Republicanism & Socialism

by Davy Carlin - W/Belfast SWP Fri Jul 04, 2003 14:31 carlindavid at hotmail dot com

Good to see you have re-read Imperialism.
Maybe you may even re - read the said Article

PS You misinterpreted the name of the Author of the article on occassions {or like me a spelling error} if not who knows you may have even wrongly then interpretated the whole article.

Finally once again 'my' interpretation of 'the new movement in old moulds' (cadre of Bolsheviks etc.} To the objective reader I really could not have give a more clearer interpretation of 'my 'understanding of that new - old debate as I have done above.

I am away now for a few days but can continue this debate or other issues if raised on other threads in the time ahead. Davy Carlin

by Andrew Fri Jul 04, 2003 13:22

H'mm Davy you still have not given me your alternative interpretation of what Watherman wrote but I guess at this stage you are not going to.

And now a confession. I went and re-read 'Imperialism' and found that I was over stating the case somewhat. Lenin in fact hedged his bets on the ability of capitalism to develop further, he saw room for local improvement in some industry. The following quote makes his actual position clearler

"Nevertheless, like all monopoly, it inevitably engenders a tendency of stagnation and decay. Since monopoly prices are established, even temporarily, the motive cause of technical and, consequently, of all other progress disappears to a certain extent and, further, the economic possibility arises of deliberately retarding technical progress. For instance, in America, a certain Owens invented a machine which revolutionised the manufacture of bottles. The German bottle-manufacturing cartel purchased Owens's patent, but pigeon-holed it, refrained from utilising it. Certainly, monopoly under capitalism can never completely, and for a very long period of time, eliminate competition in the world market (and this, by the by, is one of the reasons why the theory of ultra-imperialism is so absurd). Certainly, the possibility of reducing the cost of production and increasing profits by introducing technical improvements operates in the direction of change. But the tendency to stagnation and decay, which is characteristic of monopoly, continues to operate, and in some branches of industry, in some countries, for certain periods of time, it gains the upper hand."

by Davy Carlin - W/Belfast SWP Fri Jul 04, 2003 11:58 carlindavid at hotmail dot com

Andrew once again I have to state that you need to read what I have written. I stated from the onset that your 'wording and understanding is not how I read that particular 'article'. But you seemed to be fixated on the four words, 'cadre of new Bolsheviks as well as 'the old left and the new left'.

In realition to the above point I have already replied to it in my previous posting but your arguement about old fashioned, old left, new left I would disagree with your understanding. I firmly believe one has to learn lessons from history, even the ruling class do so including both in their tactics and in strategy. Do Anarchists not hold dissussions or look back at the lessons of the Spanish civil war the Russian Revolution, to Proudhon, Bakunin or Kropotkin to learn lessons? Do Nationalists, Republicans, Socialists etc not look back and learn lessons of Connolly? Therefore I see no reason while those whom want to see a Revolution to effect change look back and learn the lessons of those who brought one about, in fact it would be absurd not to.

Once again theory {learn the lessons of the past} while working practically in the present.

If we attempt to forget about the past history of the working class it is but to play to the fiddle of revisionist historians. Lets not forget we need to be the memory of the working class. I am not saying you put everything wholescale from a hundred years past and attempt to effect change now within this living movement but many lessons of the past can be learnt and debated in the movement not to its detriment but to its benefit.

Therefore Andrew it is not a matter of the 'New left' versus the 'Old left', but of a New Movement with its diversity and strength - against that of a brutal world. It should not be 'Us' against 'US' but us against it. This is why engaging in such debate is worthwhile.

Everyone has their own understanding of how to effect change, you hold a position of what you are against as well as what you are for. Similiarly I do, what we all need to do within this movement, within alliances, blocks, United campaigns etc is to see our starting point as together attempting to effect real change while at the same time discussing not only our differences but our more importantly our commonalities.

As we always start at our differences why not for a change attempt to start on our commonalites and that may actually take us a small step forward.

On what started this initial dissussion I found Declan Kearney's article entitled 'Strategic Momentum and Popular Support' in this weeks An Phoblacht/Republican News interesting.

Signing out of this debate and dissussion which I found worthwhile and held in a good way - I will return for another one of interest in the time ahead. Davy Carlin

by v.lenin - red Thu Jul 03, 2003 19:02

"The prediction of lenin in particualr that capitalism could not develop further (post 1917) is so obviously wrong that it is not worth arguing yet the pamphlet based around this (Imperialism) remains at the very centre of all the old lefts understanding of imperialism and globalisation."

This in fact came from a miss-translation. The original was actually impearialism as the contemporary form of capitalism, not the highest or ultimate. In the book he does not actually say capitalism cannot develop further. It in fact talks about how military impearialism was being replaced by capital and trade impearilism, like the modern IMF WTO. Quite good in fact.

by Andrew Thu Jul 03, 2003 16:53

H'mm Davy this is going in circles a little so perhaps I should simply drop it. One more try through.

I'll start off by saying that yes you are more committed to discussing this then anyone else in the SWP, the fact you have come back 4 or more times with serious replies demonstrates this. This is a good things.

However on the specifics of the 'cadre of new Bolsheviks' you have yet to explain what Waterman might have meant apart from the obvious. Which is getting the new activists to adopt the organisation methods of a party that existed in Russian in the early years of this century. If indeed there are other interpretations please explain what these are rather then just asserting that they exist.

What's more the assumption that the SWP meant what it appeared to say has been backed up by your actions in the years since. The article I referenced gives some examples of what I mean (incidentally I'm not the author). http://anarchism.ws/writers/anarcho/leninism/authoratarians.html

But its easy to produce others, right down to the way the SWP deals with indymedia and other decentralised forms of mass discussion. Anyway it strikes me that in denying the obvious interpretation you are wasting our time, you'd be better served tryong to argue why the new movement should choose to organised along the Bolshevik model!

Are anarchists trying to do the same thing? Well no, most of us don't see the key task as being to get people to drop the new methods of struggle and adopt instead anarchist methods from the early years of this century. Largely we have adapted to this new movement while bringing some of our ideas into it. This was of course somewhat easier for us because we played a significant part in it's creation. And because quite often the movement originated as a reaction AGAINST leninist methods and tactics. Not of course the first time this had happened, in the 1960's the major constructive role the CP played was as a model of what not to do.

In that context I'm not too sure what the next step for the far left is here. Or even if it makes much sense to even speak of a single far-left. The libertarian - authoratarian axis has become almost as important as the left - right one in recent years. But probably the best way of working that out is through discussions like this one.

by Davy Carlin - W/Belfast SWP Thu Jul 03, 2003 16:21 carlindavid at hotmail dot com

Yes Andrew lets have debate and discussion, but again I find that you are picking parts of sentences out, again misinterpreting and now jumping from one paragraph to another and attempting to draw it all into the same context.

On you first point of trying to build a new Bolshevik, Revolutionary, Socialist, Marxist cadre, whats the problem? I know Republicans are trying to build a new Republican cadre inside and outside the movement, other socialist organisation are doing similar, are not Anarchists {what an old fashioned word to many people - only joking} attempting to build also new cadre within the movement or within the grassroots networks etc. If your problem is only with the word Bolsheviks then, quite frankly there is nothing I can do about that but I agree such matters can be discussed amongst those that may see it as a major problem.

You then jump from my first paragraph to the third and connect differing points together then into a line or two. By doing that your reply has been put out of context by your own misinterpretation.

Once again if you go back to what I actually stated which was firstly that the content of your article may be reflective of your politics {Fair enough statement I believe}. You then clarify this in your recent comment by stating that you had made a rather obvious 'interpretation' of Watermans reply. I would agree with that but with qualification -that as I stated from the onset of the article you are refering to - Quote, 'its all about interpretation and differing held views' Unquote. Therefore your 'obvious interpretation may differ from my 'obvious' interpretation, as many do over Russia, Palestine, Cuba the North etc . Andrew one just has to look at how many 'obvious' interpretations there are on the Bible due to those differing views held, same words-different understandings. And thats all part of the problem with the disunity of the left.


Therefore my disagreement is with you not because you are lying or sectarian but quite simply my interpetation of the article as a whole differs from yours, may it be because of your political understanding or because there is a word or words in it you don't like. Nevertheless the issue of new -old fashioned I think is a worthwhile debate and I have dealt with some of it in the context of the working class above. On your last point I agree with you that we need to debate such issues and am glad I have the oppotunity on these and hopefully many other issues to do so with you and others.

Andrew on being evasive, well if you get to know me better I hope you will eventually even grudingly, attempt to acknowledge that I try to work, debate and engage with others in a way many on the left seem not to do with eachother to date.

I know there may be other questions asked above towards my postings and I will if time permitts get back to them. Signing of . Davy Carlin

by Andrew Thu Jul 03, 2003 13:16

Davy I think you are being pretty evasive in your non-reply to my reference to 'a new cadre of Bolsheviks'. You tell me that this is not your interpretation (but don't explain how you interpret it) and then quickly move off to say you have "found some have come through political Sectarianism while others are quite simply just untrue.".

So when I take a rather obvious interpretation of Watermans writing in your main theoretical journal you tell me I am either a) lying or b) sectarian. You also fail to tell me what the correct understanding of that remark would be. Nice one!

Likewise on imperialism you neatly avoid dealing with the reasons why people might consider the term itself old fashioned or the reality that the SWP's theoretical basis for the use of the term is not only 'old fashioned' but more simply wrong as capitalism did not stop developing in 1916.

This is a seperate issue from whether the more general idea of imperialism is a useful starting point for understanding Iraq. As I already said I believe it is BUT in order to communicate effectively we HAVE to understand and deal with why some see it as old fashioned.

by Davy Carlin - W/Belfast SWP Thu Jul 03, 2003 11:01 carlindavid at hotmail dot com

The issue of the working class. Points raised above on material reality, price of house, discredited within the movement, the issue of mystification again, others would include what type of job, white collar, blue collar worker etc etc. There seems so much confusion.

Yet a Marxist understanding is quite straight forward really. That is, that class does not depend on the type of work a person does or even their own personal feelings about it - but it is on their objective positioning within the process of production and whether or not that they own or 'have' any control over the means of production.

I have not time at the minute to go into the list of statistics in those absolute terms that has shown within that Marxist definition that the working has grown not shrunk.

But what can be acknowledged is that within the context of continal globalisation and the continual reconstructions {in relation to class} within the restructuring of capitalism. Its needs, {that of capitalism}, has seen the transformation of the working class shifting to suit the continual need for the accumulation of capital.

So the old industrial factory lines are now being replicated in low paid assembly lines of the calls centre, the civil service, banks and the service sector, and other {traditionally termed middle class jobs} . So that shift has meant that in present day, rather than the shrinking of the working class it in absolute mumbers represents an expansion of the working class albeit under transformation within Capitalism to suit the needs of the accumulation of that Capital.

by i want to read more - 2003/5 Wed Jul 02, 2003 13:42

this _·"clarifying"·_ a lot for readers @ home & abroad.
more please...

by Justin Moran - Sinn Féin Wed Jul 02, 2003 12:56 maigh_nuad at yahoo dot com

Merely slang for SWP members. No political or ideological implication beyond that. Don't have time to get into more of the last post but absolutely agree on the sectarianism in the Left.

by Davy Carlin - W/Belfast SWP Wed Jul 02, 2003 12:20 carlindavid at hotmail dot com

I would like to deal with some further issues in relation to the left.

