 North Korea Increases Aid to Russia, Mos... Tue Nov 19, 2024 12:29 | Marko Marjanovi?
Trump Assembles a War Cabinet Sat Nov 16, 2024 10:29 | Marko Marjanovi?
Slavgrinder Ramps Up Into Overdrive Tue Nov 12, 2024 10:29 | Marko Marjanovi?
?Existential? Culling to Continue on Com... Mon Nov 11, 2024 10:28 | Marko Marjanovi?
US to Deploy Military Contractors to Ukr... Sun Nov 10, 2024 02:37 | Field Empty Anti-Empire >>
A bird's eye view of the vineyard
Alternative Copy of thesaker.is site is available Thu May 25, 2023 14:38 | Ice-Saker-V6bKu3nz
Alternative site: https://thesaker.si/saker-a... Site was created using the downloads provided Regards Herb
The Saker blog is now frozen Tue Feb 28, 2023 23:55 | The Saker
Dear friends As I have previously announced, we are now “freezing” the blog.? We are also making archives of the blog available for free download in various formats (see below).?
What do you make of the Russia and China Partnership? Tue Feb 28, 2023 16:26 | The Saker
by Mr. Allen for the Saker blog Over the last few years, we hear leaders from both Russia and China pronouncing that they have formed a relationship where there are
Moveable Feast Cafe 2023/02/27 ? Open Thread Mon Feb 27, 2023 19:00 | cafe-uploader
2023/02/27 19:00:02Welcome to the ‘Moveable Feast Cafe’. The ‘Moveable Feast’ is an open thread where readers can post wide ranging observations, articles, rants, off topic and have animate discussions of
The stage is set for Hybrid World War III Mon Feb 27, 2023 15:50 | The Saker
Pepe Escobar for the Saker blog A powerful feeling rhythms your skin and drums up your soul as you?re immersed in a long walk under persistent snow flurries, pinpointed by The Saker >>
Interested in maladministration. Estd. 2005
RTEs Sarah McInerney ? Fianna Fail?supporter? Anthony
Joe Duffy is dishonest and untrustworthy Anthony
Robert Watt complaint: Time for decision by SIPO Anthony
RTE in breach of its own editorial principles Anthony
Waiting for SIPO Anthony Public Inquiry >>
Promoting Human Rights in IrelandHuman Rights in Ireland >>
|
SWP Submits Erroneous Report on Anti-War Movement in Ireland to IST
 national |
anti-war / imperialism |
news report
 Friday July 09, 2004 12:27 by J.M. O'Connell - Newsvista
Indymedia has recently come in for criticism by the Socialist Workers Party (SWP). The SWP is sensitive, it seems, to criticism of the party and its front organisation, the Irish Anti-War Movement (IAWM). The SWP is one of the two main Trotskyist organisations in Ireland (the other is the Socialist Party). The SWP issues a fortnightly newspaper, employs full-time activists, and is always highly visible in campaigns that it chooses to initiate or be active in – currently the anti-war movement. In common with other political parties on the left, the SWP “punches above its weight” by virtue of good organisation and strict adherence to the party line by the membership. It is therefore to be expected that non-party activists in the anti-war movement will subject the views and actions of the SWP to scrutiny. The anti-war movement – “our” movement – is being damaged by the attitude and behaviour of one of its key components.
The SWP is a member of the International Socialist Tendency (IST). The IST issues a periodic discussion bulletin, and in the most recent issue (July 2004), Rory Hearne writes a report on behalf of the Irish SWP in which the political situation in Ireland is analysed. The entire report can be accessed at:
http://www.istendency.net/pdf/bulletin_5_2004.pdf
In the report, Mr Hearne makes a series of extraordinary and dishonest claims about the anti-war movement in Ireland and related matters.
Mr Hearne complains about the government “breaking our neutrality”. Earlier in the same document, Mr Hearne acknowledges that Irish neutrality is only “supposed”, and yet here he is defending “our” neutrality. The SWP, it seems, has lately converted to the view that a) Ireland really is neutral but that the government is abusing “our” neutrality; b) that “our” neutrality must be defended. A recent IAWM meeting resolved to push for a referendum on “our” neutrality. Without rehearsing arguments regarding the issue of neutrality, suffice to say that the SWP has clearly adopted a nationalist stance on the issue.
Perhaps this new, “nationalist” turn of the SWP accounts for Mr Hearne’s description of Labour, Sinn Fein, the Greens as “left political parties”. His reason for such a bold, not to say dubious, description is the SWP’s need to convince its international partners that its anti-war alliance with these nationalist and centrist organisations actually amounts to some kind of “united front”, traditionally meant as an alliance of left-wing parties. Whatever about the merits of an alliance with these parties, to categorise any of them as left-wing is wrong and dishonest.
Mr Hearne reports that “we have built a Stop Bush campaign that has an alliance similar to that which built the 15 February demo. This includes the main trade unions Siptu, ATGWU and all the left political parties – Labour, Sinn Fein, the Greens and Socialists. The anti-Bush feeling is so strong that it seems that the Stop Bush demo on 25 June has the potential to be as large as 15 February.” Wrong, of course. The Stop Bush Campaign, like the IAWM, was no more than a paper tiger. In fact, having boasted about this alliance that promised to mobilise 150,000 people (the claimed turn-out on 15th February 2003), elsewhere in the same report Mr Hearne castigates the same parties for identifying with the anti-war movement “often only by token gestures”. In this he is correct: the affiliation of trade unions and political parties to both the IAWM and the Stop Bush Campaign amounts to nothing more than good PR for all parties. When it comes to the actual work of building anti-war and the anti-Bush demos, the affiliated organisations were predictably invisible – nay, useless. Also predictable was the turn-out for the Bush demos: around 21,000 over two days on eight demos (Dublin, Shannon, Galway, Sligo, Waterford, Tralee, Dromoland, Bunratty) – a mere 14% of the turn-out confidently forecast by the SWP. Some sections of the anti-war movement anticipated this level of participation (Anti-War Ireland, AmBush 2004!). But the SWP’s wild prediction fits neatly into a pattern of exagerated claims about affiliations, alliances, mobilisation, etc.
