Proposals for Socialist Bloc

by Cynic Thu Jul 17, 2003 14:02

How can you take this letter seriously when it is signed by a member of the Ruling Class who insists on using a double-barrelled surname in the best toff/ascendancy traditions.

by june18th. Thu Jul 17, 2003 14:07

sort of.

by Fergal O Boyle Thu Jul 17, 2003 14:12

not only are you a coward ( at least boyd/barrett signs his stuff) you are a prejudiced bigot. None of us chose the names we were born with anymore than we choose our skin colour or ethnicity.You owe Mr Boyd Barrett an apology.

by Cynic Thu Jul 17, 2003 14:22

Boyd-Barret CHOOSES to use a double barreled surname. This is the name of a noted exploitative Bourgeois family which also has a branch in Cork. If he was a genuine Socialist he could sign his inheritance over to the SWP or at least drop one of the surnames.

by Fergal O Boyle Thu Jul 17, 2003 14:29

It seems obvious now that rather than address the content of this open letter you just want to hurl abuse. How very productive. I'm delighted obviously that no Bourgeois exploiters share your own surname, then how can we tell? By the way perhaps you could suggest a few surnames that have never been used by 'Bourgeois exploiters' so we can all use them?

by Cynic Thu Jul 17, 2003 14:33

This name was used to signify the coming together of two big capitalist families. It is used to flaunt in the faces of ordinary people. The fact is that its not just his name, he is a member of a Bourgeois family which are noted as exploiters.


As I said, he could choose to sign his inheritance over to the SWP or at least drop one of his surnames. Now, You have not addressed this.

by anticap Thu Jul 17, 2003 14:51

'We believe such a bloc could work on a whole series of fronts'

And possibily as a front as well, no?

by . Thu Jul 17, 2003 14:52

Which surname should he drop? Boyd or Barrett? Which is more offensive to you? Or perhaps he should just drop both of them and call himself Richard X (well, just until he changes it to Malik El-Shabazz).

Good job there's been no one else involved in left wing politics who came from bourgeois backgrounds. Shame on you, RBB, besmirching the legacy of Marx and Engels like that!

by MG Thu Jul 17, 2003 14:57

"Many have identified capitalism as the problem – even if they are not yet convinced that socialism is the solution."

What a load of patronising bullshit. Anyone who disagrees with far-left socialism is wrong, even if they don't know it yet.

Are you SWP weirdos so far up your own holes that you don't realise the sheer idiocy of what you're saying?

by Cynic Thu Jul 17, 2003 15:01

But Richie has not cut the links or purse strings to be more precise. Why doesnt he sign over the millions hes due to inherit? The Mansion in Dalkey alone is worth about €7 million.

by Rebel City Thu Jul 17, 2003 15:03

Hated name in Cork. They are Merchant Princes just like the Barrys or Covenys.

by redser Thu Jul 17, 2003 15:04

This is a great idea. Speaking as a socialist/anarchist with issues about joining certain parties, this is just the sort of thing I feel I could support, a broad revolutionary socialist bloc that works together on all the major issues and can stop all the small policy and theory differences from getting in the way of real progressive activity.

Three cheers for a socialist bloc, I know I'd vote for it and lend a hand in building it.

I sometimes feel that the left gets bogged down in the details. People should just accept that majority of socialists whatever their persuasion want some form of direct democracy along with collective ownership of the means of production and distribution. All of the deatails can be worked out when we've achieved that to some extent.

At the stage we're at now the best tactic is to resist and fight against neo-liberalism and its capitalist rampage across the globe, and the best way to do that is for us all fight together, all of us , trotskyist, anarchist, whatever. Its time to end the infantile disorder and pathological dissidence and work together. If and when we start to get somewhere thats when we can fallout over details but not now, not when so much is to be done!

by Ivan Caramba - International Bolshevik Current Thu Jul 17, 2003 15:10

The whole history of Anti-Capitalist movement has been littered with weird and not so wonderfull varients of Anarchism, autonomism, utopian socialism and the rest. Time and time again in the cauldron of class struggle they have proved insufficient for the purpose of ending the class rule of the bourgeois class. The Narodniks in russia, the Anarchists in spain, the Urban Guerillas of the 60's and 70's, those who deny the central role of the working class, guerrilla gardening, the black block. As the class struggle ferments the latest versions of Narodnism and Blanquism will vanish into historical obscurity - they are no match for revolutionary Leninism. Richard never said in his letter (with which I disagree in many respects) that people who have not yet accepted this were wrong, but I say it now!
Let History Judge!

( PS. The IBC has no intention of ever entering into an alliance with the SWP, the SP or any other group. We particularly find the SWP and "their" "theory" of "State-Capitalism" particularly odius. )

by iosaf Thu Jul 17, 2003 15:10

actually before you go off on the run around there a few. And if you favour further _diminuition_ of Richard Boyd Barrett's name "dick X" gets a mention too.
whats in a name eh?
If I ever meet Richard Boyd Barrett or Dicky X which ever he is, I shall say
"Hello Richard you don't know how to pronounce my name do you?".
solidarity is grrreat.

by iosaf Thu Jul 17, 2003 15:16

So Richard, :-)
you wish build a global socialist movement.
As you might know I am affiliated to the 5º international of hippy crusty anarkisty loved up muppets, and we have been engaged in informal discussion at trans-national level with the 4º and indeed your own little section.

You might think I'm joking about rejecting the newspapers but then you'll think again being an intelligent type.

It does seem a little bit premature in Ireland to see formal pacted agreements bewteen SP and SWP. But if both those parties could come to an agreed "statement of intent" on South American socialism, Lulu and the Bolivarian Revolution, that would seem a good idea to some of us, after all there are social unity issues accross South America and much room for a common stance on something that is important in the lead up to Dublin's WEF.

by Ray Thu Jul 17, 2003 15:39

Whil Ivan Caramba will happily tell us that anarchism, narodnism, and blanquism have all failed, he thinks that Leninism has been successful.
If being a success means establishing a dictatorship that kills off all independent working-class activity, political dissenters, and anyone who looks at you funny, then I suppose Leninism has been quite successful.
I'm kind of happy that anarchists have so far failed to establish any brutal dictatorships. So you'll just have to count me out of your Leninist alliance. My insistence on democracy - freedom of speech and assembly, the right to have more choices than 'join the party or die in prison', that kind of thing - might just slow you guys down in your quest for another success.

by Agent of Chaos Thu Jul 17, 2003 15:47

The trots think IMC is a Brutal Dictatorship ie it publishs articles critical of the SP and SWP.

by a socialist Thu Jul 17, 2003 15:49

Interesting article, Kevin. I have a question for you. Do you think that setting up a specifically "socialist" bloc at this stage might actually exclude very many activists who want to fight against the governement and have no faith in "labour", but might not yet see themselves as socialists?

Why not set up a broader formation, a new party that could be joined by anti cutbacks campaigners (of whom there will be many in the next elections), anti privatisation campaigners, anti war campaigners etc? Of course the SWP the SP and independent socialists could constitute themselves as the socialist tendancy in this party and seek to earn the respect of others. Why not call a meeting inviting all these forces to set up just such a party now!

You seem to disagree with supporting independant working class candidates such as hospital campaigners without them "signing up to" a socialist program first. Surely this is arse about face? I believe that actively supporting the independent action of the woking class is the only way that we socialists can win large numbers of people to a broader program for the socialist transformation of society. (It should be obvious that I am talking here about left-wing/ progressive movements. Nobody is talking about giving carte blanche support to any "community candidate" who happens to come along - no socialist could support a racist candidate for instance).

At the end of the day, as socialists, we have to take account of consciousness, of where people are coming from, while at the same time working with the most politicised layers of the working class, of which we are an organic part, and actively raising consciousness of socialist ideas and methods.

Finally, though I disagree with the idea of a socialist bloc, preferring instead a new working class party with a stong and organised socialist tendancy, I think your article is excellent and one of the most intellegent and thought-provoking seen on indymedia for a long time. Let's hope it is just the beginning of an interesting polotical debate!

(p.s. I find the insistance of the Irish SWP on a specifically socialist bloc strange in the context of the British SWP buliding a cross-class, popular front type alliance with Imans and the Muslim petty bourgeoise (as opposed to making an exclusive, class-based appeal to Muslim workers and youth, which would be an excellent initiative).

by Anonymous Thu Jul 17, 2003 15:57

Absolutely, could not agree more.

These are "exciting" times indeed. Ever since Seattle in '99, only 4 years ago, things have taken off.

Unity is the key. It was the use of the internet that helped to make Seattle such a success. The internet helped bring people, from diverse locations & backgrounds, all together, to make that day such a success and things have grown so rapidly since then.

This success and momentum, dare I say the word, must be "capitalized” upon.

The amount of people that die needlessly all over the world every day as result of capitalism, globalization and neo-liberal polices, does not bare thinking about. And such death & suffering is not only confined to the developing world, but also to our own "developed" world - with the U.S. & Ireland leading the way - as Michael Martin is now experiencing.

In the face of such needless death & suffering - all animosity towards one another and quibbles with each other must be dropped. The last 4 years have given humanity at least some chance. Our own deaths, even if we escape the guillotine of capitalism, will be coming soon - Let’s not look back on our lives saying that we blew this opportunity for humanity.

by Agent of Chaos Thu Jul 17, 2003 15:59

In this New Socialist Bloc, would fulltimers have pension and redundancy rights? Would they be allowed to join a Trade Union?

by King Mob Thu Jul 17, 2003 16:12

The best thing about this aside from it's cast iron cure for insomnia, is that line.

"Many have identified capitalism as the problem – even if they are not yet convinced that socialism is the solution."

Barrett and his ilk are swine......

by Petrichenko Thu Jul 17, 2003 16:24

Would the new socialist bloc be democratic from the start?

Or will it be another example of the Socialist Alliance experiment in England where those not in the SWP became disillusioned with the experience close enough?

Or will it be like even closer to home where those not in the SWP, found being involved in the IAWM a painful exercise?

Its easy to have wonderful ideas - its harder to convince people that you are genuine. Ask nearly any left wing group or indepedent left minded individual what they think of the SWP and the answer is usually full of expleteives. The SWP considers this to be sectarianism whereas most others call it reality.

If the SWP has comes to terms with its modus operandi and is prepared to change - well maybe there are possibilities, if not forget it.

It would be interesting to see a SP response as to why they are against an alliance with their nearest and dearest.

by Badman Thu Jul 17, 2003 16:29

Seattle, and the anti-summit movement that came from it, has been characterised by not only an upsurge in social conflict but also by a rejection of the centralised, hierarchical parties that used to dominate opposition to capitalism.

The SWP speak of 'unity', but what they really mean is obedience. We saw how deep their desire for unity and how great their respect for diversity was on March 1st. The summit seiges that have been succesful (in terms of growth in the local movement and the disruption of the meetings) have been characterised by a genuine diversity, without any attempts to smother it in the phony clarion call for 'unity'. Prague, Seattle, Quebec and Evian were the high points of the movement. All were marked by an active role, within the broad coalition, of anarchists and anti-authoritarians. The SWP did nothing at most of them (they weren't even at seattle), and sabotaged the plans at another (Prague).

In the few places where the SWP or groups of their ilk have succeeded in swamping the movement with their numbers, like britain, they have destroyed it, turned the anger and confrontation into chants and choreography.

Your dream of a socilist party ordering the working class around is dead. You might as well wrap it up now.

by RBB Thu Jul 17, 2003 16:38

The SWP are NOTHING electorally, why do expect parties such as the SP and WP (although I doubt the WP will keep their cllrs next year) as well as decent socialist independents who do have some support in some areas to come to the rescue of the SWP.

