SP Assembly election article

by Slugger O Toole Wed Nov 12, 2003 23:04

1. People don't want to be labelled as working class anymore.

2. It's a 19th century idea that has served it's purpose.

3. Everyone - apart from university types with inverted snobbery - aspires to be affluent, educated and extremely rich, if possible.

4. Socialism failed in the 20th century, it's a dud, a no hoper, a goner.

by pasionaria Wed Nov 12, 2003 23:52

in reply to the above
1
people dont want to be exploited anymore, working class term is not the issue, poor wages and being screwed by the system is the issue.
2
and what purpose does capitalism serve, when over 50% of the worlds population earn less than $1 a day, and 800million children go hungry everyday.
3
well it is not possible,
for everybody to be rich, capitalism sees that a minority actually do become rich, and make their wealth by other people labour.
4
hmmm, dont remember marx stating that communism was to be ruled by a dictatorship,
so go look up the definition of marxism and you may see that the ussr etc was not socialist nor marxist, but it was a totalitarian state capitalist dictatorship.

by Satchel Thu Nov 13, 2003 01:38

1. People have always worked..... Usually in terrible conditions. Nowadays people are protected by law, the vast majority earn more than enough to go on a foreign holiday, nobody is starving in Western societies, even when people are not working the state pays them for doing nothing.

2. People in poorer countries are starving due to their own corrupt governments, warfare, failure to their reform economies. Not because "capitalism" is growing fat off the Third World, as some people like to think.

3. Yes, a minority do indeed become very rich in capitalist economies - and what exactly is wrong with that? You may be aware that many people (like Roman Abraovitch who grew up in an orphanage)do so by sheer hard work and talent and if they can do it then it seems the "system" is not biased like it would be in a Party run socialist system.

This money the rich have - do you think they're hoarding it under the mattress? It's in banks, being lent out to other businesses, employing people. That's the beauty of the system, it allows maximum personal freedom and still dmamges to stay at or near full employment.

4. Marx was clueless, which is why he had nothing to say about how his system would be governed. He has the blood of over 100 million innocent people on his hands, the fool. Even Bakunin had to admit that anarchism would have to be ruled by a "small elite" chosen for their loyalty, until such time as the revolution was completed.
It was not just in Russia that Socialism was attempted, and everywhere it was violently thrust on the people there was state mass murder, repression, famine (even today in N Korea!) and destruction of the environment.

Socilaism is a dud, my friend, it's a goner.

Utterly discredited. Compassionate conservatism is what people want, and at least we get to choose it, rather than having it forced on us by revolution.

by Karl Marx Thu Nov 13, 2003 15:54

The thinker of the Millenium? Clueless?

by Red Banner Thu Nov 13, 2003 17:06

Its great to see socialist candidates contesting the election. The SWP argued for a socialist block and for a slate of socialist candidates in the election because the space for socialist politics was greater than evere.
Its a big pity all the socialists couldn't get together in a single alliance and make a much more powerful impact. It seems the Socialist Party are so sectarian that they even turned down an offer from the SWP to canvass for their socialist candidates running in Belfast! Even the French Trotskyists - LCR and LO - have managed to agree an alliance. It seems the Socialist Party can't break from its sectarianism to do the same in Ireland though.

by hs - sp Thu Nov 13, 2003 17:30

"Its great to see socialist candidates contesting the election. The SWP argued for a socialist block and for a slate of socialist candidates in the election because the space for socialist politics was greater than evere. "

The SWP is indeed calling for a socialist block, but unfortunately the majority in the socialist party do not trust them, you may wonder why. Firstly we have the flip flop in SWP policy itself, you may be suprised to know that until only a few years ago the SWP were completely opposed to standing in elections. Giving "legitimicy" to borgeouis parliments etc. And the SP were attacked for standing in elections, it was only after the SP scored a succes or two the SWP changed its mind. Its first foray into elections it even opposed the socialist party. So many in the party are a little wary. Add to this the experience of the Socialist Alliance in England a "united front of a special kind" and you add to the mistrust. Incidendtly it seems the SWP are about to drop the Socialist Alliance for some sort of peace and Justice alliance, so, so much for that.


"Its a big pity all the socialists couldn't get together in a single alliance and make a much more powerful impact."

Thats debateable, again witness the SWP dominated SA in england, rather than being a party of roots in communities it was an alliance that turned up two weeks before elections. And it made no impact although having potential with large numbers.

"It seems the Socialist Party are so sectarian that they even turned down an offer from the SWP to canvass for their socialist candidates running in Belfast!"

You can back that up please, but it seems strange that the SWP are running people from Dublin to Derry to Canvas but not from Belfast.

" Even the French Trotskyists - LCR and LO - have managed to agree an alliance. It seems the Socialist Party can't break from its sectarianism to do the same in Ireland though. "

Again it is trust we would have no problem with and alliance with the LCR or the LO none at all. they are a little more trustworthy and they don't flip flop every two weeks. Remember all the time the SWP were calling for a united socialist movment they were busy shafting Des Derwin in SIPTU. In short we don't trust you and you do very little to try and earn that trust. Just saying you want an alliance doesn't mean we actually believe you. How do we know its not another recruitment front? And to remind you of the last alliance in Ireland, you set up a seperate northern one without inviting the other groups, or even discussing if you should have two partitionist alliances rather than one, and even more strangely the other groups were from the north!!! Now the socialist party aren't so stupid to fall for that sort of nonsense.

And after trust we'll have to get down to SWP policies, which in themselves are difficult to keep up with, remember the old SWP policy on prodestant workers. And they change so much its hard to keep trust in them either!

by plastic surgery disasters Thu Nov 13, 2003 17:39

of any group in Ireland bar none

(yes the ICP included)

This is all going to come to a head soon somehow

I feel it in me old bones

or is that the other perfect storm now approaching the east coast

by canvasser Thu Nov 13, 2003 18:32

At the last general election in the South, the SWP turned down the offer of canvassers in the Dún Laoghaire constituency. A number of members of 'Socialist Alternative' a rightward split from their SWSS group in UCD were told not to get involved in Richard Boyd Barrett's campaign despite offering their services. SO much for Socialist Unity!

by Davy Carlin - W/Belfast SWP Thu Nov 13, 2003 18:56 carlindavid at hotmail dot com

HS- SP have not time to go into many of your concerns {up to my eyeballs at work, but hope to return to some of your points.} Just a quick point the Belfast SWP did in fact approach the SP and offered to canvass for them but were declined, obviously you did not know this from your surprise, {maybe not an important enough issue for the membership to know?} Yet I would have thought you would have been told of this.

As for all those various other concerns about the SWP past and present, well, we all have concerns about various organisations and if I find the time I will attempt to address those and any other issues {me, as an individual} that you may hold.

