Whither Left Unity?

by Clarity - what? Tue Oct 21, 2003 12:06

What are you talking about?

by matt Tue Oct 21, 2003 12:12

What in the name of god would be the point in running micro left candidates in the Assembly elections? Other than of course to gratify the impotent rage and jealously of those who cannot accept the fact that the strongest left wing party in Irish history is about to make another historic breakthrough and who think that working class republicans might be deluded into voting for some self-appointed Trotsky or Rosa Luxembourg. Well, I think you will find that people know who has stood by them. Having said that I look forward to Eamon McCann putting his money where his mouth is and running against Mitchel McLaughlin. That would be almost as much fun as watching the destruction of the SDLP. By the way, I exclude the Workers Party and the CP from the above as they do at least have some raision d'etre and not surprised they appear to have rejected the blandishments of the trots.

by Jonah Tue Oct 21, 2003 12:36

I'm not saying whether it would be a good or bad idea one way or the other, merely that I'd appreciate more information on the subject.

Calm the head Matt, breathe deeply.

by Myself Tue Oct 21, 2003 13:37

Presumably Matt is referring to the same left wing party that supports the bin tax in Sligo, campaigned for "Greening West of the Bann" in the last UK general election and who's Ministers were gung ho for privatisation in health and education in the stormont executive

by E - SWP Tue Oct 21, 2003 15:09

Theres are report in the latest Socialist Worker on the outcome on the Left unity talks that had been taking place in the North. Looks like they were unsuccessful this time out and the Derry based Socialist Environmental Alliance of which the SWP is part will probably run in one or two areas. Full report at

http://www.swp.ie/html/socialistworker.htm

You can download the paper as a PDF file

thanks

by Ray Tue Oct 21, 2003 15:21

along with the SWP, the SWP, and the SWP.

by Mark Tue Oct 21, 2003 19:30

Can you believe Ray actually removed this comment a while ago.

Someone disagrees with you Ray. Cant take it eh?

by Indymedia Ireland Editorial Group - Indymedia Ireland Tue Oct 21, 2003 19:54

It was a simple insult, the verbal equivalent of cocking a snook, mooning or blowing a raspberry. IMC Editorial attempts to remove all such comments in order to prevent imc-ireland becoming a mere bulletin board with irritated posters trading meaningless insults which don't contribute to a "radical, passionate and accurate telling of the truth". R Isible - 1 of IMC Editorial

by barry Tue Oct 21, 2003 22:34

if it's the swp, swp & swp comment then whilst it doesn't contain new information, it does contain knowledge which may be useful to some.

That said, imc.ie is probably the most active indymedia in the world for comments and there's probably a whole postgrad research project in figuring out the ratio of comments to posts, trolls to flames and info to noise. This project could then coalate all this and determine if anything useful at all came out of the whole damn mess (and whether or not that single piece of useful knowledge was deleted before anyone got to read it)

by Indymedia Ireland Editorial Group - Indymedia Ireland Tue Oct 21, 2003 23:14

It was a response to that comment that was just a simple insult. There was NO information in it. Ray's comment _did_ contain information -- namely it asserted that the SWP were the prime and only movers. This may be irritating, but it's not solely an insult and so it remains. FWIW it was not me that removed the insult but another editor and I fully support that action. Further discussion of this topic should be directed to the imc-ireland-editorial@lists.indymedia.org. Thanks. R Isible - 1 of IMC editorial

by Joe Wed Oct 22, 2003 12:11

Even an insult contains info. It tells you what a person thinks of another. To say that Ray's comment is valid is using smoke to hide behind political bias.
As one of our censor masters put it:
"Ray's comment _did_ contain information -- namely it asserted that the SWP were the prime and only movers"
No it did not. Your biased opinion read it as 'prime and only movers'. Whereas his comment states that the SEA is made up only of the SWP. This is not 'knowledge' but a lie. How many SEA meetings has Ray attended?
Then again every censorer uses their 'power' to conduct a political argument.
Another blow struck for anarchy?