There are many reasons for the pathological exaggerated (lies?) of the SWP: the need to convince the mother party in Britain that the Irish section is making good headway; the need to convince the membership in Ireland that it’s upwards and onwards; the need to convince trade unions and other political groupings that the SWP is significant so as to persuade the unions etc. that they should affiliate to its front groupings; the need to convince the electorate to cast votes for the dynamic and successful SWP. And there is one other reason – in the context of the anti-war movement – the most significant reason. Mr Hearne spells it out as follows:
“The Irish Anti-War Movement has brought a potential alternative together that could threaten the government and its neo-liberal agenda. With the Green Party, Socialists, Sinn Fein, Labourites and the main trade unions on board and tens of thousands on the streets we can force the government to reverse its decision to allow the US to use Shannon. We will argue for the need to continue the movement after the visit of Bush. Our perspective that the movement should pursue an anti-capitalist strategy of broad unity and mass action has received extensive support. This strategy contrasts with the autonomist/ libertarian wing of the movement. They emphasise sectarian anti-party and anti-union actions that celebrate moralism and non-hierarchical localisation (such as opposition to the ESF).”
Ignoring further wild claims about a “potential alternative” that “could threaten the government and its neo-liberal agenda”, Mr Hearne contrasts here the SWP’s strategy for demilitarising Shannon Airport with that of – what he calls – the “autonomist/libertarian wing of the movement.” According to Mr Hearne, “They emphasise sectarian anti-party and anti-union actions that celebrate moralism and non-hierarchical localisation (such as opposition to the ESF).” Many things are wrong with this: the anti-war movement cannot be neatly divided into two wings: those on board with the SWP and the “autonomist/libertarian wing of the movement” (not least because there is no “autonomist” current in Ireland). Its true that anarchists are highly critical of the SWP/IAWM primarily because of its hostility to civil disobedience and its undemocratic structure. But it’s also the case that much of the opposition to the SWP/IAWM comes from socialists (i.e. not anarchists) and “independent” anti-war activists who feel betrayed by the SWP/IAWM because of its inaction, lack of strategy, sectarianism and lack of democracy. It is entirely false to accuse these critics of the SWP/IAWM of advocating “sectarian anti-party and anti-union actions that celebrate moralism and non-hierarchical localisation”. Yet this slur against anti-war activists who refuse to subscribe to the SWP/IAWM lies at the heart of the matter: the IAWM has fallen out of favour with the best anti-war activists in the country, and the SWP has resorted to lies and slander to account for the division within the movement that this Trotskyist party of no more than 150 people is responsible for.
Rather than address its shortcomings and endeavour to resolve the problems plaguing the anti-war movement, the SWP has instead opted to misrepresent and dismiss its critics. Cut off from the genuine and committed activists within the anti-war movement, the SWP/IAWM is relying on uncommitted reformists and centrists to sustain an “anti-capitalist” anti-war movement. Mr Hearne says: “With the Green Party, Socialists, Sinn Fein, Labourites and the main trade unions on board and tens of thousands on the streets we can force the government to reverse its decision to allow the US to use Shannon … Our perspective that the movement should pursue an anti-capitalist strategy of broad unity and mass action has received extensive support.” The problem with this strategy, of course, is that it rests on three false premises (and one absurdity – that broad unity and mass action equals an anti-capitalist strategy): First, having the unions and centrist/nationalist parties on board, as has been seen, adds little to the campaign when, as Mr Hearne himself tells us, they offer only “token gestures”, and have shown no willingness or interest in seriously building the anti-war movement. Second, the “tens of thousands on the streets” has only happened once (possibly twice), and is unlikely to be repeated in the near (and middle) future. And third, it’s incredible that the SWP believes that this moderate alliance and big marches will force the government into breaking with its master, the US, on this issue. A serious examination of the problem should lead anyone to realise that more – much more – will be required to break this link in US imperialism.
The SWP may feel consoled by Mr Hearne’s report to its international tendency (written, incidentally, from the perspective of a mass left-wing party rather than the tiny group that the SWP actually is). But if Mr Hearne actually believes what he has written, the SWP – and those genuine socialists who give their time and energy towards sustaining the organisation – are barking up a wrong tree.
|
printable version
Digg this
del.icio.us
Furl
Reddit
Technorati
Facebook
Gab
Twitter
View Comments Titles Only
save preference
Comments (51 of 51)
Jump To Comment: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51I read this report online yesterday and couldn't believe my eyes. Rory Hearne has a damn cheek writing this stuff. I was outraged that he could dismiss me and people like me who have worked so hard against this war just because we won't go along with the IAWM. The IAWM is a disgrace.
I'm not to worried about SWP and their attitude to the IAWM. Lets face it, I don't envy their position in the IAWM. The IAWM have been hindered over the past while by a whole range of cranks. On top of that the SWP are cynically trying to have local 'groups' that are completely bogus.
What I do have to say about the USI Deputy President's document is how soft it is on the "left". The Labour Party are left wingers according to the SWP! All around the country they have proped up rotten FGers and careerists in Councils. Labour are going to go into a "democratic alliance" with FG and the Greens and go into government. The Greens are a party that are a middle class party that are in decline- however they will probably be 'saved' by a coalition deal with Labour/FG. Sinn Fein are certainly on the rise and would be more to the left then Greens and Labour are. However why is it not said that they are not progressive for working class people and are in fact just another capitalist party?
SWP are putting demands on the likes of Labour and Sinn Fein in Dublin CIty Council as if they could deliver. The latest copy of the Socialist Worker panders to Labour, Sinn Fein and the Greens. Reading it you would think that the SWP wanting to go into an electoral pact with Labour, Sf and the Greens. Surely it's the task of Socialists to outline why these parties are wrong and offer nothing to the working class. Instead SWP are talking them up and seem to think that Labour and SF will be voting against non collection of bins. (btw there is not a mention of calling on them to ABOLISH bin tax with this great "left" majority)
...that really jump out at you.
1. "We are standing 12 candidates in the local
elections and there is a possibility of one or two getting elected... The government is ... holding a referendum ...looks like it will fail or pass only by a very tight margin."
Both completely out of touch with reality. Okay, we're all used to the SWP exaggerating things (the slow and steady rise of the numbers at the F15 demo, for example) but this is weird. And its aimed at SWP members internationally! Why not tell them the truth?
2. "This strategy contrasts with the autonomist/ libertarian wing of the movement. They emphasise sectarian anti-party and anti-union actions that celebrate moralism and non-hierarchical localisation (such as opposition to the ESF)."
Autonomists? Where? Anyne seen any around?
Anti-union? What? No really, what? Can anyone point to _any_ actions that have been anti-union?
Opposition to the ESF? Who? Where? When? I'm sure there are people who haven't been as enthusiastic about the ESF as the SWP think we should be, but has anyone actually bothered opposing it?
Did no-one warn Rory not to drink the Kool Aid?
still on their front page:
Free Brid Smith
http://www.istendency.net
obviously their website is as dead as their movement
This deserves to be featured. After RBB's attack on Indymedia, after Dave Lordan's persecution complex etc, etc. their hypocrisy and distortions should be highlighted.
