We make the news - we make the stories

by an Tue Mar 02, 2004 15:49

It was the exact same with the Irish Times best of the year supplement around Stephen's Day, full of photo's of people I knew on protests....very odd...

by A.N. Other Tue Mar 02, 2004 16:08

Same with the RTE review of the year with that Ryan Turdy geezer.
Once you took out the sport and social stuff.

by "i myself imposed this of my own volition" Tue Mar 02, 2004 16:17

when do the TV documentaries start?

by imcer Tue Mar 02, 2004 16:42

Just to add that IMC supplied two of the most important pieces of footage to national TV in past 2 years.

From Vidhead: Troops in Desert Fatigues in Shannon - first aired 12 Months after it was shot and RTE knew it was available. Only footage of Troops in Airport ever broadcast by RTE.

From AoB: That RTS Footage which is arguably directly responsible for the current Reorganisation of how the gardai Operate complaints procedures.

by David C. Tue Mar 02, 2004 19:40

All you do is provide a tiny bit of light entertainment - for the public, but mostly for yourself.

Point to real policy results - not action photos in an exhibit...

by Slarti Tue Mar 02, 2004 19:55

"That RTS Footage which is arguably directly responsible for the current Reorganisation of how the gardai Operate complaints procedures."

I'd call that a "real policy result"

I don't mind trolls, but incompetent trolls really annoy me...

by billy bragg Tue Mar 02, 2004 19:57

david. Read above post for proof.

by David C. Tue Mar 02, 2004 20:57

Was changing gardai complaint procedures really a high-priority goal?

I'm not a troll. I have a point of view - which is that activism in ireland is not as effective as it could be because activists tend to be insular, uncompromising and focused on means rather than on ends. Frankly I think that a lot of Irish activists just aren't being honest with themselves about their effectiveness and perhaps even about their motivations (see ongoing IAWM debacle) .

That's my opinion and I'm entitled to it.

by ec Tue Mar 02, 2004 23:34

>?

by Eoin Dubsky Wed Mar 03, 2004 13:22

It goes without saying that activists in Ireland *could* be far more effective. I don't understand what David means though when he identifies the problem as: "activists tend to be insular, uncompromising and focused on means rather than on ends".

Surely if activists were becoming more insular they wouldn't appear all over the press photography exhibition? Indymedia Ireland certainly wouldn't have such an active "open publishing" newswire - with contributions ranging from RTS heads to Young Fine Gael campaigners. Why would "insular" activists in UCD and Trinity campaign to boycott Coca-Cola in solidarity with working people way over in Colombia?

If radical antiwar activists were uncompromising they would never have tried to reform the IAWM. The "IAWM debacle" you refered to is the result of honest (though fruitless) attempts to try and work with the SWP in that organization. Activists have engaged respectfully with courts and police, even when it was unlikely that the forces of law and order were likely to play fair (see court reports from Mary Kelly's trial elsewhere on Indymedia.ie for example). They have engaged with the corporate and state media (all the time using Indymedia also), even when the role of the media in selling wars and corporate lies was known.

Your final point was that activists "are focused on means rather than on ends". I've already pointed out how this is not true in the paragraph above. Furthermore I would make the point that some times the opposite is true in fact. You can't sustain a movement which is only focused on defeating this or that *out there*, and fails to nurture democracy and justice *within*. So the means need to be consistent with the ends.

by Anonymous Wed Mar 03, 2004 15:44

Eoin,

Activism in Ireland, as around the globe, I believe, have been enormously successful in recent years. The media coverage activism has received and the achievement of the largest protest in Ireland's history I think is tantamount to that.

But I agree with you that "activists in Ireland *could* be far more effective." To this end I believe that David C. is not far off the mark and I largely tend to agree to his argument above. I also believe that comments which refute our arguments should not always be so easily passed off as "trolls", which I agree with you Eoin for not doing. Regarding David’s point about changing gardai complaints procedure is hardly a major aim - I agree with him that it is not thy highest of aims, but nevertheless it was an important one. Battles with the gardai are inevitable over the next decade. And to stop them "behaving badly" and to have a proper complaints procedure in place is important.

But as mentioned I believe David is not far off the mark.

You say Eoin that "If radical antiwar activists were uncompromising they would never have tried to reform the IAWM." I question how much effort was put in to this reform and how long these efforts went on for. And how did the IAWM get into such a divided and seemingly unworkable situation in the first place??

To me there seems to be at least one apparent problem which is two sides of the same coin.

1. The Swp have seemingly made themselves untrustworthy and very difficult to work with. The IAWM fiasco is an obvious example of this. But this problem has been going on for a very long problem before this.

2. But the Swp, I believe, are an integral and important part of activisim in Ireland. They have some full time staff, a large activist membership (in relative, comparative terms), they have finance - and put an awful lot of raw, hard work into activism in Ireland.

As such I commend the attempts of others to work with them in the IAWM and am very disappointed of its apparent collapse. But because the Swp are an integral part of activisim I do not think they should just be ignored or hated.

