A resignation from the IAWM steering committee

by Sleepy Joe Mon Feb 16, 2004 03:45

Tell me this is not impersonation. Can anyone reliable please clarify?

by Janus Mon Feb 16, 2004 11:24

Not even the tiniest bit surprised, but very saddened. Fintan made an outstanding contribution to the anti-war movement and the tone of the letter suggests it is not a joke.

by observer Mon Feb 16, 2004 11:58

Commisserations - you have a learnt a lesson many others have previously in regard to the behaviour of certain elements. But comfort yourself that at least none of us will ever have to live in a state controlled by them, unlike the poor unfortunates in North Korea.

by Dominic Mon Feb 16, 2004 12:37

The sudden news of Dr Lanes resignation has has shocked the people of Iraq. "How can we continue to resist a superpower without him on our side" was all one observer could say, banners reading "we may as well throw in the towel" could be seen in cities all over Iraq. Everybody agrees it is the saddest of days, but pledge that though he may be gone, Finbarr Lane will never be forgotten

by babybromley Mon Feb 16, 2004 12:56

It's a real shame that you have been forced to make a decision such as this. We appreciate the effort you made to keep Shannon on the Agenda and too keep the occupation of Iraq in the news. Factionalism appears to be rife within the IAWM and there doesn't appear to be a lot that you can do about that. Same old story over and over and over again. We appreciate your honesty in clarifying your reasons.

by Anonymous Mon Feb 16, 2004 13:30

This is very, very disappointing news indeed. I commend Fintan on all the anti-war work he has done and on the personal sacrifice he has put in for the sake of the innocent lives of war victims.

I urge the IAWM steering committee and the IAWM in general to seriously take on board Fintan's criticisms and not to just take a defensive view of them.

Personal and party political agenda's must not be even considered where thousands of innocent lives are at stake.

Could anyone provide more information on the IAWM:-

1. How many people are on the steering committee?
2. Who are the members and what are their affiliations?
3. How is it run and how are decisions made?
4. Is it elected & run on a totally democratic basis?

I urge people not to just start slating one another but rather to get the running of this organization right.

The tragedy in Iraq is going to go on for a very long time, and war of course is never going to go away. So let us all please try and get things together.

by Janus Mon Feb 16, 2004 13:58

This is the last record of minutes poster on their site. No word of the meeting Fintan refers to on 31/1.

Some interesting names popping up there.

by whats the point anymore Mon Feb 16, 2004 15:20

I would commend the anti war movement and the work it done in the early days of brining together people of a like mind to oppose what was happening in Iraq. However, this movement has become a spent force. It is characterised as nothing more than a small rabble of the extreme left who have taken to slagging each other off. The anti-war movement brought the whole country, or most of, together to find against injustice. To suggest that the small band of SP and SWP left sitting alone in small rooms represent this mass movement is a joke and an insult. I wouldn’t blame anybody for throwing the towel in. Its time they called this a day.

by observer Mon Feb 16, 2004 16:08

this all arise from the trots deluding themselves that it was THEY who brought the masses out to protest against the war. It was not, no more than it was SF or the Greens or the LP or any of the other groups who were part of the loose anti-war movement. It was people themselves who instinctively - and from all political backgrounds and none - who were appalled by what was ABOUT to happen and Bertie's craven role in it all. They marched to stop it taking place and when that didnt happen they stayed at home. It was a single issue campaign and it was lost. Those ordinary people who took part in it knew that. The only ones fooling themselves are those who beleive that it was the beginning of the REVOLUTION.

Pity about Fintan. At least he put his money where his mouth was.

by iosaf ipsiphi Mon Feb 16, 2004 16:30

You did well, and you will go on doing well.
It's strange to watch how these things go from my perspective.
"Espai alliberat contra la guerra!" had it's last technical general assembly in early autumn and we chose to revert back to our component collectives, lists, groups and activities. That did not mean we stopped opposing the war, just that we thought the extra-ordinary assembly of anarcho-syndicalists, anti-authoritarians and squatters and grassroot groups opposed to the war had contributed enough to the "macro-mobilisation call" of "Auturem la Guerra!".
We thought so for a variety of reasons, ond of which being the obvious shift in our local priorities and the undeniable shift in "Auturem la G!'s" effectiveness.
That platform went on to be nominated by the press for various awards and kudos and stuff, but could only gather 9000 for the last autumn demo, followed by such yesterday, though provincial cities of Catalonia did see upwards of 20,000.
I have always thought it a true strength of such extra-ordinary assemblies of anarcho-syndicalists, anti-authoritarians and squatters and grass root groups that they recognise when a "mass mobilisation impetus" has ended, and have the experience to know when to channel the cololective energy into different tactical manifestations.
in short:-
Stop when the Going is Good.

