SEA Convention in Derry

by Power from the barrel of the gun Fri Mar 05, 2004 17:03

The meek shall inherent the earth when the one's that rule are tired of ruling...which will be never...

So the struggle ( armed if necessary ) continues, pacifism is not the answer, its just the coward's excuse not to confront the state..Ghandi was a fool..

Revolutionary violence is necessary, but individual terrorism is an infantile disorder, that is the fine line between positive violence and coounter productive vandalism..

by Hebe Fri Mar 05, 2004 17:31

Lenin wrote "Left Wing Communism: An Infantile Disorder." "Individual Terrorism" by Leon Trotsky did not refer to liberation movements but to RAF/Red Brigade types of his day.

Trotsky and Lenin were fully anti imperialist and supported the IRA in the War of Independence and the Civil War.

"The revolutionary tradition of the national struggle is a precious good."
Leon Trotsky, 6 June 1936. (From his letter to Nora Connolly O'Brien)


"The British Socialist who fails to support by all positive means the uprising in Ireland, Egypt and India against the London plutocracy - such a Socialist deserves to be branded with infamy if not with a bullet, but in no case merits either a mandate or the confidence of the proletariat."
Leon Trotsky 7 August 1920.

"The term "putsch", in its scientific sense, may be employed only when the attempt at insurrection has revealed nothing but a circle of conspirators or stupid maniacs, and has aroused no sympathy among the masses. The centuries-old Irish national movement, having passed through various stages and combinations of class interest, manifested itself, in particular, in a mass Irish National Congress in America (Vorwärts, March 20, 1916) which called for Irish independence; it also manifested itself in street fighting conducted by a section of the urban petty bourgeoisie and a section of the workers after a long period of mass agitation, demonstrations, suppression of newspapers, etc. Whoever calls such a rebellion a "putsch" is either a hardened reactionary, or a doctrinaire hopelessly incapable of envisaging a social revolution as a living phenomenon.

To imagine that social revolution is conceivable without revolts by small nations in the colonies and in Europe, without revolutionary outbursts by a section of the petty bourgeoisie with all its prejudices, without a movement of the politically non-conscious proletarian and semi-proletarian masses against oppression by the landowners, the church, and the monarchy, against national oppression, etc. — to imagine all this is to repudiate social revolution. So one army lines up in one place and says, "We are for socialism", and another, somewhere else and says, "We are for imperialism", and that will be a social revolution! Only those who hold such a ridiculously pedantic view could vilify the Irish rebellion by calling it a "putsch".

Whoever expects a "pure" social revolution will never live to see it. Such a person pays lip-service to revolution without understanding what revolution is. "

Lenin, July 1916

"A home rule bill for Ireland is now going through parliament. But in Ireland there is the Northern province of Ulster, which is inhabited partly by protestants as distinct from the catholic Irish. Well then, the British Conservatives, led by Carson, the British version of our Black Hundred landlord Purishkevich, have raised a frightful outcry against Irish home rule. This, they say, means subjecting Ulstermen to an alien people of alien creed! Lord Carson has threatened rebellion, and has organised gangs of reactionary armed thugs for this purpose."

Lenin On Britain.

by blah blah Fri Mar 05, 2004 18:12

if you use violence to gain power then you must use violence to maintain power. therefore, you simply re-adjust the power structures to get your own organisation on top, but do not really effect the structural causes of inequality that created the need for opposition in the first instances.
the lack of thought that goes in to some people's comments, like the one above (not you janus) is so inspiring to the neo-liberal!

by SP Supporter Fri Mar 05, 2004 19:01 Londonderry

This Lenin chap must be dropped. He has a terrible attitude towards protestants. Hes probably against Orange Parades as well.

by Steve Fri Mar 05, 2004 23:38

The more I read this website, the less socialism seems to appeal to me.

by Michael - SEA Sat Mar 06, 2004 15:38 seaderry at hotmail dot com Derry

Janus' question is a good one and it has been the subject of much discussion among socialists and politicos in the North - for obvious reasons. Within the SEA, we have quite a few people who have been members of political organisations with military wings [mainly SF/IRA and IRSP/INLA], including half a dozen who have served time as political prisoners.

