Bertie: Not Waving, Drowning: SWP analysis of the election

by ooooo Fri Jun 08, 2007 12:18

The SWP are Ireland's biggest Political Joke. Fair play to Boyd Barrett on his vast number of votes, but his descision to contest the election under the People Before Profit banner highlights to inadequate nature of the SWP. On the whole the Irish left rejects their involvement. Frankly, nobody wants to her Kieran Allen's analysis, on the basis that his party's candidates were too ashamed to run under the SWP Banner

by the swp - wont set me free Fri Jun 08, 2007 12:31

QUOTE 'The right wing and cynics on the left attack such formations as inevitable ‘fronts’ for parties like SWP. Such an approach, however, feeds off an older anti-communist culture, which spots a left wing manipulation in almost every serious struggle.'

i suppose i am not surprised by this statement, because it never ceases to amaze me how while the SWP calls for a 'new left' it repeats the rhetoric and insulting actions of its past

by Dub Fri Jun 08, 2007 12:40

Richard Boyd Barrett, Joe Higgins and Ivana Bacik were on RTE Radio 1's Pat Kenny show this morning (hosted by Rodney Rice). RBB argued that a new left formation should have the pushing of Labour, Greens and SF to the left as a key aim. He seems to be benchmarking his politics off Labour and the Greens! Throughout the interview RBB described Labour and Greens as 'the left'. Joe Higgins & RBB argued in favour of a new formation for the left. But Joe Higgins did not refer to Labour and Greens when describing such a formation's politics. In fact, Higgins was strongly critical of these parties. Higgins said that Greens are not left wing and that Labour are unsalvagable. Bacik was supportive of coalition as a way for left-wingers to gain influence and power. At one stage when Rodney Rice asked about the right-ward drift of the Social Democratic parties in Europe, RBB said that the German and Portugese Social Democratic Parties did not turn to the right! RBB then went on to say that Spain's government are anti-war and 'socialist'.

In this interview Bacik was the most right-wing (ie supportive of coalitionism), Joe Higgins was clearly sticking to his politics and was critical of Labour/Greens, RBB was somewhat in-between. RBB was unclear on his position on the politics of Labour/Greens. RBB only used word 'socialist' when describing Spain's government.

by Seeing the light Fri Jun 08, 2007 12:41

"This type of non-sectarian, open formation that comes out of movements of struggle is now the key for the Irish left. The task is to build People Before Profit in as broad and as rapid a way as possible."

Way to go Kieran. How very unsectarian of you to tell us what our task is. Funny how that task is to build the formation of the SWP's choosing. How will this building go? Along the lines of the IAWM? Will RBB be el presidento for life?

by Jolly Red Giant - Socialist Party/CWI Fri Jun 08, 2007 14:03

Aside from McGuirk's usual condecending attitude, this interview confirms my ongoing surprise over the inability of RBB to actually express political ideas in a media setting. RBB might make a decent speech but his has shown repeatedly since the begining of the election that in an interview situation he is sadly lacking.

After condemning the LP and the Social Democratic parties around Europe for most of the 1970's and 1980's they have done an about turn and call on the LP to be moved back to the left - precisely during the period when the possibility of such an eventuality can be completely discounted. The SWP's position seems confused and completely lacking any basis in the situation on the ground.

by Dub Fri Jun 08, 2007 14:09

I may have had presenter wrong, could indeed have been McGuirk. Anyway, I was surprised at RBB's praise of SD parties in Germany, Portugal and Spain. FFS in Germany the SDP are in coalition with CDU. In previous SDP Government they were laying the boot into post-war social reforms such as social welfare and unemployment benefits. The SDP in Germany were responsible for Hertz IV 'reforms' of social welfare. This is RBB's model..... I guess it's more open then his previous support for the Social Democrats in Sweden and Denmark (also responsible for similar 'reforms').

by DR Runts Fri Jun 08, 2007 15:11

Interesting take on things by the SWP. They are oviously trying to push the PBP alliance as some form of model for future developments. I think they have overestimated the nature of the vote they recieved and what it signifies. When Kierna Allen "Snide sectarian attacks on this vote as representing a ‘liberal middle class’ that is not based on ‘working class communities and socialist politics’ are totally wrong." I think that the class nature of the vote does have a validity to it. If you stand on a broad platform you will recieve a broad vote as your vote is exactly that - broad. I do believe they recieved votes from working class areas but whether this vote is just a fluid transitory vote that has no basis is a very pertient question. Precisely because it asks what is the liklihood of it being repeated. This is a vallid question that the SWP must answer.