The SWP are a sectarian sect that are completely incapable of engaging seriously in working class struggle. Look at the DL baths issue for example, as soon as a more sexy recruitment issue such as the WEF or a new war comes around the SWP will drop the issue like a hot potato. By doing this they will actually harm the campaing and discredit socialist ideas to a load of decent activists involved in that campaign.

by Agent of Chaos Thu Jul 17, 2003 16:41

A couple of years ago, The Socialist Alliance. The SP wouldnt get involved. It was the SWP, Independents and SD.

Eventually the SWP dropped out and left the others in the lurch.

Perhaps Richie would enlighten us: if the SA was such a Flop and the SP wouldnt get involved then, what makes you think they will be interested now?

Also, dont you have a bit of a problem with Peter Hadden touting to the PSNI about Davy Carlin?

by iosaf Thu Jul 17, 2003 16:43

at the right of the screen you will now see a global news update bar. One of those linked articles which are features on home imc sites
is the following...
http://colombia.indymedia.org/features/mundial/#250
it concerns a TV station in Venezueala.

TEST.
what do SWM and SP and Lab and WP etc.,
have to say about it.
it is safely far far away.
can they agree?
some more links for your info;

http://aporrea.org/dameverbo.php?docid=8281
this page has english translation availablity.

this is a link to the swimmies recommended [?and trusted¿] pals en lluita down my street.
their page is worth looking @ if only to realise the semiotic and epistomological lengths to which Dick X might have to go.






oh the issue is "free speech", is Leninism up to "free speech"?

by w€f Thu Jul 17, 2003 16:44

and we chat.
http://www.enlucha.org/index.php

by Ray Thu Jul 17, 2003 16:46

This all came up a couple of years ago, when some people tried to launch an Irish version of the UK Socialist Alliance (which is effectively dead now).

It boils down to this:
The SWP are the largest left group in Ireland. They want to get everyone else into an alliance because they're confident they'll be able to dominate it, and suck everyone into the SWP. They're also embarrassed at their abject failures in local and national elections, because however much they tell their members that the elections aren't important, it's hard to paint yourself as 'the revolutionary alternative' when your votes are barely into double figures.

The SP have fallen a long, long way from the heights of their Militant days. OTOH, in the areas where they are active, they are very active, and the fact that they've been running in elections for years means that the candidates they run every time have a fair local profile. Joe Higgins and Clare Daly are the obvious examples. Because they're smaller than the SWP, they know they'd be the junior partner in any alliance, no matter what organisational checks and balances are thrown in. Equally, they don't see what they have to gain. Their strategy is based on slowly building their profile in some areas, and getting councillors and TDs elected. They're only interested in alliances with people like Finian McGrath, who already have sizable electoral machines - an alliance with the SWP and a bunch of other lefties wouldn't help get any of their people elected.

The third group in this little dance are the remaining electorally-oriented lefties. This include people who aren't in any party and people in the small parties. They want a left alliance as a forum for their ideas, basically. The little groups want an audience to recruit from. The unaligned people want to be able to move the big groups closer to their own ideas. But their entry to an aliance is completely conditional on BOTH the SP and the SWP joining. If both the big groups are in, there's some possibility of steering a middle path, playing one off the other, and maintaining some sort of neutrality. If only one joins (and at the moment that one would be the SWP) the whole thing is pointless - its joining the big party in all but name.

The problem all of these groups have is that, whatever happens on paper, as an electoral alliance (of Leninists) they will have some positions of power, and they will all be competing for those positions. The alliance will have candidates - from which party? The alliance will have officers - from which party? The alliance will have an electoral manifesto - whose line does it set out?

Contrast this with the grassroots network. Lots of different people, from different groups and from no groups. No set policy. No leadership positions. No offical candidates. No problem.

by w€fwoof woof woof - sniff sniff sniff Thu Jul 17, 2003 16:50 snot at your dot org

marginalised and soon to be forgotten globalised 5º international trippy hippy loved up muppet crusty anarkistys don't like TV.

We prefer to read a good book or a good newspaper article or something on the internet which we invented.

But freedom of Speech is freedom of Speech.
and a call to international action is indeed
a call to international action.

we shall watch the online pages of swp and sp shall we. homage to lucha and Bolivar?

by j.p. - swp Thu Jul 17, 2003 16:56

i imagine he knew the response from the same few cretinous individuals who are not interested in anything other then playing sectarian games on indymedia and,i assume,also in everyday political life.

by kl Thu Jul 17, 2003 17:00

you seem to only portray the SP as a solely electoral party. Obviously elections are important, they give oppurtunities for socialists to put forward their programme etc.

Has it not struck you that the SP have concerns about the fact that the SWP will actually harm the SP's work in unions and in other struggles if they were to go into a 'bloc' with them

by i%saf. Thu Jul 17, 2003 17:00

take your rhetoric to a statement on freedom of speech on the closure of the CATIA TV Station referred to above.
http://aporrea.org/dameverbo.php?docid=8281
c/f
front page now
http://indymedia.org.uk

by zip Thu Jul 17, 2003 17:02

The SWP must be regretting having put up the posting in the first place, judging by some of the inane responses above (RBB's name, OOOHHHH!), with two or three exceptions. A pity - because this is a serious issue demanding an intelligent, thought- out response.

Unfortunately, like flies buzzing around shite, cranks with abosolutely no connection to the organised working class have seen an opportunity for a good slagging match and won't let reasoned debate get in the way.

There are internet forums, such as marxmail, for instance, where debates are intellegent and sharply political, rather than being merely slagging matches.

To give a topic such as left unity the type of debate it deserves, I suggest you check these out in future.

by Ray Thu Jul 17, 2003 17:16

I have no doubt that the SP will justify their refusal to enter an alliance by talking about their concerns for their reputation. They may even believe it. Equally, I have no doubt that the real, underlying reason is that if they joined an alliance they would be the junior partners, with all that entails. If the situations were reversed, and the SP was much larger than the SWP, I'm sure the SP would be the one calling for an alliance, confident they could withstand any damage to their reputation that may result, and the SWP would be the ones making excuses. (in case its not clear, I really don't care who joins an alliance or not, because Leninism is a dead-end. Some of you would like to hire a bus and travel together, others would rather go in their own cars, but you're all going to crash into a brick wall)

by dec mccarthy Thu Jul 17, 2003 17:30

Genuine cooperation would strengthen the left and there isn’t any good reason why the Trotskyist left shouldn’t form a bloc for elections and the like. However, in all likliehood neither of these groups are capable of genuine cooperation cos cults almost by definition are obsessed with proving that they have a monopoly on truth. I recently reread the scabrous Socialist Party pamphlet The struggle for Socialism Today by Peter Hadden which was written in 1999 the last time the SWP made overtures to the SP. The response was less than magnanimous and I wouldn’t put any money on the Trots getting in to bed together this time.

Richard, whose second name is totally irrelevant by my lights, says a couple of things that I don’t think should go without comment. Once again he is laying some sort of claim to the vibrant international anti-capitalist movement. Anyone who knows anything about the alternative anti-globalisation movement knows that the Trots came to the party late wearing the wrong costume and didn’t even have the decency to bring something to drink. In terms of imagination, critical historical analysis or interesting initiatives they have done precisely fuck all. They treat the anti-capitalist movement as a precocious but rather unruly child that with the right amount of discipline, castor oil and Trot cant will grow into a comely vanguard party which looks, surprise surprise very like the SWP. This sort of arrogance and self-delusion will guarantee that they will always be a little bit late in understanding the significance of the new social movements many of which are explicitly libertarian and non-hierarchial. From Chiapas to Geneva the prevailing attitude has been-Vanguard nein danke.

Two other things……..

RBB wrote


“One of the key strengths of the new movement, seen most dramatically on 15 February was the new spirit of co-operation and unity between different currents of socialists and anti-capitalists”


I am not even going to attempt to address this patent absurdity. Welcome to Planet of the Trots,
who as I have said before are so mired in their own little world with tidy explanations for everything under the sun that all social and historical events have become something to politick about and recruit through and any disagreements are either ignored or seen as unspeakable heresy.

One last joke……….that ol problem with the counting

RBB wrote


Even in terms of the existing membership of both organisations a socialist bloc would start with about one thousand members and supporters. It would be up to us to build quickly on this base.

by Ray Thu Jul 17, 2003 17:36

I didn't notice that first time around!
Have they started issuing membership cards to placards? Or are they counting people who signed up to the IAWM/ANL/GR as members?

by christian Thu Jul 17, 2003 17:47

interresting that idea of international action as a socialist one when so many activists appear to come from a wider range of backgrounds, ie. communities, environmental concerned, arts, simple life experience, etc.
learning from the past that no dogma or idea will stand for ever we better start discussing these things in a fresh manner.

See you on sunday?

(PS. if i won't sign the membership form it still is my revolution)

by Bertie Ahern Thu Jul 17, 2003 18:25

Keep arguing amongst yourselves over trifles - it makes my job a hell of a lot easier!

by Maurice Thu Jul 17, 2003 18:29

.....for everything.

Don't forget the gooseberries!!!!!

by RBB Thu Jul 17, 2003 18:31

I am considering my options. Which constituencey can you offer me?

by shadow Thu Jul 17, 2003 18:39

ray says that the sp are smaller than the swp. i think that you are wrong. they have roughly the same numbers.

the swp usually inflate their 'membership' figures by counting those that are supporters and former members.

the sp and swp have roughly the same membership- if anything the sp has slightly more! In terms of support from working class people there is no contest- sp have far far more support.

Regrdless of the numbers I think we should look at the politics. the sp and swp are not isolated organisations- they both have international affiliations. unlike the IST (SWP) the CWI (SP) do not have a dissolutionist wing (ie a group that wish to dissolve themselves into broarder formations)

by Mary Harney Thu Jul 17, 2003 18:42

The rejection of this attempt to unify the Irish left and make it bigger & stronger - with all this
lefty squabbling, infighting, cynicism, negativity and sniping at one another, i've got to say lads, is making my rosebud positively wet!
Ohh please More.....

by Michael McDowell Thu Jul 17, 2003 18:51

I say unite the fuckers. We should have only one trotskyist party for people not to vote for. You see if there is more than one on the ballot paper, people have more than one chance of voting for it by mistake, doubling the number of overall votes for the trots.

So, my mate rich boy, keep up the good work. Clean up the ballot paper. Oh and, while you're at it, we are a bit short of cops for the WEF summit, so could we get a hand with the policing of those pesky uncontrollables from your chums in the SWP, or 'Socialists Working as Police' as we like to call them.

You see, you stupid SWP gits, you can play your stupid game of 'whatever we want is naturally in the interests of the entire working class and anybody who argues against it is helping the establishment' and so can I. It's not clever, it's not funny, it's dishonest, it's transparent and it's no fucking surprise that it comes from ye.

by j.p. - swp Thu Jul 17, 2003 18:58

i welcomed putting the statement online as i,as well as just about every other decent poster here, knew that a post like this is incendiary to the sectarians and whatnots who have turned irish indymedia into a bit of a joke(i mean cribbing about a surname?),again i say fair play to him putting it up on indymedia(i wouldnt).and again i say well done to the annoying few who have ran this site into the ground,i bet your mothers must be proud of ya.

by Willie O'Dea Thu Jul 17, 2003 19:03

Michael dont forget all the wonderful work carried out by the SP. Their sabotage of actions at Shannon. Their defence of the Airport Police. Then they attacked the Black Bloc just as the cops were attacking peaceful protestors on the bridge at Evian! How could you ask for more?

Well we got more! Michael O'Brien, the Mini Mao of the SP, went on to write an article which mentioned the "restraint" of the cops at Evian but forgot to mention the attack on the bridge!

Come on the SP! Listen!

