Don't Just March, Do Something!

by Anarchist Youth - anarchist youth Mon Feb 20, 2006 22:14

logo.

by jim Mon Feb 20, 2006 22:19

Don't just march do something... exactly!

See you at the Collen pickets then?

by Anarchist Youth - anarchist youth Mon Feb 20, 2006 22:27

We support the struggle of the Ballybrack brickies and will help fight for the rights of all workers (indigenous and immigrant) where we can.

by great Mon Feb 20, 2006 22:30

great I'll see you lot at the pickets tomorrow then?

by sean Mon Feb 20, 2006 22:34

- "Organise a clandestine or mass trespass/demonstration for Shannon or Baldonnel."
You no i was just going to do that
probably after i finish my dinner

by hs - sp (per cap) Mon Feb 20, 2006 23:13

...who can? If anarchist youth can pull off a few clandestine tresspasses I say more power to them. Best of luck with it.

by chekov - 1 of Indymedia Ireland Editorial Group Tue Feb 21, 2006 00:31 chekov at indymedia dot ie

Chomsky, when responding to a question at the RDS said pretty much exactly the same thing - that marches should only be the prelude to effective action and should not be seen as an end in themselves. It's a pretty obvious point and one that does not deserve all of the sneers above.

by Bob the party builder Tue Feb 21, 2006 07:20

Chekov wrote: "marches should only be the prelude to effective action and should not be seen as an end in themselves".

That's correct. Marches are an opportunity for socialists to recruit fresh blood and paper sellers to their organisation. Now, dear anarchist youth lads have you ever attended a socialist meeting? Give it a try. It's fun, inspiring and you make plenty of friends. Come along, it'll change your life (you bet!)

by hs Tue Feb 21, 2006 10:12

I wasn't sneering I was deadly serious, i think it's great this group want to go further. But in the same time anarchists should try to refrain from sneering at people who see marching as a protest action. We should remember that both actions (marching and direct action) are protest actions, the lads even if they broke into shannon on a weekly basis would not necessarily shut it down. After all the iraqis themselves are setting off 70 bombs a day! But as a publicity stunt and an action it's a great idea, but some might argue more publicity and more people can be reached (and more people take part) in a large scale march. Personally I don't see any contradiction in both actions been taken. And I don't think either action should be sneered at by anybody, not everyones ready to don masks and climb fences. Different actions can be taken at different times for whatever reason, direct action like marching extra is another tactic, personally i don't see anything idelogical in it. So the argumnet might be which is better a few dozn direct actioners or a few thousand marchers, in my humble opinion why not both!

by Chekov Tue Feb 21, 2006 10:50

To be honest I wasn't really refering to you - more the comments above which generally seemed to come from a position of "who do you fecking youngsters think you are trying to tell us what to do".

However, I still disagree with you. If February 15th showed anything it showed that many people believe that demonstrating their disagreement to the government is an end in itself - sort of like a mass lobby of the government and I think it comes from a mistaken belief that a protest march is something that is likely to change governmental policy. The vast size of that march and the almost complete lack of willingness of the marchers and their leaders to do anything other than demonstrate their disagreement with government policy - as if we lived in a democracy where the government was interested in what we thought! - taught me that this is an important point for revolutionaries to make. A march is just a demonstration and an utterly empty one if there is no actual intention of taking action behind it.

I think that this particular march called by the hollow shell of the IAWM is a march and nothing else and it amazes me how anybody could think that there is much value in a march of itself at this stage - unless they were motivated by the perogatives that bob the party builder describes above as I know some are. On the other hand, if the leaders were intending to use it as a springboard for action, for actually doing something that might put some pressure - however miniscule - on the government then I would see a lot more worth to it. As it is, I don't believe this to be the case, it's just spinning in ever decreasing circles. In this context I think that it is valuable for people to make the point that a march should be no more than a starting point, no matter how young they may be. I also should note that one of the things that the anarchist youth are calling for people to do is to join the march, so you are mistaken if you think they are claiming that there is any contradiction between the two. Personally, I'll be marching too, but mostly for the forlorn hope that a large turnout might put mass action back on the agenda - despite the farcical and pathetic nature of the leadership who are walking us around Dublin again - and I'll be doing my tiny little bit to add to those numbers.

For those who simply ask why the Anarchist Youth aren't at the Colleen site - why aren't they in Africa fighting aids? Or with the peasants of Nepal? or organising clandestine unions in China? etc etc. There is more than one struggle in the world and you should be pleased that people are fighting at all rather than demanding that they all get in line behind whichever struggle is your current focus.

by MichaelY - iawm Tue Feb 21, 2006 11:50

Absolutely fantastic to read the post by our [young] anarchist comrades. I sincerely hope that the Red + Black contingent is huge and very impressive. And also agree full heartedly with the suggestions for [further] action. Great.
From our part, and as partial answer to the 'older' and more 'perceptive' observers like Chekov, we are also organising a number of other activities up to and after March 18th. There are stalls with leaflets and petitions in Grafton Street, Henry Street and Dunlaoghaire in Dublin every Saturday. There will be leafletting outside the two mosques this Friday. There will be a candlelit procession in Ranelagh/Rathmines next Thursday afternoon. There will be meetings all over the country with an Iraqi and a Vietnam vet for a fortnight from next week. The central Dublin meet is on the night of Thursday March 2nd in the ATGWU Hall - Middle Abbey Street. There are local events in Tralee, Roscommon, Derry and Belfast coming up. We will take part in PANA's 'triangular' protest in the three airports: Shannon, Baldonnel and Aldergrove.
The main objective of all this activity is to put the use of Shannon as a warport and Irish complicity in the war onto the centre of the political stage, to make it an election issue, to push and force the FF/PD coalition to shift while indirectly influence the Labour Party and the Greens to move into action+. If people, as a result of this activity and politicisation, join groups, movements or organisations - so much the better.
Delighted Chekov will be marching with us on March 18th. He will be one of hundreds of thousands marching at the same day all over the world. And that is not hollow comrade.....

by polictricks Tue Feb 21, 2006 14:31

Sadly the majority of Irish people can’t see the connection between committing genocide and assisting in it, be it because the media has numbed their critical thinking on the subject, or harbor private feelings that material wealth comes with a price that is best brushed under the carpet, or a host of many other reasons. The point is, most people are not socially aware, or think that these things can’t be changed and don’t invest ay time in activism and are skeptical to say the least. Basically under these conditions, the tactic marching, has a very limited effect.

I am still going to the protest, hoping it will inspire direct action. However brutal and disgusting the Iraq war is why is there so much emphasize put almost solely on this conflict. Going for the biggest tree the forest, so to speak it is like trying to nurse a tumor but not addressing is root cause, (if man made, radiation or something).

Solidarity with the Anarchist Youth

by Tony Cliff Tue Feb 21, 2006 14:36

"There will be leafletting outside the two mosques this Friday."

Will yuo be leafletting outside any Synagogues on Saturday or Churchs on Sunday? I hope Islamic Women wont have to wear Hijabs to take part in your demonstration.

by MichaelY - iawm Tue Feb 21, 2006 14:51

Dear friend,

Yes we have been and will be leafletting outside churches. We also leaflet outside some other religious establishments such as McDonalds, AIB, M&S and a number of pubs.
As for the women who will be taking part, can I recommend you read a post by Yanar - written today - under the thread: 'A weekend of Peace and Democracy US Style in Iraq, close by in Indymedia.

May open your eyes I hope

by Tony Cliff Tue Feb 21, 2006 15:18

But she would completely disagree with you she is opposed to what you cheer on as the resistance who are slaughtering civilians. She is also fighting for a secular Iraq and is therefore a target of your resistance.

by MichaelY - iawm Tue Feb 21, 2006 16:06

Tony,

I am glad you read the article. Now whether the writer disagrees with me or the iawm is a matter better left alone...you certainly have no knowledge of what I or the iawm or the Womens Coalition believe.

To present the facts that the Iraqi Resistance, made up of secular socialists, anarchists, atheists, 'soft' Muslims, fundamentalists, Sunnis, Kurds, Iraqis, Jordanians, Iranians, Lebanese, Egyptians, Christians and a few Buddhists as well, is extremely active in opposing the occupation is not exactly "cheering"... My point is that there where there is oppression there is resistance. And resistance in Iraq, everywhere else and in Ireland has taken and will take many forms.

Please Tony do me a favour and read again both articles, calm yourself down and tell us where you, as an individual, or through your organisation, stand on the Iraqi invasion, the occupation and the use of Shannon as a warport. So that we can all be clear where we agree or disagree.

by Curious Tue Feb 21, 2006 16:12

Michael - How come one day you are Michael R and the next Michael Y?

by MichaelY - iawm Tue Feb 21, 2006 16:27

Hi,

Never been nor intend to be MichaelR....

by pat c Tue Feb 21, 2006 17:34

i agree with you that t cliff is not being helpful, he could make his disagreements clearer. the resistance is not just those fighting its also those who want the coalition forces out of iraq.
if tony reads the relevant article he will see that this is exactly want yanar and her group want.

a point you havent mentioned is that countless iraqi civilians are killed in "armed resistance" attacks. i'm not talking about collateral damage, i mean bombs aimed at civilians it would help if you made it clear that you opposed this. yanar certainly opposes it.

a point i would also make is that iawm banners were brought on pro hijab demos in the past. the iraqi women certainly would not support that.
if you are in any doubt then go to their site:
http://www.equalityiniraq.com/english.htm

if you have problems with that then take it up with them: [email protected]

they would also disagree with the iawm on the cartoon issue. (there are articles on the iawm site supporting the banning of the cartoons, but i'd expect swp ploicy to be there) this is what they say about those who are stirring up trouble against the Danish cartoons:

"It is vital for all decent people to be aware of the agenda behind these attacks on the rights to expression, and belief - the aim is to impose Islamic law all over the world. Political Islam is coordinating on an international level to gain momentum in a campaign against the achievements of progressive social movements who, after centuries of struggle, have won many advances for secularism. They now want to gain a privileged status under the umbrella of ‘multiculturalism’ to excuse their crimes against Muslims, people of other faiths as well as non-believers."

by hs Tue Feb 21, 2006 18:02

Much of what you say is correct, but not completely, for example anarchist youth are themselves taking part in the march, and most probably handing out leaflets of their ideas forward have an opportunity to convince others outside their group on direct action. Possibly they will recruit others to their cause. And possibly from this they can create bigger adirect ctions. (and theres nothing wrong with this at all, or for the swp to do so for that matter)
Marching while on the one hand will probably make little difference on publicity is still a tried and tested method of meeting people and hopefully convincing them to a point of view.

You are right though that marching in itself will do little to affect change on the irish government position on iraq. but by the same token direct action by small groups against the airports is even less likely to effect government change on iraq. Some token monetary damage could be done to airplanes (possibly) but beyond creating publicity it has little effect on the war machine. I do sincerely believe catholic workers actions on the onset of the war had a huge impact on letting people know what was happening in shannon. But that is of less importance today as it's well known. Direct action of course has the advantage of people organising for themselves and as long as they don't get carried away on it's political value it should be encouraged. But again on the same token people organising marches etc shouldn't be completely belittled. I don't think theres an either or to this situation. There is benefit in both.

I had some experience in Italy of mass direct actions against military bases, with tens of thousands taking part. But unfortunately these could only be held one day at a time. And to be perfectly honest the military just flew over peoples heads, as they were airbases. Only a massive sustained effort by lots of people blockading trains, roads etc could really shut down an airport. Everything else is really a form of protest. But like marching direct action should be encouraged and it's wonderful to see this new group taking actions like this. But while people may get disillusioned with marching and not being listened too they shouldn't have any illusions to what direct action can achieve or see different perfectly valid tactics to somehow being idelogically different to each other. It's a false difference and to be honest sometimes to me seems a contrived difference cited by libertarians to create artificial differences with the rest of the left. (not that there isn't plenty of actual differences there)

in conclusion I wish the group the best of luck and i also hope we have a good turnout for the march. If nothing else these varied actions should at least remind people of irelands complicity and hopefully put pressure on the parties, who knows a labour/FF coalition or a Labour/Green/FG
coalition could be put under more pressure than the present coalition.

by Liz Tue Feb 21, 2006 18:05

Pat C. seems to misunderstand the position of the many feminists across the world who support the right of muslim girls and women - in France for example where it is forbidden in schools - to wear the hijab if they choose. This is not the same as being pro-hijab no more than being pro-choice is being pro-abortion.

Feminists like Christine Delphy - and moderate muslim women - have pointed out that imposing bans like the one in France makes it more difficult for muslim women to have a free choice about whether or not to wear the hijab. It makes muslim communities more closed, more open to the influence of fundamentalism etc than they would be otherwise. Personally, I would compare the hijab debate with the Penal Laws here in Ireland - nothing like suppressing a religion to make it more popular and to deepen its hold!

by Chekov Tue Feb 21, 2006 18:30

Although you are of course right about the miniscule practical effects that direct action might have in the immediate future, I think you are missing a crucial point. That is that if a movement decides to make a mass lobby the limits of its militancy, (okay Michael has given us the even more pathetic and utterly hopeless ambition of forcing the issue onto the list of empty promises that the effing labour party will try to con the public into voting for them with!) then the government is safe in ignoring them forever - they can even support the effing marches as Bertie claimed to have done on Feb 15th.

In short, it is a tame opposition, something that will never, ever, ever, conceivably worry the government - if the 100,000 plus of F15 (and the similar number on the Irish Ferries march) didn't trouble them a bit, what is the point of repeating the same thing over and over with ever smaller numbers? Even if the numbers involved in the anti-war demonstrations were growing (as is patently not the case) they wouldn't have anything to worry about. The SWP/IAWM has set its stall out to never be a threat; to play by the rigged rules of putting pressure on neo-liberal capitalist parties - what utter rubbish and it's a testament to how low the Marxists of today have gone that they think that lobbying the capitalists to say some nice and empty words on the tissue of lies that is their manifesto is the limit of their ambition.

With direct action, no matter how small, there is always the danger that it could grow and that is not something that the state would like at alll. No matter how unlikely it may seem today, no matter how small the groups involved, it at least forms a hypothetical threat - something that can't just be ignored/ Deciding that demonstrations are the limit of your ambition is simply to capitulate and adopt a position that will never have any impact on their policy.

I think that anybody who has any experience of such things from outside the SWP realises full well that their real agenda is to sell papers and win recruits and the war is just another issue with which to gather together a target audience for this endeavour.

by pat c Tue Feb 21, 2006 18:31

i still think these women would disagree with you. they think islam is uncivilised.

what i am objecting to is te iawm banners being brought along to a pro hijab march. thats taking the side of islam.

i dont think there should be a state ban on hijabs but i do think its a sign of womens oppression. putting a head scarf on a young child is telling them at an early age that they are lesser beings.

if you and other feminists think the hijab is such a good idea then why dont u wear it yourself?

NO gods!

NO masters!

UP WITH GAY RIGHTS! UP WITH WOMENS RIGHTS!

DOWN WITH islam!

by 2bFrank Tue Feb 21, 2006 19:01

And so it grows...

by hs Tue Feb 21, 2006 19:04

Just because the swp organises the march doesn't mean they completely control it. Although they may see it as the be all and end all it doesn't mean everyone else has to. Anarchist youth themselves will be along i see (as will lots of other groups) And it just as much as a small direct action could be a spark, in fact its more likely as a secretive direct action is unlikely to pick up supporters along the way.

Anyway how can you even define direct actions? Lets say marchers broke away and bloked a petrol station (as happened before) wouldn't that be direct action? Its still a base for people to network from, meet and possibly organise further action. Just because the swp don't see it that way makes little difference. In ireland its a little weird because the swp are organising the stuff trade unions and civil society usually organise. But that doesn't mean they aren't still places where people can be reached. I would not see a demonstration to be the limit of the action and I also wouldn't see small direct actions as the limit. I do see anywhere we can try to reach out and possibly influence people as something valid. Although our politics would differ here I would also look at electoral elements, especially with pressures a green or labour coalition would come into. The greens especially would come under immense pressure if they form a coalition. These marches can have a drip drip effect of adding to the pressure. Its not dramatic but i think it can have a little effect. (and i've no problem in saying i'd like to get support for ourselves too, in whatever form)

But again i would say i've no problem with anybody organising a direct action against the airport, and it's quite refreshing to see new non alinged youth groups popping up with that sort of stuff in mind. The more groups organising the more actions the better. If as you think the swp are just doing this to sell a few papers and get recruits, well thats there perogitive but i doubht people will be queing up to join, blatant cynical politicing like this is more likely to backfire than anything else. Although political groups selling papers on marches is fine with me, I've often bough workers solidarity (the old one) at such marches, and buying such materials and speaking to activists has often been a secondary reason for me to go. I don't think anyone believes the march will stop anything concrete, but these things are generally a process and one march can't be taken in isolation.

by pat c Tue Feb 21, 2006 19:11

its terrible those christian riots. now i could be wrong but i suspect they might be in response to the muslim riots where christians were killed including a priest who was burned alive.

by loko Tue Feb 21, 2006 19:52

why are the anarchist youth going to have a march in dublin if what they are trying to promote direct action in shannon? makes no sense, these kids wont get up to much in dublin.

by Loki Tue Feb 21, 2006 19:57

Just you wait and see. Now trot off back to RBB for your orders.

by guydebordisdead Tue Feb 21, 2006 22:23

Perhaps Anarchist Youth see the IAWM march as a good place to launch their campaign for direct action in shannon. A chance to leaflet and discuss with others who share their view.

by MichaelY - iawm Wed Feb 22, 2006 12:37

Amazing to see how quickly ideas grow - debate intensifies - and any such growth brings with it lots of good and, inevitably, some dead wood as well.