For myself though the SP I could suggest {although certain mindsets would not allow one to believe this} have done some serious {serious} sectarian shit to us in Belfast over the years as we attempted to grow within the city. {This I have all recorded and {evidenced} but do not feel the need to air such {presently}. Of course there would still be some who would still shout, never, never, no matter what they were presented with. I would though from speaking to some of your members take many things in relation to Belfast with an extra large pinch of salt especially in what the say about us in the city {or in this case what they did not wish to inform their membership of}.

I am really busy at the minute but if I cannot find the time I will return to this theme elsewhere in the time ahead as no doubt such will be raised again.

Finally to hs - sp would you be prepared to have this debate in which I am prepared to speak to your concerns and you therefore address my concerns in relation to my experiences with yourselves over the years in the North, and therefore let others judge? You seem confident enough in your arguments against the SWP and paint the SP in a mostly good light so I presume I could start of on the back foot. Nevertheless rather that the constant we did or said this in 1972 or we did or said this in 2002 let us then have the debate at the present me {SWP individual} and you { SP individual} in the time ahead when we have more time. Are you in agreement? Are you ready to put your money where your mouth is? I await your reply for a fraternal and hopefully interesting debate. Davy Carlin

by Lemon crush Thu Nov 13, 2003 19:17

Listen to this shite... "you've done terrible, terrible, sectarian things to us as we've been trying to grow..."

Poor Davy and the poor innocent SWP, who wouldn't harm a fly, being treated all mean by those horrible other socialists. Pull the other one, Davy, it plays the internationale.

The SWP are rightly loathed across the left. They are impossible to work with on an open and democratic basis. I'm not a big fan of the SP's politics either, but at least they have enough cop on not to fuck you over for the next recruit. The sooner the SWP learn that while the "revolutionary party is the memory of the class" or whatever other crap they come out with, other people have memories too, the better.

Trying to fuck over Des Derwin on the very day that they put out their latest call for "left unity" isn't even that remarkable. They really do think that everyone else is completely fucking stupid.

by well Thu Nov 13, 2003 19:32

So is that a yes or a no to debate then?
Rants don't count I am afraid

by Lemon crush Thu Nov 13, 2003 19:46

As I thought I made clear I'm not going to defend the SP in a debate. I think that big chunks of their political ideas are flat out wrong! I very much doubt if they would want me to represent them in those circumstances!

I can work with them better than I can with the SWP because they play a longer game and have enough sense not to constantly alienate people with crazy sectarian antics but that doesn't mean that I'm going to debate on their behalf or even that I like them very much.

I don't care if Davy and hs have a debate. I might even go to it, although if I've been reading my indymedia correctly then the debate will have to take place somewhere in France as hs lives in Italy, doesn't he?

by Saint David Thu Nov 13, 2003 19:57

Given that every single thing you have ever said about the SP on Indymedia has been an attack (including all your anonymous postings in your patented long rambling hilarious sentences) why in the name of fuck would they want you out canvassing for them Davy?

So you can get on a door and start rambling nonsense?

"well, in relation to belfast there wouldnt, be an anti-war movement if it wasnt for the SWP, everybody knows that and I hate revisionists so stop trying to revise history, and the SP only have three members in belfast, one of them is a fifty three year old youth fulltimer. Really this should be the SEA which I'm not a member of but it includes the SWP and tons of other people I'm sure but the Derry SWP didn't bother to tell me, Im sure it includes hundreds of community activists and trade unionists though. vote for this Barbour guy.."

I'm sure they're a lot happier to have you bussed over to Belfast every week, Davy, and who can blame them?

by D Thu Nov 13, 2003 20:12

'So cometh the political inevitability {the PE's}

Red alert Red alert

Protect our leader, Protect our leader'

{Please don't bite at that, just a bit of sarcasim}.

Putting on a cuppa, might enjoy this one with the {PE's}.

But on a serious note awaiting a reply hs sp

by Long Division Thu Nov 13, 2003 20:25

Are you going to travel to Italy to harangue him with eccentric punctuation or do you expect him to travel to Belfast for the opportunity?

What an opportunity it is too. Davy will provide a long and slightly mental list of slights and evils done by the malevolent SP cads to the virginal pure SWP, all the while claiming that the Belfast SWP in fact invented the sun. hs will be too busy wishing he was back in the Italian sunshine and out of the dreary Belfast rain to pay any attention. He will then resort to cracking out his own somewhat unusual punctuation to counter yours.

Better than a duel.

by D Thu Nov 13, 2003 20:53

Long division, I thought that indymedia was for debate and discussion as both hs sp and myself have over time engaged in?

As for the Belfast SWP I will debate whatever concerns he - she has of us and the SWP in general as long as he - she is willing to debate my concerns of the SP including in Belfast or elsewhere. I find that quite reasonable, as would I assume the objective reader



On another note I would urge people to vote for all socialists in the elections including the SP candidates and to give them all a first preference vote.

'Why in the name of fuck would I want to go out canvassing for them'.

Well simply although I have serious {serious}problems with the SP leader {s} in Belfast, as they have stated they have with the SWP I look not on it as the SP standing in elections but as a left non communal platform being offered against the sectarian politics of the North. 'I' would tend to put the interests of the class before my problems with a party. 'My' problems with that party will not interfere in what 'I' as a socialist activist believe is best for the class, within my own understanding.

Therefore on that basis I would urge and call for a vote for the socialists standing in Belfast as well as elsewhere.

Putting that aside it does not stop me {as with the SP with the SWP} raising my critisims and concerns of the SP. I will do that in a fraternal way but will have a bit of fun and a giggle with the PE's who without fail bite at the slightest word due to in many cases but a 'mindsent, as how else would one know it was coming.

Away to a meeting, might have time to reply again in the days ahead if hs sp replies, Signing off

by Saint David Thu Nov 13, 2003 21:02

I didn't ask why you would want to canvass for them Davy. I asked why on earth THEY would want YOU out cavassing for them, when all you ever say about them is hostile?

What could they expect from you when you hit a door except more of the usual, single transferable Carlin quote?

"well, in relation to belfast there wouldnt, be an anti-war movement if it wasnt for the SWP, everybody knows that and I hate revisionists so stop trying to revise history, and the SP only have three members in belfast, one of them is a fifty three year old youth fulltimer. Really this should be the SEA which I'm not a member of but it includes the SWP and tons of other people I'm sure but the Derry SWP didn't bother to tell me, Im sure it includes hundreds of community activists and trade unionists though. vote for this Barbour guy.."

by DAvid Blane Thu Nov 13, 2003 21:06

I'd just like to clarify what exactly sectarianism is. It is not just disliking the SWP or any other group. It is the putting your own group's interests ahead of the interests of the workers movement as a whole.

In the North the SWP are acting in a sectarian menner. They're prime motivation in these elections is to build the SWP and raise the profile of McCann. This is not neccesarily a bad thing in itself but when viewed in the contaxt of the state of the workers movement in the north it is very sectarian.