You can hear them cheering on the Workers In Uniform!

by AngryYoungLady Thu Jul 17, 2003 19:06

I think that this kind of alliance would be a nice idea but I don't think it is likely to work. I dont think its because the SWP are bigger than the SP either. As far as I can see they are in or around the same size. Could be wrong though. The SWP seem to have a few more people in south Dublin, the SP have more on the northside, the SP have a lot more in Cork, the SWP have some people in Galway, the SP have some in Limerick and so on and so on. I considered joining both parties recently so I did some sniffing around. Both said they were bigger but I never really saw anything to prove that one way or the other(I decided not to join either for the moment). The impression I get is that an alliance wont happen because the SP think the SWP are a joke.

by Chekov Thu Jul 17, 2003 19:07

That I agree that the stuff about the surname is stupid. You are quite right to ignore that shit. On indymedia most, if not all readers, quickly become able to screen out the nonsense, so you don't really have to worry about that. However, you can't just tar it all with the same brush. There are comments from several posters which I consider to be valid and genuine critiques of the proposal, notably from Ray, Dec McCarthy and Petrichenko. You can't write off all of this criticism as sectarianism - well you can but it won't win you any friends outside the party. Also there is actually as much shit - pretending to be politicians - from supporters of the proposal on this thread as there is from opponents, so why only criticise one side?

It would be nice to see a reply from the SWP that attempts to answer some of the genuine criticism, although I won't hold my breath.

by Anonymous Thu Jul 17, 2003 19:44

I think the shit written by pro alliance posters (prentending to be politicians) is just a way of talking to the anti-alliance posters who are putting up shit - i.e. people who speak shite, will only understand shite.

Regarding the more serious comments, I do agree with you. Although I would be pro-alliance, there are several critizims of both parties - SWP & SP - made here and over the years - which are made as serious critizims and worth looking into and worth an answer to from the HQ's of both parties.

by Trot-spotter Thu Jul 17, 2003 19:49

I find Rays angle on the whole thing interesting because my take is almost exactly the opposite. This whole SWP sucking up to the SP stuff looks more like a recognition of weakness to me. Trots being trots thats certainly how the SP will take it.

Think about it. The SP have decent election results on their side (not compared to Fianna Fail but a whole lot better than the SWP) and they have socialist youth and they generally have more in the unions too. To me this looks like the other trots are trying to get some of that pie.

In England the SWP are probably twice the size of the SP and there isnt a snowballs chance in hell of them sucking up to the SP like that. Here the SWP know that the SP has things that they want. They probably figure that if they can suck the SP in that they are better at the up close personal and dirty manoeuvering than the SP are. And you know what? They are probably right.

Either way this show looks like it could provide a lot of belly laughs.

by Trot-spotter Thu Jul 17, 2003 19:58

I forgot to point out another area of SWP weakness. Their traditional strength has been in the colleges but they are all but dead there now. All they have in the south is a small group in Trinity. Their heartland of UCD has now gone the way of Socialist Alternative and Socialist youth. I think that Socialist youth have people in UL and UCC as well.

by iosaf Thu Jul 17, 2003 20:30

SWP and SP are Ireland's two marxist parties.

Both are marginal but avidly supported by their members to the detriment of cross party development of marxist theory in practical Irish life.

If you are considering coming to Dublin for W€F two of the groups inviting you are above.
Autumn weekenders.

Meanwhile, across South America and the World at large, activists have been condemning the closure of the Venezuealan TV station Catia by the government.
Marxists from groups nominally associated with both SP and SWP at international level have made statements of support.

To date there is no sign of solidarity from the irish sections.

Open publishing allows for every taunt and slur of proper grown up politics to be heard read and written.

snotysnoty snot on your organisation Mr Richard Boyd Barrett, and I would not call you anything else, but you have poorly used the political status afforded you by an ignorant public and media in Ireland this last year.
W€F is going to be different.
so hint hint.
sharpen up all your cadets.

by Voice reader Thu Jul 17, 2003 21:22

There is a lengthy article on the political situation in the North in the latest issue of the Voice, the Socialist Party newspaper. I don't think this issue in online yet but here is an extract which deals with at least one of the issues raised. It seems a lot more realistic in its outlook to me.

"...A number of trade union and community based campaigns have developed with broad support in working class areas across the sectarian divide.

The Socialist Party has put forward the idea of candidates from these variosu campaigns coming together to stand in a broad "Defend Public Serivces" platform. We are currently discussing this with a number of individuals and organisations.

Concretely, a "Defend Public Services" slate could include campaigners against hospital closures, notably the HOPE campaign based in Omagh.

The government's threat to launch an all-out attack on the fire service raises the issue of whether the FBU should put up candidates on the issue of defending local fire services. If the proposed lignite mine in North Antrim goes ahead, there would be a real possibility that a candidate from the opposition campaign could win a seat in this area.

By the time the Assembly elections come round, the campaign against water charges and water privatisation should be well underway. Anti-water charges candidates could do well in areas where there are active campaigns. The idea of an "anti-water charges - defend public services" candidate in next year's European elections also needs to be discussed.

A "Defend Public Services" slate could have a real impact in an Assebly election. If it polled well in some areas, it would demonstrate in practical terms that the grip of the sectarian parties can be broken. It could be a first important step in the creation of new party of the working class, based on the trade unions and on genuine campaigning community organisations.

An alternative proposal has been put forward by the Socialist Workers Party - that existing small left parties should come together as a "socialist slate". A meeting held to discuss this idea in June was attended by the SWP, the Workers Party, the Communist Party, and the remnants of the bizarre group that called itself the British and Irish Communist Organisation, now grouped around Mark Langhammer - among others.

The Socialist Party sent and observer and argued against the proposal. We support the idea of left unity, but regard this initiative as, at best, premature. A slate of the organisations who attended the meeting would make no significant impact in an election.

The insistence that only socialist groups can take part excludes mass community campaigns. In fact, it was argued that socialist candidates should stand against single issue campaigners such as the HOPE campaign in Omagh.

We are in the elementary stages of the building a of a new political party of the working class. the key now is to encourage workers to take the first courageous step of challenging the establishment parties. Demanding that the first sign up to a "socialist" slate would discourage rather than encourage them to do so.

The Socialist Party is positively considering standing for a number of seats. We hope that the discussions we are now having will allow us to do so as part of a broader "Defend Public Services" umbrella."

by John Meehan Thu Jul 17, 2003 23:09

The bulk of the comments here are truly wretched, petty, vindictive, and are full of disgusting personal abuse directed towards Richard Boyd-Barrett.

Credit to the SWP for making a serious well-intentioned proposal - but it will have to be discussed somewhere else besides Indymedia.

The basic political difficulty that must be addressed - and which broke the back of the first attempted socialist alliance is this :

Is the SWP willing to subordinate the needs, impulses, and decision of its own apparatus to those of aa alliance?

The party failed to do this at the first time of asking, and the debate around Dominic Carroll's proposals concerning the recent Irish Anti-War Movement Assembly showed these problems have not gone away - they remain with us in the present day.

It remains to be seen how this all works out within the Irish Social Forum.

by kinky GG supporter willing to be diciplined Thu Jul 17, 2003 23:47

'twill be discussed here anyway John. Whether or not you approve. And as usual it will be widely read.

Yes the attacks on RBB are none too pleasant but making oneself a very public figure(head) and running in elections invites scrutiny and abuse.

Regular readers and contributors here (and there are a lot of them) can differentiate between contributions which are purely destructive/petty in intent and contributions which indicate a relish for and willingness to engage in constructive debate.

The more who engage in constructive debate the better. Anonnymous bitching will be drowned out.

Lets face it - Yiz both (SWP/SP) are hanging around here in numbers (despite the constant assertions that y'all have 'given up on Indymedia). SWP seem to have adopted a 'look but don't touch' policy to Indymedia. SP a little less shy of getting their fingers dirty but a little shocked by the amount of criticism and a little too happy to ascribe value judgements to IMC and to blame the messenger. Witness the SY Discussion Board thread - 'Indymedia - steaming pile of shite'.

If the SWP are as anxious as they claim in the above Open Call to reach out to a new generation of activists in any kind of constructive and open way then here is where a large proportion of them are getting/writing their news and expressing their views.

It strikes me as a long time Indymedia watcher that what accounts for the often equivocal views of IMC held by members of SP/SWP is that they are not used to their being a very open forum for ongoing debate between factions of the left in Ireland.

Maybe they think such a forum is a bad idea?

by piz Fri Jul 18, 2003 00:49

I think that the SWP's desperate appeal for a 'socialist bloc' is because they want to be associated with a party that has support from ordinary people.

I also think that the move towards a 'socialist' bloc is strange as they were previously all for building up the broad left!

SWP have seriously lost out to SP. They dont have the respect in community campaigns that the SP do. They dont have much in the Unions, the SP have the presidency in 2 public service unions. They are not attracting the youth, just look at the success of Socialist Youth and the failure of 'Revolutionary Youth'. They've even lost out their bases in the Colleges- SY won a Sabbatical position within 2 years, something SWSS couldn't do in over 10!

If the SP had any sense they'd tell the SWP to take a hike.

by Solly Daritti - social st Fri Jul 18, 2003 01:06

We all want unity. A genuine left alternative to the capitalist shits and the free market "socialists".
Problem? SWP AND SP both think they are the true "revolutionaries" or the vanguard of the working class. Unless they drop that nonsense the Bloc idea is a non starter.

Look for example at the damage these two parties have done to socialism. How many decent left thinking people over the years innocently joined the SP SWP only to be hounded out for questioning their glorious leaders?

How many turned their backs on socialism because they made the mistake of signing a petition only to have a visit from some scruffy looney who ranted in a foreign language (marxistleninese)for two hours about how the USSR was "state capitalist" or "a deformed workers state" or some such bollicks?

Yes to Left unity, but not at any price. SP/SWP need a heavy dose of internal democracy before they should be allowed out to play with other leftists.

by Chekov Fri Jul 18, 2003 02:03

That I agree that the stuff about the surname is stupid. You are quite right to ignore that shit. On indymedia most, if not all readers, quickly become able to screen out the nonsense, so you don't really have to worry about that. However, you can't just tar it all with the same brush. There are comments from several posters which I consider to be valid and genuine critiques of the proposal, notably from Ray, Dec McCarthy and Petrichenko. You can't write off all of this criticism as sectarianism - well you can but it won't win you any friends outside the party. Also there is actually as much shit - pretending to be politicians - from supporters of the proposal on this thread as there is from opponents, so why only criticise one side?

It would be nice to see a reply from the SWP that attempts to answer some of the genuine criticism, although I won't hold my breath.

by serious Fri Jul 18, 2003 02:05

I think peopel should consider this question. Would a socialist bloc be really any bigger than the sum of its two parts?

I do not think it would and if it were launched now could actually harm any future moves to set up a broader party.