One point on which they are all totally agreed is that, in a situation where revolution from below is not on the cards (i.e. workers are not involved in struggle to overthrow the system) once a party has a military wing, then the political wing is always going to be subservient to the military one - for obvious reasons of secrecy etc. This is what leads to situations where the IRSP (or Sinn Fein) ends up 'condemning' actions taken by their own comrades. The military people are, and can be, in no way accountable to the political ones. So, the politicos might be against the barbarism of punishment attacks but have no control over what is done in their name. There is also the point that Trotsky made about these secretive groups being essentially elitist, offering to 'do it for' working class people, instead of organising so we can do it for ourselves. This is the real theoretical objection I personally would have to military wings - they offer salvation from above, rather than revolution from below - reformists with guns, really.

In a revolutionary situation, then all workers should be armed and can make the decisions about what is to be done militarily CAN be made openly and democratically.

by SN Sat Mar 06, 2004 18:01

Michael assumes their will come a day when all of the working class will rise at at exactly the same time and say "We are for socialism", and all the bosses will respond at one and the same time with "we are for capitalism" and then and only then will arms be distributed to the democratic workers councils. Keep on dreaming Michael, no event of significant social change in human history has every gone off in such a nice and tidy manner. At the very least, the reality of geography makes this highly idealized model of revolution impossible.

by Belfast Sat Mar 06, 2004 19:40

It is quite incredible the distance the SWP (in their various manifestations) have moved in a few short years.

They want to see British policing methods introduced to the north, condemn the existence of military wings, no longer call for a vote for SF and stand in elections.

Where are they going?

by Jim Monaghan Sat Mar 06, 2004 20:53

There is no basis for armed struggle in Ireland now or for the foreseeable future. The collapse and futility of the RIRA and CIRA campaigns prove this.
The Provo struggle was supported by a section of the masses especially in parts of the North that is what distinguished it from the RAF in Germany and similar formations.
All tactics including armed struggle must be under the control of the masses as expressed in some democratic way, otherwise it will lead to elitism, leaving the masses as spectators rather than participants in the struggle.
The role of a vanguard which is what all the left groups including the anarchists aspire to should be to mobilise the people in its own interest.
e.g. Organising the whole community against drug dealers or money lenders not doing the job for them.
The bulk of the Cuban populuation supported activally the Cuban revolutionaries., that is why it succeeded and the brave attempt in Bolivia did not. Connollys ICA rose out of a mass strike/lockout movement. 1916 tapped in to the growing antiwar and national struggle hidden under the surface in the period.
Frankly the huffing and puffing of the Irsp over this issue does no good. Attempts to out Provo the provos can only lead to disaster.
The danger of an armed group unamenable to democratic pressure or control can only lead to the tail wagging the dog or attempts to short cut the march of history. It may be dull and boring but propaganda, leafleting etc. is what is required in these circumstances.It is agitators not soldiers we need now. Mothball the armies. The work of the SEA in raising socialism in elections is what it is all about. It is a pity that the main force involved (SWP) do not follow the same practice down south but thats another story.

by Laughing Sat Mar 06, 2004 23:19

...is made up of middle class liberals pretending to be socialists, in short, a bloody farce.

by Michael - SEA Sat Mar 06, 2004 23:49 seaderry at hotmail dot com

Whoever said SEA made up of middle-class liberals ought to come to a meeting and ask people's occupations. At the last meeting, there were two low-paid [under £10,000 pa] civil servants currently involved in industrial action, one factory worker [a union member in an anti-union factory], a firefighter, social worker, classroom assistant, two students, one journalist, one anti-poverty researcher, one ward clerk, and 7-8 unemployed people - hardly the most middle-class gathering!

As for SWP, they can answer for themselves in relation to their history about which I know little - but within the SEA their approach to policing has been very anti- any police, British, Irish or N. Irish, whether in uniform or in balaclavas. In fact, it is clear from some discussions that, if the SEA were to move to a position of supporting the PSNI or any other police force, the SWP would leave.

by Emily Sun Mar 07, 2004 20:54

"At the last meeting, there were two low-paid [under £10,000 pa] civil servants currently involved in industrial action, one factory worker [a union member in an anti-union factory], a firefighter, social worker, classroom assistant, two students, one journalist, one anti-poverty researcher, one ward clerk, and 7-8 unemployed people - hardly the most middle-class gathering!"

