Joe Higgins - Socialist candidate for Dublin in the European elections

by Disgusted Tue Apr 20, 2004 11:53

Well you now have something to discuss. Dermot Connolly has put some home truths together about the SPs contempt for democracy and how Joan Collins was treated. Stalin could have learned a few things from Steven Boyd and Kevin MacLoughlin.

I will leave it that just go and read the article by Dermot at the link which appears here.

by john throne - labors militant voice Tue Apr 20, 2004 04:29 loughfinn at aol dot com

SP members have been complaining about what they see as contributors to this site just wanting to attack the SP and score points. I think they have little credibility when they make this claim. I raised the damage done in France when different left candidates stood against each other. I raised a strategy for the SP and all other left and anti capitalist forces to work towards building a united front to get a program to fight the capitalist offensive out to the working class voters and to do this around one candidate who would represent this program. So SP members why do you not take up any of these points instead of yourself sniping at others who may as you say just want to get at the SP. Your indignation is not credible.

Then there is your attempt to cover your tracks in relation to Joan C. One of your members said this was a question of resources and you could only run so many candidates. Would you be able to tell us why the SP decided that Joan would not be the one to be selected to run. I understand that Joan has a very good record and base in her area and in the bin tax struggle. So on what basis did the SP decide she should not be a candidate. I am not too optimistic that I will get any sort of a serious answer to this question.

The SP has no credibility when it tries to deal with issues of internal debate and differences. It has a record of slandering and expelling and driving out opposition voices who insist on their right to be heard. Can you in the SP not see that until you honestly face up to this and openly admit to your mistaken internal culture that you will be forced more and more into dishonest positions. This is what I mean when I speak of the false method of the SP where the leadership is always right and where any serious alternative view is driven out corrupts the internal life of the SP. It forces members to tell lies to try and cover up.

One of your members says the SP wants to build a mass revolutionary party. How can you even think that a mass revolutionary organization is possible without the most serious debate and internal discussion and struggle and the development of factions. Leaving aside any other issues the internal life of the SP as it exists at present makes it impossible for it to become a mass party. Just think about it. A mass party in Ireland, we are talking about tens of thousands of members. This is impossible without an internal life which is democratic and open and a leadership which accepts that factions are an inevitable part of the process and accepts also that the leadership itself will have factions and different views. Engels said the party can only develop through internal struggle and debate. The SP does not understand this.

John Throne.

by No to the trolls No to the puppies Mon Apr 19, 2004 20:28

Well said

by WM Mon Apr 19, 2004 20:13

My response to both the anonymous troll who has contributed to this thread under a series of names (that would be you "disgusted") and to "tintin" can be found above.

In case you missed it the first time:

"I have no interest in discussing anything with the various anonymous shitstirrers this site seems to breed like maggots in rotten meat. And that includes the occasional dipshit who supports my own organisation but who just can't stop themselves from getting involved in these pointless rows."

by Disgusted Mon Apr 19, 2004 20:05

"Our programme, our strategies, our democratic structure have to be as good as we can make them and I'm willing to discuss any of those issues with serious people. "

How can anyone take you seriously when you stand by and let your ex comrades be abused. If you are serious then you'd be worried about a candidate being dropped cos of her partner.

by WM - SP (personal capacity) Mon Apr 19, 2004 19:51

I'm still here LU, I just dropped out of the thread once the trolling began. I have no interest in discussing anything with the various anonymous shitstirrers this site seems to breed like maggots in rotten meat. And that includes the occasional dipshit who supports my own organisation but who just can't stop themselves from getting involved in these pointless rows.

The Socialist Party, as you point out, will be an important part of any new working class party. More importantly still, we hope to create a mass revolutionary party.. We therefore have the responsibilities that go with those aspirations.

Our programme, our strategies, our democratic structure have to be as good as we can make them and I'm willing to discuss any of those issues with serious people. I'm not willing to do so for the benefit of every anonymous gossip and shitstirrer on this site however.

by Stalins airbrush Mon Apr 19, 2004 17:21

"Joan Collins put her own ego above the interests of the Party by insisting in standing for election. The SP is only capable of running a limited number of candidates. The Party centrally has to decide on the appropriate areas. It cannot be left up to the ambitions of individuals."

She had been told she was running. The SP only decided that she was not running because she lives with Dermot. The party centrally has to decide is bollix, a couple of people in Thomas Street decided, not the party. Ah the ambition of individuals - nothting McLoughlin or Hadden would know anything about with their rothweiller Boyd to do their bidding.

by Left Unity Mon Apr 19, 2004 17:01

There we were having a good, rational discussion and before you know it, the 'trolls' and the 'puppies' are hammering away. Lots of rhetoric, name calling and very little enlightenment.

It is important to discuss the ideology, tactics and internal organisation of the SP because they are likely to play an important role (negative or positive) in the future formation of a new left party. Any aspect of the 'life' of the SP should be open for discussion, it only becomes pointless if its ranted abuse rather than debate. Simply calling the SP a Cult or conversely implying that its the One True Church get us nowhere.