We are still naturally anti-War, but in 2004 there are other ways and manners to promote our common agenda, and so we ought discourage actively stagnation in any group to which we have lent our energies and participation.

rolling stones gather no moss.

anyway Ireland is of course different, but that's just how it looks.

by Joe Mon Feb 16, 2004 21:07

The IAWM has lost all credibility. It is nothing more an SWP front organisation.

by Padraig - a new hope Tue Feb 17, 2004 02:07

Fair play for fintan to take such a stand.

his reasons are mine and countless others.
we had a motivation...and richard boyd barret and others in the swp,not discluding other parties with there agendas drove the movement straight into a brick wall.

all the IAWM had to do,all their job was,was to help bring opposition to war together in a non violent manner.but inter party disputes and in particular the rediculous behaviour of the socialist wankers party in the steering commitee ruined it for us all.here was a chance to stand up to our governments complicity in a foreign war.vote hunting ruined it.

the irish anti war movement is dead.
someone please let them know,its embarassing at this stage and when something like this happens again...I dont beleive we'll see 150 000 on our streets

by Infoshop Tue Feb 17, 2004 02:21

Someone was looking for the IAWM steering committee members. They are,

Kieran Allen (SWP bossman; international secretary IAWM)
Richard Boyd Barrett (SWP second-in-command; chairman IAWM)
Aoife Ni Fheargail (SWP henchwoman; supposed to be IAWM fundraiser!!)
Colm Stephens (SWP go-for; IAWM secretary)
Laurence Vize (Fairview Group) [expelled]
Mick O'Sullivan (Fairview Group) [expelled]
Michael O'Brien (Socialist Party)
Glenda Cimino
Harry Browne
Raymond Deane (Irish-Palestine Solidarity Campaign. Always votes with SWP)
Fintan Lane (Cork Anti War Campaign; IAWM PRO) [resigned]
Kirsten Foy [resigned]
Colin Coulter (IAWM treasurer)
Tim Hourigan (Green Party and Mid West Alliance Against Militarism and Aggression)
Cara Wallace (Tralee Against the War)
Dominic Walsh (man of mystery)

Only six are members of political parties: 4 SWPers; 1 Sp; 1 GP. Of 16 members, 2 have now been purged (both opponents of the SWP) and 2 have resigned, so far.

The SWP control the committee and they stuffed the recent national meeting with bogus Dublin delegates to ensure that the agenda for the coming period was set by them. The organisation is a front.

It has no actual members. Prove me wrong! Lets see actual membership figures and lists of active groups. There are none. No members and hardly any groups. Fairview is the only genuine group in Dublin; the rest are SWP branches that occasionally call themselves 'Dun Laoighaire Against the War' or whatever. It's a sham organisation.

by Infoshop Tue Feb 17, 2004 02:26

It should be said that one reason for SWP dominance is that a good few of the committee members are completely inactive. They like them that way.

by Ant Tue Feb 17, 2004 02:35

The only non-SWP officer now is Colin Coulter who holds the lowly position of treasurer. It's usually a thankless task with no power, so they'll leave him at it no doubt. This is all about power, after all.

by observer Tue Feb 17, 2004 10:03

The games played in the IAWM have the same relationship to real power as masturbation has to real sex. It is all a fantasy and an illussion and means absolutely nothing to the tens of thousands who took to the streets last year against the war in Iraq. These people would be just as happy on the committee of a football team where they could play their silly pseudo machiavellian games in competetion for secretary or chairperson. They would also get to meet more ordinary people that way.

by Anonymous Tue Feb 17, 2004 11:30

Many thanks "infoshop".

The Swp presence is unfairly large. Granted they put a lot of work in setting up the IAWM in the first place and pushing the whole anti-war movement forward - But if the movement is truly to become a national, UNITED, successful, Irish, anti-war movement then there MUST be a balanced steering committee.

I propose that there be a new steering committee consisting of an even representation of political parties opposed to war.

Say, for example, 2 SP, 2 GP, 2 SWP, 2SF = 8

Then, at least, 8 independents (non-aligned party members).

Of course there are other parties which should be represented as well so might have to re-shuffle the above a little, but you get my drift.

And ideally, anarchist organizations should be equally represented on the committee as well.

I know people will probably say not much point at this stage but I don't believe in giving in up on anything so easily and without a fight.

What do people think??

by bbf Tue Feb 17, 2004 11:34

the credability has been sucked of of this organisation. it is crawling to the gutter for a place to die. let it rest in peace.

by Badman Tue Feb 17, 2004 13:28

The SWP will never relinquish control of one of their fronts. One can come up with all of the formulas in the world for a 'power sharing executive' but they will never be implemented. If you could persuade the SWP of such an arrangement, I'd be amazed, and until you do there is not much point in anybody else considering it.

It's their ball and they'll take it home and hide it in the cupboard if they don't get to be the team manager, star-striker and most of the other positions as well. They'll even puncture the ball and dig up the pitch if it looks like anybody else might get a bit of the limelight.

by Maratist Tue Feb 17, 2004 15:04

Why bother????
The IAWM is nothing. Nearly everything that has happened re:actions at Shannon has happened because of people acting autonomously of the "Irish Anti-War Movement".

by f - f Tue Feb 17, 2004 15:56

Congrats to all Lawerence etc who are interested in ego rather than anti war activity- rather wreck the IAWM for the sake of their egos...crawl to gutter and disappear!