Oh, here we go again with SEA trying to justify themselves as class warriors, but what is even more laughable is they believe it.

The run down given above is an example of how working class they are? and we are expected to take that in...

The last time SEA stood in a local election was in the North West area prior to that Socialist Sect Guru himself standing.

Working class heroes, I think not. Didn’t the areas they stood in think just as much of them…

Emily

by Michael - SEA Mon Mar 08, 2004 11:56 seaderry at hotmail dot com Derry

"Emily", who I gather from previous postings, is a member of the IRSP, should just look at the results the SEA has achieved. For an alliance which was set up in April 2001 and stood in June 2001 local elections, it managed to poll 700 votes in just three wards in Derry - better than any other Left candidates anywhere in the North. The only elections since were the Assembly elections when we stood only in the North West, it's true but then that's where we are!

I guess "Emily" is upset at the very hard line the SEA has taken against the brutalisation of working class people, especially young people, by the punishment attacks of his thuggish associates. If that's what it means to be a working class hero, I'll happily accept his middle class jibes.

by SEA supporter Mon Mar 08, 2004 16:03

For everyones information, the count results where the SEA stood in 2001 can be found here:

The SEA candidates are listed, in typical fashon, as independents

Derry Northland ward

http://www.bbc.co.uk/northernireland/councilresults/NILE2001/EAs/Ea2_11.htm

SEA Candidate: Colm Bryce

Derry Waterside ward:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/northernireland/councilresults/NILE2001/EAs/Ea2_14.htm

SEA Candidate: William Webster

Derry Cityside ward:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/northernireland/councilresults/NILE2001/EAs/Ea2_10.htm

SEA Candidate: Shauna Deery

Belfast Laganbank ward:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/northernireland/councilresults/NILE2001/EAs/Ea1_6.htm

SEA Candidate: Barbara Muldoon

by Emily - NONE Mon Mar 08, 2004 22:58

The election results, as I still believe and as I have pointed out is a total wash out. Speaking of which has McCann declared his hand for Europe, during the last discussion it was mentioned that he was as yet “undecided”

As a non-aligned socialist and republican I also believe just as many, many others from working class communities who like myself, would agree completely that the irps involvement in 30 years of struggle speaks volumes unlike others.

That is of course when you compare them to careerists, socialists and political opportunists who now and again step out of their cozy shelters for the next passing band wagon. This is what those on the ‘left of centre’ basically can’t cope with. I'd rather support actual revolutionaries than the likes of social reformists as SEA clearly are.

No Pasaran!

Emily

by SEAAAAAAH Tue Mar 09, 2004 07:23

Can the SEA clear up their dislike for military wings, they where quite happy to be in negotiations about joint candidates with the ORM who have a military wing and the WP who also have one.

It appears that only the IRSP are not welcome because of their military connections.

Why?

by john throne - labors militant voice Tue Mar 09, 2004 23:35 loughfinn at aol dot com

My understanding of the SEA convention is that it is an attempt to build a united front to take on the attacks on the working class. If this is correct then it is to be commended. The world situation at the moment is one in which capitalism world wide is on the offensive and the working class is being driven back. The main task facing the working class is to halt the capitalist offensive and throw it back and open up their own offensive against capitalism and for a decent life for all in a sustainable world economy. The responsibility of all anti capitalist activists is to work together in a united front to assist the working class achieve these objectives. If this is what SEA is seeking to achieve then this is a good thing.

To contribute to this discussion I would like to post below part of a discussion along these same lines that has been taking place on the North East Federation of Anarchists (NEFAC) list. This is a post that I sent to this list in reply to an anarchist activist who said he was not in favor of an anti capitalist international. I hope it is of interest. John Throne.




I wrote: "The Comrade on the NEFAC list who responded was not in favor of the idea (0f an anti capitalist international) if I am right because he suggests that there would have to be agreement on the alternative to capitalism.

This raises the more general issue of what degree of agreement would be necessary for such an organization to function and to play an effective role in fighting the capitalist offensive. If we had to agree in every detail about the alternative to capitalism then this would mean that there could not be anarchist and socialist forces together inside the anti capitalist international.

