for Cyclists group?

by Jonno - SY Thu Jul 10, 2003 15:35

It isn't a question of "allowing" the Welsh to have a seperate party. Socialist Party Wales operates as part of the same organisation as the Socialist Party in England because the Welsh members have never wanted to do otherwise.

It is fundamentally their decision (which is after all what "self determination" means). Their Scottish equivalents have made a different decision, and again that's their choice.

Socialist Party Wales argues for self determination for Wales. It also produces some Welsh language material.

by Terry Thu Jul 10, 2003 15:41

Why dont Red 1913, Red Dawn 1917, Venny Bean, Angrier Activist, Mark et al come out and reveal their identities. Why dont you answer the question about Wales?

For that matter why dont you ever honestly respond to and answer the points raised by John Throne.

I find it sickening that you want to get cheaper insurance for Boy Racers rather than look after the interests of pedestrians and cyclists.

by Glendower Thu Jul 10, 2003 15:45

Do you think you are dealing with fools? If the CWI had their way there would have been no Scottish Socialist Party. The CWI World Congress passed a motion condemning the establishment of the SSP.

Yeah, the Welsh members are happy to be part of the English Party. If any of them suggested a seperate Welsh section they would be sat on.

by Chekov Thu Jul 10, 2003 15:45

I thought that my comment was pretty obviously tongue in cheek - especially with the smiley face at the end. But I suppose in cyberspace you can never make anything too obvious, so just wrap my previous comment in comment tags.

As for being anonymous, I don't think that there are too many lefties called chekov, so it is pretty easy to figure out who I am. Ask an anarchist, or if you're afraid that you might catch something, I'm pretty sure that a good few SPers at least know me to see.

by Danny C. Thu Jul 10, 2003 15:47

I notice that Socialist Youth are willing to invite an actual anarchist to take part in their discussion on anarchism versus marxism. Actually allowing the "other" side to put their case in these kind of discussions doesn't happen too often in Ireland. The only regular weekend meeting is normally the SWP's Marxism and nobody with a competing view other than reformism is ever allowed to speak at that. The SWP should take note, if the young people of socialist youth are willing to have real debates what are you so scared of?

Its a pity this isnt in Dublin from my point of view as I would probably pop along for a day. Will it being in the middle of nowhere (sorry any Cavan people reading) effect attendence badly?

by Magneto Thu Jul 10, 2003 15:50

Labour Youth is allowed to disagree with the Labour Party. Members of Labour Youth can disagree with the lines of both LY and LP.

I would give the example of Nice, many Labour members campaigned for a No vote.

No member of the SP/SY is allowed to publicly disagree with the Party Line.

If you have any doubts ask John Throne, John Reimann, Brian Tourish, Finn Geaney.

BTW

Whatever happened to Dermot Connolly? Why was he puged from his job as General Secretary?

by Mr Angry Thu Jul 10, 2003 15:52

Guess what, ordinary people have cars too. And they pay a large amout of motor tax and sundry other charges to build roads so sanctimonious cyclists can break the rules of the road for free!Keep on drinking that socialist champagne!

by Jenny Thu Jul 10, 2003 15:54

This is an important question, which deserves an answer. We are all too used to seeing the Capitalist parties passing on their seats to partners and relatives as if it was their personal property. I expected better from the Socialist Party.

by Angry Pedestrian Thu Jul 10, 2003 15:57

MIJAG (the anacronym is no accident) pushes the interests of young males who are upset because they pay higher insurance rates. The reason for this is because most accidents are caused by young male drivers who think speed limits are an option.

by Young Male Worker Thu Jul 10, 2003 16:03

I was involved in MIJAG, and I voted for the SP in the last election and would buy their paper whenever they're selling it in my area.

I think it's wrong to say MIJAG is about boyracers! The fact is we live in a city with bad public transport. There are also jobs where a car is needed to do the job. Are young men not allowed work?

If you look at the car insurace situation you will find it's a clear example of age discrimination. Yes, young drivers are more likely to crash (twice as likely-due to experience) But does that justify 8 times the averege premium?

MIJAG is against age discrimination and the profitering of the large insurance companies.

by Ha Ha Thu Jul 10, 2003 16:05

Is a SPer who is fooling no one.

by Young Male Worker aka Sean Duffy Thu Jul 10, 2003 16:08

I am not an 'SPer' as you say.

I am a young male worker who has respect for the SP. You know, not everyone is a member of the SP. I'm not too much into the politics thing, but I do respect the Sp for the work they do in my area and on car insurance.

My name is Sean Duffy, I live in Dundrum. 'Ha Ha' what is your name?

by Tom Luby Thu Jul 10, 2003 16:15

Why didnt you invite some young people down from the Garvaghy Road or Holycross or the Short Strand? You lot would be happier with an Orange Youth Flute Band.

by Jonno - SY Thu Jul 10, 2003 16:16

Look I don't really have the time or energy to get involved in a slanging match with the anonymous Indymedia rent-a-mob. I gave you a straight answer. You don't have to believe me if you don't want to.

Militant (the predecessor of the Socialist Party) was one organisation covering all of Britain. Then there was a discussion within Militant about the different circumstances in Scotland and national self determination prompted by some of the Scottish membership. The result was that Scottish Militant Labour was formed as a seperate sister organisation, a Scottish section of the Committee for a Workers International.

Meanwhile the Welsh membership of Militant and then Socialist Party Wales never argued for an organisational separation from the Socialist Party in England. They do however argue for self determination for Wales and they sometimes produce their own printed material including Welsh language stuff.

All of these debates happened many years before the unrelated disagreements around the Scottish Socialist Party. Whether or not Scottish Militant Labour should reintegrate itself into the English and Welsh Socialist Party was never an issue in those later discussions. Both sides agreed that there was a need for a seperate Scottish organisation.

The SSP arguments were over whether or not it was necessary to build a coherent revolutionary organisation within the SSP. The majority of Scottish Militant Labour felt it was unneccessary to do so and sadly they ended up leaving the Committee for a Workers International. A minority disagreed and argued that they should build a revolutionary organisation inside the SSP at the same time as building the broad SSP. That minority, now called the International Socialists is the section of the CWI in Scotland.

For anyone who is interested all of the documents and arguments produced by both sides in those discussion are available online on one of the CWI websites (linked to below). They were written as internal documents and so may be a bit jargon heavy for casual readers.

Now I fully expect this to be followed up with "you are lying" abuse from the usual couple of anonymous idiots. As has been pointed out here a lot of times before, Indymedia could be a useful resource but that usefulness is damaged by the vitriolic atmosphere and the consistent trawling for a fight.

by Ha Ha Thu Jul 10, 2003 16:17

Ah, you live with Brian Cahill in the Hospital, that explains it.

by Empire Loyalist Thu Jul 10, 2003 16:20

Peter Taafe keeps them loyal to the Empire.

by Jenny Thu Jul 10, 2003 16:24

What about Joe Higgins passing his council seat on to his partner? Do you think this is acceptable in a Revolutionary Organisation?

by Jonno Thu Jul 10, 2003 16:28

Sitting TDs are barred from holding Council seats under the new legislation. That means that Joe Higgin's council seat has to be assigned to someone else.

Jenny is right to say that in the capitalist parties various politicians have given their seats to close relatives. The motivating force behind that is normally a desire to protect a personal fiefdom against rivals within their own party.

That obviously isn't the case here. This may come as a surprise to some of you but there isn't anything to be gained from being a Socialist Party public representative other than a huge amount of work.

Joe doesn't get to decide who would take his old seat. Instead it's a decision of the local branch of the Socialist Party and the national organisation. Ruth Coppinger is a long time Socialist Party activist and she is well known and respected in the area. She will make an outstandingly good councillor and was chosen by the Socialist Party (not by Joe) on that basis. Joe and Ruth's personal lives are their business and nobody elses.

So good luck to Ruth in her new role.

by Jenny Thu Jul 10, 2003 16:39

"Jenny is right to say that in the capitalist parties various politicians have given their seats to close relatives. The motivating force behind that is normally a desire to protect a personal fiefdom against rivals within their own party.

That obviously isn't the case here."

How is it not the case? Joes partner got the Council Seat.

"Joe doesn't get to decide who would take his old seat. Instead it's a decision of the local branch of the Socialist Party and the national organisation."

Do you not think that it looks bad that the partner of the sitting Councillor should get the seat?

"Ruth Coppinger is a long time Socialist Party activist and she is well known and respected in the area."

Are there not many other hardworking and respected SP members in the area?

"She will make an outstandingly good councillor and was chosen by the Socialist Party (not by Joe) on that basis. "

What methodology was used? Were members invited to apply? Were interviews held? Did you use a selection committee?