by Cotton Mather Tue Feb 17, 2004 16:01

It is the SWP who are wrecking the SWP by packing meetings and undemocratically expelling SC members. Laurence dont accept the expulsion. Turn up at the next meeting with supporters and demand admission. Dont let the meeting go ahead unless they let you attend. Whats the betting that RBB would call the cops to have you removed?

by Major Woody Tue Feb 17, 2004 16:04

Because 5 minutes before this comment was posted someone called 'k' posted the following to the thread on the ESF

"who wrote this shite- blah blah- "didn't admit being in the SWP..." Fuck off!"
http://www.indymedia.ie/newswire.php?story_id=63452

Looks like they are teaching SWP members the ABC. Great responses lads!

by Jonah Tue Feb 17, 2004 16:37

Regarding Annonymous' proposals I'd just like to clarify that while individual members of Sinn Fein might, and indeed to my certain knowledge are, members of local Anti-War groups the party is not an affiliate to the IAWM and never has been.

Our involvement in anti-war demonstrations and events like February 15th was through our membership of the Peace and Neutrality Alliance and so I don't think giving us two seats on a Steering Committee is either a good idea or something we are entitled to.

Personally speaking, Fintan's resignation comes as no surprise when coupled with almost every other encounter I had with the SWP/IAWM at every level from organising national events to casual contact at street level.

by ? Tue Feb 17, 2004 17:48

Also is there anybody out there who knows Mick and Laurence? Are they that difficult to work with?

by ! Tue Feb 17, 2004 17:56

Can't be anymore difficult than working with Kieran Allen or Aoife ni Gargoyle.

by Dominic Carroll - Clonakilty Against the War/Cork Anti-War Campaign Tue Feb 17, 2004 18:29

Fintan Lane’s decision to resign from the IAWM steering committee is entirely understandable.

The IAWM has become something of a plaything for the Socialist Workers Party, made possible (in part) by the collapse of the anti-war movement at grassroots level but also because of the unwillingness of the SWP to work with others in a democratic and respectful manner. The IAWM is now no more than a shell under the bureaucratic control of the SWP, which has been willing to maintain the fiction of an ‘actually existing movement’ whilst doing little to rebuild at the grassroots level.

Though the IAWM deserves credit for various initiatives (including February 15th 2003), it has failed on many counts:

It has failed to operate on a democratic, bottom-up basis; rather, it has been governed by a barely elected steering committee that has failed to create mechanisms for communicating (in both directions) with those it claims to represent (beyond occasional directives to join marches or hopelessly late notices concerning ‘open’ meetings);

Its campaigning against the militarisation of Shannon Airport have been lacklustre, grudging and too infrequent to be effective;

It has effectively called off the campaign against Shannon Airport;

It has ignored the jailing of anti-war activists (Pitstop Ploughshares, Mary Kelly, Eamon (Limerick), Fintan Lane, Eoin Rice), and failed to support others before the courts;

It has adopted an attitude of hostility to anti-war forces beyond the IAWM (excepting moderate organisations such as PANA, NGO Alliance, etc., whereas the Grassroots Network Against War and similar groupings have been treated with disdain and outright hostility);

It has failed to come up with any kind of strategy for the anti-war movement beyond periodic marches and pickets (which, of course, perfectly dovetails with the needs of the SWP but which is hopelessly inadequate for the movement as a whole).

Can the IAWM be reformed? Is it worth it? Perhaps, but only if the SWP makes
a genuine attempt to correct its errors, of if its influence is reduced. One or the other.

by Sean Tue Feb 17, 2004 20:17

They are if you have heightened sensibilities about the use of the word 'fuck' but then they're both working class fellas that speak their minds. Raymond Deane is obviously too sensitive a flower for all this argy bargy, and the SWP were just looking for any excuse to get rid of two opponents. Make no mistake, this was a way of getting rid of political opponents and was done in an underhand and sneaky manner. Fuck that! Opps, excuse my French, Raymond. Ah no, on second thoughts, fuck you too.

by James Tue Feb 17, 2004 20:22

Re Anonymous and the steering committee:

There would be limited anarchist interest in having two reps on a central committee. In the absence of wider interest it’s better than nothing, but there is now quite a bit of anti-war activity possible in Ireland. Generally we have qualms about a central committee structure per se. It often effectively means that the 12 or so on the central committee have a veto over the activity of the wider movement.

While I’m not the greatest fan of SWP, simply being anti-them isn’t going to solve much. Libertarians have problems with their centralising politics rather with them personally and so thinking about alternative modes of organising is a good thing. Simply replacing the swimmies with a different central committee is of limited usefulness methinks.

Anarchists would prefer a more federal arrangement as this is both more democratic and it increases the likelihood of diverse approaches being accomodated.

With regard to anti-war activity in Ireland, this would mean placing greater emphasis on the local groups such as MAMA, Clon vs war, Fairview, Dublin Grassroots and whatever else.

For example if Mama thought a demo at Shannon was a good idea, then instead of going through a steering committee which could shoot the idea down, it could go directly to the other groups and get their opinion. If there was enough support the demo could simply go ahead. Obviously everybody, including Iawm and SWP, would be welcome to join in such initiatives. There could be regular meetings to co-ordinate activity. An organic network might evolve in something more formal, say setting Shannon as the focus of anti-war activity (because it is where we are we are complicit) and some parameters such as using explosives is off limits, but civil disobedience is ok. The timeframe of such evolution depending on how everybody gets on I guess.