To me the main issue is that we oppose capitalism and that we do so in a way that is effective. This means to me that in the struggle for the anti capitalist international and in the founding of the anti capitalist international it should be based on some points of unity such as the following. Capitalism offers no future for life on earth except destruction and crisis and so has to be ended. The working class is the force that can end capitalism and build the alternative, but at the present time capitalism is on the offensive and the working class is being driven back so the main task to be faced at the moment is to halt this offensive and open up the road to an offensive struggle of the working class instead. This means that the international we are trying to build has to be based on direct action fight to win tactics. This tactical issue, that is the method of struggle, is to me one of the greatest importance as it would be possible to get international forces to come together and agree verbally and even in writing on the general political issues but if they were not agreed on taking on and defeating in action the capitalist attacks then agreement on the general issues would be of little use. The international we would build would be of little use.

As far as an alternative to capitalism. Would we all have to agree on the alternative in detail. As I have said if this meant agreement in detail then this would make meaningless the demand for an anti capitalist international. I think that we should have the position that we would need agreement that the alternative would be based on the working class and that it would be based on democratic collective ownership and democratic collective decision making concerning the resources of the world. If we tried to go further than this then I think we would not be able to build an international that would bring together in struggle all the anti capitalist and working class activists. And I think an international built on this basis would be a major step forward for the working class.

However I believe that another issue that we would have to be unyielding on would be the internal life of such an anti capitalist international. There would have to be agreement that the anti capitalist international would have full rights for all groups to exist and put forward their ideas and material. In this way and in the course of struggling together against capitalism the working class would be able to discuss and debate all the alternatives and check them against their day to day experience and from this would be able to come to a conclusion which ideas corresponded to their interests and needs at this time. I believe that such an internal life of any anti capitalist international could not be compromised upon as any international that did not have these full rights would inevitably be bureaucratic and therefore unable to take the movement forward and also it would not allow the working class to hear and discuss and decide upon the alternatives.

I think as well as putting forward this position and working for this position we also as Labors Militant Voice the small revolutionary socialist group I am part of would be building our own revolutionary socialist international group. And the anarchists and the different socialist groups would be doing the same. So to answer the point the anarchist Comrade on Nefac raised I would say that of course we would expect him or her to be in and building their own anarchist international just as we are trying to build an international group but that we have to look at this from the present situation and the needs of the working class at this time. And these needs as I far as I understand is to build a mass international force that can take on and throw back the capitalist offensive, that is a mass anti capitalist working class based international committed to direct action fight to win tactics. To counterpose to this an anarchist international, a Labors Militant Voice international, a Trotskyist international, a revolutionary socialist international would in my opinion show that we were not taking seriously the needs of the working class and the resources of the working class in the present situation.

I do not believe a mass anti capitalist international such as this will be built without a mass uprising of the working class or a section of the working class which inflicts a significant defeat on the capitalist offensive. We work every day to build anti capitalist united fronts based on the working class and the direct action fight to win tactics locally and nationally and internationally with the hope of being able to help in such a victory for the working class. When such a victory comes about then what.

After Seattle, which was a tiny victory compared to what I am talking about in the future, what happened here in the US? New layers of young people came into action and small numbers of workers. In city after city new pressures to united front work led to the creation of groups such as DAN here in Chicago and similar united fronts elsewhere. With big victories involving large numbers of workers the same tendencies would develop but to a much greater extent and involving large sections of the working class. That is the tendency towards united front struggle, towards unity in action against the capitalist offensive would unfold with great power. in this situation what would revolutionaries say.

I think we would have to pose an international fight back and an international organization to coordinate this fightback. in my opinion this should be an anti capitalist international. To pose instead an anarchist international or a Marxist or Trotskyist or a revolutionary socialist or what ever label international would in my opinion be to ignore the movement that was developing, to ignore the potential of the movement that was developing, and to pose a sectarian slogan that would be an obstacle to this movement. Of course we would build our anarchist international in this situation, or our revolutionary socialist international or whatever label we call it but we would have to put forward some sort of alternative to the tens and tens of millions of activists who would then be demanding action and organization but who would not be prepared to join an anarchist or revolutionary socialist international given their experience and consciousness at this time.