"Joe and Ruth's personal lives are their business and nobody elses."

I agree with you 100 %. But the Council seat is not part of vtheir personal life. It is very much a public issue. We deserve clear answers rather than evasions as to how the seat ended up going to the partner of Joe Higgins.

by IMC troll monitoring unit Thu Jul 10, 2003 16:41

Hardly surprising. A thread which is started by someone in the SP was always going to attract our Indymedia-damaging obsessives. I'd like to extent a warm welcome to a few more anonymous identities for our resident trolls.

by - Thu Jul 10, 2003 16:44

Yet again indymedia has shown itself to be completely lacking of any decent standard of discussion. An SY member put up an invite and the programme of the SY summer event and guess wha happens, abuse, lies, and crap. Will the Trolers every simply grow up, it is only ruining indymedia.

I know Ruth for quite a while and she is a well respected activist in her area and in her union. She was chosen on that basis not on any personal relationship she has or hasn't. She will make an excellent councillor and will in my opinion be successful in winning a seat next year.

As for the leadership of the CWI opposing the ISM and their degeneration I would suggest that if anybody is really interested in this question that they consult www.marxist.net where all the relevent documents from the CWI and the ISM are published.

by Curious Thu Jul 10, 2003 16:47

That questions about a Council Seat being passed on to the wife of a Councillor are trolling?

by - Thu Jul 10, 2003 16:49

Jenny, there are of course many good hard working SP activists in Mulhuddart. But not all of them are in the position to become a councillor. In any case Ruth has her own record and did not get selected because of any relationship she has. Do you think it would be right to automatically disqualify someone simply because they haev a relationship with the outgoing councillor?

As for the selection proceedure, it would have been decided through the democratically elected bodies of the party. Any member or branch etc would have been fre to nominate people to take the seat.

Again I repeat, Ruth has an excellent record in her area and in her union and will make an excellent councillor.

by - Thu Jul 10, 2003 16:51

There is alot of trolling about the SP , are you suggesting there is not?

To suggest that Ruth Coppinger has no record and is only getting a seat because of a relationship she has is rubbish.

by Terry Thu Jul 10, 2003 16:51

"I know Ruth for quite a while and she is a well respected activist in her area and in her union. She was chosen on that basis not on any personal relationship she has or hasn't. She will make an excellent councillor and will in my opinion be successful in winning a seat next year."

No one has suggested otherwise. What is at issue is the manner in which she was appointed as Joes successor. If it was a FF councillor, you would be the very people demanding an explanation.

Were other SP activists in the area invited to apply for the council post?

"As for the leadership of the CWI opposing the ISM and their degeneration I would suggest that if anybody is really interested in this question that they consult www.marxist.net where all the relevent documents from the CWI and the ISM are published. "

The SP is constantly on Indymedia demanding answers about this and that. But when you are asked a question you direct people to a Website.

by Jonno - SY Thu Jul 10, 2003 16:54

Jenny I think that you are under some misapprehension about the size of the Socialist Party.

Just how many members do you think we have in any given ward who are willing to make the huge sacrifices which being an SP councillor entails? Just how many members with the time and energy? How many with the political experience? How many with the necessary local profile?

The answer is not all that many. I wouldn't volunteer for it even if I had the experience and the profile and the energy and I lived in the area. Being a Socialist Party candidate or councillor means spending evening after evening after evening going to local meetings and building campaigns. It involves a workload which would make most experienced activists shudder and it involves absolutely no gain for the individual concerned. There isn't competition within the Socialist Party for that kind of role, you know.

Ruth Coppinger was chosen by her branch and the national party just as any SP candidate would be. She is the best person for the job and any personal relationship she has with Joe is their business rather than mine or yours.

by Jenny Thu Jul 10, 2003 16:57

Why dont the SP publish details of the exact procdeure that was used to fill Joes council seat?

You could provide a timescale of when Joe first announced he was standing down, whenmthis was communicated to local members. When a selection committee was set up, how it was constituted. How it went avbout establishing who was interested in the seat.

What shortlisting methods did it use. How many people were called for interview. What was the final vote. Was it unanimous.

If you did this then any suspicion of nepotism would be dispelled.

by - Thu Jul 10, 2003 16:57

Everybody in the SP knew about Joe having to give up his seat, it was discussed extensivly within the party. Ruth was selected because she has her own very good record, she would not have been selected if it was not the case.

It is very different to FF/FG/Labour/PD in the way they fill seats with family members as generally the candidates selected by these parties have no record whatsoever. This is not the case with Ruth.

The whole Scotland debate in on that site. If anybody is serious about knowing what the position of the CWI is I would suggest they have a read of the site. It is the best source for people to go to, the answers to any questions will be there.

by Terry Thu Jul 10, 2003 16:59

Your suggestion that there was no competition for the seat is worrying. I repeat, no one is suggesting that Ruth is anything other than a good activist.

But suspicions of favouritism will remain unless you follow Jennys idea of publishing details of the selection process.

by Gaucho Rivero Thu Jul 10, 2003 17:00

There is no doubt that the SP comes under far too much criticism compared to that heaped on other groups and worryingly more than the real enemy capitalism.

But that said there is a worry that the SP see all questions and critical analysis as trolling but what would you expect with an unhealthy internal regime that prizes bloodying its youth in ridiculous incantations of the latest mantra over its discardable experienced members.

by Badman Thu Jul 10, 2003 17:01

Guys, I'm no troll (well at worst a cuddly one), and I agree that the degeneration of every thread into a SP duel is damaging indymedia, the SP posters have succeeded in provoking me. The responses that the SP have written to the accusation of nepotism could have all been written by Fianna Fail. Every time ANY party engages in seat 'inheritance' they say "candidate was accepted on own merits... blah blah, great constituency worker,.... normal selection process...., relation to X had no relevance..." That is to say that your responses have been utterly devoid of content, they are taken from the standard book of political denials and are worthless. The only way to avoid accusations of nepotism is to avoid it altogether. Even if they are the best candidate for the job, find another. Surely the SP would have been capable of finding a suitable counciller who was in no way personally related to the sitting couciller? Surely, for a radical party, the desire to avoid the appearance of nepotism should have been a selection criterion - why wasn't it?

Also, is it true that Jenny does not even live in that council area, never mind constituency?

by Badman Thu Jul 10, 2003 17:03

Jenny should read Ruth.

Doh. I'm a gome-head.

by Janus Thu Jul 10, 2003 17:07

Selection, method of selection, convention et al is nobody's business outside the SP. If they chose Ruth because she was voted in by the members, if they chose her because Neptune was in the sky, or because she rolled the highest number in a dice game. They pick their person their way.

I think it's insulting and sexist to assume that because a woman is the partner of a politician she can only get a seat that way and not due to her own qualities.

I might have problems with the SP but the amount of SP baiting on this, and other threads, is ridiculous and I would suggest to SP comrades that they ignore it. It is so far beneath you the people posting it couldn't reach the soles of your shoes.

by Jonno Thu Jul 10, 2003 17:12

I should have know. I was answering Jenny's questions as if they were serious ones coming from somebody who was actually concerned. On reading further down the thread it appears that "Jenny" may be just another name for one of the resident trolls. You live and learn.

For the record, Ruth Coppinger was chosen in the same manner as any Socialist Party candidate is chosen - a combination of the local branch and the national organisation looking for somebody willing and able to take on the role.

As I explained above there isn't competition for these kind of roles within the Socialist Party. Few members are in a position to (or are willing to) put in the kind of back breaking work that being a Socialist Party candidate or councillor entails. Any member is encouraged to put their names forward but very few are willing to for understandable reasons.

The situation is very different in the capitalist parties, of course. There much can be gained from a stab at a council seat. All those brown envelopes must weigh heavily on the mind. Not to mention the possibilities for a stab at a Dail seat and the whole parliamentary gravy train. Again not much of an issue for the would be SP candidate, constrained as they are to live on the average wage of a skilled worker.

As I said above, I wouldn't do it. I have a great deal of admiration for anyone who is willing to.

by Hebe Thu Jul 10, 2003 17:12

"Selection, method of selection, convention et al is nobody's business outside the SP. If they chose Ruth because she was voted in by the members, if they chose her because Neptune was in the sky, or because she rolled the highest number in a dice game. They pick their person their way."

It is of public interest. The SP have a holier than thou attitude. It is only correct that they be asked to account for themselves.

"I think it's insulting and sexist to assume that because a woman is the partner of a politician she can only get a seat that way and not due to her own qualities."