As we all know workers in the North are divided along sectarian lines. There is no real mass workers party that will bring workers together on a common non sectarian programme. What is in the interests of the working class in the North is such a party. This party has to include all those workers that have been engaging in class battles such as fights for better pay and working conditions, against double tax or against the closure of hospitals etc. All these people are not as of yet full Socialists, a new mass working class party will not be just made up of socialists, it must be inclusive of all workers in struggle.

What the SWP say is that we do not need to build a working class party, and that all we need to do is build a revolutionary socialist party. This is sectarian.

by Davy Fri Nov 14, 2003 10:05

I was still looking for a bit of an non anon debate.

I was still waiting on hs sp, rather than repeats and a repetative text from the holy Gospel.

If Hs sp is prepared to state his points and i am prepared to attempt to answer them, then he should be prepared to attempt to answer any points I raise.

People often critise the SWP for not replying now when I am openly calling upon you to debate your concerns {including any of the 'anons' raised, as long as you raise the 'anons' points and any others yourself} this while of course in the process I will of course raise mine, yet the silence is deafening. No reply from yourself or the SP, you raise points on indymedia yet are not prepared to debate them.

The next time i hear the SWP are 'not prepared to defend their actions' {from the SP,ers}'} it will fall on deaf ears with oneself. I have provided the opportunity, but alas as it seems that you to have the 'follow the crowd' mindset in your critism, yet you retreat to 'the collective' silence when I offer you that debate.

I feel i am wasting my time on this post and no doubt the call of 'sectarians' etc will continue by such persons. Yet for oneself I have attempted to reply to genuine concerns and was prepared to debate with genuine persons from the SP. Why they are not prepared to raise their concerns and politic understanding of the SWP in debate, which I have stated I will attempt to answer, while in tandem of course attempting to answer both my own concerns and political understanding of them and their politics through that debate, one can only guess at, {although one could have a very good guess as to why not}.

I leave this post and leave the 'attack of the clones' and the PE's to fight amongst themseves as to who can condemn us most.

Ahhhh the security of the rhetoric wiithout the reality of debate, I shall therefore look elsewhere for others whom may hold critism but are also confident enough to engage in debate in relation to others poltics while not being afraid that they to will open up themselves to political scrutiny, to not only a wider audience {but maybe more important to them} to their perhaps ill informed memberships

Signing of in disappointment but not surprised, Away to help the SEA {oops should not have said that, here comes the PE's and, oh no also cometh the attack of the clones -- aaaaahhhhhhh}.

Hope others enjoy the inevitable forthcoming entertainment.

by David Blane Fri Nov 14, 2003 11:53

Davy are you going to reply to the charges that the SWP are acting in a sectarian menner in trying to build the forces of the SWP over the building of a working class alternative in these elections?

by Brian - SP (personal capacity) Fri Nov 14, 2003 13:36

Hi Davy. I don't have time to respond to your posting in detail, but briefly:

I'm not sure where you get the idea that Socialist Party members spend much time complaining that SWP members don't answer their critics on Indymedia. Such complaints are made regularly, but they are also made admittedly with less frequency about the Socialist Party.

Simply put it is impossible to answer every complaint and question on a site like this. Nobody has the time to scan each thread, let alone to write detailed and coherent responses every time.

Indymedia is not designed to be a debate forum. It runs on a quite brilliant piece of software, but by its very nature it is not a place where serious and useful in depth discussions will often occur on issues where strong feelings are involved. The complete anonymity of posters, the ability to use unlimited number of names and the highly adversarial culture combine to polarise and destroy debate in a very unfortunate manner.

If you are serious about wanting a public debate with the Socialist Party, then let me suggest that there are more appropriate places to have it than this newswire. We have no problem engaging in public debate with other left wing political tendencies. I was involved in such a discussion a few months ago when we invited the Workers Solidarity Movement to debate with us at the Socialist Youth festival.

The SWP is running a conference in Dublin in a fortnight's time, as it does every year. It is advertising this conference as a "weekend of debate and discussion", again as it does every year. As usual, no other Irish organisation to the left of Sinn Fein or the Greens has been invited to provide a single speaker on any subject.

The SWP is entitled to invite whoever it likes to its event. Just as others are entitled to point out that while promotional literature may claim that the conference "brings together the activists and experience" of the anti-war and anti-bin tax campaigns, the reality is somewhat different.

If you are serious about having a debate with the Socialist Party on some subject you have the perfect opportunity to organise one in just two weeks time. A polite request for a speaker would in all probability be accepted. You'll forgive me if I won't be hanging around the Socialist Party's letter box waiting for the invitation.

by D Fri Nov 14, 2003 13:55

I do not think you caught the answer raised in a question in reply to another question.

And so follows,

'Why in the name of 'Fuck' would they want 'YOU' out canvassing', and, Rant, Rant , Blaa, Blaa,

and my reply,

'Why in the name of 'Fuck' would, 'I' want to go out canvassing for THEM', a question, then so follows an answer to answer both questions
Still not get it? Read the sentences

'Perhaps less straight forward answers confuse you'?

I will keep it simple next time, Sigh, oh how I tire.

Might have a snooze on the bus on my way to Derry to canvass for the SEA, oh Dear there I go again with that SEA stuff one hopes no -one bites to that.

Finally David of course I will answer to 'Charges', but it is a tad hard to debate on your own especially when those whom raise the 'charges' have vanished into the political abyss. Me wonders why?


AHHHHH methinks once again, the security of rehetoric without the reality and {confidence} of ones politics, in debate

Away to catch a bus and a snooze, oh how I tire.

by Davy Carlin Fri Nov 14, 2003 14:24

Thank you for the reply , however as I am both not in the organising committee for that said event or indeed not on the SWP elected leadership I can but pass on a request on your behalf. {Let me know if you wish me to do that}.

Secondly it is not a debate or disscussion of the elected leadership {or organisers} of one party - against the elected leadership of another I look for, in which we all but look on, but on and betwwen ordinary members discussing and debating themselves, on how they think ,what they think, why they think it and how possibly we can move on etc.

Indymedia may not be the most appropiate place for this but if SP members and others are already posting, discussing and debating issues and if it is in relation to the organisation in which I am a member then of course I may reply especially if I do not agree or have a differing view on what is being said.

So hs sp made points which I would have like to respond to as well of course as raising my own, yet if they do not wish to reply as they have not done then I obviously cannot debate and will move on.

Finally for oneself I believe debate and discussion is not only for elected leaderships - to debate between elected leadership but also, and more importantly in my eyes, between those members whom make up the organisation, it is they and not leaderships whom I reach out for engagement. Davy Carlin

by Dumbfounded Fri Nov 14, 2003 16:05

Has anyone noticed the change in davy over the last few months.

He says just above, 'Secondly it is not a debate or discussion of the elected leadership {or organisers} of one party - against the elected leadership of another I look for, in which we all but look on, but on and between ordinary members discussing and debating themselves, on how they think ,what they think, why they think it, and how possibly we can move on etc'.