When examining this issue we also need to bear in mind who exactly any new 'bloc'/party is hoping to orientate to. I would say that new workers that will begin to move into struggle over the next period are the key group. Are these people likely to join a 'bloc' that solely consists of pre existing groups coming together for electoral reasons, I would think that they would not.

by Ray Fri Jul 18, 2003 10:02

I don't think the claim that the SWP is bigger than the SP is controversial. I'm sure both groups like to inflate their membership figures by including paper members, 'supporters', and other inactive people in any membership count, but the SWP pretty much always have a larger turnout on demonstrations, and that's something that's easy to measure objectively. The SP will tell you that their members are more working class, that they're 'deeply embedded' into their communities and unions, that the SWP have a revolving door membership, and all of these things may be true*.
The things is, none of that matters when it comes to votes at a conference. All that matters there is the number of bodies you can bring along to vote for your proposals/leadership candidates, and both the SWP and the SP know who would win that particular fight.
Of course, all of this is like the war between the Lilliputians and the other guys. The SWP may have more numbers than the SP, but the two of them combined still only have a few hundred active members. They can call themselves the vanguard all they like, but they're hardly a revolutionary threat to the established order. (for which the rest of us can be grateful - life under capitalism sucks, but it beats the gulag and the firing squad)

Naturally, the SWP are issuing this call because they have something to gain from it (does anyone think Kieran Allen and the first comrade in waiting are rosy-eyed idealists?) Although they have more of a profile on demonstrations etc, they don't have the famous 'implantation', or the election results, of the SP. So they want an alliance that they'll have the numbers to dominate and that will give them more of a profile during elections. It doesn't take a genius to figure it out. During an election (and judging by the UK that's the only work an alliance will do) they'll get the benefits of an improved profile. People who wouldn't be attracted to the SWP may go along to an alliance meeting. And then, the reasoning goes, since the SWP are more numerous they'll be able to rake in the bulk of the newbies.
(They might also figure they've got a more attractive organisation to join. The SP tend to go in for revolutionary martyrdom - they think they deserve to be the vanguard party because they work for their party around the clock. The SWP are less Stakhnovite, and would rather wave placards and tell everyone the revolution is right around the corner. Neither is exactly fun, but one is positively masochistic)

The SP can't join in, for the reasons outlined above, but they can't be seen to be doing nothing. Which is why whenever this is raised, they'll talk about the need to join with 'real working class forces' like the anti-hospital closures bunch. Of course, these 'real forces' are smaller than the SWP, so can be more easily absorbed - and its never explained why you can't join with the SWP and then go to join with these other forces too**.

Anyway, its not going to happen. This is just the latest round in the two parties scramble to recognised as the REAL vanguard, as the TRUE inheritors of the mantle of Lenin and Trotsky. The sad thing is that they seem to honestly believe that anyone else cares.


* except that arguments over who is more 'working class' are generally pretty stupid.
** except that, apparently, groups like the one in Omagh will be scared away by 'frivolous' revolutionaries like the SWP. Yeah, they're happy to join with a buynch of Marxists who talk about deformed workers states, but that other bunch of Marxists who talk about 'state capitalism' are right out.

by Ray Fri Jul 18, 2003 10:14

Forgot to mention - there's one easy way to settle this. If both parties posted their membership figures up here we could settle this once and for all, right? Anyone want to start holding their breath?

by Kevin Wingfield - SWP Fri Jul 18, 2003 11:12

Most contributions to this thread have so far failed to address the big picture, instead concentrating on gossip and abuse.
From the point of view of the SWP, the most important issue is that huge numbers of people internationally are now moving into opposition to global capitalism and its ugly offspring – war. This puts a responsibility on those who want to map out a way forward to rise to the occasion. Of course the movement is wide and diverse and is not the creation of, nor the property of any political tendency. Questions of how to get the better world that is possible naturally arise and will be discussed and debated in the wide movement. Just to take a couple of examples: Should the movement push for “space” within which alternatives can be created or must it break the power of big business and the militarised governments that back them up? How can real change come about – by pressurising governments, opting out of all power relationships or fighting to replace capitalism? What is the agency that can achieve change – NGOs, reformist governments or people power? Is the working class a thing of the past – is it irrelevant or potentially the key agent of change? What would real socialist democracy look like? Answers to these questions cannot be imposed on the movement even if such a thing was desirable (which it is not). But if the movement is to be successful it will be necessary to come up with credible answers. And it is not simply a question of issuing manifestos – the challenge for revolutionaries is to participate in the movement and demonstrate in practice the efficacy of their ideas.
These are all controversial ideas. Some have very different answers to these questions than those of us in a Marxist tradition. Those who carry a root and branch hostility to our sort of politics will naturally not want to see revolutionary socialists getting their act together and will have no interest in, and will even seek to discourage, moves to socialist co-operation and unity. Many of the contributions to this thread reflect this.
But large numbers of people are broadly sympathetic to some of our ideas. They cannot understand why the left is sometimes characterised by division, sectarianism and mutual condemnation. On most questions the SWP and the SP think similarly. We both have modest but serious forces. We both are able to intervene and make things happen in the world. If our forces were linked in some kind of working arrangement – we have proposed a socialist bloc – we could address some of these concerns and show that the Left was finally getting its act together. A socialist bloc thus created would act as a magnet for those wanting to get involved in something serious and not interested in small group bickering.
Such an arrangement would benefit ALL socialists. Naturally each would enjoy freedom of action and speech. Each would no doubt seek to build their own distinctive point of view. Serious people co-operating while understanding differences would not be forced into any "mould" or "taken over". There is a lot to be gained from the point of view of revolutionary socialism in co-operation. We should not allow past differences and frictions to set today's agenda.
None of us want to see the tide come in and go out without leaving the political landscape profoundly altered. We say to our friends in the SP – if you agree that you ought to investigate these possibilities, make your voice heard.
Kevin Wingfield

by Jim Monaghan Fri Jul 18, 2003 11:16

It is probably a vain hope but I hope that this endeavour is successful. A far left bloc with sufficient support could stop the pro coalition elements in Labour, The Greens and , alas, Sinn Fein.
It demands a bit of compromise and give and take.I suppose a necessary amnesia about past manouvres and strokes of various possible participants.
The last effort failed in part because of an a la carte approach to alliances , where a different formula/mix was proposed for Dublin, Derry Cork etc.
If it succeeded it would gather a momentum which would bring it beyond the sects and create something like the Danish Green-Left or Scottish SSP.
Programmitic issues should be dealt with by honest debate, trying to convince rather than denounce. Whether we like it or not there is no accepted bible on the Left in spite of the efforts of those who debate in these terms.
While this is about election as well as other activities it should leave room for an alliance with the WSM and GNAW where agreement is possible.
GNAW is a factor not to be ignored, they strick a chord with those alienated from the abrstraction and abstroutess of the Marxist Left.THough I suspect that they will face the same dilemmas of their Marxist rivals. E,G the debate on Direct Action is not just between them but within the Blocks.Loose alliances have problems of organisation and leave themselves open to manipulation as well.
I agree with those who say that an alliance composed of the SWP and the minnows and non aligned would probably fail.
I, also thgink that if it emerges agreement should be by consensus. "Majority" voting leaves it open to packing of meetings and other shoddy manouvres. Better to lose on an issue than see a significant minority (probably temporary) get so pissed off that they leave."Victories" like that are one of the factors which leave such a residue of bitterness which is a factor militating against this alliance happening. I suggest that the SWP propose how this alliance would work as there is a bit of suspicion around that it is only a manouvre on their part. This is a necessary clarification.
Lastly a vain hope. Let us debate politics. I have no interest in Boyd-Barrets, Kieran Allens, Stephen Boyds or Pat Corcorans private lives, real or imaginary.

by Janus Fri Jul 18, 2003 11:38

It's an interesting proposal but I really can't see it working. I agree with trot-watcher that the SP can't have much to gain out of this. The SWP need this a Hell of a lot more than the SP who stand an excellent chance of taking two seats next time in the Generals (Sean Ryan isn't standing, end of dual mandate, anti-FF backlash) and might even pick up a seat here or there in the Locals.

The problem with this is that the SWP have, beyond a hard core of maybe 20-30 activists, nothing to offer an alliance. They also have a unique scare factor in tthat the SWP being involved in something is enough to drive people away from it. Regrettable, but true.

Where it might be useful is in this being a catalyst for an actual broad socialist bloc where more people who aren't SP/SWP join up and move it forward.

I agree from an ideological standpoint that the SWP and SP have so much in common not being in such a bloc is absolute stupidity but from the point of view of both parties, the SP would have to be suffering from mass hysteria to go along with this.

by Mark - SP Fri Jul 18, 2003 11:40

A simple question has arisen from the article posted by 'Voice'. Do people think that a narrow 'left bloc' of the SP and SWP plus ISN, SD and the like is better than a broad left slate including community activists and trade unionists that could be a first step to the formation of a mass workers party that could pose a serious challenge to the establishment? Compared to the latter, the SWP proposal seems sectarian - especially the arguement to stand against working class activists who do not necessarily call themselves socialists but are standing on progressive issues.
So which is it to be? An anti-cuts, anti-privatisation slate or a Socialist-Bloc.

These are the questions posed:

Which do you think would be more successfull in mobilising active support?

Which do you think would have a better chance electorally?

Which do you think would put the possibility of a new workers party squarely on the agenda?

For me the answer to all three is a broad anti-cuts/anti-privatisation slate.

by iosaf mac diarmada Fri Jul 18, 2003 12:11

as such to join with the activists and marxists of the 4º international in Ireland.
be they representated by
Richard Boyd Barrett Esq or Deputy Joe Higgins TD.

However in the long term interest of the "Left" in Ireland I can not let any reader forget that Richard Boyd Barrett Esq has failed to develop the "left" or show himself either suitable or capable of the ·status· afforded him by the general media. That ought be of concern to the members of his party.

I hope that the activists of the 4º international in Ireland will happily join with all those who visit Dublin in October to participate together in creative protest and postive information on the theme of "capitalism and competition".

I sincerely hope that neither activists of the 4º international, or the leadership of it's Irish sections, or the media contacts reliant on same for content, condemn any pacifist direct action or peaceful civil disobedient action during that time.

[now this is a front page feature, and over on uk imc, ireland made front page "from rhetoric to action" announcing the October W€F meeting. We are assembling many blocks, we need not spend too much time on the red block of ireland which counts less than 5000 members. I suggest the next "search" for unity of purpose ought be the galvanisation of the "green eco" blocks in ireland].

meanwhile a international call to action was mentioned above.

by Klang Fri Jul 18, 2003 13:56

All those brave wee wankers hiding behind a computer and personally insulting someone who genuinly wants to do something about the state of the world. You got a personal problem with someone tell it to their face, instead of spreading your filthy rumours on this site.
RBB you've got my support, good inititive, keep it up.

by RBB Fri Jul 18, 2003 13:59

I am overwhelmed by your message of support. I will defeat all those anonymous computer heads with the aid of my anonymous computer head Klang.

by Bertie Ahern Fri Jul 18, 2003 14:00

Nope friend, I'm not in the SWP. Nor SP. Nor any far left organisation. I've spent a year observing far left politics, and I want nothing more to do with it.

AS far as I'm concerned, this squabble (and much of the history of the Left in Ireland) reminds me of the Judaean People's Front vs. The People front of Judaea. So fuck you all, I'm not wasting my energy arguing pointless pedantics while there's a government to take on.

PS - do you think these endless arguments are the way to make the Left grow? Answers on a postcard please...

by The Real Dave - Socialist Fri Jul 18, 2003 14:16

The development of a socialist block in Northern Ireland at the minute is becoming quite advanced. It has brought together most of the main small parties on the left, leading trade unionists, leading community activists and other such persons together. The only real exception is that of the SP and their discussions amongst them selves and attempting to do so also with one or two other individuals {whose politics on many issues are unknown}, as most of the rest of the organised left are involved in a discussion on a Socialist block. There seems to be from replies a lot of tension towards the SWP in the South that is not held or found in Northern Ireland by most. Whatever is the case though the statement is a worthwhile call and it would be beneficial as in Northern Ireland that organisations and individuals start to work together on various issues. I can understand that in Northern Ireland it was easier as the SWP who were initiating it are seen and acknowledged as a far more infuential force compared to the SP {although having only modest membership} who have won a lot of respect within some areas and workplaces. The same would be the same with Joe and clare and some others from the SP in the south. Therefore it was easier to attempt to establish a Socialist block in Northern Ireland as the main organisations had all agreed to the disscussion as well as the leading trade unionists, along with others. So while people would have liked the SP to get involved whether they did or not would not affect its establishment. In the south though it is different, not only is it important for the SP to get involved but their seems to be that tension towards the SWP by others on the left which is not seen in Northern Ireland. I believe that such differences although hard should try to be overcome, if it can be attempted in Northern Ireland by most why not in the South, why not as a whole?

by Mark - SP Fri Jul 18, 2003 14:39

I was hoping by the time I was on my lunch break I would see some honest attempts to address my above questions. Imagine my dissapointment.

by Ray Fri Jul 18, 2003 14:51

Why does the 'narrow' left block rule out the 'broad' left block?
I'd say both are about equal in answering your questions, especially since neither is going to happen.

by trot-spotter Fri Jul 18, 2003 14:56

Hey it's that guy who rambles about how the SP only has 4 members in the North and that 3 of them are fulltime and how the SWP are a growing presence respected by everyone. Like a joke trot talking up his own party and dismissing his rivals. C'mon Dave aren't you going to tell us again that the SP only has six members in the North and don't really matter very much to the SWP? Pull the other one.

