A reply to the Socialist Party on opposing sectarianism

by henry silke Wed Jul 17, 2002 02:15

Hi brian, I heard you were at the RC youth conference, if you are writing anything up on it will you send it my way. [email protected]
sorry 'bout the unorthodox method of communication! But while I'm here! bye

by Brian Cahill - Socialist Party Tue Jul 16, 2002 15:56

A couple of posters above accuse the Socialist Party of trying to close off debate on the North by describing those we disagree with as sectarians. They then spend most of the rest of their posts trying to smear us as apologists for the UVF. Those with an appreciation of irony might find that a little amusing.

There is a further irony:

Most people reading Indymedia will have little idea who "Socialist Democracy" are. They should count themselves lucky. Socialist Democracy are a group of six or so republican activists who spent most of the troubles providing left wing sounding excuses for whatever murderous idiocy the IRA were behind that week. Their British sister organisation was infamously fond of the slogan "Victory to the IRA".

To be accused of having illusions in sectarian murderers by these people is a very strange experience.

For the record, the Socialist Party has never viewed the PUP as socialist. It is not a socialist organisation, it never has been and it has never to my knowledge claimed to be one.

by Joe Craig - Socialist Democracy Tue Jul 16, 2002 11:23

The comrade fom the Socialist Party is unfortunately still unwilling to accept responsibility for the policy which the SP had and for which it has at no time accounted for or rejected. It appears it has no intention of doing either because we are now being told it didn't have this policy. So what was/is this policy? It was not that the SP sought a dialogue with the left of the PUP/UVF (what on earth is the left of sectarian muder squads?). The SP, and this is the difference between them and Sinn Fein, endorsed the PUP as socialist and welcolmed their introducing socialism into the protestant working class. At public meeetings in Belfast and Dublin they openly stated that they knew exactly who these people were and accused those who opposed their policy as sectarian, rather as the SP does now.

This is what happens when you fail to identify the cause and nature of sectarianism. You end up endorsing the most vile sectarian murderers as socialists and those who oppose sectrainism as sectarian themselves!

It is not Socialist Democracy that views things in communal terms but the SP. For us the determining power in the north is imperialism which is responsible for the sectarian nature of the state, for the paramilitary loyalist gangs that defend it and the division of the working class. Because the SP views imperialism as entirely secondary (if it factors it in at all) sectarianism can only be explained as coming from 'the two sides.' Even the terminology of the 'two sides' gives the game away since it already excludes the British state from responsibility.

Unless the SP accounts for its shameful endorsement of the PUP/UVF (or its non-existent left wing)as socialist it has no part to play in overcoming sectarianism. Anyone serious about combating sectarianism among the protestant working class knows that the PUP/UVF is an enemy, the most virulent sectarian organisation that has to be struggled against. If the PUP/UVF, with their catalogue of sectarian murder - shankill butchers, murder of the three Quin children etc etc - are not the sectarians I can't think who on earth would qualify.

Time for the SP to own up.

by red Tue Jul 16, 2002 03:18

"PUP/UVF are actually socialists! (It is worth noting that the SP are totally dishonest on this question and always officially deny that they hold this position)."

You make this much more cryptic than reality.
We never said (or or didn't say) the PUP or UVF were socialist, we simply engaged what was an opening in the left within the pup, as we did with sinn fein (which doesn't bother anyone). Since than what opportunity was there at the time, isn't anymore, the sectarians won the civil war (as within republicanism) so shouldn't we have tried? I think we should, if we hadn't nothing would be much different. We will always be open to people on all sides of the divide. That is the difference between us and left republicans. We are not republicans full stop.
And none of this is a secret or hidden in anyway and we are not ashmed of it. You put this forward like it was a dark secret, it wasn't. We are socialists not nationalists and we take socialist positions. SD unfortunately is tailing republicanism, and whatever about us, if I wanted to be in a republican party I would simply join SF.
And I don't mean any of this in an insulting way.

by red Tue Jul 16, 2002 03:06

I took part in the earlier debate, and I at no point insulted anyone. Or attacked anyone. I simply made the point that only opposing one side of sectarianism can be thought to be sectarian by the other side, whicheverside. We are not supporters or aplologists of loyalist sectaianism, or for that matter nationalist sectarianism. We opened up a dialoge with the left within the PUP along with the left in Sinn Fein, we organised debates between them. Okay it didn't work out, but was it such a crime to try? Leftists talk forever about unity across religious lines but very seldem do anything about it. One thing we can safely say is that small as we are our members come from both sides of the religious divide and again we make no apologies for putting a socialist rather than republican point across. Unfortunately I believe the USFI is tailing republicanism. The USFI has traditionally supported uncritically national liberation movements and usually dropped any socialist policies in the process. This to me seems more of the same even in a case where we are dealing with a communal civil conflict as much as a natioanl struggle, more so in reality.
I think you need to look at the USFI policies globally to see why it holds such an unsocialistic and communal position. I think comrades in the irish section should be much more critical of the leadership.