Firstly the arguments I have read about direct action and the movement. Those who know me know that I with others in Belfast have been involved in numerous direct actions. Occupations of banks, Universities, Multinationals, road blocks, sit -ins etc, as well as direct actions on International demonstrations. I recently with trade unionists, local members of the community and anarchists blockaded all avenues to the D.O.E stopping the tractors and equipment leaving under the banner of 'Communities Against Water Charges. While being involved in such action - I though see it as a tactic and not a principle and it can work well when employed properly as a tactic.

Justin raises the issue of 'SWP heads', in jest I presume, but he has got it the wrong way round. For me I have heard such issues raised SWP head, hat etc. As per myself my head has deliberately attempted to acquire its own knowledge and understanding of a world in its many aspects albeit as a member of the SWP, of a trade union or of the various other organisations in which I am a member. The whole intense doctine in my youth of a church has brought me I believe of looking to acquire ones own understanding in life, and as for the SWP they are by far the organisation closest to my political and practical understanding of attempting to bring fundemental change collectively to a brutal world. I know many on this site would disagree with this but nevertheless it is the understanding I have arrived at.

I found when I first joined the SWP the intense political secterianism between parties, large and small. My first experience of solidarity on a strike seen a photo copy of Socialist Worker thrust at me from the early seventies. So standing on a picket line a few weeks after I had joined the SWP the first words to me were. 'Do you know what your party said in 1970?. From then on I came to my own understanding that this shit had to change if we on the left are ever to succeed. Again no doubt we all have had such experieneces from 'ALL' differing aspects of the left. This though needs to change from 'ALL' sides.

I see the development of a Socialist block in the North as an inspiration, many of the smaller parties on the left, leading trade unionists and community activists are engaging together. The only exception really is the SP and I would urge their members to raise it with their leadership to get involved. The reasons they give for not joining with all the rest to attempt to put a working unity in place I think are wrong. I presume their membership know of the reasons they give and I would be prepared to give my reasons as to why I think they are wrong for not getting involved. Nevertheless the rest of us shall get on with it together in the North, learning from the past, working together in the present to attempt to bring about a better future together

I also think the regional Belfast Social Forum is an excellent idea to tie in with the Irish Social forum. Credit where cedit is due to those who initially brought in together including Eoin from Sinn Fein, tools for Solidarity, trade unionists, NGO's and the others. I believe all should now get involved and again try to make this work.

Finally as an activist in the North - with others while working in these various initiatives we will be working to mobilise again onto the streets people against the now occupation of Iraq which is seeing growing resentment in Iraq, in the US, and Internationally. Secondly to mobilise for a possible blockade of the WEF which is coming to Dublin. Already one Trade Union comrade in Belfast alone has booked two 52 seater buses from his work place in the Civil Service to attend.

I believe we should all attempt to engage through the new initiatives. Yet we can also engage through e-Mail, networks, via Indymedia or elsewhere as at meetings one may only get a few minutes to speak. If we engage at all levels and through different networks we can at least try to draw out our differences and attempt to get a better understanding of each other. If we can at least do that then those new initiatives will have a better chance of actually working.

I see there are some more questions raised to me above and should come back again later if time permitts.

by Killian Forde Tue Jul 01, 2003 18:59

Davy, the questions about what is working class and our assumptions about who is and isn't is in sense highlighted by your point above.

Through box tallies, politcal parties can tell the size of their vote within a relative small area. The value of the houses in the area is a easily gotten fact, howver it is impossibel in a box tally to work out someones class.

It is easy to extrapolate the value of a house that someone is living in - buts thats all.

So are you therefore saying that it is the market value of a house in a particular area that defines your class? And if that is the case can someone go from being working class to middle class and vice versa or is class, in your belief, something inherent?

It is really of little value to any debate to talk about the working class as a given, as a agreed and accepted fact of easily measured criteria when it is not.

One more observation in regards to the maternity hospital in belfast is that in dublin we ahve similair 'terriortial' disputes in regards to the aloocation of state services. A similar debate would revolve around the provision of under 12's accident and emergency in dublin. Groups of community, who identify with each other seeing the 'other' gettting 'more'.

by Justin Moran - Sinn Féin Tue Jul 01, 2003 18:48 maigh_nuad at yahoo dot com

My grammar isn't as good as I thought it was. I thought you were saying we got more middle class votes than working class votes.

by Davy Carlin - W/Belfast SWP Tue Jul 01, 2003 18:22 carlindavid at hotmail dot com

Justin that is what I meant in relation to elections when I said that your middle class vote is in ascendency in proportion to working class votes.

Must dash but good and worthwhile debate to date

by Justin Moran - Sinn Féin Tue Jul 01, 2003 18:06 maigh_nuad at yahoo dot com

Davy.

I agree there is a difference between a community orientded form of politics and a politics that is centred on one community. Typically, it leads to a situation where Sinn Fein ends up representing the Nationalist community, and doing it well because of that focus on community empowerment while community groups in the Unionist community might not have the same ability as their parties are not as focussed.

I am aware that even using the 'their' term is divisive in itself, but however artificially constructed those sectarian divisions exist. There are places we cannot campaign, cannot enter, cannot canvass not out of some imaginary opposition to Protestants or Unionists, but out of security reasons. And as some-one living in Belfast you are probably even more aware of it than I.

In terms of the votes, the numbers don't back up your argument. One thing we do pride ourselves on is running extremely good election operations, breaking down the votes box by box. I don't think any party in Ireland with the possible exception of FF is as good at that. Looking at our box figures, while the number of votes from middle class areas is certainly increasing, the number of working class votes is still far larger, and also increasing (Though at a smaller rate and more to do with first time voters than anything else).

Andrew.
I am not arguing that Sinn Fein's history on the Bin Charges be ignored, but simply that your analysis of how seriously we take the development of community politics not be based on your analysis of the Bin Charge issue alone. By all means take it into account and make a judgement accordingly, but I think to analyse a party's philosophy based on one issue is a little bit of a stretch.

I am also not just talking about 'statements' but out actual policy documents and also areas where we have been successful in mobilising local communities such as on the sectarian marches issue. Examine the whole. You mgiht still find us wanting, but at least it would be a complete analysis.

I also strongly, and vehemently, dispute any claim that we undermined anyone else's campaign against the Bin Charges. I would find the opposite, that deliberate and pre-meditated attempts were made to not only undermine Sinn Fein's campaign against the Charges, but also on a number of occasions, to cut us out of meetings to which we had the right to attend. I have a personal memory of turning up with a Sinn Fein activist to an anti-Bin Charges meeting to which we had been invited to discover that the venue and time had been changed.

Now we can go over all this in excruiating, date by date analysis of the Bin Charges campaigns if you really want but I don't see the point myself.

The ideology of the IRA was that the Army Council of the IRA was the legitimate government of the Irish people. While Sinn Fein did not recognise the Northern or Southern statelets, it was not Sinn Fein policy that the Army Council was the legitimate Government of the people. No matter how many Sinn Fein members personally believed that.

I think the issue of strong control is an interesting one compared to the public and private discourse within Sinn Fein. To take the Bush visit as a good example. When it was announced it was going ahead, papers contacted SF activists and representatives right around the country for a response. The best the Irish Times could do was to find an unknown Northern election worker to say he thought the actions of the leadership were a disgrace. Despite this, several MLAs, TDs and Councilors had major problems with the party's decision and the issue was subsequently debated. We just don't see the point of having our debates in public.

You never see SF representatives doing a Donaldson, or a Ned O'Keefe, or participating in an FG documentary. We debate, we argue, we just don't see why other people have to be made aware of it. This might give a perception of authoritarian control. It's not. When we disagree it's none of your business. And when we agree, sure and we're all republican socialists anyway :)

I also don't consider worker directors to be employee owned businesses. It's another area where I disagree with Paul. While I think a company with a Worker Director is better for workers than one without. It's far less attractive than the employees running the business. That said, my point still stands about the evolution of embryonic worker owned businesses in a socialist state waiting for the rest of the world to similarly transform.

I agree with your points on popular usage and material reality regarding the term working class. Well put.

I'd also agree with the closing comment, while a good argument with certain SWP heads is possible in real life, it's a rare and valuable thing on Indymedia.

by Davy Carlin - W/Belfast SWP Tue Jul 01, 2003 17:47 carlindavid at hotmail dot com

Putting aside Andrews comment 'That I should get out a bit more' {then I would never be in} he makes a number of points. Firstly the issue of Socialism from above or below in relation to the SWP, on that one we ain't going to agree with. You then state of the SWP 'trying to force the new movement into an old mould'. I think Andrews above wording and its understanding is not exactly how I read that particular article from a comrade in our sister organisation and may be reflective both of your politic beliefs thus the content of your article. Nevertheless I get an understandings of concerns on such issues raised, yet like many issues in relation to the left its all about interpretation and differing held views.

Secondly it may be hard for you to contemplate but we 'actually' do have disagreements when debating and discussing the way forward as I hope other groups would have, as debate is healthy. Especially given the fact that like many others we are involved in a living movement.

My statement that drove you to state that I should get out more was misrepresented in the fact that you omitted that the sentence was firstly in relation to the North in which I have not heard such raised and secondly on International moblisations, with other organisations, where I have again not heard such. That is not to say that I don't hear things that are directed towards the SWP as they are towards others but on those occassions after careful reflection I have found some have come through political Sectarianism while others are quite simply just untrue. Yet when people make points worth a serious look I have had no problems on reflecting on it.


I am aware though even by searching this site that political sectarism is a major problem in the South, while in the smaller left parties, left trade unionist and community groups etc, in the North {Apart from one or two noteable exceptions} things are changing and we are working or attempting to work together.

ON Anti Imperialism - 'An Anti Imperialist movement' is what many sections of the mainstream meadia called the AWM in the North. I would begin to ask questions when the mainsteam media is seeing a movement as Anti Imperialist and some on the left are shouting, no don't say that, its too old fashioned. Therefore the words Anti Imperialist Movement no more mystified the mainstream press that it did the many thousands marching under its banner.

The fact that you say that I base my understanding on Imperialism solely on a pamplet shows me that you have not read or fully understood what I have to date written. Once again I believe theory cannot go without practice. So my understanding comes not only in reading but growing up in a community at the forefront of an Anti Imperialist struggle thus relating 'both', to my understanding today.

Again constructive critism is good for us all as is debate in such matters.

Finally some one raised it was amusing to hear me talk about people working together when there were recriminations in relation to the Anti War movement. Yes there where problems but we all still worked together at some level. Although we had huge political differences, amongst other such issues highlighted on the site, at times we still managed to work at some level for the bigger picture. Today many on the left are working or attempting to work together, some a little older and a little wiser.

Signing off Until another day.

by mafiosa camaraddia - iosaf mac diarmada Tue Jul 01, 2003 16:03 if Osama mad IRA cad

not my map. I pointed out the sillyness in the comments to that article using my apt moniker "ortografía" [spelling].

by Yossarian Tue Jul 01, 2003 15:36

Justin, I don't think that you addressed the main thrust of my post which was that the alternative to making decisions which go against the ethos of an organisation is to participate in forums where such decisions are not required.