Like it or not, and it seems that some of the SWP aren't very comfortable about it, it's pretty obvious to the rest of us that your bunch of trots is sucking up to the other bunch of trots. Try to get over it. Your big proposals are all addressed squarely to the SP no matter how many "important organisations and leading trade unionists" you try to conjure up. It's there in black and white at the top of this thread.

There are few things as funny as one trot organisation desperately trailing after another one asking them to come out and play.

by sigh Fri Jul 18, 2003 14:56

The answers are there. Because you dont like them, you choose not to see them.

by Agent of Chaos Fri Jul 18, 2003 15:02

But a report to the SP 2002 Conference stated that the SP had 30 members (on paper) in the North. You arent fooling anyone with your claims. Not even yourselves.

by Chekov Fri Jul 18, 2003 15:04

Why not form a narrow 'socialist' block and then form a broader alliance with the 'working class' candidates. I can't see why one would preclude the other. Surely, if you have a socialist alliance first, then this would form a more attractive coalition partner for the community candidates than any single socialist party would on its own. Easier to sell in terms of numbers of activists, geographical spread, and so on.

If the SP are so concerned about running against community candidates in areas, why not make their acceptance of the proposal contingent on the fact that they all build an alliance with the community candidates, and not run against them, wherever they are running. Wouldn't this put the ball squarely back in the SWP camp and answer your apparent objections?

Unfortunately, like Ray, I don't think there is any chance of this coming off. It's just another round of shadow-boxing. The high-falutin principles and political differences are mere convenient excuses for the sordid sectarianism of the two parties. Personally, I also think that it would be in the interests of everyone on the left for them to come together. However, I also know that it ain't gonna happen.

by Ivan Caramba - International Bolshevik Current Fri Jul 18, 2003 15:05

Ray,
You're infintile counter-revolutionary crusties got everything they deserved. They tried to overthrow the only workers' state in the world and as such restore capitalism. They wanted Communism there and then or so they claimed but for this technology would have to have fallen from the sky, manna from heaven. The fact that no one really complained about Kronstadt other than that whinging fishwife emma goldman for 30 years - until the Spanish civil war in fact (what a coincidence - during an ideological battle with marxism!) , shows what a red herring this little episode really was. You and your heroes are enemies of the working class!

by Bertie Ahern Fri Jul 18, 2003 15:07

'cause it's all a pile of perfidious wank!

by Ivan Caramba Fri Jul 18, 2003 15:12

My miniscule party is the way. Everybody do what I say and I'll lead you back to the workers paradise of the soviet union. There is no chance that I'm mad, I am the vanguard. I actually think that writing things like my above comment will make the workers flock in behind me. The masses were just waiting for somebody to set them straight about the counter-revolutionary, petty bourgeois, individualist-deviationists of the white-guard, anarcho-crusty-hippy, anti-worker tendency.

by Bertie Ahern Fri Jul 18, 2003 15:18

Well, by the looks of things it's worth a shot!

ohhhhhh....yeaaaaaaahhhhh!!!

by Ivan Caramba - International Bolshevik Current Fri Jul 18, 2003 15:27

While I did not write the above, I agree wholeheartedly with it.
Join the revolution,
Join the IBC!
We will soon be organising a rally to kickstart our membership drive.

Everyone else can go to Leitrim and Roscommon (with Socialist Democracy)

Yours,

Ivan Caramba

General Secretary

International Bolshevik Current (Ireland)

by lish Fri Jul 18, 2003 15:56

are you also interested in working with other groups and individuals who oppose neo-liberalism who are not socialists,either on specific campaigns or politically? ngo's, anarchists, etc. this would give a possibility of broadbased collective action. also does the swp plan to attempt to lead this collective or are you willing to be part of a concensus-based non-hierarchical group?

by time for a block Fri Jul 18, 2003 16:29

To answer the questions from Mark, there are two roads that the SP could take. They can scupper a socialist block by backing an alliance of independents, or they can work some form of electoral block with the SWP and other groups.
The situation in Ireland, north and south, demands a serious socialist block. If the SP and SWP developed the work in the three fields that Richard talks about then it would be the beginning of a new, and sizeable, left in Ireland.
To answer the questions from Mark, and to take the letter Richard sent out a tad more seriously than most others on this thread, there are two roads that the SP could take. They can scupper a socialist block by backing an alliance of independents, or they can work some form of electoral block with the SWP and other groups.
The situation in Ireland, north and south, demands a serious socialist block. If the SP and SWP worked in the three fields that Richard talks about then it would be the beginning of a new left in Ireland.
I would prefer the socialist block. Those people campaigning on a single-issue campaign could be amazing on water charges or on a hospital closure, but when it comes to abortion, asylum or other issues they could be the most conservative.
In the north now is the right time to put the boat out on elections. The initiative taken by the SWP, CPI and the WP, and lots of others, of looking into an electoral block of some form, despite the many political differences, is the way forward, this initiative should also be taken up in the south, and its good that the SWP is doing so.
Finally, if you look at elections solely from a position of gaining the most amount of votes then that is looking at it the wrong way. Revolutionaries should always use Lenin’s motto in regards to elections 'an ounce of struggle is worth a ton of votes.'

Whatever the outcome, members of all socialist organisations (and non-socialist organisations who might be interested in this) and various individuals should debate the possibilities of cooperation… we haven’t much to loose

by Sean - Ind Soc Fri Jul 18, 2003 17:29

The SWP sucking up to the SP in the North, do you know how stupid that sounds to those who know the situation within the 'left' in the North. As for 30 members {on paper} that is probably right. But six 'active political members' again would be about right for those in the know of the sp in Belfast, might be hard to take but thats the way it is.

by Mark - SP Fri Jul 18, 2003 17:51

He never said that. He said "an ounce of experience is worth a tonne of theory"

To build a broad party, which is what we need in this country right now, we need to link up with activists from outside of our movement. Like it or not, constructing a workers party is a slow excercise which requires patience and "Socialist Block" is not what is needed now. I have no qualms about working with members of the SWP in different campaigns but this whole socialist block idea seems pointless to me and from the point of view of the SP totally counterproductive.

by Real Red Raver Fri Jul 18, 2003 19:12

At the 3rd Plenary of the "Imprava Nationicist iz Communitaria" (1923), held in Janivolagrad, Lenin during a sub committee plenary meeting reportedly said to Trotsky - "Nas svevtvi puni glupa volis Richard Boyd Barrett i drugi iz SWP i SP". Trotsky apparently replied "Oh fuck, your right they do talk a load of shite - fancy a swift one?”

by Agent of Chaos Fri Jul 18, 2003 19:34

You are a plonker. The SP has a few hundred members, worldwide the CWI has about 2,000 members. You carry on as if all truth and light is to be found in the CWI.


How many of the people who vote for Joe or Clare support Trotskyism? How many of them know what it is? How many of them know the difference between Ste Cap and Deformed Workers States?

You are a tiny minority.

From now on when people are berated by SP/SY goons on INdymedia, just reply: Fuck Off Cultist!

by john throne - labors militant voice Fri Jul 18, 2003 19:41 loughfinn at aol dot com

I think that the proposal from the SWP reflects the pressure that exists on left and activist groups to try and deal with the issue of disunity when the needs of the working class demand the greatest possible unity in struggle. However while welcoming the SWP call there are good reasons to doubt that the SWP would approach this issue in a way that, would in fact take this struggle forward. While I see the SWP proposal speaks about working together in the unions it is hard for me to see how the SWP proposal would not atrophy in the same way as the Socialist Alliance has done in England and Wales. I believe that the lessons of the Socialist Alliance are that unless such a united front has real roots in the day to day struggles and conducts itself in these struggles in a direct action fight to win approach and gains new activists from these struggles then such an alliance will not grow. It cannot grow if it starts basically as an electoral alliance such as seems to me to be the main emphasis of the SWP in this proposal.

I believe that we have to start from the needs of the working class in the most basic areas of day to day life, the effects of the capitalist offensive on the day to day lives of the working class. The effects of the cuts in the direct and social wage, the destruction of the environment, the attacks on working peoples rights. I believe that the direct action methods that were used in the water charges campaign etc should be applied in these struggles and that around such battles a major campaign should be made to bring together all anti capitalists in locally based action committees. That groups and individuals involved in such work should continually appeal for such unity and also and very importantly explain to the working class that it wants this unity and explain to the working class that there are many activists groups and individuals who stand against this unity. In other words place this issue in front of the working class and make all groups and activists defend their position in front of the working class who are involved in and watching these struggles. It will only be the pressure of the working class that will make a real fighting united front work, that will be able to cut across the sectarianism that exists.

Therefore I believe that the priority is to seek to work together on the ground in the battles on hospitals, on bin charges, on housing, on wages etc etc. using direct action fight to win tactics. The importance of the issue of tactics to me is that the only way the left activists will regain real roots in the working class is if they show that they have tactics and a policy that can begin to halt and throw back the day to day attacks of capitalism. In this period after the collapse of stalinism and the crisis on the left the working class are extremely sceptical of all groups that seek to offer an alternative, that is the disconnect between the working class and the revolutionary movement is very great. The direct action fight to win tactics are therefore an esesential part of this approach. From such an approach as we establish roots in the working class then a real united front in action can be built, not just between a few left groups and individuals but involving all anti capitalist forces but most importantly of all involving the layers of working class people who are prepared to take up a struggle. Unless these new fresh layers of working class people are being drawn into the united front and not just asked to vote for some agreed candidate then the united front will not develop, the sectarianism will prove to be too big an obstacle.

Simultaneously with fighting on the ground in this manner the fight should be waged for the idea through monthly meetings, debates, fora, etc for all anti capitalist forces to come together in these united front anti capitalist action committees. I believe that it is better to deveop these along explicitly anti capitalist lines rather than socialist lines as this allows for the largest possible mobilization of activists and working class people while at the same time identifying the source of the problems and raising the consciousness in general to the task that faces us. Then with such roots being put down in the working class, that is with new working class activists becoming active in these struggles and committees, it would be possible to move forward to a more developed unity and fight against capitalism. From this point of view the idea of uniting in the struggle to defend public servives in the North for example seems to be a place where all anti capitalist forces should unite and work together and seek to prove to each other and working class people that they can do so. The SP idea of supporting DPS candidates seems to me to have a lot of merit over that of running united socialist candidates in elections.

I do not know whether the struggle on this issue of defense of the public services is raising the need for direct action fight to win tactics. I do not know if it is raising, not in an ultimatist manner, but nevertheless persistently raising, that the source of the problem is the capitalist offensive and the need to fight this and to fight capitalism. I believe that these issues should be raised and that in this way an anti capitalist united front taking on in a serious way the capitalist offensive could be built. I also believe that left groups such as the SP which are correctly giving as lot of emphasis to these struggles should use this base in a way that would help build the anti capitalist united front. That is instead of just saying they are the only group that is properly involving itself etc., and so join the SP, that it should be raising that it wants all left and anti capitalist groups and individuals to join in the campaign and build a permanent anti capitalist united front. And that this issue should be continually put in front of the working class. To be blunt that the base that is being built in the working class should be used to pressure the left activists and groups to overcome sectarianism. Of course the SP as with other groups should recruit and build its own organization but this should be done in the context of the needs of the working class and the need for the greatest possible mobilization against the capitalist offensive.