While I’m at it, anarchists don’t see civil disobedience & direct action as being exclusive to mass action (somebody on another thread was making this point). There’s place for both and hopefully in the future there’ll be occasions for mass civil disobedience as well. The last seems to me the most likely way to stop refuelling at Shannon.


The IAWM's dismal leadership: A critique of the politics of Trotskyism by Dec "legend" McCarthy @
http://www.struggle.ws/wsm/rbr/rbr7/iawm.html

by Uncomfortable Tue Feb 17, 2004 21:55

Not that I thought joining a SWP controlled IAWM was a good idea in the first place.

I would have felt more comfortable if this resignation (from access to putting out IAWM press statements/ something I'm sure pissed off the SWP for the last couple of months) had happened after Eoin Rice was released from Limerick jail. Rumour has it he is in solitary and on hunger strike. (Can anyone confirm?)

I would have felt more comfortable with Fintan waiting for the D6 event (that he had a large role initiating) to begin his prison witness.

I don't know about folks falling upon their swords in isolation. We need more of a team effort vibe and Eoin needs solidarity asap

by Rob Wed Feb 18, 2004 01:58

What is 'uncomfortable' on about? Fintan went to jail on the 26th of November a week after the cops said they wanted him to give himself up. Are you suggesting he should have gone on the run until December 6th? Like what, go into hiding and do what? If this movement is that completely reliant on activists like Fintan we are in serious trouble! Fintan was a key activist in the run up to December 6th (and it was his idea) but is 'uncomfortable' suggesting that...what is being suggested? Stupid talk.

I think Fintan was right to resign now. Well done Fintan! Ignore the whingers (who probably never do anything themselves anyway!).

by Anon Wed Feb 18, 2004 02:53

The terminology would indicate that Mr 'Uncomfortable' is a Catholic Worker?

Fintan and 'team' vibe? Come to Cork and talk to some heads here. 'Uncomfortable' definetely isn't from Cork or he (?) wouldn't be talking such shit.

by IMC reader Wed Feb 18, 2004 08:09

Someone wrote:

"For example if Mama thought a demo at Shannon was a good idea, then instead of going through a steering committee which could shoot the idea down, it could go directly to the other groups and get their opinion. If there was enough support the demo could simply go ahead."

Good point. It explains why the SWP is so anxious to set up centralised structures: it's the best way to control, limit and ultimately destroy any movement, which is clearly what the SWP is up to.

by A reader Wed Feb 18, 2004 20:32

Fintan made a speech at last nights Cork anti war public meeting specifically about Eoin Rice and calling on people to write to him and support him. So "comfortable" would want to get his/her facts right.

Great meeting by the way. The American Military Families Against the War guy was excellent. About 60 or 70 there I thought.

by Garret Thu Feb 19, 2004 00:00

I'm not surprised by this split in the IAWM. The SWP have never been to work on an equal basis with anybody. Maybe this experience will teach them a lesson though I doubt if it will.

At least the IAWM is now properly exposed as an SWP front. Why don't they re-name? Socialist Workers Anti-War Movement?

by Uncomfortable Thu Feb 19, 2004 10:56

This is how it works...if you make a public statement (eg. this resignation letter), you are putting it up for comment and criticism (its content or timing or whatever), then you or others get to rebut it.....no need to sound so defensive or upset. There was some good points made in the rebuttals there.

Still think that this resignation (with Eoin isolated and inside) and the surrender (after initiating D6) were badly timed. Otherwise as you point out the acts have a lot of integrity about them.

Quite a few good folks spoke from the floor in support of Eoin last night at IAWM meeting in Dublin.

by Joe Thu Feb 19, 2004 19:11

I'm guessing 'uncomfortable' (a heee) has very noticeable hair.

Fintan should be commended for his actions in exposing the SWP junta, for initiating the December blockade, and for doing time in jail for his principles. Whingers like 'uncomfortable' should be ignored cos he's clearly incapable of seeing the bigger picture. How could anybody stay on the IAWM steering committee after the shite the SWP pulled?? Every decent person should be resigning NOW - and 'uncomfortable' and his daddy complex should get a life.

by Deirdre Clancy - Personal Capacity Fri Feb 20, 2004 11:57

The comments of "Uncomfortable" merely show a determination to find fault where there is none. I do, however, think it's unfair automatically to assume this individual is a Catholic Worker. It wasn't me anyway.

First of all, Fintan had no choice but to go to prison before Dec. 6th. The police had already reluctantly given him leeway to delay his imprisonment and there was no other option; the pressure was on. Similarly, Fintan has been garnering support for Eoin since Eoin went into prison, and done it very effectively. Just because it's not Dublin-based doesn't mean it's not been happening (although I know some people based in Dublin are of that mentality). He felt his position was untenble within the IAWM in light of several issues, not least the expulsion in a devious manner of two people from the SC. Both moves speak of Fintan's integrity, rather than the opposite.