This article is another example of SWP self delusion. In it Rory states taht the referendum will only pass by a tight margin or might even be defeated! Typical of the swp living in never never land. By the same token they think that the end of partnership will mean an increase in industrial action.
The referendum was passed by a huge majority and we have been hearing about the end of partnership for years, yet teh unions have signed up to it again. It is ok Rory keep taking the tablets, it will do to recruit a few new members telling them the revoltion is just around the corner. Try standing up the bureacrats like jack o connor instead of chairing meetings he is invited to speak at.
Can't see the all the fuss is about.
Article is obviously mistaken in a number of its predictions. This will be to do when it was written, a good few weeks before the events took place i'd imagine by looking at it. Heh -nobody's got a crystal ball, right. We were praying for twenty thousand for feb15 and over one hundred thousand showed.
I don't think any of us really knew how the referendum would turn out. I thought it might be 60-40, but as the i went door to door campaigning on it in Ballybrack i revised my expectations downwards.
Ray characteristically fails to mention that in five places we very nearly did get someone elected- Bray, Clondalkin, Artane, Dun Laoghire, Ballfermot. In other areas our votes increased substantially.
We had hopes of higher numbers for the demos, particularly in Dublin. But the numbers that turned out are still some of the largest political demonstrations that have ever taken place in Ireland and stand in stark contrast to the previous mass welcomes for US presidents.
As for the alliance that built the demos , of course that was mostly activists on the ground some aligned, most not. In the Dun laoghaire against war group where i am active (incidentally one of the supposedly fake groups some posters here are always going on about) we had about twenty activists, most of them non aligned. The non-aligned people would be voters for parties like the greens, swp, sinn fein, labour etc. They all like Patricia MacKenna. Some even have a regard for pet rabbit. Should that mean i refuse to work alongside them.I think not. Having a united front at the top with the leaders of these organisations makes it easier to have unity at the bottom. But the demos are built by the activity of activists on the ground, as everyone here knows. Anyway i know people in all the moderate organisations and they are good people.
I don't know what Rory is talking about when he mentions anti-union, i suspect its a misprint for anti-unity, which is an awkward construntion grammatically but i know what he means. The constant attacks on the swp by a few people with many names on indymedia are obviously aimed at severing the alliances that we have built up with many activists with all sorts of backrounds in the anti-war movement. Thankfully nobody takes a blind bit of notice of them.
It is incredible in the aftermath of the successful demos against bush, during which an incredible degree of unity of spirit and purpose was evident among activists and all those who attended the demonstrations, that their is such hostility from a small, but vocal on indymedia at least, section of the left. Personally i think we should be celebrating the fact that we confined the world's most powerful man to a tiny section of the country.
As far as i can see the above post is just nit-picking and serves no useful purpose whatsoever. i would be interested in a genuine debate about tactics, alliances, direct action whatever. Is anyone interested in cutting out the slagging and having one?
So the predictions were, er... as I was saying the autonomist , anti-union actions were, er... guess what everybody! I know people in the Labour party! That sure shows you splitters a thing or two! Now, lets move on to a genuine* debate.
*ie, one that doesn't mention anything that has ever happened in the past. Stop living in the past, man.
Remember I told you, my village were collecting their grubs and grain and the SW comissar, reported to the mother party that we had one more bushel of grubs than we really had.
But you edited the comment, becuase I'm a peasant, and you don't think my opinion counts for anything.
shocking the SWP don't like criticism and dislike people getting in their way.........the old russian days die hard.
Swp can be a constructive force,why are we picking on them for this behaviour when it is evident in many other organisations and groups involving other parties.
Dave Lordan “can’t see what all the fuss is about”. Pick up the latest issue of Socialist Worker, Dave, and turn to page 6. Here, our intrepid and impartial SW journos celebrate the success of the anti-war movement Bush demos. The Friday IAWM demo and its Saturday effort at Shannon are conflated to appear as if they both occurred on Friday. The AWI demo at Shannon is relegated to a “regional protest”, and – of course – the AWI itself is not mentioned. Reports are filed from SWP-organised demos in Tralee (SWP member, Kieran McNulty, cleverly referred to an a “local anti-war activist) and Waterford, and there’s even room to mention the insurgency at Swords: “Anti-war activists in Swords organised banner drops from a bridge in the area.” Alas, no room can be found on page 6 of Socialist Worker to give details of the AWI national demonstration at Shannon attended by people from every part of the country. You see, Dave – this is what the fuss is about (or, at least, some of it): your party – the SWP – has chosen to slander and ignore (slandering in party publications, otherwise ignoring) other elements – the best elements – within the anti-war movement.
From Socialist Worker
“… more than 20,000 people came out on the Dublin demo against Bush on the Friday evening. A further 2,000 went down to Dromoland Castle in Clare where Bush was hold up. On the Friday there were good turnouts also on regional protests: 600 in Waterford; 300 in Tralee; 400 in Sligo, 1,000 in Shannon and a staggering 3,000 in Galway … Tralee was engulfed with anti Bush sentiment last month. Fifty people attended an anti war meeting and built a protest against the Bush visit. On Saturdays leafleters took to the streets of Tralee to spread the word about the demonstration. According to local anti war activist, Kieran McNulty, [“Blah, blah, blah”]. 300 marched through the town on Friday June 28. The following morning almost 50 people made the trip to Shannon to join the demonstrations. From this success, the Tralee anti war group will continue to voice and organise the opposition of many people in the region to the occupation of Iraq. Nigel Baldock spoke at the Tralee demonstration on behalf of the SWP. He told the crowd, [“Blah, blah, blah”] "
"Up to 600 marched on Friday in Waterford City centre against Bush. Brendan Howlin of the Labour Party was one of the speakers at the demonstration. Over 50 travelled by bus and car to Shannon to have their protest seen by the Irish state."
"Anti war activists in Swords organised banner drops from a bridge in the area."
They don't even mention the AmBush demo on Saturday - you know the one that actually delayed the press conference.
But apparently there were 2,000 people at Dromoland. It seems most of them couldn't be bothered going from there to Shannon to see RBB's enormous PA system, because he had less than a thousand people to deafen...
The report has some very strange things to say about other political trends and groupings on the left. I don't really want to say anything more about those issues as I actually think the most interesting thing about the report is something else entirely. It tries to assess the political situation in Ireland at the moment, and it gets it wildly wrong. What's more, I don't really want to encourage an atmosphere of hostility on this thread.