Elections per se are not inherently good or bad. One could reasonably argue that they are a means to determine the will of many people. However the litmus test of whether an election is beneficial to many people or few people is the level of participation that is permitted and the mandate of those elected.

In the case of parliamentary elections, they are almost universally the reserve of the leader/upper/bourgois class who can get financial support from the business community, favourable write ups in the media, etc. Those socialists (whether working class or philanthropic upper class) who do make it into the parliament are then faced with the second obstacle to change which is the nature of parliamentary proceedings which grind one down over time until either you don't get re-elected or you accept the Real Politik or you die. This is not an opinion, this is a fact based on the observation of parliamentary democracy since its inception.

Justin, you also say that "Like it or not the majority of people interact with politics at election time more than anything else". So there is a big media circus every few years where people are encouraged to make one choice between people they don't know, don't trust and whose impact on their lives, while being considerable, will not be particularly different regardless of which choice they make. People can then get back to their usual business and let the politicians do what they will. We are actually encouraged to think that this is a good thing, that it reflects our views! No, it is more like, choose your dictator group.

I do "accept the fact, sad though it may be, that TDs have a mandate from the people" but it is in the context of extremely limited choice and accountability so it is not really much of a mandate at all.

I agree that governments can "have an effect on the lives and circumstances of working class people". Unfortunately, apart from doing just enough to get re-elected, the impact of government on the working class is negative for the reasons stated above.

Socialism and parliamentary democracy are not complimentary. Social democracy can have very limited benefits for the working class but it will never resolve class differences or significantly increase peoples empowerment.

by Justin Moran - Sinn Féin Tue Jul 01, 2003 14:38 maigh_nuad at yahoo dot com

Sorry for not getting to the point but am buried in work so this will be shorter than I wanted it to be.

First of all, I just do not accept the argument about electoral politics. Like it or not the majority of people interact with politics at election time more than anything else. Obviously we should, and Sinn Fein is, trying to expand that but it is the simple truth. Elections are a means of increasing political strength, getting a platform to put forward ideas and confront opponents. Yes, some socialists argue against electoral involvement. And yet, every now and again these same organisations contact us looking for a speaker and asking 'for a TD if you can'. Why? Because they accept the fact, sad though it may be, that TDs have a mandate from the people and thus more, whatever it is they have. And many socialists have argued against abstaining from electoral politics. Connolly for example supported taking part in elections.

I think if your party restricts itself to elections, electoral activity and the like then there is a significant problem, but if we accept that we in the Left are engaged in struggle with our opponents, we must fight them on every battlefield, the ones of our choosing such as the streets and demos, and the ones of theirs, prliamentary democracy, and not back down.

I agree with building links across the community divide but I think we should pause for a second and look at electoral power. The simple truth is that Government can have an effect on the lives and circumstances of working class people. A Government that brought in free secondary school education has made a positive contribution to the disadvantaged in Irish society. The same for the Government that brought in Child Benefit. I am not saying that Government's are all-powerful, they're not. Nor am I saying that Government's are a positive force for good in all circumstances, most definetly not. I am merely saying that power achieved electorally can benefit the people we, by which I mean all of us on the Left, represent and work for.

On Bush, yes, the alternative was not to meet him, and yes, the meeting was far more about optics for Bush in America than a genuine interest in the Peace Process in Ireland. All agreed, but it was an extremely sensitive time in our process. We have been willing to meet the Brits, the Loyalists, anyone and everyone, people who have inflicted serious hurt and damage on us. We didn't want to meet Bush (Tom refers elsewhere to a statement that went out welcoming Bush. This statement was a fuck-up, pure and simple, it should not have been sent out and this point was made clear to the person who was responsible) but the other option was for his people (You're right, Bush doesn't take much of a part) to listen to the anti-republican side of the situation without any argument from us. Our strategy in the Process would have been damaged. We made a judgement call. It was the right one. Doesn't mean I don't feel like I should shower every time I say it. Doesn't mean I wasn't very angry about it when it was announced. But after a great deal of thought, difficult as it was, we made the right call.

Have to go, falling behind on responses but busy here.

by Yossarian Tue Jul 01, 2003 14:20

Justin, I would be interested in your responses to the substantive point that I made viz the alternative to participating in a parliamentary assembly (as an alternative to having to make choices within the boundaries thus imposed) and the fact that the Bush visit was a farcial charade with at best a very tenuous link to the peace process.

It is amusing to hear Davy talking about how everybody worked together in the anti-war movement in Belfast when he was involved in furious recriminations on this website about the conduct of members of another party. Other activists were unimpressed by the antics of both parties and the trade union congress and their role in stifling real dissent (although there were some individuals in various organisations who were more tolerant and open to different ideas than most). More co-operation on the part of revolutionary organisations would certainly be welcomed but it will not be rushed into by many who have been burnt through previous co-operative exercises. Unless all involved can be tolerant and open to different ideas and tactics, then the unity desired by all is a pipe dream.

by Andrew Tue Jul 01, 2003 13:45

Nice to see something that looks like real debate on indymedia for a change despite the efforts of some including the SPGB spammer.

Anyway I'm going back up the thread to some of the responses following my post.

First its worth noting that Davy is pretty interested in responding to what SF have to say but far less interested in responding to what those of us on the libertarian left have said to him. There are a number of issues he has not tackled.

IMC reader makes some quite good points in relation to political centralisation that are really at the core of why so many of the 'new left' have problems with the SWP and SP. I'd actually disagree a bit with what he says of the working class - there was a good session that went into this as the grassroots gathering at the weekend - but I'd be interested in Davys specific responses to this as well. As far as I'm concerned class politics is if anything a more accurate description of the cause of divisions in society then it ever was but the phrase itself like so much of the phraseology of the left has been so abused so it make it useless when addressing most people. More on this below.

Justin responds to my points on the bin tax and SF's role (or lack of role) within the campaign. This has been discussed a lot on indymedia and I guess positions are well defined now so the only thing I want to take up is why this issue rather then SF statements about 'empowerment' are what the libertarian credentials of SF can be judged on.

Words are cheap, especially in politics, it is actions that we can form real judgements on. And when that action is not only to abstain from a struggle to build autonomous working class organisation but in at least some places to actively undermine this attempt it tells us all we need to know. The charges are not a side show in Dublin politics, the campaign could well have the greatest impact on politics in this city of any in decades precisely because it effects and requires organisation in just about every estate in the city. I do however note Johns short contribution pointing out that SF are playing a positive role in the Finglas campaign. There is dissent within the party over the issue, hopefully this will lead either to a change of position or more individuals and local cumann finding ways to build the campaign.

Justin I think your "I also find the idea of a party that 20 years ago refused to recognise both states as being 'state-centred' a little curious." is a red herring. After all the ideology of the Republican Movement for most of that period was that it was the legtimate government, north and south. Fine Gael have spent most of the last 20 years in opposition, they are still state centered for all that.

Of course beyond ideology the actual political terrain the republican movement existed on for most of that time did give it a anti-state edge. Being at the sharp end of state repression is liable to cultivate a more general critique of prison, justice, the media etc a lot faster then any amount of book reading. But on the other hand it can also cultivate support for authoratarian methods, the need for strong central control etc. In my opinion the second of these two is the more important tendency within the politics of Sinn Fein today although I acknowledge this is still contested within the party.

I've no intention of writing an article on the talk I did but I will say that I found Sinn Fein activists far more willing to honestly enter into a discussion of the contradictions in their politics then either of the two trot groups. Well given the inability of the trots to do that at all this is something of an understatement! But I know from talking to ex Shinners that this in the context of a 'space' the leadership allows for the moment but could remove as it has removed similar spaces in the past.

On 'worker directors'. Perhaps we are talking past each other here as I don't consider this to mean "employee owned and run business". Rather it just means the workforce of a company can appoint one or more directors to the board of that company. In Germany all major firms have to have worker directors under industrial law.

Thus being a minority on the board which decides to lay-off (or privatise) or whatever is not in my opinion a step forwards but rather a step backwards. In contrast I'd support the formation of co-ops in general even if by their nature they are more of a individual escape from some aspects of capitalism rather then a solution for all.

On to the specifics of Davys first reply. Well its rather obvious we are going to disagree on whether or not the politics of the SWP represent 'socialism from below' or 'socialism from above'. To me in practise they are obviously 'Socialism from above' and this is a widely held opinion on the new left (or maybe that should be post-new left or something). Anyway this has been argued out much already on indymedia, my own opinions are closely reflected by the articles at http://anarchism.ws/left.html for those interested in the detail.

Davy's choice of the anti-war movement as an example is odd to say the least. He wrote "For example one can say they are opposed to war and give a great theoretical piece as to why one should oppose it but if that is independant of practically opposing the war while still putting forward an understanding of how to end such wars, then the understanding of how to end it is not actively engaged with - thus the abstraction". All I can say to that is 'exactly - so tell me why you are in the SWP again?'. The fact that is not even necessary to explain why I might say this speaks volumes.

Davy you also write you "disagree with Andrew's understanding of the SWP trying to force the new movement into an old mould". I gave a very specific example of this, Watermans quote in your main theoretical journal about turning those involved in the new movement into a new Bolshevik cadre. Those were her words and not mine so it is with her (and the SWP) rather then me your disagreement appears to lie.

I find it hard to believe you "have not heard that raised against myself or comrades". Perhaps you should get out more as this is a pretty universal criticism of the SWP approach to the globalisation movement from many of those involved. More fairly this is probably a reflection of the quantity of bridge burning that has gone on so that we can be unaware even of the main criticisms across the chasms that exist. Anyway again this is a widely repeated argument, those interested in the details could start by looking at http://anarchism.ws/writers/anarcho/leninism/authoratarians.html

Finally Davys post asks a number of questions at the end which he assumes are rhetorical. But some are not.

"Is Anti imperialism old fashion rhetoric?"
Yes I'm afraid it is which is not to say we should throw the baby out with the bath water. You base your understanding of imperialism on a thin pamphlet Lenin wrote just under 80 years ago. It was based on the premise that capitalism could no longer develop the productive forces of the globe. Something so obviously wrong that once again there is no need for me to explain why. (We are not communicating in morse for instance).

The idea of imperialism in the general sense does help to explain what is going on in the world but on the left the word itself is so tied up with the leninist use of it that it is indeed 'old fashion rhetoric' that mystifies more then it explains. I often find myself using it all the same but with a need to be aware of these problems.

"Are the working class but old fashion rhetoric?" Again we need to seperate the concept from the term. In terms of popular usage yes the term 'working class' is old fashioned rhetoric that is liable to make you misunderstood. In terms of material reality the old definition of working class in terms of the relationship to the means of production is if anything more valid then it ever was. In terms of the lefts use of the term beyond this what is actually meant is deeply buried beneath layers of mystification. Layers that include 'our organisation is working class but organisation Y is middle class'. Layers that include the use of working class to describe people coming from the poorer areas of the city, people with a particular accent or even people who prefer one sport over another.