How about robust but rational debate, where we try to prove our contentions from material reality, not shout at each other as if we were cheering on rival football teams. Correct me if Im wrong, but isn't that a fundamental of Marxism?

by tintin Mon Apr 19, 2004 16:52

In any case they had all passed their sell by date. Dermot could not accept that things move on he wanted to be the eternal leader. His political degeneration was obvious from the stance he took in the Anti Bin Tax Campaign. It has also been a long time since Michael Gallagher played a productive part in Party activities.

Joan Collins put her own ego above the interests of the Party by insisting in standing for election. The SP is only capable of running a limited number of candidates. The Party centrally has to decide on the appropriate areas. It cannot be left up to the ambitions of individuals.

Mary Muldowney had drifted from the Party over a long period. She left the SP Dail office to pursue her own interests. She has now of her own free will decided that those interests lie outside of the Party.

by troll watcher Mon Apr 19, 2004 15:10

Indymedia Trolls always have to have someone to attack. They don't engage in debate about issues and attack other people's arguments, instead they just make stupid statements and try to stir up shit.

They always have someone ot attack. Today it is the SP, yesterday it was the SWP, tomorrow it will be the Catholic Workers, next day it will be another group.

It's just like the capitalist establishemtn always attacking a scapegoating a group. Currently it's assylum seekers, it used to be single mothers, on June 11th it will be pregnant foreign women.....

What's the difference between Indymedia's Trolls and the PDs!

by joe maxi Mon Apr 19, 2004 14:41

i wonder who these sp bashers are going to vote for in the election. will it be a working class activist that has a proven ability and track record in campaigning on issues in Dublin (ie Joe Higgins).

They are probably backing Labour! What a choice! Will it be some careerist liberal academic type (ie Prof Bacik) or will it be a sell-out ex-left that wants to meet and greet Bush, but over in Brussels with his mates instead away from angry Irish constituents (ie Prionsian DeRossa)

by Tom Mon Apr 19, 2004 14:23

None of those people were 'forced out' all left on their own accord.

Bush visiting Ireland, crisis in Iraq, Bin non collection to resume in Dublin, Racist referendum, government cutbacks, growing activism in the unions.... and what does somebody want to right a feature article about? A handful of people leaving the SP, this site is pathetic.

by OABA Mon Apr 19, 2004 14:15

If the SP are really interested in being anything other than a Cult then why do they force people out? The list is growing: Dermot Connolly, Joan Collins, Mick Gallagher, Mary Muldowney being just some of the recent departures.

Why is the SP such a narrow Church that no opposition or even disagreement is allowed?

Actually I think this is worth a thread of its own. Expect an article soon.

by Anti Bin Tax Mon Apr 19, 2004 14:03

If the SP are indeed guilty of putting their own selfish interests infront of the working class as a whole why did they engage in that tactics they did during the bin tax battle? If the SP were only concerned about their own organisation surely it would have been better for the SP to simply allow non collection and only put up a token opposition. That way they would have not incurred huge legal bills and prison sentences and would still have benefitted electorally.

by Nel Mon Apr 19, 2004 12:44

"The Socialist Party will fight the election on the general theme of the need to build a democratic, **socialist** Europe where the needs of working people come before the ruthless drive for profits by the multinational corporations."

that should read -
The Socialist Party will fight the election on the general theme of the need to build a socialist Europe where the needs of the CWI come before the needs of working people.

by Jimmy Sun Apr 18, 2004 16:16

There's nothing wrong with the bit of discipline but it is utterly wrong to call on the capitalist state to come in and have stricter policing on working class estates. It is the working class that needs to democratically police working class anti social behaviour not the capitialist cops.

In saying this, I would still vote WCA as they have a good track record of fighting for working class people on issues such as bin tax. And I hope he does call on people to vote Joe Higgins in the Euros. A good vote for Joe Higigns would be a boost for the working class and the campaign against the bin tax.

by larry byrne Sun Apr 18, 2004 16:04

mooney takes his law and order position from his earlier career. he was a soldier for 5 years in the '90's and is very strict. as for supporting joe higgins, i thimk joe mooney should call on his supporters to vote for 2 joes.

by socialist Sun Apr 18, 2004 15:20

Good to see Joe Higgins is standing in the election, at least there will be a socialist candidate in the election.

Labour, Greens and SF candidates are middle class chancers.

Would they ever say this?
"the Socialist Party will be opposing all privatisation and calling for more investment in public services including in crucial areas like urban and rural transport....We want democratic structures which bring the workers to the very heart of the management..... "

or this?
"The Socialist Party will fight the election on the general theme of the need to build a democratic, **socialist** Europe where the needs of working people come before the ruthless drive for profits by the multinational corporations. In particular, we stand against the privatisation agenda of the E.U. Commission, that is fully accepted by the FF/PD Government."

by SIPTU member Fri Apr 16, 2004 17:42

The fact is that many areas are faced with thugs that are involved in anti-social activity. They need to be dealt with. BUT no organisation that is in the interests of the working class will call on Gardaí to "do their job" or "be more efficient" etc. It should be Working Class people organising themselves democratically to tackle anti-social behaviour, NOT the Cops.