The report made three predictions in the run up to the elections and referendum. One dealt with the electoral possibilities open to the SWP and SEA. Another argued that the citizenship referendum would be defeated or passed narrowly. The last claimed that the turnout for the anti-Bush protests could rival that on 15 February.
On all three counts it was wrong and wrong in the same manner. Blind optimism was pushed instead of coherent analysis.
Now it could be pointed out with some reason that the SWP is well known for pushing the next event as the most important one ever regardless of the actual circumstances. The point is though that this is not an agitational leaflet or a speech at a rally. This is a report to the membership of their own organisation and to their sister-parties abroad. Something we might, in other words, expect to accurately reflect the real thinking of the SWP.
The over-blown predictions have certain obvious dangers. If you tell people, including your own members, that they can pull together protests of 150,000 when any rational assessment says that simply isn't on the agenda then you risk unnecessary demoralisation. The anti-Bush protests were a success but if activists had paid attention to crazy predictions from the SWP they wouldn't seem like it.
Beyond that the predictions serve to throw light on an overall political method. There is no real attempt to analyse the world around us as it really is. Instead wishful thinking about exaggerated possibilities prevails.
If I was Dave, instead of trying to defend the predictions by saying that they were written before the events concerned ( the whole point of a prediction surely?), I would want to know why they were so wrong. What do they tell us about the SWP's general assessment of Irish society? What do they tell us about the perspectives for the immediate future?
In another forum a member of the SWP told me that the referendum prediction was made on the basis of reports coming up from the branches. Presumably that was meant as a defence against any claim that they have an out of touch leadership. If it's accurate though, it makes the report even more worrying. It would mean that the rank and file membership is being trained not to analyse a situation as objectively as they can but to delude themselves with wishful thinking.
Dave Lordan of the SWP misses the point about Rory's absurd claims prior to the referendum and the Bush demos. First though, let's not forget that Richard Boyd Barrett predicted a million would march against Bush! So it's not just a case of typing errors (nice try, Dave!!!) or crystal balls – what we have here is a case of wrong perspective and political misjudgement (allied to a reluctance to tell the unpalatable truth to SWP Centcom). As both Rory and Richard play leading roles in the IAWM, it's clear both should resign. After all, who want to be led by fools and knaves?
I was inclined to give the SWP the benefit of the doubt. I have to admit I don't have much time for them or the SP. But lets be honest here the level of debate from Dave here and on other occasions from Aoife is pretty shocking. (Don't believe me - go look at the IAWM discussion group). No wonder they don't engage in discussion groups.
Love them or loathe them at least the SP have people who put up a spirited defence.
I am glad to se that the swp is still the most popular topic of discussion on indymedia. Any time we are mentioned the threads go on forever. As oscar wilde said the only thing worse then being talked about is not being talked about.
I am glad also to see such an interest in our international bulletin. For me the most intersting reports come from spain, brazil and Germany.
The discussion in the bulletin focuses on the actual and potential re-alignments taking place on the left.
The context is the enormous growth in political radicalisation taking place around the anti war movement internationally.
We argue openly for greater co-operation on a practical level between socialist organisations , believing it is only by uniting our forces that we will be able to provide a real radical challenge to the reformist left and the right. That would mean casting aside a great degree of the ancient bitterness. Are we up to the challenge i wonder.
There is no reason whatsoever to be demoralisered. So we got whacked in the referendum, despite early optimism. At least twenty per cent those who voted saw through the bullshit. And fianna/fail pd's failed in their intention of ramrodding the left with the referendum. So there were only tens of thousands instead of hundred thousands. I marched with 200 others aginst the kosovo war not so long ago. So the swp missed out on getting elected and the sp only got 4 returned. Big deal. As Joe hill said Don't mourn- organise!
The thing is, Dave, its a lot easier to say we shouldn't be demoralised if we don't have people making wacky predictions in advance. I mean, the SWP's crystal ball is in serious need of servicing.
Anti-Bush demos were predicted at being a million strong, and then 100,000 strong. On the day, it was more like 20,000 (total).
The referendum could have been won, or at least close. It was a whitewash.
Respect were going to get a million votes. They got 250,000 - less than half the BNP vote.
The SWP here were in with a chance of a couple of seats. Not even close.
SEA was going to shake things up. Didn't happen.
This is just from the last month or two. Thing is, anyone who's been around a while knows that this is nothing new. The SWP always hype up their chances of success, and then claim every failure as a success really, if you look at it in the right light. Its always a critical time for the left, requiring more work from their members.
There's never any reflection. Not once have I seen an SWP article say 'We were wrong. We predicted this would happen, and it didn't. Next time we'll be more cautious'. No, every inflated prediction is followed by a disappointing (but inflated) result, followed seamlessly by another inflated prediction for the next big thing...
Two points:
I would normally agree that the most interesting bits in those bulletins are the international reports. The problem is that when the reports deal with areas I have some detailed knowledge of (like Ireland), they are so wildly wrong.
That doesn't exactly fill me with confidence that the reports from Spain or wherever else are going to be much better. If the Bulletin has so little concern for accuracy and contains so little in the way of serious analysis when it deals with here, why would it be any better when it comes to somewhere else?
Secondly, nobody is saying there is any reason to be demoralised. I will give you the benefit of the doubt here and assume that you misunderstood my point and are not deliberately misrepresenting it. As far as I am concerned the election results were pretty good in the South. The Bush protests were succesful. The referendum was very bad indeed.
The point is though that socialists should be able to make realistic assessments of where we actually are. Hyping a situation and deluding ourselves that everything is going to be absolutely massive or that "our side" is always going to win is a recipe for causing unnecessary demoralisation when reality rears up and slaps you in the face.
Unless of course you have the memory span of goldfish, in which case, well, it doesn't much matter what you were saying five minutes ago.
That goes for proclaiming (as the British SWP did) that Respect would get a million votes and get people elected to the European Parliament and the Greater London Assembly. It goes for claiming that the referendum would be defeated or would at least be close. It goes for arguing that a 15 February turnout was on the agenda for the Bush protests. It goes for a thousand other things large and small that the SWP have argued vehemently.
The worst thing about all this is that when your organisation is pushing such a delusion, or a few of them, your response to anyone who makes a more realistic assessment is to accuse them of "pessimism". Might I suggest that you begin to learn that there is a difference between making a realistic assessment of the opportunities open to us and being a pessimist?
So speaks the voice of experience!! Nothing like a reformed SWPer to know what they are talking about.