I often think that not everyone seems to be on the same side. I do not think this helps in defeating the "enemy", achieving end goals and policy change. Being on the same side does not necessarily mean working with the Swp on a partnership basis. It just means working with them where possible and not treating “them” as the enemy. I also believe efforts, where possible, should be made to reform the Swp and start getting at lower key Swp members, engaging in dialogue and getting them to change things from the inside.
A certain amount of tolerance is needed.

Your last point about "means need to be consistent with the ends.", I very much agree with.

Where are you at, at the moment?

Regards,
.

by Anon too Wed Mar 03, 2004 16:29

particularly,
"2. But the Swp, I believe, are an integral and important part of activisim in Ireland. They have some full time staff, a large activist membership (in relative, comparative terms), they have finance - and put an awful lot of raw, hard work into activism in Ireland."

But (back at you, sorry) there is a problem. Ireland is a SMALL place and Dublin even smaller. (By and large the main organisations haven't broke out of the capital city being the be all and end all mindset, GG being a honourable exception).
If you look back at the last five years and think of every campaign that you have been involved in, it is invariably the same faces that you see, particularly in organisational roles.
There is no doubt that the SWP are an important part of activism in Ireland but here is the rub, they are day by day making themselves less integral.
True, they may start off a campaign by putting in an awful lot of raw, hard work but after a while they revert to type and I am afraid in a place so small they can't get away with it. It is time for them to wise up. Unfortunately if the antics of the mothership across the way were anything to go by - I wouldn't hold my breath.
I for one am prepared to work with individual SWP members but when it comes to the organisation I will have to use the words of a frequent contributor here.
Boycott, boycott, boycott.
There are only so many times you can be beaten to the floor before you become punch drunk.

by David C. Wed Mar 03, 2004 21:28

The press photography exhibition and its photos of demos are a non-event to 99.999% of people in Ireland. There is no awareness of the coke boycott at UCD/TCD etc by 99.999% of the Irish people, and if there was, it probably would not be an issue for them. 99.999% of the Irish people have never heard of Indymedia Ireland, much less read it or posted to it. The IAWM or SWP (much less GNAW, GG, Cuban Solidarity, etc. etc, etc, etc, etc ad nausea) are unknown to 99.999% of Irish people. 99.999% of Irish people don't know who Mary Kelly or Eoin Rice are - never mind all the other activist 'stars' mentioned on these pages. This is what I mean by insular. This is also why activism in Ireland rarely influences public policy.

And I think that this is an enormous shame and a pity, because I truly believe that most Irish people deeply agree with most of the root causes that these activists 'purport' to represent. I think that the problem is in the effectiveness of organizing and representing those causes on behalf of the public at large (by which I mean ordinary people who work in jobs in offices and drive cars and live in a 3-bed semi-detached in some housing estate and watch 'fair City' over their microwaved meals). That public (i.e. *THE* public) is badly served by the activist community, in my view.

Activism can be successful - look at what Concern or Trocaire or Goal have acheived. Look at civil rights in the north, or Ghandi driving the British from india or even the 'MoveOn.org' organization in the US at the moment. And Irish activism had certainly had some successes and I respect and admire the people who have made those possible. But it is possible, however, that there are also some people in Irish activism who are more concerned about making a noise or being the 'hero' or gaining a bit of status for themselves or playing the Che Guevara than they are about real, genuine honest-to-God progress towards the cause. And they turn a lot of people off. They have certainly turned me off.

Like 99.999% of the Irish people, I'd never heard of the SWP before I started reading about them here. But if, as Anon says, they're putting an awful lot of raw, hard work into activism in Ireland, then fair play to them. Why does anyone care that they're running the train as long as the train is heading in the right direction?

by Phuq Hedd Wed Mar 03, 2004 23:00

QUOTE: "Activism can be successful - look at what Concern or Trocaire or Goal have acheived."
ANSWER: Although they do some good work they are merely patching up the problems caused by global capitalism. If we were to take this argument seriously then we'd merely part of the problem instead of a potential solution. All these organisations are worthy, but ultimately ineffective and it would be as cynical a choice to only support this as joining the clergy would have been in the Middle Ages.

QUOTE: "Look at civil rights in the north, or Ghandi driving the British from india or even the 'MoveOn.org' organization in the US at the moment."
ANSWER: OK, I've looked at them. It seems to me that some civil rights in the North were achieved after a violent terrorist struggle, that the British withdrawal from India occurred largely because of the threat of massive bloodshed and the inevitability of national independence movements in colonies. The MoveOn.org people don't even seem to be in the same league and are merely a front for the Democratic party to unseat Bush and replace him with an authoritarian of their choice.

QUOTE: "Why does anyone care that [SWP] running the train as long as the train is heading in the right direction?"
ANSWER: The argument IS that the train is going in the wrong direction. Direct action at Shannon is the only way to achieve disruption of the US war machine.

by David C. Wed Mar 03, 2004 23:16

Thank you, Phuq Hedd, for providing a *perfect* example of what I'm talking about. (Eoin - this is what I mean by 'uncompromising').