Before I get labelled with being a vigilante, I say organised DEMOCRATICALLY. ie get the views of the community, then a strong word with the offenders, possibly organise patrols of the local community to stop any activity, encourage the local community to oppose anti-social behaviour.

Calling on the cops disenpowers communities, it calls in a force that have a disgusting record in breaking strikes (incld attacking bin tax campaign), not to forget the brutal assaults of working class youth that they regularly engage in.

If Working Class Action was to live up to their name they would not call on the Gardaí to solve problems.

by The man beside the man Fri Apr 16, 2004 17:33

..... in their quaint terminology, she has placed herself outside the party.

As to WM's assertion that there has been an overestimation of the activists in the small groups and an underestimation of the SP membership.
All I can say is complete bollix.

You know that in the city, the SP is pretty non-existent and as for cadre members (the ones that really count in your world - you know its pretty small.) Don't do an SWP and talk of your paper membership.

by DC Fri Apr 16, 2004 16:56

Has Joan Collins been expelled from the SP?

by dermot Fri Apr 16, 2004 14:16

While I dont suport the WCA I think many on the left especially middle class lefties dont understand the hell that some of the working class are going through from thugs. My area is ignored by the police and old people and lone parents are vunerable to attacks from thieves and gangs of youth. It is not ok to excuse this carry on because they are poor or victims of capitalism they have to be chellanged and the WCA are putting out the message that communities need ot organise themselves to say no to this behavour.

Organising people to control their area is socialist and working with the youth to try to cchange their attitudes is good for the community.

by Activist Fri Apr 16, 2004 14:11

Yes, it usually very productive to go into working class areas and tell the persons resident there that you are in favour of their children being poisoned by drugs, their elderly being brutalised and robbed and persons of all ages being killed or maimed by rampaging car thieves. They are also well supportive of child rapists living just down the road.

But just perhaps the trolls reckon that anti-social crime and sexual abuse of children is somehow a 'left-wing' thing. It is because of such idiocy that the terms 'left wing' and 'socialist' are viewed with contempt by working class people.

I live in the North Inner City and have seen Mr Mooney's leaflet, there was no call for 'more Guards', rather that the ones who do exist should do their jobs and use the resources they have to counter anti-social crime. The few people I have spoken to about it agree with this. There was also nothing about 'hanging child abusers', but rather that the community should be alerted if such dangerous criminals move into the area, posing an obvious risk to children in the area.

I have not seen any PD literature in the area at all, so perhaps they are not running here.

by WM Fri Apr 16, 2004 13:39

I will try to get back to you properly when I get a bit of time LU, but I'm glad to see that we agree on at least some of the basic points.

On a couple of factual matters:

a) You both overestimate the number of people actively involved in the very small activist groups in Dublin and underestimate the number of people in the Socialist Party. If the balance of forces was as you suggest then the situation might be different. It isn't.

b) I don't in any way endorse the trolling above aimed at the two WCA candidates. They are left wing working class activists. However, it is true to say that their politics are very different to those of the Socialist Party in all kinds of ways (and they would be as quick to say it as we would be).

by Here Here Fri Apr 16, 2004 02:38

Your right Mooney and Perry are not left wing they call for more cops and they also have a tabloid media hang child abusers stance as well. Not that far removed from the BNP politics really!

by Cynic Thu Apr 15, 2004 19:18

MORE COPS MY ARSE!
has anyone seen this "socialists" local elction leaflet? Law and Order policies you'd expect from the PDs! And what's with the thousand yard stare. Sorry, but Mooney is not a left candidate for the East Wall.

by john throne - labors militant voice Thu Apr 15, 2004 18:21 loughfinn at aol dot com

I do not think that the issue of Joe Higgins running for the European elections can be properly addressed unless we start from the present situation between the major classes in society and from this the most immediate needs of the working class.

Capitalism is on the offensive and inflicting defeats on the working class in Ireland and internationally. Its objective is to take back all the gains that have been made over the past 100 years. Within this US imperialism seeks to dominate all its rivals and to rule the world.

The leadership of the unions have capitulated to this strategy of capitalism and with one or two honorable exceptions they cooperate with it. This is against the background of the catastrophe and the fall of stalinism and the collapse of the major parties which used to claim to stand for working people, or the open embrace by these major parties of the capitalist offensive.

In this situation the working class finds it very hard to see how it can win any struggles, finds it hard to see any alternative to capitalism. I therefore believe that what the working class needs more than anything is to build a movement that can inflict defeats on this capitalist offensive, that can secure some victories for the working class, some small victories leading to larger victories that can begin to have an impact on the mass consciousness of the working class, on the confidence of the working class internationally. A few such victories would open up an offensive struggle of the working class and begin to put on the agenda once again serious discussion about the alternative to capitalism.