"The point is though that socialists should be able to make realistic assessments of where we actually are. Hyping a situation and deluding ourselves that everything is going to be absolutely massive or that "our side" is always going to win is a recipe for causing unnecessary demoralisation when reality rears up and slaps you in the face. "
Brian be careful now. The SPuppies were on Indymedia predicting that the SP would take 4 - 5 seats on Fingal. They were also gloating on how Labour and SF would pay for not properly opposing the Bin Tax. In case anyone in the SP has the attention SPan of a goldfish they can still find the SPuppies comments here on Indymedia.
I was never a member of the SWP, Amused, although I was in a Socialist Worker Student Society once upon a time.
How impressive.
I can't speak for what anyone did or didn't say in election threads on this site. I was doing my best to avoid reading the election threads, filled as they were with the worst kind of bile and pointless aggression.
I can only tell you that our general view of how the elections would go was as follows - The Provos would clearly make quite significant gains. Labour and the Greens might make smaller ones. The Socialist Party would be in the running for council seats in a number of places, but which ones we would win and which ones we would miss out on was impossible to say. That was a broadly correct analysis, although we were a bit too generous to the Greens.
Now do you have anything of interest to say, or are you just anonymously trying to stir shit?
no-one ever claimed the demos would be a million strong.
In the weeks leading up to the demo were expecting about twenty thousand and i would say about thirty thousand turned up around the country but lets not quibble.
The prediction for a feb 15 style turnout was wrong but again was made a long time before the demo and was revised drastically after all.
Secondly we nearly did get elected as i already said in a number of wards. Our full results and analysis are on our website at www.swp.ie . I don't see how ray could be so blinded to this objective fact. We were last eliminated in Clondalkin and Ballyfermot for example. On first preferences in Dun laoghire we finished 6th in a 6 seater ahead of all the labour party candidates for another. In artane we lost out by something like six votes. In Bray we were eliminated very late also.
Address queries about respect to respect.
i think a quarter of a million votes isn't too bad for an orgainisation in existence for a few weeks. Its best results were in London and Birmingham. Two important places i would say. check them out on www.respectcoalition.org
Again we are not blowing the situation out of proportion. The left is, i believe, in good shape, and can greatly improve in strength if we concentrate on what unites us rather than what divides us.
And of course the swp gets some things wrong since we are only human like everybody else. Now can we move on or is this going to be an everlasting thread as well?
now you cna correct me if im wrong but didn't rbb say on rte news on the fri that they had 500 / 8 bus loads of people going to shannon with iawm, im not sure if this actually occured or not?
The "broad view" that you present was not the view that was put forward by SPuppies on Indymedia. It was open to you to post your view at the time be it a broad or narrow view. For some reason you neglected to do so. Or perhaps you were posting under a different name at the time, predicting broad gains for the SP.
Hello Brian,
You make some interesting points,
I would say though that in many democratic Centralist organisations optimism and exaggeration are quite often used. For example comments above direct their attention towards the possible outcome of various events and comments rise also that this outlook {held within the document} was far too optimistic.
I believe of course that any analysis of a given situation should be arrived at in concrete terms. Therefore if the analysis was wrong and this so on a number of continual occasions {in any organisations on any decisions} then this needs to be looked at and addressed, this in any such organisation and in any such given situation.
Yet similarly on the case of exaggeration of numbers and I read that many believe that the SWP are guilty of this. Yet and I will go into this in the months ahead in a detailed practical article, all such organisations I believe are at times guilty of this.
For example the mass anti sectarian rallies after the murder of Daniel McColgan the SP stated 100, 000 came out, when in fact a brilliant 30,000 came out, {although sympathetic aspects of the media stated 20,000}. Similarly they stated 15,000 school students walked out at the first walkouts {again sympathetic aspects of the media stated several hundred} while at best 2000, or so came out.
The link provided goes into this in more detail in part 5 of my West Belfast articles.
Yet both figures I give had been acknowledged by the vast majority of activists and trade unionists involved apart from the SP.
Of course others will rise similar with the SWP and with the Shinners Irps, WP etc at times. Although I am aware that certain oragnisations do it more often that some.
So while saying this it does not mean it is right but the reality is many do it. I have not had a chance to read the IS document in full {up to my eyes} but will take time over the week end to do so and any points I wish to rise I will do so , although on brief look I am surprised to see no reference to the Anti Racism Rally {one of the largest such seen in Belfast, acknowledged in the Ireland section} .
At the end of the day things need to be decided on with a concrete analysis as an outcome based on the real possiblies and situation, this in, whatever organisation and none. And if the analysis was wrong in any organisation and in whatever decision I believe it needs first to be acknowledged , discussed and learnt from so such need not happen again.
I can only come back to this thread tomorrow morning as out tonight, but on a final point Brian C are you in the SP as I would like to further debate and discuss a number of matters if your are to come back on this thread. D
Dave, I really think that you are missing the point here.
I think that the turnout for the Bush demonstrations was good. Nothing to be demoralised about at all.
If I had gone around expecting another 150,000 people to be there then I would certainly be very disappointed. Rash predictions matter.
250,000 votes for the Respect Coalition is about what I expected them to get (if I recall correctly I guessed 230,000 on a thread on the Urban 75 forum). It is not however what they expected to get. They were predicting a million votes and people elected in a number of places. If I was a Respect supporter and I had listened to the predictions made by the SWP I would again be very disappointed - particularly as the BNP managed not twice, as someone said above, but more than three times that vote.
Before the referendum I thought that we would be doing very well to get a one third No vote and that in all probability we wouldn't manage that. As it was, I was disappointed by the result. If I had paid attention to the SWP's point of view, I would have been shattered by the vote.
The SWP consistently makes these hyped, wildly optimistic predictions. That isn't a coincidence. It is a pattern.
It comes from a fundamental inability to seriously assess where we are and what tasks are in front of us. Delusions that "our side is winning" or that everything we get involved in is going to be massive are preferred to realistic analysis. What's more realistic analysis is dismissed as "pessimism".
I had generally been of the suspicion that this was some kind of worked out SWP strategy in broad campaigns. People who are involved in an issue for the first time want to hear that what they are doing is massively important, will make a huge impact and will lead to victory. They want to hear that their local meeting of ten people represents a movement of hundreds of thousands, so tell them what they want to hear. Be relentlessly upbeat no matter what and force anyone who wants to inject a note of strategic realism into an issue to appear "pessimistic" by contrast.
Maybe I was being too cynical however. This report gives the strong impression that a preference for cheery delusion runs very deep in your organisation. It seems that the relentless hysterical optimism permeates right through.
We all know that both the SP and SWP lie. They lie to the public, they lie to themselves. Basically they are 2 mirror image cults.
Reminds me of an old (Stalinist?) slogan -
A chicken in every pot!
An icepick in every Trot!