Fintan has already contributed more to the anti-war effort than many people could ever hope to do. To hit out now, where there is no evidence to back up the criticisms and they are based on false assumptions, shows a lack of soldiarity for someone who has always tried to do the right thing within the movement. Both the resignation and imprisonment were done in a dignifed manner and with integrity. And incidentally, I spoke to a few people who were more motivated around December 6th precisely *because* Fintan was in prison, so it actually had an effect opposite to the one "Uncomfortable" is describing. There will always be begrudgery where someone makes a key, difficult decision like this: I just didn't expect it to come from someone who was anti-war, but from a troll.

The argument to the effect that if you put out a letter you have to deal with the criticism might have some meaning if the individual in question had actually been willing to stand by their comments by coming out as to who they actually were. But coming from an anonymous poster, comments about having a thick skin and taking the heat are just a tad hollow. People who make anonymous postings do so precisely to avoid taking the heat. Fintan has put himself out there for comment, this person has not, and it's evident why.

by Uncomfortable Fri Feb 20, 2004 14:55

You really need to see "Mystic River", you and the lynch mob could compete for the Sean Penn character.

The criticisms were minor and expected for someone perceived as a leader in the movement - lead us back nito the IAWM and then initiated a blockade where the SWP/SP got to police it. Now with Eoin in jail is it really a good time to give up a role where you havre the power to put out (media brand recognition) IAWM press releases?

Just minor criticisms of, as you point out a fine fellow...with a lot of oversensitive touchy friends.

by pc Fri Feb 20, 2004 15:36

why were those two guys expelled

you mentioned something about swearing

could they not keep there cool in dismal swpy meetings i dont blame em ...


yeha i don't think it such a bad thing if all the regional groups work together what ever is going on can continue....

there always confusion with the iawm being represented as the irish anti-war group rather then being just one of many


feel guilty now about not going to more meetings but if i had the chance again would i go , probalby not....

by Deirdre Clancy Fri Feb 20, 2004 19:07

The people refuting "Uncomfortable" are not touchy, just pointing out the facts of the situation, which bear no relation to the criticisms. People can think for themselves; to suggest that Fintan "lead" anyone back into the IAWM is somewhat bizarre. Even those activists who have problems with the IAWM generally attend the demos, so he wouldn't have had much 'leading' to do. All Fintan was doing (along with a few others) was trying to make the demos more creative and steer the IAWM in a more inclusive direction. He realised ultimately that this was impossible under the current circumstances.

As for the "brand name", Fintan put out a press statement immediately Eoin was imprisoned. He then found out that members of the SC were ignoring his role as PRO anyway. There is no way the SC as a whole would have supported a campaign around Eoin's imprisionment, unless you're living in some weird parallell universe. Speaking about Eoin from his position of Chairperson of CAWC is just as effective; probably more so. There are many vantage points from which to highlight Eoin's plight; the IAWM isn't necessary to do so. To say that someone should ignore their principles to hang on to a role which has ceased to have meaning within the IAWM, rather than support Eoin from a position of principle is Machiavellian.

I don't mind people giving constructive criticism if it's meaningful and based on the facts. Nor do I mind the suggestion that someone should be open to criticism when they post a letter under their name, if the person such criticism is coming from is willing to be equally transparent.

by curious Fri Feb 20, 2004 19:11

is Deirdre Fintan's PRO?

by Fintan Lane Fri Feb 20, 2004 20:59

If Uncomfortable posts the same questions under his real name, I'll respond to his criticisms. Otherwise, for all I know, he may be a troll working for the Gardai or Aer Rianta or whoever, and I have better things to be doing with my time than rising to their bait.

With regard to why I resigned from the SC of the IAWM at this time, please read the letter above. Remaining was not an option.

Incidentally, on the day I resigned I discovered that an IAWM press conference had been held in Dublin the previous day to build for the demo on March 20th. This was organised by the chair on his own initiative and, despite being the PRO, I had to read about it in the Irish Times. Just another example, in my opinion, of the unsatisfactory manner in which this group operates.

I wish, however, that some people would bear in mind that the IAWM, such as it still exists, is NOT the anti-war movement, but a small part of it. This is a diverse movement and it goes on regardless.

by Groucho Sat Feb 21, 2004 05:53

The IAWM has revealed itself to be a sectarian organisation, siding with Muslims on the French headscarf ban but ignoring Sikh and Jew protests.

I wouldn't touch them with a bargepole (not to mention the persistent rumours that they're a front for the Socialist Worker vendors).

by southpark zapatista Sat Feb 21, 2004 14:13

" the IAWM, such as it still exists, is NOT the anti-war movement, but a small part of it."

and getting smaller all the time.

I've noticed more and more people understanding the SWP agenda and tactics and are tired of dealing with them

by Anon Sat Feb 21, 2004 22:45

and left to die. Nobody will be interested in getting involved in it now that it has been exposed as nothing more than a crude SWP front.

by Anonymous Mon Feb 23, 2004 00:57

On another thread somebody claims that Tim Hourican and others have resigned as well. Anybody got any details on this?

What about the other independents on the steering committee? Are they going to stay and operate a front for the swp?