In an article in the Irish Times yesterday Richard Boyd Barret, talking about a re-alliance on the left says "The socialist lefts' failure to ditch bad habits of ideological and organisational dogmatism also remain a major block to its advance." Now I do think organisational dogmatism is an issue and any serious socialist from my reading of socialist and marxist thought believe organisation is flexible and depends on the concrete situation. Whether this is entry in the Social Democracy, open work or broad formations - these depends concretely on the objective conditions. However what is interesting in RBB's remarks is the "ideological" dogma. This to be sounds like revisionism. One thing that can be said for the marxist left is that ideology plays a crucial role - they are ideologically driven (the PDs are the right-wing equavialent). Does RBB and the SWP think dropping the socialist ideology is the way forward. In a conversation with a friend of mine he told me of a conversation between a women and RBB and Kierna Allen in which she challenged them on the dropping of socialism by the SWP in the PBP alliance material. To this Kieran Allen replied that it was "losing them votes." I'm not trolling or stirring it up, this converstation took place. I'm using it as an example of the pragmatism of the SWP leadership which seems to match with the dropping of "ideological" dogma

by Emer F Fri Jun 08, 2007 16:17

"I do believe they recieved votes from working class areas but whether this vote is just a fluid transitory vote that has no basis is a very pertient question"

I suggest restraint from issuing further sectarian sweeping statements with regard to a transitory vote in Dun Laoighre . Why not employ some pragmatism andcome back after the next Election when we are then in possession of those figures which will allow us to compare and analyse improvements, progression and/or otherwise instead of posting weak speculative statements that can neither be endorsed nor totally rubbished at this juncture...
Only Time will tell and the fact is so much time is consumed on this forum by a small group who are peaved they cannot grasp what constitutes electoral/political strategy and therefore dismiss it as dogmatism,in my humble opinion.

Any prudent political mind will understand in order to advance a set of ideologies the best way is to unite with like minded people who may not share identical featues but subscribe to the main threads of that ideology.
Not only is this a strategy but common sense and if people cannot overcome this purported and perceived underhandedness then really there is no point in even fuelling this arguement any further but to the more open minded readers; it is not a true reflection of what being active in left politics is really like.

When and if Kieran Allen did say that the "Socialist" cannotation was losing votes, I cannot read his mind but would surmise there is obviously potential to draw in left minded people who may be non-party etc and therefore would consider joining a group of Republicans, Community Activists, Socialists etc on issue based campaigns. Of course if all components in this Alliance do not identify themselves as Socialist it would not be fair to brand it as such and this would not be an accurate reflection on the Alliances' composition.

The fact that People Before Profit has done this impressively with Brid Smith in Ballyfermot and Richard Boyd Barrett in Dun Laoighre,especially delivering for the Alliance, endorses this view that indeed there is plenty of potential to build future campaigns and gain electorally far and wide on common issues.

by anon Fri Jun 08, 2007 16:33

The PBPA results

RBB did very well in Dun Laoighaire.

Brid Smith did sort of okay in DSC (though nowhere near a seat).

Gino Kenny avoided embarrassment in DMW (just over 1000 votes)

Rory Hearne did dismally in DSE (about 500)

Carmel McKenna did dismally in Wicklow (couple of hundred)

So, really, RBB is the only show in town here, though Brid (if she can hold most of her vote - doubtful because of Jackson and others), has an outside shot an a council seat in two years time.

Look, the SWP are really getting a bit carried away here. If you exclude RBB, the PBPA outing was rather poor. So, I do wish they'd lay off with the sage advice to the rest of us.

by chekov Fri Jun 08, 2007 16:36

"I suggest restraint from issuing further sectarian sweeping statements....the fact is so much time is consumed on this forum by a small group who are peaved [sic] they cannot grasp what constitutes electoral/political strategy and therefore dismiss it as dogmatism,in my humble opinion."

The approach of Emer F's above post boiled down:

1. Don't identify your obvious political affiliation.
2. Use high-faluting phrases (partially correctly) to sound like you are a person of learning
3. Ignore own high-minded advice and launch a sweepingly broad and not at all humble attack on an unidentified small group.
4. Claim that those who disagree with you are just too thick to understand your obvious rightness.

As full as honesty and principle as ever, I see.
[incidentally, I have nothing to say about the content of the article, I'm merely commenting on the terribly low approach to argument taken above]

by DR Runts Fri Jun 08, 2007 16:45

"I suggest restraint from issuing further sectarian sweeping statements" - I honestly wasn't trying to make a sectarian statement, I was throwing out an idea for people to consider, think about and reflect upon. It was a good vote I haven't denied that, all I'm questioning is how solid is this vote. As you say time will tell, but if we left everything for time to tell why bother trying to analyse or understand anything? Think about it.