I believe also that the building of such a movement should be on an anti capitalist basis at this time. This new movement that has seen tens of millions organizing and demonstrating against capitalist globalization and its offensive, that we saw when the 30 million marched against the invasion of Iraq in Febuary should be assisted on developing in an explicitly anti capitalist basis. This means building on an anti capitalist basis in the localities also, in the neighbourhoods, the workplaces, the schools and colleges, etc. etc. Within this the various revolutionary socialist, the various anarchist groups can organize and build and offer their alternatives but while doing so helping to build an anti capitalist working class movement, helping to build eventually a new anti capitalist working class international.

John Throne

by Anonymous Fri Jul 18, 2003 21:00

First of all ref. Lish's comment above about a collective for all other "similar" groups/individuals. (This Comment made in the other thread of this "debate" on http://www.indymedia.ie/newswire.php?story_id=60460#comment40873

"what about everyone else?
by lish Friday, Jul 18 2003, 2:45pm
what about all the other interested people? how about a collective of everyone interested in alternative globalization ( altermondialistes) whether ngo's, anarchists, environmentalists, church groups etc. is it really necessary to characterise this as socialist, doesn't that merely exclude other groups?"

Such a collective already exists in the Irish Social Forum, which has been set up within the last year. This Forum is part of the European Social Forum, which in turn is part of the World Social Forum. The Irish Forum in turn is developing regional forums throughout Ireland.

I would have great hopes for these national and worldwide forums. If such forums can get stronger & bigger, and with the use of the internet to facilitate easy and more or less free communication within such a huge network - finally something is getting big enough to really take on capitalism/neo-liberalism.

To get involved with the Irish Social Forum or learn more about it, below are the contact details:-

Web: http://www.irishsocialforum.org/

Contact: Barry finnegan (interim convenor)
E-Mail: [email protected]
Phone: 01-8741223.
Voicemial/Text: 085-7333044

SnailMail: Irish Social Forum,
"Cultivate Centre"
15-19 Essex St. West
Old City,
Temple Bar,


__________________________________________________



Re: Jim Monaghan \ John Throne.

Great to hear your mature, thoughful comments again Jim, which I thought were excellent. Regards to, to John Throne, for his excellent piece above.

I particularly liked and shared Jim's opinion:-

"While this is about election as well as other activities it should leave room for an alliance with the WSM and GNAW where agreement is possible."

Though this might be entering into the realms of dreamland thinking that this might happen - I think that, at least, some loose organized connection with one another, should be possible I think it would very much be in the interests of both Irish socialism and anarchism. Both groups are so involved with one another on the ground. i.e. they attend all the same demo's, marches, websites & pubs!, etc. etc.

For both groups to assist one another in a more formalized way - its not rocket science to think how both groups would benefit.

As much as I hate many of the results of capitalism - I share Marx's respect & appreciation of many of the things it has achieved. How it has come to be so powerful, I believe, is well worth examining and copying (so long as the results are the complete opposite). You only have to look at big business's & corporations and see how they merge with one another to become bigger and stonger. The power of these corporations is something that we are all trying to take down - but their power is so huge, we are as of yet, only scratching at the surface. Look at how they have merged & formed alliances. Copy it I say.

How do you think our no. 1 nemesis, the United States of America, came to be so powerful? Does the word "United" give you a clue? Europe learnt that it had to copy this model to become as powerful, and so it is doing and achieving.

If we all remain split & divided from one another, we don't have a hope.

Peace.

by Kevin Wingfield - SWP Fri Jul 18, 2003 22:40

The main objection of substance so far in my opinion is the following:
Wouldn’t a Socialist Bloc of revolutionary socialists make it more difficult to achieve a bloc of single-issue campaigners. Wouldn’t it be a “narrower” bloc?

Both the SWP and the SP all the time work with people who are not revolutionary socialists and even not socialists: In the anti war movement, unions, community issues like the bin tax, etc, etc.

It’s called the united front. We disagree with these people over lots of things but agree to fight together on the particular issue. Many of us have shared platforms with Greens, Labour, Sinn Fein and others on such issues without any problem. Any socialist that is afraid to link up with others to fight on particular questions is a sectarian. Of course nobody has to take political responsibility for the policies of their temporary allies on other questions.

This is important. By working with SF on say the bin tax campaign, I do not underwrite that party’s policy on say, the creeping introduction of privatisation of functions in hospitals in the North, a policy which I and my party are bitterly opposed.

But if Popular Assemblies of the type that exist in Argentina as a means of resistance to the IMF and World Bank and their local agents in the Argentine government, were to spring up in Ireland, as they likely would in periods of great upheaval, would they not contain Greens, Republicans, reformists and much worse? Of course they would. And would we be there helping to building their influence and at the same time fighting for socialist policies? Of course we would.

The point is to turn these bodies into fighting revolutionary organs that can pose a serious alternative to capitalism, not to dissolve the major differences of strategy between the various ideas into a consensus which prevents the formation of that alternative.

When it comes to elections in the concrete situation of Ireland today, the crying need is to pose a genuine socialist alternative (although the bloc proposed would go much further than elections in our view).

I think most socialists would have a real problem publicly endorsing a candidate who was good on Bin Charges, say, but took a racist position on immigrants or a SPUC position on women's rights.

This is not an abstract possibility. At the Anti Privatisation forum organised recently by bus workers in Dublin, a man got up, said he fully supported the bus drivers and was a candidate in the next elections for the Christian Solidarity Party. Do we inlude him in a "broad alliance"?

The creation of broad currents of opposition to the government is obviously something socialists would obviously welcome. But it altogether another question for socialists to bury themselves in a formation that was unclear on basic issues of justice, class politics, etc, etc.

Socialists do not determine each political development and have to orientate themselves in such a way that they can relate to forces coming into opposition to aspects of capitalism. This involves welcoming progressive developments while arguing in a friendly and fraternal way clear politics.

Nothing can relieve us of the necessity of judging each case concretely – the forces involved, the general tendency of the formation, etc, etc.

But such a “broad alliance” of community, single issue and progressive candidates has not crystallised at the moment. If revolutionary socialists like the SP and SWP were to be in some sort of socialist bloc and co-operating and harmonising their activities, they would be in a stronger position to positively influence such a broad alliance. In other words, the one does not preclude the other.

It would a big mistake in my opinion to say that an arrangement between the SP and SWP has to be put on the long finger because "we have other irons in the fire". A common approach would assist us all get those irons hotter!

Finally, the SP and the SWP share more of their ideas with each other than they do with other parties and groups. A working arrangement is a more or less immediately realisable objective if there were a willingness.

We could pretty easily agree a common platform in the unions, in campaigns and in elections. This co-operation could mean that revolutionary socialists in Ireland draw closer together and enhance their effectiveness.

How would it work? What would be the mechanics? Open to discussion. Indicate a willingness and we will find a way which respects the differences while building on our common core politics.

Hope this helps

Kevin Wingfield
SWP

by (A) Sun Jul 20, 2003 06:52

Anarchists NEVER benefits from these kinds of fronts. Remember your history,anarchists! Do NOT fall for this!Fuck the "left",its the workingclass we wanna organise!

by a Sun Jul 20, 2003 13:43

What agreement would be reached on,
orange parades
policing
national question
support for independent anti cuts candidates

by Jim Monaghan Mon Jul 21, 2003 10:21

This should not be a totally 2 horse thing. Where do the CPI, WP, Socialist Democracy etc stand on this issue.
Have the SWP responded to Seamus Healys call?
On Community canidates I would have a few reservations. Say on Finian McGrath and others like him I indeed welcome them. In fact I would put them on an equal footing if not a lot more than the SWP because they have achieved election and have a real base in the oppressed communities.Their program is of the Left.
But there are other so-called community canidates. Pro-lifers and worse out there.
So for an alliance to support anyone there would have to be some kind of minimum program which would exclude.
Kevin Wingfield should produce a report on the SWP approach to alliances over the years. A balance sheet as there is still adegree of suspicion about this new found openess of the SWP.Whether Kevin thinks it is fair or not the SWP have to prove sincerity on this. There has to be an end of the culture of raids and manouvres wtr to other groups and the movement as a whole. This is not just an SWP fault, it is shared by nearly all the Left and dates back a long time.At its worst it ends up in the mindless slags which infest INdymedia. At least we have avoided the physical stuff.(Though there is a history of this around the place)
There is not a proven Bolshevik party with the truth and the one true way. Let us leave that sort of stuff to religion and the cults. Let us create an athmosphere of cooperation and honest debate. We are a long way from power or eve3n the sniff of it.

by Orla Drohan Mon Jul 21, 2003 11:56

I have to agree with John Meehan that apart from some good contributions from serious individuals the "debate" here has mostly been wretched. To do the issue justice, why not hold an open public debate where people can put their viewpoints accross? Also there are internet sites where political debate is the order of the day instead of the trading of insults.

by Mark - SP Mon Jul 21, 2003 14:12

Agent of Chaos - How many people who voted for the Bolsheviks in the Soviets in 1917 did so as a conscious vote for revolutionary Marxism? People supported the Bolsheviks because of their political programme and by and large that is why people vote for us - on the basis of our fighting record on issues that effect working class people and our political programme.
By the way your name is quite funny.

by John Meehan Mon Jul 21, 2003 14:12

Orla Drohan's proposed public discussion is a very good idea - let's conclude the discussion on this thread - which has probably reached the end of its useful life - and contact each other to see what can be usefully done.

It seems to me that the focus should be at least on three sets of forthcoming elections, one definite, one possible.

The definites are :
the European Parliament Elections in May 2004 (both sides of the border)
the local government elections in the 26 Counties
The possible is :

the election to the Stormont Assembly (if the British government changes its mind, and decides to go ahead with it!

by Less Curious Mon Jul 21, 2003 16:51

Perhaps Orla's proposal is a good one, although I'm not sure what it really means. It will be interestig to see how Orla's proposal goes down in her own organisation. On the basis of anecdotal evidence I wouldn't put much store in the SP coming to the debate other than to reiterate the mantra that 'the time isn't ready yet.

John supports Orla's proposal and then rushes headlong into focusing on elections. Is nothing to be learnt from SA 1 or nothing from the electoral bloc experience in England. So far it would seem that you have given tacit support to Healy's plea, McCann's plea and now the SWP plea -why don't you announce your candidacy and let us all stand back to see them rush to comradely assist you.

Would it not be more in line in focusing on campaigns and testing out the basis for mutual cooperation. If we can't work together constructively on campaigns of mutual interest - Anti-war activity, Partnership, Anti-Privatisation, the now cancelled blockade etc. etc. (The world has moved on from your beloved ANV) - there is little chance of there being trust come election time.

One final thing it seems that you relish in your self appointed role as moral guardian of all things political but do us all a favour and give it a rest - your pomposity is wearing a little thin.

by John Meehan Mon Jul 21, 2003 17:30

I continue to boycott poisonous anonymous postings - the one above is an excellent example - others please do the same.

by Ray Mon Jul 21, 2003 18:00

"How many people (who) voted for the Bolsheviks in the Soviets in 1917?"

A minority of the working class, that's how many. But that's okay, because anyone who didn't vote for the Bolsheviks is obviously counter-revolutionary, so their vote doesn't count.

by anon Mon Jul 21, 2003 18:03

I am putting this up anonymously as I dont want personalised abuse thrown at me by some.

John, I think that you don't see that the SWP are not really serious about left unity. The SWP's socialist bloack proposal is divorced from any real understanding of the movement. They dont seem to realise that there is not a wide socialist consciousness among working people at the moment.

What is the purpose of this Socialist Block proposal? Is it to build a wider movement? No. The SP's idea of a wider community and trade union alliance is far better in building resistence to the system as not everyone has drawn socialist conclusions.