Who suggested that? All thats been asked for is a clear statement on how she was selected. Is that too much to ask for from a Revolutionary Party? By issuing it they could cut the ground from under anyone who might imply nepotism.

by Jenny Thu Jul 10, 2003 17:17

" should have know. I was answering Jenny's questions as if they were serious ones coming from somebody who was actually concerned. On reading further down the thread it appears that "Jenny" may be just another name for one of the resident trolls. You live and learn."

I am not a troll I am asking questions which you are unable to answer. So you resort to the usual SP practice of abuse.

"For the record, Ruth Coppinger was chosen in the same manner as any Socialist Party candidate is chosen - a combination of the local branch and the national organisation looking for somebody willing and able to take on the role."

Why dont her own branch outline that procedure? Do you think you will brow beat us into submission by parroting generalities?

"As I explained above there isn't competition for these kind of roles within the Socialist Party. Few members are in a position to (or are willing to) put in the kind of back breaking work that being a Socialist Party candidate or councillor entails. Any member is encouraged to put their names forward but very few are willing to for understandable reasons."

Why are you repeating that spiel? It answers nothing.


If the SP have nothing to hide then they should answer questions honestly.

by - Thu Jul 10, 2003 17:26

They have been answered honestly. There was discussion in the party and Ruth was chosen because she is the best for the job. The same proceedure as chosing any other candidate were used.

She has her own record which is FACT unlike the so called records of the FF/LAb/FG/PD hacks.

I do wonder that if she was a man whether people would be so quick to assume that she got the seat on spurious grounds.

by Daithi Thu Jul 10, 2003 17:33

I have deleted selected comments from this article, on the basis that they were bits of personal abuse (in particular against poor Stephen Boyd, who I haven't met, but seems to be the target of the week), items from other articles etc. However it is unrealistic to expect any editorial action re: the comments on Ruth Coppinger, as the responses, whether you like them or not, are responding to the original article. If anyone considers this trolling or not trolling that's their choice, but don't expect anything to be done about it. Editors aren't in the business of interfering with debate unless it's absolutely necessary. And much as I detest the strawmen approach (and in particular, those legions of people all called "Curious"), there is a strong reason for allowing anonymity on the site, so posts won't be deleted on that basis either.

But take note: an article from the SP is not open season for generic attacks on that particular group. Comments are for the purpose of peer review: if you're just functioning like a robot, responding to the author's affiliation, the only result is damage to Indymedia.

Oh, and "My-Jag"? Been there, done that. It was fun. Relive the memories at http://www.indymedia.ie/newswire.php?search_text=MIJAG

by Seán Thu Jul 10, 2003 17:44

Sean Heffernan -SP said, "We are holding a weekend festival so people can openly come along, here what we have to say, and ask whatever questions they wish."
Which I praise them for.
He continues, "When has Labour Youth, or any other political youth organisations done that?"
Ógra Shinn Féin last year.
1-3 march 2002 in Galway.
It was called was called "Resistance Weekend"

"Lets face it the Ogra FF, Labour Youth and Young Fine Gael Gatheirngs are pre-determined gatherings, with little (if any) critiiscisms of the orgainisation allowed from the floor (Or if someone does critiscise, they get a very severe reprimand.)"
That's probably true, I don't know, what I do know is that there was plenty of open debate and criticism constructive and otherwise from the floor at the "Resistance Weekend" and noone was reprimanded.

Good luck with the weekend.

by Jenny Thu Jul 10, 2003 18:00

"They have been answered honestly. There was discussion in the party and Ruth was chosen because she is the best for the job. The same proceedure as chosing any other candidate were used. "

No, these are so much generalisations. Discussion without asking if others were interested? It leaves a sour taste.

"She has her own record which is FACT unlike the so called records of the FF/LAb/FG/PD hacks."

The exact same banalities are used whever FF/LAB/FG/PD pick the wife son or other relative of a sitting politician. People should be suspicious of the SP when they use the same jargon.

"I do wonder that if she was a man whether people would be so quick to assume that she got the seat on spurious grounds."

Yes, if the man was the partner of the sitting politician.

These evasions just make me think that the SP are no different from the other parties.

by Terry Thu Jul 10, 2003 18:14

He asked if it was true that Ruth didnt even live in the Council Ward or Constituency. Perhaps the SP would deal with this.

Were there no suitable members living in the Ward or the entire Constituency of Dublin West?

by Jonno - SY Thu Jul 10, 2003 18:35

In answer to the latest question: No it isn't true that Ruth Coppinger lives outside the constituency or the ward. She lives in Mulhuddart.

In answer to Jenny: No not "discussion without finding out if others were interested". As I have already said everyone in the Socialist Party is encouraged to consider putting their names forward for such roles. Unfortunately few are willing to do so, for perfectly understandable reasons. Ruth's selection was no different.

I really am left wondering what precisely you are criticising? Ruth was chosen as the councillor and candidate by her local branch and by the national organisation. Any member of the Socialist Party who put their name forward is considered in exactly the same way. She was chosen because she was the best person for the job. It's as simple as that.

by Anon Thu Jul 10, 2003 18:48

Re all the comments on how Socialist Party councillors are selected the answer is .......fuck off and mind your own business!
End of argument and discussion!

by Curious Thu Jul 10, 2003 18:55

The Revolutionary Party can do what it wants. Thanks for clarifying that.

The next time the SP demand answers they will be reminded of this.

by Anon Thu Jul 10, 2003 19:41

The internal workings of the Socialist Party and how its makes its decisions is the concern of the members of the Party and no one else. If you want to participate in the decision making process of the Socialist Party , then I would suggest that you join. Don't expect to have a say or have the right to information when you are not a member - that is democracy.

by Killian Thu Jul 10, 2003 19:52

Jonno you say above that the socialist party td(s) are get paid "average wage of a skilled worker".

But I always thought that the phrase was the "average industrial wage" which I think stands at 26,000 euro.

Is there a difference, in SPville, between "the average wage of a skilled worker" and the "average industrial wage"?

As for the Ruth Coppinger - exactly the same arguments used by a FF TD in Ballygobackwards have been used for the last 70 years to explain away nepotism.

I mean you have one TD and of all the possible people you could have picked to take his coucil seat you managed to pick his partner. All seems a little hypocritical.

by NO Thu Jul 10, 2003 20:02

NO

by willing to speak Thu Jul 10, 2003 21:02

if there is still space, i would like to talk at the anarchist thing, i am an anarchist and would like to actively engage in debate with the SP. who have you got lined up - and would there be space for myself to speak?

i'll email you privately if you give us the go ahead.

by Kev Thu Jul 10, 2003 21:14

{{{ "They have been answered honestly. There was discussion in the party and Ruth was chosen because she is the best for the job. The same proceedure as chosing any other candidate were used. "

No, these are so much generalisations. Discussion without asking if others were interested? }}}

So Jenny, you want a list of other people who either put themselves forward and were decided against, or other names that were approached but declined? Now personally, if (hypothetically) I put my name forward for the position, and was rejected on whatever grounds - I certainly would not want the indymedia hordes finding this out. I'd never hear the end of it. And I wouldn't want that visited on any other comrade either.

{{{ "She has her own record which is FACT unlike the so called records of the FF/LAb/FG/PD hacks."

The exact same banalities are used whever FF/LAB/FG/PD pick the wife son or other relative of a sitting politician. People should be suspicious of the SP when they use the same jargon. }}}

Well lets see, Ruth is the co-ordinator of the Fingal Anti Bin Tax Campaign, she is well known in the area for her work in this regard. She is also active in the ASTI. As far as I know, she does live in Dublin West - altho I'm not sure if she lives in Mullhuddard. Seeing as she is in a relationship with Joe, I think its fair to say that she at least spends a lot of time in the area tho. Now I think the fact that she is the co-ordinator of the FABTC is enough in itself to suggest that she take over Joe's seat in the FINGAL county council. Add to this her consistent work for the party in the area in non-bin tax things, and her own fiery take no-shit personality and I think we have a winner.

Now I don't know every single member in the DW branch, but I can assure you that this was discussed on both a branch level and national level, and Ruth was chosen. You can believe this or not, personally I don't give a fuck. All I'll say is that i find suggestions that the SP engaged in nepotism (and not on the basis of track record and ability) to select a county council member who will be up for re-election NEXT YEAR highly laughable, not to mention potentially politically suicidal!

But rest assured that if any other member had been chosen as the replacement, then we'd be having this same 'debate' anyway - well a similar mud slinging match anyway. The angles would be different but the vitriol the same. Something along the lines of "SP reject well known anti-bin tax activist in favour of rising star" or "Old hack elevates his/herself to council position". Unfortunatley it seems some people's agendas are simply to slag us off at any given oppurtunity (and I thought that was the Sparts job?). God, imagine if Stephen B was selected for the seat, Indymedia would be hopping for months!

