SWP Submits Erroneous Report on Anti-War Movement in Ireland to IST

national | anti-war / imperialism | news report Friday July 09, 2004 12:27 by J.M. O'Connell - Newsvista

Indymedia has recently come in for criticism by the Socialist Workers Party (SWP). The SWP is sensitive, it seems, to criticism of the party and its front organisation, the Irish Anti-War Movement (IAWM).

The SWP is one of the two main Trotskyist organisations in Ireland (the other is the Socialist Party). The SWP issues a fortnightly newspaper, employs full-time activists, and is always highly visible in campaigns that it chooses to initiate or be active in – currently the anti-war movement. In common with other political parties on the left, the SWP “punches above its weight” by virtue of good organisation and strict adherence to the party line by the membership. It is therefore to be expected that non-party activists in the anti-war movement will subject the views and actions of the SWP to scrutiny. The anti-war movement – “our” movement – is being damaged by the attitude and behaviour of one of its key components.

The SWP is a member of the International Socialist Tendency (IST). The IST issues a periodic discussion bulletin, and in the most recent issue (July 2004), Rory Hearne writes a report on behalf of the Irish SWP in which the political situation in Ireland is analysed. The entire report can be accessed at:

http://www.istendency.net/pdf/bulletin_5_2004.pdf

In the report, Mr Hearne makes a series of extraordinary and dishonest claims about the anti-war movement in Ireland and related matters.

Mr Hearne complains about the government “breaking our neutrality”. Earlier in the same document, Mr Hearne acknowledges that Irish neutrality is only “supposed”, and yet here he is defending “our” neutrality. The SWP, it seems, has lately converted to the view that a) Ireland really is neutral but that the government is abusing “our” neutrality; b) that “our” neutrality must be defended. A recent IAWM meeting resolved to push for a referendum on “our” neutrality. Without rehearsing arguments regarding the issue of neutrality, suffice to say that the SWP has clearly adopted a nationalist stance on the issue.

Perhaps this new, “nationalist” turn of the SWP accounts for Mr Hearne’s description of Labour, Sinn Fein, the Greens as “left political parties”. His reason for such a bold, not to say dubious, description is the SWP’s need to convince its international partners that its anti-war alliance with these nationalist and centrist organisations actually amounts to some kind of “united front”, traditionally meant as an alliance of left-wing parties. Whatever about the merits of an alliance with these parties, to categorise any of them as left-wing is wrong and dishonest.

Mr Hearne reports that “we have built a Stop Bush campaign that has an alliance similar to that which built the 15 February demo. This includes the main trade unions Siptu, ATGWU and all the left political parties – Labour, Sinn Fein, the Greens and Socialists. The anti-Bush feeling is so strong that it seems that the Stop Bush demo on 25 June has the potential to be as large as 15 February.” Wrong, of course. The Stop Bush Campaign, like the IAWM, was no more than a paper tiger. In fact, having boasted about this alliance that promised to mobilise 150,000 people (the claimed turn-out on 15th February 2003), elsewhere in the same report Mr Hearne castigates the same parties for identifying with the anti-war movement “often only by token gestures”. In this he is correct: the affiliation of trade unions and political parties to both the IAWM and the Stop Bush Campaign amounts to nothing more than good PR for all parties. When it comes to the actual work of building anti-war and the anti-Bush demos, the affiliated organisations were predictably invisible – nay, useless. Also predictable was the turn-out for the Bush demos: around 21,000 over two days on eight demos (Dublin, Shannon, Galway, Sligo, Waterford, Tralee, Dromoland, Bunratty) – a mere 14% of the turn-out confidently forecast by the SWP. Some sections of the anti-war movement anticipated this level of participation (Anti-War Ireland, AmBush 2004!). But the SWP’s wild prediction fits neatly into a pattern of exagerated claims about affiliations, alliances, mobilisation, etc.