For any genuine left and particularily socialist or marxist to not try and understand the class content of events or in this case a vote could be very remiss. The class content of every event, struggle, campaign and election determines the process of that struggle, its content and its outcome. Trotsky was very clear on this point. For the SWP to ignore it would be fruitless on their part. This is the essence of my point.

The question of an alliance and its programme is important aswell. Again like class content the ideass of a programme or a grouping have an impact on its development orientation etc. I have no problem with broad formations as long as the socialist elements push socialist ideas and arguments. Otherwise it is baseless in my opinion.

by IT reader Fri Jun 08, 2007 16:46

That Dun Laoghaire was one of the constituencies that is probably constitutionally over represented. So the bar might be a bit higher the next time.

by wageslave Fri Jun 08, 2007 16:47

IMHO Everyone should read this guide before discussing anything on indy !! :)

http://c2.com/cgi/wiki?ConversationalChaff

by tom eile Fri Jun 08, 2007 20:18

Why does Dr Allen’s article discuss the election without saying anything about the international context in which it took place and insist on some parochial uniqueness and unusualness in Irish politics ? It’s because, by highlighting local concerns in the election through the People Before Profits Alliance , the SWP smothered the anti war message that needed to be put across at this most perilous juncture in world history. All of the left was mistaken in orientating to local concerns during the election ,but the SWP because of its prominence in the IAWM, played a particularly insidious role.
At a time when serious commentators on the right wing as well as the left are talking about the very real possibility of nuclear weapons being used somewhere in the world within the near future ,the SWP was able to steer the steering committee of the Irish Anti War Movement into following its carefully constructed line of "Make the war an election Issue " This line with its use of the indefinite rather than definite article gave Boyd-Barrett liberty to campaign on issues such as the Fight to save Dun Laoghaire Water Front instead of fighting on an unambiguously anti war platform.
In following this line -even using the exact same insipid phrase as the SWP did - the IAWM proved itself to be incapable of articulating let alone organizing a serious response to the threat posed to humanity by war.

by margin walker Mon Jun 11, 2007 20:49

It seems the big left loser of the election is the anti war movement. RBBs position as chair of the org has been the platform from which his campaign was launched. I went to a meeting he chaired a few months back down on Abbey st. In his presentation he claimed that there are no death squads operating in Iraq and inferred that the murder of civilians which appeared to be the work of sectarian gangs was down to the brits and americans. Now there is absolutely mountains of evidence from reliable reporters and organisations, sources who are anti war and absolutely not in the service of the imperialists, to conclude that Iraq is well into a period of civil war and sectarian chaos. I asked RBB where he got his info and he told me it came from people he'd met (muslims!) at a conference in Cairo. I assumed this was party business and he didnt disabuse me of the idea. I heard him repeat the same canard from the podium at an (unsurprisingly very small) anti war demo. neither left nor right but into the dail by whatever means necessary. I feel for the voters who almost elected this guy. Party before people before profit.

by hs - sp (personal capacity) Tue Jun 12, 2007 11:45

There is no doubht that the swp did very well in the elections with a number of credible votes and the near election of RBB. It can be spun anyway at all, but this is a fact. I would have an issue of them not standing under their own name ; as this is basically dishonest however which way that is spun. I think it's a mistake on their part as, I think people vote on local issues and local work on the ground and probably they would have taken a pretty similar vote under their own name. I don't quite go for the completely "liberal" vote analysis, as primarily we would have to look through the tallies to see this and poll on people's reasons for voting SWP. It could well have been a leftist protest vote. After all Ciaran Cuffe covered the liberal green vote quite well. I don't think their is enough information to put forward that analysis definitively, and as such the vote cannot be written off.

The problems of the swp have had in organisations such as the IAWM would be unlikely to have had have much affect on their election, as activists within such organisations are often supporters anyway and many of those truly alienated already have alegiences with other parties/ideologies. Most voters would be unaware of the various contraversies of the party. A number of years ago the SP produced a document about the swp which primarily complained about the party's leapfrogging to different campaignings without sticking to them; and in the process alienating those who took part in such campaigns with them. It looks as if at least RBB and Brid Smith have stuck to their campaigns over the last few years, and this shows shows in their much improved results, during an especially rough election for smaller parties. It should be noted they also recieved little or no media coverage before the elections.

On the other hand it could besaid that they are losing much of their old studentish ultra-radical base (anarchism seems to be more prevelant here) as that demographic is less likely to be involved with less exciting and local work. In short the SWP are in the process of what can be a somewhat confusing and contradictory (from the outside at least) change. The party is certainly reaching out compared to ten years ago, and it is sticking to it's campaigns.