And by the way, just to reiterate what has already been said, some people seem to think that being an SPer in a council seat (or dail seat for that matter) is some kind of glamorous cushy number. The fact is that its a tiring, often thankless task, and it never ends. I would like to wish Ruth all the best for the next year.

On the MIJAG thing, well all I can say is my brother has been working in a garage and driving cars there since he was 15 (hes 19 now) and is a fantastic driver. Yet for him to get insured will cost in the region of 5 grand. (He has a an old Corolla that a friend of mine donated to him). Certain people on here seem to think that anyone under the age of 30 who wants a car is a 'boy-racer'. And that 'boy-racerism' is the reason for the huge insurance cost. Bullshit, the reason for high insurance is nothing to do with safety, its to do with profits. Beleive it or not, some people do actually *need* cars to get around. This does not mean that we should not try and do things about the awful state of public transport too.

And finally someone asks - "Whatever happened to Dermot Connolly? Why was he puged from his job as General Secretary?"

Now whoever wrote this knows they are talking shite, and I assume you mean 'purged' not 'puged'. This has been discussed before on indymedia, but just to re-cap, Dermot stepped down as Gen Sec due to health reasons. What were they? If you think I'm gonna reveal information about the private life of a comrade, then you can fuck off. But Dermot is still active in his local bin-tax group and the socialist party.

And may I suggest that all these anonymous 'curious' people come along to the festival and ask their questions there? It is open to anyone you know, and outside of the discussions it should be 'Proper Bo!". Someone asked where exactly it is taking place, I'm not 100% sure myself, but I think its somewhere on the Cavan/Monaghan border - in a place called Tanagh Outdoor Adventure Centre. BAsically a hostel/campsite with 'lesuire pursuits' - if you call getting soaked in a canoe 'lesuirely', I know I certainly don't.

And Damien Dempsey's album is cool, its good to know every so often someone who sings about things such as herion abuse can make the breakthru in this world of waterman/walsh clone crap.

by A member of the SP Thu Jul 10, 2003 22:17

I rarely visit indymedia because of all the carry-on that exists here, but I was told about this posting this evening and decided to have a look. I knew what would happen but there you go.

Anyway, to the relevant points.

1) Self-determination for Wales. The CWI supports the right of the people of Wales to self-determination. When and if the members of the SP in Wales decide it is necessary to set up a seperate organisation then that is what will happen. If the CWI was as pro-British as is made out here, then wouldn't we have two seperate organisations in Ireland?

2) The selection of Ruth Coppinger as councillor has been dealt with. The SP is opposed to the co-option of councillors to fill vacancies. We support the holding of council by-elections (as in Britain and elsewhere)[cue more claims of us being pro-British]. FF, for example, have given the outgoing TD was given the right to personally nominate their successor.

3)The SSP. To the best of my knowledge the CWI world congress did not pass a motion condemning the establishment of the SSP. I believe that a motion was passed opposing the establishment of the SSP on the basis proposed by the ISM. I am sure those making the accusation will be able to provide documentary proof of their alligations

4)Finally, with regards people disagreeing with the "party line". I have known personally or at least met on a couple of occasions John Throne, Denis(not Brian) Tourish, Finn Geaney, John Reinman. Many people have joined the SP over the past 30 years, many have left, some on good terms and some on not so good terms. We are a revolutionary organisation and at times people will come into conflict (political) with one another. John, Denis and Finn all played an important role in the early years (in John Throne's case over 20 years) of the CWI. The SP does not force people to stay against their will. Unfortunately, in the case of John Throne and John Reinman, they were expelled from the US organisation. John Throne claims he was denied his right of appeal and that people in Ireland were unaware of the situation. That is his opinion, however, I read a mountain of documents from both sides of the arguement. The SP made all the documents available. John Throne had no right to attend the Irish National committee or Irish conference. He was not a member of the SP and hadn't been since the mid-1980's. The expulsion of John Throne, John Reimnman and a small number of others in the USA was unfortunate and regretable, but these things do happen. It is however part of the history of the SP. No matter how much people attempt to bait the SP you are unlikely to find anyone in the SP to comment as extensively as I have here. I am sure John Throne is in possession of ALL the documentation on this issue. If anyone has a spare (probably)6 months, ask him for copies. I have personally known Dermot Connolly for many years and he is a comrade and friend that I have the utmost respect for. He has played an enormous role in the development of the SP and the CWI. He has not been purged, expelled, side-lined or anything else by the leadership of the SP.

There have been times that I have disagreed with the leadership of the SP. Among other things, I disagreed with the leadership over the change of the name Militant and over what we would call ourselves after. I make my arguements, sometimes I have won, sometimes I have lost, but I accept the democratic decision that was made and I get on with it. That is what being in a revolutionary organisation is all about. If I felt strongly enough about a particular issue, and others felt the same, I would form a faction with them (as is our right). But I am a member of a political party that wants to change society and, unfortunately, there is not place for sentimentality or spending the rest of eternity going on and on about an issue. No matter how much we would explain the democratic working of the SP and CWI, certain people on here would not be happy. Why, because their motives are not honest!

If you have taken the time to read these comments, thank you, and I hope it has helped clarify some issues. To those interested in engaging in infantile behaviour, off you go.

by Brian Cahill Thu Jul 10, 2003 23:41

Hi "Would like to speak". As I understand it we invited the Workers Solidarity Movement to send a speaker and they have agreed to send one. I'm not sure who it is yet but I'm sure that the WSM or Socialist Youth could tell you.

As one of the comments above (before all the bizarre stuff about Ruth Coppinger) said, it is good to have these kind of debates sometimes. It certainly beats having a "discussion" on a topic like this where the organisation behind the event only allows its own view to be heard - something which you see all too often.

by Seainín Fri Jul 11, 2003 00:33

Surely you jest?

by john throne - labors militant voice Fri Jul 11, 2003 02:07 loughfinn at aol dot com

This commentator A from the SP tries to sound very reasonable. It was just that we were expelled by the US section and sorry that is the way life goes. And we did not have any right to appeal to the Irish section as I was not a member since the 1980's. We were not given our right to appeal to the US section's conference either. According to our SP commentator's logic we had this right, but we were not given this right. But of course he/she has nothing to say on this.

But what he/she has to say on me not being a member of the SP and therefore having no right to appeal to the SP is very interesting. By the way this was not given as a reason by the Irish CC and conference whwn I was denied this right. But our commentator blunders on regardless. I was not a member of the SP and had no right to appeal to the SP is the claim. Any member of the SP is a member of the CWI. I was a member of the CWI and the US section AND the CWI leading bodies of which the Irish section is a part, as well as the US section expelled me. According to this commentator the CWI is not one organization but separate organizations with separate membership.

And if our expulsion was not an issue that involved the leading bodies of the SP, what were the leading members of the Irish SP doing with their secret meetings and trips to the US to help slander and lie about us and help expel us. Please do not embarass yourself and the SP further with your smug ignorant lies. The SP and the CWI will not lie their way out of the false and undemocratic methods and the injustice that they carried out against long standing members such as the US minority faction which they expelled and whose rights they denied. I got less rights than was given by the social democracy to the Militant when it was being expelled.

You refer to me as John. I would like to hear who you are so we could discuss more concretely about the issues and the role we all played. Why not use your name?

In relation to Brian Cahill and his very reasonable comments on debate etc at the SY summer camp. I would be very keen to attend and debate at the SY camp. I would suggest the topic should be "The kind of internal life revolutionary organizations must have if they are to become mass organizations of the working class". It would be hard to say that this is not an important topic and even harder to say that this debate would not attract a certain interest. Such a debate might even begin to change the SP and the CWI to where they would be able to become a mass organization with factions, sustained internal struggle etc.

John Throne.











    

by Killian Forde Fri Jul 11, 2003 02:37

Kev you seem to think Damien Dempsey album is "cool" - does that include the last listed track entitled "marching season siege" (track 10).

"Marching down my street, right past my own church. Beat your drums of hate until your hands burst" - Marching Season Siege, Sieze the Day CD, Damien Dempsey.

Now obviously not exactly an endorsment of SP bizarre attitude to Orange Order marches, or is it that DD is only "cool" when writing about "things such as herion abuse".

by Puzzled Fri Jul 11, 2003 11:09

Well what do you say about John Thrones comments?

by Saddened Fri Jul 11, 2003 11:16

How mistaken I was. The same lame old excuses, we have heard them hundreds of times from the old parties when they pass on a position to a partner or a relative. It is beyond belief that there was no other member of the SP in Dublin West who was willing and able to do the job.

by Glendower Fri Jul 11, 2003 11:29

Tony Blair and the Capitalist Labour Government allowed the Welsh people to have an Assembley and Self Government.

