A critique of the Socialist Party

by Helpful person Wed Sep 01, 2004 13:00

Cut and pasted comment from: http://www.columbia.edu/~lnp3/mydocs/organization/DemocraticCentralism.htm

by Skewed Mon Aug 30, 2004 16:34

where I addressed precisely that part of Dermot's article:

None of the democratic rights available to members of the Socialist Party were ever denied to Dermot or to anyone else.

"As he says himself, he decided not to avail of the democratic channels available. He raised some political differences verbally on leading bodies of the organisation and took it no further. Why did he take it no further? According to his posting above it was a combination of feeling that the discussion would be unhelpfully personalised or polarised and health reasons.

Can you make a case that his view that the discussion would be personalised or polarised reflects badly on the Socialist Party? Yes you could, although I disagree strongly with Dermot's point of view there - debate can be very robust in the Socialist Party, as it should be, but it is very rarely personalised. But that's a very different line of attack to claiming that there were no democratic procedures available to him - something that Dermot himself does not claim.

I am entertained by some of this kind of stuff. There are a few arseholes who use this site who really aren't interested in the truth or otherwise of any particular situation. They are only interested in finding a stick, any stick, to beat their political opponents with. I've seen people here claim that the Socialist Party "victimised" Michael Gallagher, someone who left our organisation because we wouldn't stand him as a local election candidate against a much stronger left candidate.

If we had stood him, the very same people would be using the issue as an example of the "sectarianism" of the Socialist Party, standing our own candidates even where we were poorly placed just to cut across other left organisations.

Dermot has had his name dropped by these people recently, because he was supposedly driven out of the SP by an evil undemocratic leadership. What happens when he arrives in person and explains that this isn't accurate? The usual suspects claim that he just doesn't understand how these things work! You see, the actual truth of any issue isn't important to these people, the only thing that matters is that they find some mud to throw. You never know, if they throw enough, some might stick."

Badman then raises, in typical indymedia fashion, the names of two more supposed "martyrs". First we get Marc Mulholland, someone who upped and left the Socialist Party nearly a decade ago because he changed his political beliefs drastically and was no longer a revolutionary socialist. Then we get John Throne, a man as long winded as he is long bearded, who many years ago was thrown out of the sister organisation of the Socialist Party in the United States by its rank and file because they didn't like his leadership or his refusal to accept being removed from that leadership.

Of course if Socialist Alternative (the Committee for a Workers International n in America) had let Throne away with his behaviour, the same people would be writing vitriolic anonymous screeds on Indymedia denouncing the CWI for the lack of democracy inherent in an organisation that refuses to let the membership get rid of a leadership. As I said above, for the usual newswire suspects the actual issues they raise are unimportant of themselves. Whatever it is this week is just a stick to beat their opponents with.

by karl kautsky Mon Aug 30, 2004 15:45

Im sure it is unintentional but your description of internal life in the SP is quite sinister! Bit like reading the old Constitution of the USSR. None of these things amount to a fart in a band box unless you have democracy my friend. What you desribe is not democracy.

by Badman Mon Aug 30, 2004 15:22

Just in case you didn't get the content of the above quote (are you wearing your anti-criticism tinted glasses?):

"..all that was on offer was a him or us battle with the leadership."

cf Thronse, Mulholland, Tourish....

by Skewed Mon Aug 30, 2004 13:43

One of our usual critics under another new name said:

"You conveniently ignore Dermots criticisms about how he was blocked from bringing his arguments to the party as a whole."

Dermot says that he wanted to start a debate on his views by calling a meeting of the entire membership to discuss them before he had discussed them on the party bodies he was a member of, his branch, leading committees, caucuses.

We don't call an all members meeting every time someone wants to raise a political difference. The Socialist Party is not a huge organisation but it is much too big for that to be a practical way of organising.

Instead we have very clear procedures. You start by raising your point of view on the party bodies you are a member of. That means your branch, any leading committees you are on, any caucus you are a member of. You have the option of producing written material containing your arguments and having it distributed to the membership as a whole.

You have the option of touring other branches putting your point of view. You have the option of forming a faction, constitutionally protected in the SP. You have the option of putting motions or resolutions to the party conference. None of these rights were ever denied to Dermot and in fact he doesn't claim that they were.

You can argue if you like that any member should have the right to call an all-members meeting as the first port of call in arguing for their point of view. You are welcome to form your own organisation where that is indeed considered a right. I warn you though that once you get past about fifty members or achieve any kind of geographical spread your new organisation won't function very well.

by R. Isible Mon Aug 30, 2004 05:04

As regards your comments about John Throne and Dermot Connolly.
Glad you're having a good holiday, pity you won't be checking the site again, but as far as I know John Throne is a working stiff currently labouring in San Francisco. I don't know about Dermot Connolly, but I'm sure someone will fill us in.
Your post reads as an "I'm alright Jack" which identifies you as one of the happy proles (and therefore above criticism because of your oh-so-working-class-background) which you cite (off on their holidays to sunny places while you seethe in Ireland and write nasty screeds to labour activists....good man!).
The people fecking off to Spain for sun and sux right now are a minority and they may well be the people that will be wondering why the fuck they can't get treatment for their throat cancer in 20 years. Will you be exalting their "real world" spirit then or will you be unable to speak because you've had a laryngectomy?

See ya in 20 years Deano after you'vre read some theory.

by The other Paul - Dissident number 2 Mon Aug 30, 2004 00:22

I always find these thread's hilarious and even more so in hindsight. I mean this is the kind of thing that makes being a member of any party a joke.

The Socialist Party did treat Shane badly in my view, a lot of it was based on his own personal issues with members, I agreed with him on democratic centralism, still do but unlike him I couldn't have bothered arguing against it. That he is shunned by members is not true of my experience as such although I dont see many members anyway, if I do then it's a little cold but thats natural.

First of all there are plenty of good members, the Tallaght branch is great and Mick is a well deserving councillor. The problem with the SP is that there is so much expected of members, it's not uncommon for say a college student to be involved in 3 branches, college, SY and their own area. That aint right. To expect young people in this day and age to have the same revolutionary zeal as some of history's pro revolutionaries is also something that needs to be addressed. Take SY for example, meetings are usually boring, turnup was never that good and there was no real group feeling, no sense of acheiving anything. This is done as much to all the members as to the 'leadership' who always tried to get things going.

The actual party leadership may aswell be some abstract name to most members, I always felt and others have as well that they were not in the know or something like that.. It's hard to explain.

That Shane left the SP is not surprising to anybody who knew him for about a year before he made the plunge, although I was gone before him I have seen him around and he seems happier now that he is involved a little more directly than he was in SY.