I can only imagine your opinion of the FF/FG/PD/LAB-voting public who work in office jobs, drive cars, live in housing estates, shop at tesco, watch Fair City, etc, etc., however I certainly know their opinion of you and of your approach.

And by the way - Direct action at Shannon is *NOT* the only way to achieve disruption of the US war machine in Ireland. Changing Irish government policy is...

by Drbinoche Thu Mar 04, 2004 00:57

OK first off congrats to those whose photos have been shown at the exhibition, must feel great to finally get some well deserved recognition.

Now as for you being directly responsible for the Garda complaints thingy, I would seriously doubt that. I mean yes you were involved in it and have aided in it changing, [even if those changes have yet to take full effect], but in all honesty, do you believe that if another RTS sceanrio were to happent tomorrow the same thing would not be happening again. As it stands no real progression has occurred on either yours or the Gardas part so you are both effectively locked in stalemate.

Direct action at Shannon - If you really want to alienate people more go ahead with this plan. Most people in Ireland have forgotten about Shannon, due directly to the mainstream media not covering it that much anymore, so along will come you guys and attack a military plane in Shannon. I say Attack as it is a logistics aircraft and so cannot be disarmed, but anyway, you guys do this and all the papers will post is how a bunch of nutters attacked a military plane in Shannon. They will probably not cover why you did it, or what you believed you were accomplishing and the majority of people in Ireland will see this and believe you are all nutters. If you want things to happen in Shannon, try more protests, more leafletting, get more politicians behind you, get lawyers behind you, but I tell you if you attack another plane of breach the perimeter or stop decent Irish people from getting to their holiday flights and the press will have a field day and you'll come out looking worse.

Oh and I don't agree with you 'making the news', you contribute to the news, no one really makes the news. So congrats, this past year Indymedia.ie has contributed alot to the news, but in all reality has created very little.

by Phuq Hedd Thu Mar 04, 2004 01:01

Answer the specific points and stop hopping about like a scalded rabbit whenever you come up against specifics. You're starting to look like "LOne Gunman" and "Desmond Fennell":

1. How can merely supporting Trocaire etc. achieve change that makes Trocaire unnecessary. (Wonderful as Trocaire's work is).

2. How can you ignore the history of civil rights in the North, Gandhi (etc) which show that direct action achieves the goals you desire and use these (your own examples) as evidence for some as yet unspecified non-direct non-action?

3. Why do you insist on distorting the dissatisfaction with the anti-war movement in Ireland into being anti-swp when in fact it's anti the policies of the swp (your loathsome train metaphor)?


QUOTE: "I can only imagine your opinion of the FF/FG/PD/LAB-voting public who work in office jobs, drive cars, live in housing estates, shop at tesco, watch Fair City, etc, etc., however I certainly know their opinion of you and of your approach."
ANSWER: You demonstrate your rigid, uncompromising silliness when you imagine that you know anything other than your own opinion. Apart from the voting for parties that have demonstrated their duplicity and dishonesty since the inception of this state the above description is of me. Your assertions about the opinions of "99.999%" are as ludicrous as your attempt to avoid the argument and distort the points made by others.

QUOTE: "And by the way - Direct action at Shannon is *NOT* the only way to achieve disruption of the US war machine in Ireland. Changing Irish government policy is..."
ANSWER: It's not "by the way", it's the whole point! Irish government policy is not going to change unless it's forced to change. You've presented no plausible alternative to direct action at Shannon. On my side I have the evidence that the flow of munitions through Shannon was disrupted by direct action: something that none of the appeals and hand-wringing did.

by David C. Thu Mar 04, 2004 02:03

OK. Here's a point-by-point response:

-Concern, Trocaire and Goal do lasting good through enabling economic development, through inspiration and through setting examples. They also influence Irish foreign policy, a recent example of which is the presence of Irish troops in Liberia rather than in Iraq. They also connect with 99.999% of the Irish people (who know who they are and who provide political support and money). They are moving things forward in a positive direction. Irish anti-war and anti-corporatism activists could learn something there.

-I strongly disagree that violence or the threat of violence had anything to do with achieving civil rights in the North or in India. In fact I would say the opposite is true. I also think that replacing Bush with a Democrat is a goal of extreme importance to the US and to the whole world. I think that Ralph Nader was wrong when he claimed, like you, that there was no difference between George Bush and Al Gore. I'd guess that 99.999% of Irish people would agree with me. Gore would not have invaded Iraq.

-Most people would disagree that FF/FG/PD/LAB have 'demonstrated their duplicity and dishonesty since the inception of this state'. In fact most of them *DO* disagree every election. Its worth asking *why* people vote the way they do. I'll give you a hint: its not because they're stupid....