It is in this context I think we should look at the European elections. I believe that what is necessary is a campaign that explains the above position and from this goes on to put a program, strategy and tactics to defeat the capitalist offensive to the working class people. I am not sufficiently in contact with the situation in Ireland to say what this should be in any detail. But I imagine that the need and how to win the struggle on the bin charges would be one such issue. But also a program for a living income for all, a job for all, defense of immigrants, an end to the Iraqi slaughter by US Imperialism and its allies, and other issues would be part of this program. Then linked to this would be an explanation of how these could only be won by ending any alliance with the capitalists and through an independent working class movement using direct action fight to win tactics.

I believe that the responsibility of all the left activists and groups and anti capitalist forces is to take such a program to the working people of Dublin and to seek to build a united front around such a program and tactics. The elections offer an opportunity to do this. I believe that the SP, the SWP, the different groups and individuals should be coming together to agree on such a program and plan of action and on this basis then decide on one candidate to run on this program and plan of action in the European elections.

I can hear everybody say that this will never happen because the SWP and the SP will not agree. And I think that this unfortunately is correct at this time. Both these parties are putting what they see as their own interests above the needs of the working class. This is sectarianism and it should be openly called what it is and openly opposed. However this is not the end of the story. There are many activists and some groups who would in general agree with the approach I suggest above, that is a program to defeat the capitalist offensive and one candidate to represent this view. What should these forces do. I do not think the SP and SWP are all powerful. I do not think that non sectarian activists and groups should be passive before their sectarianism.

I suggest that these activists and groups who are opposed to such sectarianism come together in a united front and go to the working class whom they can reach and explain their position. And in doing so explain also that they want the SP and the SWP to be part of this united front and who the candidate would be is not that important but what is important is that this program to change things is put forward in this election and that one candidate is put forward to represent these views and maximize the vote.

These views should be put forward in local bin charge committees, local unions, in the workplaces, the streets and door to door. And part of this campaign would be to explain how the larger left parties are blocking this united action and blocking the struggle to have one candidate. It is important not to be passive in front of the sectarianism of the left but to bring the information about this sectarianism to the working class people and to make these sectarian parties explain their position to the working people. Explain why they are not prepared to work together and to have one agreed program and candidate and from this to build a united front to take on the struggle against the capitalist offensive.

All of us on the left pay homage to the working class and the role of the working class but we do not always draw the full conclusions. The idea should be to put the sectarianism of the SP and the SWP and sectarianism in general in front of the working class audiences that these parties seek to build in and let these working class people along with all the activists and the SP and the SWP discuss this issue. The idea would be to make the sectarian parties explain themselves and justify themselves to the working class. Let them explain why they are not prepared to unite to build a campaign and to have one candidate. The idea would be to expose their sectarianism to the working class and mobilize the working class people we could reach against this sectarianism.

In such a discussion it would be important to remind people of the destructive sectarianism of the left groups in the last presidential elections in France. From the large vote the three far left candidates got in the first round it is not excluded that if they had stood one candidate they could have defeated the National Front, come second and been in the run off against Chirac the candidate of the big capitalists in the second round. Instead they ran three separate campaigns and instead of the possibility of a fighting working class socialist alternative being posed as the alternative to Chirac and the capitalist offensive, in the final run off it was extreme right wing racist capitalist policies against less extreme right wing racist capitalist policies. This was the choice given the working class and sectarianism played a major role in this result.

A sizeable vote for a program to defeat the capitalist offensive and for one candidate who would represent this position would increase the confidence and combativity of the working class. While the situation cannot be changed by elections, elections can be used to affect consciousness and to build movements. As part of this campaign I believe this reality should be explained and also it should be explained that this struggle for a program and for one candidate is part of the struggle to build a united front of all anti capitalist and all forces who want to fight the capitalist offensive that would continue after the elections and take the working class movement forward. When and how and if this would develop into a new workers party would partly depend on the developments in society as a whole. Within this united front all different groups would have the right to put forward their own views as they fought together against the capitalist offensive.

In this process the SP and the SWP if they could overcome their sectarianism could make clear that they thought their candidate was the best to run but in the last analysis what was more important was that one united program was put forward and that there was one candidate to maximise the vote and to inspire working people. If this process resulted in Joe Higgins being the candidate then this would be fine or if it resulted in some other candidate being selected by this process then this would also be fine. The most important issue is to have a program that can defeat the capitalist offensive and one left candidate to represent this in the elections.

John Throne

by Left Unity Thu Apr 15, 2004 17:56

WM makes a number of points in reply to my last posting which I will attempt to answer.

Of course alliances are not an end in themselves or always a good thing (as we can see from the ill-fated Socialist Alliance in England, ruined by the SWP's antics and their latest front: Respect, the love child born of the daillaince of Gorgeous George and the Swimmies). Alliances are progressive if they pave the way for real unity based on principled agreement and in Irelands case if they contribute to the building of a new party of the working class. LU is neither impatient nor dying to go through the agony of listening to RBB etc and their endless empty sloganeering, so we are in agreement on this.