Last year tens of millions of people in many many countries marched on one day against the US invasion of Iraq. Was this not the tendecny towards international organization rising out of the struggle. Was this not the first beginnings of a new international struggling to be born. What do we say to these tens of millions of people? I believe that as well as struggling for clarity in our own particular ideas and to build our own respective theoretically based revolutionary internationals we should also pose and try to build a mass anti capitalist, working class based direct action fight to win international. This is what we would offer to the tens of millions who are taking action or have taken action. I believe we could get mass agreement for opposing capitalism as this movement develops and I also believe that we could get mass agreement for the alternative to capitalism to be one that was based on democratic collective working class ownership and democratic collective working class decision making over the resources of the earth. I think this would be the way to realize the full potential of the developing movement while at the same time allowing for honest rigorous discussion and debate on the historical and theoretical issues on which revolutionary groups base themselves and which will become more central to the movement as it develops and matures. This debate between the various alternatives would take place within a mass working class international and the working class would be in a position to participate in this and to make decisions on the ideas and alternatives. This is how I see the idea of an anti capitalist international.

by john throne - labors militant voice Tue Mar 09, 2004 23:35 loughfinn at aol dot com

My understanding of the SEA convention is that it is an attempt to build a united front to take on the attacks on the working class. If this is correct then it is to be commended. The world situation at the moment is one in which capitalism world wide is on the offensive and the working class is being driven back. The main task facing the working class is to halt the capitalist offensive and throw it back and open up their own offensive against capitalism and for a decent life for all in a sustainable world economy. The responsibility of all anti capitalist activists is to work together in a united front to assist the working class achieve these objectives. If this is what SEA is seeking to achieve then this is a good thing.

To contribute to this discussion I would like to post below part of a discussion along these same lines that has been taking place on the North East Federation of Anarchists (NEFAC) list. This is a post that I sent to this list in reply to an anarchist activist who said he was not in favor of an anti capitalist international. I hope it is of interest. John Throne.




I wrote: "The Comrade on the NEFAC list who responded was not in favor of the idea (0f an anti capitalist international) if I am right because he suggests that there would have to be agreement on the alternative to capitalism.

This raises the more general issue of what degree of agreement would be necessary for such an organization to function and to play an effective role in fighting the capitalist offensive. If we had to agree in every detail about the alternative to capitalism then this would mean that there could not be anarchist and socialist forces together inside the anti capitalist international.

To me the main issue is that we oppose capitalism and that we do so in a way that is effective. This means to me that in the struggle for the anti capitalist international and in the founding of the anti capitalist international it should be based on some points of unity such as the following. Capitalism offers no future for life on earth except destruction and crisis and so has to be ended. The working class is the force that can end capitalism and build the alternative, but at the present time capitalism is on the offensive and the working class is being driven back so the main task to be faced at the moment is to halt this offensive and open up the road to an offensive struggle of the working class instead. This means that the international we are trying to build has to be based on direct action fight to win tactics. This tactical issue, that is the method of struggle, is to me one of the greatest importance as it would be possible to get international forces to come together and agree verbally and even in writing on the general political issues but if they were not agreed on taking on and defeating in action the capitalist attacks then agreement on the general issues would be of little use. The international we would build would be of little use.

As far as an alternative to capitalism. Would we all have to agree on the alternative in detail. As I have said if this meant agreement in detail then this would make meaningless the demand for an anti capitalist international. I think that we should have the position that we would need agreement that the alternative would be based on the working class and that it would be based on democratic collective ownership and democratic collective decision making concerning the resources of the world. If we tried to go further than this then I think we would not be able to build an international that would bring together in struggle all the anti capitalist and working class activists. And I think an international built on this basis would be a major step forward for the working class.

However I believe that another issue that we would have to be unyielding on would be the internal life of such an anti capitalist international. There would have to be agreement that the anti capitalist international would have full rights for all groups to exist and put forward their ideas and material. In this way and in the course of struggling together against capitalism the working class would be able to discuss and debate all the alternatives and check them against their day to day experience and from this would be able to come to a conclusion which ideas corresponded to their interests and needs at this time. I believe that such an internal life of any anti capitalist international could not be compromised upon as any international that did not have these full rights would inevitably be bureaucratic and therefore unable to take the movement forward and also it would not allow the working class to hear and discuss and decide upon the alternatives.