Peter Taafe and "Trotskyist" CWI wont even allow the Welsh people to have their own CWI section.

Rule Britannia!

by banAL Fri Jul 11, 2003 12:04

...is that a space for the bantar above is created. OK, there are a few idiots who come in to throw a few cats among the pigeons but they're easily ignored. But what we get is a display of opinions, mostly opposing, that can not be achieved elsewhere. Each individual group may talk of such issues but its generally speaking to the converted, so somewhere like this gives the space for dialogue. And its up to us to use it. FF/FG/Labour do not use it as they know they will be unable to deal with what is said, but SP/SF/WSM are always willing to argue their position again and again and do make the effort to keep in touch. Fair play.
PS. Vote Bertie back in in the next elections. We really need FF to bring this country together

by Magneto Fri Jul 11, 2003 12:08

We publish on Indymedia. Tis oft I have to defend the party (notice small p) against lies. I often differ with and criticise Labour as well.

by SP member Fri Jul 11, 2003 12:32

JT was expelled by the US section (not the Irish section) at their conference (ie the highest body) made that decision. It's only logical that you cant appeal to the same body again!

We should remember over 90% of the membership at the US conferance voted JT out of the leadership. Not exectly an act of a leadership dominated organisation with no internal democracy!

John, I dont see why you are having a go at the CWI on one hand and then say stuff about left unity on the other. Why are you coming on this thrashy website and teaming up with Labour party types in attacking the CWI. You are certainly loosing a lot of respect.

by Durutti Fri Jul 11, 2003 12:32

You have just saved Damien Dempseys career.You might not know it but there is a Cabal of Anarchist DJs who can make and break the likes of Dempsey.

I pity him though, just think of how he will be savaged as a sectarian at the SY camp.

by Socialist Fri Jul 11, 2003 12:35

John Throne, a member of the CWI, was not allowed his right of appeal to the US section conference. Surely as a member of the CWI you should be concerned about this. Instead you are defending Stalinist style tactics.

by But Fri Jul 11, 2003 12:38

Says he had such a right (JT has said this on numerous occasions, no one has disagreed). Why wasnt he allowed the right to appeal. Why wasnt John throne allowed to appeal the expilsion to the CWI World Conference?

by Defender of discussion Fri Jul 11, 2003 13:08

The SP often criticises Throne and others for voicing their opinions on this site, on the basis that it is contaminated by input from idiots. I do agree with them that some crap is spouted by various people who engage in abuse rather than argument. However, my problem with their criticism of Throne is that they seem to object to whatever method anyone uses to raise their views of the CWI.

In addition, as well as the idiots, there are very many people from many political groups (and none) who look in here, and who have an interest in how left organisations conduct themselves, what they say etc. Such people have few other means to know what Throne thinks, and what the CWI's response is to his criticisms. I am not a CWI member, but I am an active trade unionist who encounters it in many forums and who has an ongoing relationship with its members in struggle. I am very interested indeed in how left organisations conduct themselves, what sort of party needs to be built, and whether the CWI is an appropraite vehicle for struggle. Why should I be excluded from discussion of these issues? This site gives me and others some insight into what is going on, beneath the dross. I am not impressed by SP members denouncing the posting of legitimate opinion on this site and elsewhere. Too many leftist organisations spend their time speaking only to themselves, and I rather fear the SP often does the same.

by Pat C Fri Jul 11, 2003 14:39

An appeal by John Throne to the CWI US Sections Conference would mean that John Throne would be present. The Conference which expelled him did so in his abscence. Such an appeal would mean that John Throne would have the right to circulate materiel to all members of the US Section prior to their pre-conference discussions.

Such an appeal would mean that John Throne would be present at the conference to present his case and to answer the charges made against him.

Would SP Member not agree that John Throne should be entitled such an appeal process?

by A new departure required Fri Jul 11, 2003 14:41

There is regularly much debate here about the SP and CWI (marred, sometimes, by abuse). But the abuse should not be allowed to obscure the fact that there are important and reasoned criticisms being made of its internal regime.

I want to add that similiar critiques can and have been made of many groups operating within a Leninist or Trotskyist tradition. The accusations of bureaucratic centralism, the leadership dominating the members, no real internal democracy, a suspicion of dissent etc mar the regimes of the entire far left. It is the same story, time after time after time. Can it be that a dead end has been reached, that there is something inherently flawed about this method of organising (that it has been irredemably contaminated by stalinism), and something better is required?

To support this, can is post two links. One is for a marvellous insight into the SWP, from Jiggins (More years for the locust), at

http://www.marxists.org/history/etol/critiques/locust/index.htm

The other is an analysis of the CWI as a cultic organisation, at

http://www.rickross.com/reference/general/general434.html

by Jaus Fri Jul 11, 2003 15:16

Just a point on Ruth Coppinger, those people who are opposed to her being a councillor, could they explain why? The ONLY reason i have heard advanced is that she is in a relationship with Joe Higgins. By this logic, no matter how good a candidate is, whether he or she should be selected is based on what their partner does for a living. Every objection to her is based on her relationship with some-one else. There does not seem to be any discussion of the woman's own merits, except where advanced by SP members and not refuted.

Perhaps some comrades still believe a woman should only be judged in relation to her male partner?

On the John Throne issue, I have never met the man, and I don't have the patience or the desire to read through mountains of documents dealing with his expulsion (I did read his open letter to the SP which was worth a laugh), but I can't help but wonder why some-one is so obsessed with the process by which he was expelled from a Movement almost, by my understanding, ten years ago.

Looking through his webpage I find a large amount dealing with the CWI. Is he the stereotypical Leftie nut, nursing old wounds and bitter hatreds, fighting a feud with an organisation that has probably forgotten they kicked him out and certainly couldn't be arsed dealing with him; rather that building an alternative?

Now maybe I'm reading it wrong, I'm sure his supporters will say I am. I have a certain respect for the SP as genuine political activists, but little love for the party and I am also aware of their laughable claims to internal dissent and democracy. But despite this, despite being pre-disposed towards people indulging in the bit of sectarian hatred, the sheer, incredible, mind-numbing tediousness of John Throne's campaign has brought me to their side of the point.

If this keeps up, John Throne might drive me to actually vote for the SP for the first time because frankly, if he talks in meetings as much as he writes, and in the same laboursome manner, my sympathy for the comrades in the SP is unbounded. Ye have truly known what it means to e oppressed.

by Janus Fri Jul 11, 2003 15:18

'Jaus' is me. I, for that matter, am also him.

by SP member Fri Jul 11, 2003 15:33

Janus said: "I have a certain respect for the SP as genuine political activists, but little love for the party ....."

I dont see how people can make a distiction between SP members (Joe Higgins, Clare Daly etc)and 'the Party'. There is no party without members- those that say they have respect for the members are by default saying they have respect for the Party.

What you should be saying is that you have no respect for undemocractic parties- something every member of the Socialist Party would fully agree with .

by Pat C Fri Jul 11, 2003 15:40

His Open Letter was long, but then it was meant for a politicised audience, Left political activists. In particular it was directed at the delegates to last years Socialist Party conference. Only a very small part of the letter was about his own problems with the CWI. The rest was a review and perspectives.

It is worth noting that John Throne was not the person who posted the Open Letter on Indymedia. Someone (with an agenda?)else did so.

I would have political disagreements with John Throne but there is nothing nutty about his politics. I dont think such comments in any way add to the debate here. John has stated that he is not going to go away. I dont think such shallow abuse is likely to see him off.

How the SP/CWI act when they are not in power is important. If a group runs roughshod over all democratic norms when they are but a small organistion, then what would they do if they ever held State Power?

by Pat C Fri Jul 11, 2003 15:47

Ruth Coppinger and Dermot Connolly as well. They won that respect by their activism over the years and proved themselves as committed socialists.

There are many members of the SP I have contempt for. Respect is something you earn, it doesnt come because you put SP after your name.

I might take this opportunity to point out that I was winding up some of the sillier SP members by suggesting that I would run black ops against the SP election campaigns next year.