The moral of it being that the Trots could never relate to workers needs and were a roadblock which had to be removed. I hasten to add that I dont approve of icepicking Trots. Just expose their lies and double dealing, that will be sufficent.
dave L and dub swp (who be that ) keep on suggesting that things people are pointing out are simply points of language, points of optimism, differences of (political) opinion on their part... or simply typos????
but as pointed out by many these criticism are pointed out patterns of faults rather then ones offs. and are part of the deliberate attempt to get the upperhand over other groups and individuals in the "movement"
Yes, Dave, RBB was quoted in the Irish Examiner as saying he expected the Bush protests to be a million strong. I say it myself comrade.
Secondly, the IAWM/SWP was qouted in the Clare Champion the week before Bush came estimating a turnout of 40,000 at Dromoland. And don't forget when RBB went for his friendly chat with the forces of the state, he negotiated that 20,000 protesters should be allowed.
It looks like Dave&co are letting a few respectable votes go to their heads. Who exactly are they claiming nearly won a seat?
Brid Smith polled a respectable thousand votes but she was nearly a thousand votes short of a seat.
Gino Kenny polled a respectable thousand votes but he was four hundred or more short of a seat.
Richard Boyd Barret polled a respectable fifteen hundred votes but he was five hundred votes short of a seat.
The Bray result was messy, but Kennedy was still a couple of hundred votes short of a seat on the town council.
These are better results than the SWP are used to. Compared to the 69 votes of old this is a big improvement. Except in places like Waterford where they did even worse. What it isnt is nearly winning a seat. None of the main parties would think of losing by five hundred votes as nearly winning.
Some left candidates did nearly win. Dunne& Perry&Gallagher&Maher all came within about 50 votes or less. Thats not the same as coming up five hundred short. Their best results are more like Greene in Howth respectable but not in the running.
Now back as you were you lot.
“It has been said many times that revolutions devour their children. Less attention has been paid to the ability of small revolutionary groups to ingest their offspring long before the first barricade has been built. The high hopes of the members of the International Socialists were smashed as the result of many factors: a lack of a coherent long-term strategy, wild changes of tack by Tony Cliff, with blatant disregard for democratic structures that would leave Tony Blair breathless with admiration, the advancement of placemen and opportunists at the expense of experienced members and a ruthless and savage demonising of opponents of the latest “line”.
Roger Protz (former SWP member), in preface to More Years for the Locust by Jim Higgins (former SWP national secretary)
Care to comment, Dave?
Dave – as you haven't yet come up with a credible explanation for Rory's crazed statements, or the SWP's malignant anti-democracy, the following might help:
Defining traits of cults
Broad agreement exists in the literature on general characteristics which delineate cult groupings. The American Family Foundation (1986, p.119-120) defined cults as:
"A group or movement exhibiting great or excessive devotion or dedication to some person, idea, or thing, and employing unethical manipulative or coercive techniques of persuasion and control (e.g. isolation from former friends and family, debilitation, use of special methods to heighten suggestibility and subservience, powerful group pressures, information management, suspension of individuality or critical judgement, promotion of total dependency on the group and fear of leaving it), designed to advance the goals of the group’s leaders, to the actual or possible detriment of members, their families or the community."
Langone (1988, p.1) further proposed that cults tend to share the following characteristics:
"1. Members are expected to be excessively zealous and unquestioning in their commitment to the identity and leadership of the group. They must replace their own beliefs and values with those of the group.
2. Members are manipulated and exploited, and may give up their education, careers and families to work excessively long hours at group-directed tasks such as selling a quota of candy or books, fund-raising, recruiting and proselytizing.
3. Harm or the threat of harm may come to members, their families, and/ or society due to inadequate medical care, poor nutrition, psychological and physical abuse, sleep deprivation, criminal activities and so forth."
These conditions broadly match those which Singer (1987) has suggested characterise programmes of thought reform - i.e. attempts to reframe a person’s sense of individuality, core belief systems and overall self concept within a totalistic ideology which ‘explains everything.’ Specific measures which might be employed in such an effort include:
"1. Controlling an individual’s social and psychological environment, especially the person’s time.
2. Placing an individual in a position of powerlessness within a high-control authoritarian system.
3. Relying usually on a closed system of logic, which permits no feedback and refuses to be modified except by executive order.
4. Relying on unsophistication of the person being manipulated (that is, the person is unaware of the process), and he or she is pressed to adapt to the environment in increments that are sufficiently minor so that the person does not notice changes.
5. Eroding the confidence of a person’s perceptions.
6. Manipulating a system of rewards, punishments, and experiences to promote new learning or inhibit undesired previous behaviour. Punishments are usually social ones, for example, shunning, social isolation, and humiliation (which are more effective in producing wanted behaviour than beatings and death threats, although these do occur)"
"Potential" of same numbers as Feb 15th...."possibility" of people getting elected..."likely (referendum) will be defeated.
All these 'predictions' don't speak as if the author claims to have a crystal ball.
This report I judge by the other reports was written long before the Bush demos and the elections.
Firstly, opinion polls on news, in the papers and from talking to people, it appeared the referendum would be very close.
Secondly, the slagging over "almost/nearly" etc getting someone elected is petty. These are all relative terms- Gino Kenny's result can be seen by some (even non swpers I spoke to) as very close and to others as not so close.
I remember a few years (2000 or 2001) ago prior to a day of May Day demos a leading member of WSM in the Sunday Tribune mockingly said the anti capitalist movement didn't exist here and it was premature to build these demos and expect much- the next day he was at the demo-spoke from the platform and said what a great day it was!!
Now where was the outcry on Indymedia then?
Why were people not asking for a public apology???
Anarchist lier/cynic????
Judging from this thread SWP members should have been beside the stage screaming at him, or in ciaron "Catholic" Worker O Reilly style physically attacking him for his lies.
No, but nobody did because not all predictions are correct, we all make errors or misinterpretations- the point is to discuss and learn from them.
Sad that this instead leads to petty squabbles.
Anyway, funny to see that the IST bulletin has such an active readership- very positive!
Firstly, there is nothing remarkable at all about getting predictions wrong. What is remarkable is the fact that all of the SWP's predictions are wrong in exactly the same manner (wildly over-optimistic). From that we can be reasonably safe in assuming that the rest of the content suffers from the same flaw. Thus, the analysis of the political situation can be dismissed as worthless.