Anyway...

by s. voice Sun Aug 29, 2004 22:45

http://www.geocities.com/socialistparty/paper2004JD/0409NewLeft.htm

by contrarian Sun Aug 29, 2004 19:26

Can't you tell the SP looks like a brick wall from the outside and that lots of fellow travellers are looking for an 'in'.

by Ex Militant Sun Aug 29, 2004 17:26

You conveniently ignore Dermots criticisms about how he was blocked from bringing his arguments to the party as a whole.

by Skewed Sat Aug 28, 2004 16:38

Analyst says:

"On the one hand, nothing that most folks would recognise as genuine open discussion and valid democratic procedures were available to him when he wanted to open up a discussion in the SP/ CWI."

I'd be interested to hear where exactly he gets this from Dermot's interesting piece. Dermot had a range of opportunities and procedures open to him.

Like any member he could start by discussing whatever issues he wanted on the party bodies he was a member of - branch, national or regional committee, caucus.

He could produce written material, explaining his point of view, and have it distributed to the membership. He could tour other branches arguing his case.

If serious divisions became apparent he could form a faction, a group within the party organised around a particular point of view, which enjoys protection under the party constitution. Either way, he could raise his views at the party conference, and put any motions or resolutions he liked to that conference.

Those options were never denied to Dermot or to anyone else. As he says himself, he decided not to avail of the democratic channels available. He raised some political differences verbally on leading bodies of the organisation and took it no further. Why did he take it no further? According to his posting above it was a combination of feeling that the discussion would be unhelpfully personalised or polarised and health reasons.

Can you make a case that his view that the discussion would be personalised or polarised reflects badly on the Socialist Party? Yes you could, although I disagree strongly with Dermot's point of view there - debate can be very robust in the Socialist Party, as it should be, but it is very rarely personalised. But that's a very different line of attack to claiming that there were no democratic procedures available to him - something that Dermot himself does not claim.

I am entertained by some of this kind of stuff. There are a few arseholes who use this site who really aren't interested in the truth or otherwise of any particular situation. They are only interested in finding a stick, any stick, to beat their political opponents with. I've seen people here claim that the Socialist Party "victimised" Michael Gallagher, someone who left our organisation because we wouldn't stand him as a local election candidate against a much stronger left candidate.

If we had stood him, the very same people would be using the issue as an example of the "sectarianism" of the Socialist Party, standing our own candidates even where we were poorly placed just to cut across other left organisations.

Dermot has had his name dropped by these people recently, because he was supposedly driven out of the SP by an evil undemocratic leadership. What happens when he arrives in person and explains that this isn't accurate? The usual suspects claim that he just doesn't understand how these things work! You see, the actual truth of any issue isn't important to these people, the only thing that matters is that they find some mud to throw. You never know, if they throw enough, some might stick.

by david bowie Sat Aug 28, 2004 02:18

much confused with "and lenin is on sale again".
in my award winning song "is there life on mars?".
The answer to which is "yes".

-- complete consternation in the hall -
-comrade Bowie is asked to leave the podium-
-comrade merrovinginvanjan takes the podium-

i've a 48k picture of geiger's alien coming tête á tête with the predator. I can't upload it.

-- complete consternation in the hall -
-- comrade merrovinginvanjan victim of cultural purge and lives out life in anonymous exile learning how to plough--


RESOLUTION xyz/:-


It's very crucial that those older members of our community, the old style communists and stalinists, and mao-ists, and deng xe ping types feel comfortable mingling with the younger chaps and chapettes.
It's virtually impossible to explain to the younger ones how many important rights were kept by that old type of debate and ritualised sharing of insult and taunt.
rights that they take for granted. This is how they write, talk and "hang out" and how they always have. I bet you a soviet medal they all have typewriters. _And used them_.

sin é.
o as if.

mind you the UCD SP have no excuse for this wanton trolling.
"we fail people like you dear boy".

by keepitshort Sat Aug 28, 2004 02:15 intherealworld at wakeup dot com

(... standing ovation in the hall - four minutes".
by old fashioned communist. Friday, Aug 27 2004, 8:08pm )
I came across this site this morning after meeting another chap from Dublin while on this holiday. We had great craic last night. He says he reads it every day.Never heard of it before and now I've spent a few bob reading articles instead of sending emails home to the Ma and Da. I can't afford to spend too much time here so this'll be the last you hear from me but here goes.
It amazes me that JT and DC can still spout the same old stuff as nauseam for decades and not appreciate that the working classes don't need to be rescued by dreamers who want to rescue them from the so called struggle. Have JT and DC ever WORKED in a factory or shop like the rest of us? Or is the truth that like Marx, Trotsky et al, their life experience comes from sitting on their arses reading books and talking and talking and talking and now spending hours tralling the net to see what other academic revolutionaries are saying. You can read a book that teaches you how to ride a bike, then get on the bike and fall off. It's like priests telling woman how to run their lives and not take the pill. Has it occurred to you that we DO have minds of our own and don't want what you've been selling all these years. Take a trip to Dublin Airport any weekend and see the hoards of struggling workers shrieking with excitement as they wait to board their flights to European resorts for maybe the 4th or 5th time this year. Bags packed with fags and booze. A far cry from the lives their parents had. They're living the life they want and good on them. They don't give a shite about failed academics/revolutionaries wanting them to give up their fun. ...and while you're at it, take a tour of pubs in Dublin any night.....packed to the rafters with the plebs........if they're poor, it's because of life style choices and no apparent lack of money......I'm one of them, don't smoke or buy fancy clothes so I'm enjoying an extended holiday in the sun thanks to me negotiating an extended break from my job. Stop telling us we're deprived. It's depressing. Always concentrating on the material things in life. How are YOUR personal relationships. That's what most workers care about. Keeping the family close with love and affection. Marx sat in a library by day and shagged someone else's wife by night. Trotsky was welcomed into a man's home in Mexico and showed his gratitiude by shagging THAT man's wife......and these men with lilly white hands are held up as role models for Irish workers. Get a grip.
Time to leave this internet cafe and get back to me travels.
Take it aisy lads
Dean

by Lennonist front - none Sat Aug 28, 2004 00:55 Outstanding in my field

Yes its trrue the overall history of many Trotskist group since WW2 has been pretty sorry.None have made the revolution, and many have degenerated into sects.
Now the rest of the left on the otherhand..................., various reformist strands that no longer even pretend to challenge capitalism...Stalinist parties that either dissolved themselves overnight or changed into born again Blarites.....libertarians of every hue that are as far removed from the working class or saying anything of substance as they ever where......
Yet for all the crimes that Trotsky has levelled at him ,his groups still managed to save a very simple idea and bring into the 21st century ; that the working class can pose a revolutionary alternative to capitalism and that stalinism and reformism are not the end of the fight.
Like the old quote about the French revolution; its still too early to say what the legacy of Trotskism is.