A response to some of the fundamental issues raised:

1. The iawm does not belong to any party - it is a movement of people opposed to the war and particularly the use of Shannon as a warport. In last night's Steering Committee meet, for example, there was no swp militant present. We decided, for example, to have a full planning meeting for March 18th, on Saturday March 4th at 4.00. All welcome to discuss the nature, the stewarding, the speakers etc. Don't forget that the Labour Party, the Greens, Sinn Fein, the Anarchist movement, PANA, Amnesty, the Muslim Students Federation all support this march. Watch this space for the venue. And let the skeletons of the past firmly locked in the cupboards....bringing them back to life doesn't help anybody.
2. Accepting the right of people in any country to fight oppression, in any way they see fit, including using arms, does not mean unqualified and blanket support and cheering of every action, every initiative, every move of every group. That should be obvious. For example, my own personal opinion re:the bombing/destruction of the Shiite temple last night, graphically explained by redjade in another thread, is that it is a regressive and provocative act. Provoked, it may be, by Iraqi PM Jaafari's remarks in London on Monday that he is not willing to re-consider the highly sectarian nature of his government. But as an individual I am against that type of highly manipulative and destructive operation. And I don't know any sane iawm militant, of whatever gender, swp or not, who would support such an action.
3. Finally, the interplay of various forms of action by a diverse popular movement, direct and indirect, mass and individual, legal and paralegal, peaceful and/or violent if need be is our stength. So lets combine them in our struggle and quit setting ourselves, our views and that of our organisations, as the be all of a successful movement. Who was it that called that attitude 'infantile disorder'? And, yes, even that old man had a few sound things to say along with plenty oif bullshit.

by Michael R. Wed Feb 22, 2006 12:42

Totally agree with HS:-

"So the argumnet might be which is better a few dozn direct actioners or a few thousand marchers, in my humble opinion why not both!"

by Chekov Wed Feb 22, 2006 13:09

"So the argumnet might be which is better a few dozn direct actioners or a few thousand marchers, in my humble opinion why not both!"

Nobody is arguing against marches. I (and AY) am arguing that it is important - very important considering the enormous marches in the recent past with zero follow up behind them - that it is important to make the argument to the thousands of marchers that they need to go beyond that if they want to have any effect.

MichealY - the IAWM is a creature of the SWP. They drove out the anarchists as far back as the Afghan war through their manipulations (and subsequently did as much as they could to undermine our attempts at direct action). They drove out the independents some years ago. Even the fig-leaf of the SP has left it. If you are really an independent and not an SWP sock puppet, I'm sure you will eventually come to realise this or be recruited.

by Righteous Pragmatist Wed Feb 22, 2006 13:33

Do you people watch the news?
First we were told that when American forces got caught in a sand storm on the way to Baghdad that the US military had been defeated by mother nature - the next week Comical Ali was trying desperately to convince us all that the americans were committing suicide against the gates of Baghdad even while we could see Abrams tanks over his shoulder.
We were told that the "insurgency" against the "occupation" of Iraq was a popular uprising against the forces of imperialism. But then it was clear that suicide bombers were more interested in attacking innocent Iraqis women and children and blowing up the long queues of Iraqi men outside police and army recruitment centres - than american forces.
Of course the elections in January, October and December 2005 showed that millions of Iraqis who the media had been tellings us for years had no interest in democracy, a Western imperialist concept, actually DID was to participate in a democracy.
Now as a new democratic government is formed in Iraq and police and army units gradually replace the american military we will be told of course that america is leaving Iraq in defeat!
The media is just praying that the Sunnis and Shias fight a civil war- what are a few thousand ded Iraqis - if you can use it as a stick against capitalism, the world wide zionist conspiracy yada yada yada.

by MichaelY - iawm Wed Feb 22, 2006 13:41

Dear Chekov,

1. If the IAWM, and all it has achieved over the last few years, is really "a creature of the SWP", then that outfit has a lot to be proud of. But that's not the case is it? The Anti-War Movement in Ireland has been created by a lot of people, many more than the SWP box could accommodate but also including the SWP. Some of them have left, others are inactive, many more continue the struggle under different hats and some are still there.
2. There are quite a lot of independents like me in the iawm right now - who are neither dupes, nor trolls, nor to use your exquisite expression "SWP sock puppets". In fact, some of us fought against and debated with generic Trotskyism of the SWM/SWP/IMG/PD/LWR/Militant genre quite often in the past. And we need the help and support of all of those who oppose the Iraqi invasion and the use of Shannon...using the SWP ogre as an alibi for fragmentation won't wash...not with me comrade.
3. As for my views re:direct action I have already stated them clearly. No need to bore people here. Come and work with us...don't worry about being contaminated. You will be on the march...we will be with you when and if you decide to move into alternative methods of struggle. And if they manage to recruit us all - God forbid - well then the 'creature' would have completely regenerated the DNA code. Seriously.

by Michael R. Wed Feb 22, 2006 13:59

Hi Chekov. Regarding marches and direct action/other actions I totally agree with you that, obviously, marches unto themselves are hardly enough to win any situation. I think they are an important factor, particularly as an initial step to get publicity and to get things going. But totally agree with you that of course follow up action and direct action are required (so long as the direct action is totally peaceful direct action).

So I think you, me and HS are basically in agreement. Good to see Anarchist Youth joining the march as well.

by chekov Wed Feb 22, 2006 14:02 chekov at indymedia dot ie

Michael - front political groups need to have a few enthusiastic political neophytes in them such as yourself to loudly proclaim the independence of the front - the important thing is who controls them politically. Go away and read a bit about the political methods of the Stalinist communist parties in Europe, or even of any of the myriad fronts that the SWP has run in the past (there are dozens) to see how disasterous such political forms are for the causes which they focus on - they are intended to benefit the controlling party, not the cause, and they reliably do so. The IAWM is actually about the most paper-thin of all the front groups that I have ever come across - not a single other organisation has any real involvement in it.

Anybody with any experience in politics knows that it is possible for political groups to control organisations for their own ends by virtue of their control over key positions in the organisation - if you are telling the truth about your past experiences (from the 80's I assume considering the non-existant groups whose initials you mention). Although I'm certain that the SWP claims that all of the other groups who are opposed to the war are sectarian and hence won't get involved - they are simply lying as they always do. Other groups won't get involved because they know only too well that joining a group that is controlled by an utterly cynical sect is just not an effective way of bringing about change in anything other than promoting the controlling group.

You are lecturing people who understand politics better than you, who have much more experience within the anti-war movement than you do and your assumptions are all wrong. It's nothing to do with 'contamination' or 'fragmentation' it's simply a correct evaluation of how one can act effectively and it is backed up be a wealth of evidence - have a look through the anti-war archives on this site to see the horrible mess that the SWP have made of the anti-war movement in Ireland. Only an idiot would choose to endlessly repeat such a disaster.

by Kenny Wed Feb 22, 2006 14:04

Can I suggest that you trawl through the archives on this website.
There are detailed threads on groups and individuals who left the IAWM because of the sly dealings of the SWP.
There are also detailed threads on the demonisation of groups and individuals who tried to remain independent of the IAWM by the SWP.
It seems that you think that a year zero (Pol Pot type thingy) outlook should apply for the IAWM.
Out of interest does this start from the moment that you took an active role within the IAWM?
Or does it start from another date?

by MichaelY - iawm Wed Feb 22, 2006 14:32

I take my hat to Chekov. His amazing political experience and wealth of knowledge on the history of the communist movement, what the SWP did, on the politics of entrism - they all leave me speechless. The lecture hit home - for a WSM member to lecture a person he does not know, a person who was involved in movements, including the anti-Vietnam mobilisations of the late '60s, before even the WSM was dreamt of by its founders.
That's when my Year 0 started. Have witnessed aghast the disasters created by one organisation fighting for a holier than thou position over another...including the sectarianism of many serious and courageous anarchists who ended up spending long years behind bars.
I stop here. Lets hope our roads converge somewhat in the future.

by chekov - 1 of Indymedia Ireland Editorial Group Wed Feb 22, 2006 14:42 chekov at indymedia dot ie

I was giving you the benefit of the doubt since I didn't know how much experience you had and the alternative was to write you off as an idiot who thinks that activism without any thought as to its effectiveness was a good thing. My bad.

by hs Wed Feb 22, 2006 17:53

i haven't been involved with the iawm as I was out of the country for most of the last few years (and i had bad experience in a swp front before). I think the questions are, what is the steering committee? how often does it meet? do it's decesions actually get implmented or ignored? (a typical way of control) and how is it elected and how often. Is it a delegate structure,?and the old favourite is there any paper branches (and old swp favourite)?

I would also agree with chekov on having a plan to go further than a single march. I'd imagine the plan is to tie it in with the new People before Profit electoral front and try to get some support for it.
Just in the same way as anarchists try to tie direct actions into more anarchist organisation, nothing necessarily wrong with either case. Except the anarchists would probably be a little more honest about their intentions.

by chekov Wed Feb 22, 2006 18:51

hs, that is not it at all. The anarchist strategy of advocating and organising direct action does not generally aim towards more anarchist organisation - it aims to win by getting more people to take part in direct actions up to a point where the trouble caused by the direct action is large enough so that the government is forced to back down. That's pretty much the basis of our strategy in all struggles (although how this is translated into a particular campaign depends on the situation).

We generally feel that 'recruitment' is a secondary imperative which will be the natural consequence of the boost in self confidence that comes about through successful campaigns of direct action, the reasoning being that direct action tends to emphasise people's ability to change the world without using intermediaries (or stinking lying shitbag politicians as we fondly call them) and that this will lead some of them to a natural conclusion that anarchism presents the most effective path to a better world. However, victory in the campaign is always the paramount aim.

By contrast Trotskyism and the various other poisonous brands of Leninism always see recruitment as the paramount imperative. This is a consequence of an ideology which equates revolutionary change with the party seizing control of the state (or at the very least believes this to be a necessary stage in the revolution). Hence, whether a particular campaign is successful or not is almost irrelevant - if the party gains from a particular strategy, that strategy will be adopted, regardless of the effect that this will have on the chances of success of the struggle. Hence, one should never trust a trot in a broad campaign, nice as they may be personally, for they will stab the campaign in the back without a second thought if they think that they can benefit from it. The SWP are mostly just distinguished from their competitiors in this as they are particularly short-sighted and always seem to go for the immediate gain at the expense of long term gain.

Hence you will find that anarchists often concentrate a lot of their energies on trying to organise events and actions in far flung corners where chances of recruitment are next to non-existant rather than parading around Dublin. For example, if you look at the anti-war campaign anarchists tended to focus on Shannon as against Dublin. Indeed it was when the SWP stabbed the anarchists (and the rest of the anti-war movement) in the back by organising a protest in Dublin to coincide with a demonstration in Shannon during the Afghan war despite the Shannon protest having been agreed by the IAWM that the anarchists walked out of that particular 'movement'. Similarly, with Shell to Sea, you will find that a lot more of anarchist energy has gone into organising for direct action in Mayo compared to the SWP who tend to concentrate mainly on meetings and demonstrations in Dublin. The difference being that there are a lot more recruits to be had in Dublin, but Mayo is where the battle will be fought and ultimate victory will be won or lost.

by Shipsea Wed Feb 22, 2006 19:40

The marxists were leafleting the doors of both of Micheal O Sheighin's talks in Cork and Dublin - but not the one in Clonakilty.

by hs Thu Feb 23, 2006 00:35

True, but just as the socialist strategy is of raising political awarness and trying to win people over
to the idea of taking part in struggle, to either defend or push the position of the class forward.
Using direct action to force a governent down is just a single one of a myrid of possible tactics. Such as political pressure or strike action. (the most important weapon when facing the state or bosses). Tactics are tactics and different ones will be used when possible at different points.

Recruitment is of secondary importance to winning actual support for positions and campaigns, the party will always be a minority in the the working class, its not about recruitment its about winning support to your ideas, and testing your ideas in the process. I sincerely believe the irish left hasn't even begun, in the sense of debating tactics and ideology in general. Its all first and foremost (especially at this stage) about convincing people they can take part in struggle and take control of their own lives, and that their is an alternative to the present social structure.

Your points on direct action are to me a lazy piece of ideology, it's a very irish left idea that direct action is anarchist and marching is socialist. (one that was helped along by members of my own party in that "idelogical" debate on these pages) . Personally most direct action i've ever seen has been done by dyed in the wool communists, stalinists even. Direct Action is a tactic, marching is a tactic, strikes are tactics. Sometimes we'll use all three at once. After all the strike and the political strike being organised by strike committees area far greater glimpse to what a socialist or even anarchist society could look like.

Your points on recruitment and campaigns are even lazier, firstly what you call "trot" campaigns is basically political sectarianism. it doesn't matter what branch of whatever ideology it comes from, it could even just be called blatant opportunism. Anarchism in Ireland is a young and growing movement but do you honestly believe no anarchist group could ever do anything opportunist or sectarian? Even a self styled anarchist group?

You are also basing your entire critique on basically one veryshort sighted political group. Just like anarchisim there is a thousand varieties of marxism, leninism and even "trotskyism" whatever any group might like to believe. There's even plenty of extra parlimentry forms, autonomous and all the rest.

For ourselves we may not win every campign but we try, and not every campaign is about recruitment or votes. The GAMA strike will have won us little of either, but apart from the basic moral point, it raised politcal awarness of the exploitation, its effect on the irish labour market (in a completely non racist way) as well as the gama workers giving example of workers organising and winning. If you looked at it in the recruitment or electoral point of view it wouldn't have been worth the effort, but we look far beyond that. Victory is of course paramont even in the most cynical point of view victory (and even trying your best!) will win you more friends and influence. Don't allow one shortsighted, incredibly shortsighted, group be your only example.

Socialists (of our variety) tend to base themselves in cities as they try to base themselves on the mass of the working class. But theres lots of socialists out there (including "trots") who saw organisation of the peasantry and organising autonomous communities in the countyside as paramount. But for our own case we would organise in cities because,one thats where the majority of people live and industry is based and two it is where most of us are from.
The working class in the long run do have to take power, in what form is a debate that hasn't begun, how we will organise industry (through factory committees for rexample ) and how we will organise in the communities has barely been discussed, the "party seizing the sate" is another piece of empty slognaeering. We haven't even built a party capable of seizing the state (or a village for that matter!) let alone begun a debate on how and whether the party should seize the state. And what do you mean by seizing the state? An armed revolt? general strike,?winning an election? Your polemicing against a party that doesn't even exist. How you get that from swp opportunism is beyond me. How do anarchists plan to do away with the state overnight, for me thats just as utopian as Lenin's "state withering away" theory. At the moment we'd like to see a mass party of the working class (even a small one!) only then will the serious idelogical debates begin.

To say we don't go off organising down the country because we can't recruit anybody there is a little crass. Not everyone can just head off to far flung places for a sustained amount of time. And as you said about anarchist youth and the pickets, we can't be everywhere and do everything. But in saying that we do give every bit of support to the five and i think the members in galway were a bit more involved.

For shannon although as I stated before I was more sympathetic to the WSM position, the party did believe that the direct actions would backfire and turn people away from the antiwar movement and play into the governments hands. Although I disagreed I can see it's a valid point of view and not down to "recruiting in dublin". I can't answer for the swp and will leave that up to one of their own contributors, but I will say I see my politics having less in common with them almost by the day. And I don't believe blatant sectarian opportunism by one small group is something to base an entire and varied ideology on.

by R. Isible Thu Feb 23, 2006 00:52

The working class in the long run do have to take power, in what form is a debate that hasn't begun,

You've got to be joking. Right from the very first IWA meeting that debate has been central and has had actual concrete repercussions in history over the last approximately 150 years. That's a hell of a long debate that hasn't begun yet. Direct Action may be seen by non-anarchist socialists as just one way to seize power (which will be wielded on behalf of the working class by the party) but that doesn't mean that it's not more central to anarchists. I think rather than anarchists (or Chekov whom you address here) being hung up on it as a fetishised tactic, you're missing the point that DA isn't just about physical confrontation, it's about organising your own political struggle and delegating tasks, but not power, to other people.

You appear to be denying, or ignorant of, a core principle of the ideology of your party.

by hs Thu Feb 23, 2006 09:56

obviously a general historical debate has always gone on. But the kind of prononcements chekov is making haven't been made. by what you say that would mean, the socialist party in it's present form plans to take over the state. (it would want to be a pretty small state)In reality the socialist party would like to see a larger party it can be a part of and then a debate within that party or movement can begin. I disagree on what you say about DA, if what you mean is illegal action there might be something in challenging the state, but what is direct action? Is it organising communities? Is it donning masks, is it planting bombs? Again it's lazy theory and somewhat of a slogan. People organising committees of any sort in their workplace or communities is empowering whatever label is put on it. Direct action is usually a number of people taking some form of action, it's not necessarily empowering to a community it could just as easily be unrepresentative as representative.

by hs Thu Feb 23, 2006 10:11

"The working class in the long run do have to take power, in what form is a debate that hasn't begun,"

i should have said here in ireland and in contempory politics, on any large scale.

by Chekov Thu Feb 23, 2006 10:15

HS, you don't seem to understand what direct action means - anarchists are very clear on this, and indeed I've already made explicit reference to it above. You can hardly accuse me of laziness when you don't seem to take the trouble to understand the concepts that I am refering to.

It is action which is unmediated - that is to say that it relies upon people taking action themselves to change things rather than trying to get somebody to change things for them through voting or lobbying. Strikes are direct action, locking yourself to the railings of the Dail is not direct action - it's a stunt. The association between small illegal acts and 'direct action' is merely a symptom of how weak the politics of anarchism is in Ireland and most of the rest of the world. Anarchist strategy around Shannon was based around direct action - we wanted to try to make it impossible for the US airforce to use shannon not by persuading a politician to change his mind, but by our own actions. Similarly the blockades employed in Mayo are direct action - they attempt to make it impossible for Shell to build their refinery and pipeline through the actions of the people involved in the blockades and so on and are not willing to confine themselves to trying to change the minds of politicians.

you are also entirely wrong when you say that the 'fetishisation' of direct action is a particularly Irish phenomenon. Direct action has always been at the core of anarchist strategy - I recall a mass meeting of the Spanish CGT in Seville in 2003, the biggest anarchist organisation in the world today with over 50,000 members, the speaker started by saying "we are the heirs of the Confederation of 1936, direct action is our method, social revolution is our goal" - which was met by general cheers. If you read any of the histories of the great anarchist movements of the period before the bolshevik catastrophe struck the socialist movement, you will find that such references to direct action are ubiquituous. I should also add that calling this a 'fetish' is foolish - it's like saying that troskyists 'fetishise' revolution - to anarchists direct action is a fundamental requirement of building a better world - not just a strategy.

Of course, in most of the rest of the world, state socialists are less pathetic than some of our own and often use direct action - but it is always secondary to the primary goal of getting the party into a position where they can control the state.

by Shipsea Thu Feb 23, 2006 11:35

"Socialists (of our variety) tend to base themselves in cities as they try to base themselves on the mass of the working class. But theres lots of socialists out there (including "trots") who saw organisation of the peasantry and organising autonomous communities in the countyside as paramount. But for our own case we would organise in cities because,one thats where the majority of people live and industry is based and two it is where most of us are from."