I would not expect the SP to cede Joes candidacy. What I favour is a joint campaign not joint candidacy. That is that the SP would ask the others to support Joe and formally get involved in the campaign. In effect this would mean that they would be asked to canvass for Joe when out working for their own candidates. I have to say that given the arrogant attitude displayed by some SP members these others might not agree to this!

WM is very mistaken in his estimate of the numbers involved in other local election campaigns. As he surely knows from his work in the SP, much more people get involved in elections then the core activists. So while I would guess that WCA and ISN have about 10 core members each, his estimate of those working in elections is way off target. My own estimate is as follows: I know Ciaran Perry has about 30-40 canvassers working for him in Cabra, Joan Collins organised a bin tax meeting earlier this year with hundreds in attendance and I have heard that the John O Neill of the ISN has a team of 15-20 canvassing for him in Finglas. This excludes Pat Wall in Walkinstown and Joe Mooney in East Wall just cos I havent heard about their numbers. So at a conservative estimate we're talking about 70-100 canvassers, which you have to admit WM, probably corresponds to the active membership of the SP. Dont you accept that it would be a real waste if huge working class areas of the city which are being canvassed by local left activists are not going to be canvassed for Joe just because the SP isn't active in those areas?

No one expects the SP to water down their politics. What policies would you have to water down to please the WCA or ISN of Joan Collins? Surely you are not implying that they are less radical then the SP? No one is asking the SP to give up its hard earned profile, in fact the opposite is true: my suggestion would link Joe to the hard earned profile of others such as Perry, O Neill, Collins etc in areas where the SP has little or no profile.

As to putting roots deep in working class communities would'nt you accept that the groups and individuals mentioned above are engaged in that process every bit as much as the SP?

PS I will be supporting Joe because it is in the interests of the working class to have a principled representative of the class in Europe, despite my reservations about the current direction of the SP. Thats if I am allowed to!

by hs - sp Thu Apr 15, 2004 17:25

I think people's feet should be kept on the ground. I'm not there but sometimes in reading SWP material it seems they think the SP only have to say the word and the alliance will sweep the boards. The bin tax struggle and the anti war movement are definitely a a change, but they are single issue campaigns. But to talk of a real mass movement advocationg a change in society means regular general strikes and mass occupations. (not a dozen anarchists, no offence lads!).
Greece had 13 general strikes last year I think, Italy has had 5 or so in the last two. As well as daily local strikes. But know one argues they are on the brink of reformist change let alone revolutionary.
As for Joe's euro election I presume it will be a media based campaign as the SP doesn't have the resources to canvas all of Dublin.
Anyone who wants to support him can. As for general unity if you remeber in the last election the SP and the SWP did not clash in any constituency. For me that is progress.
But for the SWP to attract the SP in any serious way they need to build in the communities first and get some support from outside their ranks.

An interestiong article on socialist unity in England and Scotland here and lessons that can be learned from it.

http://www.cpgb.org.uk/worker/523/09crossroads.html

by A Wandering Member of the SP (still personal capacity) Thu Apr 15, 2004 17:10

Wrong, but an entertaining guess. I choose not to use my name on this site as it only invites personal abuse.

by The pun master Thu Apr 15, 2004 17:07

A wandering member = well it can only be the one and only - Hadden's hamster.

Boy, that member surely does wander!!

by A Wandering Member of the SP (still personal capacity) Thu Apr 15, 2004 17:07

Unfortunately debate here often dissolves into pointless sniping - involving people of all political views. It's part of the nature of this site at the moment. But if we can keep this civil and ignore the inevitable trolling we might manage a useful discussion.

A problem I have with what LU is arguing is that he/she is proposing left alliances as if they were an aim in themselves rather than part of a process leading to clearly defined goals. I am all in favour of maximum cooperation on the left where such cooperation increases our effectiveness and completely against it where a forced "unity" would only serve to weaken us.

LU goes along with me on this, at least as far as he/she readily agrees that a lash up between the SP, the rest of the sensible left and the SWP would be more of a hindrance than a help. His/her counterproposals seem to me to suffer however from an only slightly more rational form of the "unity at any cost" sentiment we both oppose.

Let's look at what is being concretely proposed:

The Socialist Party should contact the other groups and individuals working in the forthcoming elections to see if Joe's candidacy could be a joint one. In practice that means contacting the Irish Socialist Network, Working Class Action and literally a handful of individuals. When it comes down to brass tacks you are talking about what? More than a dozen but well less than twenty mostly very good activists.

What exactly should the Socialist Party propose to these people, most of whom will support Joe's candidacy anyway? Should Joe stand under a name other than Socialist Party? Should he alter his programme to accomodate these few? Should he play down his socialism? What concessions should be offered to win a few extra canvassers?