by mr data Fri Aug 27, 2004 23:42

im interested to know does anyone on this long line in traded insults and slurs actually think they can convince the other side to see their point of view or do you lot like the sound of grinding axes? its not the most progressive or productive thread i have ever read.

by old fashioned communist. Fri Aug 27, 2004 21:08

Comrade Throne took his seat and comrade fellow contributor arose to speak [short applause in hall]
"I think many party members will agree with me that the calibre of paragraphs has diminished in the last thirty years [ some consternation in the hall ] but Comrade Throne stills shows us how it could be
[ laughter and applause from hall ]
et cetera...

by john throne - labors militant voice Fri Aug 27, 2004 20:56 loughfinn at aol dot com

I would like to thank Dermot C for the tone and content of his contribution on sectarianism. Dermot dealt with the issue of sectarianism in the wider more general context. I think it was very thorough and it made me think of the challenges we face. I would only like to add a few points about the issue of left sectarianism as it is today. That is the sectarianism of the small left groups and individuals and related to this the changes in the workers movement today compared to 30 to 40 years ago.

Thirty years to forty years ago there was a more conscious workers movement in which there was a significant left reformist current. There were also large stalinist parties which in some countries had a mass base. Within this milieu there was discussion and debate and a struggle for ideas and a struggle in general over the ideas of socialism versus capitalism, what was socialism, how socialism could be achieved etc. In Ireland in the late 1960's into the 1970's there was the left in the LP and the trade unions, the rise of young socialist movements and the left in the Republican movement, the uprisings in the North etc.

At the same time as this was taking place capitalism was on the defensive internationally. The defeat in Vietnam and South East Asia, the threat to their rule in France 1968, even though insufficient notice was paid at this time to their victory in Chile. However the main point is that the workers movement had a certain left consciousness, there was a substantial left wing within it with debate over socialism versus capitalism, there was a socialist consciousness internationally and capitalism was on the defensive in general.

Things have changed since then. Over the past decade and more capitalism has had major victories. In particular its victory over stalinism. An important element of this is the reintroduction of capitalism into and access to the gigantic territories and resources of the former Soviet Union and the rise of Chinese capitalism. The resources of these huge areas are now increasingly moving into capitalist hands. Along with this on the basis of the defeats suffered by the workers movement and other factors, the world economy has had prolonged growth cycles in the 1980's and the 1990's. And the new technology has been increasingly utilised by capitalism and a fireworks of high tech wizardry proclaims capitalisms victory and dominance.

Of course mass poverty wracks the former colonial countries and the working class in most countries in the advanced capitalist countries are being driven into worse conditions. Of course the economic contradictions of capitalism remain and will explode to the surface in recessions and slumps and the environmental crisis is already so bad that it is not clear whether or not it has already gone too far to be reversed, and the crisis of peak oil and energy shortage is facing the world capitalist economy. Of course US capitalism and its dollar will fall and it will be faced with a rival that is rising such as China and within the conflict that will unfold capitalism will face a world crisis of economic upheaval, wars, revolution, counter revolution, environmental destruction. The dominance and apparent bright future of world capitalism will be illusory in the medium and longer term. However this reality must not blind us to the other realities, that is the realities of the past twenty to thirty years and how these events affected the consciousness of the working class over this period.

Within this overal picture for revolutionary socialists there is of course the most important of all the realities. That is the working class and the condition and consciousness of the working class. The rise of capitalist globalization has increased and strengthened the international character of the working class. The arrogance of capitalist globalization is now so greedy and brutal that it is clarifying for many people who were not clear before how rotten this system really is. While belief that there is a socialist alternative has been weakened, confidence in capitalism itself as the alternative has also been weakened by its own greed and arrogance. At the same time there is the numerical rise of the working class in China and many other countries to which production is being moved. The increase of women into the paid workforce worldwide has also been a gain for the working class. We also see the anger in the occupations in Argentina against the IMF program, the opposition to the US plans in Venzueala, the struggles in South Korea, the European wide opposition to cuts in social services and jobs, and in the last few days the increasing opposition in former Eastern Germany to what capitalism has meant there.

And there is the opposition to the war in Iraq. The opposition in Iraq grows stronger and spreads across the region. Last year 20 to 30 million people demonstrated worldwide in an international show of opposition to the invasion, numbers unprecedented in history. While not ignoring the danger if islamic fundamentalism is the force that drives US imperialism out of Iraq that this would at the very least complicate the workers movements struggle, there is still the great potential power of the working class internationally. And although its socialist consciousness has been thrown back in the past twenty years the objective power of the working class in the world has been increased.

So what am I saying here? Specifically I am asking what is the dominant element in the world situation today within which revolutionary socialists have to work. Without being clear on the answer to this question from the point of view of the working class it is impossible to do serious work. In my opinion the dominant feature in the world situation today is the victory that capitalism has had over stalinism and the offensive that capitalism has launched against the working class flowing from this victory and the fact that the working class is being driven back by this offensive. This overall process usually goes under the heading of globalization or capitalist globalization. This is the dominant feature of the world situation today and effects every part of workers lives.

Capitalism's offensive against the international working class aims to take back all that has been won by the working class in the past 100 years. This general offensive of capitalism is being lead by US capitalism which has particular aims of its own. These are to increase its dominance over its rivals, seize as much of the worlds oil and gas resources it can as it believes they are running out, and prevent any other serious capitalist power, it especially fears China in the future, from rising to challenge it.

What political and organizational conclusions do revolutionary socialists draw from this overall analysis. Without approaching things in this way serious work cannot be carried out. Or to put it another way. In light of the present world situation what more than anything else is in the interest of the working class at this time? What more than anything is the essential need of the working class at this time? What more than anything else is the task facing revolutionary socialist and anti capitalist activists who want to end capitalism and have an orientation to the working class and see it as the force which can end capitalism at this time?

In my opinion what is necessary above all is to identify and halt this offensive of capitalism, to throw back this offensive of capitalism, and in doing so expose that capitalism is not some all powerful unstoppable power. Such an achievement would give rise to a new confidence in the working class as to their own potential and power and begin to open up new offensive working class struggles. This in turn would begin to place on the mass agenda of the working class the fact that capitalism is rotten, the need for an alternative to capitalism and most of all that there is a force that can challenge capitalism. This in my opinion is the essential central task facing the activist movement.

Thirty to forty years ago in Ireland and internationally the capitalist offensive was a lot less powerful to put it mildly and there were mass left forces, or at least semi mass left forces looking openly for ways to struggle, for organizations to join and with which to identify. For revolutionary socialists it was mainly a question of trying to clarify the program and strategy and tactics within this milieu. Now in a situation where the capitalist offensive is much more brutal and aggressive and the opposition forces more fragmented and confused it is my opinion that more emphasis has to be given to helping in the building of the new movement itself.