I think as well as putting forward this position and working for this position we also as Labors Militant Voice the small revolutionary socialist group I am part of would be building our own revolutionary socialist international group. And the anarchists and the different socialist groups would be doing the same. So to answer the point the anarchist Comrade on Nefac raised I would say that of course we would expect him or her to be in and building their own anarchist international just as we are trying to build an international group but that we have to look at this from the present situation and the needs of the working class at this time. And these needs as I far as I understand is to build a mass international force that can take on and throw back the capitalist offensive, that is a mass anti capitalist working class based international committed to direct action fight to win tactics. To counterpose to this an anarchist international, a Labors Militant Voice international, a Trotskyist international, a revolutionary socialist international would in my opinion show that we were not taking seriously the needs of the working class and the resources of the working class in the present situation.

I do not believe a mass anti capitalist international such as this will be built without a mass uprising of the working class or a section of the working class which inflicts a significant defeat on the capitalist offensive. We work every day to build anti capitalist united fronts based on the working class and the direct action fight to win tactics locally and nationally and internationally with the hope of being able to help in such a victory for the working class. When such a victory comes about then what.

After Seattle, which was a tiny victory compared to what I am talking about in the future, what happened here in the US? New layers of young people came into action and small numbers of workers. In city after city new pressures to united front work led to the creation of groups such as DAN here in Chicago and similar united fronts elsewhere. With big victories involving large numbers of workers the same tendencies would develop but to a much greater extent and involving large sections of the working class. That is the tendency towards united front struggle, towards unity in action against the capitalist offensive would unfold with great power. in this situation what would revolutionaries say.

I think we would have to pose an international fight back and an international organization to coordinate this fightback. in my opinion this should be an anti capitalist international. To pose instead an anarchist international or a Marxist or Trotskyist or a revolutionary socialist or what ever label international would in my opinion be to ignore the movement that was developing, to ignore the potential of the movement that was developing, and to pose a sectarian slogan that would be an obstacle to this movement. Of course we would build our anarchist international in this situation, or our revolutionary socialist international or whatever label we call it but we would have to put forward some sort of alternative to the tens and tens of millions of activists who would then be demanding action and organization but who would not be prepared to join an anarchist or revolutionary socialist international given their experience and consciousness at this time.

Last year tens of millions of people in many many countries marched on one day against the US invasion of Iraq. Was this not the tendecny towards international organization rising out of the struggle. Was this not the first beginnings of a new international struggling to be born. What do we say to these tens of millions of people? I believe that as well as struggling for clarity in our own particular ideas and to build our own respective theoretically based revolutionary internationals we should also pose and try to build a mass anti capitalist, working class based direct action fight to win international. This is what we would offer to the tens of millions who are taking action or have taken action. I believe we could get mass agreement for opposing capitalism as this movement develops and I also believe that we could get mass agreement for the alternative to capitalism to be one that was based on democratic collective working class ownership and democratic collective working class decision making over the resources of the earth. I think this would be the way to realize the full potential of the developing movement while at the same time allowing for honest rigorous discussion and debate on the historical and theoretical issues on which revolutionary groups base themselves and which will become more central to the movement as it develops and matures. This debate between the various alternatives would take place within a mass working class international and the working class would be in a position to participate in this and to make decisions on the ideas and alternatives. This is how I see the idea of an anti capitalist international.

by Dean Wed Mar 10, 2004 18:16

Interesting enough, all the same.

"If this is what SEA is seeking to achieve then this is a good thing."

Been away too long John, if it has the SWP in it, it sadly to say it is doomed. Everything they touch turns to shit.

by Very Revd Dean Wed Mar 10, 2004 18:21

It hasnt got the SP in it. So at least it will be Anti-Imperialist.

by VRD Wed Mar 10, 2004 21:20

dont you mean SF VR Dean? :)

by KathyAnn Sat Mar 13, 2004 18:53

Mr. McCann, Mr Brise, Ms Baur

I understand that you (S.E.A) have agreed to support political prisoners at an organising convention for SEA in Derry recently.

By whom do you consider to be 'political' prisoners?

Can you enlighten the public on this?

Kathy Ann