Actually the record of the SWP on this is considerably better then many of its rivals (probably because the SWP is often the target of the first layer mentioned above). But one of our big problems is that when someone on the left says 'working class' almost everyone has to look at the context of the remarks to work out what the hell they meant. And outside of the left the misunderstanding is if anything worse. Again a term I often find myself using but only with a keen awareness of the need to explain what the hell I mean by it.

Anyway this is way too long already so I'll knock off here. Closing comment - the fact Dave seems unaware of what are fairly common criticism of the SWP seems to be a good argument for having this sort of discussion on indymedia rather then the 'nah nah nah' variety. Who knows, we might even learn something!

by Davy Carlin - W/Belfast SWP Tue Jul 01, 2003 13:43 carlindavid at hotmail dot com

Justin your reply is well made but I would raise a few points in response. Firstly in relation to a possible perceived misconception on my part on the aspect of community politics. Living in W/Belfast I can see how many Sinn Fein activists are attempting to do as what you stated above. In fact I have always made the argument to comrades that while Sinn Fein sit in a centre right governance and have implemented polices such as PFI I see their activists on the ground though working tirelessly for working class people on day to day issues.

Therefore I fully suppport community politics and local involvement but not in the context of the politic of community. That is - as I have said in my previous article that the politic of community ascends above that of class to the detriment of the class. Community politics is what Sinn Fein activists and socialists and others get involved in practically, and it is to the benefit of the working class. But the actual 'politic of community', as seen in the hospital dispute is to the detriment of the working class, as one 'defined section' of that class is to lose out, thus causing increased division within the class as a whole, due to that politic of community .

Your point on the bulk of Sinn Fein support being working class in nature I agree with but as I have said previous that your middle class vote over the years is in the ascendency in relation to the class proportional vote, for your party in the North.

In relation to Bushes visit the majority of people non party alaigned that I spoke to thought what Sinn Fein did was wrong, so we both have our differing experiences on that one therefore.

On the meeting Justin, it was interesting with most of the left parties whom we are engaging with there, if time permitts at a later date I will go into the contributions made.

by Justin Moran - Sinn Féin Tue Jul 01, 2003 12:49 maigh_nuad at yahoo dot com

Short jabs at the SWP were merely a response to the New Sinn Fein jab comrade and not seriously meant. I think one point should be made very clear from the beginning. When I am talking about community and devlolving power to community level I am not talking about sectarian politics in terms of Catholic/Protestant, Nationalist/Unionist. I'm talking about local communities. When Sinn Fein argues for community based politics this isn't code for tribalism, it's an idea about devolving power to the lowest level possible. From what you wrote in your responses I'm not 100% clear you see that. Now that could be me misreading things but when you refer to the politics of community (Nationalist) as opposed to that of class it leads me to think you are seeing SF's community politics attitude as basically sectarian when in fact, as Andrew commented earlier, it is about the devolution of power to local communities.

I think your point about electoral gain is well taken and a point I have made myself, that in the South, Sinn Fein has little competition for the left-wing working class vote but there is huge competition for the middle class vote. In the North, Sinn Fein, becxause of the constitutional issue, is more likely to pick up votes in middle class areas. I would point out though, that the bulk of SF support, and certainly of activists, remains working class in nature.

On the Bush visit, I am not saying that it was only the far Left who marched against the war, but that the bulk of attacks on us came from the far Left with the majority of ordinary people opposed to the war I spoke to having much the same reaction as I did. Uncomfortable, but understanding the necessity. I might also add that privately members of your own party expressed that sentiment as well.

As for no-one asking us to lead an anti-privatisation campaign, many have, typically your members. Again, this is not an attack, merely that in previous PFI debates when I asked SWP people on indymedia what we should have done I have been told 'Sinn Fein should have collapsed the Assembly and led a broad front campaing etc. etc.' And yes, the word 'lead' was used.

I agree that a left wing party should not be praising PFI when forced to implement it and again, I refer you to the article I wrote in the Phoblacht last week when I stated that.

Look forward to a report on the Mitchel meeting later but have to get back to work.

by Davy Carlin - W/Belfast SWP Tue Jul 01, 2003 12:41 carlindavid at hotmail dot com

When I have sent in through the first time on the previous ocassions a message comes up with words to the effect of 'message has not been sent'. So I send it again, but dispite the message I find that it has been sent ????????. Better safe that sorry though.

by Curious Tue Jul 01, 2003 12:22

Why Does Davy Write Everything Twice?

by Davy Carlin - W/Belfast SWP Tue Jul 01, 2003 12:14 carlindavid at hotmail dot com

I can hold much understanding for the traditional values off Republicanism, but there is a world of difference between that and the clamouring for the Unity of Class Nationalism. I have by relating my own understanding to practical engagment in the North come to the understanding that the politc of community, vis-a- vis the working class has seen that that politic of community has ascended above that of class - to the detriment of the working class.

Much of the practical experiences has seen me canvassing in 'loyalist estates' such as Annadale flats, postering on the Shankill Rd, speaking on Platforms in working class loyalist estates, doing stalls in such areas and elsemore. Yet saying this I am not naive {as some may think for doing this}, born into Ballymurphy in the 70's, then to the Falls Road, then Twinbrook and now Turf Lodge I have practical experiences of the whole nature of the conflict. With that I set out though to acquire knowledge outside of a politic of community and a very strict Catholic upbringing.

With that, and now going into protestant working class estates I seen still the socio - economic deprivation that I found in catholic working class estates. Yet because of the politc of community - although I can understand why it has come about have realised its detriment to the working class a whole. Just one recent example in relation to the closing of a maternity unit in Belfast. One had to close we were told, one was in a mainly protestant area the other a mainly Catholic one. So to a person the main parties sided with 'their community' and the battle was bitter. So while the battle raged as to what 'community' should get their's closed, the logic of fighting to keep both opened {as both were needed} was blinded by the politc of community.

Of course one needs to be involved actively within their locality but struggles have more chance of winning with the solidarity of the working class as opposed to that of 'our community against theirs'. I believe that we also have a better chance of winning when we as groups all work together. In the North for example the Belfast Social forum has been established with many groups involved, engaging discussing and preparing to work together as we did around the Anti war movement. Their is also a strong possiblity of a Socialist block in the North developing with trade Unionists, community workers, activists and parties, with all but one of the smaller parties on the left willing to participate. So real chances are emerging to build unity in the North while working with the Irish Social Forum across the island as a whole.

My final point until later is this - experience has taught me that if we can't unite ourselves how do we hope to unite the class in which we are members of. Nearly all those on the left in the North are engaging, discussing, debating and yes, attempting to work together in some way or form. Of course there is one or two who will not and although I believe they should - it will have little effect in the North due to all those others working together. In the South I hope the same happens and those who want it to happen should attempt to win the debate to make it happen. I shall again come back later until then.

by Ray Tue Jul 01, 2003 10:39

For pity's sake, don't cut and paste something that length again. Make your own argument, and then say 'but this is explained in a lot more detail here...'. Everybody on the thread could just cut and paste huge sections from their position papers and publications if they wanted, and that would be the end of the debate.
(What conclusion are we to draw? That you don't understand your policy well enough to state it in your own terms? That you're not interested in discussion, just parrotting the party line?)

by Tom Shelley Tue Jul 01, 2003 08:19

Justin,

Below is the letter I had published in AP/RN about this.

I can understand how many of SF's critics on this probably drove you to defend the meeting. I'm sure they were all crying sell-out and attacking SF for not being pure. That is, to a large extent, ridiculous.

But there are, a couple of good, practical, non-trotskyite reasons for why SF should have boycotted the meeting. I want to emphasize the part about with-holding from Bush the title of peacemaker while he was in the process of the Iraq invasion.

The comparison with meeting the Brits and loyalists is, I think, wrong. Blair, and even Maggie, are the ones you need(ed) to talk with to resolve the conflict, not Bush. And the loyalists, well, they live on the island, they live close to nationalists, you want reconciliation with them. Bush doesn't live in Belfast, and why in the world would SF want reconciliation with him?

I'm not certain about this, but where does Blair get off dragging Bush and the Iraq invasion into the NI Peace Process? SF should have protested over that and called for either the summitt to be cancelled, or the negoatiations to be re-scheduled for after Bush left. Instead, Adams's first response was to simply say he was glad Bush was coming- even the fucking SDLP expressed opposition to it.

I'll probably respond to a few other things in this discussion soon. (in general I agree with most of your comments, such as on the presence of middle-class folks like you and me in the socialist movement)

Tom

************

Editor,

I was very disapointed by Sinn Fein meeting with George Bush. There are several reasons why it would have been a good idea to boycott that meeting.

I can kind of understand how SF did go to Washington D.C. for St. Patrick's Day, as that was before Bush had completely abandoned the UN route and was not in the middle of a unilateral invasion. But at Hillsborough there were many reasons to support a boycott.

Bush went to Hillborough to gain credibility as a peace-maker, to counter his image as a war-monger. It was for public relations purposes. If the anti-war parties, including SF, had boycotted the meeting, it would have been a major embarrassment to Bush, both internationally, and in the U.S. It might have boosted Irish-American voices against the war. Handing him a letter hardly means anything- they KNOW that SF opposes the war, and the letter was completely ignored by the American media, it had NO impact at all.

Also, it seems to me that, having attended the meeting, SF will lose a lot of votes in the Assembly elections (if/when they happen), and even more in next year's 26-County elections. On the other hand, if SF HAD boycotted the meeting, it would have boosted their vote in the South, and probably in the North as well, especially if the SDLP and Women's Coalition had gone ahead and met Bush.

But in that sense it would have been a win-win situation, because if the SDLP and WC had also boycotted the meeting (and they might have, to avoid losing votes to SF), that would have negated any negative consequences, as Blair and Bush would have been reluctant to sanction BOTH SF and the SDLP.

And SF should have expressed more outrage (at first they said nothing negative about the visit) about this. First, the presence of a "US-UK" summit on Irish soil offered legitimacy to the British claim over the Six-Counties. Second, for a couple days, the war against Iraq was being directed from Irish soil- there's no doubt Bush spent a lot of time being briefed by generals.

SF's move was definitely motivated by concern for the Peace Process. But I think the possible damage caused by a boycott was exxaggerated. First, as far as offending Bush, what's he going to do? It's not like he's supporting the republican position. He and his envoy Haas have been piling on the preassure for SF to join the Policing Board with or without further reforms; for the IRA to unilaterally and immediately and completely disarm. The CIA and conservatives of Congress have contributed to the case against the Columbia Three. Bush's Immigration and Naturalization Service deported Bernadette Devlin-McAliskey and has locked up ex-POW Kiernan Ferry in a detention center in Denver, Colorado. What else can he do? And you need to remeber that (as a result of racism), the Irish-American vote is a check on how far he can go in punishing SF.

As far as missing one negoatiation session in the Peace Process, I doubt that would set back SF's position, especially if it was for this reason, instead of something directly related to the Peace Process. And like I said, either SF would be joined by the SDLP and WC, or any small sanction imposed would be outweighed by the massive gain in votes, north and south. The extra seats those votes would translate to would strengthen SF's position in the near future. Now, I fear that SF will lose votes and seats.