It is also interesting to note that this bulletin gives empirical strength to the common criticism that the SWP habitually hypes up their prospects as an unethical and manipulative way of extracting greater efforts from their base membership. Most people who are aware of this feature of the SWP probably assumed that the hype was mainly for mass consumption and that their cadre membership didn't take it too seriously. This bulletin is interesting because it makes it look quite likely that some of their relatively senior members (such as Rory) actually seem to believe the hype. The report of autonomists taking anti-union and anti-party actions also reveals an astonishingly inaccurate understanding of politics among senior members of the party - maybe he was just repeating a habitual SWP smear but what is the point of doing that in an internal bulletin? When a political organisation is perfused with such a wildly unrealistic view of the world it starts to look very much like a cult.
QUOTE "I remember a few years (2000 or 2001) ago prior to a day of May Day demos a leading member of WSM in the Sunday Tribune mockingly said the anti capitalist movement didn't exist here and it was premature to build these demos and expect much- the next day he was at the demo-spoke from the platform and said what a great day it was!!"
Could you please give us a few details, since I have never heard of this interview before and your description of the 'leading member' of the WSM could apply to pretty much anybody in our small organisation? If you could include a quote, that would be helpful as I'd guess that you are not being entirely accurate in your charge. In particular, your inclusion of the adverb 'mockingly' looks very much like a tabloid mechanism to make a reasonable statement sound sinister. In 2000 and 2001 the 'anti-capitalist' movement in Ireland was very small and not much could be expected from demonstrations - especially in the context of the kind of things that were happening in Seattle, Genoa, Prage and Gothenburg at the time. I'd be pretty certain that the media was running similar hype campaigns about the prospect of violent mobs trashing the city then as they do now, so it seems to me to be an eminently sensible thing to do to be realistic about the likely scale of the protests here. I'd also be pretty sure that the WSM didn't say that it was "premature to build these demos" since they were actively involved in building it and were even speaking to the press to promote it!
What's more, this 'mocking' opinion turns out to have been accurate. The first really large-scale 'anti-capitalist' demonstration in Dublin wasn't until the May 2002 RTS and it wasn't until this year's mayday that we saw our first major summit protest here.
"Now where was the outcry on Indymedia then?"
Indymedia didn't exist then. I'm sure if it had you would have graced us with an "outcry".
"Why were people not asking for a public apology???"
A public apology for expressing a realistic assesment of the prospects for anti-capitalist protests that has turned out to be quite correct? A public apology for failure to hype events out of all proportion? A public apology for living in the real world?
"Anarchist lier/cynic????"
You folks throw around this type of accusation very casually. I don't believe that your tendentious accusations even include anything that could be called a lie.
"Judging from this thread SWP members should have been beside the stage screaming at him,"
Again you mention lies, what lies? SWP members could have chosen to heckle the stage if they so wished, it would only have served to mark them out even more as the crazed sectarians that they are.
"or in ciaron "Catholic" Worker O Reilly style physically attacking him for his lies."
This is the third or fourth time that SWP members have repeated this charge against Ciaron, a charge that Ciaron has denied repeatedly. Could you please provide us with some substantiation before you repeat this accusation against a man who will soon face a court which may well attempt to paint Ciaron as a violent individual.
"No, but nobody did because not all predictions are correct, we all make errors or misinterpretations- the point is to discuss and learn from them."
The funny thing is that you are attacking the WSM for getting a prediction right and its failure to go along with the SWP school of always over-hyping expectations. It appears that you are completely incapable of learning anything at all from experience.
"Sad that this instead leads to petty squabbles."
If you think that it these 'petty squabbles' are indeed sad, then why did you choose to pepper your comment with serious unsubstantiated allegations against your political opponents, accusing the WSM of lies and Ciaron of assault? It makes you look very much like a hypocrite.
"Anyway, funny to see that the IST bulletin has such an active readership- very positive!"
It's hardly positive when most of the readership seems to be treating the bulletin as a work of comedy.
"I remember a few years (2000 or 2001) ago prior to a day of May Day demos a leading member of WSM in the Sunday Tribune mockingly said the anti capitalist movement didn't exist here and it was premature to build these demos and expect much- the next day he was at the demo-spoke from the platform and said what a great day it was!!"
I'm guessing Batman is talking about the protest outside the Stock Exchange 3 years ago (see link) at which Andrew spoke. I don't remember the Turbine interview, and it doesn't seem to be on the web, so I can't see what the exact quote was. But the report of the protest says there was about 300 people there (and says that was very good). If the Turbine journalist had asked if the protest would be like the London May Day protests, then the natural response would be to say that no, the anti-capitalist movement in Ireland wasn't anything near that strong, and any protest would be much smaller. Guess what? The protest was much smaller.
It appears that attempts to make honest estimates of the strength of the movement, or assessments of the numbers on a protest, are now 'mocking'. True revolutionaries must add at least one zero to all predictions!
Marxism 2004: The beginning of the end for the UK SWP?
By Anarcho
[....]
Numbers in 2003 did seem down from 2001. This year was more noticeable. The lack of numbers was commented on by members of every political group I talked to -- anarchist, Marxist and Leninist. While the SWP leadership could explain the lack of numbers in terms of the by-election campaign in Leicester RESPECT was running, it seems unlikely it would send it most inexperienced members (and potential recruits) away from its most prestigious annual event. Given that as recently as 2000 the SWP boasted of having 9000 members, the fact that RESPECT claims a mere 3000 members is significant. In spite of its turn to the Asian community, the number of non-white faces was the lowest I have seen. Given this, I doubt I will attend Marxism 2005. It would be pointless if only Leninist hacks are attending it.
[....]
This kind of venomous in-fighting only goes to illustrate how so many on the micro-left are determined to ensconce themselves in the quagmire of meaningless philosophical arguments at the expense of tangible progress.
If SF are "centrist", they certainly got 350,000 proletarian votes in the election. Stick that in your pipe and smoke it.
Rory Hearne is clearly someone who wants progress on left issues in this country and is far more likely to make a difference to working-class people than the non-entities, the pen-pushing "activists" who contribute only criticisms to this site. Shameful, cowering, incopetent fools.
"If SF are "centrist", they certainly got 350,000 proletarian votes in the election. Stick that in your pipe and smoke it."
Tell me then, how many proletarian votes do the DUP get? What does it prove? Stick that in your pipebomb and smoke it.
"Rory Hearne is clearly someone who wants progress on left issues in this country and is far more likely to make a difference to working-class people than the non-entities, the pen-pushing "activists" who contribute only criticisms to this site. Shameful, cowering, incopetent fools."
Rory Hearne has proved himself to be unreliable as someone who want to progress left issues. While fronting for the AEIP he told blatant lies during the lead up to Mayday. He took part in the shameful 'Thatcher's children' episode. Anybody who experienced this clown in action with the working class during the blockade of Grangegorman will know exactly what difference to the working class he will make - divil a bit.