On the negative side the party doesn't seem to have dropped; at least going by various complaints from the IAWM etc, it's over centralised nature,(a problem with much of the left in general) and it's old habits of fronting rather than putting their own name forward. Which I think are mistakes, as both lead to serious distrust and actually prevent the very unity they are trying to achieve. Its politics too are certainly moving more to the centre, whether this too is a front or an actual move is questionable, though it may be contended even if it is a front, the party would proably be trapped within it if it wins the support of local activists on that platform. "A united fron of a special kind" is a pretty meaningless statement. Though the swp may say it is watering down principle to reach out to unallinged activists, it could quite easily through the recruitment of such activists married with their own members pushing such policies eventually come to adopt them itself. In fact it's difficult to see it not doing so.

Would be interested to hear from members of the swp on that analysis.

hs

by hs - sp Wed Jun 13, 2007 22:42

The Greens in government with FF opens up the situation a little, though liberal etc they would have been seen as a party of the left by most. It will be interesting to see how they deal with enviormental issues looming as well as issues such as Tara and Shannon and Shell to Sea, and how and if this will effect their support. A party of protest newly in power can be alot more nervous than more experienced parties of power.

by Jolly Red Giant - Socialist Party/CWI Wed Jun 13, 2007 23:52

The PBP ran five candidates in the election - two received 'credible' votes. Brid Smyth and RBB.

Taking RBB's vote first - yes the 5,500 votes was a substantial vote and although he recevied this good vote he was never in a position to win the seat. The vote RBB received was not a 'leftist protest vote'. There were no leftist protest votes in the election - anywhere. Again we don't know if it was a 'liberal' vote and in reality this is not the key question. The question posed - is this vote solid or is it liable to drift away at the next election. RBB will certainly be helped by the fact that the GP are now in government but we will have to wait to see the impact of this.

In my opinion Brid Smyth's vote appears more solid that RBB's. It appears to be primarily a working class vote and the result of work on the bin tax. It is suggested that a lot of the vote could possibly have come from an independent councillor in Ballyfermot, Vincent Jackson, but this could potentially be better for the swp.

I would also disagree with the suggestion that the swp/pbp received little or no media coverage. In comparisn to others on the left they got a significant amount of coverage. With the possible exception of Joe Higgins (and it would be necessary to check to be sure), RBB received more coverage than anyone else - particularly in the aftermath of the leaking of information about who his mother is. For several days he received widespread coverage in all the national media.

As regards the SWP undergoing a process of change - yes they are - however, is this a change for the better?

In my opinion the SWP are not interested in unity as such, but a regroupment of the left that they can dominate numerically. With regards the political direction of the SWP I would suggest that you read up on what has been happening with RESPECT in Britain and with the WASG in Germany. There is no question about the political direction of the SWP - to the 'centre'. Even for the SWP it would be a serious stretch of imagination to suggest that behind all the current political positions of the SWP that behind it all they are merely putting up a soft left front while maintaining their revolutionary zeal within the party itself. They have already adopted the policies you are suggesting that they could come to adopt.

And I do not believe you will see any analysis from a member of the SWP on this - because they don't have one (at least not one that is coherent).

by E1 SWP - swp Thu Jun 14, 2007 10:51

Oh dam it all your right. The truth about the vote.... Every vote garnered by Sp was a vote for revolution and the transitional programme, the immediate overthrow of capitalism and armed workers revolt. The SP leaflets made it clear that a vote for them meant a insurrection the following day.
The pbp /SWP/ middle class campaign jumpers got a transitional vote, from wealthy middle class voters cause they luvved RBB, it will go away, they will go away, we are the only gays in the village, I mean the only socialists in the village.
Thank you.

by Dub Thu Jun 14, 2007 11:25

Of course in elections where you get the votes you cannot determine. Indeed I'm sure among Joe Higgins' votes or Clare Daly's votes or John O'Neill's votes there are seriously wealthy people who are far from working class. They probably voted for their own reasons or personal convictions.

The POINT IS: it's all about orientation. SP, ISN and a few other indepednent socialists were clear about their socialism. They did not compromise their politics so that it can get the ear of a few well-off middle class types. I read Clare Daly's leaflets. She is clear about the need for socialism (not done in a ultra left way- armed insurrection etc). She was also clear about other topics that may be 'tricky' for getting votes. eg Abortion (PBP had no position on it in their literature)

E1's point about "armed insurrection" shows a very infantile 'bar stool' understanding of socialist revolution. If you think the argument for socialism can only be portrayed in a "armed insurrection, lets get barricades going" way shows SWP's immaturity and lack of serious internal debate over how socialism can be achieved. For them socialism is something not to be discussed outside of internal meetings, and never to be mentioned on the doors with working people!!