I know this is all after the fact, but unfortunately Bush and Blair didn't give me any time to talk about it in advance.

Tom Shelley
Boulder, Colorado USA

by working class capitalist Tue Jul 01, 2003 01:34

What is the working class?
Today it is fashionable to assert that the working class no longer exists. New Labour claims that we will soon all be middle class. So-called 'experts' on the economy talk about how we now live in a knowledge-based society where all you need is access to the internet to escape from membership of the working class.

The truth is very different. In reality, Britain is returning to an ‘Upstairs, Downstairs’ economy, more akin to the Victorian era. The fastest growing sector of the labour market belongs to those who clean, shop, child mind or garden for others. Low wages and long hours are the norm for working-class people. More and more workers have to take on several jobs just to survive.

As one journalist stated in The Guardian on 6 June 2000:

"For those on rock bottom wages, both parents need to work all the hours they can to keep the family afloat financially. Karl Marx would recognise their situation even though the job descriptions may be unfamiliar."

When Marx talked about the working class he did not simply mean people who wore flat caps or the equivalent stereotype in the 19th century. He defined classes not by a superficial façade (what kind of car someone owns or whether their house is pebble-dashed) but by both an economic and a social definition.

In Marx’s day the average worker was more likely to sell their ability to work in a factory. Today in Britain, millions still work in factories but there are others working in different fields who, nonetheless, produce new value. Others again do not strictly fit this category but are part of the working class because of their social outlook and their economic situation – their wage level and standard of living, etc.

Contrary to popular opinion among the chattering classes, the working class is not disappearing. In fact, it is objectively stronger than it was in Marx’s day. When Marx and Engels were writing the working class was a minority worldwide. The working class was growing but large sections of the population were still artisans, small shopkeepers, peasants, and small-business people.

Now, in Britain and other economically advanced countries, those of us who rely on wages make up the overwhelming majority. Of course, some people – the unemployed, pensioners and many single parents – have to survive on the meagre pittance provided by state benefits. They are still members of the working class and the only way they can hope to improve their living standards above the breadline is to work.

Work is the only option available to most of us. In general, stories of individuals becoming rich by setting up companies in their bedrooms are a myth. The saga of the dotcoms, where young entrepreneurs believed they had discovered a new way of making millions from the internet, demonstrates this. Even prior to the dotcom bubble bursting, the reality was very different to the fiction.

Most internet millionaires, such as Martha Lane-Fox of lastminute.com, are the sons and daughters of existing ‘traditional’ millionaires. In many cases, less privileged small-business men and women are seeing their companies crushed under the juggernauts of the multinational companies. In 2000, 43,365 small businesses went bust. This is a record figure for a boom year. Up and down the country local high streets are dying because the small shops cannot compete with Tesco, Asda and all the rest.

Capitalism has led to the concentration of wealth and power in ever decreasing numbers of hands at the top. Meanwhile at the bottom, more and more previously middle-class people are forced downwards into the ranks of the working class. This process is taking place in a particularly harsh and barbaric way in Argentina.

The heart-rending economic crisis is devastating the lives of the population. The Financial Times declared that "Argentina can no longer afford its middle class" and it is, in fact, rapidly disappearing. The shanty towns are strewn with banners marked ‘welcome middle classes’ as teachers, lecturers, and bank workers are forced into the ghetto.

In Britain, nothing so dramatic is taking place. Nonetheless, many sections of the population - such as teachers, civil servants and lecturers – who were relatively privileged in the past and who saw themselves as middle class, are now low paid, overworked and increasingly see themselves as part of the working class. They are also beginning to draw the conclusion that the only way they can defend their pay and conditions is to use the traditional weapon of the working class, by taking strike action.

Immediately after New Labour declared that ‘we are all middle class now’, a Daily Mirror poll showed that 60% of people described themselves as working class - a far higher percentage than was the case even ten years ago. In Britain, 28 million people work for wages, selling our ability to work, our labour power. We are potentially by far the strongest force in British society, and far stronger than in Marx’s day.

It is true that the working class has not made its strength felt in Britain over the last few years. However, this does not primarily stem from an objective weakening of its latent power. It is more a result of subjective reasons that can be summed up as a temporarily debilitating lack of confidence.

This followed the defeats that the working class suffered during the 1980s and 1990s internationally, and specifically in Britain where the Tory government inflicted a number of blows against the workers’ movement. These factors resulted in a low level of class struggles over the last decade.

This has had some objective effects. Sections of the older generation have been affected by the memory of bitter defeats. The younger generation has, in general, no experience of struggle and so is, as yet, inexperienced, raw and untutored. At the same time, right-wing trade union leaders took advantage of the situation to try and entrench their power and detach themselves as far as possible from their members.

But like a natural athlete who is a little out of shape through lack of practise, the British working class has not lost its capacity to fight. It only needs to experience its strength in struggle to regain confidence. As it does so, it will also turn on the right-wing union leaders. The first steps in this direction are already underway, as shown by the recent election of left-wing general secretaries in the RMT (rail and maritime workers union), the PCS (civil servants union), and the defeat of Sir Ken Jackson in the AEEU (engineering union).

It is true, however, that the most powerful sections of the working class - that is, the industrial working class whose strength stems from the fact that it is largely responsible for the creation of new value - are a smaller proportion of the workforce now than they were 20 or 30 years ago. The major reason for this is the chronic weakness of British capitalism combined with the conscious policy of Thatcher and her cohorts of moving away from manufacturing to services to undermine the strength of the British working class.

There are other additional, international trends which also had an effect. The major one is capitalism’s constant drive to speed up production, creating factories with the capacity to produce ever more commodities.

At the same time, capitalism is incapable of fully using the capacity that has been created because, ultimately, the working class cannot afford to buy all of the goods it produces. This leads to overproduction and overcapacity. The bosses attempt to deal with this through lay-offs and downsizing, resulting in a smaller number of industrial workers producing the same amount of commodities that a larger number produced in the past.

In the last 20 years there has been a sevenfold increase in the sales of the biggest multinational companies, yet the number of people they employ has remained virtually the same. (This gives a glimpse of the potential for a democratically planned economy to fully utilise and further develop the productive forces capitalism has created.)

Whilst it is smaller than it was at the height of the post-war economic upswing, however, the industrial working class has far greater numbers today than it did a century ago. In the 24 leading economies, it numbered 51.7 million in 1900, 88 million in 1950, 120 million in 1971 and even in 1998 still numbered 112.8 million. In the US there were 8.8 million industrial workers in 1900, 20.6 million in 1950, 26 million in 1971 and 31 million in 1998.

The decrease in the size of the industrial working class in Britain is also, partially, the result of the international phenomenon known as ‘globalisation’. The capitalists in the US, Europe and Japan, in an attempt to restore their profit levels, have set out to drive down the living conditions of the working class.

One means by which they have achieved this is by moving production to other countries where labour is cheaper. Nonetheless, the majority of manufacturing industry is still concentrated in the advanced capitalist countries. For example, if the industrial economy of the whole western hemisphere is given the value of 100%, then the US accounts for 76% of this. By contrast, the biggest of the Latin American countries, Brazil, is only 8%.

And while all of the factors mentioned above have had some effect, the strength of the British working class remains immense. The London Underground and rail strikes have given a glimpse of how capitalism can be paralysed when a key section of workers takes action.

Even less powerful sections of workers are able to have an effect on the profits of the capitalists. For example, to a far greater degree than in the past, if teachers were to take national strike action millions of parents would be unable to work because of childcare commitments. This would exert real pressure on the capitalist class.

Alienation
Marx did not reduce his analysis of the exploitation of the working class to a simple question of economic poverty alone. He explained that in a capitalist society workers are alienated from the work they do. Hours spent every day building a palace or tarmacking a road are not undertaken for the satisfaction of making something useful or beautiful, but to receive a wage on which to survive.

Marx wrote:

"And the worker, who for twelve hours weaves, spins, drills, turns, builds, shovels, breaks stones, carries loads etc. - does he [or she] hold this twelve hours’ weaving, spinning, drilling, turning, building, shovelling, stone breaking to be a manifestation of his life, as life?

On the contrary, life begins for him where this activity ceases, at the table, in the public house, in bed. The twelve hours labour has no meaning for him as weaving, spinning, drilling, etc, but as earnings, which bring him to the table, to the public house, into bed. If the silk worm were to spin in order to continue its existence as a caterpillar, it would be a complete wage-worker."

This description of working life would apply just as much to the workers in McDonald’s, Tesco, call centres, on modern building sites or in factories, as it ever did to the weavers and labourers Marx was describing. Instead of making life easier, the increase in automation has reduced ever more jobs to mind-numbing repetition and boredom.

It is not only work that is dehumanising under capitalism. The commodification of human existence – a society where everything is for sale - is deeply alienating. Marx talked about how, in its drive to sell ever new commodities, capitalism created "imaginary appetites" long before TV started to bombard us constantly with a thousand new products that claim to keep us young and beautiful, or that we ‘must’ own to keep up with the Joneses. And long before having the right mobile phone or pair of trainers became a major pressure on almost every young person’s existence!

As capitalism has become more brutal over the last 20 years, alienation has undoubtedly increased. Without exaggerating, there is a small section of young people in Britain for whom the system has offered nothing and who are, as a result, almost entirely alienated from society.

Work is alienating but it also brings with it the experience of being part of a collective workforce that, potentially at any rate, has the power to fight back. In the organisation of the working class the germ of a new society exists. At times when class struggle is at a high level it tends to increase the sense of common interest and community amongst wide sections of the working class.

One of the worst of all experiences in capitalist Britain is to be a young person who cannot get work – to have been thrown on the scrap heap before your teens are even over. These young people do not even have the right to claim benefits until they are 18 years old. They are surrounded by the pressures and demands of modern capitalist culture – that to fit in they have to own clothes and trainers costing hundreds of pounds - yet they often have no income at all.

There are now generations of such young people who have grown up in the 1980s and 1990s on the housing estates throughout Britain. The result has been an increase in street crime and robbery, almost all of it carried out against people who are also living in poverty.

There has also been an increase in drug addiction: for example, a 400% increase in the number of children who died from sniffing gas and glue between 1980 and 1990. The reasons for drug use are wide and varied. Nonetheless, the increase in every kind of drug addiction and dependency, both legal and illegal, is primarily a result of a more alienated society.

This increase in alienation is a direct result of neo-liberal policies. This is graphically illustrated by the experience of the ex-mining villages around the country. The defeat of the 1984-85 miners’ strike and the closure of the pits have left previously strong communities suffering the ravages of unemployment, poverty and drug addiction.

As long as we live in a capitalist society then, as Marx described, "brutalisation" and "moral degradation" will remain. However, future action by working-class people – both in the workplaces and communities – will to a degree counter the current trend. A new generation will see the point of collective struggle.

One strand of future mass campaigns will undoubtedly be the struggle to strengthen our communities and to prevent anti-social crime. These will have nothing in common with Blair’s empty moralising about being "tough on crime, tough on the causes of crime", whilst simultaneously exacerbating the causes of crime with cuts and more cuts. On the contrary, campaigns against anti-social crime in working-class communities should be linked to demands for decent jobs, facilities for young people and the right to claim benefits.