And what would be gained in terms of spreading the influence of socialist ideas by such concessions? Joe is standing as a Socialist Party candidate, on democratically agreed Socialist Party policies. In my view that's the only serious option open to the Socialist Party at present.

I am all in favour of working with the other serious activist groups in Dublin on whatever issues we can. I am not in favour of us watering down our politics or our hard-earned profile to do so - and neither am I in favour of the other activist groups doing likewise. I am confident that other serious activists, even if they suffer from occasional bouts of impatience, are able to see both that there will be a need for a new workers party and that we can't substitute ourselves for a movement of the class in order to force the pace towards one.

Which brings me to a more general point about the objective conditions necessary for such a party to be born or even for serious steps towards one to be taken: LU is correct to see that the anti-bin tax movement and (perhaps to a lesser extent given its class composition) the anti-war movement represent the beginning of a change in society. I am glad to see such changes begin . But we are only talking about the smallest of beginnings in the context of a decade and more of social partnership, record low levels of strike activity, and an enormous boom.

Even our relative successes reveal in themselves the weakness of the socialist and working class movements. The anti-war movement put a hundred thousand on the streets once, but couldn't muster a significant body of new activists to keep its momentum or even its structures going once the war started. The anti-bin tax movement could bring thousands to public meetings, but only much smaller numbers were willing to step into the real activity that was needed to actually win. The union bureaucracies, needless to say, remain entrenched and wedded to social partnership.

So what is to be done (if you'll pardon my liberty with the famous question)? The long hard work of putting down roots in working class communities and workplaces. Of encouraging class combativity. Of helping to create the conditions in which meaningful steps towards a new mass party can be taken.

That might not be good enough for the impatient, but its the only strategy worth following.

by Amused sociallist Thu Apr 15, 2004 15:13

It makes me laugh when SP members come on and cry, justifiably that the SWP are a block on any serious electoral alliances or the formation of a serious workers party.
So here's a question, what group is propping up the SWP anti-war front?

Answers on a postcard to Thomas Street.

by Left Unity Thu Apr 15, 2004 14:23

Wandering member's contribution is a welcome change from the schoolyard taunts of his less experienced comrades. He outlines clearly and rationally the perspective of the socialist party, even though I disagree with some of his points.

However, WM is ignoring my original point, which was not about conjuring up a broad party out of thin air or setting up some left alliance. My point was simply that the SP should have, and still could, involve others on the left in Joes campaign for two reasons: to maximise his vote especially in areas where the SP is not organised and to start or continue the process of left cooperation in a practical sense.

I happen to agree that it would be a mistake to try to form a broad party now and that the SWP are a major problem (Though there are aspects of the theory and practise of the SP and the smaller groups that I also find very problematic). I agree that we need to take baby steps first, but it seems the SP while being theoretically in favour of a new party are not willing to take any steps in that direction.

WM also raises the old problem of subjective and objective conditions. This needs to be thrashed out fully but I'll pass on it for the moment cos lunch beckons. I think WM would acknowledge that both the Bin Tax and Anti War campaigns would indicate that there is some change occuring in the relationship between radical politics and the working class. So we can't do as WM urges and just confine ourselves to building our own organisations or in the case of those of us who are not members of any, working in single issue campaigns. So here's an idea that WM might mull over: why not propose to the leadership of the SP (if you are part of it) that they contact the various left groups and individuals working in the local elections and ask them to discuss cooperation in the Euro election. To avoid problems leave out the SWP for the moment. How about it?

by Graham C Wed Apr 14, 2004 18:25

Great news

by A wandering member of the SP (personal capacity) Wed Apr 14, 2004 18:19

The Socialist Party is still of the opinion that there is a need for a new mass party of the working class. The Socialist Party and its supporters would inevitably only form one strand in such a party. There has been no change at all in that position.

The problem for the terminally impatient is that a new mass party isn't on the immediate agenda here. The trade unions, the only currently existing mass workers organisations, are still bound to social partnership. We are only coming to the end of the biggest boom this country has ever seen. The general level of social struggle in society is increasing but it is still near an all-time low. There is no particular mood on the ground for a new workers party and no sudden and massive growth in the number of activists.

The bin tax struggle was one of the first indications that the situation is beginning to change, but even then it has displayed many of the features mentioned above. New activists moved into struggle in their communities - but not nearly enough to hold the line. Widespread support has remained largely passive.

The question which the Socialist Party and other people who think that a new workers party will be needed is "what do we do now?". What do we do when the forces necessary for a mass party just aren't there yet?

The answer for a few is to try to force the pace, to substitute good will and good intentions for a real movement. So we get arguments put forward for "left alliances" and so on as if they were arguments for a new mass party. Worse still the impatient end up putting forward arguments for alliances with people like the SWP who are not at all interested in a new workers party, who have their own very different uses for an "alliance" and who are incapable of playing a constructive role in anything. That a few otherwise sensible people would end up sympathetic to such a notion only shows the absence of the real forces that would be necessary for a worthwhile left alliance. If there were thousands of activists crying out for a new party or organised groupings that actually represented something, these jokers just wouldn't be an issue.