by Ray Wed Oct 22, 2003 12:25

Whether you agree with what I said or not, I did at least say something more than 'blah blah SEA blah'. The deleted comment was deleted (not by me) simply because it didn't say anything. The very fact that you are arguing with me assertion demonstrates that something was asserted.
As for the composition of the SEA, well, if you are involved yourself you can _demonstrate_ that I am wrong, and not just assert it. Are there any political organisations involved in the SEA other than the SWP and various SWP front groups?

by Joe Wed Oct 22, 2003 12:47

That the SEA represents a broad range of groups including the SWP, GR. (I)AWM, ANL, Pro Choice Campaign etc, etc

by Ray Wed Oct 22, 2003 13:04

The SWP and SWP front groups.
The ANL has no independent existence, its policy is decided and its 'leadership' appointed by the SWP.
GR is notorious for also being SWP-controlled.
The IAWM contains other groups at the national level, but on a local level is generally just the local SWP branch wearing a different set of hats. I'm guessing its only local IAWM branches that have joined the SEA, and not the national organisation, right?
The ProChoice Campaign I haven't heard of, but I'm extremely confident that its just another SWP front group.
So it looks like my initial statement that the SEA is made up of the SWP, the SWP, the SWP, and the SWP was accurate.

by random input Thu Oct 23, 2003 15:58

the post about who is involved in the SEA is a joke. I thought that would be obvious.

And btw referring to the IAWM as simply an SWP front really does get on my tits. In my local anti-war group, there is one SWPer. The IAWM is much bigger than the SWP - and it does not do justice to those of us who have organised actions in our own areas, and gone to all the demos to simply dismiss it as a front.

There are problems with the leadership I admit, but there are problems with the union leadrship too - and most people don't refer to them as 'partnership fronts'. We must democratise the unions as we must democratise the IAWM.

But I still feel hugely insulted that, by your insinuation, I and the rest of my local branch are somehow an SWP front.

I think you have just insulted the majority of local IAWM branches round the country.

by Ray Thu Oct 23, 2003 16:23

I know that in the UK, the SWP have adopted a policy of abandoning SWP branch meetings, and now get the local branches to meet under different names. Instead of Berkshire SWP meeting every Monday, they'd meet one Monday a month, as would Berkshire ANL, Berkshire GR, and Berkshire AWM. I'm pretty sure that this is true in Ireland too - _most_ local meetings of these campaigns are just meetings of the local SWP branch, with maybe one or two other people along too, to be recruited. If that's not the case with your branch, good for you. Nobody has given me any reason to believe that the SEA is anything other than the SWP, with each member wearing as many different hats as they can find.
So, which post about who is involved in the SEA is an obvious joke?

by random input Thu Oct 23, 2003 16:45

I mean it's gotta be if its the same Joe that always posts here. He (and most of us) know well that the ANL(when they make their brief appearences about once a year) and GR are SWP fronts - I think he was trying to back up your point about the SEA with a little more humour.

As for the SEA, I have no knowledge whatsoever about them - and it wouldn't surprise me if they were made up of the SWP and a few (soon to be disillusioned) Indie's.

I don't know about your claim that most local IAWM branches are SWP branches meeting under a different name. I should clarify that I'm talking about branches down the country. I'm pretty sure the SWP have little or no members in places like Kildare, Offaly, Donegal and other such places. It could well be the case that the local City branches are SWP dominated, I don't know I've never been to Fairview AWM meeting or similar. It wouldn't surpirse me (I'm a former member and know how they operate), but I still think its unfair to make such allegations without proof. It certainly annoys me to be lumped in as an SWP tool - I assume it annoys others.

by Joe Thu Oct 23, 2003 16:55

Yes it was a joke (I thought it was obviously so). I guess the confusion arises because there are two Joes posting in the thread.