I have my deep suspicions of the SWP's proposal. I think that it is primarily about the elections. Afterall SP and SWP do co-operate to an extent with each other already on campaigns. The SWP really want to be able to go into the local elections with an endorsement from respected figures in the workers' movement like Joe Higgins, Clare Daly, Mick Barry, Lisa Maher etc.

by so what? Wed Jul 23, 2003 15:36

half the people you just mentioned are ex-militant,there is nothing revolutionary about them,the sp are just a more extreme form of the labour party and are just sniffing after parliamentary power as opposed to any kind of revolution,interpret this as sectarian if you wish but to me its undeniable.

by fr michael cleary - vatican Thu Jul 24, 2003 19:50

richie boyd barrett is the fruit of my loins. leave him alone or a man in black robes will fondle you.
bye the way, tell kevin wingfield that god says his time is up and can he make his way up asap.
cheers and don't forget...god is watching

by Stephen Boyd - Socialist Party Mon Jul 28, 2003 18:43

A Proposal by the SWP for a Socialist Slate in the Future Assembly Elections, with a Response by the Socialist Party

IN RECENT weeks the SWP in Northern Ireland have approached the Socialist Party and other parties, groups and individuals inviting us to participate in a socialist slate to contest the Assembly elections. Below we have published the correspondence between the Socialist Party and the SWP which deals with our attitude on this question.

On 14th June a meeting was called by the SWP was held in Belfast to discuss forming a socialist slate. The Socialist Party sent an observer and circulated our reply to the SWP. At that meeting it was stated by several members of the SWP that in the event of a socialist slate candidate running in a constituency where a genuine working class campaign had decided to run (e.g. on the issue of hospital closures), the socialist slate candidate would stand against such a candidate. Incredibly, it was stated by the SWP that 200 votes for a socialist slate candidate would be more significant than a genuine anti-hospital closure candidate getting elected!

This collection Comprises 5 documents:

The SWP proposal for a socialist slate
SP initial reply
A further circular letter from the SWP
SWP Proposals for a Belfast discussion, June 14th
Socialist Party's Northern Regional Executives response


Document 1:
SWP proposal for a socialist slate


Tuesday, April 29, 2003

Dear Comrades,

We wish to urgently raise the prospect of a socialist slate in the Assembly election scheduled for May 29th.

The widespread expectation is that if the election goes ahead it will be no more than the usual sectarian head-count. There is a crying need to assert the relevance of class by presenting a socialist alternative.

The development of the anti-capitalist movement and the related emergence of the anti-war movement has re-drawn the political terrain in which socialists operate. There are opportunities open to the left which weren't there a couple of years back. We think a real effort should be made to realise these opportunities.

We have to be realistic about what's possible. But we also have to use what possibilities there are.

Time is very limited. But together we mobilised thousands in 48 hours for the Bush-Blair war summit.

A few points which we think are worth noting:

1. If the only candidates going forward are from the usual communal parties and liberal alternatives, a significant minority will have no candidates of their choice. The existence of this minority and the fact that, in our view, it is growing will not be recorded. The left minority will not have been mobilised or consolidated.

2. The need for a socialist alternative arises in practical terms from the fact that PFI, water privatisation, public sector cuts etc. are all that's on offer to workers from the sectarian deal which delivers communal politicians their places on the gravy train.

3. The anti-war movement which pinnacled on Feb 15th showed the impact a united front approach by the left can have. Of course, an electoral united front is a different matter. But the general lesson remains.

4. No other candidates will make opposition to war and capitalism central to their campaigns. .

5. The SWP, SP, the CP and others could stand individual candidates. But none of us would make the impact we might make together. A united approach would have the potential of "national" impact, rather than aiming at building a purely local base

6. Credible socialist 'independents' such as Mark Langhammer would be more likely to entertain the notion of a left alliance rather than be drawn into the orbit of a single party.

7. Concretely for instance, the notion of Joe Bowers, Carmel Gates, Eamonn McCann, a leading firefighter, a sacked airport worker, other campaigners etc. standing under one umbrella would be of great significance and interest.

We don't under-estimate the difficulties that would arise. After all, they have arisen in the past. But we believe the pros far outweigh the cons.

As for the programme an alliance of socialists would put forward: Agreement might centre on opposition to imperialist war-plans, opposition to sectarianism and oppression, a pledge to use seats won or influence gained to help a fight against privatisation and for decent wages, union rights etc., support for a woman's right to choose, integrated comprehensive education.

We don't offer this as a definitive list. Obviously, there'd have to be discussion of what to include. There might have to be accomodation on issues such as policing, the Belfast Agreement, etc. But we'd envisage the main thrust would be to campaign to realign politics here along the line of class and not of community.

We are circulating this proposal to the CP, the SP and individuals who might be interested. Again, we don't have a definitive list. You may wish to show this to others who you think ought to see and might consider it.

We ask you to discuss this within your organisation and respond urgently. The most obvious aspect of the matter is the shortness of time. We look forward to hearing from you. This idea is a runner if we all want it to be. If it is, you might agree we should aim for a meeting to thrash out the practicalities this coming weekend.

Fraternally,
Eamonn McCann ,
On behalf of the Northern Committee of the SWP



Document 2:
Initial reply by the Socialist Party

Dear Eamonn,

The Regional Executive Committee of the Socialist Party has discussed your recent letters on the idea of a socialist slate in a future Assembly election.

We have been discussing with a number of individuals and organisations the possibility of running candidates for some time and these discussions are ongoing.

We are hopeful that a slate of credible candidates could be put together on a broad " anti cuts - anti privatisation - defend public services" platform. This might involve community campaigns and would most likely not be an explicitly socialist slate.

While we would generally be in favour, where possible, of a united left or socialist slate in elections, we do not believe that the basis exists for a political bloc of this character at this stage in Northern Ireland.

The forces to make up such a slate do not exist at present. We have quite fundamental political differences with other groups on the left. This does not mean that we absolutely exclude standing in an alliance with others on an agreed minimum platform, provided our candidates had the right to go further and stand on the programme of the Socialist Party.

Such a bloc would only be justified if it could make a considerable impact in the election. We are not convinced that the forces for a credible political alliance of this character exist at present.

Nor can we ignore the fact that we have profound differences with other groups, including the SWP, on the national question and issues, like parades, that arise from it. These issues come up in all elections in Northern Ireland, but especially in an Assembly election fought around the central question of the future of the peace process.

The experience of our sister party in England and Wales in the Socialist Alliance is also a concern. Our comrades had no choice but to withdraw from this body when a decision was taken to impose a party structure on it. To stay within it under these conditions would have meant, for example, ceding political and organisational control of the election campaigns of our sitting councillors to a central executive in which we were a minority.

Should we decide to put up candidates in a future Assembly election we would run as Socialist Party. We would like to do so as part of a broader umbrella of "anti cuts, anti privatisation" candidates. If some of these candidates won seats it could be a significant step towards the creation of a new mass political organisation of the working class, and it might then be possible to consider concrete initiatives in this direction.

We are happy to discuss these issues, understanding that such a discussion would have to deal frankly with differences on ideas and methods and with problems we have encountered in various "united front" activities in the past. In this light we regard the idea of a "Left Assembly" or a "socialist slate" as premature at this stage.

Peter Hadden,
On behalf of Socialist Party Northern Regional Executive Committee


Document 3:
Second circular from the SWP

May 12th 2003

Dear Comrades,

I am following up the letter of last month in which, on behalf of the Northern Committee of the SWP, I raised the prospect of a socialist slate in the Assembly election then scheduled for May 29th. Of course, the election was postponed. However, the case for a socialist bloc in the next Assembly poll, whenever that is, registering as "Other" and putting defence of the public sector at the centre of its campaigning, remains as strong as ever. We would like to pursue the idea.

A number of points in favour of a united left intervention were made in the previous letter:

"1. If the only candidates going forward are from the usual communal parties and liberal alternatives, a significant minority will have no candidates of their choice. The existence of this minority and the fact that, in our view, it is growing will not be recorded. The left minority will not have been mobilised or consolidated.

"2. The need for a socialist alternative arises in practical terms from the fact that PFI, water privatisation, public sector cuts etc. are all that's on offer to workers from the sectarian deal which delivers communal politicians their places on the gravy train.

"3. The anti-war movement which pinnacled on Feb 15th showed the impact a united front approach by the left can have. Of course, an electoral united front is a different matter. But the general lesson remains.

"4. No other candidates will make opposition to war and capitalism central to their campaigns.

"5. The SWP, SP, the CP and others could stand individual candidates. But none of us would make the impact we might make together. A united approach would have the potential of 'national' impact, rather than aiming at building a purely local base

"6. Credible socialist 'independents' such as Mark Langhammer would be more likely to entertain the notion of a left alliance rather than be drawn into the orbit of a single party.

"7. Concretely for instance, the notion of Joe Bowers, Carmel Gates, Eamonn McCann, a leading firefighter, a sacked airport worker, other campaigners etc. standing under one umbrella would be of great significance and interest."

It was suggested that the development of the anti-capitalist movement and the related emergence of the anti-war movement had re-drawn the political terrain in which socialists operate, and that there were opportunities open to the left now which weren't there a couple of years back.

It was suggested, too, that the programme of an alliance of socialists in the North might centre on opposition to imperialist war-plans, opposition to sectarianism and oppression, a pledge to use seats won or influence gained to help the fight against privatisation and for decent wages, union rights etc., support for a woman's right to choose, integrated comprehensive education, etc.

This wasn't offered as a definitive list. It was recognised that there'd have to be discussion of what to include, and that accomodation on various issues might be necessary.

As a means of making progress, we are now suggesting that a number of individuals who generally agree with the proposal should jointly issue a call for a conference of the Left in the North to launch an electoral initiative. This, we believe, would give the project a better chance of success than a call seen as coming from one organisation. We believe such a conference should be inclusive and democratic and should be open to political, trade union, community and campaigning groups.

We are circulating this letter as widely as possible to relevant groups and individuals. We have no objection to the letter being passed on to relevant people we have inadvertently omitted or don't know of.

If people willing to sign a letter calling a Left assembly of the sort envisaged here contact me, I'll undertake to arrange a meeting where we can come together to make the practical preparations.

Fraternally,
Eamonn McCann,
On behalf of the Northern Committee of the SWP



Document 4:
Planned discussion at Belfast meeting

Dear Comrades,

RE: Meeting to discuss Left Unity: Belfast Unemployed Centre, Saturday June 14th, 43.30pm.

In a letter in April on behalf of the Northern Committee of the SWP, I raised the prospect of a socialist slate in the Assembly election then scheduled for May 29th. Of course, the election was postponed. However, the case for a socialist bloc in the next Assemby poll, whenever that is, registering as "Other" and putting defence of the public sector at the centre of its campaigning, remains as strong as ever. We would like to pursue the idea.

A number of points in favour of a united left intervention were made in the previous letter:

"1. If the only candidates going forward are from the usual communal parties and liberal alternatives, a significant minority will have no candidates of their choice. The existence of this minority and the fact that, in our view, it is growing will not be recorded. The left minority will not have been mobilised or consolidated.

"2. The need for a socialist alternative arises in practical terms from the fact that PFI, water privatisation, public sector cuts etc. are all that's on offer to workers from the sectarian deal which delivers communal politicians their places on the gravy train.

"3. The anti-war movement which pinnacled on Feb 15th showed the impact a united front approach by the left can have. Of course, an electoral united front is a different matter. But the general lesson remains.

"4. No other candidates will make opposition to war and capitalism central to their campaigns.

"5. The SWP, SP, the CP and others could stand individual candidates. But none of us would make the impact we might make together. A united approach would have the potential of 'national' impact, rather than aiming at building a purely local base

"6. Credible socialist 'independents' such as Mark Langhammer would be more likely to entertain the notion of a left alliance rather than be drawn into the orbit of a single party.