If I was going to vote and Ruth, Clare or Mick Murphy were in my Ward, I would vote for them despite some (!) disagreements.

by left observer Fri Jul 11, 2003 15:48

I think Pat c makes a very valuable point about John Throne's postings. They have been a very reasoned contribution to debate. Frankly, what impresses me is how calm he is dealing with CWI, considering what has happened. I would blow my top, to little effect. But I think part of his point is precisely that the internal regime of the CWI matters to all leftist organisations. Either it is the model of the way to proceed, in which case it matters, or it is not the way ahead, in which case it still matters, maybe more so. The SP sometimes seem to think that only their only members are entiled to an opinion, and only then if it accords with the CC.

And I agree completely with Pat's point that how such organisations behave when small is a pointer to how they would be in power - I seem to recall Trotsky among others seeking some clues as to stalin's behaviour after 1924 in his earlier behaviours! Janus sounds to me like an SP member thinly disguised, and as such (yet again) it can be seen he does not address any of the rational criticisms, calmly made, of the SP. Instead, he engages in abuse - Throne is a nut etc. It makes me think what it must be like to raise a sustained oppositional viewpoint in the SP - not to the odd disagreement on secondary issues, but something fundamental, that might even involve (horror of horrors) a faction. Imagine the abuse, denigration, name calling and amateur psychoanalysis that would result. Comrades of the SP, it is all a bit shambolic.

Do you really think that this type of approach can appeal to the working class en masse? I hope not.

by Janus Fri Jul 11, 2003 15:49

SP member: I mean I disagree with some of the policies of the SP, in particular the absolute farce that is its Northern policy, that I do not believe the SP has a culture of internal dissent or debate etc. As political activists, I have a great deal of respect for individual SP people who get involved in real campaigns, with real people, on real issues, people who do constituency work and build a base. In other words, one can admire a party's activists, while disagreeing with the party.

Pat C: I kow his letter was long, very long for that matter, and I found it interesting and the infighting with the SP 'good for a laugh'

I didn't know it wasn't posted by John, or I did know and forgot, correction noted.

I'm not saying his politics are nutty, they seem pretty good, I'm saying his obsession with the manner or method in which he was thrown out of a political organisation ten years ago is nutty. Move one, get over it, build a credible alternative.

On the last point, the chances of the SP/CWI ever coming within an ass's roar of control of the smallest, most insignificant local council in Ireland, let alone state power are so low as to be ridiculous. It's like debating what will happen when Dana takes power in Ireland with the obvious distinction that she gets more votes. Let's just say I don't see the issue of how the SP runs itself will ever be something for people outside the SP, or the group of people on Indymedia who have a fetish about the organisation, to worry about.

by left observer Fri Jul 11, 2003 15:53

My apologies for thinking you were an SP member - I was obviously in error.

I agree with you that the SP has no chance of being in power - thank goodness. I am however no tquite so convinced that its internal regime does not matter. These problems have occurred in so many leftist organisations (they all have a long line of John Thrones buried under the floorboards). That is why I have some interest in this. So much party buildin geffort has just led to the creation of small sects that some critical reflection on the whole thing is in order.

by Janus Fri Jul 11, 2003 15:59

For the love of Peter Hadden, I sound like a thinnly described SP member? Where? The bit where I say I have little love for the party or the bit where I state its claims to a culture of internal debate and democracy are laughable. I have repeatedly criticised the party when it seemed sensible to do so on Indymedia and congratulated it when it seemed the right thing to do. I am not, nor have I ever been a member. Nor have I ever voted for them, though they got a number 2 in the last.

But your assumption is that I since I show at least some sympathy with the SP I must be a member because only SP members haven't joined this fine little gangbang of the party y'all hae got going here.

On John Throne's postings, reasonable? Yes. Calm? Undoubtedly. Absolutly pointless vendetta being carried on by some-one with a bizarre fetish for trying to convince an organisation he was kicked out of almost ten years ago that they were wrong to do so or broke party regs in doing so? Very much so.

I don't answer some of John's points because a) as I said I haven't read a great deal about it and b) I have read enough to know that I don't particularly care and NEITHER should he care about an organisation that kicked him out under what do seem dubious circumstances. Fuckit, if we hauled every party over the coals about that everyone on the left from Labour down to the Sparts would have a few skeletons in the closet.

And the SP being in power? That's what this is about. You're worried if we don't stimulate internal SP democracy now then when they take power they will set in train a Stalinist dictatorship? Frankly, I'm more worried about Jesus visiting me tonight and punishing me for all my sins. It's a lot more likely, and a lot more worrying.

by Janus Fri Jul 11, 2003 16:00

We also seem to agree on the floorboards thing. Sorry if my response is heated but being accused of SP membership is hardly a compliment ;)

Away home for the weeken.d

by Jonno Fri Jul 11, 2003 17:49

What do I say about John Throne's comments?

I say that it is sad and quite depressing that someone who played such an important and useful role in times past should be reduced to spending most of his time whining about being kicked out of an organisation years ago. At the same time, I find it quite amusing to see people who despise the Socialist Party suddenly become so obsessed with the details of the internal organisation of our sister party in America in the mind-1990s. A little bit surreal, don't you think?

On Damien Dempsey's album:

I haven't heard it or anything by him with the exception of "Dublin Town". The song quoted by Killian contains some things I wouldn't agree with, but there is nothing in the general sentiments of the lines quoted which conflicts with the general analysis the Socialist Party puts forward of the Orange Order. We think that it is a bigoted reactionary organisation.

That said, so what if Damien Dempsey does disagree with us about some issues? Lots of people we disagree with about some issues are speaking at the Festival, from an anarchist to Patricia McKenna. So someone who might have more "republican" sentiments than ours is speaking. That's a criticism how exactly?

In fact it rather contradicts the claim put forward by some anonymous defender of the level of debate on indymedia above that we are only interested in talking to ourselves. On the contrary, the Socialist Party is always looking for an opportunity to talk to ordinary people. We just don't make responding to anonymous attacks and wierd obsessives on Indymedia much of a priority. And that's a sign that we have our priorities straight.

by Anon Fri Jul 11, 2003 18:07

Some people on this thread like Pat C have posted comments and statements on the internal workings of the CWI. These comments are inaccurate, as are the descriptions of how democratic centralism within the CWI works.
The Socialist Party will not be engaging in a debate with John Throne or anyone else who is not a member of our international on these matters, i.e. John Throne and his exit from the CWI.
This is for two main reasons. 1) This is ancient history and has no relevance whatsoever for the CWI. 2) It is an internal matter and not open for public debate.
The internal workings of the CWI and any of its affliated sections will not be debated in public.

by Gaucho Rivero Fri Jul 11, 2003 18:19

Honesty and clarity at last!!!

So the SP-Ireland (CWI) is a sect.

by left observer Fri Jul 11, 2003 19:21

A couple of these last SP postings defy parody. Let us be clear. This is an organisation which says it wishes to lead the working class. It wants millions of workers to join its ranks and accept its leadership. Yet it also has the gall to think that nobody is entitled to be concerned about how it treats its own members, and actually imagines that its internal workings are its own concern. This would be fine - if it had no ambition to lead millions. But its aspirations make its internal workings public property. Just as any other political party finds its internal mechanisms up for public discussion and scrutiny. Or have i missed something?

Imagine for one moment a right wing trade union leadership accused of firing its own full time staff, slandering them and being unethical. What would the CWI say if that same leadership basically told everybvody to fuck off? If it said the concerns raised were ancient history, and the organisation's own internal affair?

This type of doublethink is very depressing. There are good people in the SP, as well as nutcases - as is true of every organisation. Can those with some genuine sense of justice not find this a wee bit appalling? How can you rage against capitalism and its injustices, and yet accept this type of nonsense from your own leaders?

This is the approach of a sect, nothing more and nothing less. It is rotten, it is disreputable, it is quite disgusting - and it is one major reason why, on this basis, no major growth for the CWI is possible.

Unless it suddenly changes....

by Kev Fri Jul 11, 2003 20:54

but the more I thought about it, the more bizarre his criticism of me became. Attacking the SP through my own personal taste in music. Strange indeed.

So...

Let's just have a quick look at some of the artists I have queued up in my mp3 player at the moment - Dylan, Springsteen, Bob Marley, Pulp, Marvin Gaye, Wu-Tang, Christy Moore, Nina Simone, Manics, Elvis Costello, Luke Kelly, Public Enemy and Billie Holiday.

Now do you think I that I agree with every single line of every single song by every single one of these artists? Wouldn't that be rather odd? For example, Marvin Gaye and Bob Marley often look to God/Jah to solve the problems of the world. To me anyway, that superstitious analysis doesn't take away from the greatness of albums such as What's Goin' On? or Rastaman Vibration. Believe it or not, I like a bit of gospel music, but i certainly don't believe in God/Jah/Allah or any other diety. And I know one comrade who is heavily into Deicide and Danzig - does that make him a Satanist??? A marxist satanist?, hmm i think not.