Shameful, lying, incompetent fools.
"no-one ever claimed the demos would be a million strong."
"Richard Boyd Barrett of the Irish Anti-War Movement (IAWM) ... said he expected tens of thousands of people - possibly over a million - to take part in the various protests on June 25 and 26."
http://archives.tcm.ie/irishexaminer/2004/05/11/story61927422.asp
the prediction was toned down later that month
"The Anti-War Movement, an umbrella for a number of different groups, has announced a series of events to voice opposition to Mr Bush's visit on June 25 and 26....Crowds of up to 100,000 are expected, said movement leader Richard Boyd Barrett."
http://archives.tcm.ie/irishexaminer/2004/05/29/story392033187.asp
though it was still way, way off.
What happened to the other thread on SWP? Im not trying to revive it but there was a link from it to a book on the left in Britain in 70s and 80s by a former member of SWP (i think). Anyone able to give me the title or the link to that page?
This is the one you want
I'm sorry, I'll admit that this was probably just a typo and that to bring it up here is cruel and vindictive but:
"The government is attempting to use the race card in the 11 June election by holding a referendum on the same day that, if passed, will restrict the right to citizenship _to_ children born to non-national parents." [emphasis added]
Now that one, I think, we could have won.
Another interesting book by an SWP member is "The Left in Britain, 1956-1968" by David Widgery. It is essentially a compendium of materials from various sources on the Trotskist movement in Britain (SWP, WRP, IMG, etc) in the '60s, with commentary from Widgery with a very pro-SWP slant. It is interesting in that it presents the SWP at the time as a very much an open and libertarian organisation, with a very different vibe to that we would associate with it today. I checked on Amazon and unfortunately the only copy they had of this 1976 Penguin paperback is being sold by an American dealer with a price tag of 234.95 sterling. Hard to believe that anyone interested in the far left has that sort of money to spend on a thirty year old paperback. It makes me glad I got mine in a secondhand shop in Rathmines in 1983 for 50p.
With one exception (Dave Lordan), members of the SWP have typically attempted to conceal their party allegiance whilst engaging in this debate. Of course, it doesn’t work. After all, the person styling themselves “Left alliance” is clearly a member of the SWP. Who but a member of the SWP would offer such a fawning and embittered defence of Rory Hearne? “Rory Hearne is clearly someone who wants progress on left issues in this country and is far more likely to make a difference to working-class people than the non-entities, the pen-pushing "activists" who contribute only criticisms to this site.”
So, having established beyond much doubt that these are the words of an SWP member, it seems fair to reiterate that the SWP really have swung over to the view (as delineated by Rory in his farcical report to SWP Centcom) that Sinn Féin is a left-wing party. “Left alliance” says: “If SF are ‘centrist’, they certainly got 350,000 proletarian votes in the election. Stick that in your pipe and smoke it.”
Sinn Féin, of course, are more than centrist – the party is nationalist, populist AND centrist – Fianna Fáil Mark 2, you might say. And having succeeded in garnering 350,000 of Fianna Fáil’s “proletarian” vote, Sinn Féin is in the running for much more of it. The task of socialists – or, at least it used to be – is not to talk up Sinn Féin for the purpose of maintaining meaningless alliances, but to “reveal” the party for what it is: a well-meaning, dynamic and credible alternative to the establishment parties. But not left wing, and certainly not socialist.
Having clearly established that Plover, ray, respectwatch on this thread are all members of wsm (thats half of wsm! Oh and Yes Chekov you guys are a small cult, I mean organisation - every wonder why?? Maybe Because with spoilt middle class kids in it no one will take your balaclava wearing black bloc theatrics serious)
Lets, proceed...
In speaking of Rory Hearne, "respectwatch" (another WSMer hiding behind a name)
says Quote:
"Anybody who experienced this clown in action with the working class during the blockade of Grangegorman will know exactly what difference to the working class he will make - divil a bit."
Well, I did and the person who posted this never spoke one solitary word to a bin worker at grangegorman any of the mornings he did bother to get out of his bed. Yet he comes on here and slags off rory hearne, who spent his entire time engaging in dialogue with the workers there.
Oh and by the way Chekov, anti capitalism doesn,t begin and end inside your imagination (?) or street demos where you and your D4 mates parade around like punk boy bands in black, pulling shapes to a line of gardai. It exists all around us in our workplaces and so on.
Checkovs political analysis is about as indepth as a copy of WSM. (oh and thats about 1/2 mm deep to be a bit more precise)
Although, it may seem inconceivable to you, Rory, I wrote exactly one comment on this thread - the one that I signed my name to.
Furthermore, I'd be reasonably sure that I am the only member of WSM who has posted on this thread. As far as I know, all members of WSM who post on indymedia do so either under their own name or under a well known and consistent pseudonym.
You claim to have "clearly established" the fact that all of the SWP critics on this thread are members of the WSM - you haven't except in your own head as it is simply and provably not true.
It actually says quite a lot that you respond to the varied criticism above by launching a personalised attack on myself and the WSM based upon imaginary evidence. It would surely be convenient to imagine that the consistent criticism that the SWP receives was in fact nothing more than a sectarian plot by a rival organisation. This would allow you to dismiss it all and you could feel justified in refusing to respond to any of it.
However, unfortunately for you, the conspiratorial prowess of the WSM is not what you seem to think it and there are many activists around who are far more hostile to the SWP than any member of the WSM would be. Your theory of a WSM plot is not only incorrect, but it shows a real lack of understanding of why the SWP is so unpopular outside of its own ranks.
Chekov complains of personal attacks. Well he does submit a comment with (personal capacity) therefore logic would suggets his actions and comments are up for debate not WSM?
Anyway, its great to see that Chekov has so much time to waste on his personal crusade on indymedia picking up on every little internal left squabble that begins. Chekov says he only makes one comment but look around indymedia if you have as much time as he has and youll see he turns up at every sectarian shite discussion on this site, with his "words of wisdom" on how Lennists have 3 heads and if you believe are out to suck out your brain and re-programme you. If anything has got boring its Chekovs tired mantra on the swp. Blah Blah. If he was actually were active on the ground in real political activity you would have credibility.
By the way he cleverly got in a sulk about being personally questioned and did not refer to any of the previous posters comments regarding respectwatch's comments.
Nobody posted under the name Respect Watch. That was ReSect Watch.
Holy shit!
The SWP have put a link to this bulletin on the front page of their website!
What is going on? They write one of the craziest things ever about Irish politics. Then they publish it after every single prediction in it is proved wrong. Then they put it on the front page of their website.
its their version of a maoist self-criticism session. We have suffered from deviationism...