'The peasantry'??? Surely an outdated and somewhat patronising term?

Isn't there an inherent contradiction in what you say about organising in the cities. All mass industry is capitalist. Fighting for improved conditions for workers is to accept the underlying rationale for this activity: maufacturing goods for profit. So long as workers are paid adequately, there is no other deeper consideration? This is not to say that workers should not be treated fairly, but if you really want to look at the bigger picture, and change things permanently, it seems doubtful it can be done like this. The concept of sustainable living cuts right across all these old hair splitting debates.

Making a distinction between the cities and the country is artificial and it seems odd that this peasant/factory worker divide still has currency. Everything is on an industrial scale - farming, factories - the lot. The means of production may look different but the principles are the same. In Belgium, a very small country, they have some of the most hyperintensive factory farming in the world so that tiny farms are producing massive quantities of produce - more than many other much larger agricultural countries. In fact even to call those production outlets farms is misleading. Industry itself is the prolem - manufacturing to satisfy excessive greed at the expense of labourers and environment alike.

People have always instinctively relied on direct action, when pushed to extremes and for the main part don't trouble to think which paradigm it fits into. In the 1830s in the UK the spectacle of young men dead from the starvation by the side of the road was common. In fact 20% of the populatin was starving, despite the country's vast wealth. N o doubt you will know that 'Captain Swing' was the result in some places and many people ended up in Australia for their pains. Again, although there was a fledgling socialist movement at the time, (much reviled) not many of the people involved in DA had the time or the inclination to think much about which political philosophy would best describe the burning of ricks.

In a way, the very attempt to define DA one way or another, or to requsition it as a strategy of any kind, is to objectify and undermine it. On the basis that any action resulting from a personal assumption of authority over one's own circumstances, any activity - even grafitti or chaining oneself to a railing - is a form of direct action. It is an attempt to effect change outside the norms dictated by the status quo. Tying yourself to a railing may be as much as an elderly or diabled person may feel they can do for example - and it will feel like a lot more than a stunt - particularly if it plays its part in attracting attention to and furthering their cause. It is not at all a 'delegation' of a task because that term implies that the task is someone else's to delegate - and that is an assumption of power over others in itself.

by chekov Thu Feb 23, 2006 11:45

When I refered disparagingly to the act of chaining oneself to a railing I was thinking of it as a political strategy of a movement - not really to the actions of individuals who may indeed find that this is the most effective thing they can do to raise awareness of their case. In particular I know that, for example, Green Party TDs sometimes chain themselves to the gates of the dail for a photo op as a stunt to gain a bit of PR and that sometimes people mistake this for direct action. I suppose I should have been more specific as you are correct that it does depend on the circumstances.

I also agree with you that direct action is not the particular property of any political movement and that it is something that is instinctive to humans. However, I also think anarchism is instinctive to humans and much of the education and institutionalisation that people are subjected to is intended to beat this out of people and to alienate them from their own ability to act on their own behalf. As Chomsky said when he was in Dublin - anarchism is just working class common sense.

by Comedian Thu Feb 23, 2006 12:02

"As Chomsky said when he was in Dublin - anarchism is just working class common sense. "

Did he say voting Kerry was just common sense?

by James Thu Feb 23, 2006 13:06

He said that Kerry was "Bush-lite" and that there would be no significant change if Kerry was president., But he did say ut that if Kerry was in office it may have some slight difference which in the long term and given the influence of the US administration and the various crises, could have important repercussions. For example if a Kerry administration took climate change seriously then 50 years from now there could be large consequences from this. So much is obvious. Doesn't mean that voting in state elections is the best way to get that change though!

by Comedian Thu Feb 23, 2006 13:11

"Kerry is sometimes described as 'Bush-lite', which is not inaccurate. But despite the limited differences both domestically and internationally, there are differences. In a system of immense power, small differences can translate into large outcomes."

by Mark P - Socialist Party (personal cap) Thu Feb 23, 2006 13:50

For someone so eager to chide HS for failing to understand your definition of Direct Action, you are more than a bit sloppy with your assertions of what the Socialist Party's aims and views are. The Socialist Party does not aim to "sieze control of the state".

It's a basic, core, Marxist view that the capitalist state cannot be made use of to achieve a socialist society. Instead the Socialist Party takes the view that the capitalist state will have to be destroyed. Nor do we argue that the revolutionary party must sieze power itself. What we *do* argue is that the working class will have to then create its own state, organised through workers councils or similar institutions. Within those councils multiple political organisations will function, but in our view for a revolution to be succesful, members of the revolutionary party will have to act as the driving force, playing a leading role through convincing others of our ideas.

As for "state socialists" and direct action, if that's some kind of reference to the Socialist Party anyone with a functioning memory should be familiar with our record of initiating and participating in the most effective community and workplace based direct actions this island has seen in some time.

by Mark P Thu Feb 23, 2006 14:05

On the earlier discussion on this thread, one of the mistakes we can fall into is overestimating what can be achieved in current circumstances. It is true, obviously, that one more march around Dublin won't end Irish help for the war, let alone end the occupation itself. It is equally true that another attempt to pull down fencing on Shannon is unlikely to be a success. The anti-war movement is at something of a low-point and the task at the moment is, as I see it, essentially about spreading our arguments and preparing for a potential wider radicalisation around the issue.

That can be done in a number of ways, from marches to various "direct action" stunts, but we should be clear that given the balance of forces nothing the anti-war movement does is going to have an immediate, right now, impact. It is well worth having arguments about what *could* or should have been done differently when the anti-war movement was at a higher point but we shouldn't delude ourselves about the possibilities open to us at this moment.

As far as the earlier period of the anti-war movement goes, I think it's important to bear in mind something which I heard an older Americal point out recently: in comparison to say the anti-Vietnam war movement, the number of people against the war in Iraq was much larger but the radicalisation accompanying that anti-war sentiment was a vast amount shallower. It didn't lead to a large scale turn towards reformist or socialist or anarchist or crazy ultra-leftist ideas. It didn't result in huge numbers of people being willing to take action beyond going on a march. That wasn't because people weren't calling for this or that, to a very large extent it was and is an objective fact beyond the control of small left forces. I would hazard a guess that much of this is a result of the generally much lower level of struggle in society (and in particular working class struggle) as compared to the late 1960s and early 1970s.

by Chekov Thu Feb 23, 2006 14:28

As if the party were not entitled to assert its dictatorship even if that dictatorship temporarily clashed with the passing moods of the workers democracy. - Trotsky.

Unquestioning submission to a single will is absolutely necessary for the success of the labour process...the revolution demands, in the interests of socialism, that the masses unquestioningly obey the single will of the leaders of the labour process - Lenin

Can you point me to where the socialist party distances itself from Trotsky and Lenin on the question of the party and its role? (and there are many more such quotes that I could produce, not to mention gulags, secret police and mass executions, etc). Because the above description of the socialist party's conception of a state appears to be entirely at odds with Trotsky and Lenin's views as expressed in these quotes. I would expect that if you have such a massive difference with them that you would have taken pains to make such differences public since all I can see from your published material is a claim to stand squarely in their tradition and I believe that my description of the fundamental nature of Trotskyism is far closer to reality that that which you express above. Since the SP proclaims itself to be a Trotskyist group, you can hardly blame me if I assume that you agree with them on these points unless you have explicitly published your disagreements on the matter.

On the point of the anti-war movement and what is possible, I largely agree with you about the limited possibilities in the immediate future. However, just because something is difficult doesn't mean you don't try. My problem is that the leaders of the SWP/IAWM have never shown any evidence whatsoever that they want to go beyond marches (mass lobbying) - now or ever. I mean, we will never know how succesful it would have been in 2003 if all of the parties who call themselves revolutionaries had attempted to go beyond marches - certainly success would not have been guaranteed but it would have been a damned sight more likely than if most of them didn't even try and limited themselves to mass lobbying. As it was, they did even worse and actively worked to undermine the efforts of those who did try. Just because revolution isn't likely in the immediate period doesn't mean that you give up trying to get there.

by hs Thu Feb 23, 2006 15:13

Firstly on the fetish thing, that was another commentor who believed i said DA was a fetish of anarchists. I said no such thing. I said Direct Action is a tactic and shouldn't be seen as the be all and end all of everything. And like I said in my experience socialists and communists use it just as often (even if its called a protest or whatever). On the definitions, well you didn't make it explicity clear, my understanding of what anarchists in general call direct action had poeple taking action themselves, full stop. If you broaden it out to include everything from strikes and other form of actions its a completely different thing. It could be individual or mass, it could be democratic or undemocratic. Thats what I mean by empty slogans. Saying people taking direct action could mean almost anything by your definitions. Anarchist youth for their part were quite clear in calling for clandestine direct actions (presumably by small groups). My point wasn't direct action being a bad thing, my point was direct actions being one part of the weapon in our arsnel. Even within direct action theres huge differences between themselves for example what happened in shannon and the bin tax (in that collections were stopped for a while) I think you need to differenciate between direct action which actually stops something (like a strike) and a direct action which is a protest. Just like we would differenciate between a protest march and a strike (after all a protest march can block a road for a time too).

For the Lenin and trotsky quotes sure you coulds quote them all day and really it's meaningless to me. You seem to want socialist parties to be such formations more than anyone else. The historical period and conditions lenin and the bolsheviks fought under (a hundred years ago) are immensly different to the here and now. if you think we go running for bolshevik quotes everytime a problem comes up you're very mistaken. (that too would be empty sloganeering!) Like I said the SP will just be one element in any mass movement and just one part of the debate. Some will be more electoralist, some will be more into the "council communism" of the past and probably lots into creating newer ideas. But to write it all as you seem to do as one "leninist" monolith with only a single opinion is a mistake on your part. No matter what lenin or trotsky said.

by paul Thu Feb 23, 2006 15:40

"Anarchist youth for their part were quite clear in calling for clandestine direct actions (presumably by small groups)."

Come on! You're taking that out of context, what they call for is : "It is only through returning the focus to Shannon and building a strong and active movement against the state’s complicity in the war that we can win."

Then there is a list of suggestions, of which part of it is "clandestine"

What You Can Do!

- Join the Red and Black contingent on the March 18th demo!

- Organise/Re-organise a local anti-war group in your school, college or community.

- Organise talks, debates and film screenings in your area.

- Occupy/Picket your local TD’s office demanding US withdrawal from Shannon.

- Make stickers or stencils to get your message heard.

- Organise a clandestine or mass trespass/demonstration for Shannon or Baldonnel.

- Get involved with PANA (www.pana.ie) Catholic Worker (www.warontrial.com) or Grassroots Network Against War.

From the Anarchist FAQ (link below):

"Basically, direct action means that instead of getting someone else to act for you (e.g. a politician) you act for yourself."

by hs Thu Feb 23, 2006 15:48

fair point in differences between city and country in Ireland, although the majority of people still live in the cities. In other parts of the globe there is still vast differences. And especially in the guerilla movements of the 70's more empasis was put on the people in the countryside than the cities,

On the direct action you almost seem to be saying anybody taking any action for themselves is inherently good? Which isn't true. An action taken by a minority could while being empowering for them have a negative effect for a majority, and this minority could be just as misrepresentative as any politician. To say direct action is always positive because it is direct action , without looking at either consequences is not a very serious way at looking at things. And direct actioners making decisions for others is no more democratic than any politicain doing the same thing.

by hs Thu Feb 23, 2006 15:54

I wasn't attacking you, i was making the point you were being clearer than chekov. I've no problem with your program I agree with everything on it. To be honest the swp have been making those sorts of 'what you can do list' for years (or at least they used to).

About doing things for yourself and not just asking politicians, fine i've all for that that, nobody has a problem with that. And that paul covers just about every form of protest imaginable.

by chekov Thu Feb 23, 2006 16:07

For the Lenin and trotsky quotes sure you coulds quote them all day and really it's meaningless to me.
So why on earth are you in a party whose politics are named after such people, a party whose politics claim to be based on theirs? If you are foolish enough to join such a group, you can't complain when people point out what their politics were.

by hs Thu Feb 23, 2006 16:19

...Are two of hundreds of political figures and phillosophers whos ideas part of the socialist tradition derives from. (alongh with thousands of others) You seem to think we have to agree to every word uttered by them. Thats a very absolutist way of looking at things. The term leninism really boils down to (for me) to those who believe a subjective force is necessary, ie a party. Trotskyism often boils down to his opinion on the "permanent revolution" as opposed to what was called the stages theory. And was often made up of communists who were communists but opposed to what became of the USSR. These ideas i do agree with, but to treat everything they said as some sort of bible to derive quotations from isn't something i agree with. Which is what your doing, and as I say meaningless. You seem to have an idea of political parties as being very technical ie, this group supports lenin therefore the are ABCDE and they and all their members believeABCDE... etc, it's alot more nuanced than that. I could give you a thousand shades of both "leninism" and "trotskyism" and a million of "marxism". On a last point I joined the Socialist Party, not the Trotsky Party. I support everything in the socialist party program not every step lenin or trotsky took or every word they uttered.

by Topper Thu Feb 23, 2006 16:27

Checkov, it would be very easy to quote what Bakunin and Proudhon had to say about the Jews (bloodsuckers who should be exterminated, in the view of both anarchist founding fathers). Yet the WSM often refers to them (your most frequently seen banner carries a quote from Bakunin). Don't be so quick to call people idiots because they don't follow your tradition

by chekov - 1 of Indymedia Ireland Editorial Group Thu Feb 23, 2006 16:45 chekov at indymedia dot ie

Neither I nor the WSM call ourselves Proudhonists or Bakuninists and I would level exactly the same charges against anybody who did. Furthermore, the WSM have clearly stated and unambiguous policies that are publically available which explicitly contradict many of Bakunin's views - have a look at http://struggle.ws/ppapers/racism.html for our position on racism for example.

Anarchism in general is influenced by Bakunin's views on certain issues, but there are to the best of my knowlege no anarchists who are influenced at all by his views on Jewish people or on many other issues. I'm also influenced by Darwin in my thoughts on evolution - but since I don't call myself a Darwinist it's not valid to claim that this implies that I support his views on anything else other than his theory of evolution.

On the other hand, I am unaware of any references whatsoever that the SP have published which claim anything else other than that they stand in Trotsky's tradition. Furthermore, I find it strange that the SP have no published policy documents at all beyond a tiny blurb on their website, so I have to assume that they pretty much agree with everything Trotsky stood for.

by Mark P Thu Feb 23, 2006 16:45

As you are well aware Chekov, the Socialist Party does not endorse every statement made by Lenin or Trotsky or Marx or Engels or Luxemburg or Connolly or Larkin or any of the other figures we are proud to say we stand in the tradition of. We don't endorse Marx's occasional racist statements in his personal correspondence. We don't endorse Lenin's post-revolution views on one man management in factories, although we understand why in desperate circumstances of social collapse and siege he argued them. We don't endorse Trotsky's remark about a party dictatorship, although again we understand why he argued that in the circumstances (in that particular case he was arguing about circumstances where the alternative was to hand back power to the ruling class and meekly submit to bloody reaction). Neither do we trawl through their unbelievably voluminious writings looking for damning sentences (of which in each case there are plenty alongside a wealth of more positive theoretical contributions).

For that matter we don't get involved in too many detailed polemics about what a post-revolutionary society will look like at all. The closest real examples are from between a century and a half century
ago, built in isolation, under siege, in conditions of civil war and enormous economic and social
backwardness - anyone who thinks a revolutionary Ireland would look much like either Russia in 1917 or Spain in 1936 isn't someone I really want to be organising alongside. Our basic views on the state are in content similar to those expressed by Lenin in his "State and Revolution", although with the addendum that he was writing a long time ago and not everything he says is relevant today. Our arguments about the state and about post revolutionary society in a general sense can be found throughout our writings. To give an example from a recent issue of "Socialist View", our magazine:

"The transformation of the economy will facilitate the ability of society to establish real democracy at
local and national level. Socialism and a revolutionary change of society is only possible when
a mass movement, led by the working class as the most powerful force in society, becomes decisively active in politics. Such revolts have happened many times in the past and the potential for similar movements will re-develop in the years ahead.

The active participation of the working class is the best guarantee against any potential bureaucratic
degeneration of majority rule as happened in the USSR in the 1920s. One of the first initiatives will be the reduction of the working week, which could be implemented without loss of pay because of the
technology that exists. That would facilitate full participation in the new democratic structures that a
mass movement will develop. Coupled with the fact that any officials or representatives within a socialist society would be subject to immediate recall and replacement by those who elected them and would live on the same wages as the people they represent, genuine democracy could be maintained.

Superficial arguments that greed would inevitably lead to a usurping of democracy either ignores the fact that people having transformed society would themselves be the guardians of their own democratic rights or is an unjustified cynicism about the potential of working class people to run society."

Similarly our sister party in Britain, in a book it produced for people becoming interested in socialist
ideas explained that:

"A genuine socialist government would not be dictatorial. On the contrary, it would extend and
deepen democracy enormously. This would be much more far-reaching than the parliamentary democracies of capitalism where we simply get to vote every few years for MPs who do whatever they like once elected. Instead, everyone would get to take part in deciding how society and the economy would be run.

Nationally, regionally and locally – at every level - elected representatives would be accountable and
subject to instant recall. Therefore, if the people who had elected them did not like what their
representative did, they could make them stand for immediate re-election and, if they wished, replace
them with someone else. Elected representatives would also only receive the average wage."

And were I to spend a few moments more looking through our material I would find practically unlimited numbers of similar statements with varying amounts of detail. Now I realise that it is too much to expect anarchists to criticise what we actually say as opposed to what they wish we said. On a similar point since the early days of our political tendency we have specifically opposed the idea (once raised by Lenin in the form of a quote from Karl Kautsky) that the working class can only develop a "trade union consciousness" by itself. Instead we think that a full socialist understanding flows naturally from working class life and experience. Not that such an attitude has stopped any passing anarchist from throwing that Lenin quote at us too! So we're well used to it. It's
an anarchist version of some sectarian Marxists' insistence on throwing anti-semitic or nationalist
remarks from Bakunin at current anarchists or Proudhon's gibberish about a small producers
commonwealth - part of an unfortunate culture on the left and not something to be taken too seriously. And so I fully expect this contribution to be met with howls about how "well you may say that but what you really mean is...", an argument based simply on an assumption that everyone on the left apart from your own tradition is inherently dishonest.

I notice by the way that you don't bother to defend your remarks about "siezing control of the state" or
or about our record on direct action. Small steps.