The left has destroyed the peace movement in Ireland. They should stick to chanting 'one solution revolution' in future and leave the genuine peace activists alone. With friends like these.....

by Joe Mon Feb 23, 2004 11:22

Just as the IAWM is not the totality of the Irish anti-war movement the SWP (and SP partners) are not the totality of the left.

by Spartacus Mon Feb 23, 2004 16:05

Many contributors who attack the far left are either ignorant of or ignore the fact that the Trotskyist SWP and SP who share the same Leninist internal organisation are not the sum total of the left. There are a number of smaller groups such as WCA, ISN, WSN, CPI etc. and a large number of unaffiliated individuals. These represent a varied range of politics and ideology, some of which are far removed from the manipulative cultishness of the SP/SWP. Their positions on the Anti-War movement also vary greatly but few to my knowledge have any time for the undemocratic shenanigans of the SWP in the IAWM.

by not an individual Mon Feb 23, 2004 18:11

'and a large number of unaffiliated individuals.'

dare one say... the MAJORITY of the anti-war movement are 'unaffiliated individuals'?

by Keyser Soze Mon Feb 23, 2004 18:19

Its amazing how the Spuppies react faster than the speed of light to any thread where there is a SF poster, any criticism of the anti-bin tax campaign, any criticism of Lenin, any mention of John Throne etc, etc.
Yet when matters of real democracy come up. Nada, not a word.
But then the SWP carry on, wouldn't be alien to a party who can dump loyal activists, would it?

by Curious about Soza Mon Feb 23, 2004 19:32

Why don't you contact the SP or better still MO'B directly??????

by An insider Tue Feb 24, 2004 02:20

Michael O'Brien (SP) has backed the SWP on the steering committee most of the time but the Socialist Party are bit players in this bullshit. I doubt if O'Brien is following a party line because all the SP members I've spoken to are horrified at what the SWP are doing. Don't get sidetracked here: the SWP have fucked upthe anti-war movement and unless they realise that we know, and are seriously pissed off, they'll carry on as before. Bear in mind, that we are talking about a tiny far left organisation (200-250 members at most, and that's being generous) wrecking the anti-war movement. Also the SWP are completely Dublin based.

Short version of above: dont allow SWP trolls to derail you into thinking the SP are backing them. They're not. This is an SWP fuck up.

by Bean Counter Tue Feb 24, 2004 05:43

You really are being generous!

by Joe Tue Feb 24, 2004 11:27

I don't think we can let the SP off the hook that easly. MOB is not an ordinary member but one of their Trokia. The SP have backed EVERY rotten SWP turn in the IAWM, if SP members had ANY genuine concerns about this they have had over a year to act on them. They haven't and people are quite right to draw conclusions from this.

In other words its a bit like saying in relation to the Bin Tax 'you can't blame the SWP for what RBB has said and done'.

Far from derailing this thread this is an important issue in the light of building an Irish anti war movement. If people take the lesson that the problem with the IAWM was simply the SWP they will just repeat the same mistakes with a new set of initals.

by Keyser Soza Tue Feb 24, 2004 11:59

"Why don't you contact the SP or better still MO'B directly?"

Why bother, you wouldn't get a straight answer. I'm sure pc can back that one up.

by Curious about Kieser Tue Feb 24, 2004 15:58

PC?? What are you talking about?

by KS Tue Feb 24, 2004 16:02

The standard SP line is that you should ring them to find something out. pc was told to do this with regard to the local elections in the Crumlin area. He came back and said he didn't get a satisfactory answer. So excuse me, if I don't take you up on your offer.

by Curious about KS Tue Feb 24, 2004 16:31

Why do you expect to get an answer from Indymedia postings?? Why don't you e-mail him directly and see what happens??

by Joe Tue Feb 24, 2004 16:37

What is the use of ringing MOB. Is anyone suggesting that the SP record is not clear on these issues? Obviously if the SP felt they could defend this record they would be doing so. The silence speaks for itself.

by KS Tue Feb 24, 2004 16:47

Other then Seeing him at the odd demo. Anyway my original comment was on how the puppies are quick to pounce on other things but the matter of democracy in an organisation to which their party is affiliated seems to bother them not a bit. As I said could this be because they are used to this sort of carry on.
Would you care to comment on this curious?

by Curious about KS Tue Feb 24, 2004 17:16

Talk to him. Get to know him. Are you afraid he might offer you a rational explanation?? His e-mail address is quoted above. Ring the SP office to get his mobile. What's the harm. Sure if he gives you short shrift its just another stick you can beat him and the SP with on Indymedia.

by KS Tue Feb 24, 2004 17:27

that's a no then.
You have no comment to make on why the SWP are being propped up by the SP in their undemocratic manoeuvres.

by Badman Tue Feb 24, 2004 17:53

The role of the SP in the IAWM is entirely predictable and quite in line with their broader strategy. It boils down to the following.

The SP's strategy is based around building up support in community strongholds and turning this support into votes and recruits. As any local politician will tell you, this means concentrating on bread and butter issues, on an intensely local level. The bin tax campaign and the water tax campaigns are the two areas in the last 10 years where the SP has been most prominent and active as an organisation and they both fit well with the requirements of building up support bases.