'Finally for oneself I believe debate and discussion is not only for elected leaderships - to debate between elected leadership but also, and more importantly in my eyes, between those members whom make up the organisation, it is they and not leaderships whom I reach out for engagement'. Davy Carlin

Take the last step Davy

by Donal - SWP Fri Nov 14, 2003 16:11 donal.macfhearraigh at ucd dot ie

I am on the organising committee for the Marxism 2003 conference. We did invite Joe Higgins to speak on a debate on "The future of the Left". We left numerous messages with him personally and with the party HQ. I even spoke to him directly but neither Joe nor anyone else from the SP returned my calls. The programme and publicity for the event has been produced but the offer to speak is still open if Joe would like to take it up.
The issues of "trust" that hs raised goes both ways. The SWP along with the SP have shown they can organise and lead mass campaigns in the woking class.
As for policy the SWP had and still does have major difference with the SP on among other things the nature of reformism (the use of the United Front and relating to reformist parties), substitutionism (for example in the bin tax campaign), the centrallity of the anti-capitalist movement (fetishising 'the programme'), and the stance socialists should take to anti-imperialism and anti-imperialist movements (is Bin-Laden an equal threat to Bush?).
All that being said there is more than enough common ground for both parties to work together more closely in leading and shaping the new left that is developing. More than that it is demanded of us by the activists who are in the movement - if the two main far left parties don't co-operate it will be a block on the movement developing. This is very visible in the bin tax campaign.
The SWP has never had an abstaintionist attitude towards elections. We approach them as a tactically. You have been mis-informed on this question. But we envision a socialist block going far beyond elections to include the unions and other campaigns.
The main disagreement seems to be one of perspective - are we in a period of recovery for the Left? It is the SWP's contention that the basis for mass socialist parties is beginning to open up - witness the size of the anti-war demos and the hatred of this government. Rather than wait for some mythical perfect time in the future when all workers are already revolutionary (!) we have to start now and begin the process of laying the basis for a mass socialist party in Ireland. If the SP disagree with this can they please outline concretely how they see a mass socialist party being built in Ireland?

by Steelie Fri Nov 14, 2003 16:36

Donal, that was classic. I didn't realise that they taught stand-up in the SWP!

"The SWP along with the SP have shown they can organise and lead mass campaigns in the woking class."

For a moment there I thought that you were claiming that the SWP have shown they can organise and lead mass campaigns of the working class!!!! Then I re-read it and realised that it actually says "in the woking class" and I realised that you were talking about mass campaigns in the senior infants class of Woking primary school. So that's what all of the marching was about, it's practice for leading the 5 year olds in a snake around the playground. Suddenly it all makes sense.

"All that being said there is more than enough common ground for both parties to work together more closely in leading and shaping the new left that is developing. More than that it is demanded of us by the activists who are in the movement"

Now that is a good one - deadpan delivery - I'm still wiping the tears from me eyes. Gosh, there are soooo many people nowadays demanding that the SWP shape and lead the 'new left'!!! At almost every meeting I go to, or political website I visit, the cries of "The SWP must take control" are deafening. The bin tax campaign meetings, the anti-war meetings, the anti-capitalist meetings have all become something of a bore as speaker after speaker gets up and insists that the SWP lead the way and tell them what to do.

Go on, tell us another one, it really brightens up a rainy friday.

tee hee hee hee hee hee,
ha ha ha ha ha ho ho ho ho.

by hs - sp Fri Nov 14, 2003 16:44

Sorry I don't have internet at home so I don't always see a reply immediately. I would be vey happy to meet you and will possibly be in Ireland for christmas. Now on my contribution if you read it my first line was,

"The SWP is indeed calling for a socialist block, but unfortunately the majority in the socialist party do not trust them, you may wonder why."

And this is a simple fact, I then went on to explain why. This was in respononse to an anon poster writing about how the SP are sectarian because they won't go into an alliance with the SWP. I then went on to explain why the SP is (not unreasonably) suspious of the intentions of the SWP. To put it bluntly alot of us suspect its simply a recruitment front for yourselves, making joe higgins and clare daly into saints while not mentioning the party added to that. Alot of us have a feeling you want to use their names to recruit to your own organisation. In short most of us believe your call for a socialist alliance is something temporary which you will use and then drop. And no one is prepared to involve themselves in that.

In Belfast I don't know the situation, I am suprised they didn't accept your help. But the news was not kept from me, I am outside the country! But I have a fair idea of how comrades feel in Dublin. And how I feel myself. And to put it bluntly again, how do we know this is serious? How do we know its not the same old story again, as I pointed out before it didn't go unnoticed that the attack on Des Derwin took place at the same time a call was made for left unity. He it seemed was used while he was useful and rather than build and continue with his campaign with long term strategy he was dropped.

In England it seems the SA is all but finished with a new project to be launched. Again short termism, throwing everything into one project at a time while dropping everything else. No long term strategy, and no one will gain from this.

In the last election both parties stood without clashing, the swp stood under "Socialist" with a little swp underneath, and the Socialist Party stood under "socialist party". Now outside leftie world you're average punter won't have noticed the difference. If we had all stood under "Socialist Alliance" I think the vote would have been excatly the same (and you are just asking for an electoral alliance nothing more). The votes won by the candidates by both parties were won by work the candidates did in the area, not because they were called "socialist" or "socialist party". This is why the longer term stradegy of the SP, constant activity in the communities and candidates being from and remaining there before and after, is paying off. You can compare that to the SA in england, and the SSP in scotland. the ssp while sml built in the communities for years before launching the SSA and then the SSP. While the SA in england has done the opposite.

Now for the first time ever, the socialist party has gotten a name for itself in a wider audience as well as a very good position in the dublin communities, why would we risk this name and work for a project which at best is a short term strategy and at worst a recruitment front for another party.

Now you may say this is all untrue and say we are sectarian and throw lots of examples of SP sectatrianism in response, but at the end of the day this is how we feel and your party will have alot of work to do to convince us otherwise. And this isn't some thing inbedded into us by our "great leaders" this comes pretty much from our own experiences. In fact even our own leadership would be hardpressed to concvince the rank and file let alone yours. Anyway I'm giving you a straignt and honest answer, thats (as i see it) how it is. I'd like to see a genuine alliance between the swp and sp, but there's that matter of trust.

by Ian Fri Nov 14, 2003 17:08

"The SWP along with the SP have shown they can organise and lead mass campaigns in the working class".

Not withstanding Steelie's observation of you leading the people of Woking can you tell me when exactly the SWP have led the working class in Ireland?
I can't think of one example. I'm looking forward to your answer.

by Frank D. Fri Nov 14, 2003 17:20

"More than that it is demanded of us by the activists who are in the movement" name one activist who is demanding this (SWP members don't count)?

by hs - sp Fri Nov 14, 2003 17:20

"As for policy the SWP had and still does have major difference with the SP on among other things the nature of reformism (the use of the United Front and relating to reformist parties)"

Which is? "united fronts of a special kind" ie recruitment drive. Or what is the swps idea of united fronts and relating to reformist parties?