I'll put the part of my reply which is actually related to the original article in a seperate comment below so as to avoid further aggravating any Anarchist Youth members who may be passing.

by chekov Thu Feb 23, 2006 16:46 chekov at indymedia dot ie

bloodsuckers who should be exterminated
I should add that this is a lie. If you can find me a single reference to either of them claiming that jews should be exterminated I'll eat my hat.

by Mark P - Socialist Party (personal capacity) Thu Feb 23, 2006 17:01

1) Something seems to have gone badly wrong with the formatting of my comment above. I don't suppose anyone knows how to fix it?

2) The Socialist Party normally describes itself as a "Socialist" organisation, a "revolutionary socialist" organisation or occasionally as a "Marxist" organisation. The term "Trotskyist" was originally a Stalinist insult, which came into common use as a kind of shorthand after the worldwide split in the revolutionary movement. I don't mind calling myself a Trotskyist, because I do agree broadly with most of his main theories (Permanent Revolution, United Front versus Popular Front etc) and because I sympathise with the struggle of the Left Opposition against the creation of a Stalinist dictatorship in Russia, but that quite obviously doesn't mean that I agree with everything the man wrote, said or did. Given that he, like anyone else, changed his views regularly throughout his life that would actually be impossible as well as unwise.

3) Getting back on topic, I'm glad that Chekov agrees with me about the current possibilities open to the anti-war movement. However I'm a bit confused about your guesswork in 2003. Unless I'm very much mistaken there were plenty of people calling for mass direct action at Shannon at that point. The call didn't get much of an echo in the movement as a whole.

Now you can believe, as Chekov seems to prefer to, that this was because the unspeakably nasty IAWM didn't call for it. But to me that ascribes altogether too much influence to Richard Boyd Barret and Co. In fact it's a mirror image of the SWP's view of the anti-war movement. In their view, the successes of the huge marches are a result of the brilliant leadership of the IAWM. In this rather conspiratorial anarchist view, the failure of direct action is a result of this evil machiavellian leadership. Either way the IAWM is ascribed an altogether too central a role in proceedings. From where I'm sitting, there was a moment of wide anger but a wide anger which didn't have a deep political basis and therefore was extremely hard to turn into something more - whether that's recruitment to left organisations (which didn't happen on a massive scale) or direct action (which didn't happen either) or industrial action (which didn't happen at all).

To me the direct actionistas pointing fingers at the IAWM, blaming that organisation for their inability to organise significant direct actions, miss the point entirely - that objective circumstances dictate the possible and that there wasn't then a huge reservoir of people just waiting to be led to Shannon any more than there is now.

by Historian Thu Feb 23, 2006 17:08

For another view of the man.

by hs Thu Feb 23, 2006 17:10

into a slagging match, i would also point out that I think their is many many positive elements to anarchist thought, and much as chekov shouldn't write off in it's entirety what he calls "trotskyism" and "leninism" socialists can also learn from some elements of the anarchist movement.

by chekov Thu Feb 23, 2006 17:40 chekov at indymedia dot ie

Now you can believe, as Chekov seems to prefer to, that this was because the unspeakably nasty IAWM didn't call for it. But to me that ascribes altogether too much influence to Richard Boyd Barret and Co. In fact it's a mirror image of the SWP's view of the anti-war movement. In their view, the successes of the huge marches are a result of the brilliant leadership of the IAWM. In this rather conspiratorial anarchist view, the failure of direct action is a result of this evil machiavellian leadership. Either way the IAWM is ascribed an altogether too central a role in proceedings. From where I'm sitting, there was a moment of wide anger but a wide anger which didn't have a deep political basis and therefore was extremely hard to turn into something more - whether that's recruitment to left organisations (which didn't happen on a massive scale) or direct action (which didn't happen either) or industrial action (which didn't happen at all).

To me the direct actionistas pointing fingers at the IAWM, blaming that organisation for their inability to organise significant direct actions, miss the point entirely - that objective circumstances dictate the possible and that there wasn't then a huge reservoir of people just waiting to be led to Shannon any more than there is now.

This isn't even nearly a fair reflection of what I'm saying.

I'm not saying that direct action would have succeeded if RBB had called for it, nor am I attributing to much importance to him or any other party - I'm really just pointing out how crap they are.

What I am also saying is that it would have had a hell of a better chance of succeeding if the various parties who proclaimed themselves to be against the war had acted differently in various ways. For example:

a) By ensuring that there were speakers at marches and meetings who were advocating Direct Action. Instead they were totally excluded, despite repeated requests.

b) By trying to organise direct action 'friendly' events. Instead we had the IAWM policing their events, denouncing people for pulling down a fence, going on national radio to have a go at the people who did try to organise direct action and doing everything in their power to undermine attempts at direct action.

c) By making the case that there is nothing particularly scary about mass direct actions. Instead we had Dominic Haugh of the SP coming out with ludicrous scare stories about the army firing on protestors. Most ridiculous of all we had Sinn Fein telling their members at a major press conference not to attend a mass tresspass event 'for fear of violence'!!!! (I don't know how they kept a straight face).

Now, it is quite possible that had there been attempts to do such things, they would have failed - stopping our lapdog of a government from helping the global super-power in its imperialist war is never going to be easy. But, I think regardless of the objective circumnstances, in a situation where all of the people who were publically perceived to be the leaders of the anti-war movement were very vocal in opposing direct action and only a handful of people on the extreme fringes of political life were advocating it, it's probably going to fail.

by Mark P Thu Feb 23, 2006 18:06

To start with, yes you are right that I somewhat misrepresented your view. I didn't reread it in between posting my two comments above and somewhere in between I managed to drop all of your doubts, ifs and buts. So I apologise for that.

However I do think that the point I was making has relevance even to a less caricatured version of your argument and to an argument that was current at the time amongst direct actionistas in general - which is that in large part the IAWM are to blame for the failure to mount any significant large scale direct action against the war. That just isn't accurate in my view. I think that small the numbers of people the IAWM could mobilise even for a march at Shannon in that period (at the same time in fact) give the lie to that statement straight away. Even if all of those people could have been mobilised for an attempt on the fence - which we should be clear they could not have been - we would still have been talking about puny numbers.

I look along your lists of complaints and I don't see much that would have an impact. Dominic was intemperate about his doubts and fears on some indymedia thread? Richard Boyd Barrett being a bit of a gobshite on the radio? Even Sinn Fein having some hypocritical press conference? I mean really Chekov, nobody outside of the far left ghetto can seriously think that such things made much difference at all. The problem for the direct action punters was that there was only a very small number of people up for direct actions at Shannon. The IAWM did you the huge favour of repeatedly gathering together huge crowds of people who were against the war for you to leaflet and talk to. They simply weren't interested in sufficient numbers to make a difference. Not your fault but certainly not the IAWM's fault either. The problem was a misunderstanding of what was happening, what the mood was and what was possible.

I think in retrospect everyone on the left, perhaps stunned by the huge turnout for the big march in Dublin, misunderstood to a greater or lesser extent what was possible at the time. That's what gave rise to direct actionista complaints along the lines of "The IAWM had 150,000 people at a march,the argument was won, yet they still didn't organise direct action". The point is that the argument, the deeper political argument about the kind of society we live in, wasn't won. 150,000 people were willing to go on a march but only a few hundred to take part in a direct action and fewer still to take industrial action. It's also what lay beneath some rather over the top statements about industrial action from the Socialist Party, particularly in the wake of the school student strikes. And of course it lay beneath some of the "second coming is here" hysteria of the SWP and their insistence that the time was right to subdivide the anti-war movement into ever smaller local units because after all the masses were coming and were about to fill up these structures.

by Timeliner Thu Feb 23, 2006 18:16

When the 'direct actionista's' as you call them did actually successfully bring down the fence they were ridiculed by the IAWM. In fact RBB went mental with his megaphone and did the work of the cops. This by the way happened well before Feb 15th and well before the call for 'mass' direct action in Shannon. The truth is, is that the IAWM attempted to stop any actions other than marching and meetings. They ridiculed the plane damagers until they saw that it struck a certain cord. Now I'm not saying that the SP went along with this but they weren't very effective in stopping the SWP from getting what they wanted. IIRC they were particulary nasty to MOB at a joint meeting of the IAWM and leading trade unionists. Stop attempting to rewrite history a few years after the event.

by Mark P Thu Feb 23, 2006 18:31

Yes I remember a fence being taken down at an early stage by a small crowd, and there's nothing wrong with that, well done etc. But once the state decided that protecting Shannon from incursions was a priority, that kind of action wasn't going to work again because of the objective balance of forces between the state and the small numbers willing to take part. And in fact it did never happen again, did it?

I can rant about the SWP as well as the next left activist, in fact a lot better than most. But the important point here is not that they were good, bad or indifferent but that they were *irrelevant*. Mass direct action at Shannon on the kind of scale we are talking about was, in retrospect, simply not on the agenda. And for similar reasons large scale recruitment to left organisations of any stripe wasn't on the agenda. And industrial action wasn't on the agenda. The moment of anger was real and important but there was little depth to the radicalisation.

And please leave the stuff about "rewriting history" out of it. On one level of course that's what I'm trying to do, to try and reassess a period with the benefit of hindsight. On another level it's an insinuation of a dishonest agenda, which (even if you think is present) isn't likely to encourage a civil or useful discussion.

by Mark P Thu Feb 23, 2006 18:37

By the way, I know the meeting you are talking about with trade union figures. And yes the Socialist Party was extremely irritated by what we saw as the SWP's determination to placate union leaders at all costs when we were trying to put it up to them about the need for the unions to organise industrial action. I don't think for a moment though that the reason there was no industrial action is because the SWP cosied up to union leaders. They just don't matter that much.

by Michael Thu Feb 23, 2006 18:47

I'm confused. Can you help?

I don't see how direct actions at Shannon Airport could require large numbers of people all-at-once. These actions are "arrestable" (I think they're still legal, but that's another matter). If you are hiding in a large group then you might get away while another activist will get caught. That's not fair though, is it? Unless you're prepared to de-arrest your friend (which at this stage could get you in deeeeeep trouble), you should probably forget about that model/lack-of-model of action.

by R. Isible Thu Feb 23, 2006 19:03

the task at the moment is, as I see it, essentially about spreading our arguments and preparing for a potential wider radicalisation around the issue.

Do you think that there's anyone that isn't aware of the arguments against the war? Isn't the problem that the government is just not going to do anything about it despite the wishes of the majority of people? (I suspect that you know this and that what you're talking about is spreading awareness of the SP so that you can be "part of a better government"). In other words a complete lack of interest in direct action in favour of a parliamentary route.
I should point out that I introduced the word "fetish" in an above response to "hs - sp", but I'd argue that it would have appeared sooner or later on the lips of one or another SP member.

by R. Isible Thu Feb 23, 2006 19:09

I do think that the point I was making has relevance even to a less caricatured version of your argument and to an argument that was current at the time amongst direct actionistas in general - which is that in large part the IAWM are to blame for the failure to mount any significant large scale direct action against the war. That just isn't accurate in my view.
There was a very concerted effort by your own party, the SP, to attack, trivialise and discourage those that were taking part in direct action at Shannon. Wagging your finger at RBB and calling him a gobshite is all very well but Joe Higgins was talking about "virtual warriors" and your own Dominic Haugh / do'heochai was busy raising scares about how the cops were going to shoot everyone. Anyone interested in the veracity of this can use the Indymedia.ie search engine.
The vast majority of parties worked in concert to prevent DA at Shannon long before the cops had got their act together.

by chekov Thu Feb 23, 2006 19:14 chekov at indymedia dot ie

And I warmly accept it :-)

I also should point out that I do accept most of your points. For example, I do acknowledge that the anti-war marches did provide a perfect audience for those people who were advocating direct action and so on.

But I do think you underestimate the difference it might have made (it is all of course hypothetical) if the parties who were opposed to the war had made some attempt to promote direct action. Recall that the anarchist and direct action camp was far smaller than it is today - which is still tiny - and even more marginal. We had a couple of dozen leafleters at most on the big marches and no money to print leaflets and most of the peopel there would have seen us as a loonie fringe. it might have made some difference if speakers on the platforms were promoting going further - it might have legitimised the notion in the eyes of some, or if there were 100,000 leaflets to give out rather than 2,000.

If you recall the march in early February at Shannon - 3,000 people attended, whereas March 1st saw maybe 60% of that number in total. Now all logic says that the numbers should have been growing at that stage - the war hadn't started and there was a huge boost in confidence caused by February 15th. I think the fall in numbers is only explicable by the ludicrous scare that was created - a scare that was fuelled in great measure by the parties who were supposed to be against the war. I also don't think that we were particularly deluded about the chances of success - we're pretty bloody used to being marginal.

But, regardless of this, even if it might not have worked, it still doesn't excuse the lack of any attempt whatsoever to turn the marchers into acters - you, me and RBB all know that a protest movement needs to have some steel to back up the pleas. It needs to at least attempt to turn sentiment into action or else it has submitted to defeat without a fight and that is sadly what happened.

Anyway, here's hoping that we can turn it around again. I personally don't think that raising awareness is our most important imperative at the moment. I think there are a sufficently large number of people who are fundamentally opposed to Shannon and the war in general and are quite aware of the travesty that is taking place. i think the main problem is that there is a tremendous despondancy about the prospects of ordinary people being able to do something that has any effect at all. The lack of any attempt to make the case that marches aren't enough created a situation where people became disillusioned quickly once these marches had the highly predictable lack of effect on government policy. The car-crash that is the IAWM didn't help matters and embittered a lot of the people who were willing to stay around for the long haul and only added to despondancy.

by chekov Thu Feb 23, 2006 19:19 chekov at indymedia dot ie

I don't see how direct actions at Shannon Airport could require large numbers of people all-at-once. These actions are "arrestable" (I think they're still legal, but that's another matter). If you are hiding in a large group then you might get away while another activist will get caught. That's not fair though, is it? Unless you're prepared to de-arrest your friend (which at this stage could get you in deeeeeep trouble), you should probably forget about that model/lack-of-model of action.

This is really easy. If you go as part of a large group your chances of getting arrested are much diminished. Certainly some people might get arrested and anybody who takes part should be aware of this risk, but many many more people will take part in an action where the probability of arrest is 0.01 rather than 1.0 and you also have the benefit that the 99% of people who don't get arrested will be there to support those who do.

by ... Thu Feb 23, 2006 19:19

Regardless of the balance of forces, material conditions, bla bla did a part of the fence not start to come away on March 1st? The SP or mark in this case, can try and play it down, but around that time there was an awful lof of scare mongering going on in the media as well as actual coverage of the event. I seem to recall the green party telling there members not to go due to threats of violence even though their party conference was on at the exact same time. Were the SWP not also slightly scared about it (in terms of recruits) and managed to call a last minute (desperate) and seperate march for shannon the same day? What about the SWPs attitude towards Shannon when Bush was visiting and their half assed attempt to get people down in time that would involve them having to leave at ungodly hours early in the morning? Look, ppl on here know the control the SWP have within the IAWM and their over emphasis on marches in Dublin, I can't believe this is up for debate.

by W - wsm//anarchist youth Thu Feb 23, 2006 20:48

Like the original article said, support the progressive groups that exist like..

- http://cosantoiri.org/
- http://www.pana.ie
- http://www.warontrial.com

also, at the anarchist bookfair AY will be hosting an anti-war workshop.

Solidarity.

by Dominic Haugh - Socialist Party/CWI Thu Feb 23, 2006 21:07

of reading this sh*te about the Grassroots 'Direct action' at Shannon. Chekov you are lying. Show me a quote where I said that the army would fire on protestors.

The WSM and others promted, encouraged, demanded etc that protestors engaged in a direct confrontation with police that had the potential for violence and injury. You are entitled to do so, but if you engage in this type of activity then you have a responsibility to ensure that the necessary medical and legal back-up is available to those that you have endevoured to engage in such action. The WSM and Grassroots did not do this.

Contrast the unwillingness or inability of the WSM to accept its responsibilities to the actions of the CWI in Spain in the mid-1980's. The CWI organised mass demonstrations not of a couple of hundred activists but of hundreds of thousands of school students. The CWI in Spain were aware of the dangers of these demonstrations being attacked by the police and by fascists (which subsequently happened) but we accepted our responsibilities when calling on school students to participate. Thousands of stewards were organised armed with long wooden staves to defend the demonstrators, medical and legal teams were on stand-by and everyone who participated were fully aware of the dangers that existed and the counter measures put in place.

The 'direct action' in Shannon was ill-concieved, badly organised and never going to attract more than a few hundred. It was the wrong tactic, at the wrong time and in the wrong place. The state was intent on ensuring there would be no breach of security.

The protest itself was a damp squip, but succeeded in alienating practically the entire population of Shannon and many more in the wider region. It drove the workers in the airport further into the arms of right wing politicans and trade union bureaucrats.

The constant guff that the WSM and Grassroots come out with about this so-called 'direct action' is taken from fairyland. It is in no way related to the reality on the ground and set back the prospect of removing the US military from Shannon considerably.

Chekov I am willing to accept your apology for your false accusation but I won't hold my breath.

by R. Isible Thu Feb 23, 2006 21:41

I will not be bringing my 4 children to the demo. I think I am being a responsible parent and I make no apologies for it. I agree with the suggestion that the Army will not be deployed (they will be kept in reserve), but there are large numbers of armed plain clothes cops in this region who will be there and it is also likely that the Emergency Response Unit will be redeployed from Limerick (and remember what they did at Abbeylara). Some people commenting here reluctantly have accepted that there may be violence on behalf of the police, people may be hurt and arrested. Has the GG organised medical treatment and legal aid in the event of this happening? It is a serious matter and one that needs to be answered.
Oh, okay then, so not the army, just the headbanger snipers from the ERU fresh from the killing fields of Abbeylara. I'll apologise for my misunderstanding.

by Shipsea Thu Feb 23, 2006 21:48

Of course it's obvious that anything merely described as direct action, regardless, would not automatically be justifiable. What I meant earlier was that where people perceive an injustice to themselves or others and they take reasonable measures denied them through 'normal' or 'official' channels to draw attention to the issue or to influence the impetus for change, that is an isntictive and appropriate response. You dont need any party machinery behind you for that. The idea that you need party backing is authoritarian and ultimately insulting to the intelligence of individuals because each of us on our own is at least as likely (if not more so) as any group or party, to make rational decisions about sensilbe and effective direct action. Where people naturally coalesce around a particular issue, well and good, but it shouldnt be a prerequisite. A number of people asserting themselves individually are just as likely to be effective as an equal number lined up behind a collective position.

by Raymond Mcinerney - Global Country of World Peace Thu Feb 23, 2006 22:03 raymond.mcinerney at ul dot ie Limerick 00353860638611

If 50 demonstration projects and 23 published scientific studies can be believed, the answer is Yes.