I think it is useful to consider the differences and the similiarities between today and 30 to 40 years ago. Taking Ireland again as an example. Like the late 1960's and early 1970's there are thousands of activists in Ireland today who understand that capitalism is rotten and should be fought. However unlike then these activists are mainly involved in specific particular struggles around specific particular issues as opposed to dealing with the greater general issues of capitalism and socialism as was more the case in the 1960's/1970's. They are also mainly in small local organizations or in organizations that are fragmented or temporary.

They may be active on an environmental issue, water and bin charges, local telephone masts intrusions, war, wages, rents, etc. etc. They may be active in their union local but the union oppositions also seem to be much less of a feature. When a major issue comes to dominate there can then be a temporary unity in action. I believe it is important to recognize the size of the activist and potential activist forces that exist today. If we do not do so we can claim that the only reason the left influence is so small is because there are only a handful of activists around and so we can justify continuing with an approach that is incorrect. But it is also important to recognize that the activist movement today is much more fragmented and with a more diverse conscious, more of an anti capitalist rather than a socialist consciousness.

There are thousands of activists and potential activists in the country when all the issues, the local to the national to the international are taken into account. In spite of the Celtic Tiger there are many many working class people who have been and are and would be prepared to fight. There are many many young people who have been and are and would be prepared to fight. The challenge facing revolutionary socialists in my opinion is to recognize that there are these forces out there willing to fight and to help these forces mobilize in united fronts against the attacks they face, to do so in a way that defeats these attacks, that is builds towards halting and throwing back the capitalist offensive, and in the process helps raise the understanding that it is capitalism and its offensive which is behind these attacks.

It has to be said that the main problem in achieving this is that those who have the power to organize will not use that power. In fact they use that very power and the organizations they control to prevent this happening. I am talking about the leaders of the trade unions. The LP leaders have already exposed themselves to have gone so far over into the employers camp that they no longer seem to have this power. The role of these leaders has to be pointed out otherwise working class people can begin to think the problem is that the working class cannot fight as opposed to the problem being one of program, organization and leadership.

For revolutionary socialists one of the problems we have in organizing is that we appear to be so small that we do not have the power. And there is some truth in this. However I believe that overall this is not correct. I would like to suggest that there are a number of reasons why the revolutionary left have had limited success in mobilising the activist movement in fight-to-win united fronts against the capitalist offensive which have laid the basis for a more generalised movement. Yes there is the overall world situation, yes there is the role of the labor leaders, yes there is in Irelands case the Celtic Tiger and in the world's case the capitalist growth cycle of the 1990's and the new technology.

However I would like to raise here for this discussion one other reason which I believe has contributed to the weakness of the left in this regard. I am talking about the issue of sectarianism. There is the general sectarianism that exists to which Dermot pointed. I am not clear to what degree this was a factor in the recent bin charge struggle. Were there significant forces, were there particular tactics which were based on sectarianism, that is not taking into account the existing consciousness of the working class and the need to move the working class into struggle as opposed to a few activists taking up the struggle, and were these significantly prominent enough to damage the struggle.

Or was it these plus a question of the balance of class forces, capitalism in the saddle of the Celtic Tiger, the cowed role of the union leaders in this situation , the weakness of organized forces in the workplaces and the unions organized together with the bin charges struggle, the general living standards that exist, I do not know this information. However I would like to raise to what extent left sectarianism, that is the sectarianism between the left, which is seen as so pointless and so damaging by so many workers, played a role and weakened the bin charge struggle. Of course you cannot totally seperate general sectarianism from left sectarianism but it is important to try and examine what took place.

In the recent elections there was no united slate of candidates standing against the bin charges. This must have had a negative affect on the campaign. If Dublin workers had seen a unified slate of candidates fighting the bin charges they would not have been more confident to take the battle further and wider. A united slate would have put this issue on the agenda of the elections to a much greater degree. It would have helped strengthen workers unity and helped raise consciousness on all fronts. (In regards to a united slate of bin charge candidates in the elections it was not only decisions by socialist organizations that led to this mistake but anarchist organizations also.) I cannot see how any organization that says it stands in the interest of the working class can defend itself if it opposed a unified slate. Not having a united slate hurt the campaign, weakened the unity and consciousness of the working class, hurt the working class on other issues because it weakened its unity and hurt it also because it increased its cynicism in relation to the prevalance of left sectarianism.

I would like to consider the Dublin bin charge struggle and the elections in reference to the world situation and the need for the working class to build mass action fight-to-win united fronts to halt the capitalist offensive and the need for the activists to see this as their task. More than anything else it seems to me the need was to take advantage of the elections to unify further the campaign, take it out further to the working class with the aim of strengthening the campaign and coming out of it with increased fight-to-win local committees on the ground and elected councilors linked to these. These would have had a better chance to link up with the similiar struggles in Argentina, South Korea etc etc. But instead of this it seems to me left sectarianism was a serious problem and damaged the bin charge struggle and the campaign and damaged the working class.

Instead of a unified slate of candidates there was division. After the elections is it not likely that left sectarianism will continue and the campaign will be run down by those who put their own organizational interest first in the election or their own mistaken principles. Is it not likely that there will be an increased attempt by those who did not want a unified slate to blame others for this mistake. As a result unless new forces can be brought in, that is new working class forces, is it not likely that this struggle will come to be seen by many as another that was damaged by left sectarianism. And this in turn will make it harder in the future to bring together and unify in united front fight to-win-struggles the activists who understand the need to fight.

When talking about mass action fight-to-win united fronts against the offensive of capitalism I mean building organizations which take up the day to day attacks working people face in a way that has the objective of winning through mass mobilization and mass action and not lobbying or electoralism or pleading. It means methods similiar to the water charges and bin charges struggles and through strikes and occupations etc. It means mobilizing in a way that understands that these attacks are part of an offensive that is world wide and that comes from the offensive of capitalism that is being carried out world wide. So these would be mass fight-to-win united fronts which would identify the capitalist offensive as the source of the problem. However these united fronts would not necessarily proclaim socialism as the solution due to the need to unify in struggle the different potential forces at this time and to the throwing back of socialist consciousness in the past period.

The unifying factor in these united fronts would be opposition to the particular issue involved in the struggle itself, the fight-to-win mass action method of struggle and seeing the offensive of capitalism as the source of the problem. This last point would have to be put forward in a non sectarian and careful manner due the events of the past decade and the throwing back of socialist consciousness. Within these united fronts the different left forces would be expected to work together and struggle in a united fashion against the attacks they were facing. I can hear people say all very well but does this this not sound familiar so what is new. Look at the bin charges and the inability to get a slate of candidates.