"7. Concretely for instance, the notion of Joe Bowers, Carmel Gates, Eamonn McCann, a leading firefighter, a sacked airport worker, other campaigners etc. standing under one umbrella would be of great significance and interest."

It was suggested that the development of the anti-capitalist movement and the related emergence of the anti-war movement had re-drawn the political terrain in which socialists operate, and that there were opportunities open to the left now which weren't there a couple of years back.

We are circulating this letter as widely as possible to relevant groups and individuals. We have no objection to the letter being passed on to relevant people we have inadvertently omitted or don't know of.

Date and time of meeting again: Belfast Unemployed Centre, 4.30pm., next Saturday.

Meeting to discuss these ideas.

Eamonn McCann


Document 5:
Socialist Party response to the SWP's call for a "socialist slate"

June 14th 2003

The Socialist Party is issuing the following short statement to clarify our position on the call made by the SWP for a socialist slate in the Assembly election.

The SWP have organised a meeting on 14 June in Belfast to discuss this and have issued invitations to left parties, groups and individuals, including some members of our party.

Apparently some people have been assured that the Socialist Party have agreed to participate in the discussion about the formation of a socialist slate. We want to clear this up in case there has been any misunderstanding about our view.

We received the initial letter that was circulated by Eamon McCann on behalf of the Northern Committee of the SWP. We considered the proposals carefully and, on 20 May, sent a reply outlining our position. (copy attached)

This letter points out that we have already held discussions with a number of people about the idea of a "Defend public services" slate. It sets out some of the difficulties we have with the SWP proposal which we regard as, at best, premature. There is no ambiguity about our position.

We have not received a reply to this letter, nor have we had any discussion with the SWP about it's contents. Nor did we give any indication that we would be participating in the 14 June discussion.

We have now decided to send an observer to this meeting solely in order to ensure that the reasons we are not in support of the SWP proposal at this stage are accurately represented.


Working in Broad formations

We are in favour of the maximum unity of the left. For years we have campaigned for a new mass party of the working class to challenge the right wing and sectarian political forces. We will support all genuine moves to build such a party. If it were created we would participate within it.

We are also in favour of working with others on the left, where unity on specific issues would make a greater impact than acting independently. This will only work where there are democratic methods of decision making and where differences are not glossed over or suppressed, but all those involved can put forward their own ideas.

We believe our record on working in broader formations speaks for itself. For many years we have worked with others in the unions in broad left and other opposition groups. We have participated in many community campaigns. On the electoral front we have worked with others, despite considerable political differences; most recently in the Labour Coalition.

While working within broader organisations we have, until very recently, faced criticism from of other left groups, including the SWP for doing so. The SWP consistently opposed working in broad left formations in the unions, arguing that it was wrong to seek election to leading union positions and criticising us for doing so.. The SWP also attacked us for participating in elections, accusing us of "electoralism". This was the charge made against us when Socialist Party member, Joe Higgins, was elected to the Dail representing the Dublin West constituency. We have stood in Westminster and local government elections here, as well as the Forum and Assembly elections. The SWP did not support us. In fact there were occasions when they advocated a vote for Sinn Fein against us.

This does not mean that we exclude working alongside the SWP, and others on the left. During the war we attempted to do this. No doubt other issues will arise that will require some degree of co-operation.

In deciding whether such co-operation would be beneficial we have to decide whether the difficulties that arise in linking with others with whom we disagree on quite fundamental questions are outweighed by benefits of united activity in advancing the class struggle.


"Socialist slate"

With regard to the SWP proposal for a "socialist slate" we do not consider that this is the case. There are a number of reasons for this, including the following:


1. It reflects a misunderstanding of the way in which a new party of the working class will be built. A party that will have an impact in elections will emerge from struggles, both industrial and social, that impact in the working class communities. There are a number of broad campaigns against cuts that are considering running; the HOPE campaign to save Omagh Hospital is an example. These campaigns are broad and could not be brought within a socialist umbrella at this stage. However if they did stand they could get a good vote which would be of more significance than a "socialist slate" consisting of two or three existing left groups which got a very small vote.

2. There are profound political differences between ourselves and others on the left on many issues, not least on the national question and on issues that arise from it. In a broad grouping there would be room for such differences which could be discussed over a long period to see if common ground could be arrived at. However a "socialist slate" or "socialist unity" implies a much greater degree of political unity. Given the differences that we have had with the SWP and others on the left on issues like parades and sectarianism, we doubt that there is the basis for political unity. We do not agree with an approach of sweeping such differences under the carpet and discussing only the things we agree about. Experience demonstrates that this is a recipe for division, not unity, as differences on difficult questions will inevitably arise in some way.

3. The results achieved by the Scottish Socialist Party in the recent Scottish Assembly election were very significant. However some on the left have misinterpreted these results believing that they were achieved because the SSP has managed to bring together most of the existing left in Scotland. In fact the basis for the SSP success was laid much earlier - in the mass struggle against the poll tax which was led by Scottish Militant Labour, then our sister organisation in Scotland. It should be remembered that, on the back of this campaign, SML made significant electoral breakthroughs. In 1992 they had six councillors on Glasgow City Council. Without this groundbreaking work revolving around a mass civil disobedience campaign, which allowed real roots to be sunk in working class areas, the recent successes would not have been possible. The much more modest results achieved by Socialist Alliance candidates in England are a better indicator of what the unity of existing groups on its own can achieve at this stage.

4. The case that has been made for a "Socialist slate" is based on an overestimation of the impact of anti war movement on the working class and the electoral implications of this. We do not in any way downplay the significance of the biggest anti war movement in history, but we do require a sense of proportion. This was the case also during the war when Socialist Party members had to counter the false ideas put forward by SWP members that each demonstration would be bigger than the one before or that opposition to the war would continue to develop in a straight line irrespective of what was happening on the ground in Iraq. The anti war movement has had an impact on an important layer, especially of young people. As the mess created by Imperialist occupation becomes even clearer, these people can draw quite far-reaching conclusions. But in terms of voting patterns in the Assembly elections, especially in working class areas, the impact is not likely to be significant.

5. For all these reasons the Socialist Party considers that the idea of a broad "Defend Public Services" umbrella, which could unite community campaigns on issues like hospital closures and water charges with trade unionists like the fire-fighters, is a better way forward. If the Socialist Party were to put up candidates we would like to do so as part of such an umbrella. This would not and could not be an explicitly socialist slate. Rather there would be agreement on an anti cuts, anti privatisation platform, but with the right of groups within it to put forward their own programme on other issues. This could be a real stepping stone to the creation of a new mass working class party.

6. The fact that this proposal for unity comes from SWP also causes us some difficulties, given that our experience, including our most recent experience, of working with the SWP. In considering any proposal for an alliance we cannot gloss over the difficulties that we experienced in the anti war movement. Far from demonstrating a willingness to work alongside others in an equitable and democratic manner, SWP members used divisive and quite undemocratic methods that stretched whatever unity existed to near breaking point. This was not just our experience but was shared by others, including some of the trade unions who took part in the movement.

7. Before we could consider any alliance with the SWP we would need a balance sheet of what happened in the anti war movement. We would need to be sure that what went on then would not be repeated. Specifically we are referring to what happened on Day X and at Hillsborough when SWP members split the demonstrations. We are referring to what happened in the "Anti war movement" which was dissolved without reference to any of its members, ourselves included, and then was re-established again without any discussion. We are referring to problems of decisions taken behind the scenes and presented at meetings as a fait accompli. We are referring to decisions taken to divide anti war groups, which were implemented before these groups had even had the chance to meet to discuss them. These were not isolated examples but were our general experience of working in this movement.

8. As we point out in our letter the Socialist Party in Britain had to withdraw from the Socialist Alliance because the conditions imposed on it by the SWP majority made it impossible for us to remain within it. Our party in Britain was in favour of a Socialist Alliance. In fact it was the Socialist Party who took the initiative to set it up. The SWP initially opposed it but, when they eventually did join, they insisted on replacing its federal structure with a centralised party style constitution. The Socialist Party was the only component of the Alliance with elected representatives. The change meant that the election manifesto of our councillors could be drawn up by an SWP dominated executive. The Socialist Party has many important political differences with the SWP and we could not put ourselves in a position where our members could be compelled to stand on ideas we might not agree with.


We would only enter the proposed alliance if we considered that it would have a significant impact on working class communities. This is not the case. Even if it were we would insist on a full discussion on the problems that we have encountered in every past attempt to work with the SWP, as well as a discussion on political differences before we would be prepared to participate.

We are in the process of discussing an electoral initiative as outlined above. If we decide to go ahead and stand we hope that we will be able to work our a "non aggression pact" with the SWP's "socialist slate" to make sure that our candidates do not stand against each other in any constituency.

Issued by the Northern Regional Executive Committee of the Socialist Party.

by Number cruncher Tue Jul 29, 2003 13:11

The above issued by the Northern Regional Executive Committee of the Socialist Party. That's the entire Northern Ireland membership, then.

by Joe Wed Jul 30, 2003 13:07

How come the SWP in Ireland are against an electoral alliance with community candidates but in the UK are trying to form an electoral alliance with religous groups?

by aidan Wed Aug 06, 2003 18:12

This is an interesting article and it is good to hear someone from the Swp with something progressive to say. I am not to sure what the replies were like because i like many have stopped reading the replys and concentrate solely on the initial postings. I am toally in favour of a the left creating a united block. Howvever my problem with The swp and the sy is the dualistic aspect of their agendas and their insistence on what i percieve to be illusory " objective conditions", a term i must admit that i hate. The problem of religion is its division between man and god, the problem with consciousness is our division between man and the world. Equally the problem with Socialist parties is their division between the working class and the party. Firstly i will not use the term working class because i believe in humanity and the unification of people. Segregating PEOPLE achieves nothing.The party has no claim to represent a certain aspect of society. The party must encompass people and allow for direct participation in decision making based upon subjective conditions of living people.Delegating leadership allows for authoritariamis. The theory and wording behind Stalins intial publications are extremely democratic in theory ..however it became quite obvious that the term working class meant solely the leaders of the party. This dualism is still prevalent in the socialist parties in Irewland. Nobody can claim the right to represent a collection of individuals on a historical deterministic basis or objective conditions. The reality of objective conditions no matter how much you may deny it is the fact that most people in Ireland do not need a societal change. Hence what is needed is a cultural revolution based on the direct participation of people. Self managment is the key to real socialism , not the building of a party. The party exists in collective self managment of the people. Labour, SY, SWP, it does not really matter unless there isa willingness for collective participatiobn and change. The answer is not delegating it to a dualistic party that bases its ideas on historical determinism.

by newcomer Tue Sep 23, 2003 22:57

I think this resource which you people at Indymedia maintain is very helpful to making key decisions for the future.
The future of all.

by E O'R - none Thu Sep 25, 2003 20:36

It's been months since I last visited this site and I see that things have not only stagnated, they've gotten WORSE!!!!!
Keep on taking sides in these petty squabbles over the minute points of your crypto-religious dogma, while the bosses get stronger and continue to fuck you up the ass!
Sometimes, looking at the posts here, it would seem that some would prefer the status-quo to prevail rather than see the 'opposing' faction make some advances.
So long as your in-fighting,factionalist,bitching,cultist splittery continues-you will all remain where you should.......nowhere!
I'm no friend of the SWP by any means, and RBB's name causes me little by way of sleepless nights, but the proposal that he makes is SENSIBLE.I'm not aligned to the SP either, but the formation of a genuine alternative to the namby-pamby grandstanding of Pat Rabbite et al could do nothing but enhance the chances of change to the way this country is run.
GET OFF YOUR ARSES, TAKE YOUR IDEOLOGIES FROM UP YOUR HOLES, AND START HITTING THE BOSSES OVER THE HEAD WITH THEM, RATHER THAN EACHOTHER!!!!!!