"substitutionism (for example in the bin tax campaign), "

You mean subsituting the communities for the party? Think you got the term backwards here, everywhere the sp were involved in organising the communities came out. Unless of course you think we've 300 members on one estate in hartstown.

"the centrallity of the anti-capitalist movement (fetishising 'the programme'),"

Does that mean being a semi anarchist on tuesday (globalise resistance) a quasi social democrat on wednesday (socialist alliance) A liberal on Friday (IAWM). Hiding your identities (invitation for marxism sent to all IAWM members)
We're an old fashioned socialist party, the centrality of the working class may be old fashioned but thats us. We stand over our positions. That may be fetish to you but its honesty to me.

"The SWP has never had an abstaintionist attitude towards elections. We approach them as a tactically. You have been mis-informed on this question. But we envision a socialist block going far beyond elections to include the unions and other campaigns."

thats debateable (and definitely not what you told us!), but you envision a socialist block doing such things... thats suprising since your party opposed every such inititive in england. why is it different in Ireland?

"stance socialists should take to anti-imperialism and anti-imperialist movements (is Bin-Laden an equal threat to Bush?)."

What are you talking about? Equal threats? Who cares, Bush is an impearialist who's invaded the middle east. Bin Laden is a muslim extremist who killed thousands of people. Whats your point?
Are you trying to say Bin Laden is an "anti impearialist movement" and should be supported? Are you nuts, please study the history of the communist party of iran and what happened to them.

"If the SP disagree with this can they please outline concretely how they see a mass socialist party being built in Ireland?"

from the ground up with long term working within communities and workplaces the old fashioned long way. Not by an alliance of the hard left alone,

by PK Fri Nov 14, 2003 17:34

Which bin charges campaign are you in this week Coolock, Dorset Street, Dun Laoghaire or is it a new one?

by Major Woody Fri Nov 14, 2003 18:13

Surveying the recent threads on indymedia where the SWP is mentioned we have proof of an old saying

"You can fool some of the people all of the time or you can fool all of the people some of the time but you can't fool all of the people all of the time"

Last year the SWP got greedy and tried to fool 'all of the people' through multiple fronts. GR for the radical youth, IAWM for the liberals, Socialist Alliance for the social democrats, multiple fake local bin tax groups for the community, whatever their SIPTU front is called for the unionists, SEA for the electorate of Derry etc.

Wandering from thread to thread it appears the only people that are fooled are their own members, everyone else is laughing at them at this stage. Is this just indymedia where the multiple fronts are transparent as Joe, Rory or Aoife pop in and out of view. Or is it more general. I've an idea attendance at Marxism this year could by rather small.

Give it up guys, you starting to look like the CPI-ML in 1990 crowing about how Albania was the only 'socialist' country left!

by jimmy - Indymedia Ireland Fri Nov 14, 2003 18:22

at times i'm tempted to lump all the trots in together (I'm an anarchist myself) and over things like March the first we definatly ran into problems with both the sp and the swp. I do have to say though that threads like this tend to show up the differences pretty well.
I'm not saying that the sp are fantastic or anything but they do seem to inhabit a reality similiar to my own
"The SWP along with the SP have shown they can organise and lead mass campaigns in the working class"
"More than that it is demanded of us by the activists who are in the movement"
priceless!

by Davy Carlin Fri Nov 14, 2003 18:26

Hs sp thank you for the reply and more especially in the way it was presented in relation to my points. I have got through it a genuine understanding of your difficulties as you see it, in relation to working within an alliance. For me these are concerns that must be addressed and like yourself I would like to see eventually a genuine alliance between the SP, SWP and many others whom may agree in a common goal.

Like yourself i do also have concerns, this though with the SP {I state the SP in Belfast, {individuals} - } as that is all that I have had dealings with, and they of course would state that they would hold problems with us. Yet I wish not to start at least in this brief discussion with my concerns.


Hs sp your points were straight and thoughtful and like various other occassions over the years where I have sought a genuine understanding of others, I can at least now begin to understand concerns that your organisation would hold. Like youself I have had experiences, this with the SP and to be blunt what they did I believe was 'very wrong' which had drove me on occasion to re acte to such, as we have all no doubt done in our time through our maturing political development. But time { for some of us} brings experience and with experience can come understanding.


I believe as you state that trust needs to be built up, and that may take a long time, I believe though by raising such concerns in such a way can only do good, and is a beginning. You also raise some points that I will take time to read over, although your point of having long term strategies is something that I would be in agreement with and have always advocated. I believe it is easier to deal and attempt an undersatnding of others if one has not had direct experiences of a situation which one found wrong or sectarian in relation not as much to an organisation {as such could hold many genuine persons} but of individuals.

I shall come back on a number of points you raised and we know to forget the trolls etc, Once againsalthough I may not agree with some of what you said I nevertheless welcome your response. I must go but will come back to this post soon. Davy Carlin

by Steelie Fri Nov 14, 2003 18:33

I can fill in for you. And be much more concise as well. {putting on Saint Davy cap} Nice is nice. Sectarianism is bad. I am nice. Good is good. We all should get along. If only the SP would be nice like me. Nice is nice. Thanks for being nice. I respect nice things.

by tom Fri Nov 14, 2003 20:47

I can't understand how the sp can work itself up into a lather about the swp - which,afterall, is the nearest party politically to themselves in Ireland - while at the same time they support people like loyalist jim barbour.

by Brian Fri Nov 14, 2003 21:03

Donal, I will get back to you on the Joe Higgins thing. All I'll say for now is that it is a bit cheeky of you to decide who should represent the Socialist Party at a debate. Still, even a cheeky invitation is a big improvement on your more normal practice and I welcome that.

You list a number of areas where the Socialist Party and the SP disagree. Two of these are listed in a manner so vague as to be meaningless (the united front and "substitutionism"). The other two are listed in a downright misleading fashion. The Socialist Party does not "fetishise" the programme - we just have firm principles that we won't cash in for a quick recruit. Neither do we regard Bush and Bin-Laden as "equal" - we do however oppose both.

On to the meat of your post:

> All that being said there is more than enough
> common ground for both parties to work together > more closely in leading and shaping the new
> left that is developing. More than that it is
> demanded of us by the activists who are in the > movement - if the two main far left parties
> don't co-operate it will be a block on the
> movement developing.

It has already been pointed out by others in this thread that some of this is very strange. I have yet to hear a demand from a single activist "in the movement" that we should get together with the SWP to shape and lead a developing new left.

> This is very visible in
> the bin tax campaign.

Let's get something straight here, Donal. The SWP drifted in and out of the anti-bin tax campaign over the years. When the SP and others were out on the doors building non-payment week after week, the SWP regularly wandered off if there was something more "glamorous" and recruitment-friendly available.