Is Marx relevant in the 21st century?
According to New Labour, theories developed in the dark, satanic mills of the Victorian era are no longer relevant. It claims that there are good and bad bosses (mostly good). If we are 'reasonable', 'patient' and 'hard working' we can convince good bosses to pay us well. Yet the experience of working people and the statistics - even the government’s statistics - show that this is absolutely untrue.

In the two decades after the second world war capitalism developed at a rapid pace. (This was possible because of exceptional and unrepeatable circumstances following the war, when whole swathes of Europe had been reduced to rubble.) It was in those post-war years that workers in the West won many of the benefits, such as the welfare state, that are being constantly eroded today.

In the early 1970s capitalism went into crisis internationally. Since then the capitalists have set about restoring their profits to the level of the post-war years. They have done this primarily by driving down the wages of the working class, in other words, by increasing their own share of the surplus product.

In the US, the most powerful economy in the world, the longest boom in its history has recently come to a close. Yet, even at the height of the boom - in 1999 - 80% of the population were no better off than they were 20 years ago and 50 million people (nearly 20%) were worse off.

Meanwhile, the capitalist class is drowning in riches. According to the US magazine, Business Week, if a US worker who earned $25,000 (£16,500) in 1994 received the same percentage income increase as the average boss over the same period he or she would now be earning $138,350. The US, the world’s only superpower, contains the most extreme polarisation of wealth.

On the one hand, it is normal for chief executives to receive phenomenal sums in bonuses - like the $45 million (£30 million) that Wendt received from Consecso Insurance just for turning up at his new job. However, the income of individual chief executives is chicken feed compared with the wealth and power of the owners of the big corporations.

Two US corporations alone - General Motors and Ford - exceed the Gross Domestic Product (GDP) of the whole of sub-Saharan Africa. In glaring contradiction with this unimaginable wealth the US also contains ever-increasing poverty: 0.5% of the population of the USA own as much as the bottom 90%.

But the US is only the leader in what is an international trend. In 2000 there were seven million people worldwide with liquid assets of more than $1 million - an increase of 18% in one year alone. In Britain the average income of a chief executive of a FTSE 100 company is a huge £643,000 a year. This means, by the way, that all but the most obese are literally worth their weight in gold!

New Labour argues that these individuals ‘earn’ their wealth with their talent and entrepreneurial skills. Yet in Britain there are a mere 392 people who sit on the remuneration boards adjudicating on the pay and bonuses of the top company directors of the 98 largest companies. Thirty directors sit on more than one remuneration board. This is a tiny club of wealthy people deciding how much more gold to heap on themselves and their friends and relatives. There were 6,600 millionaires in 1992 and now there are more than 47,000.

By contrast, as the house journal of the financial wing of the British ruling class, The Financial Times, commented:

"Wage inequality is greater than for 100 years... one in two less-skilled men is without work, and one in five households lack access to an earned income."

Employment insecurity for those who do have jobs is at "the highest level for 30 years", according to the Joseph Rowntree Foundation.

All the neo-liberal attacks on the living standards of the working class have been designed, at base, to increase the ruling class’s share of surplus value at the expense of the working class. This has been achieved by decreasing the 'social wage' - cutting the welfare state. But it has also been carried out directly on the factory floor. Today the bosses take a much larger percentage of the surplus created by the working class than was the case in the recent past. As the American economist William Greider explains:

"In 1975, an average American family needed 18 weeks of earnings to buy an average-priced car; by 1995 the cost of the new car consumed 28 weeks of income."

Globalisation
This example is based on US car workers. Yet, many car plants internationally have been moved away from the US and Europe to areas where labour is far cheaper, such as Latin America and Eastern Europe. The same has happened in many other sectors. Greider describes the reasons why:

"American garment workers could make a shirt with 14 minutes human labour, while it took 25 minutes in Bangladesh. But the average US wage was $7.53 an hour, while in Bangladesh it was 25 cents, an edge that would not be erased even if the Bangladeshi wages were doubled or quadrupled. Or steel: US industry required 3.4 hours of human labour to produce a ton of steel, while Brazil took 5.8 hours. But wages difference was 10 to 1: $13 an hour versus $1.28."

This demonstrates one of the ways in which the bosses were able to hugely increase their profits by lowering wages in the 1990s. However, in doing so they have also massively exacerbated the problems that the capitalist system is facing now, and will face in the future.

The coming crisis
Until recently the US economy was booming. Like Atlas it held up the world economy. This was a boom that massively intensified the inequalities of capitalism. It was also the precursor to recession: in the 12 months up to March 2002, US big-business profits suffered the biggest drop since the Great Depression of the 1930s. Despite this, at the beginning of 2002 most commentators were claiming that the US economy was on the road to recovery. As the collapse of WorldCom and the slide on the stock markets show, this was more than a little over-optimistic.

Capitalism is a cyclical system and the current recession will, at a certain stage, come to an end, but the underlying systemic malaise will remain. Economic stagnation, mass unemployment and underemployment, and the general undermining of working peoples’ living standards, are all capitalism has to offer in the 21st century. The most modern understanding of can be found in the writings of Marx.

Today the capitalists claim to have solved overproduction with techniques like 'just-in-time' production. Yet only a few years ago, massive overproduction was the major factor in the South-East Asian economic crisis which has decimated the living standards of the working class of the area. Overproduction is also at the root of the current international crisis. After 1997 the US was able to temporarily ameliorate the situation by acting as the ‘buyer of last resort’ for the world’s goods. This is now coming to an end.

Even in instances where overproduction has been partially overcome, it is replaced by a crisis of overcapacity. That is when capitalism is only able to function by leaving a large proportion of productive capacity idle. In the European car market there was a massive 40% overcapacity in 1999.

This has been the primary reason for the merger mania that has swept the world car industry. In the full knowledge that some factories will have to close and some firms go to the wall, the world’s car producers are slogging it out for markets in a fight to the death. This is what lay behind the mass slashing of jobs at Ford Dagenham, Vauxhall Luton and Longbridge.

The method by which the capitalists have restored their profits in the 1990s has laid the seeds for a catastrophic crisis. They have driven down the wages of workers in the West whilst simultaneously moving production to the ex-colonial countries where labour is cheaper. Inevitably, this is exacerbating the problems of overproduction and overcapacity.

On a global scale the working class receives a considerably smaller share of the value it creates. Therefore, it can buy back only a smaller percentage of the goods it produces. In the current economic crisis the capitalists’ chickens are coming home to roost.

An additional factor in the 1990s US boom has been the massive overvaluation of stock markets throughout the world, but particularly in the US itself. This has been combined with a huge expansion of credit – or, as it is otherwise known, debt. In 1999 private savings in the US went negative for the first time since the 1930s.

In 2000 the total private-sector debt was around 130% of GDP, compared with less than 100% in 1929 when the stock market crash on Wall Street heralded the Great Depression of the 1930s. Credit, like elastic, can be stretched so far.

At a certain point, however, it will have to snap back into line with reality. The result is the collapse of companies like Enron and WorldCom as the 'astute' business practises of the 1990s are revealed as the reckless gambling of a terminally short-sighted capitalist class.

But capitalism’s crises never affect only the billionaires and Wall Street traders. In fact in 2001, despite the world economic downturn, the number of millionaires still increased by 3%! The ‘masters of the universe’ may suffer a bit of a hangover as a result of their decade-long Wall Street party, but it is working people and the poor who will really feel the consequences.



Continued...www.socialistparty.org.uk or www.socialistparty.net

by class - left Tue Jul 01, 2003 01:23

Class is a scientific definition developed by Marx and Engels as opposed to a sociological concept.

Class is decided on the basis of one's objective relationship to the means of production. Recommended reading for a thorough grounding is Robert Tressel's (Irish Writer and member of the SDF in the 1890s) Ragged Trousered Philanthropist.

So in this context who is working class? Means of production? What are they?

Tressel's fantastic novel, recommended again and again by socialists down through the years such as Nye Bevin, Tony Benn, Unison to new members, builders receive it with their union membership cards stilll when they join some craft unions- answers this question with absolute clarity.

And I am not recommending the book to avoid discussion as some arrogant asshole did to me when I a high faluting word passed me by recently- he advised me to go and read about it.

I am recommending this book published by Penguin because it tells the story of a lone socialist in the early days before the turn of the century who tried to win his workmates to trade unionism and socialism and the novel traces the emotional up and considerably deeper downs of Owen (the character) in his efforts to convert the Ragged Trousered Philanthopists into class conscious fighters.

by mr. dubh-gall Mon Jun 30, 2003 23:24

Aren't you being a wee bit over-enthusiastic with the Gaelic speaking areas on your wee linguistic map of Europe ....... ?

A case of inverse lingusitic imperialism ?

Or just wishful thinking ?

by iosaf Mon Jun 30, 2003 22:30

and timely.
I'm not in Ireland for this historic 21st century debate, I may even be out of the reach of Conway's Pub, so why not come to Forum2003-2005 in Barcelona and discuss these things with other people who hold similar and differing views on "socialism/republicanism".
Oh and you may like to look at this map at link for a clue.

I have never thought that SF have any moral right to monopolise ·the Republic· but I suppose neither have they. Have they?

does AP/RN still have the cheapest printing rates in Dublin?

by Yossarian Mon Jun 30, 2003 20:45

I would suggest that a more modern definition of working class (perhaps it's ancient but I haven't heard it) is those with less than average access to the resources of society, be that through lack of education or resources, race, etc. I would not necessarily consider all those with above average access bourgeois but ultimately they will have to accept lesser access to resources as a price to pay for the benefits of reduced crime, stress, etc.
Of course it's a bit vague but that is the nature of our world today, for example there are some trades people who have done extremely well on the back of the housing boom who now own and rent multiple properties on the one hand and low level managers in places like Dunnes who're treated like shit for relatively uninspiring wages. I think my definition takes account of these vagaries in the traditional definition.

by Yossarian Mon Jun 30, 2003 20:31

Justin said, "As I pointed out in my article on this in last week's Phoblacht, this does not mean that we made no mistakes in government but again, and again I come back to asking for the alternative."

The alternative, as far as I am concerned is not to get involved in electoral politics (at least of a parliamentary nature). There are many publications which investigate the effectiveness of strident socialists once they have signed up to parliamentary democracy. The results are more or less universal - they are completely ineffectual. The fact that we have a parliament at all is due to the social upheavals of the 17 and 1800's (at which time less than 5% of the population had any say in the official running of the country). This was a "concession" that was handed down in dribs and drabs to the general population from those in power.
The nature of the trouble in the north is an imbalance in power, exacerbated by the balance of power being traditionally held by one side of a divided community. The solution, I think, has to be to educate everyone there about the sources of power. The republican community has probably benefitted substantially from its socialist ideology and by my analysis is emerging from the troubles with better community organisation and education. This came about from people's desire to improve their situation themselves. The unionists, who relied on their elected representatives to sort them out appear to be less effectively organised because of that. Surely this is an indication that joining the parliamentary system is counterproductive.
I would humbly suggest that the way forward in the north is for greater links between the working classes with the aim that people realise that as long as there is an unequal distribution of power, whether it be sectarian or solely class based, we will always lose out. Entering an institution (parliament) which supports inequality, whether in the north, the south or wherever will never result in a socialist society where liberty, equality or fraternity (solidarity) will flourish.