There are many reasons for the pathological exaggerated (lies?) of the SWP: the need to convince the mother party in Britain that the Irish section is making good headway; the need to convince the membership in Ireland that it’s upwards and onwards; the need to convince trade unions and other political groupings that the SWP is significant so as to persuade the unions etc. that they should affiliate to its front groupings; the need to convince the electorate to cast votes for the dynamic and successful SWP. And there is one other reason – in the context of the anti-war movement – the most significant reason. Mr Hearne spells it out as follows:

“The Irish Anti-War Movement has brought a potential alternative together that could threaten the government and its neo-liberal agenda. With the Green Party, Socialists, Sinn Fein, Labourites and the main trade unions on board and tens of thousands on the streets we can force the government to reverse its decision to allow the US to use Shannon. We will argue for the need to continue the movement after the visit of Bush. Our perspective that the movement should pursue an anti-capitalist strategy of broad unity and mass action has received extensive support. This strategy contrasts with the autonomist/ libertarian wing of the movement. They emphasise sectarian anti-party and anti-union actions that celebrate moralism and non-hierarchical localisation (such as opposition to the ESF).”

Ignoring further wild claims about a “potential alternative” that “could threaten the government and its neo-liberal agenda”, Mr Hearne contrasts here the SWP’s strategy for demilitarising Shannon Airport with that of – what he calls – the “autonomist/libertarian wing of the movement.” According to Mr Hearne, “They emphasise sectarian anti-party and anti-union actions that celebrate moralism and non-hierarchical localisation (such as opposition to the ESF).” Many things are wrong with this: the anti-war movement cannot be neatly divided into two wings: those on board with the SWP and the “autonomist/libertarian wing of the movement” (not least because there is no “autonomist” current in Ireland). Its true that anarchists are highly critical of the SWP/IAWM primarily because of its hostility to civil disobedience and its undemocratic structure. But it’s also the case that much of the opposition to the SWP/IAWM comes from socialists (i.e. not anarchists) and “independent” anti-war activists who feel betrayed by the SWP/IAWM because of its inaction, lack of strategy, sectarianism and lack of democracy. It is entirely false to accuse these critics of the SWP/IAWM of advocating “sectarian anti-party and anti-union actions that celebrate moralism and non-hierarchical localisation”. Yet this slur against anti-war activists who refuse to subscribe to the SWP/IAWM lies at the heart of the matter: the IAWM has fallen out of favour with the best anti-war activists in the country, and the SWP has resorted to lies and slander to account for the division within the movement that this Trotskyist party of no more than 150 people is responsible for.

Rather than address its shortcomings and endeavour to resolve the problems plaguing the anti-war movement, the SWP has instead opted to misrepresent and dismiss its critics. Cut off from the genuine and committed activists within the anti-war movement, the SWP/IAWM is relying on uncommitted reformists and centrists to sustain an “anti-capitalist” anti-war movement. Mr Hearne says: “With the Green Party, Socialists, Sinn Fein, Labourites and the main trade unions on board and tens of thousands on the streets we can force the government to reverse its decision to allow the US to use Shannon … Our perspective that the movement should pursue an anti-capitalist strategy of broad unity and mass action has received extensive support.” The problem with this strategy, of course, is that it rests on three false premises (and one absurdity – that broad unity and mass action equals an anti-capitalist strategy): First, having the unions and centrist/nationalist parties on board, as has been seen, adds little to the campaign when, as Mr Hearne himself tells us, they offer only “token gestures”, and have shown no willingness or interest in seriously building the anti-war movement. Second, the “tens of thousands on the streets” has only happened once (possibly twice), and is unlikely to be repeated in the near (and middle) future. And third, it’s incredible that the SWP believes that this moderate alliance and big marches will force the government into breaking with its master, the US, on this issue. A serious examination of the problem should lead anyone to realise that more – much more – will be required to break this link in US imperialism.

The SWP may feel consoled by Mr Hearne’s report to its international tendency (written, incidentally, from the perspective of a mass left-wing party rather than the tiny group that the SWP actually is). But if Mr Hearne actually believes what he has written, the SWP – and those genuine socialists who give their time and energy towards sustaining the organisation – are barking up a wrong tree.