-A plausible alternative to direct action at Shannon is provided by Drbinoche above. 'get more politicians behind you, get lawyers behind you', to which I would ad 'get the FF/FG/LAB voting people behind you'.

Like it or not Irish activists live in a democratic marketplace of ideas. And nobody is buying their product. Why?

by Finger on the Pulse Thu Mar 04, 2004 02:24

Because people want to vote for a party which will maintain or improve their standard of living, not rob them with taxes thrown away on housing junkies and wasters.

It's the economy, stupid.

by Yossarian Thu Mar 04, 2004 11:39

It's becasuse "their product" isn't in the marketplace. In fact it's pretty much excluded and when it does pop up it's derided in the media as nonsense. Most people have no other source of information.

by Anonymous Thu Mar 04, 2004 19:52

Firstly, I don't think a defensive position should be taken to David's comments. Rather they should be welcomed and examined as views from the "outside". The outside representing the people we are trying to get at. Real debate is slim enuf on this website as it is!!

So on my part I thank you for you comments and thoughts David.

As mentioned earlier I agree with you that I think there is far too much in-fighting, mistrust and dislike between different groups within the whole left movement in Ireland and this is not helping progress. I also think that some groups, without naming names, are far too concerned with their own inward agenda and are not, in real & practical terms, embracing the broader left movement. And in lay mans terms are pissing people off and adding to the in-fighting that is taking place.

I also agree with you that we could be communicating better with the masses. The wearing of black masks for example, I think, is stupid. Though in all fairness this is only done by a few, but the media love to pick up on it and represent us as that.

But I think you underestimate the task at hand. I don’t know if your comparison with charity organizations is fair or correct. Though I believe socialists & anarchists share charity organizations goals of justice & equality, we are not a charity. Rather we have, what I would consider, a much more difficult aim, of affecting broader political change. Charities appeal very easily to the public. Political groups which endanger the status quo, do not.

I also endorse Yossarians point regarding charities that:-

“Although they do some good work they are merely patching up the problems caused by global capitalism”

I would probably add that they do some “great” work, rather than just good work. I have worked with some charities in the past and they have always appealed to me. But charities as Yossarian says will always only be reactionary. They will never be able to change the fundamentals which cause them having to react in the first place. I remember once hearing an analogy that went something like:-

If you could imagine a crossroads where cars keep crashing into one another and people kept get killed. Charities are like an ambulance service that come to heal the wounded and the dying. But so long as the crossroads remain the way they are, people continue to get killed and injured.

It is the bigger, and consequently harder, task of activists around the world to erect traffic lights or change the crossroads system so that no one gets killed or injured in the first place.

On a practical, global and national level, a mighty task indeed, that will take no one knows how long. But it is this bigger task and the potentially much more effective agent of change that draws me towards left-wing/activist politics than charity organizations.

You also say that:-

“I truly believe that most Irish people deeply agree with most of the root causes that these activists 'purport' to represent.”

Firstly I would say that most Irish people are not socialists nor anarchists and currently do not want to be.

But I do agree that “deep down” they do agree with our core philosophies – e.g. justice & equality. But it is one thing agreeing with it, it is another thing entirely people doing something about it.

You mention in your next sentences the middle classes, with their cars, homes, mod cons and families. Why is it that year after year after year, Fianna Fail continue to get re-elected?? One of the major factors I believe is plain old human “SELFISHNESS”. Economically the country is doing way better than it ever did in its history. Indeed, even on the European and World stage, per head of population, we are one of the big economic players. People do not want to RISK losing this. So Fianna Failers, and they know it, can pocket as much loot and be as corrupt as they want to. So long as the economy keeps ticking away they will get re-elected – People do not really care, when it comes down to it, that people are dying on trolleys, that our health care system is totally inadequate, that people with physical and mental disabilities are not looked after, that there are thousands sleeping on our streets, that there is abject inequality in our country etc. etc. So long as their own lives are secure, as long as their families are secure and their houses, tv’s and cars are secure, they do not want to risk changing the status quo for the sake of caring for the most vulnerable in our society.

There is also a fear from the middle classes that turning socialist or even Labour might affect our competitiveness, our job creation ability and most importantly our ability to attract foreign investment and foreign companies to set up base here. This last point in particular, in a global capitalist market, even though I am a socialist, I have to say I agree with.

So, though I agree with you to an extent, I think you "maybe" are being over critical of left wing activists in Ireland, and maybe are underestimating the task at hand. But no doubt there is room for big improvements and these must be sought after, not backed away from.

Anyhow, these are just some of my thoughts, thank you for yours.

Regards,

by Phuq Hedd Fri Mar 05, 2004 00:32

QUOTE: "OK. Here's a point-by-point response"
ANSWER: Which conveniently leaves out your central distortion: namely that the problem that people have with the IAWM is not the SWP per se, but instead the policies of the SWP.

QUOTE: Concern, Trocaire and Goal do lasting good through enabling economic development, through inspiration and through setting examples.
ANSWER: Please define lasting and then give examples to back up your assertions. You are fond of sweeping generalisations without supplying evidence.