Killian, so are you telling me that every single song in your entire music collection (if you have one) is a song that you agree with 100%? If so then your collection must be quite bizarre. What do you do with songs you don't like on CDs, scratch them?

And this is not to say that i necessarily disagree with the sentiments on that particular Damien Dempsey song. The OO is indeed a reactionary bigotted organisation. Just because someone has rights doesn't mean they *have* to employ them. I have the right to play ear bleedingly loud music from 8am to 10pm, but I don't do it. I have the right to not give up my seat to an elderly person on the bus, but I always do. However, my own views on Drumcree/OO/Worker's unity are posted on another thread (strangely enough a thread actually dealing with the OO, and not a totally unrelated one) and I'm not wasting my time goin thru them again.

I do find it interesting tho', that whenever an sper puts forward their own views, they are slated by others (non sp) as not being 'party line' - and whenever someone posts the party position, they are accussed of 'repeating the same tired old line' or something similar. I've said it before, some people's agendas on indymedia are simply to attack the SP no matter what is said by any member.

But I suppose that the chances of that ceasing are something similar to the chances of Great God coming from the sky, take away everything and make everbody feel high.

(Mind you maybe Killian is just pissed with me because on another thread I said I had only heard of him via indymedia?)

Sieze the Day!

by A member of the SP Fri Jul 11, 2003 21:28

I promised myself I wouldn't do this, but John Throne's reply to my comments prodded me into action.

I will not give my name here, as to do so invites abuse from other quarters. The next time I meet you at an SP or CWI event (as I undoubtedly will) I will make myself known. I do not know you well but have spoken to you on quite a number of occasions over the past 20 years. Unfortunately, the past few occasions I have spoken briefly to you (the last time being at the last SP conference) you seemed to want to discuss nothing else with me except your treatment by the CWI. As I said previously I am not interested in discussing these matters at length as I had enough of it during the mid-1990's. I addressed you as John because I was being cordial to a fellow socialist. I reserve formal language for enemies of the working class. However, if you wish I will address you as Mr. Throne.

I do however take exception to your comment that I "tried to sound reasonable". I was being reasonable. You have complained in the past the the leadership of the CWI and the SP are trying to airbrush you from history (a suggestion that I do not agree with and am not aware of any evidence for). I would suggest that I did nothing except acknowledge the role you (with others, still in the CWI, it has to be said) played in the building of the CWI and the Militant.

Of course the suggestion you imply is that I was being reasonable in order to then be more credible in telling "smug ignorant lies" (not the language of someone also trying to be reasonable).
I have absolutely no intention of going into the entire entrails of the expulsion of six members of the US section of the CWI a number of years ago.

You claim "The SP and the CWI will not lie their way out of the false and undemocratic methods and the injustice that they carried out against long standing members such as the US minority faction which they expelled and whose rights they denied."

The reality is that part of the reason for your expulsion (and YOU know this) was your refusal to accept decisions democratically arrived at by the majority of the US section and attempts by you and others to circumvent those decisions. You claim that " leading members of the Irish SP" held "secret meetings and trips to the US to help slander and lie about us and help expel us". I have no doubt that meetings were held by people in the US majority faction, as I have no doubt the you and the other members of the minority faction also held secret meeting. It does not do you justice to try and make out that you were a saint in all of this. I read almost all of the documentation (I am sure I missed some bits of it, there was so much), I listened to your arguments, I listened to people in Ireland that supported you, and I had to agree with the decision to expel you and the others from the CWI. It saddened me that this was the case, but as I said before, we are supposed to be revolutionaries and there is no place for sentimentality in revolutionary politics. I was also opposed to the idea of you attending the SP conference. This issue is history, it is over, I hope the CWI has learned from it (I believe it has) and we have moved on. I think you should do the same. To emphasise my point I will refer to your comments to Brian Cahill. You suggested a debate at the SY camp. You suggested the topic should be "The kind of internal life revolutionary organizations must have if they are to become mass organizations of the working class". Why not building the left, why not the world economy etc. I think the topic you picked speaks volumes about your attitude towards politics at this time.

I have disagreed with the leadership of the SP in the past (on occasion in a minority of one), I have never had anything other than a fair crack of the whip. I have also accepted the democratic decisions of the SP and CWI whether I agreed with them or not.

To finish, I wish you the best, I am disappointed to see that you still persist in your persuit of righting the perceived injustice that was done to you (you had a role in it yourself). Move on John, life is too short.

To those who spend their time attacking the SP on indymedia, be "virtual" critics, we have more important things to be doing.

by Killian Forde Fri Jul 11, 2003 23:31

Kev, of course i wasn't questioning your taste in music!! Although after you listed what you listening to i would have to ask; Is that manics lines up pre or post the holy bible. if it is post then i would have to question your taste!;)

I suppose it was a bit of a quip, and part informative - i don't know if you knew about this song. the point is that unlike Damo the rest of your music collection; jarvis cocker, james dean bradfield, dylan, etc aren't speaking at a Socialist youth fest. I suppose though, my post is inspired partly out of frustration with the SP and their policies on six counties/northern ireland (6co/mi).

Like a lot of SFers i find huge myself in huge agreement with SP on a wide range of issues and indeed much of our respective party polices could have been written by each other. But, in my view, SP policies and statements on 6co/ni defy all logic. And when i have attempted both on indymedia or in person i feel that the response to serious questions we pose is dogmatic, purely academic, not reflective of the political situation that we find ourselves in and coupled with a sort of arrogant houlier/purer than thou attitude makes the sort of potential coopertion on cross issues such as bintax and antiwar all the more likely to be doomed to failure.

It just seems bizarre some of the positions taken - in fact sometimes I am not sure if the stuff i have heard/read is just a piss take at the SP. E.g. the pat finucane busary and british army stand in queens.

thats it kev in the spirit of dialogue an explanation of an average, common republican view on SPness. Perhaps at the festival the delgates could question Damo about his republianism and vice versa.

(i missed the thread about only hearing of me through indymedia. I am baffled how to retrive stuff without trawling backwards through the newswire. On another technical note, I always seem to have tons of spelling mistakes - is there a function on this page i am missing or is careful typing and editing required?)

by john throne - labors militant voice Sat Jul 12, 2003 05:57 loughfinn at aol dot com

To respond to A and others. I have no vendetta against the CWI. I am motivated by what I consider are the needs of the working class and how in my opinion the revolutionary left have failed to get any mass base in the working class for the past decades. My open letter was mainly trying to deal with these points. What is the responsibility of the various left groups and activists in Ireland at this time in this regard. I suggested that the top priority for the working class was in halting and throwing back the capitalist offensive which is moving forward internationally. I suggested that the SP instead of its go it alone policy should try to move to build a united, direct action, fight to win movement and a united left political front. The idea would be to try and draw the activists and fighters together in order to better mobilize the working class against the capitalist offensive while of course building its own oganization as part of this. This was the main content of my open letter. I consider this a reasonable issue to try and discuss.

Also in the open letter was the issue of the internal life of revolutionary organizations. I have been forced to look at this very seriously because when I went into opposition and resigned from the IS of the CWI and began to fight for a different position I was slandered and lied about and denied my rights. Since that time I have tried to clarify why all the revolutionary organizations are basically like this and have tried to look at the life of organizations such as the Bolsheviks, Connolly's ISRP etc and in doing so saw how different these were from the present model. I have concluded that the revolutionary left including the Trotskyist left have been influenced by stalinism and by the distortions that developed in the Bolsheviks/Russian Communist Party in the years after the revolution and during the civil war. While maintaining my revolutionary position I have since tried to air these ideas, to fight for these ideas, as I think they are important. Specific to the SP I believe that the SP and the CWI cannot become a mass organization, in fact no revolutionary organization, can become a mass organization unless its internal life is entirely and genuinely open to factions and alternative ideas being fought for over a sustained period by organized groups. I believe that those who refuse to take this issue up are damaging the struggle of the working class.

This is not only a problem for the SP. I read yesterday on the web site of the group that split from the CWI in 1990/91 around Ted Grant and Alan Woods. The Workers International League I think it is called. The other day was Ted Grants 90th birthday and they had an artcle on this Comrades life. I have respect for this man who held onto his ideas for such a period and won many people to socialism. But one of the reasons for the split was that Ted did not accept, even when it was a fact happening in front of his eyes, that capitalism was being reintroduced to the stalinist world. He could not accept that he had been so wrong. Ted and the entire CWI including of course myself had been so wrong on this, the most important change in world relations since the Russian revolution and we were completely wrong. We had been arguing that this would not happen because capitalism was in too big a crisis etc., and would not appear as an alternative. We underestimated the boom of the 1980's, the boom of the 1990's in the capitalist world, the effect of new technology and also the crisis of stalinism.