Dermot C said in his contribution that the issue of general sectarianism will only be resolved when the working class move into action. I agree with this. I would also like to look at one aspect of this idea in the context of today. With the working class thrown back in consciousnes and the left reformist movement gone and the left in the unions also basically non existent does this mean that those in the revolutionary and anti capitalist revolutionary movement have to take on more responsibility in one area. Does this mean that perhaps there is a greater vacuum than in the past and that left sectarianism does more damage. Does this mean that we have to take this issue of left sectarianism to the working class and to develop the skill to do so in a non left sectarian manner more than in the past.

On the elections in Dublin and the bin charge slate. Would it have been possible for this issue to have been taken up more by the campaign itself and taken to the doors and the workplaces and the bin charge actions and ask all involved to consider the need for a unified slate and how this would strenthen the campaign. Then to make sure there was a discussion on this issue in the bin charge movement as opposed to just in the left groups and explain who and why were against a united slate and create a situation where all had to explain their position to the bin charge movement. The idea being to draw into this debate working class people and let them give their opinion on left sectarianism. In the bin charge actions perhaps actually take votes. The truth is that left sectarianism only survives with any resources with any forces because there are hardly any workers present to view its destructive activities.

So I am proposing a discussion about the increased responsibility on the revolutionary socialist and anti capitalist forces and individuals in Ireland. I am proposing that the main need for the working class internationally and in Ireland is the building of united fronts which identify, confront and try to throw back the capitalist offensive through mass fight-to-win policies and tactics. And I am proposing that part of this task is to take up the damage that left sectarianism does to this struggle and the working class movement in general, to identify and take up left sectarianism when it becomes an obstacle in the struggles in the workers movement and have it discussed. The bright light of the workers movement should be shone on left sectarianism.

In this contribution I have focused on the need to build united front fight-to-win mass action bodies to take on the offensive of capitalism. I believe these are what are needed and possible at this time. However also raised now amongst activists is the demand for a mass workers party. I am in favor of a mass workers party and working to build such a party as part of building an independent movement of the working class which takes on and fights the offensive of capitalism. However I think that such a mass workers party will only be successful if it is rooted in the day to day struggles which will be conducted through mass fight-to-win action which I think at this time will best be conducted out of the local united front fight-to-win bodies. Carrying out such struggles as the bin charge struggles lays the basis for a new mass workers party as long as such struggles are linked to this task and as long as left sectarianism is not allowed to cut across this process. Unfortunately it seems to me that the lack of a united slate in the recent elections cut across much of the impetus that the bin charge struggle could have given to the development of a mass workers party. I also think that it is important that the call for a workers party is not allowed to replace the need to take on through fight-to-win mass action the offensive day to day attacks of the capitalist offensive.

One of the reasons that this issue of left sectarianism is not taken to the working class is that left sectarianism is so prevalent in the left groups themselves and they either do not recognize this in themselves or they do and they do not want it recognized by the working class. There is instead the continual manoeuvring to try and blame the other groups for the lack of unity. In front of a working class audience this would be impossible to sustain. So we have the situation of organizations which pay homage to the working class and its role in history but when it knows that the opinion of the working class on what are usuually entirely tactical issues would be against its own immediate interests it avoids taking the issue to the working class.

Because of the methods of most of the revolutionary socialist groups and the ingrained left sectarianism of these groups it will probably be necessary for any struggle against left sectarianism to begin outside these groups. I believe that one of the responsibilities of the fight-to-win mass action bodies that develop will be to identify left sectarianism, define it and oppose it by asking the working class movement to take up a struggle against it.

This will not be that easy. Many of us will have to learn new skills. I belong to a small revolutionary socialist tendency. I believe that the general principles and experiences of Marxism are crucial to the victory of the working class movement. I help and publish and struggle for these and expect to continue to do so. I am trying to learn lessons from my past experiences in carrying out this work which I did for most of my adult life. I consider that I made mistakes in this work as did all the other most active and leading people.

I consider that the revolutionary socialist organizations such as the SP and the SWP in Ireland cannot become mass organizations not only because of their approach to building in the movement but also to their internal life. I consider that the internal life of these organizations are vastly over centralized. I have written and debated on this issue a lot on indymedia.ie and will not say more now. I am trying to draw conclusions in relation to the building of revolutionary organizations. I am interested in the views of others in this regard and conclusions they have drawn. Preferably the views of others who are still trying to carry out this work.

It is interesting times. John Throne.

by analyst Fri Aug 27, 2004 14:09

Dermot Connolly's contribution was rational, well written and thoughtful - for these and other reasons it is welcome by me. However, the flaw in it, from my standpoint, is that he actually had nothing to say.

On the one hand, nothing that most folks would recognise as genuine open discussion and valid democratic procedures were available to him when he wanted to open up a discussion in the SP/ CWI.
On the other hand, there is not an undemocratic clique at the top.

On the one hand, the CWI has done great work . On the other hand - after 30 years activity - it has no substantial body of working class activists in its ranks. But - why? Why these flaws? Where did they come from? What programatic weaknesses, or weaknesses in ideological orientation, or problems with democratic centralism have existed that led to them - no real discussion of these issues. Yet each of the problems Dermot identfies is substantial. Taken in their entirety, they did not drop from the sky. They cannot reflect merely personality problems by one or two people. There must be something massive that drives and creates them. The CWI's riposte is always to talk about 'the objective situation' - a bit like a failed entrepreuneur who blames the market for his failures, rather than his own chronic decisions. Well, maybe the objective situation as they oddly call it had some impact - but is that all? What about the internal regime that keeps cropping up in all Trotskyist organisations as a problem, preventying ideological renewal and pushing its members in a cliquish and sectarian direction?

I appreciate that breaking with an old world view is personally painful, and no one was more active and committed than Dermot. But this half-way house really won't do. Too many people have wasted too many decades endless repeating these kinds of mistakes because nothing is thought through to a conclusion. However understandable that is in terms of individual psychology, it does a huge disservice to any new generation attempting to struggle for social change.

The fact is that every single organisation that has begun from a Trotskyist perspective has ended up in this kind of position - all of them. None has escaped sectarianism, cliquishness, ideological ossification, isolation from the working class (even in some worst cases - like the infamous WRP, cultism).

I would welcome Dermot's thoughts on these larger issues, which seem to me to be central to any project of rebuilding an effective left force in society.

by Ray Wed Aug 25, 2004 15:47

"On the principled question of alliances of the nature of CARR, I think the experience of the IAWM has soured activists toward these vehicles. "

As far as I know, the SP is still a member of the IAWM. I find it hard to believe that their unhappiness with the IAWM could stop them joining CARR before getting them to leave the IAWM. A little ass-backwards, don't you think?

by Archivist Wed Aug 25, 2004 15:46

What Marx said on sectarianism:
"...The sect sees its raison d'être and its point of honour not in what it has in common with the class movement but in the particular shibboleth which distinguishes it from the movement."