If this large body of evidence—accepted and published by mainstream scientific journals—is accurate, groups of peace-creating experts can dramatically reduce violent crime, terrorism, and war.

If the scientific process is meaningful, ancient sages were correct about the peace-creating power of human consciousness. Modern science and timeless wisdom have come together in a practical, powerful technology of peace.

This newly verified technology makes use of large groups of peace-creating experts. The inner peace generated by such a peace-creating group radiates into society as an influence of harmony and coherence. The effect can be easily measured as reduced crime, terrorism and war.

The need to move quickly

This idea will be new to many people, and it may sound unusual. But it’s also clear that our world is in danger—that terrorism and aggressive warfare now threaten us all. Given this danger, we offer this proposal with a single thought in mind: If there IS a scientifically verified means to create peace, it should be put to use as quickly as possible.

by guydebordisdead Thu Feb 23, 2006 22:14

Was Dominic Haugh around during the spanish civil war? What is he on about?

I was at GNAW direct actions and they had medics and legal aid (including a bust card) at all of them. I would have supported them bringing clubs to protect the marchers but I'm pretty sure the SP and various other lefists would have laid an egg if they had.

by Mark P - Socialist Party (personal capacity) Thu Feb 23, 2006 22:48

Unfortunately this thread is rapidly moving towards becoming a rehash of the arguments surrounding one particular attempt at a direct action in Shannon, organised by the GNAW. I do not see the point in getting into a row about this once more - it's one of the issues on this site most likely to trigger a heated and pointless squabble, where everyone talks at each other rather than to each other and works themselves up into a lather of self-righteousness.

For the record, in response to R.Isible's comments above, the Socialist Party's attitude towards various direct actions against the war were as follows: We applauded the actions of the various individuals and small groups who went over the wall. These were useful and brave ways of publicising an issue, although in our view that's as far as such a tactic can go. When the fence was once breached by a small crowd some of our members took part. Our general attitude, however, was that the form of "direct action" which could actually have a real impact on Irish involvement in the war was strike action. With that in mind we took the lead in organising school student strikes, particularly in the North - something which is useful in itself and which also could serve as an example to people in employment. Our main call was for industrial action, the most effective form of direct action, although it has to be said that this failed to materialise.

There was one and one only direct action proposal which we opposed and that was the GNAW action which is being discussed above. We took the view at the time that the state was very serious about protecting Shannon from trespasses and that as a result there was a risk of violence from the Gardai and of serious confrontation arising from that. In the circumstances where there was a large but politically very soft anti-war sentiment and a rabidly hostile media and establishment, such a violent confrontation could have a very serious negative impact on the movement. What's more we thought that the way in which the event was planned played into the hands of the state, meaning that there was zero chance of success as well as the risk mentioned above. Therefore we opposed the action as potentially damaging to the movement. As an aside, there was no "very concerted effort" to oppose the action - a couple of our members argued against it here off their own bat, Joe made what I still think was a pretty fair remark from a podium, that's about it - but that's hardly the point as we were formally opposed to it. People are more than welcome to have a different assessment to us of the chances of success and risks of that action, but there was nothing cynical about our view.

As it happens there was no significant violence, mostly because of the welcome restraint and discipline of the protesters, but also, in my view, because it quickly became clear that the state forces were in absolutely no danger of being overwhelmed. I suspect that things would have changed very quickly indeed if the protesters had been close to success and the state forces had felt threatened, but that's another thing we will never know.

Whatever way you look at it, the Socialist Party's record on direct action against the war is one of the best around - the role we played in initiating the school student strikes ensures that all by itself. And our role in direct action generally is even more effective. Presumably you haven't all forgotten the bin tax blockades already? But really, I shouldn't even be getting into this. It will only encourage reams more bile and outrage and lost tempers for no useful purpose which I want no part of so I'll move on to two other issues R.Isible raises, where hopefully a constructive discussion will be possible. I'll answer them in a seperate comment because this post is beginning to suffer from a touch of the John Thrones.

by Mark P - Socialist Party (personal cap) Thu Feb 23, 2006 23:18

1) The first issue is R.Isible's suspicion that our attitude towards struggle is based on a desire to take a "parliamentary route" or to be "part of a better government". In a thread where I've outlined our views on the need for a socialist revolution I find this a bit baffling to be honest. It seems to indicate that what we are saying isn't being listened to at all. The Socialist Party is very clear that there is no "parliamentary route" to socialism. We have no desire to govern the capitalist state. We can't be more blunt than that. We stand in elections to raise socialist ideas and if we win elected positions we use the platforms they provide to further extra-parliamentary struggle.

2) Getting back to the main subject R.Isible asks two questions which I think are important: "Do you think that there's anyone that isn't aware of the arguments against the war? Isn't the problem that the government is just not going to do anything about it despite the wishes of the majority of people?"

In my view the answer is as follows: Yes it is true that the majority of people are against the war. It is also true that the government is not interested in following the wishes of the majority of people. That's common ground between us. What's at issue is what exactly that means and what we do about it.

The point I was making earlier in the thread about anti-war sentiment being broad but politically shallow is important. Opposition to the war was not grounded on widespread acceptance of socialist or radical arguments about the nature of the state, about the nature of the society we live in, about the need for real social change or about the need for serious struggle to achieve that change. It didn't result in large numbers of people doing the things which their predecessors did in the numerically much smaller anti-Vietnam war movement. They didn't in large numbers develop radical political ideas, take direct action, get organisationally involved in anti-war institutions or join left wing groups. Most of the younger people involved, normally the most radical segments, had no experience of even seeing let alone taking part in workplace struggles. And it wasn't because the left wasn't arguing for them to do any of that - everything I've mentioned above was worked for by one or more segments of the far left.

When I talk about the need for arguments to be won, I am talking about those more important underlying political arguments. Because if people are going to take serious action or get politically involved in a struggle which doesn't directly effect them, they need more than just a view that George Bush is a dangerous idiot or that war is a bad thing. And taken as a whole I think the main failure of the Irish left during the peak periods of the anti-war movement wasn't that direct action at Shannon failed or that strike action didn't happen, but that not enough of the arguments which would allow any of that to succeed were won.

3) Chekov points out above: "But, regardless of this, even if it might not have worked, it still doesn't excuse the lack of any attempt whatsoever to turn the marchers into acters - you, me and RBB all know that a protest movement needs to have some steel to back up the pleas. It needs to at least attempt to turn sentiment into action or else it has submitted to defeat without a fight and that is sadly what happened".

This is another point I broadly agree with, although with a couple of provisos. I think that a protest movement does need action to back it up, at least if the government and the ruling class in general care enough about the issue in the first place. But I think that for that action to work there has to be a critical mass of people willing to take it in the first place. From the Socialist Party's point of view that "steel" should have been strike action and that's what we worked towards both in terms of argument and in trying to lead by example in the schools. From the point of view of others that "steel" should have been in Shannon.

Personally I'm sceptical about the chances of even a much greater number of people having success with the Shannon tactic (this is a retrospective assessment at the time my view was that it would be a good idea if we had the numbers). That assessment with hindsight is based on what happened at places like Fairford in England and then at various summit protests where even much larger numbers proved ineffectual at reaching a point the state really doesn't want them to reach. Roadblocks, large scale arrests, massive mobilisation of state forces, I think we've seen what happens a few too many times at this stage. Anyway though, that's getting a little off the point which is that to even try either of these strategies in a serious way, in a way that's beyond making a moral statement with a kind of martyrdom, a large number of people willing to give it a go is necessary. And without winning those arguments mentioned above, I don't think those people were there.

by Dominic Haugh - Socialist Party/CWI Thu Feb 23, 2006 23:53

As I don't intend rehashing this entire debate all over again...

As Mark has pointed out the only publically action that the SP opposed was the 'direct action' March 1st.

In relation to March 1st the GNAW did not organise medical and legal back-up when announcing the direct action. In fact it was only when these points were raised by SP members that the GNAW even considered acknowledging their necessity.

The GNAW claimed that because of the Mayday incidents in Dublin there was no way that the cops would attack protestors in Shannon:

by Phuq Hedd Mon Feb 24, 2003 19:24
I would imagine that it is going to be a real pain in the arse to be a Garda or soldier on duty because the first sign of violence that they offer the media will hang them out to dry. The RTS police-riot signalled the end of the public tolerance for police criminality and you can be sure that public tolerance for any police/army violence in the context of subverting and undermining Irish sovereignty in defence of the USA's unpopular war would see speedy criminal prosecutions of both the rank and the file involved plus an end to any political careers for Cowen, Smith, Ahern, Harney and McDowell.

by Chekov Tue Feb 25, 2003 02:47
I think it is extremely unlikely that they will want pictures of police attacking protestors all over the telly

This claim was absolutely ridiculous. As the GNAW at that time were intent on claiming that protestors faced no risk, I pointed out the other extreme. I went no farther over the top in my comments as others had downplayed the prospects of the state using the opportunity to have the cops wade into the crowd.

In any campaign it is necessary to weigh up the advantages as opposed to the risks and carefully consider the impact of any action on potential supporters of the campaign. The impact of Mar 1st was negative, particularly in Shannon and the mid-west. It was not until the Bush visit that the mood in Shannon towards anti-war protests changed.

Finally to deal with the question of Spain,

In the mid-1980's the CWI section in Spain led a campaign by millions of secondary school students against government cuts in education. As part of this campaign there were widespread school occupations and dozens of demonstrations, including a number where the crowds was estimated at over 1 million each. Support was secured from the communist trade union federation and the United Left Party. The campaign was faced with the constant threat of attacks from fascists and several demonstrations were attacked by fascist groups. On one protest in Madrid a hand grenade was thrown into the crowd killing (if I remember correctly) a young female student. The CWI in conjunction with others were meticulous in organising for these demonstrations and ensured that every possible precaution was taken to protect the demonstrators and provide appropriate back-up. Everyone was aware of the risks but the courage and confidence of these young people has to be admired. There were a number of occasions where stewards on demonstrations had to battle against fascists to prevent injury or death. The campaign achieved a significant victory, forcing a complete government climb down. The CWI produced a pamphlet detailing the entire campaign ( I don't know if it is still available), it is a blueprint on how to organise mass protests and direct actions.

by Mark P - Socialist Party (personal capacity) Fri Feb 24, 2006 00:15

I don't see that the two situations are at all comparable. It would have been total madness for the GNAW to tool up with clubs before attempting their action! Demonstrations of hundreds of thousands which have to defend themselves from fascist attack are a long, long way from a few hundred at Shannon. Also, the fact that GNAW may not have advertised legal teams or medical teams in the early stages doesn't mean that they were going to actually try their action without them. You can disagree with the tactical wisdom of a group without thinking that they are completely devoid of sense.

I understand where you are coming from, in terms of the effect of the action on your local anti-war movement and I can see why you are pissed off at being misrepresented but really I think that your contributions to this thread have been somewhat incendiary. In fact you've just made it more likely that the thread will devolve into a pointless and vitriolic row.

by Oisín Mac Giollamóir - WSM Fri Feb 24, 2006 00:27

Mark P wrote...
For that matter we don't get involved in too many detailed polemics about what a post-revolutionary society will look like at all. The closest real examples are from between a century and a half century ago, built in isolation, under siege, in conditions of civil war and enormous economic and social backwardness - anyone who thinks a revolutionary Ireland would look much like either Russia in 1917 or Spain in 1936 isn't someone I really want to be organising alongside.

Mark P also wrote...
That's what gave rise to direct actionista complaints along the lines of "The IAWM had 150,000 people at a march,the argument was won, yet they still didn't organise direct action". The point is that the argument, the deeper political argument about the kind of society we live in, wasn't won.

Let's cut out the relevant bits of that....
"we don't get involved in too many detailed polemics about what a post-revolutionary society will look like at all....The point is that the argument, the deeper political argument about the kind of society we live in, wasn't won."

I am confused. Let me get this straight: what we shouldn't do is engage in polemics about post-revolutionary society, what we should do is make arguments about what kind of society we want to live.

Jesus I think the SP looked better when it was a Trot organisation. At least then it looked like you had a theory of what was needed for communism to be built.

Cos I know you at least used to be trotskyist organisation:
"In the 1980s, Militant was the biggest and most influential Trotskyist organisation in Britain, and one of the largest Trotskyist organisations in Europe since the International Left Opposition in the 1930s."-Peter Taaffe, October 2002
http://www.socialistworld.net/publications/mrh/index.html

This is a very funny, albeit confusing, thread. The SP isn't Trotskyist, who'd have known.

by Mark P Fri Feb 24, 2006 00:49

Do I really have to repeat myself?

Neither I nor the Socialist Party have any problem with being described as Trotskyist. It's not our normal self-description, but we'll even use the tag ourselves sometimes for convenience. That quite *obviously* shouldn't be taken to mean that we agree with everything Trotsky ever did or said or argued any more than we agree with everything Marx, Engels, Lenin, Luxemburg, Liebknecht, Connolly, Larkin or any of the other people in whose tradition we claim to stand did or said. And given that all of those people, like everyone else, changed their views regularly throughout their lives agreeing with everything they did or said would actually be impossible.

On the other issue you raise, there is no contradiction between my statement that we don't often get involved in detailed polemics about exactly what a post-revolutionary society will look like and my statement that one of the arguments we have to win in the anti-war movement was about the nature of the capitalist society we currently live in. Both in my view should be statements of the obvious for socialists. We do argue about the general outline of a post-revolutionary society, about how its economy could work, about how it will have to be democratic, but we realise that much of the detail consists of things we can't lay down in advance and which will be developed by the working class movement as they become issues. Presumably it hasn't escaped your notice but the most recent real examples of post-revolutionary societies are from many decades ago in what were underdeveloped parts of the world, under siege in civil war conditions. Now compare our current level of material wealth and rate of technological advance to those societies. I don't know about you, but I certainly hope that a revolutionary Ireland wouldn't look like Russia in 1917 or Spain in 1936!

The other quote you use, seems to me to be equally obvious: If we are to convince people to take serious action on issues which do not directly effect them, we need to win underlying political arguments about such things as the nature of capitalist society. Is that really controversial between socialists?

by Oisín Mac Giollamóir - WSM Fri Feb 24, 2006 00:52

Mark P wrote:
What's more we thought that the way in which the event was planned played into the hands of the state, meaning that there was zero chance of success as well as the risk mentioned above.

As far as I remember there were about 450 cops and about 400 people who went up to the fence. So the chances are if the IAWM hadn't actively opposed the action and encouraged and faciltated scare-mongering than it could have worked. If there were 1000 people there, which was the number as far as I remember we were originally hopeing for, it would have, most probably, been a very succesful action. And if it had succeded, it would have completely changed the trajectory of the Irish anti war movement. Things could have become possible. So there wasn't zero chance of success. And anyway as revolutionaries we are supposed to be trying to help create 'chances for success' not simply declaring that there is/was none and then calling those who think there is a chance and take it 'virtual warriors' while they are getting arrested.

by Mark P - Socialist Party (personal cap) Fri Feb 24, 2006 01:11

"As far as I remember there were about 450 cops and about 400 people who went up to the fence."

Very briefly:

Taking your numbers entirely at face value, which I'm normally slow to do with leftists estimates of events they have a vested interest in, you are saying that the police they actually deployed to face the protesters outnumbered the protesters! I had actually presumed that there were more protesters than cops. Yes the anti-war movement could have mobilised more people, although not orders of magnitude more. And if we had shown any signs of doing so... so could the state. Or they could stop us from getting to Shannon in the first place. Or if they did fail to mobilise and did let the protesters get to Shannon and did look like getting overwhelmed they could have taken their gloves off and waded in. And even if, by some miracle, the protesters had reached the fence on that occasion - then what? Would the state have let them get within an arses roar of Shannon a second time? Ask the much more numerous protesters at Fairford or at various recent summits.

This risks getting back to a particular argument about a particular event etc, so I'm going to try my best to stay away from this aspect of the thread in the hope that there will be more discussion on the elements of it which we haven't all been round a few dozen times.

by young anarchist - AY Fri Feb 24, 2006 01:17

Whatever way you look at it, the Socialist Party's record on direct action against the war is one of the best around - the role we played in initiating the school student strikes ensures that all by itself. And our role in direct action generally is even more effective.

This is hilarious, you certainly were nowhere to be seen at my school when we walked out and I don't know of many other people who were motivated to walk out by the SP - most were just outraged at the iraqi war. Just because comrade cian says it, doesnt make it true.

The sheer arrogance displayed above baffles me.

by Mark P Fri Feb 24, 2006 01:26

Taking your claims at face value because I'm a trusting sort of guy, I invite my "young anarchist" friend to look back through the archives of this site as well as at various other sites to get the wider picture of where the call for school student walk outs came from, what organisational work went into them and what schools walked out.

I am quite specifically not saying that the Socialist Party or Socialist Youth organised every school walk out - if we had there would have been far fewer. Still it was Youth Against War, a group established by Socialist Youth which had members in a large number of schools, which made the call, set the date and did much of the leafleting for the first wave of strikes. The second wave (on day x if I recall correctly) had a similar level of input from YAW but also a much larger number of schools which YAW had never been near taking part. The School Student walkouts were not something which the Socialist Party or Socialist Youth or Youth Against War entirely organised, obviously, but equally clearly they were not the result of some freakish coincidence where thousands of people just came up with the same idea at the same time.

by young anarchist Fri Feb 24, 2006 01:34

Youth against war was considered something of a joke around any secondary schools that had heard it. The idea to walk out in opposition to the Iraq war on day x was international and had been mentioned on nearly every anti-war website. You can only really take credit for your own members walking out, most other people did it as a personal decision. You were certainly not the vanguard.

by Mark P Fri Feb 24, 2006 01:47

Right, sorry for making the mistake of answering you seriously, as if you really are a member of Anarchist Youth who walked out of school a few years back.

I was about to respond to the above by pointing out that it must be one of the most remarkable coincidences of recent Irish history that the schools which walked out on the first day of walkouts were mostly (though not entirely) those which had been heavily leafleted by Youth Against War or which Youth Against War members attended. And that the same schools were prominent on the second day of walkouts. A strange, inexplicable, fluke.