Won't be long until the Greens are outside a SWP meeting asking them not to go into government!!

by hs - sp pc Thu Jun 14, 2007 15:10

its not about people voting for "revolution", its about basic honesty. Joe is in the SP, he stands for the Sp and is open about it. For whatever reason the SWP members who stood in the election hid their actual party affiliation. I can only presume to try and get more votes. I contend that it won't work as people don't vote for socialists for E's reasons above. But for work on the ground, therefore E's party members are hiding their actual party membership for little or no reason and open themselves up to accusations of dishonesty.
hs

by R. Isible Thu Jun 14, 2007 15:23

The Greens in government with FF opens up the situation a little, though liberal etc they would have been seen as a party of the left by most.

HS, there is clear evidence that the greens are not on the left. See the partial and incomplete list of very public anti-left positions taken by the Greens on the front page:
http://www.indymedia.ie/article/83003

Admittedly the analysis will be slightly confusing for you given that some elements of the SP joined in the reactionary attack on the only credible attempts made to actually stop the Shannon Warport from operating. Electoralism and the parliamentary route drained a viable social movement of energy for short-lived, petty party advantage.

by Mark P - Socialist Party (personal capacity) Thu Jun 14, 2007 15:50

R.Isible, you will find the Socialist Party was critical of and opposed to precisely one attempted direct action at Shannon. We opposed it because we thought that it was an adventure which couldn't work (and indeed it didn't) and which could potentially damage the anti-war movement at the time (which, in the event, I don't think it did).

The SP was not at all opposed to the various "over the fence" actions, nor did it oppose previous mass tresspass attempts. It opposed one action based on an assessment of the likelihood of that action succeeding (zero) as against the likelihood of that action going badly wrong (greater than zero). You are perfectly entitled to argue that we were wrong about that action, although I would still disagree with you. It is rather less reasonable to assume bad faith on the part of those who disagree with you. This is however, well off the topic of the main discussion and so I won't be responding to the inevitable anonymous abuse this post will attract.

by Bud Thu Jun 14, 2007 17:48

R. Isible I agree with you comment on what HS said about the Greens. HS views on the greens and what he said about the swp would not be supported by others in the sp, maybe not even by anyone else in the sp. Just in case anyone thinks we are going soft...Boyd Barretts vote was a soft liberal vote, the swp haven't changed their ways they have just move further to the right and their lobbying of the Green Party conference was pathetic. And I am not interested in what swp members think!

by hs - sp (pc) Thu Jun 14, 2007 19:25

If you read what I wrote over you will see that I said ; "though liberal etc they would have been seen as a party of the left by most."

This is of course a matter of perception than necesscary reality. I believe most people would have seen the Greens as a generally left party. "Most People" doesn't stretch to the revolutionary left which is a small minority. socialists and anarchists would have been well aware of the Greens record, but I would maintain up to this election alot if not most people were unaware of this and saw the greens as anti war etc. I My point was that there participation in government will expose this and it will be interesting to see how they deal with issues such as Shannon and Ringsend and how this will effect both their activist and electoral support base.
I certainly believe the greens were percieved as a soft left wing party (not revolutionary, trotskyist or anarchist!); and this perception will now face the reality of their positions. And it may leave a gap of sorts, FF are experts in co-opting eating and spiting out what remains of smaller parties.

Bud, the points on the SWP making electoral gains are fact, it may have been partly a liberal vote but I certainly think Brid Smiths wasn't. (unless you have studied the tallies and polled the areas and you know different?). As much as you may wish it not to be it is still is a fact that the SWP have made an electoral breakthrough. How it holds we won't know for a while. I would also maintain they have changed since I came accross them first, I remember the re-re-revolutionary extra-parlimentary swp. They have certainly moved to the right and maybe are attempting to fill Green shoes.? But writing off all swp members or supporters betrays a crass political sectarianism which is extremely unfortunate.

hs

by Limbo Mon Jun 18, 2007 11:25

Like HS is saying Brid Smith's vote was not liberal/middle class and I would find it hard to believe RBB's is either as I think it very patronising not to give credit to voters who made this choice but nonetheless, interesting..

Has anyone had a chance to see Boyd Barret's Tallies as I have heard now they mainly emanated from working class areas in that Constituency.

Can the PB4P put up the Talies if they have them?Maybe we need to define what would be generally construed as Working Class before I get swallowed up in the can of worms!!
Thanks