When the issue kicked off in earnest, you did at least show consistency. You consistently used your very limited influence in the campaign to argue against the kind of militant tactics that were needed. I have personally witnessed SWP members being the only people in a public meeting to vote against mounting a solidarity blockade.

That's why our parties have been divided over the issue.

> The SWP has never had an abstaintionist
> attitude towards elections. We approach them as > a tactically. You have been mis-informed on
> this question.

You always kept a formal get out clause, saying that standing candidates could be correct in the right circumstances. In practice, you denounced any socialists who stood in elections as "electoralist", right up until Joe Higgin's vote in Dublin West prompted a complete U-turn.

After standing yourselves, you moved to denouncing any socialists who actually get a respectable vote as "electoralists".

> The main disagreement seems to be one of
> perspective - are we in a period of recovery
> for the Left? It is the SWP's contention that
> the basis for mass socialist parties is
> beginning to open up - witness the size of the > anti-war demos and the hatred of this
> government.

There is indeed a difference in perspective. The Socialist Party is of the view that the political situation is improving for the left and that the bin tax is only the first of a number of major struggles that could take place in the next while. More people are looking for an alternative to the capitalist system and that is to be welcomed.

However, recognising that things are changing for the better is not the same as a hysterical optimism. Strike days and union militancy generally remain near an all time low in this country. Think about that. An all time low. Class consciousness remains low, despite the positive effects of the bin tax struggle. There is no mass political organisation of the working class.

This isn't "the 1930's in slow motion (but speeding up)" as the infamous SWP perspective claims. This is a period where ideas of class, of working class political organisation and of militant struggle are being reestablished.

There are very real opportunities for the left but childish impatience and self-delusion about where we actually are will not help us to take those opportunities.

> Rather than wait for some mythical perfect time > in the future when all workers are already
> revolutionary (!)

What are you talking about? This is nonsense.

> we have to start now and begin the process of
> laying the basis for a mass socialist party in > Ireland. If the SP disagree with this can they > please outline concretely how they see a mass
> socialist party being built in Ireland?

We do indeed have to begin the process of laying the basis for a mass socialist party. It's just that some kind of lash up between ourselves and the SWP isn't part of that process.

A new working class party will develop out of working class experience and struggle. It will happen when working class people see the need for such a party from their own experience and not when the SP wills it to happen. Our small organisations cannot substitute themselves for the working class.

The best way we can make a contribution to that process at the moment is by doing all we can to assist and encourage workers who are moving into struggle. That means working in a serious manner, in the unions and in the communities. It means making the arguments for working class organisation. That's the work that the Socialist Party is engaged in. I have yet to see any evidence that the SWP is at all interested in doing so.

It is impossible to predict how the first real steps towards a mass working class party will be taken. It could come from the trade unions, if real workplace struggles lead to the partial breaking of the union bureaucracy. It could come directly from the ground up, through community campaigns. More likely it will come from a combination of different sources. The existing left organisations will in all probability play a further role by putting together real broader formations, but I have to be honest and say that I have difficulty seeing the SWP playing a positive role in any of this.

(and after saying that indymedia isn't an appropriate venue for extended political debate..)

by random input Fri Nov 14, 2003 23:45

I don't want to sidetrack the debate here, but I really must ask you to clarify your comments about Bin Laden.

You say 'anti-imperialist movements' and then refer to Bin Laden & Bush. From this I infer that you consider 'Al Queda' (as if that is really appropriate to term what is an idea more-so than a coherent 'organisation') are a 'movement' with clear (or at least-semi clear) political and social goals? And I also infer that you would support (or critically support) such a group against 'imperialism' in the manner in which they have chosen to take on imperialism (terrorism, ie pre-determined attacks on civillian targets?).

You see your initial reference was completely vague. Of course, to most people on this site anyway, Bin Laden (if he is still alive) does not represent the same threat to the world as Bush, and Western capitalism in general. You would be a fool to think so. Bin Laden is not waging full-scale wars and raping the planet while curtailing civil and labour liberties. Although I'm sure he would have no problems with such moves were he in a position to do so.

But you seem to be alluding to a position of either/or. Either the 'anti-imperialists' (in this case islamic fundamentalists) or the 'imperialists'.

So, basically, could you please clarify what you meant.

PS I'm not a troll, I'm a regular contributer to this site who chooses to remain anon.

by me Sat Nov 15, 2003 10:25

The question of left unity or election agreements has come up on this thread again, could i suggest the following way to take it forward.

The discussion should take place after the election when time for real discussion is available.

A full discussion on points of disagreement should take place. Left unity can not be built without recognising that there are deep disagreements on issues such as the national question, parades, work in trade unions, building a mass working class alternative and organisation of a united left.

the fact of the matter is that a united left will not easily be built the differences are real and deep. Only with a serious committment and a drawn out discussion will we move forward.

by Davy Sat Nov 15, 2003 12:54

HS Sp I believe that much of the problems between such parties stems from direct experiences {putting aside the theoretical and historical differences} of one to another. You have stated that your experiences with the SWP would make it difficult to trust their reasoning for unity or alliance. Yet for me my problem is not as much how the SP operates within campaigns but more so to do on how they operate outside of them.

HS SP you and Brian site a number of experiences which you believe has caused difficulties for yourselves, but I will site just one period as an example as to what I mean. Around the time of the Anti War Movement in the North your membership where firstly told that deals were done between us and the trade union movement - this was completely untrue. I believe that if the argument could not be won around the table then there was no need to fabricate such an untruth.

Then on day X your membership were told that we 'hijacked the schools walkouts, this was just bizarre and again untrue. The reality was that although the SP had a mike rigged up when they heard the SAW feeder marches coming in their leading member told them to begin the speeches although only a handful of people had arrived. He and they were asked 'on no less that five occasions' to hold on as the feeder marches were coming in as they no doubt 'would be prepared to listen to the speeches', but {for their own reasons}] they would not wait. So then not only 'in direct response' to the not waiting for hundreds of fellow students on the march {many of whom had been threatened by their principles} but with also the growing impatience of wanting to make a point against the war, the students then took he streets in a sit down protest to wait on their colleagues,

Then of course some were then told {those not there} that there was no feeder marches, but the pictures are now on various sites showing hundreds of students marching upon Belfast city centre lead by SAW banners and its students activists. Also the actually physical lifting of students of the road and onto the footpath who were involved in the sit-down protests was done also by the SP, which was the wrong thing to do, putting aside the fact that the media picked up on it.

Finally on that same day {putting again aside what one leading SP member shouted about myself and a comrade} there were the stories of the actions at the US consul which omitted that it was I and my comrade who stood at the forefront to calm the situation down as we between us had seen both death and beatings of children at the hands of that same police force and knew their mindset as they began to draw batons. For the SP leadership they were as far back as one could be as we calmed the situation down. Then of course after we called the protest to an end and for people to disperse, with most dispersing {with no injuries and no arrests} a few others continued as is their democratic right and went on to do other actions but unfortunately some then got arrested and for the SP leadership once again, it was told to their members 'It was all the SWP's fault.