QUOTE: "They also influence Irish foreign policy, a recent example of which is the presence of Irish troops in Liberia rather than in Iraq."
ANSWER: Can you provide me with some sort of evidence of how Concern, Trocaire and Goal were directly responsible for this? Is there a Dail statement in which a direct allusion to the input of these organisations is cited as the reason for not supplying US troops to Iraq?

QUOTE: "They also connect with 99.999% of the Irish people"
ANSWER: What does "connect" mean and where do you pull your 99.999% from? (I suspect I know the answer to the latter, but I'd appreciate having it confirmed that you have absolutely no basis for making this assertion yet again.)

QUOTE: "I strongly disagree that violence or the threat of violence had anything to do with achieving civil rights in the North or in India. In fact I would say the opposite is true"
ANSWER: Opinions are held by everyone. Neither yours or mine is particularly convincing on its own. The problem with the examples that you cited in support of your position are twofold:
First, the actions of Gandhi and the NI Civil Rights Movement could be decried by someone taking your position as unnecessarily provocative and alienating to the fictional 99.999%. Gandhi incited huge mobs of poor people to march against the government, to steal salt (by not paying tax on it) and all this in the context of a violent and volatile political situation. The NI Civil RIghts Movement could be described as provocatively marching into areas where they knew they would not be welcome and disrupting traffic on the road, confronting the forces of law and order, all again in a context where there was already a high level of violence. I suspect that if you were transplanted in time and place to either of those situations you would have decried what are now recognised as succesful campaigns and would have called for quiescence.
Second, the direct action camp of the anti-war activists have never engaged in violence, and have instead been at the receiving end of violence from the agents of the state.

QUOTE: "I also think that replacing Bush with a Democrat is a goal of extreme importance to the US and to the whole world. I think that Ralph Nader was wrong when he claimed, like you, that there was no difference between George Bush and Al Gore."
ANSWER: Again you insist on distorting what is plainly written in front of you: is this malice, carelessness or incompetence on your part? I didn't state there was "no difference between George Bush and Al Gore", instead I stated that MoveOn.org is focussed on a very limited objective, namely "replacing Bush with an authoritarian of their choice". Given that your main complaint and contribution to this thread has been to assert that activists in Ireland are too insular and concerned with means rather than ends it is a bit rich that you not be concerned with what the end of the MoveOn.org campaign will be. It will be a man who is a representative of corporate authoritarian interests. It is thus likely that he will enact a corporate authoritarian agenda which will have cosmetic differences to Bush's, probably without the influence of the Project for a New American Century "crazies", but still a projection of US imperialism. As under Clinton (who was again different to Bush) there will be many bombings of foreign countries to suit US imperial agendas, a continued attack on the working poor and a further demolition of welfare. Now, tell me that that's an end that's on a par with Gandhi's or the NICRM achievements. You've dressed up your creature in pretty rags, but underneath there's a stinking, scabbed beast waiting to ravage. And you complain about activists!

QUOTE: "I'd guess that 99.999% of Irish people would agree with me. Gore would not have invaded Iraq."
ANSWER: How modest of you. Only a guess this time! Even if you had a reliable statistic for what Irish people guess about what Gore would have done that does not tell us what Gore would have done. The evidence in terms of patterns of foreign assaults and invasions by the USA is that there is no difference between Democratic and Republican administrations. I refer you to Michael Moore's suitably easily digestible book (for you O' Knower of the Opinions of Us Mere Fair City Watching 99.999 Percenters) for a nicely tabulated proof of this.

QUOTE: "-Most people would disagree that FF/FG/PD/LAB have 'demonstrated their duplicity and dishonesty since the inception of this state'."
ANSWER: Oh please. "Most people"? Don't you mean 99.999% of people? Either provide some evidence for your dogmatic assertions or else just give your own opinion.

QUOTE: "In fact most of them *DO* disagree every election. Its worth asking *why* people vote the way they do. I'll give you a hint: its not because they're stupid...."
ANSWER: How on earth does voting for one liar over another prove that one doesn't believe they're both liars? Do you actually believe that ballots are a vote of confidence in the government? I'll give you a hint: I don't think people vote because they're stupid. You don't have to be stupid to be wrong. Due to the assertions spread about by people like yourself (which are largely confused, historically unsupported and more a matter of faith than reasoned opinion) large numbers of people still believe that voting is better than not. Some of them both vote and are activists. Large numbers don't vote and are not activists, and a sizeable proportion of middle-class parasites vote and are happy with what they call "democracy". In other words some people vote because they're mistaken and the rest are evil bourgeois lackeys. Demented ideologues of the currently undemocratic and broken system notwithstanding this voting only has a partial effect on the policies of government. It has evolved that way to safeguard the gains of the rich and their middle-class servants from the mob. It's telling that you can only conceive of two types of people: stupid and not-stupid instead of accepting that intelligent people can make wrong decisions.