However, the SP is avowedly a revolutionary trotskyist organisation and they could hardly simply concentrate on local issues and ignore the winds blowing from the outside world of capitalism. But the big problem is that these issues are not very useful in building up the type of community support bases that the SP are after. In fact they can actually be detrimental, as their 'community members' may have joined because 'Joe is the only one who gives a damn about the community' and may not share the party's views about global capitalism or imperialist war. So the problem for the SP is that if they pour all of their resources into community work and ignore the broader picture, their ideological purity will be dissolved and their claims to be a revolutionary vanguard, harbinger of a new world, will look increasingly fantastic.

Another possibilty would be to pour their resources into the various 'big-picture' campaigns, but this would inevitably take away from their community, alienate many potential voters and damage their project to build up strongholds.

Essentially they have opted for the first. They have poured huge resources into the bin tax and water tax campaigns while doing relatively little against the war or as part of the 'anti-globalisation' movement. To attempt to disguise their inactivity on these 'big-picture' issues they have cleverly adopted the strategy of hiding behind the SWP. They send a member or two along to whatever the relevant SWP front is and pretty much allow them to set the agenda, in the knowledge that the SWP will cop the heat for the lack of action and democracy that comes out of it. Meanwhile they can carry on putting all their resources into the local issues where votes are to be found. They can even informally join in with the SWP bashing that goes on in the anti-war movement and dissociate themselves from whatever absurdities come out of the paper fronts that they help to prop up.

Consider the following campaigns:

Water Tax: SP had dozens of members out in cars for several weeks all night long all over the city, they put in 3 years of solid work in building up the campaign.

Anti-Glob: SP have a couple of members elected the GR steering committee long after every other organisation and independent individual has left over a lack of democracy. All criticism of the crapness of that front is aimed at the SWP. The SP can get away with appearing to do something, while doing nothing and hiding in the 'criticism shadow' of the SWP.

Bin Tax: SP help build up campaign in many areas of the city over 2-3 years. At the peak of the struggle in Fingal they have members on round-the-clock shifts blockading bin trucks and going to jail for doing so. When the SWP try their usual tactics of blocking action and packing meetings the SP react with fury and refuse to countenance it.

Anti-war: SP send a single member along to Steering committee meeting and a few down to the odd protest in Shannon. When the SWP try their usual tricks of blocking action (March 1st) and packing meetings, the SP join in and vote with them.

by Curious about Badman Tue Feb 24, 2004 18:16

Meetings on the war and globaliation with SP speakers have been held throughout Fingal.
The last two SP leaflets to go out in Swords mention MO'B's anti war activitity.
You are obviously a middle class tosser if you think working class people who vote for/support the SP don't have the sophistication to be concerned about the war.
The Fingal Voice, with a circulation of 40,000 has gone into issues as wide ranging as abortion rights, Nice, War in Iraq, defence of public services, workers rights, racism, low pay etc as well as local planning and taxation issues.
The SP has enough of a sense of proportion to know which issues it can make a critical difference to such as the bin tax and devote resources accordingly.

by Curious about curious Tue Feb 24, 2004 18:21

Long on rhetoric but nothing about the undemocratic nature of the IAWM. How about dealing in the here and now.

by Jonno - SP (personal capacity) Tue Feb 24, 2004 18:49

One of the problems with Indymedia is that easy anonymity encourages an adversarial culture. Some people abuse that anonymity to engage in vendettas against some particular organisation or individual that they have it it for.

Others are less unfair but still get into the habit of putting the worst possible gloss on any actions or statements by anybody else. Unfortunately this is part of the culture here and it can effect people regardless of their views.

"Curious" for instance is right to warn against a patronising attitude that working class people can't be interested in "big" issues. He or she is quite wrong to do so in such an inflammatory and insulting way.

What is the point of taking part in debate here? Is it to score points off other participants or is it to actually convince people of the merits of what you say?

People here have asked why the Socialist Party representative went along with the majority of the IAWM steering committee and supported a motion to suspend two members of the committee. The answer is simple. Those two individuals were doing their best to disrupt steering committee meetings, through heckling and shouting, and were managing to make them unworkable.

It is arguable that their behaviour was a result of frustration at the behaviour of the SWP in packing delegate meetings and so on. I have a degree of sympathy for that, but the answer is not to behave unreasonably yourself in response.

The Socialist Party has since the birth of the IAWM been concerned with the democratisation of the movement. We have argued, for instance, for a serious check to be put on the number of delegates turning up from local Dublin groups. The problem being of course that some of these "delegates" don't actually represent anybody.

The SP has been involved in the anti-war movement since the start. We have covered it in great detail in our publications. We have carried out hundreds upon hundreds of stalls on the issue. We have involved ourselves in the IAWM and in mobilising for the demonstrations. Through Socialist Youth we took the initiative in setting up Youth Against War, which called the very succesful school student strikes.

I'm not quite sure what some of our critics here would have us do in addition.

by Badman Tue Feb 24, 2004 18:51

"You are obviously a middle class tosser if you think working class people who vote for/support the SP don't have the sophistication to be concerned about the war."