So hs sp we both have had experiences albeit of different kinds that has made and makes it difficult to trust each other, but I believe as I had stated above previous that we should put the interest of the class before that of the party as unfortunately as I have found within all aspects of the organised left that the party comes before the class on many occasions. I agree that trust needs to be built up and this can only be done over time and through experience of genuine working together. Yet I find that there are still those who bring up the SWP actions {perception or reality} of many years prior and attempt to brush it over all activists in the present. For me although I would have problems with various individuals within the SP {through experience} there are many more who are sound and fraternal persons.

Of course I would hold political differences also with the SP especially in relation to the North and on other such issues raised above but despite this would still seek a common approach within all aspects of the left if it is to benefit the working class. How therefore are the left to attempt unity? Well it has always been my belief to firstly to attempt to break down perceptions and begin to create your own history in the present. If one can see how one operates in a genuine and open way then one is more inclined to work and trust you. Of course there will always be those who will bring up what the SWP did before I was born or before I joined, those practical concerns make little difference to me now in the present. The political history though of an organisation is important, yet it is my understanding that as one cannot change the past one though can indeed work in the present to attempt to effect real change for the future. With that we should attempt to move on and this can only be done over time by building up that trust, breaking down perceptions and working in a real and genuine way with others where class at all times comes before the party, it is on that basis that we will move forward. Of course we will all have our differences politically, practically, tactically and strategically but we will also have our common purpose and common aims and it is on those commonalities , in the interim, that I believe we should work on. It though can only be worked if trust is slowly established and that can begin by at least each {internally} genuinely acknowledging each others concerns. Davy Carlin

by xanadoo Sun Nov 16, 2003 16:53

The lack of trust that the SP and most others on the left feel towards the SWP is through experiences. But these experiences are not just once off incidents from a few in the leadership of the SWP, that could be forgiven. It stems from their politics. That is why the SWP will never change. They will always switch between ultra leftism (initially refusing to condemn Sept 11 attacks)and oppurtunism (Pandering to the Labour Party and the Greens at every turn in the anti war movement).

by random input Sun Nov 16, 2003 19:40

I'm still waiting for clarification.

by Donal - SWP Mon Nov 17, 2003 15:34

Appologies to everyone else, my post was directed at SP members around the debate between the two parties on 'socialist alliances' and I agree with Brian that this is far from the best forum to debate this. Hence the invitation to speak at Marxism 2003 ....

I don't have time to go into all the points of difference i raised - again come to the Marxism event if you want to continue the discussion.

Two points, the myth that the SWP is somehow less experienced at community/mass struggles than the SP is just that, a myth. The 'trust' issue goes both ways. We cannot ignore the past but neither can we dwell on it. Seattle 1999 and more recently the anti-war movement was' a fork in the road' for the Left. The attitudes parties take to this new movement is the key dividing line. Many parties that previously saw themselves as opponents began working much more closely together as a result of having a shared perspective on the importance of this new movement. We are currently discussing and working with The Communist Party, The Workers Party etc (see the elections in the North) despite have major and bitter differences in the past.

You cannot read off the level of politicisation or militancy from the strike figures, especially after 15 years of partnership. The main point Brian is that you have admitted that we are in a favourable period for the Left. I would say it is the most favourable period for the left in Ireland since the 30s. My question to you Brian and to the SP is simply how much more favourable must it become before the far left begins to co-operate? I would suggest that the SP and the SWP, modest as our forces are, have a central role to play in constructing a mass revolutionary left in Ireland. My point about waiting until 'workers are already revolutionary' (as you point out rediculous) was designed to highlight that we are agents as well as objects in this process. Next year's local elections offers a major opportunity for the far left. The arguement that it isn't the right time simply doesn't stand up if you have any feeling for what's happening in Ireland at the minute. To refuse to participate in a socialist block in these circumstances is simply sectarianism on the part of the SP.

by Davidovich Mon Nov 17, 2003 15:52

Would any of the SPer's mind answering the following: How come its o.k. for an Old Labourite like Jim Barbour to stand as an SP candidate, but the SSP are castigated for daring to recruit Old Labour types? When exactly did Jim join the SP? Has he had a sudden conversion to revolutionary socialism? Grand, so the SP does'nt insist that all its members be revolutionary socialists, but does Jim's candidature mean that even candidates of the SP can be old style social democrats?

Looks like oppurtunism all round comrades.

by PK Mon Nov 17, 2003 16:02

Tut tut, awful answer. The question was when has the SWP organised and led mass campaigns of the working class in Ireland.

The only example you give is the Anti-War movement. Hardly a mass campaign of the working class but then it doesn't strike me that many of your members would be all that familiar with the working class.

Even your orientation towards the Anti-War movement was more focused on accomodating the 'reformists' within the TUM, no harm in that unless of course you are willing to exclude the more militant section of the movement, which is what you did.

As to working with the CP and WP (they could tell you a thing or two about leading mass campaigns of the working class) - best of luck to you, most of the rest of us where waiting for the life machine to be turned off anyday soon. Looks like you will keep it going for a while longer.

by random input Mon Nov 17, 2003 18:14

I'm sorry Donal, but you can't just throw something like that into the debate and then pretend that it plays no further part in the debate.

Just because I'm not in the SP doesn't mean that you don't have to answer me. Even a couple of paragraphs would do...

by hs - sp Mon Nov 17, 2003 18:30

I appreciate the answer and I can understand your point that we have all personal experiences of sectarianism. But my problem isn't with the personal experiences as such, it's with the swp's political direction itself. The problem is the SWP starts off so many different projects that may or may not be dropped you can't blame us for wondering is this another. As I said before the SA in england and wales looks like its been wound up for some sort of peace and justice alliance. but what about all the people and groups which have put the last few years into the SA? Was it ever serious? This is my problem, I can get over sectarianism but I don't like being taken for a ride. Now I am open to debate and would never rule it out, but it seems to me at the moment not very useful as a step forward, and fraught with dangers, so I remain to be convinced.

just one other question I wondered about, you said that the sp in belfast refused your help which suprised me. but it occured to me over the week end. Were you prepared to put Jims platform forward? including the natinal question? this is the only reason I could see for them refusing your help. otherwise I'm still suprised.

by hs - sp Mon Nov 17, 2003 18:46

you're getting carried away with the ol 'retric', it's not the 1930s or anything similar (at least in the world situation). We've had some struggles and a beginning. Really, not involving ourselves in an alliance with you will make no difference to the lives of pretty much everybody. Your sloganising sounds nice, but they're not based in reality. Its a best optimistic, do you really believe the socialist party standing under the SEA ticket in the north would make a difference, and would you be prepared to support the SP position on the national question? Because theres no way we would drop it.

by Davy Carlin Mon Nov 17, 2003 20:05

HS SP, Jim's platform is quite simply, defend public services, end low pay and no to water charges, not a difficult platform to support even for various persons, far left, centre left and even centre. The Alliance party for example are active on all those issues.