But look at what this organization said in its tribute to Ted on its website where you can all read it. It said: "We should point out that Ted Grant actually predicted the collapse of the Stalinist regime in Russia as early as 1972, and explained why it was inevitable." I mean this is just a a blatant untruth meant to deceive and cover up. All of us "predicted" the collapse of the Stalinist regime but we did so on the basis that the working class would overthrow it and take the power and establish a democratic workers society not that capitalism would be restored. But what flows from this refusal to openly and genuinely acknowledge our mistakes, and this is the approach of the CWI just as it is of the Ted G group, is that the internal life cannot be open and democratic otherwise this will be challenged. Workers are not stupid. They will challenge such cover ups, such an incorrect method. The CWI and the Ted Grant group have the same approach in this respect, that is they will not acknowledge that the leadership make mistakes and at times some very serious ones. This means that the leadership have to control the membership and always be on the alert for its positions being challenged.

Are these not important issues to be discussed. I challenge anybody to say they are not and sound credible. This is not about me being obsessed with my expulsion. In fact let me say what I think about my expuslion. I am proud that I was expelled as I had many opportunities during that struggle to make an unprincipled compromise. I consider that I continued to abide by the principles that guided me before I ever joined the CWI. These are that when I see something wrong I say that I think it is wrong, I speak out about it and try and organize to do something about it, and this includes when I see something wrong in the oganization of which I am a member. If organizational loyalty comes to dominate over principle then a corruption is setting in. The psyco babble about me being obsessed, me whining, pathetic, get over it, etc etc are just so many petty jibes which flow off me like water off a ducks back. They are meant to help avoid a discussion on the real issues and so they damage the struggle of the working class.

I also am aware that being expelled has helped me to better be part of the new movement that is developing and to listen and learn from this. I still consider that marxism is the method which will allow the working class to take power and around which I organize. This new movement that has developed has to be looked at and understood from that stand point but also and very importantly the existing organizations have to let the fresh air of this new movement into their ranks and allow it to air out the stuffy interiors that exists in so many of them.

I have just finished reading the anarchist material, Arshinov's biography of Makhno, and Volines history of the Russian revolution. I am not convinced by them today as I was not convinced 30 years ago. I read them again because of the role of anarchism in this new movement. This has been helpful to me in that it has pushed me to look at the old ideas that I have held for so long and helped me at the very least with the emphasis and approach that I have had to many of them. Tonight I have just come from discussions with a young carpenter who has become part of the revolutionary marxist movement. I am part of a new growing group. One that in my opinion has a much healthier internal life. The taunts about whining, about me being pathetic, about people feeling sorry for me, they have no affect. I know what they are. They are defensive barbs against honestly and openly discussing the revolutionary movement and ones own organization from the point of view of the needs of the working class.

This thread started by the SY announcing its summer camp. I hope this is very successful. I think it would be even more successful if the SY stood against the pressure of the SP leadership in terms of the disputes of the past. The young Comrades of the SY were not around when these issues of expulsion and denial of rights took place and they hear only the one side. The SY camp would be a lot more successful, its future would be a lot brighter, if these issues such as how to organize the activist movement to assist the working class take on the capitalist offensive, how to organize internally, were discussed through open and honest debate between people who have clearly held and different views on these.

John Throne.

by Former Militant member Sat Jul 12, 2003 10:14

Fear of debate; hostlity to dissent; slandering of dissenters; lack of moral principles, in dealing with friends; an absurd and completely unfounded conviction that 99% of the wisdom of the world is found within the tiny percentage of people that belong to one's own organisation, and mainly among its leadership at that - all this, combined with assertions of the opposite (which only fool the speaker, not the working class), such is the mood music from the SP/ CWI these days.

I am sure I am not alone in reading this and other threads with some feelings of disgust and occasional horror at what the organisation has become. It has many fine members, and even greater numbers of fine-ex-members who had had enough of the gap between the ideology and the practice. Too many of those left (Joe Higgins, Boyd etc) have swallowed this bullshit, and allowed their original principles to fall into disuse. Of what use is it to protest against the injustices of capitalism, if you cannot protest at those on your own doorstep? Of what use is it to campaign for more democracy in the trade union movement, when the opposite prevails in your own living room? It is like a man battering his wife, while to the outside world protesting on behalf of women's rights. All muscles atrophy if not used, and your spirit has done likewise.

Your position is not credible, it is fantastic, it undermines your own organisation, it corrupts your own thinking, it condemns you to a futile existence of sect building.

One last point. All the main Leninist/ Trotskyist groups have these problems. As someone said, there are many John Thrones buried under the floorboards. People do get tired of struggle and drop out, under the pressure of the situation. But they also, and this was certainly true in my case, get tired and disgusted by the antics of so-called revolutionary leaderships who trash the most basic principles of democracy and justice in their everyday activity. And this becomes so habitual that they no longer even know they are doing it! The word for this is stalinism. The only difference is that you do not have state power and therefore a GPU to take your dirty work to its logical conclusion.

Look in the mirror, think a little (it doesn't hurt), and move on. With these lack of principles in your approach to debate, you will never win wide support - never. The Haddens and Lynn Walshs and Taaffes of this world will see to that.

by sean o c Sat Jul 12, 2003 18:56

the sp in wales and england wont split into two because the combined membership of the party is about 400 across eng & wales,so the the surreal sitiuation is that the irish sp[ is far bigger then the eng and wales one,amazing!!!!

by Kev Sat Jul 12, 2003 23:52

not to worry Killian, I'm definatley a Richie-era Manics fan. Tho Everything... & ...Enemy are quite good. As for This Is My Truth, well less said the better methinks :(

by RED DAWN 1917 Mon Jul 14, 2003 10:59

.

by pat c Mon Jul 14, 2003 11:33

I have heard enough about him here to want to seek out his music. As for Red Dawn, he should know by now that debates can slip on Indymedia.

Well, the attacks on Ruth seem to have abated. Two months ago, someone suggested that there was trouble in the SP about who would get Joes seat. At the time I said it would not be nepotism if Ruth got the seat. I still believe so, but the SP could have handled things better by making clear from the start how Ruth was selected.

by Hungover Mon Jul 14, 2003 12:16

SHUT UP SHUT UP SHUT UP

by Ramon Mercado Mon Jul 14, 2003 12:18

'the sp in wales and england wont split into two because the combined membership of the party is about 400 across eng & wales,so the the surreal sitiuation is that the irish sp[ is far bigger then the eng and wales one,amazing!!!! '

But at the November 2002 SP conference it was reported that (on paper) the SP had 303 members, 30 (on paper) in the North. Are you saying that you have doubled in size since then?

by - Mon Jul 14, 2003 17:19

Ruth was not selected by Joe higgins but by the party through the usual democratic decision making bodies in the same way as other candidates are chosen.


How can it be nepotism if Joe Higgins alone did not have sole responsibility in selecting her and if they are not related?!!

by pat c Mon Jul 14, 2003 18:01

I said it was NOT nepotism. I said the same about 2 months ago when someone alleged there were internal SP squabbles about the seat.

I am 100 % certain that Ruth was selected in an above board manner. The SP should have expected this sort of criticism though (given the stuff 2 months ago) and had clear answers ready on the selection method. This could crop up in the press as well.

by sean o c Mon Jul 14, 2003 20:50

but i was under the illusion that the sp in ireland was at a strenght of about 700-800,how wrong i was it seems............

by - Tue Jul 15, 2003 01:47

I did not say that you said it was nepotism. others where saying it.

by Cleo Wed Jul 16, 2003 00:03

i'm going to the summer camp anyway just to see Jim Barbour of the FBU speaking. I get in for half price but its not because of nepotism, but because I'm poor,unemployed and from the short strand.

by Marnie H - SWP Wed Jul 16, 2003 15:38

To see Stephen.

by Farooq Ahmad - Progressive Youth front (PAKISTAN) Sun Apr 22, 2007 14:58 pyf_nwfp at yahoo dot com Pohan Colony Street No. 2 Malakand Road Mardan (PAKISTAN) 0092-321-9051498

i belong to PYF Pakistan. we have some challinges here. the challenge of religeious fundamentalism. the challenge globalisation and WTO. under wto all of over profitable institutions are going in private hands. spicially Education system. we have also the challenge of jobs.
thanks
Farooq Ahmad
Chairperson
Progrissive Youth Front (PAKISTAN)