Then I noticed that your posting placed the credit for calling the strikes on international websites which were calling for school walkouts on Day X. Now apart from the fact that many of these "international websites" were those of our sister organisations around the world which were pushing the same idea, this rather misses the point. The first wave of school student walkouts all happened on the same day, and that was before Day X. Must have been a miracle, eh?

by young anarchist - ay Fri Feb 24, 2006 01:53

If you go back through indymedia you can see I am a unique identity.

I love your arrogance, I obviously must have walked out because of the SY/SP and i'm just too stupid to know. It's nothing to be embarrassed about but I didn't take action because of the SY/SP and you can't just decide that I did.

by hs Fri Feb 24, 2006 09:57

"should point out that I introduced the word "fetish" in an above response to "hs - sp", but I'd argue that it would have appeared sooner or later on the lips of one or another SP member."

I think one of the problems within the socialist v anarchist debate is that you (anarchists) very often seem to want to tell us what we think rather than letting us speak for ourselves, it seems the be a constant problem.. Rather than asking us what we think of any topic you seem to like to explain to us our opinions. its just a little presumptious, and to bring up what was taken to be an insult and then say "we would have said it anyway" really takes the biscuit.

no where on the thread have Mark or myself attempted to tell you what you believe, we my disagree with some of your points or ideas but never have we attempted to tell you what you believe.

by Chekov Fri Feb 24, 2006 10:00

Hi Dominic,

I trust that given your quote: it is also likely that the Emergency Response Unit will be redeployed from Limerick (and remember what they did at Abbeylara). You will retract your claim that I was lying or misrepresenting you. I think the allusion to Abbeylara is entirely clear. I apologise for mistakenly saying 'army' whereas you actually made allusions to the ERU firing on protestors - however, I'm sure you can see that this is merely a detail and that your claim of dishonesty on my part is unwarranted and unfair.

Secondly, I would like to point out that events proved my estimation of the likeliehood of attacks on protestors correct and also proved you to be completely disconnected from reality and to have been engaged in scaremongering. Note I do not think that you were dishonest in this scare-mongering, just that you failed to understand the position which the state found itself in. To me, and to others who were involved in organising the Grassroots action, it was clear at the time - and clearer still at this remove - that the state had absolutely zero interest in escalating the situation at Shannon.

by chekov - 1 of Indymedia Ireland Editorial Group Fri Feb 24, 2006 10:58 chekov at indymedia dot ie

I apologise for putting the 'fetish' word into your mouth. I know that you are not one for fetishes (!)

I have heard this phrase used by SPers before, but I now recall that the normal formulation is 'direct action is a tactic not a principle'. However, my point stands that to anarchists direct action is a principle.

by Dominic Haugh - Socialist Party/CWI Fri Feb 24, 2006 11:24

Mark,

I was not making a comparison between the GNAW action and Spain, merely pointing out that the CWI in Spain when they organised and encouraged participation took whatever measures were appropriate and necessary. In other words after calling on people to participate they took their responsibilities seriously. This was not the case in relation to the GNAW, first they dismissed the possibility that the cops could attack the demo and after being dragged to the realisation that it was a possibility made a half hearted effort to organise appropriate back-up.

by chekov Thu Feb 23, 2006 16:40
'we had Dominic Haugh of the SP coming out with ludicrous scare stories about the army firing on protestors.'

Mark was able to stand up an apologise to you when he made an error, you should do the same.

The quote you guys constantly trot out is my reference to Abbeylara (something which I acknowledged later was inappropriate), you mis-understood (conveniently) the point being made and continue to refuse to acknowledge that I never stated anywhere that protestors would be shot. It is a quote taken out of context. I repeatedly stated the depolyment of armed troops or police was the most extreme scenario and was the most unlikely to happen, but the reality was that over 1000 soldiers as well as armed special branch and ERU in reserve at the Airport on that day. I was outlining one extreme while the GNAW was adament that the other extreme was what would happen. The GNAW consistantly refused to acknowledge that the situation posed any degree of threat to protestors or accept any responsibility for ensuring appropriate back-up for protestors.

by chekov Thu Feb 23, 2006 16:40
'Secondly, I would like to point out that events proved my estimation of the likeliehood of attacks on protestors correct and also proved you to be completely disconnected from reality and to have been engaged in scaremongering. Note I do not think that you were dishonest in this scare-mongering, just that you failed to understand the position which the state found itself in. To me, and to others who were involved in organising the Grassroots action, it was clear at the time - and clearer still at this remove - that the state had absolutely zero interest in escalating the situation at Shannon.'

You are wrong. The only reason the why the situation panned out as it did was because the GNAW action was such a damp squip. If the action had succeeded in ripping down the fence the riot police would have waded in, water cannon, gas etc. would have been used and in extreme circumstances the reserves would have been deployed. The Government were determined to take on the anti-war movement and show the US administration what close friends they were. They were quite willing to escalate the situation if it proved necessary, it did not.

Far more important, however, was the inappropriatness of the action in the first place. As I said earlier it was ill-concieved, badly organised and in the wrong place at the wrong time. It damaged the anti-war campaign particularly in the Shannon region. Incidently the decision by the GP, Lab and SF not to participate at all also damamged the campaign as a large attendance at the IAWM demo would have counter-acted the negative impact of the GNAW action and re-inforced the anti-war mood amongst ordinary people. The errors on behalf of the GNAW stem from a lack of any base within the working class and any real understanding of the mood within the working class towards the war at that time. It was conceived in cyberspace and in discussions amongst small numbers of individuals. Joe Higgins was absolutely correct in his description of the action.

by hs Fri Feb 24, 2006 11:25

well, maybe i just haven't met the right person : )

But thats a fair point, i can see where you are coming from but i think it would need alot lot of inclusions, such as direct action which is delegated, democratic etc, but I think the type of direct action we are discussing here is a form of protest and in that remains a tactic. I don't think there'd be any disagreements when we talk about the type of direct action involved in strikes etc, or direct action which is more than a protest action, (ie something that actually shuts something down) or involves a mass of people. This is a priciple i think we can all agree on especially compared to lobbying, marching or direct action simple protests.

The stuff on shannon i can't really comment on cause i wasn't here, but its understandable people get angry and disillosioned with just marching and can be angry about parties not doing more to encourage direct action. But that doesn't necessarily mean it had support in the wider community. Although I don't see the harm in trying as long as it doesn't do damage to the cause or play into the governments hand. And in the case of shannon it was against a lethal war with thousands of civilians be killed so morally the government didn't have a leg to stand on when it came to "violence" of activists. ( which was always my point in supporting the wsm position). I would argued though that the whole black block "masking up" kid of dressing up thing wasn't going to encourage other groups to support the actions. I don't want to start a whole debate on the whole BB thing, but I think that plays against some of the direct action ideas when it came to trying to winning support off parties such as the SP for it or from wider groups such as the IAWM. From the outside the whole coustume thing is very off putting, as well as what seemed to me a serious lack of consideration for anybody else and/or basic democracy. Maybe I'm wrong and its just a perception,but i think its something I think anarchists should seriously consider when trying to build support for such actions. (if you genuinely want the support of other groups) of course as you say if the IAWM refused to allow you to put forward your position in conferences it's going to be more difficult but thats not to say you can't go directly to members of the organisations.

by Mark P Fri Feb 24, 2006 11:26

You are right, but it's actually a sloppy shorthand on our part in these kind of discussions. The Socialist Party's actual attitude is that each *individual* direct action has to be evaluated on its tactical merits rather than on the basis of some general principle that all direct action is good and useful and must be supported. If we think a particular action ("direct" or otherwise) will help advance a struggle we will support it, if we think it will set it back we won't. On the more general point you make about direct action - well it is a "principle" in that a socialist transformation of society cannot be handed down from above and must be the action of the working class itself.

by chekov Fri Feb 24, 2006 11:46 chekov at indymedia dot ie

You had a chance to retract your accusation of me being a lier - you turned it down. Your words are clearly quoted above and your claim that it is out of context is simply rubbish. There is simply no possible other interpretation of your reference to Abbeylara. Your choice to allow your accusation to stand in such circumstances reveals you to be a man without honour or principles. So be it.

Your subsequent sectarian ranting against the only group to actually attempt to back up the anti-war words with some action - however ill conceived you may think it reveals you to be a bitter and twisted sectarian. So be it. It's not edifying but you have chosen to present yourself in such an unpleasant light, thereby undoing the impression of reasonableness and sanity that Mark P and Hs have built up in this discussion. With friends like you they don't need enemies.

by Dominic Haugh - SP Fri Feb 24, 2006 11:52

Chekov,

Spout insults all you want,

You are a liar, you stated that I said the army would shoot protestors. I did not. The fact that you are so detatched from reality in looking at this issue shows how far off the mark the WSM has been in relation to anti-war work. Yes the GNAW did engage in some action, action that had a negative impact on the anti-war movement. The tinted glasses you are looking through are getting darker.

by chekov Fri Feb 24, 2006 12:03 chekov at indymedia dot ie

Chekov: Instead we had Dominic Haugh of the SP coming out with ludicrous scare stories about the army firing on protestors.

Dominic Haugh: it is also likely that the Emergency Response Unit will be redeployed from Limerick (and remember what they did at Abbeylara). Some people commenting here reluctantly have accepted that there may be violence on behalf of the police, people may be hurt and arrested. Has the GG organised medical treatment and legal aid in the event of this happening?

I apologised above for my inaccuracy of saying 'army' instead of 'ERU'. That is a detail, otherwise what I wrote was entirely accurate.

by Mark P Fri Feb 24, 2006 12:13

The archives and precise quotes of what was said by both of you at the time are available on this site to anyone who is interested. There is no need for this "you said x", "no I said y and you said z" type of row. You've both explained your points of view and anyone who cares can make up their own minds by reading the discussion from the time. Unless either of you is going to add something beyond "you calling me a liar", "yes you are a liar" and the like I suggest you move on to more substantive matters.

by Amused Fri Feb 24, 2006 12:17

When Dominic is clearly losing, you pop up and says lets call it a draw. When people say that your party is Trotskyist and Leninist some other members pops up and says that was years ago, we're different now. Ten out of ten for creativity.

by hs Fri Feb 24, 2006 12:32

how you got "its a draw" from what mark says is beyond me. Your idea of anarchism 1 socialist 0, is also blatant secatrianism, Your oother point is putting words in peoples mouths. No one said anything about "that was years ago,we're different now" we simply explained to the misinformed (such as yourself) what we are about. I suggest you actually read what people are saying rather than speed reading down and makeing interpetations that have nothing to do with what anybody said. (is it an anrchist thing to decide what other people are thinking for them, i didn't think so)

by Padraic - wsm 9personal capacity) Fri Feb 24, 2006 13:12

And I'd actually agree with Mark P's point about the March 1st action in Shannon. The positions taken by Dominic H, the SP, GNAW and the WSM etc are all available to anyone who wants to find them on this site, indeed we've allready seen some of them reposted here. I don't think there's much point in turning this thread into another argument about what happened (though it was a bit of a turning point for me in my attitude towards other groups... having people line up against you and fuel outlandish media coverage and provide justification for massive policing operations will tend to make you a little bitter ...).

Anyway I think the discussion was going somewhere and it'd be a shame to see if crash over March 1st.

by michael Fri Feb 24, 2006 13:27

Dominic, Chekov -- you've produced enough material in this thread for an entire season of comedy sketches about the left. Maybe take a moment before your next post to go outside and listen to the cars/birds/people nearby. :-)

There have been over a dozen direct actions at Shannon Airport, counting the arrestable actions alone. The GNAW one though still seems to occupy the minds of some people in a way that all the other ones don't. I think it was the only time that the authorities succeeded in stopping an action. Everyone else who's ever wanted to go airside, for example, has done so without much bother. Same for the roundabout shrine, the boat action, and more recently the banner drop inside the terminal building.

I don't see why Dominic should want to distance himself from the generally understood meaning of his Abbeylara reference. The ERU really did shoot a man to bits. Furthermore, as Tom Clonan explained on RTE's Morning Ireland ( http://www.rte.ie/news/2003/0204/newsatone/news1pm1a.ram ), the Irish Army were told that they could shoot people in Shannon Airport for "threatening property". I can't recall whether he said it in that interview or another one, but he clarified that the Irish Army don't shoot at people to just hurt them -- say, aim for someone's feet. They weren't given rubber bullets or other non-lethal-type things to fire. If you're shot, you're dead. There are many methods to reduce the likelihood, most of them have been discussed at length on this site before, and many of them were ignored by the promoters (GNAW, etc.).

Let's go through it point by point:

Action goals:
(1) Collectively break through fense,
(2) sit down,
(3) hopefully escape arrest or harm.

Rationale:
Need to break fense to get in.
Don't want to risk getting hurt on runway, in buildings, or on apron.
Getting arrested or hurt/killed sucks.

Pros:
Looks accessible.
Looks like it could disrupt warport activity.
Looks safe.
Looks like it could lead people to do more actions, getting more involved.

Cons:
Facing the 500m stretch of the 5km fense where all the security was concentrated means it was streetfighter's-only.
Again, location, location, location.
Not so safe really. Could have got arrested, hurt, etc.
It never looked like it would lead to anything -- not only because the sp/swp/etc. opposed it.

by Joe - WSM 1st of May (personal capacity) Fri Feb 24, 2006 13:50

While I'm sympatheic to Padraic's position the problem is Haugh has told a number of lies here and while people could check the archive and discover this many will not. So I am going to post a short corrections to just one of them.

Haugh claims
The GNAW consistantly refused to acknowledge that the situation posed any degree of threat to protestors or accept any responsibility for ensuring appropriate back-up for protestors.

The reality is that GNAW said
We should emphasise that, although this is going to be an entirely non-violent protest, those who participate in it do face certain risks. The risks to solidarity observers should be very small, while for those who take part in the line, there is a certain risk of arrest or violence from the police. We believe that, given the current political climate, the state will be very reluctant to be seen to be overly aggressive towards protestors, therefore we do not think that the risks are exceptional. However, it is up to everybody who participates to seriously consider the risks before they take part in anything of this nature.
http://www.indymedia.ie/cgi-bin/newswire.cgi?id=30422

This is from the statement issued to everyone thinking of taking part and posted to indymedia on Feb 24th, almost a full week before the March 1st action.

--

Those who do all the talking about 'not the right time' have had three years to point out a better time - they have not because they recognise that in this period there probably was no better time than early March 2003. Quite a number of anti-war activists who honestly opposed the March 1st action at the time have recognised this in retrospect.

Of course no one can say for certain what would have happened if the political organisation involved in the IAWM had taken different positions. But the claim that a succesful action or the use of major state repression (watercannon, gas) would have led to the collapse of the anti-war movement is simply weird. Why weird? Because the movement did collapse, within a year the 100,000 of F15 had become 3,000. The idea that the movement could be held together by doing nothing except marching again and again once Bertie had given the two fingers post F15 was a dangerous illusion at the time - it is a remarkably stupid one to be promoting now.

---

Michael your 'streetfighters only' smear is somewhat contradicted by the fact that one of the people taking part celebrated his 84th birthday that same week.

by Mark P Fri Feb 24, 2006 14:31

Actually Joe, what I'm saying isn't incompatible with what you are saying above. I agree that sometime in 2003 was "the best" opportunity we've had so far to do things like GNAW's Shannon attempt. The problem is that in my view it was "the best" of what has so far been a very bad set of opportunities. Then a few hundred could be mustered and maybe some more if everyone had agreed with it (which of course they didn't for good reasons). Now much less. Neither is enough. You are also correct to say that the anti-war movement has fallen apart to a very great extent, and that an endless diet of marches wouldn't be enough to hold it together. I think that things like the Shannon attempt would have led it to fall apart even faster but that's a basically irrelevant point here - it has collapsed anyway.

This brings me back to the point I was making much earlier in the thread (and away from an endless squabble which we will not resolve here) about anti-war sentiment being broad but very shallow. Significant numbers of people did not do any of the things any of the sections of the left advocated - take direct action at Shannon, take strike action at work, join left wing organisations, take part in anti-war groups, whatever. And I don't think that this tactic or that tactic would have by itself fixed that basic problem. The main lesson I would draw from the experience is the necessity of winning political arguments within a movement that go well beyond "Bush is bad, war is bad". Because it's only by winning people around to more fundamental agreement on the nature of our current government and society, about the need for struggle to change anything, that we will be able to convince them to take any action beyond marching - whether that action is pulling on fence or walking out of work.

by Michael Fri Feb 24, 2006 14:36

I didn't put an age on 'streetfighters-only', and I didn't mean it as a smear. You can't say that you weren't inviting confrontation when you went right for the small strip of the airport fense which was covered in police. It looked as staged as an IAWM march, except that the marches are staged in a way that will lead people away from confrontation.

While it looks more accessible, and newbie-friendly to form a line and march towards the nearest line of police, it could have ended in violence. That's what I meant by 'streetfighters-only'.

by Michael Fri Feb 24, 2006 14:57

I've read more than once above people from the pro-direct action side complaining about "marching for marching's sake".

The March 1st GNAW statement of purpose was this: "the purpose of this action is to demonstrate that the state can not secure the 'warport' against the anger of the people."

But earlier in the same sentence it said this: "Once the fence has been dismantled we shall cross it and shall remain in the grass verge on the other side of the fence. We will not attempt to occupy the runway or to reach any planes."

In other words, it was supposed to be an action for action's sake. To say "look! Booh! We can do actions here!"

It goes to show how far from reality some WSM and SP members flogging this dead horse here are. There never was or ever will be a good time for the march 1st, 2003 Shannon Airport action! It was a shit action! A waste of time! Let it go!

by chekov Fri Feb 24, 2006 15:24 chekov at indymedia dot ie

First of all a contributor entering a debate by pointing to the comedy value of the disagreements between some of the other contributors and then proceeding to disagree with them is more than a little hypocritical. Secondly, it is more than a wee bit cowardly to have a go at others from a position of anonymity (michael who?)

Secondly, I might as well point out the thinking behind the attempted action on March 1st (for about the 50th time on this site) since it seems to have gone over your head.

By announcing the attempt publically we were openly announcing our intent to the state and allowing them to muster their defences. If we had succeeded in getting enough people to take part to make the action a success the state would have found itself in a position where the anti-war protestors had shown that they had the ability to breach the security of the airport despite the state being able to prepare itself fully to stop it. Therefore, had it been successful, the state would have found itself in a position where it could not guarantee the security of the airport. We reasoned that subsequent protests would have been likely to have been larger if we were able to show that such a tactic could work and was not particularly risky. The state would have found itself powerless to stop the anti-war movement breaching the security of the airport whenever it chose - or else they would have been forced to escalate their repression to a whole new level. We felt (and I certainly think we were correct) that the state was unwilling to be seen to violently repress the movement since the anti-war sentiment was so prevalent within the population.