QUOTE: "-A plausible alternative to direct action at Shannon is provided by Drbinoche above. 'get more politicians behind you, get lawyers behind you', to which I would ad 'get the FF/FG/LAB voting people behind you'."
ANSWER: This assumes that DA at Shannon does not get people behind us. I don't agree about getting the politicians "behind" us -- they are aware of the issue and have decided what they're (not) doing about it. The only way their position will change is when they realise they've irritated enough people that a smooth-talking "anti-war" opportunist will unseat them due to a protest vote at their inaction. There are probably many people that will never "get behind" us because they approve of the USA's attacks on the rest of the world. It is pointless to avoid direct action which stops these assaults in the vain hope of changing someone's beliefs. You've shown no proof that the rest of the public is anti-DA and until you do your asking us to throw away what has been shown to work in order to do something that has been shown NOT to work. If 150,000 bother to come out in the center of Dublin against the war and the politicians ignore it you can be damn sure that there's a lot of people against the war, the government knows it and they're not doing anything about it.

QUOTE: "Like it or not Irish activists live in a democratic marketplace of ideas. And nobody is buying their product. Why?"
ANSWER: And once again you have some proof of your statements do you? Receipts from the tills at the Marketplace of Ideas would be nice.

SUMMARY: You refuse to back up any of your strongly-worded assertions, make dogmatic statements without proof and in general display a hostile inflexibility against Direct Action which clearly displays that you are not interested in any of the "compromise" whose lack you bemoan in others. I think it's fairly clear that your agenda is to attack Direct Action no matter what evidence and reason is presented to you.

by Phuq Hedd Fri Mar 05, 2004 00:51

QUOTE: "Firstly, I don't think a defensive position should be taken to David's comments."
ANSWER: Disagreeing with someone isn't defence. This framing of your post starts to sound rather like the mantra of "unite, unite" that is blarted out every time someone criticises the S(W)P. It would be useful if you realised that disagreement is not only useful, but necessary and helpful. Otherwise we'd all have to agree with David C. (because he's sure not going to compromise and put on a black mask and hatchet planes) and do nothing except put a couple of coppers in the Trocaire box and adopt a few black babies when we're off doing good works out foreign somewhere.

QUOTE: "Rather they should be welcomed and examined as views from the "outside". The outside representing the people we are trying to get at. Real debate is slim enuf on this website as it is!!"
ANSWER: Give me a break. David C. is as "inside" as you can get. He has a firm, totally incorrect political agenda which is to stop Direct Action at Shannon. David C. is part of a special priesthood which only comprises 00.001% of the population. Members of this priesthood have access to the thoughts of the 99.999% of the rest of the population (during Fair City subliminal psych-tests are beamed at the watchers and a special camera inside the screen sends pictures of their body-language back to an NSA supercomputer for analysis. They then pass on the results to David C. Only joking! Really David C. is a man of the people and can use his judicious and hard won lessons from the school of life to ascertain what others think. In fact they don't even bother with elections and voting and all that charade any more, they just let him select the parties because he knows how people would have voted).

QUOTE: "So on my part I thank you for you comments and thoughts David."
ANSWER: And I thank you for yours Anonymous, you have the conch.

QUOTE: "As mentioned earlier I agree with you that I think there is far too much in-fighting, mistrust and dislike between different groups within the whole left movement in Ireland and this is not helping progress."
ANSWER: On the contrary there isn't mistrust as recent events have demonstrated and if we'd started out with an agenda that didn't emphasise a false unity instead of defining practical goals then there would have been progress in shutting down Shannon and thus helping to stop the war. Everyone's been desperately falling over themselves not to disagree and that led to the creation of an unstable, totalising entity which predictably became prey to one of the authoritarian Leninist outfits.

QUOTE: "I also think that some groups, without naming names, are far too concerned with their own inward agenda and are not, in real & practical terms, embracing the broader left movement. And in lay mans terms are pissing people off and adding to the in-fighting that is taking place."
ANSWER: Oh, thank you for the explanation in "lay mans terms". It is of great use to those of us that are not part of the 00.001% priesthood.

QUOTE: "I also agree with you that we could be communicating better with the masses."
ANSWER: The priests won't like you doing that.

QUOTE: "The wearing of black masks for example, I think, is stupid."
ANSWER: There's a problem there though: how do you know? Supposing you're stupid too? David C. wouldn't think so because you agree with him, but others might. Me? Well I think you're either a troll or else terribly and tragically wrong. Here's why: whether or not you wear a mask the media are going to paint you in unfavourable terms if you do anything effective because you are a threat to the people that own the media. So already you have lost that public image battle. So, what do you gain by wearing a mask? On it's own not much, but if you're part of hundreds of other people it'll be much harder for the Special Branch spies to find out who you are. If you're actually _doing_ anything that will be of great advantage.