With a regard to Dermot I think this extract is interesting:
"Sectarians are not just out to be different - but superior! Conversely, these highly motivated and talented sectarian individuals, who aspire to leadership of the rank and file, cannot resist the temptation to utilise a incredibly large amount of their energies and talents to discover and expose shortcomings and 'weaknesses' in other people - rival leaders in particular. The targets for destruction, as we have already seen from the example of the Chartist movement, are not just those belonging to the classes of oppressors, but include other political groups ostensibly fighting for the same thing. This also includes potential rivals within their own group."

by Still Militant Wed Aug 25, 2004 15:35

Dermot has made an excellent, thoughtful and reasoned contribution and I hope it raises the level of debate on this thread above the level of yah-boo.

I disagree with Dermot on the CARR question. At the time of an election in which the SP was campaigning across the Dublin euroconstituency, the optimum use of party funds on the issue was to include material on the racist referendum in the election addresses. To commit resources to the distinct CARR project (which would necessarily entail drawing scarce resources away from the election effort) would have been a wasteful and unproductive gesture. As a contributor to the election fund (I gave €2000 to the campaign), I am happy with the SP's pragmatic management of the available money. The Party's anti-racist message was promulgated widely and effectively while not disadvantaging the candidates' campaigns.

On the principled question of alliances of the nature of CARR, I think the experience of the IAWM has soured activists toward these vehicles. They seem to do more harm in the distrust and bitterness they generate among the particpating groups than any good they achieve in providing a platform. So long as there are groups seeking sectarian advantage and self-advancement through their participation in the campaign, disillusionment of the young activists is the inevitable result. The establishment of autonomous and focused party-led campaigns which can co-operate ad hoc with other groups (as necessary and as agreed) appears to me to be the better tactic.

As for the internal regime in the Socialist Party, I would be interested to read Dermot's views on how alternative ideas can be discussed more openly within the organisation. I am concerned at the extreme brittleness that has characterised the CWI since I was an active member (late 70s to mid 80s). From accounts of members who have left, it seems that a perception that their views were stiffled and that access to other party members was stymied is a common thread in the sense of disaffection that led these comrades to leave. If Dermot has some ideas on how the Party can reform its structures to stem the ebbtide of experienced cadres, I would welcome his contribution on that topic.

by karl kautsky Wed Aug 25, 2004 11:57

So you reckon that your erstwhile comrades would not murder you if they were in power? Why? Why would they behave any differently than any other marxists given the chance? It is the logic of marxism leninism that opponents must be liquidated. It is as inseparable from the ideology as belief in an afterlife from christianity.

by Chekov Tue Aug 24, 2004 18:43

Dermot wrote:

"There isn’t in my opinion an undemocratic clique at the head of the SP. I wasn’t forced out. "

Then

"After the general election I approached the leadership with a view to opening up a general discussion in the party. I requested that an aggregate meeting of the Dublin membership be organised where I could speak on the issues that had concerned me over the previous two years. This was refused...all that was on offer was a him or us battle with the leadership."

It sounds to me like you spent too long as part of an undemocratic clique to be able to spot one when it's staring you in the face!

by A socialist - N.A.D.A. Tue Aug 24, 2004 18:25

A few comments to Dermot. Ignore them if you want Dermot as I’m not giving my name, etc. My reason is simple. You know me and I don’t want to make working with you difficult in the future (the main reason I think why most posters on Indymedia stay anonymous).

Three things, Dermot. Firstly, though you’re obviously (and understandably) bruised by your falling out with Militant, you’ve stayed true to your core politics. Which is a pity. You say that “Being loyal to your party/organisation, wanting to build it and defending it from criticism does not necessarily make you a sectarian”, but I have to say that the impression I gained about you down through the years was that your loyalty to Militant smacked of arrogance towards every other section of the left and every other individual not signed up to your party. This WAS sectarianism.

You also say that “Arrogant, abusive and insulting behaviour are unfortunate personal traits, but they are not in themselves political ones.” To subscribe to such a horrendous notion is an illustration of the alienation of the individual in relation to the party characteristic of Leninism/Trotskyism. Of course it’s a political matter if any member of any political organisation behaves in an arrogant, abusive and insulting manner. Kieran Allen of the SWP has the manners and matching arrogance of an orangutan – you think this personal, not political? I’d call it political and one of the reasons the SWP fares so badly with the rest of the left.

Thirdly, your view on the referendum (“it was correct not to make the issue of racism a central point of the election campaign … the only way to combat racism is to put class questions, housing, health and so on, to the fore”) echoes precisely that of Militant and the SWP and sounds like some old bullshit from the 1930s. In other words, the ONLY way to defeat a racist referendum is to downplay its racist content and implications and persuade the cross-class voting bloc (i.e. everyone in Ireland, rich and poor) that the real problem is housing, health, etc. Are you serious Dermot?

by dermot connolly - none Tue Aug 24, 2004 17:20 dermotjoan at utvinternet dot com 30 ring st inchicore. d8 087 7675691