And I think the IAWM is broader then the SWP even though it has been controlled by them. Quite a few of the local groups seem to be genuine. At the conference motions that the SWP would have been unhappy with were passed (but appear to have been ignored since). However the SWP with 3 or 4 of the 6 officers do seem to hold the keys to the campaign still.

by IO Thu Oct 23, 2003 17:00

Random makes good points about the country branches of the IAWM being way more representative than Dublin.
It's a shame then that they were poorly represented at the AGM and that the 'van' were able to make sure that meetings wouldn't take place outside of Dublin occasionally.
It's also a shame that four out of the six officer board members are SWers.
And it's also a shame that there was no written financial report, which is the norm at almost every other AGM.

Old SWer habits die hard.

by Ray Thu Oct 23, 2003 17:11

Yeah, the confusion was over the fact that two 'Joe's posted, one replying to me after I replied to the other.
As for the IAWM, I'm pretty sure that if there is an SWP branch in an area, and an IAWM branch in the same area, you'll find that there's, shall we say, a very high overlap in their membership. But I was wrong to generalise from that to the view that most IAWM branches are actually just SWP branches, so my apologies.

by Mark Thu Oct 23, 2003 20:16

Ref. the deleted comment "Bla Bla Bla Ray":-

Thank you for your response editorial group but I think you are way too much using your own opinions on this matter and blockading the use of free speech.

If I said "Ray, your an asshole" - I think this would have been an insult and should have been removed. But I refrained from saying this. Rather I used the comment I used. I do not consider this a harsh or a derogotary insult. Rather the comment was meant as an implicit referral to the way Ray, in particular, continues to have a snipe at the SWP, continually on this newswire, and I have monitored him. So my comment bla, bla, bla Ray is meant to mean same old story, is there anything new you can come up with. The comment is also intended to be directed at the broader Swp snipers and cynics who constantly moan and begrudge and contribute very little by way of positive comments in general. These little snipes are a small example of the in-fighting and bickering which the left in Ireland is infamous for. It is extremely damaging and I think needs to be exposed.

Fair enuf, make critical comments, but not condescending, cynical remarks such as that of Ray's.

Regarding your point of no information contained in the post:-

"Ray's comment _did_ contain information -- namely it asserted that the SWP were the prime and only movers."

This is not information. This, also, is merely Ray's opinion. He gives no statistical information whatsoever to back up this opinion.

Rather the only "information" he gives is his typically bland & cynical comment:-

"along with the SWP, the SWP, and the SWP."

Saying that for similar reasons to my own comment I don’t think his opinion should be removed.

In summation - my comment was not meant as a derogotary insult (which Indymedia in genearl is over-flowing with), but rather it was meant as an "opinion" which stands up as opposed to Ray's continual abhoration of the Swp.

As a footnote, I should add that I do not totally disagree with Ray, and believe that the Swp do use fronts to a certain extent, are not a very transparent organization, and have questions to answer which I don’t think they have really answered to date.

But saying this, I think that they have done a MASSIVE amount of work for the left in Ireland, for the disadvantaged people in Ireland, and for the down trodden of the world.

It is the neglect of this aspect of Ray's comments which my comment "Bla, bla, bla Ray" was intended to oppose.

by Billy Bob Thu Oct 23, 2003 20:27

Oh come one. Ray said what everyone here knows - the Socialist Environmental Alliance is the SWP in a funny hat, with a couple of poor shmucks along for cover.

If you disagree with that then feel free to explain exactly who makes up the SEA other than the SWP.

by barry Thu Oct 23, 2003 20:49

you what? have you tried doing stand-up?

and this is meant as a very serious comment.

by Mark Fri Oct 24, 2003 11:02

Dead serious Barry. The Swp have been involved in protests and various activities aimed at protecting the most vulnerable in the planet for years. What the hell do you call the huge anti-war protests in Ireland!???? - But most/all socialists and anarchists are the same and do similar things.

I don't get your problem

Ref. Billy Bob - My comment above was not really directed at whether the Swp makes up the total composition of SEA or not - My comment was directed on the wider issue of the use of free speech & opinions on Indymedia.