SUMMARY: I'm not even going to bother to reply to the rest of your post. I'm convinced it's a troll and if it isn't then there's nothing I can say that will convince you of anything because these arguments have been gone over time and time again on this site.

by Phuq Hedd Fri Mar 05, 2004 00:58

I posted asking David C to show evidence that Concern etc had influenced the government against sending US troops to Iraq. Of course I mean IRISH troops.

by David C. Fri Mar 05, 2004 07:31

Are you *sure* you're not being a wee bit defensive there, Phuq?

I hardly know where to start! I'll just address a few points, because I have to be at work early:

I'm really not 'inside' the Irish activist community at all. I've been to a few demos and been disappointed with them - that's about it. I don't know anybody and I can't keep all the organizations straight

I'm not part of the 00.001%. I'm saying that the Irish activist community (i.e. those 'inside') are the 00.001%, and all the rest of us fair-city-watchers are the 99.999%. (Approximately, Phug. Approximately)

I'm not against direct action at Shannon. I just don't think that should be the goal. The goal is the get the US military out of Shannon. If direct action at Shannon works, then great. If marches or press conferences in Dublin works, then great. I'm about ends, not means..

Having Gore as president of the US would be better than having Bush. Those who worked towards this did a good thing. Those who fucked it up because they couldn't get their way (Mr. Nader) did a bad thing.

You say "some people vote because they're mistaken and the rest are evil bourgeois lackeys". I strongly disagree and I think that paragraph is a bit of a rant. People vote because they are entitled to have their say as to how they are governed. Its the right thing to do. Democracy is a good thing, and it works. Run for the Dail in the next election, Phug. And if your views don't draw support, don't bitch about mistaken, evil bourgeois lackeys.

Face facts. Look the truth square in the eye. Come to terms with reality. See the world as it is...

Anonymous - your crossroads analogy is well taken. There is clearly a need for other organizations to address the root problems (e.g.. the Jubilee 2000 people and Bono's debt relief efforts). I was trying to show how organizations can become accepted and even loved by the public (the 99.999%) and how their effectiveness towards their goals is increased by this. Irish 3RD world charities are in the mainstream, not on some looney fringe. I think that they have helped shape Ireland's reputation (at home and abroad) and character as a kind, compassionate nation that loves peace and works hard to achieve it. I think that they have helped embed peace and decency deep within the Irish identity. That's my opinion...

by Anonymous Fri Mar 05, 2004 15:20

Don't have time to go into details now cause of stupid work, but I will have a read off your arguments later.

If either of you can, please send us a mail with your email address - morrisonz9999@yahoo.com

Have enjoyed the debate and found it informative. Thanks Phuq Hedd for answering quote by quote, very Plato like, which I greatly respect.

On a lighter note your statement regarding my point about a certain group pissing people off:-

"Oh, thank you for the explanation in "lay mans terms". It is of great use to those of us that are not part of the 00.001% priesthood"

Excellent. : )

Just two very quick (this was originally supposed to be very quick) points:-

1. There is a very subtle but HUGE difference between "disagreeing" with someone on the one hand and "not working with" or more to the point "working against" someone on the other.

Take in business for example or in military tactics. The managment of a business sit around and discuss business plans. Of course there are going to be huge disagreements - and this is the bed rock of productive thought. But if they do not reach a reasonalbe consensus and one part of the business goes off and does one thing, and another does another thing, this is counter-productive.

Similarily in military tactics - again there are huge disagreements but if the army splits and fights seperate battles it will surely loose.

Of course the whole left movement is not just "one" business nor "one" army. It is multi-factional. But I think the same sort of "general" principles should apply to what have made business's and armies successful world over and throughout history.

On the other hand however, your points about me harping on about "unity, unity" are taken, and I have been doing some re-examining of my thoughts on this. Don't forget I have not disagreed with the splitting up of the IAWM. I just do not want to see a TOTAL seperation between the IAWM and everyone else now. I do not see why the IAWM should not be worked with, where it is MUTUALLY beneficial.

2. Your points about the wearing of black masks, I disagree with.

I think you are thinking in too an absolutist form of thought. Sure the media will paint us in a bad light anyhow. But the wearing of black masks only ADDS to this and makes their job easier. To stop wearing them will not stop journalists but it will curtail them to at least some degree. And EVERY degree helps and must be sought after, worked for and won. To use a greatly over used, but nevertheless excellent, phrase by the great John Hume "leave no stone unturned".

3. Last but not least. I am not a troll. Neither I believe is David. Though I am sure there are trolls, not every "discenting" voice on this site is a troll.

Best regards.

by Anonymous Fri Mar 05, 2004 15:26 morrisonz9999 at yahoo dot com

To clarify, are you saying you are on the "outside" or "inside" or mabye even inbetween - as we may put it in such loose general terms???

I have enjoyed your critical analysis of activisim in Ireland.

Please send me your e-mail address if you could to:-

morrisonz9999@yahoo.com

Your original argument was that:-

"Was changing gardai complaint procedures really a high-priority goal?