Like Mary Muldowney and Dennis Tourish, my name has come up in this tread and therefore I would like to make a few points.
Firstly on the question of sectarianism. This is a term which has been used by Marxists to describe a political trend in the workers’ movement. Those who bandy this term about as an insult or means of abuse to anyone they disagree with or who critises their party/organisation would do well to consider what sectarianism actually is.
A large part of what some people put up as political comment on this site doesn’t even rise to the level of sectarianism. Comments that go from the high political plateau of “ oh yes you did” to ‘oh no we didn’t” to “ you’re a wanker, aren’t you” are simply abusive and insulting drivel,. They contain no political content whatever, sectarian or otherwise.
In 1995 I went to Italy to work for a period for the CWI. I stayed at the apartment of some people in Genoa who were followers of the Italian revolutionary, Bordiga. They were very friendly, pleasant people. Never insulting or abusive. Yet they were the greatest sectarians I have ever encountered. For their part they thought I was the most naive, romantic they had ever met.
At that time there was a mass movement of workers, young people and pensioners against the plans of the first Berlesconi govt to attack pension rights. This was a truly mass movement throughout the entire country. On a daily basis there were strikes, factory walkouts and demonstrations by workers, protests by pensioners, occupations of the universities and secondary schools, which went on for weeks. it culminated in a national one day general strike with three million demonstrating in Rome. It led to the collapse of that govt, the first to contain fascists since the war.
I spent my days on these demos and occupations. When i returned in the evening, my Bordigist friends would say. in a very friendly way, because they thought it was funny, “how many demos did you go on today, crazy irishman? Don’t you understand, this is Italy. This goes on all the time, people out singing Advanti Populo. They are only protesting about their pensions.”
They never went to any of these events. They spent their evenings debating, on their computers over the net, far more important issues. The real mass movement of the working class and youth did not correspond to their conception of what it should be. it didn’t have a revolutionary programme. it was therefore irrelevant to them. They did not engage in political debate with abuse or insults. Their arguments were never crude. They were very well versed and skilful in analysing and debating the writings of Marx and other socialist theoreticians. However, they forgot that Marx, who didn't take the question of programme lightly either, also said, every step forward in the real movement is worth a thousand programmes. The approach of the italian Bordigists to political activity is, in a nutshell, what sectarianism consists of.
These people existed in the outer limits of the sectarian galaxy. But you don’t have to go to these extremes to be a sectarian. The Independent Labour Party (ILP) in Britain in the 1930s had 100,000 members, the majority of them not only working class, but industrial workers. Yet Leon Trotsky described it as a sect! The reason Trotsky explained was its attitude to the millions of workers who still looked to the old Labour Party.
Let’s drop the abuse and the drivel. it’s time to have a proper and informed discussion about sectarianism and its effects among and on the Irish left. Being in a small organisation does not of itself make you a sectarian. Neither does having very few workers in your organisation. A small organisation can be built, workers can be recruited. What’s important is your orientation, willingness to intervene into the real movement, wherever it starts from, and then your programme and tactics you intervene with.
Being at times ultra left in your programme and tactics when intervening into workers struggles does not of itself make you a sectarian. With the experience gained mistakes can always be rectified. Being loyal to your party/organisation, wanting to build it and defending it from criticism does not necessarily make you a sectarian. (though with excessive loyalty you run the risk of becoming a party hack) Arrogant, abusive and insulting behaviour are unfortunate personal traits, but they are not in themselves political ones. Being sharp and determined when you argue your view does not also make you a sectarian. It should go without saying that being in a different party/organisation to someone else does not give them the right to brand you a sectarian.
Sectarianism is a far more serious and politically damaging disease than any of these things. No left organisation has a monopoly on it, and neither has any some magical immunity from its effects. It was and remains a serious problem on the irish left.
I think I’ve said enough on this for now. Hopefully this will start a useful discussion, ie. one whereby maybe 10% of the comment will be serious and at least attempted to be thought out, with names and organisations attached? And please, could those jokers who begin by saying they don’t normally reply to comments put up anon and then give their initials, please stop taking the piss. It’s only funny the first time,ok?

As I said at the start I came on because my name came up in this tread. It seems that either i was forced out of the SP by an undemocratic clique at its top, or I dropped out, like many others over the years, because I was disillusioned, tired, worn out, gone mad or all of them together, whatever takes your fancy. It has also been stated that I didn’t raise whatever political differences I had in the SP before resigning.
So i want to put the record straight. There isn’t in my opinion an undemocratic clique at the head of the SP. I wasn’t forced out. Neither did I drop out. I am not disillusioned with Marxism or socialist politics. I resigned. I did raise political differences in the SP and the CWI, on a number of occasions, before I resigned.
These issues came up and were discussed on the National Exec and with individual members of that body and the CWI over a period of time. After the general election I approached the leadership with a view to opening up a general discussion in the party. I requested that an aggregate meeting of the Dublin membership be organised where I could speak on the issues that had concerned me over the previous two years. This was refused. i was told that the “correct procedure” was a discussion first on the National Exec, then the National Committee, and then in the party.
I initially refused to do this but later reluctantly agreed to speak at a meeting of the National Committee. This took place in october 2002. After that meeting I decided there was no point in going any further at that time. Rather than an open ended discussion which would try to draw on the collective experience of the party and the CWI, in which it could be possible for any member to put forward their views, withdraw, them, change them, or not, on the basis of the discussion, and then see if there were serious differences which people needed to take definite sides on, all that was on offer was a him or us battle with the leadership. I didn’t see any benefit for the party in that. I also had to concern myself with my health. I was still in the process of recovering from a severe physical and mental melt down brought on by stress and overwork.
It is correct that the issues were then not raised in the SP in general, but for leading SP people who were at meetings were this issues were raised, to allow the myth be spread that differences were never raised is extremely dishonest.
A year later I resigned from the SP over very concrete differences I had with the SP's intervention in the anti bin tax struggle. By the way, no one in the SP has any right to pontificate on the reasons why I left because not a single member of the SP or the CWI has ever contacted me to ask why I resigned, let alone would I like to discuss it and think it over. I wasn’t forced out but the collective sigh of relief when I left of my own accord must have been something else.
I have my problems with the SP but nothing can justify some of the disgraceful comments made on this tread suggesting the SP leadership or other supporters of Lenin and Trotsky
if given the opportunity would embark on a campaign of mass murder against their political opponents. Their are in my opinion problems in the internal life and culture of political debate, or more correctly lack of it, inside the SP. There are many reasons for this. The interpretation and application of democratic centralism is too one sided. Some would argue that this has always been the case. In my opinion there has been an over concern in the CWI following on from the collapse of the USSR and the driving back of workers’ conscious and the general confusion of the 1990s, that its core revolutionary ideas could be lost.
But more importantly is the fact that the SP is very small, it has to rely overly on a small core of full timers and very active members to do virtually everything, and crucially, it does not have any significant active layer of experienced working class activists. Resolving that problem is the key to creating a healthier internal regime.
Finally some points on the issue of CARR and the SP. The explanation given to me (which is admit tingly second hand) is that the SP did not affiliate to CARR because of its class base, and that they would run their own campaign. I find this quite incredible.
The SP participated in two campaigns on the NICE Treaty, which involved not only the Greens, SF and PANA ( a pacifist organisation) but the extreme clerical and nationalist right. Was the class basis of these campaigns different from CARR? The NICE campaigns were a cross class bloc , in which different forces came together to maximise the no vote. It was correct for socialists to do this, provided they maintained and exercised their right to clearly put forward their class reasons for opposing NICE, put forward a socialist alternative and clearly distinguished themselves from the other forces involved.
The same points can be made about IAWM, to which the SP is affiliated. This is also a cross class temporary alliance, and contains within itself for example people who might have supported the war if there was UN backing. Similar points can be made about the various abortion campaigns. All of these campaigns contained not just individuals, but organisations and political parties which represent various elements of bourgeois and petti bourgeois liberalism, pacifism, nationalism and so on.
Socialists have not only participated in these campaigns but have also initiated some of them. The left does not have the influence, broad support and resources to run mass campaigns on these issues. Even if there was a mass workers’ party, it would not be incorrect to bloc with other forces on certain issues, in certain circumstances, providing such blocs are temporary, and an independent socialist banner is maintained. This would include making no concessions whatever on the right to forcefully criticise and oppose these forces on class questions.
The SPs decision on CARR seems to raise that it was different from the other campaigns. But the real question is, and the confusion that can be created is, what was the class base of the other campaigns? It is essential that socialists are very clear as to why and how they intervene on democratic questions, and have a crystal clarity on the question of when, in what circumstances, and how do you participate in a cross class bloc.
Does the SP’s decision also raise a confusion that the recent referendum was not as important as the NICE Treaty, abortion and so on? That certainly would not be their position, but it shows the extreme light mindness of their decision. It seems to me that the SP said well we don’t like the name, we don’t agree with the approach, and then stopped thinking. Is it not the case that socialists have a different approach on all these democratic questions? Not only would there be differences on programme, tactics and so on with the bourgeois and petti bourgeois liberals, but also among socialists in these campaigns.
The way to approach that is to insist on an agreed basic programme with the right to also put your programme, organise your own meetings, and produce your own material.
Did the SP approach anyone else on the left for a possible joint approach within CARR to get an agreed position?
For the SP to declare, without reference to anyone else, that it was running its own campaign on such an important issue is mind boggling to me. It must have been obvious to everyone in the SP, who would know the limits to the party’s resources, and given that they would have to fight important elections at the same time, that this “campaign” would be extremely limited. Why did no one in the party challenge this madness, which has left them open to the charges now being made. that they were afraid of losing votes?
I don’t believe the SP leadership would have adopted the craven and opportunistic position that they are now accused of in some quarters. it was correct not to make the issue of racism a central point of the election campaign. After all, this is what the govt were attempting to do, to deflect working class anger. (despite the high yes vote they didn’t succeed) the only way to combat racism is to put class questions, housing, health and so on, to the fore, and to put the responsibility for the problems where it belongs, on the bosses’ system and their political representatives, and to try and build an alternative to them.
The only effective action in the long run that can smash racism is to build a strong, socialist workers’ movement. Part of that is competing, and competing effectively, with the bosses’ parties in elections. that is not in anyway to denigrate the important work which is done by groups like Residents Against Racism or the importance of seriously trying to maximise the no vote in the recent referendum. The huge yes vote is a warning. it will encourage racists by making making their views seem more legitimate. it will also encourage fascists to possibly try and organise more seriously. Racism is not an issue for making grandiose and self delusionary gestures on.