Justin also said, "I realise it's not a popular view on this and the instinctive reaction will be to go mental at what I said but again, the alternative? Abandon a crucial Peace Process meeting to anti-republicans? To make a political point that would validate us only in the eyes of leftists who hate us anyway? We regularly met with Blair, with Thatchers people while they were trying to kill us. We met with Loyalists who had killed our comrades. We can do that; we can meet with Bush."

The alternative of course was not to meet Bush. The substance of the peace process meeting is highly questionable. What new came out of that meeting? For how long did SF representatives actually discuss issues relevant to the peace process with the Bush team (let's not kid ourselves that the Bush engages in this sort of dialogue - or that anyone would want him to)? Perhaps the meeting wasn't crucial.
The nature of making political points I would have thought is not to validate yourself in the eyes of anyone else but yourself. This is my understanding of politics in the real sense as opposed to Real Politik which is inherent in the parliamentary system.
Yes, SF did meet with Blair and Thatcher's people but not usually with a big fanfare. They've been meeting the yanks for years. The point is that Bush's visit to the north at that time was pure choreography on Bush's part and was absolutely lacking in any substance whatsoever. He needed at that time to be associated with a "successful" oeace process so a situation was manufactured for this. SF participated in this pantomine and are rightly pilloried for it.
I do understand that to snub Bush would have had serious, perhaps fatal political blow back. That's why I'm an anarchist, so I'll never be in a situation where I have to hang my principles out to dry.

by John - ISN Mon Jun 30, 2003 20:30

In Finglas Dessie Ellis (SF local rep)is on the steering group of the campaign and many SF members have been active in it's postering and leafletting activities.

by Killian Forde Mon Jun 30, 2003 20:20

Over the past couple of weeks I have read the series in APRN with regards to republicanism and socialism and the effective question of 'where now' that it elicted.

The threads above are good and I am delighted that the debate (above) has remained relatively (for indymedia postings) grounded.

However, and I ask this question in all seriousness, and i do anticpate abuse for even posing it, along the lines of 'if you don't know that how can you call yourself socialist' nonetheless here goes

WHAT IS WORKING CLASS?

Now i think we would all agree that a thesis on marx, engels, cliff or anyother writer/thinker on the left is not what I mean.

Is working class, to you, defined by; background, education, wage level, area you lived in, ideology, accent, attitude.....

It is just that sometimes i think we inadvertenly alientate massive sections of society talking about "the working class", mainly because the term, coined over a century ago when socially and econmically things 'seemed' a lot different. The only people I hear nowadays shouting about their 'working class' credentails are middle class students, taxi drivers, bono and colin farell.

Do people we think are 'working class' think that they are 'working class' and if not are we talking over peoples heads when we use the term?

by Davy Carlin - W/Belfast SWP Mon Jun 30, 2003 20:04 carlindavid at hotmail dot com

If I read past the short jabs at the SWP {progressive} Justin takes up on a number of interesting points. Firstly he clarifies my point on the politic of community {Nationalist] as opposed to that of class. Therefore as self defined {the largest Nationalist party in the North} I can understanding your moving away from the wording as your comrade stated of 'a 32 county socialist republic' or from 'the old fashioned rhetoric of the working class'. I do not believe for one minute though that you do it because in a belief that 'its old fashioned' to working class people but simply as that as the 'Largest Nationalist party' of the Nationalist working class, middle class and ruling class { with the latter two in the ascendency you can no longer afford to use such wording. This because your Unity of 'Class Nationalism', for mainly electoral gain within centre right governance would be effected.

Your point in relation to the Bush visit that why should it be done to make a political point and to validate the left I find amazing. As if it was only the left who marched in their tens of thousands in the North, as if it was only the left who seen the hypocrisy of it all? I suppose principle means little within the politic of conformity.

No one has asked you to take the lead on anti privatisation campaigns but the least one can expect from a 'centre left party' as I hear leading members state you are. Is that when you are actually implementing it { when forced to do so - as you state} that you should not state what a wonderful thing it is when you are doing, as was done initially with PFI.

I shall come back later as am away to a meeting on the politic of 'Green and Orange' tonight. I wonder if the issue of community and class will be raised. It will be interesting to hear what Mitchell McClaughlin whom I believe is speaking says on the issue.

Until tommorrow.

by does it matter? - ditto Mon Jun 30, 2003 19:34

thanks

by Justin Moran aka Justin Morgan - Sinn Féin Mon Jun 30, 2003 19:12 maigh_nuad at yahoo dot com

I think Sinn Féin's record in government in the North was about as positive as it could be considering the restrictions imposed on access to funding (From Britain) and being in coalition with right wing parties. Quite simply, we did not have the political strength to implement the policies we wanted. On the whole though, I don't think we did too badly, abolishing the 11+ was a good step and Martin McGuinness was particularly effective as Minister for Education. As I pointed out in my article on this in last week's Phoblacht, this does not mean that we made no mistakes in government but again, and again I come back to asking for the alternative.

I think too, we have to realise Sinn Fein is going to be in power in the South. Now who that is with and the make-up of that Government is another question. Personally I would have huge ideological problems with most of them and am opposed to SF entering government without a left of centre majority in seats but we do have to realise that outside of an overall majority, we are going to have to compromise with less progressive organisations.

It seems I spend half my time in debates asking dissident republicans or hard leftists what their alternative would be, obviously different arguments. A lot of the things said by both groups has a ring of truth to it. The majority, does not. But they consistently fail to outline an alternative. The SWP's response, collapse the Assembly and build a cross-community campaign to stop privatisation.

I am still shocked that I ever had to argue against this idea as I belive it's own lack of merit is evident but apart from the uncertainty, possible, indeed probably, violence, that would have resulted from a collapsed Assembly at certain times, Sinn Fein was to lead a cross-community campaign against privatisation. I wouldn't want to be a canvasser on that campaign in certain parts of Belfast or Lurgan.

I am glad you acknowledge there are genuine left wing activists in Sinn Fein. Likewise I acknowledge that there are genuine left wing activists in the SWP. I've even met some and there are some SWP members in Dublin I think very highly of. By some, I mean two, but I am trying.

As for Bush, I had an interesting evolution on this one. I started off hopping mad and spitting bullets about meeting him. By the end of the week, reading the arguments against the meeting with Bush on Indymedia, they had actually convinced me the party leadership made the right decision. Overall, I think we made the right decision to meet Bush, convey our opposition to the war on Iraq and also work on the Peace Process. This was not my initial response, and I am still deeply angry about elements of how it was handled, but simply reading the arguments advanced against our meeting with him convinced me or the merit of doing so. I realise it's not a popular view on this and the instinctive reaction will be to go mental at what I said but again, the alternative? Abandon a crucial Peace Process meeting to anti-republicans? To make a political point that would validate us only in the eyes of leftists who hate us anyway? We regularly met with Blair, with Thatchers people while they were trying to kill us. We met with Loyalists who had killed our comrades. We can do that; we can meet with Bush.

I don't think anti-capitalism is old-fashioned, or anti-imperialism. I think the term 'working class' is old-fashioned, wrongly so in my opinion as I have a great deal of faith in class based analysis but the truth is I don't think it, or 'socialism', are sellable brand names. We can either redefine them, change the name, or change people's pereptions.

I have no problem with the use of the word community, and I find your antipathy to it puzzling, though possibly it explains the falure of the SWP to win any support.

By and large, Sinn Fein remains a working class party, run by working class people. Yes it has middle class members, me for one, but so do most left wing organisations. There was even a rumour on Indymedia some time ago that a middle class person had been in the SWP until you uncovered him. As I pointed out in the article in the Phoblacht last week, so long as middle class members are converts, and not convertors, the more the merrier.

by Davy Carlin - W/Belfast SWP Mon Jun 30, 2003 18:47 carlindavid at hotmail dot com

I have found already the contributions to date offer an differing insite to various parties and organisations understanding to a variety of issues, in realtion to the original posting. Andrew gives his belief on autonomous class organisations as opposed to a party or an organisation 'handing power to the working class'. In that statement I believe he misrepresents the understanding of a number of organistions and individuals who work from below with others within the politic 'of the emancipation of the working class is the act of the working class'.
Although some might see it as 'old fashioned wording' and abstact I have always beleved that Marxism as theory without Marxism in pratice will lead always to a perception of that abstraction. Therefore both need to work as one. For example one can say they are opposed to war and give a great theoretical piece as to why one should oppose it but if that is independant of practically opposing the war while still putting forward an understanding of how to end such wars, then the understanding of how to end it is not actively engaged with - thus the abstraction.

A recent example of that, again on this site was a report of the Falls and Shankill march in support of the firefighters which I with others was involved in. Someone at the march give his understanding as a socialist to the march but It was not relevant to many who actually particapate or knew abour it. Why as he took no part in building the march and held no relation to it. Thus his theroy from the outside was independant from the practicalites of its workings from below, thus his report was abstract, not factual, and therefore seen as irrelevant to those whom had participated in the march.

I would also disagree with Andrew's understanding of the SWP trying to force the new movement into an old mould. We have worked in many campaigns in the North and participated in many International mobilisations but I have not heard that raised against myself or comrades. I will no doubt hear other such issues raised but it is good to see that it is raised in the way Andrew has raised it. I will come back on a number of other points later on as I wish to deal with the comment from the comrade from the SP/SY {I presume}.

The issue of Sinn Fein having carried out anti working class polices is true but not surprising to many, not fotgetting also that they have implemented these policies while in centre right Governance. While there are genuine left wing activists in their party their leadership implement and sit in such a governance. Yet these contridictions come up more and more as seen especially around the visit of Bush. It is healthy to have a debate within or outside an organisation, as understandings can be clarified and some unity on some issues could materialise. I shall come back again and I hope republicians engage on this as I remember reading on the site of Justin Morgan stating that they have no problem with debate.

I finish this initial posting with a question to the original posting. Is anti capitalism old fashion rhertoric? Is Anti imperialism old fashion rhetoric? Are the working class but old fashion rhetoric?
Or is it that such words just do not fit into a new party - the party of the 'community'- that 'of' the working class but 'for' the middle class, that of Nationalism.
Quite simply it is not old rhetoric as the original posting indicates but simply, New Sinn Fein

by Justin Moran - Sinn Féin Mon Jun 30, 2003 18:32 maigh_nuad at yahoo dot com

Tentative so far but it's almost like a debate could begin here.

Before I go on, I would suggest to people who want their comments to be read by a wider republican audience to email letters to the Phoblacht. My piece last week attracted two lettrs criticising elements of it (One letter I accept, one I disagree with) and it would be good to get non-republican perspective in it. BTW, we tend to keep letters short in our paper to get more in (Most left papers in Ireland don't have a letters page I note) but no John Throne length missives.

Personally I agree with the assessment of Paul's article in relation to what he is demanding. Nothing he argues for, nor any slogan he uses, can conceivably be controversial. Who is going to stand up and say they oppose equality, justice or rights? (Sunday Independent noted as the exception.