I'm not a troll. I have a point of view - which is that activism in ireland is not as effective as it could be because activists tend to be insular, uncompromising and focused on means rather than on ends. Frankly I think that a lot of Irish activists just aren't being honest with themselves about their effectiveness and perhaps even about their motivations (see ongoing IAWM debacle) .

That's my opinion and I'm entitled to it."


Is this how you would summize your critisizms of activism in Ireland??

Could you outline a few ways in which you think it/we could improve???

Regards,

by David C. Fri Mar 05, 2004 21:22

#1: RESPECT RESULTS. Appreciate efforts but respect results. Develop an activist culture that is results-oriented. Set measurable policy goals with deadlines, then act, then measure results, then think, then set more measurable policy goals with deadlines. Repeat until successful.

#2: GATHER THE FACTS. Conduct real surveys and take the results seriously. Do research. What are Irish people aware of? What do they believe? Why? What influences their opinions? What kind of messages do they respond to? What turns them off? The scientific method works.

#3: FOCUS. Make intelligent and specific decisions based on facts and then stick to them. One or two or maybe three serious causes per year are enough for the level of resources available to Irish activists. Ignore the rest, even if they're worthy. Believe in triage.

#4: RESPECT THE VIEWS OF OTHERS, especially if you disagree with them. If you can't understand the views of a 80-yr-old TD from down the country then how can you influence him? Besides, he might be right. Start by listening to people.

#5: CO-OPT THE 'BOURGEOIS', because they are 'the people' now. They are us and we are them. Find a way to attract people with money/skills, but little time - lawyers, media, businesspeople, marketers, etc. Believe me, you *need* their professionalism. Start by not excluding them.

#6: USE THE POLITICAL SYSTEM. Its just about influencing policy, not about getting *all* the power.

#7: USE PROFESSIONAL MARKETING TECHNIQUES. Think like Coca Cola or Tesco. The 3 C's (company, competitors, customers). The 4 P's (product, price, promotion, place). Position the cause. Stay on message. Shave and wear a tie. Impressions matter.

#8: FOCUS ON LOGISTICS, not on weapons. Be a catalyst. Be an enabler. Use leverage, gearing. Be the steering wheel, not the engine. Don't try to start social movements - enable the ones who's time has come.

#9: SEEK POPULARITY. Earn the trust and respect of the non-activist public. They are not stupid or evil. People donate money to those that they trust. People consider the opinions of those that they trust. The Irish public are good people and Irish activists should *serve* them.

#10: APPRECIATE PROGRESS. Don't be so angry. Don't hate. We live in the most just, prosperous, free society in the history of the planet. Isn't that great! There is obviously a huge amount left to do, but a lot has been done. Be thankful for it. Enjoy it.

by Anonymous Sat Mar 06, 2004 16:20

Many thanks David. I'm leggin it home now from work to watch the match. GO ON IRELAND!!

I'l print out and have a read later.

Regards,

by Anonymous Mon Mar 08, 2004 15:12 morrisonz9999 at yahoo dot com

Thank God I made it home for the match!!

Have read your analysis above. Excellent piece David. I kind of knew you would produce something as helpful as that.

There is very little (if any) that I could disagree with. I basically endorse everything you have said. I certainly believe, though improving, activism in Ireland lacks a certain amount of professionalism.

Marx was the first to recognize the huge capability of capitalism:-

"The bourgeoisie, during its rule of scarce one hundred years, has created more massive and more colossal productive forces than have all preceding generations together. Subjection of nature's forces to man, machinery, application of chemistry to industry and agriculture, steam navigation, railways, electric telegraphs, clearing of whole continents for cultivation, canalization or rivers, whole populations conjured out of the ground"

Karl Marx - Communist Manifesto
http://www.anu.edu.au/polsci/marx/classics/manifesto.html

Have you read? If not, worth buying.

I believe that this capability and the better points of capitalism needs to harnessed and syndicated into activism and left wing politics in general. Activism should also have the advantage over capitalism of co-operation (though you would hardly think it!!) - i.e. we should be able to share ideas and knowledge amongst one another where as capitalism hides its knowledge as much as it can (eg. patents, company secrets etc. etc.).

Would you care to publish this as an article? I think it should be up as one - and I would be interested to hear people's comments on it.

Regards,

by amused activist Tue Mar 09, 2004 00:28

A lot of that seems to reflect what most serious activists already do. Not so sure about the 'bourgeois' though - how do you define them? There are lots of people who aren't lawyers, media types, businessmen and marketers, and those who are aren't necesssarily bourgeois.

As for no. 2: on a note of realism, how many campaigns have the resources to get public opinion surveys carries out?

No. 10: well, most of us probably already consider that we're working in the tradition of those who fought to bring about the freedom and prosperity that has been achieved, and we owe it to the memory of the likes of Wolfe Tone, Robert Emmet, Michael Davitt, James Connolly and Jim Larkin as well as to ourselves to maintain the gains they won and keep fighting for progress.