I never said such a thing, I never thought such a thing. If this idea is coming from anywhere it's coming from you. And actually that is one area where I would criticise the SP. I know well that many people are deeply concerned about the war. I know equally well that it is not a 'vote-winner' especially in local elections. If you know anything about elections you know this too, so save your ad hominem attacks for the moment. I also know that the SP leadership knows this (at least at some subconscious level).

If you think that the fact of having anti-war propaganda in Fingal disproves my point, you should have a deep think. Many Labour candidates will have similar material in their local newsletters (minus the odd ode to Lenin). Many labour councillers will even have similar propaganda against the bin tax in their election material - and I assume you know how meaningful that is. Talk is cheap, action is what proves one's bona fides. In particular action on local issues is what wins one votes. So to recap again:

Bin Tax/Water tax: SP direct action, serious commitement & mobilisation of membership .

IAWM/GR: SP opposition to direct action, trailing SWPat all times. No attempt to seriously mobilise for Shannon.

by Dan Wed Feb 25, 2004 06:51

"People here have asked why the Socialist Party representative went along with the majority of the IAWM steering committee and supported a motion to suspend two members of the committee. The answer is simple. Those two individuals were doing their best to disrupt steering committee meetings, through heckling and shouting, and were managing to make them unworkable"

This is rubbish. For a start only six members of a sixteen-person steering committee voted to expel the two victims here: four SWP members, one SP, and Raymond Deane. Two abstained on the vote, and two voted against. Nobody, except those moving the motion, knew about the motion to expell beforehand - Fintan Lane states above that it wasn't on the agenda! So where is this majority supporting expulsion? It was a dirty manouvre.

Disrupting the meetings? What? You mean they didn't agree with the way the SWP packed the national delegate meeting with bogus reps from bogus branches of the IAWM? They got frustrated and flew off the handle, which under the circumstances is kind of understandable. Disruptive at the other steering committee meetings? Boo hoo! Don't make me laugh! This was an SWP stroke/purge against their opponents and you went along with it, and now you're just trying to cover your arse. Have a bit of dignity for Christ's sake, and stop sucking up to the SWP. The SwP shafted their opponents and you just went along with it, and you're still going along with it!

by Dan Wed Feb 25, 2004 06:59

By the way, Mr SP admits that the two purged steering committee members might have been frustrated at the way the SWP packed the national delegate meeting, and he's sympathetic to that frustration. If that's the case, what are the SP going to do about the packing? Did your rep on the steering committee raise his voice against it? How do you intend to tackle it?

It is obvious to the cats in the street that the IAWM is nothing more than an SWP front. Why are the SP still involved and helping to prop it up? Check another thread and you'll see that even its own sections (Cork - second city in the state!) have disowned it and condemned the activities of the SWP. Are the SP remaining involved with this farce?

by Jonno Wed Feb 25, 2004 15:55

Dan, you are helping to illustrate the very problem with this site that I have already mentioned. An atmosphere of accusation and attack isn't conducive to reasonable discussion.

You accuse the Socialist Party of failing to stand up to the SWP in the anti-war movement when they try to pack meetings. You are wrong on that count. We have repeatedly argued that such behaviour is destructive and undemocratic and we have put forward proposals to deal with it by restricting the ability of phantom anti-war groups in Dublin to send delegates to meetings.

We are the last people you need to lecture about how much of an irritant such manouevres from the SWP can be. The correct response however is not to behave even less reasonably yourself. That was the response of the two suspended steering committee members, who unfortunately decided to make it impossible for the steering committee to function. In those circumstances the steering committee really had little choice but to suspend them - given that they point blank refused to modify their behaviour.

There is of course a political issue underlying this. A minority of the committe took the view that the IAWM should call continuous actions against the use of Shannon without regard to the support or impact that they could generate. The underlying point being that this is the morally correct thing to do and strategic considerations don't come into it.

For some of the people with that view (not all of them) on the steering committee the frustration at quite legitimately losing steering committee votes on such issues seems to have mingled with frustration at the SWP's antics at delegate meetings. The two issues are at root quite seperate.

by GGer Wed Feb 25, 2004 16:12

Compare and contrast:

"We have repeatedly argued that such behaviour is destructive and undemocratic and we have put forward proposals to deal with it by restricting the ability of phantom anti-war groups in Dublin to send delegates to meetings."
AND
"For some of the people with that view (not all of them) on the steering committee the frustration at quite legitimately losing steering committee votes on such issues seems to have mingled with frustration at the SWP's antics at delegate meetings. The two issues are at root quite seperate."

They are not seperate. How are they losing votes legitmately, going on your first statement? The delegates meetings are decision making and binding on the steering committee.

by GGer Wed Feb 25, 2004 18:30

It must have been difficult for you!

by Uno voce Thu Feb 26, 2004 12:14

"Anti-war activists say they will mount a "massive" protest. Mr Richard Boyd Barrett, of the Irish Anti-War Movement, said it was "absolutely certain" protests would be organised and he expected buses would bring people from all over Ireland to whatever part of the State Mr Bush visits."

by Ray Thu Feb 26, 2004 12:23

But I thought the IAWM had decided that Shannon was off-limits? Maybe RBB meant to say "wherever Bush visits - be that Parnell Square, O'Connell St, the Dail, or the Central Bank - we'll be there, ready to sell him a paper!"