Republicans have always seen in the Republican slogan, Liberty, Equality and Fraternity, the kernal of socialist thinking. What is socialism but equality and solidarity? Bear in mind the slogan pre-dates the word 'socialism'. Certainly when I explain republicanism to people I tend to use this to introduce people to the concept.

I think Andrew's comment about libertarianism is well taken, and would be similar enough to my own politics, a point I made when he was kind enough to address a group of young republicans about anarchism. (Still waiting for the appalled article in Workers Solidarity ;) )

I think using the Dublin Bin tax campaign as an example of how Sinn Fein is not libertarian enough, for want of a better word, is flawed reasoning. There are an ocean of reasons that Sinn Fein did not get involved in the mass non-payment campaign organised by other groups. Some of them are good reasons. Some of them are shitty reasons. Long story short, we didn't, lets move on. (And no, I'm not getting into it as I have done so many times in the past)

I think if you look at Sinn Fein's policy documents, and its statements, especially since the TDs were elected it has constantly pushed the community issue, of empowering local communities, of devolving as much power as possible to local groups and communities. Not Anarchism, but we have a better record on it than you allow us. I would also point to the massive success in things like residents campaigns in the Six Counties against sectarian marches.

I also find the idea of a party that 20 years ago refused to recognise both states as being 'state-centred' a little curious. Sinn Féin does believe in the nation-state as the organising construct of society but we also believe that power within that nation state should be devolved as much as is possible to local structures and communities.

I think Paul's argument about the distribution of politics does not state specifically that it will be distributed from top down. Sinn Fein is a campaigning party, we believe in empowering people. Have we a 100% record on implementing these beliefs in practice? No, don't claim to, no-one is perfect with the obvious exception of the SWP, but we do as good a job as we can and we don't do badly.

Arguing that left politics needs to seek to distribute political and economic power as widely as possible does not suggest the author is restricting 'left politics' to bums on seats.

I will gently divert for a moment into Red Dawn's world of sectarian madness merely to correct one point. Martin Ferris did not abuse his medical card. He was, and the Health Board went on air to state this, perfectly entitled to it. He didn't break the law, he claimed what the State told him he was entitled to. He even checked once he became TD as to whether he was entitled and was told he was. The rest of the points have been dealt with by Shinners before ad fucking nauseum.

Overall, I disagreed with some of Paul's arguments. I believe he underestimates the importance of a class based analysis of society and he is not sufficently critical of the current policy line/ideology of the party.

I do agree that it is time to move past outdated concepts and I find the argumnt that the 'brandname' Socialism may be irretreivably damaged to hold some water.

I would also agree with Andrew's assessment that the slogans used and the alternatives offered need to be advanced on and radicalised.

I would also agree with Andrew's point about worker directors under capitalism but I would suggest it is still an advance. An employee owned and run business along classic anarchist or socialist thinking in a capitalist environment might still have to lay off workers if income was exceeded by expenditure. Short of transforming the global economic system we have to find a way for embryonic socialist systems to flourish.

Obviously the argument is for a global change, but this will not happen overnight. It will begin slowly, it might/will take decades, possibly centuries and during the beginning of the process a way will have to be found for those embryonic worker run businesses to survive.

Anyway, those are my thoughts. I would urge people with an interest in this debate to try and contribute to the Phoblacht about it. We do have a letters page and we do print critical letters in it (Considering who our readership are we don't get many). We encourage people from other organisations and ideologies to come talk to our people, Andrew is one example but there have been others. Republicanism is engaged in several internal debates, including one about where to position ourselves on the Left. The views of people outside the republican movement are more than welcome, assuming they are contributed in a constructive non-sectarian fashion. If you want a row, just drop by Conways :)

by IMC reader - aren't we all? Mon Jun 30, 2003 17:56

Davy, the fact that Sinn Fein, a relatively popular party (which I don't support), has to use euphemisms is interesting.

1. equals instead of socialist. The fact is that today when people hear the word socialism they don't get very excietd, and that includes people within the anti-war/anti-capitalist movement. Why is it so? Yes of course the USSR, but also more direct experience. I have heard 1000 times the phrase "we must be centralised because the state is centralised". Quite aside from the dubious idea that you have to copy the capitalist state, what that translates into in actual practice is: follow the instructions of the central committee. A lot of people get involved with anti-capitalist politics for many reasons, and one is usually that they can think with their own mind, otherwise they'd buy into the pro-capitalist propaganda. And more often than not reject the notion that the central committee knows better. Yes, of course, the CC is democratically elected and all that, but the point is that you still have to follow the party line. Then there is the story that the working class is centralised, but that's hardly believable when is told by people with very little direct experience of working class life. Note that I am not arguing against organisation, I am arguing in favour of horizontal organisation. That's the novelty of Seattle--and Chiapas before Seattle--but I see little sign of Socialist Parties of one shade or another catching up with the news. Reading your literature one gets the impression that you believe that people are against the leninist party because they have read Hardt and Negri's book Empire (how many article and debates have you devoted to proving the book wrong?). Not so, if anything Hardt and Negri have explained what was already there: a new generation of activists who reject all forms of autoritarianism, even 'socialist' authoritarianism.

2. class. again the idea has become fairly discredited within the movement because we keep hearing socialists telling us that we must allying with the working class, that only the working class can make a real change. a few moths ago we have that in the anti-war movement: we must ally with organised labour, the only hope is a strike by shannon workers and so on. now that's pretty disempowering. also one suspects that the working class is a rather shadowy entity, rather than all of us (workers, students, unemployed, etc.). that's why a lot people these days prefer to talk about grassroots, at least that means that it's us, not someone else.

by / Mon Jun 30, 2003 17:52

http://www.bolshevik.org/Pamphlets/Platformism/Platformism.html

"The Irish Workers Solidarity Movement (WSM), currently the most influential English-language Platformist group"

with friends like these...

by Andrew Mon Jun 30, 2003 17:44

Your parody of the SP post neatly illustrates how the left on indymedia (and elsehere) delibretly talks past each other. We avoid facing the problems in our own position by just talking about the problems in others positions.

So above SY/SP ignored the problems with the left that the APRN articles points out and which clearly apply to the SP/SY in the same way they apply to the SWP (see above). Instead they point out that SF as an organisation is not socialist. Leaving the door open for a similar treatment of themselves, a door Durruti gladly leaps through.

End result - no resolution of the actual issues, no need to face the problems in our own theory/organisation and a lot of bad feeling all round!

by Durutti Mon Jun 30, 2003 17:39

SP are in no way socialist and the use of marxist terminology by a clearly pro - imperialist party is rather disgusting and low. They still defend the invasion of the Malvinas. (See Higgins thread)

SP cannot and will not offer a socialist future for the people of Ireland - Socialism is a buzzword of this party nothing more. They betrayed the Anti War struggle. They praised the cops at Evian

If there are any socialists in SP - and there are some in the minority - its time to leave that party - it will sell you out to British Imperialism when the oppertunity comes along. They want the Union Jack flying over Dublin. They want a socialist federation of the british isleswith the capital in london.

by Red Dawn 1917 - SP/SY Mon Jun 30, 2003 17:27

The real test is not talk of socialism - many in Sinn Féins postition have done that before - the real test for Sinn Féin is too break the link with corporate america. Will it do that? I personally don't think so.

Your parties record in the Northern executive has shown that it is not committed in any way to socialism. McGuinness or De Brúin were no friends of the workers in these postitions - indeed they carried out anti working class policies. In the south your leadership is willing to jump into bed with Fianna Fail when they come looking for a coalition partner- Crowe refuses to call for mass non payment of the bin tax (at a meeting in Tallaght he claimed the bill was in his wifes name and that he had not paid it - I ask did she?)in wroting this I acknowledge the work of some Sinn Féin Councillors supporting the anti bin tax campaign and calling for mass non payment - Ferris abused his medical card by using it when he was stillon a TD's wage- Time will show the lies of sinn fein and a growing working class anger at the party branding them sell outs and liars - just like Labour.

Sinn Fein are in no way socialist and the use of marxist terminology by a clearly pro - market party is rather disgusting and low.

Sinn Féin cannot and will not offer a socialist future for the people of Ireland - Socialism is a buzzword of this party nothing more.

If there are any socialists in Sinn Féin - and there are some in the minority - its time to leave that party - it will sell you out when the oppertunity comes along.

by Andrew Mon Jun 30, 2003 17:21

Davy if you want a debate on this it would have been smart to actually post some thoughts on the article that people could respond to. Posting the request along with your party affiliation creats a rather strong liklihood of people having a go at where you come from instead. That said some thoughts on the article...

Fundamentally it contains a strong truth, that is that "But this 21st century hunger for change will not be poured into 20th century moulds". Percisely the problem with the tradition of the 'old' left including the SWP is that it is trying to force the new movement into some rather old molds. Once the SWP for instance had woken up post Seattle the immediate reaction was to talk of creating 'a new bolshevik cadre' out of the new activists (Julie? Waterman in Socialist Review). The spin has improved a little since but the underlining method remains and it very obviously is not working - indeed its acheiving the opposite of what is intended.

Likewise the articles points to some rather strong if unpalatable truths for those who favour a literal reading of Marx and the other prophets. The prediction of lenin in particualr that capitalism could not develop further (post 1917) is so obviously wrong that it is not worth arguing yet the pamphlet based around this (Imperialism) remains at the very centre of all the old lefts understanding of imperialism and globalisation.

What the article suggests as alternatives to the 20th century left however read a lot like slogans of the 19th century European republican movements. The only addition to "Equality, justice, rights, empowerment" is the last empowerment, the others were the slogans the left developed from in the 1860's (both anarchist and marxist forms).

Beyond this the article is fascinating for trying to put a libertarian spin on the state centered strategy of Sinn Fein. That this should be attempted is no surprise, in Ireland as elsewhere this is the sort of politics that seems to best describe what is needed. But while this sort of spin might sound all right it doesn't bear examination.

At its simplest the position of woker directors under capitalism will always be countradictory because in reality it is the market that rules companies at the end of the day and not the board of directors. Layoffs decided by workers directors may be easier to sell but the end result is the same.

I don't want to go into all the detail but I think one line capures it all. "A new, left wing politics must seek to distribute both political and economic power as widely as possible." Either forms of power in this sense cannot be distributed from above, they must be taken from below. It is not a question of an organisation or party handing power to the working class but of helping the creation of autonomous class organisation.

Is this what Sinn Fein is doing? No. The Dublin bin tax campaign demonstrates this. Far from a strategy of building a campaign that could involve all through autonomous local groups Sinn Fein has backed off from the campaign in favour of promoting the idea that Sinn Fein will sort the problem out for you. That is a very simple test of party V autonomous organisation, and its one that SF has chosen to fail.

by Davy Carlin - W/belfast SWP Mon Jun 30, 2003 16:42 carlindavid at hotmail dot com

'the rhetoric of old fashioned Socialism', An Ireland of equals as opposed to a 32 county socialist republic' and of course the Politic of Community as opposed to that of class.

Let us debate the diffences {if any, as some may well think} on these important issues. I would be interested on what republicans may think of the recent article as opposed to their comrade the previous week. Debate is healthy and it is good that such issues are being raised. Shall be switched on to this channel for some interesting debate I hope.