Secondly you keep raising the issue of the SWP in England or Wales or Scotland or where ever, why?, when I am referring to the North in which they have no say? They may be the leading tendency {in Britian } but have absolutely no say over what we do as they are not elected to do so. We operate how we collectively decide to operate and I believe we have done so in an open and fraternal way which is reflected in those who both lend support to and work with us within campaigns. What have we done ?

We for example {on mobilising communities} are the only socialist organisation in the last few years that have actively initiated and mobilised working class communities on various occasions on various issues including on feeder marches several hundred strong while working with others. {On long term strategy} again for example within the Anti Racist Network {ARN} many organisations work together and we receive much support and solidarity with them knowing SWP activists are involved. We look to further the campaigns with ‘a long term strategy’, with for example a strategy agreed for the ARN well into next year. Or in todays largest paper in the North the Belfast Telegraph, a Belfast comrade who is the Organising secetary of the Campaign against selection {CAS} where he has a three quarter page opinion column. This is a campaign we initiated, worked. and still work with others 'four years on. And then there is of course the long term campaigns offering solidaity such as the IPSC where our comrades have been in since the start then through the years to the present still active within it.

We continue to reach out for support and solidarity from others on this issue {not only in Ireland but Internationally} for example here is another e –mail I received just today pledging solidarity to the ARN


Dear David:

On behalf of the Irish American Unity Conference, please find our statement endorsing the efforts of the ARN. Good luck with your continued work.

Sarah McAuliffe-Bellin
Treasurer, IAUC

“The Irish American Unity Conference endorses the efforts of the ARN and believes racism and bigotry is at the heart of the majority of issues that affect the citizens of the north of Ireland. At the heart of democracy is the principle that people, regardless of race, ethnic background, or religion should be free to practice their faith without fear of discrimination, prejudice or assault.”

Andrew Somers, National President
Irish American Unity Conference.

{On mass moblistaion} it was us who initiated the Anti War Movement in the North {from a couple of people sitting in a room}. {On the Trade Unions} Our members are to the fore of the committee of the 'Most famous branch in NIPSA' as its general secetary recently called it, Why, because it has the recent history of being the largest and most militant branch in Nipsa {Public sector} the {largest trade Union}.


HS SP we all have concerns but like others whom now work with us in a fraternal and open way judge us if you must on what we do here, on what happens or happened recently {as above}, presently, and in the future. What happened thirty years ago or five years ago is of course important, as is what happens elsewhere presently. What we can do though as individuals or with others is to attempt to create a climate where trust can be built up. For my comrades and I in Belfast we have attempted to do that and will continue to reach out to those that actually want to genuinely work for our collective class interest. Davy

by me Tue Nov 18, 2003 01:00

It is a fact that almost everyone on the left wants left unity but this cant be done through a forced march approach. The attempt at a alliance between SWP,IRSP, WP, CP ORM and BICO two months ago should be evidence enough for that.
These groups made a genuine effort and moved very close to each other and would have made an impact but ultimatly it failed because it was forced. They should come together again and try to form a new party over a period of time.
Be interested to know what Davey and other Belfast swp think?

by Jimmy - CPI member Tue Nov 18, 2003 10:33

Point of order! the British/Irish Communist Organisation is defunct it became Democratic Socialist Party of Ireland then that was split up some joined Democratic Left and others joined Labour.
CPI was neither in talks with the IRSP or the BICO! We would never have talks with the IRSP.

by eh Tue Nov 18, 2003 12:06

Not sure BICO would agree with you Jimmy.

BTW why would you not talk to IRSP?
Seems to me one of the problems of left unity is people defining who is worthy.

by hs - sp Tue Nov 18, 2003 17:28

The sp candidates are standing on our position on the national question, to quote the above press release:

"The Socialist Party is campaigning for a real peace process based on uniting working class people in the struggle for a socialist society.

We want to link this struggle here with the similar struggle of workers in the South and in Britain. When we build a decent society in which poverty and want are things of the past, resolving where lines are drawn on a map will be an easy matter. We advocate a free and voluntary socialist federation of Ireland, England, Scotland and Wales as part of a European socialist confederation. "

I wasn't asking the question to be smart, simply because it could possibly be a reason they didn't want you to canvass for them. I was wondering if you discussed it. I'm not from the north but I'd imagine its difficult to avoid the question on the doorsteps.
-----------------
The reason I keep bringing up the socialist alliance in england is simply because thats very similar to what you are suggesting. (as opposed to the SSP model) And now that it's being dumped I think I have a right to be worried the same faith might follow an irish version. Its not simple sectarianism, which is something you will have to understand. From my point of view its fairly well grounded fears that this isn't serious. And I already gave the example of the last irish socialist alliance.

My main fear is that the SWP proposed socialist alliance is simply a united front recruitment campaign. Now I don't know the situation in Belfast but since I got involved in Dublin we had the Housing Action Campaign, (which I was involved in ), we had the ANL, then we had the anti deportion campaign then we had revolutionary youth then globalise resistance and then the Irish Socialist Alliance and finally the IAWM, .
Now I'll be the first to say the IAWM is very different to the others and I am quite impressed, but pretty much all the rest proved to be recruitment campaigns.

Thats my basic fear that and the fact that you may drop an alliance as soon as it suits you. I use the example of the SA in england because thats excatly what happened there! Call me paranoid but there it is.

The other point is the sometimes over optimistic tone some of your members have, the idea that all that has to happen is our parties unite and there'll be a flood of recruits and we'll make a huge impact on society and build a mass revolutionary party. thats wishful thinking and no way to build a serious strategy. In my opinion we will build a mass party through struggle rather than a reconfiguration of the irish hard left and there'll be many twists and turns before we build a mass party.
For example Donal's idea that 3 left candidates in the north is the biggest left movement since the 30's is simply not based in reality.

My advice to your party would be if you want to organise an alliance I wouldn't come in with "join us or your sectarian". You yourself have not done this. (and you unlike others are always willing to debate reasonably) but often thats the feeling some of your members give. For example the post which began this. No one will be blackmailed into an alliance. You will have to talk to people and try to convince them you are serious.

I think in the long run we will have to come together in some way. For me the SWP has been going through alot of changes since the no global movement started and you've been going through alot of different manifestations some very positive. For example the fact you will go for elections now and elections in trade unions. Also as far as I'm aware your position in the north has changed in tone at least.
But at the same time I would still wait to see if these changes are longlasting or simply tactical. After the IAWM as I said i was impressed as I saw your party sticking with it unlike before. I went to one of the first public meetings and it was obvious it was a broadbased campaign. But then Des Derwin happened and some problems with sticking with the bin charges campaign. So I'm in two minds.

But I think these type of discussions are very important and should be continued (ignoring the trolls) as people from each party can actually understand the reason why these positions exist, rather than "you're just sectarian" sort of comments. And I hope they can be continued.