Now, I think we were a little naive in this. Essentially our mistake was to underestimate how cynical the various parties involved in the anti-war movement would be. We expected the media and the state to attack us and our plans. We did not expect the SWP, SP, SF and so on to join in with the demonisation and the scare-mongering. Indeed the fact that they did and that we were still not violently repressed tells me that we were entirely correct in our estimation of the state's position. For repression is made many times easier when the group that is being repressed is isolated - as we undoubtedly were.

by Topper Fri Feb 24, 2006 23:02

"I should add that this is a lie. If you can find me a single reference to either of them claiming that jews should be exterminated I'll eat my hat. "

OK, for my troubles here we go:

"This whole Jewish world which constitues a single exploiting sect, a sort of bloodsucker people, a collective parasite, voracious, organised in itself, not only across the frontiers of the states but even across all the differences of political opinion - this world is presently, at least in great part, at the disposal of Marx on the one hand and the Rothschilds on the other. I know that the Rothschilds, reactionaries as they are and should be, highly appreciate the merits of the communist Marx; and that in his turn the communist Marx feels irresistably drawn, by instinctive attraction and respectful admiration, to the financial genius of Rothschild. Jewish solidarity, that powerful solidarity that has maintained itself all through history, united them...

In all countries the people detest the Jews. They detest them so much that every popular revolution is accompanied by a massacre of Jews: a natural consequence."

That was Bakunin. This is Proudhon:

"The Jew is the enemy of the human race. One must send this race back to Asia or exterminate it ... by fire or fusion, or by expulsion, the Jew must disappear. Work to be done. What the peoples of the Middle Ages hate by instinct, I hate upon reflection, and irrevocably."

The Bakunin quote comes from Francis Wheen's biography of Karl Marx, p.340 (I've also come across very similar comments about Marx and the Rothschilds in a book of recollections of Marx edited by David McLellan, but I don't have it to hand at the moment). The Proudhon quote comes from Marshall Berman's book Adventures in Marxism, p.177.

Now, you've said already that you're not a "Bakuninite" or a "Proudhonist", so I don't hold you responsible for these atrocious views. But the WSM does associate itself with Bakunin to some extent (as I said, your most commonly seen banner carries a quote from Bakunin about freedom and socialism, which is a pefectly fine quote in itself of course).

But I'd suggest it's only fair to grant hs and Mark P. the same lee-way you grant yourself. They have said clearly that they don't agree with everything that Lenin and Trotsky said, and that they don't agree with the views expressed in the quotes that you gave. If you think the SP should do more to distance itself from Lenin and Bolshevism, that's fair enough (I happen to agree). But calling people fools because they don't share your political perspective is a bit much.

If you think that Leninism has been a harmful influence on the left, then surely you should be happy that even members of the SP are quite happy to say that they don't treat the writings of Lenin and Trotsky as sacred writ. You give the impression that you'd prefer "Trots" to be hyper-dogmatic religious zealots so you can have an easy time knocking their arguments down.

by Source Skeptic - Debunkers Fri Feb 24, 2006 23:34

An actual source from the authorised published writings of Bakunin (or whatever is the closest that can be got to them) and Proudhon would be more convincing. Marx on DeLaSalle anyone?.....!

by Topper Sat Feb 25, 2006 00:10

Sorry, I'm afraid you won't be able to wriggle out of it that easily. Wheen does NOT quote Marx talking about Bakunin. The quotes come directly from the man himself. His book was widely reviewed in the press at the time of publication, and I never heard anyone raise any questions about the honesty of his scholarship. He was quoting letters sent by Bakunin to sections of the IWMA in southern Europe during his struggle against Marx. You should be able to find it in any decent library, academic or public, if you want to make sure I'm quoting accurately. As I said, I've found similar quotes in a book of recollections of Marx edited by David McLellan (the exact title escapes me). The Berman book should be in any academic library, don't know if it'd be in a public library, I've seen it in quite a few bookshops too.

Anyway, I presume Chekov will retract his claim that I was lying. I am basing what I said on the work of two well-respected writers, neither of whom is uncritically loyal to Marx. If they have been proved wrong, or can be proved wrong, I'm open to being corrected.

by chekov Sat Feb 25, 2006 00:13

I accept the quote from Proudhon but I believe the quote from Bakunin to be a fake. Francis Wheen is one of the worst and least honest researchers I've ever come across and I would accept a quote from Willie O Dea before him. It could be genuine but I really really doubt it.

by Topper Sat Feb 25, 2006 00:22

Followed that link you put up there to a review of Wheen's book. The writer didn't question the veracity of the quotes Wheen attributed to Bakunin, but suggested that they were no better/worse than things Marx said in his correspondence to Engels about various people. As I recall from reading the book, there was a clear difference. Marx and Engels seemed to have a fondness for Alf Garnett-style humour that they indulged in their private correspondence; a lot of it sounds appalling, and two such intelligent men should obviously have known better, but it doesn't compare with the quotes attributed to Bakunin, which spoke approvingly of anti-semitic massacres.

by Chekov Sat Feb 25, 2006 00:29

I humbly apologise for claiming that you were lying - even if the quote is not genuine, you certainly weren't lying. However, having come across many of Wheen's less than honest quotes before, I would still really want to see the original before being convinced. I have seen several anti-semitic quotes from Bakunin before but nothing nearly as repugnant as that.

In any case, my apologies.

by Source Skeptic - Debunkers Sat Feb 25, 2006 00:44

Just to be clear on the above. I think you should still cite sources for both of those quotes so that we can go directly to where their origins are supposed to be. You brought up, you source 'em. I'm not prepared to wade through Wheen's book especially as one of the criticism's I've heard of it from Marxists is that it spends too much time on "marx - the man" as opposed to his theories.

In any event I don't see what the point of the quotes is? Anti-semitism is not fundamental to the theories of either Bakhunin or Proudhon, let alone anarchists in general. On the other hand the ideology of vanguard parties that (in both theory and in actual historical practice) aspire to dictatorship of the proletariat IS fundamental to being a marxist, leninist, trotskist.

So I view the above as a diversion.

Just what exactly DO the Socialist Party believe then? (Answers on a postcard please, thesis length proposals will be returned with NOT WANTED AT THIS ADDRESS).

by Topper Sat Feb 25, 2006 00:53

No worries.

Just had another look at Wheen's book, the source he gives for the Bakunin quote is the fourth volume of Hal Draper's book on Marx. Having nothing better to do on a Friday night, I googled it. Couldn't find anything concrete about whether Draper had it right or not, a few people raised questions about his accuracy without anything definitive one way or another. So it's an open question I suppose. I'd definitely trust Marshall Berman, he's one of the best political writers I know of, and he tends to probe the more awkward problems for Marxism rather than come out with bland celebrations of the bearded one.

Anyway, I'd say again, if members of the SP say that they don't agree with everything that the Bolsheviks said and did, and don't consider it a model for any future socialist revolution, you might as well let them. I know some people in the SP I've come across would stand by what the Bolsheviks did and wouldn't hear a bad word said against the Cheka, so save your fire for them...

by Ois - WSM Sat Feb 25, 2006 04:09

Source Skeptic - Debunkers wrote:
In any event I don't see what the point of the quotes is? Anti-Semitism is not fundamental to the theories of either Bakhunin or Proudhon, let alone anarchists in general. On the other hand the ideology of vanguard parties that (in both theory and in actual historical practice) aspire to dictatorship of the proletariat IS fundamental to being a marxist, leninist, trotskist.

I think this is really the important point. I agree with Chekhov on the objectivity of Wheen, i.e. he isn't objective at all at all. His biography of Marx is not a political biography, it's a personal biography written to be sold not to be accurate. Although to be fair Wheen doesn't advertise his biography of Marx as anything else. Anyway as 'Source Skeptic - Debunkers' said this is a diversion.

I would disagree with him that the ideology of the vanguard party is fundamental to being a Marxist. However I would agree with him that it is central to being a Leninist/Trotskyite.

I would argue that the Marxist tradition diverted from Marx’s politics as soon as it called it self Marxist. i.e. with Engels and Kautsky. Kautsky's interpretation of Marx was in my opinion fundamentally flawed. And the mistakes that Kautsky (and to a lesser extent Engels) made are the same mistakes that have afflicted 'Marxism' ever since. On Lenin indebtedness to Kautsky see 'The "Renegade" Kautsky and his Disciple Lenin.' by Gilles Dauve @ http://libcom.org/library/renegade-kautsky-disciple-len...dauve

I would argue that Marx's mistakes, and Kautsky’s and Engels' mistakes have been overcome by a lot of Marxists. See the KAPD in Germany, and really the various trends within the Marxist movement in the twenties that Lenin attacked in his 'Left-wing Communism'. See also the Johnson-Forrest Tendency in America (Johnson and Forest were CLR James and Raya Dunayevskaya). See also Socialisme ou Barbarie and the Situationist International in France in the 50’s and 60's, see also operaismo and autonomism in Italy. Today see groups like Aufheben, Riff-raff, Troploin, Mouvement Communiste, Wildcat, Prol-position and a few others.

These are all good Marxist groups/movements that have enriched our understanding of the world and have gone beyond Marxism and (in my opinion) towards anarchism.

Why do I say all this? Well one reason is to point out that anarchists, such as me, do not ignore the Marxist tradition. Indeed they often over lap. However, up until this thread. (Note, my cynical sarcasm), the SP was a Trotskyite organisation. I would love to believe that they were as libertarian as hs has been making them out to be but I am actually familiar with both Lenin and Trotsky and have read a lot of them. (I understand so has Chekov). And I know the differences in Marxism. I know the disagreements between the different groups and I think the SPers on this thread are being less than honest as to what their politics are. Either that or they simply don't know what the CWI's politics are.

The CWI is a Trotskyite organisation. It is not a Left Communist organisation. It is not an anti-Leninist organisation, it is a Leninist organisation. And it does advance the Leninist theory of the party. And despite what some members of the SP might like to think, the Leninist theory of the party is up for debate. And if we debate this issue then the anarchist and all of the above mention groups are on one side and the Leninists (the SP included) are on the other. That is unless the SP is no longer a Leninist party and has rejected the Leninist theory of the party.

Has it?

by Mark P - Socialis Sat Feb 25, 2006 16:44

Which "Leninist theory of the party" are we talking about? Lenin's views as expressed in What is to be Done - a book which the Socialist Party thinks has a great deal to recommend to it, but which we certainly don't take whole as some kind of permanent blueprint? Lenin's other polemics on the subject, in which at different times he argued a range of different things? The actual practice of the Bolsheviks between the split with the Mensheviks and the October Revolution, which was different again? The practice of the Bolsheviks after the revolution in increasingly dire circumstances of siege and social collapse? The theory and practice of the Left Opposition? The experiences of the Socialist Party and the the CWI?

Or, and I think this is the most important in this context, some much cherished anarchist caricature of the "Leninist theory of the party"? Because to be honest Ois, your above post drips with condescension - your political opponents don't argue the politics you would like them to, don't provide you with nice easy stupid targets to tilt at, so you inform us that we just don't understand or know the politics of our own organisation! Don't get me wrong here. I do like your method of argument, assigning other's their views and then arguing against the views you insist they hold, but really it isn't very convincing. Wouldn't the world be a much easier, simpler place for our Anarchist friends if Marxists really *did* think that a revolution consisted of a revolutionary party seizing power and then exercising a dictatorship? Maybe we could wear black hats too, whenever we ride into town. Would that make things easier for you too?

Or alternatively we could argue about what the Socialist Party really do believe. I gave the following (entirely accurate) summary earlier in the thread: It's a basic, core, Marxist view that the capitalist state cannot be made use of to achieve a socialist society. Instead the Socialist Party takes the view that the capitalist state will have to be destroyed. Nor do we argue that the revolutionary party must sieze power itself. What we *do* argue is that the working class will have to then create its own state, organised through workers councils or similar institutions. Within those councils multiple political organisations will function, but in our view for a revolution to be succesful, members of the revolutionary party will have to act as the driving force, playing a leading role through convincing others of our ideas.

I also quoted from the publications of the Irish and English Socialist Party, which makes your insistence that I'm arguing some line which the Socialist Party doesn't really agree with all the more baffling. I'm not at all interested in trying to make the Socialist Party more palatable to anarchists or in avoiding the very real differences which exist between my ideas and yours. I think that anarchism is a utopian doctrine, incapable of providing useful guidance to revolutionaries. I think that its organisational failures are manifest - even in this country where there are probably similar numbers self-described anarchists as Socialist Party activists, the SP has a great deal more impact. I think its confusion on the crucial question of the revolutionary state was a key factor in the failure of the Spanish revolution and if anarchism were ever to achieve mass influence in a revolutionary situation again I think that confusion would have a similar result. I'm not trying to claim my ideas are yours because I think your ideas are dangerously wrong. Which of course wouldn't stop me from working with you on areas of common agreement.

The Socialist Party thinks that Leon Trotsky was a great revolutionary leader. We think his fight against Stalinism was heroic. We agree with many of his key theoretical works. And we don't have a problem with using "Trotskyist" as a shorthand description. But politics is not religion and that doesn't entail agreement with everything Trotsky did or said. That should be a statement of the obvious - Trotsky changed his views throughout his life and acted in ways consistent with those changing views. It wouldn't just be unwise to agree with everything he argued it would actually be impossible. As I said, that should be a statement of the obvious - just as it should be a statement of the obvious if we were discussing any of the other revolutionaries of the past in whose tradition we are proud to claim we stand.

by risible Sat Feb 25, 2006 17:35

I'm actually finding this thread useful because it's providing some concrete information about what you believe and I believe it's different to what I believed you believe (I've been taking distance education classes at the Donald Rumsfeld School of Rhetoric).

basic, core, Marxist view that the capitalist state cannot be made use of to achieve a socialist society.

But you do believe that you can use the state in the short term by taking part in elections right?

Instead the Socialist Party takes the view that the capitalist state will have to be destroyed. Nor do we argue that the revolutionary party must sieze power itself. What we *do* argue is that the working class will have to then create its own state, organised through workers councils or similar institutions.

The devil really is in the details isn't it? The above sounds but how do you avoid the problems that have manifested themselves in what will surely be a difficult revolutionary situation? How do you maintain worker's control of the state (as opposed to control of the state for the workers) without leaving that single locus of power open to takeover by bureaucrats, politicians and others?

As regards comparisons of what different political tendencies have achieved in Ireland I don't think anyone is in a very strong position to claim success or failure.

Anyway thanks to both of you for answering the questions and apologies for putting words in your mouths.

by Ois - WSM Sat Feb 25, 2006 17:39

Mark P wrote:
"Wouldn't the world be a much easier, simpler place for our Anarchist friends if Marxists really *did* think that a revolution consisted of a revolutionary party seizing power and then exercising a dictatorship? Maybe we could wear black hats too, whenever we ride into town. Would that make things easier for you too?"

If you read my post. It's quite clear that I don't think that "Marxists really *did* think that a revolution consisted of a revolutionary party seizing power and then exercising a dictatorship". There are a lot of different trends within Marxism. But within Marxism there are the various leninist trends. And Leninists do have certain beliefs. If the SP wants to endlessly change what bits of Leninism it agrees with and what bits it disagrees with that's fine. But I am curious as to what bits of Leninism the SP supports.

As for being condescending, I'm not being condescending. Maybe arrogant but not condescending. My point is that I am familar with Lenin's works, and with Trotsky's works and I am familar with the debates within the Marxist movement. And it is the case that the SP doesn't have a monopoly on Marxism or on 'socialism'. Up until now I never thought the question of whether or not the SP was a Troskyite organisation was up for debate. If the SP isn't a Leninist organisation that's fine. However, if it is then you support leninist politics. I don't think that's being condescending, I'm merely trying to hold you and your organisation to account. What are your politics.

I'm not going to criticise you for Stalin's crimes because the SP isn't a Stalinist organisation. However I think I am justified in criticising the SP for supporting Lenin and Trotsky's politics and actions. Likewise, you would be justified in criticising the WSM, a platformist organisation, for supporting the platformist tradition. (i.e. the Friend of Durruit group and the Dielos Truda group). And a lot of anarchists do do that. In fact so has the International Bolshevik Tendency. And that's justified. Because we are a platformist organisation.

You can't be a Troskyite and then say that Trotskyism and Leninism isn't important to your politics. It's dishonest.

Mark P
"Or alternatively we could argue about what the Socialist Party really do believe. I gave the following (entirely accurate) summary earlier in the thread: It's a basic, core, Marxist view that the capitalist state cannot be made use of to achieve a socialist society. Instead the Socialist Party takes the view that the capitalist state will have to be destroyed. Nor do we argue that the revolutionary party must sieze power itself. What we *do* argue is that the working class will have to then create its own state, organised through workers councils or similar institutions. Within those councils multiple political organisations will function, but in our view for a revolution to be succesful, members of the revolutionary party will have to act as the driving force, playing a leading role through convincing others of our ideas."

Well as I said I'm always sceptical of people who say what 'basic, core, Marxist views' are. Because there are a lot of varients on Marxism. And the SP doesn't have a monopoly on marxism.

Aside from that...the above seems quite un-objectible. However, it doesn't really clarify all that much.

"Nor do we argue that the revolutionary party must sieze power itself." But would you not accept that the revolutionary party can be justified in seizing power under certain circumstances, such as the circumstances that existed during the Russian civil war?

"members of the revolutionary party will have to act as the driving force, playing a leading role through convincing others of our ideas." How does the revolutionary party act as the driving force? What does it mean to be a "driving force"?