From a Socialist Party point of view there will undoubtedly be intermediary formations or alliances in the early stages of the birth of a new party. That doesn't mean that every proposal for a left alliance is a good idea or that the time is always ripe for one. A prematurely launched alliance, an alliance with the wrong people or an alliance with bad politics would be more likely to prove to be a road block to real progress.

The Socialist Party is unashamed to try to build itself and to try to increase the influence of revolutionary socialist ideas. We do that now just as we would seek to do so within a broader alliance or a new workers party. I would encourage those who agree with our politics to join our party.

I would also encourage those who will not join us but agree with our perspective that a new workers party will be necessary to get involved in their communities and their workplaces. The best way to help put a new workers party on the agenda is to support and lead the struggles that will be necessary to build one.

by Mr Ed - Straight from the horses mouth Wed Apr 14, 2004 17:37

There was a time when the SP used to talk about the need to build a mass workers party in Ireland but things have moved on - they have come to conclusion that they are it.

An extract from their website:
"None of the existing Dáil parties represent the interests of working class people. They are a cosy club of careerists in the pockets of big business and the wealthy.
That is why a new party, standing for a new and different type of politics, to represent ordinary people, is necessary.
The Socialist Party is just that: real socialists, real campaigners on behalf of workers, the unemployed, for women's rights and young people. "

No longer talk of involving those who are not interested in joining the CWI - just resistance is futile, you will be assimilated.
Best of luck to them - all the rest of you socialists take note because Mr. Ed predicts a lot of gnashing of teeth come June 12th and a lot of pissed off SP members.

by me Wed Apr 14, 2004 17:31

And that would never do, would it?

by joe for pope. he has a better chance. Wed Apr 14, 2004 17:27

lastest polls show him about 30,000 votes short to take the seat. Think the only way he might get elected is if the lord Jesus joins the SP in the next 60 days.

by Pleased Wed Apr 14, 2004 17:15

The Socialist Party are running Joe as an SP candidate on SP policies as they are entitled to do. Just as Sinn Fein are running Mary Lou Thingy as an SF candidate on SF policies and the Green Party are running Patricia McKenna. There's nothing particularly strange or surprising about that and I for one welcome the existence of a credible left wing candidate. If Joe wasn't standing I would probably have had to vote McKenna as the most left candidat available and I don't really want to do that.

If others on the left want to help Joe's campaign, well and good. There are a lot of decent campaigners in other organisations and none and I'm sure that the SP would welcome their assistance. I'm told that members of the Irish Socialist Network canvassed for Clare Daly in the last general election and she was also, unsurprisingly a Socialist Party candidate.

Some of the people above seem to me to be using Joe's candidacy as a way of calling for some kind of broad left alliance by the back door.

by Left Unity Wed Apr 14, 2004 14:22

Observations such as that of 'socialist' are so childish they hardly merit comment ie 'Joe's ours an nobody else can have him na na na na na'. Such comments reveal sectarianism in the real sense of the word: putting the narrow interests of your own organisation before the interests of the working class as a whole.

That said I acknowledge that there is a problem with the SWP since, with one or two exceptions they have no real support in working class communities, primarily because of their 'switch on - switch off ' attitude to campaigns and their inclination to sloganise rather then do the graft. Of course there might be a problem with them damaging Joes campaign by associating him with what, in some cases, amount to nothing more than joke candidates.

Regarding the other groups and independents, I think you will find that the net beneficiary of their involvemnet would be Joe. People like Ciaran Perry (WCA, Cabra), Joan Collins (Ind, Crumlin), John O Neill (ISN, Finglas), Joe Mooney (WCA, East Wall) etc are well regarded in their own communities for their work in the BIn Tax and other local campaigns. The SP on the other hand have minimal presence in these areas. I doubt very much whether the WCA or ISN etc are gagging to join in the Euro campaign but it should be put up to them. Afterall they are out canvassing anyway so it would'nt be any extra effort to ask for a vote for Joe. While it is clear that most of the SP leadership have a mistaken view of building a new left, I doubt that the kindergarten sectarianism of 'socialist' really represents their outlook. If it does then the SP is in a worse state than I thought!

by Amused socialist Wed Apr 14, 2004 13:09

...perhaps the SP should take over the slogan.
'Ourselves alone'.

by Joe Wed Apr 14, 2004 12:19

Getting the SWP to campaign for Joe would push up the costs of the campaign. At the last general election they payed almost as much per vote as the PD's (just under 8 euro) while the SP was picking up votes in the bargin basement (at around 2.5 euro). Most parties were paying around 5 euro a vote.