"What we *do* argue is that the working class will have to then create its own state, organised through workers councils or similar institutions." This is also very ambigous because it doesn't completely clarify what you mean by the state. Is it the case that workers institutions of power constitute the state, or do workers institutions of power need to be consolidated into forming a state? If the later how does this happen?

by hs Mon Feb 27, 2006 00:30

I think some of the anarchist commenters seem to see politics as fixed in stone, never changing, as in you views on Leninism, trotskyism or marxism. To argue as it seems the Sp in Ireland today with our small forces would have the same policies as the mass party bolshevics in the middle of a revolution and then civil war is a little strange. Parties and positions change (as Mark points out Trotsky himself changed opinion many times), parties move to the left to the right, sideways, grow shrink, make mistakes. No party is set in stone. In fact the SP itself started out as an "enterest" faction of the Labour Party. I would never have joined labour, or very unlikely even a labour faction. But I'm a member of the SP now. Politics and history doesn't stand still. Which is possibly a reaon of some of what I would see as anarchist mistakes, ie making historical tactics principles. (in my opinion) PS I never tried to make out the SP was "libertarian" in the anarchist sense of the word. But the party wanting to take over the state and set up a one party dictatorship? No we don't.

by TrotWatch Wed Mar 01, 2006 13:55

So the SP do not wish to cease power and set up a One Party State? I must have missed something, when did the SP cease to be Leininists and Trotskyists? Lenin and Trotsky set up a One Party State in which Trade Unions were neutered and all opposition groups were banned. Lenin and Trotsky both supported the banning of Factions within the Bolshevik Party. HS must be unaware of the true nature of the SP.

I notice that Joe Higgins has condemned the violence that occurred in Dublin last Saturday. I find this rather worrying because more and more the SP seem to be on the side of the Police whenever there is public disorder.

by Trotwatchwatcheryawn Wed Mar 01, 2006 18:50

Trotwatch, you have shown yourself to be a Labour supporter in the past, so having a go at the SP for "supporting the police" is a bit rich. Your party slavishly supports the authorities at every opportunity

by Mark P - Socialist Party (Personal Capacity) Wed Mar 08, 2006 12:19

I'm sorry for digging up a thread which had dropped off the radar more than a week ago, but I hadn't seen Ois's comments, which I think deserve a reply:

The first part of Ois's post again consists of an attempt to tell us what we think, rather than engaging with what we actually do think. For the third or fourth time on this thread - I have no problem with you calling the Socialist Party Trotskyist or Leninist or Marxist as long as such labels are not used in a religious sense, which implies agreement with every single thing any of those revolutionaries did or said or thought. All of those terms are contested.

What I find most strange about Ois's contribution is that he seems well aware that Marxism encompasses a range of different, often conflicting, views and political trends. Yet he insists on his right to ascribe a monolothic "Leninism" or "Trotskyism" of his own (or more broadly of the Anarchist movement's) devising to anyone or any organisation which situates itself within those traditions. The double standard is clear and hardly conducive to sensible engagement with other group's political ideas. I do not say that "Trotskyism and Leninism isn't important to my politics" or for that matter that Marxism is unimportant to my politics. Quite the opposite - I am proud to stand in those traditions. What I do say is that my understanding of those terms is very different to the Anarchist caricature, which is based on a scouring of texts for supposedly damning sentences and a complete disregard for context or material circumstances.

To be clear about this again: the Socialist Party does (and I would argue Lenin and Trotsky did, although that is irrelevant to my point) not believe that a revolution consists of a revolutionary party seizing power. Nor do we believe that a revolutionary state consists of a dictatorship exercised by a revolutionary party. We could hardly be clearer about that, and I've provided a few of the many extracts from our publications above to that effect. We think that disciplined revolutionary organisation (a party) will be necessary to provide leadership in a revolutionary situation, leadership which is based on developing the correct ideas and convincing others of those ideas. We do not think that the capitalist state can be used for socialist ends. Instead we think that it will have to be destroyed and the working class will have to create its own institutions of power.

And, because this seems despite repeated explanation to be the subject of some confusion, we think that those institutions of power will themselves be a state. The most democratic state which has ever existed, but a state nonetheless with the functions that implies - the protection of the rule of the working class from its enemies.

R.Isible asks some other questions which I think it is worth addressing before I abandon this thread back to its dusty fate.

1) How would we prevent bureaucratisation and the other problems which have arisin in revolutions? Well the first point here is that there are no guarantees in life apart from the fact that unplanned difficulties will arise. I think that it's important to realise that a modern socialist revolution would take place in very different circumstances to previous ones. In incomparably richer societies, without mass illiteracy or a peasant majority, with incredibly advanced technology including information technology. So part of the answer is that we will be dealing with a much better educated population with more time available to them and electronic means of communication. We, hopefully, won't be facing the kind of desperate shortages of food and material goods which lay at the root of so many of the problems of the Russian revolution for instance.

There are also important subjective factors to be taken into account. It is part of the Socialist Party's programme for instance that a revolution would see an immediate shortening of the working week so as to enable the widest participation in democratic structures. Another factor is the international organisation of revolutionary forces so as to avoid the isolation and siege conditions which were the single biggest problem in most previous revolutionary situations. Another is the insistence on avoiding any material advantages for delegates or functionaries of any kind and on operating a system of immediate recall. This is a subject which deserves a discussion of its own, for all that it is somewhat speculative at this stage.

2) You do believe that you can use the state in the short term by taking part in elections right? Well, yes and no. We think that elections and elected positions provide us with a useful platform which we can use to spread our views. We do not think, even in the short term, that elected positions in and of themselves allow us to change anything much.

by Ois - WSM Wed Mar 08, 2006 19:22

The first part of Ois's post again consists of an attempt to tell us what we think, rather than engaging with what we actually do think.

No it doesn't. It consists of me saying that Leninism does stand for something, and asking you to explain what in, if anything, in the leninist tradition you support. It also consists of me saying that if you are leninists then it is legitimate to criticise you on the basis of you leninist politics, i.e. on the basis of what lenin said and did.

What I find most strange about Ois's contribution is that he seems well aware that Marxism encompasses a range of different, often conflicting, views and political trends. Yet he insists on his right to ascribe a monolothic "Leninism" or "Trotskyism" of his own (or more broadly of the Anarchist movement's) devising to anyone or any organisation which situates itself within those traditions. The double standard is clear and hardly conducive to sensible engagement with other group's political ideas.

Saying that Leninists believe in the Lenin's politics should not be a controversial thing to say. And indeed I know that there are divergences within Leninism (Trotskyism, Maoism and Stalinism would be a few obvious examples). But you state clearly that the form of Leninism you support is Trotskyism. And yes there are divergences within trotskyism (Tichtin, Cliff, Juan R Posadas, to name a few that diverged quite significantly from orthodox Trotskyism). But they still all believe in the Leninist theory of the party, the leninist theory of the state and the leninist theory of the role of the party during a revolution. (Well actually I don't know about Posadas, find out about him here: http://www.forteantimes.com/articles/176_trots.shtml )

my understanding of those terms is very different to the Anarchist caricature, which is based on a scouring of texts for supposedly damning sentences and a complete disregard for context or material circumstances.

It's not a caricature. And it's not out of context. Most of anarchism's theoretical problems with leninism come from the fact that we were there and we and other libertarian communists were involved directly or indirectly with polemics with Lenin and Trotsky. You don't believe me State and Revolution devotes a whole chapter to the anarchist theory of the state (a chapter where he mis-represents us). Left-wing communism: an infantile disorder was a polemic against libertarian communists. It's not out of context. Indeed in my last post I gave a link to Otto Ruhle's 'The fight against fascism begins with the fight against bolshevism'. Ruhle's tendency the KAPD was one of tendencies Lenin polemicised against in Left-wing communism: an infantile disorder and 'The fight against fascism begins with the fight against bolshevism' was essentially a response that was published a few years later.

As for Trotsky, my personal favourite critique of Trotsky was that coming from Raya Dunayevskaya, Trotsky's secretary thoughout the 30's who went on to develop the theory of Marxist-Humanism http://www.marxists.org/archive/dunayevskaya/

Don't say that I'm making this up or that anarchists are building a straw man we aren't. Many if not most anarchists in Ireland are ex-Leninists. We know what we're talking about.

As for "material circumstances".....well I'll be kind and ignore that.

You recognise that my post had two parts but you've completely ignored the second part where I ask you to explain some of your phrases. These are valid questions and please don't answer them with a more platitudes.

Here are the questions again.......

"Nor do we argue that the revolutionary party must sieze power itself." But would you not accept that the revolutionary party can be justified in seizing power under certain circumstances, such as the circumstances that existed during the Russian civil war?

"members of the revolutionary party will have to act as the driving force, playing a leading role through convincing others of our ideas." How does the revolutionary party act as the driving force? What does it mean to be a "driving force"?

"What we *do* argue is that the working class will have to then create its own state, organised through workers councils or similar institutions." This is also very ambigous because it doesn't completely clarify what you mean by the state. Is it the case that workers institutions of power constitute the state, or do workers institutions of power need to be consolidated into forming a state? If the later how does this happen?

by Mark P - Socialist Party (personal cap) Wed Mar 08, 2006 22:22

This is getting extremely repetitious.

Repeatedly on this thread anarchists have tried to ascribe their caricature of Leninism or Trotskyism to me and to the Socialist Party. You have decided what "Leninism" or "Trotskyism" is, and it basically boils down to some Machiavellian scheme to sieze control of the state and exercise a party dictatorship. Then you would have us to go along some check list of your devising telling you which bits we agree with and which bits we disagree with. I realise that it would make things much easier for you if we were to play along with such intellectual dishonesty but unfortunately for you that is not our politics and I feel absolutely no need to genuflect to anarchist sacred cows.

Once more, for about the eighth (!) time on this thread, the Socialist Party stands in the broad tradition of Marx, Engels, Lenin, Trotsky, Luxemburg, Connolly and many other revolutionaries. We have no problem with being called Marxists or Trotskyists or Leninists as long as such a description is not taken as equivalent to a religious description like Christian or Buddhist. All of the revolutionaries we would claim as our predecessors made contributions to revolutionary theory and practice as well as various mistakes. All of them also changed their ideas throughout their lifetimes and left overlapping, sometimes contradictory, sometimes ambiguous legacies. I don't like having to repeat myself so often, but sadly it appears to be necessary if some people are going to insist on ignoring this point.

You rather plaintively declare that "saying that Leninists believe in Lenin's politics should not be controversial" as if "Lenin's politics" wasn't one of the most hotly contested terms on the left. The Socialist Party does agree with much, though by no means of all, of "Lenin's politics", but as we understand those politics not as anarchists or right wingers or Stalinists or various others understand them. Much the same can be said for "Trotsky's politics", "Marx's politics" or "Luxemburg's politics".

Ois for instance demands to know whether we "agree with the Leninist theory of the party" as if we hadn't already had this exchange and he hadn't already ignored my response. For the record here it is again: Which "Leninist theory of the party" are we talking about? Lenin's views as expressed in What is to be Done - a book which the Socialist Party thinks has a great deal to recommend to it, but which we certainly don't take whole as some kind of permanent blueprint? Lenin's other polemics on the subject, in which at different times he argued a range of different things? The actual practice of the Bolsheviks between the split with the Mensheviks and the October Revolution, which was different again? The practice of the Bolsheviks after the revolution in increasingly dire circumstances of siege and social collapse? The theory and practice of the Left Opposition? The experiences of the Socialist Party and the the CWI? Or, and I think this is the most important in this context, some much cherished anarchist caricature of the "Leninist theory of the party"?

You see Ois, all I can do is lay out what the Socialist Party regards as the role of a revolutionary party, which is to organise those workers who have come to see the need for a socialist revolution, in as disciplined and effective a way as we can manage. Which is to prepare for a revolutionary situation and to do as best it can to arm the working class with revolutionary ideas, a programme in other words. Which is to learn from and absorb the lessons of each episode in the history of the working class movement as we go along. Which is to inspire and offer leadership to the working class in a revolution, through developing, and winning people to, correct ideas and actions. That's what we think a revolutionary party is for, and we also think that fits squarely within the Leninist, Trotskyist and Marxist traditions.

Similarly, you demand to know whether the "institutions of workers power" I described would be the state, as if I hadn't already answered this question. Again, to save you the bother of looking back up the thread here was my answer: We do not think that the capitalist state can be used for socialist ends. Instead we think that it will have to be destroyed and the working class will have to create its own institutions of power. And, because this seems despite repeated explanation to be the subject of some confusion, we think that those institutions of power will themselves be a state. The most democratic state which has ever existed, but a state nonetheless with the functions that implies - the protection of the rule of the working class from its enemies. This is not ambiguous, by any means. And nor was my description of how a revolutionary party must be the driving force in a revolutionary situation, given that I explained that in the very same sentence: It must play a leading role through winning people to correct ideas and actions.

I was a little amused by your diversions into Trotskyist sectariana and boasting about anarchist knowledge of Lenin's polemics. In fact I was tempted to reply in kind, but this time around, rather than taking the debate into areas which are sure to be of interest to very few, I'll let it go with a reminder that it isn't wise to try to patronise people without making very sure that they are in fact ignorant of the issues you are talking about. I was more strongly tempted to go on the offensive, pointing out the inconsistencies and idiocies and fuzzy thinking at the heart of anarchism but there's plenty of time for that in future discussions.

by Ois - WSM Thu Mar 09, 2006 01:16

I wasn't trying to patronise you. But you constant assertions that I am offering a 'caricature of Leninism or Trotskyism', that anarchists are making it up is as you put it 'getting extremely repetitious'. I only wanted to show that we aren't making it up. A hell of a lot of anarchists are ex-leninists. Even more have read lenin. My 'boasting about anarchist knowledge of Lenin's polemics' was to make this point: It is NOT a caricature. In fact, constantly acting as if anarchists only exposure to leninist theory and practice is through our 'caricatures' is patronising.

This is, indeed, getting repitious. I asked for 3 rather simple clarifications. But you have failed to answer with much more than repititions of what I was asking you to clarify.

The first request for clarification:
"Nor do we argue that the revolutionary party must sieze power itself." But would you not accept that the revolutionary party can be justified in seizing power under certain circumstances, such as the circumstances that existed during the Russian civil war?
You have simply completely ignored.

The second request for clarification:
"members of the revolutionary party will have to act as the driving force, playing a leading role through convincing others of our ideas." How does the revolutionary party act as the driving force? What does it mean to be a "driving force"?

You answered this with saying that you act the role of the revolutionary party...
is to organise those workers who have come to see the need for a socialist revolution, in as disciplined and effective a way as we can manage. Which is to prepare for a revolutionary situation and to do as best it can to arm the working class with revolutionary ideas, a programme in other words. Which is to learn from and absorb the lessons of each episode in the history of the working class movement as we go along. Which is to inspire and offer leadership to the working class in a revolution, through developing, and winning people to, correct ideas and actions.

Aside from the last sentence which sounds very familiar this reply at least says something partially new albeit in a rather, for me at least, confusing way.

I'm a bit confused by this "organise those workers who have come to see the need for a socialist revolution, in as disciplined and effective a way as we can manage." Does this mean that all socialist workers should be organised into the SP, or does it mean outside the SP? If it is the latter should you not be organising the entire working class not simply those "who have come to see the need for a socialist revolution".

"Which is to prepare for a revolutionary situation and to do as best it can to arm the working class with revolutionary ideas, a programme in other words." seems to clarify things a bit. It suggests, although I may be reading into this, that you see the party as an organisation that arms the working class with a programme. Does this mean that you view the programme from coming outside the working class?

The third request for clarification:
"What we *do* argue is that the working class will have to then create its own state, organised through workers councils or similar institutions." This is also very ambigous because it doesn't completely clarify what you mean by the state. Is it the case that workers institutions of power constitute the state, or do workers institutions of power need to be consolidated into forming a state? If the later how does this happen?

You answered with this:

Similarly, you demand to know whether the "institutions of workers power" I described would be the state, as if I hadn't already answered this question.

No I didn't I asked you to clarify what you meant by state.

we think that those institutions of power will themselves be a state....This is not ambiguous, by any means.

You said this before, and yes it is ambigous. I don't understand exactly what you mean, and I asked you to clarify your position. (Although my request for clarification was not itself all that clear!) Stating you position again and then stating that it's perfectly clear doesn't get us anywhere. And it is, much to your distain, repetitious.

My question was how do these institutions of power become the state? Anarchists say they don't*, Marxists say they do. How does the multitude of co-existing forms workers power in a post-revolutionary society acquire and excercise a monopoly of violence? Or does it already have a monopoly of violence? And if that's the case I'm even more confused.

*Or rather that if they do then they cease to be 'institutions of workers power'.

by Tank Girl Thu Mar 09, 2006 13:48

if IAWM stewards move in on the Red n Black Bloc and start issuing orders and pushing people around? It might be an idea to meet a bit earlier and have a quick discussion on best to deal with any goon behaviour by the SWP/SP/IAWM.

by jack white - wsm Thu Mar 09, 2006 14:12

Tank Girl said: "What happens if IAWM stewards move in on the Red n Black Bloc and start issuing orders and pushing people around? It might be an idea to meet a bit earlier and have a quick discussion on best to deal with any goon behaviour by the SWP/SP/IAWM."

In the past IAWM stewards have tried to direct sections of the crowd under the Grassroots/whatever banners. When its explained who we are they leave us alone. This isn't something i would worry about.

by ... Thu Mar 09, 2006 15:50

What are the SPs views then on the repressive state apparatus e.g. the police ? and in a post revolutionary society? Are they still 'workers in uniform' ? In what way would workers militias, if they even existed, be organised/structured? As the SP/Trotskyists don't seem to have a very good analysis of power/Power or how it operates. They seem rather neutral on the subject. Since they still haven't answered the question on the state, maybe these questions are premature.

by Tank Girl Thu Mar 09, 2006 15:56

Given the SP attitude to the FAIR/Love Ulster Demo it shopuld be obvious. If the cops attack the Red n Black Bloc then the SP will find reasons to support it. Maybe some marcher will have jostled a photographer.

by young anarch@ Mon Mar 13, 2006 18:26

The cops will have no reason to attack the RnB bloc.

by weatherman Thu Mar 16, 2006 15:09

Hangovers all around I assume?

Could we not just skip straight to the anarchist youth film and fuck the march..

by dunk Thu Mar 16, 2006 15:16

dont just do something > plant spuds, grow gardens, raise further discussion about food miles, demonstrate alternatives, broaqden the network, make greenways and cpuls, grow and grow them:

as well as going out on streets on saturday, come and join and work with the gardeners in dolphins barn:
Sowing spuds on Saint Patrick's Day
http://www.indymedia.ie/article/74816

or if next week is better, help the phibsboro crew: http://www.indymedia.ie/article/74524

by Old Timer Thu Mar 16, 2006 15:25

The cops dont need a reason to attack the R&B Block. They didnt need a reason to attack RTS in May 2002. But if they get the slightest excuse they will certainly do so on Saturday that is why we have to be extra careful. They will be aiming to get revenge for 25 February and they dont care whose heads they bust.