[Note - calculation based on the published figures for each parties election expenses divided by the number of votes acheived. Expenses were obviously on election material rather than handing over cash on the doorsteps but for some parties at least dishing out fivers would probably be more productive]

by voter Wed Apr 14, 2004 12:03

"they will need other socialists to canvass for Joe if he is to get a credible vote"

At the last elections the results were as follows (roughly) for the left parties

Socialist Party 14,800 (5 candidates)
SWP 4,000 (7 candidates)
Workers Party 3,500 (8 Candidates)

I think the SP can get a credible vote on their own. If anything the only reason the SWP will want to be putting Joe Higgins on their own literature is not to get Joe a decent vote but to attempt to blur the lines between the parties in a dishonest way and get some credibility for their phantom paper candidates they have running everywhere. Remember they did this with the 'Free the Socialists'? Throughout the Socialist Worker that was published at the time of Joes jailing Joe was mentioned 22 times but his membership of the SP was not mentioned once.

I think the SP would be correct not to be wanted to be associated with the SWP oppurtunists. It would only harm Joes election if he was associated with their joke candidates. However links should be made with the more genuine forces such as ISN, WCA and soem independents.

by Janus Wed Apr 14, 2004 11:25

The first commentator makes some excellent points and if Joe and Co had been prepared t reach out earlier I think it might have been of benefit to his campaign, but I disagree with the notion that there is still time to do so.

This is not to say it should not be tried, but that if less than 10 weeks from an election you are only then talking about reaching out to other people and groups, you've already missed your chance.

Most of the other candidates have been campaigning for months at this stage.

by Prole Wed Apr 14, 2004 10:27

"Joe Higgins is the SP candidate in the elections, not a candidate for the left or anybody else who wants to try and claim him simply to enhance their own electoral prospects in the local elections. "

Fantastic stuff. Not a candidate of the left. socialist are you a member of the Inner Party or the Outer Party.

by socialist Wed Apr 14, 2004 01:07

To SP(personal capacity) I am not a troll. Joe Higgins is the SP candidate in the elections, not a candidate for the left or anybody else who wants to try and claim him simply to enhance their own electoral prospects in the local elections. If the SWP or ISN or anyone else tries to use Joe's name it will not be because they are really trying to get the SP votes it will just be to get then own candidates credibility.

by sp (personnal capacity) Wed Apr 14, 2004 00:51

.

by socialist Tue Apr 13, 2004 23:45

The SP will not be seeking the support of any other left groups for its European Election campaign, nor do we want any other group to canvass votes for Joe. Do you seriously expect us to allow the SWP to canvass for Joe Higgins, that would lose him votes!

by john mc dermott - Remove Fianna Fail Party Tue Apr 13, 2004 19:30

The last commentator has a point.
I feel that Joe has a good chance ,given his high profile for many years,in support of working people ,against the Big Business agenda of the current coalition.
It would be magnanimous of all the smaller parties to recommend Joe,but given the fragmentation that exists this may not happen.
Nevertheless the people are not fools.I think Joe will have across the board support from many factions and voters.
We certainly need his voice, and many more of his calibre ,in this 'New Europe'.
We need him at home also.it will be with mixed feelings ,that we see him leave for an alien Parliament in an alien land.all thats left behind will be the Mercedes Chasers brigade.The' Star with the Car 'men.
this E.E.C. business is justanother layer of bureaucracy ,a drain on the taxpayers,of every European State.
Good luck Joe-you will need it!

by Left Unity Tue Apr 13, 2004 18:51

Joe's candidacy is to be welcomed. Whatever disagreements one would have with the SP and their somewhat dogmatic version of revolutionary socialism, at least people will be offered a clear socialist alternative rather than the line up of pretend radicals who would jump imto a coalition with FG or FF at the drop of a hat. Regardless of his party's faults, Joe is a sincere and committed socialist who has tried his best to stand up for working class people and has used the platform of the Dail to constantly harass the right wing governemnt from a principled position. The problem is not with Joe as a candidate but with the manner in which the SP has gone about preparing for his campaign. No approach has been made to any other left group yet given that the SP is only really organised properly in three or four Dublin Constituencies, they will need other socialists to canvass for Joe if he is to get a credible vote.

For example, the SP has only one branch for the northside of the city and one for the southside ( that is within the city council boundaries). The Northside branch has around eight or nine active members whom one would expect to be working for SP local candidates elsewhere since party is not standing any local candidates in the city area other than in the Liberties. So who's going to canvass for Joe across that great swathe of working class Dublin. Do the SP expect the other groups who are running candidates such as the WCA/ISN/SWP to automatically canvass for Joe as well? Do they expect non-aligned leftists to jump on board? Do they think these comrades will do so automatically, without any discussion or consultation?

If they were really serious they would have contacted these groups and individuals and organised a broad campaign. Now it looks like its a token 'like it or lump it' attitude which is garanteed to get up the backs of all the rest of the left. Unfortunately that seems to be the prevailing mood amongst the leadership of the SP who have mistakenly concluded that the SP alone can make the breakthrough and become the main left party in Ireland. On the other hand its not too late for the SP to appeal to all those on the left to join in a broadbased campaign to elect a socialist MEP for Dublin. This, rather than treating comrades from other organisations and none with contempt, is the way forward.