by Badman Mon Aug 23, 2004 22:09

"they were more active than any other party on the issue"

With the exception of the SWP, WSM, ISN and the Grassroots Network. Which is pretty piss-poor considering that they are hundreds of times richer and bigger than any of those tiny groups. I doubt they spent more than 0.01% of their election budget on the referendum - just shows where their priorities lie.

by Labour member Mon Aug 23, 2004 21:36

Would like to clarify certain comments concerning Labour's "No" campaign in the recent referendum. Many Labour activists took part in various aspects of the "no" campaign. There was a number of Labour activists involved in CARR and I know Labour members who were active distributing CARR leaflets and putting up CARR posters. There were, perhaps, a half dozen involved, which in a small organisation like CARR is influential. Those I know who are in Labour disagreed with the name and some of the emphasis in the campaign but contributed their effots nonetheless. Labour Youth affiliated to the campaign and provided financial support.

On its own, Labour produced hundreds of posters and thousands of leaflets, moreso than any other political party, and a number of party activists dedicated themselves to the campaign. The party leadership, while stalling at first for tactical reasons, eventually came out more than any other Dáil party to call for a No vote, and you can check the Labour website for the amount of press releases calling for "no."

Labour's commitment to the "no" campaign wasn't enough at the end of the day, but apart from some local-based organisations they were more active than any other party on the issue.

by Colm Breathnach - ISN -personal capacity Mon Aug 23, 2004 20:53

Since it has been commented on a number of times I'd like to clarify what happened in Finglas during the referendum. The Irish Socialist Network distributed 5000 CARR leaflets in Finglas South and West. The ISN also delivered 12000 of our own election manifesto , covering most of the Finglas ward, which contained a clear call for a No vote.

I am certain that SF/Labour/Greens did not deliver any CARR leaflets in the ward. I have no evidence of SF/Labour/Green posters or leaflets specifically on the referendum being distributed in the area. The only mention of the referendum I saw was a sentence or two on a De Rossa leaflet handed out at the shopping centre in Finglas Village. I mention this not to crow about the ISN's work but to highlight the fact that the centre-left/ left reformist parties simply avoided this hot potato when it came to work on the ground, which may not explain the Yes victory but might account for the scale of that victory.

by Finglas Voter Mon Aug 23, 2004 17:01

"I think you will find that the LP in Finglas put up plenty of Lp Vote No posters and gave out several thousand LP vote no leaflets. The SP produced ZERO VoteNo posters or leaflets."

Deceitful nonsense. The candidate instructed her canvassers to avoid the issue.

by former militant member Mon Aug 23, 2004 13:58

I may have misled you. John's comments, which are now on another thread/, never pretended to be a 'report' of the CWI summer school - your words, not mine or his. Rather, they were reflections/ analysis of your own material, posted on the CWI website.

I look forward to you and your colleagues responding seriously, constructively and in a comradely manner to points raised by John Throne and others, in the best traditions of the labour movement and debate.

Unless of course you are just a rather strange sect, and think that debate = abuse....

by sane person Mon Aug 23, 2004 12:55

Was Throne at the Summer School??.... NO he wasn't! so I don't think his 'report' from the summer school should be given much attention.

But of course I am sure that the little fact of him being on another continent during the summer school wont stop the trolls claiming his report to be accurate and true

by former militant member Mon Aug 23, 2004 09:41

A couple of more predictions that I forgot to list that dominated CWI thinking for a period:

1. The 1980s were to be the most revolutionary period in human history.
2. Failing this, we were in for 'the red '90s' (Peter Taaffe was particularly big on this).
3. In the 1970s, the constant refrain was that there would be either a victorious socialist revolution, or the complete disintegration of society within 10-15 years.

Now, if any reputable scientist made a bunch of significant predictions about say the laws of physics which proved so completely wrong, they would in a spirit of true scientific inquiry reappraise everything about their methodology and whole philosophical approach. Not so the CWI, who blithely proceed to make another bunch of predictions, with all the assurance of Nostradamus - which they expect people to take seriously.

I am afraid that Taaffe in particular is the Uri Geller of leftwing politics....

by Badman Mon Aug 23, 2004 02:59

"We used to say that the advantage of Marxism over other currents of thought was that of foresight over astonishment. "

That's a funny one -
Bakunin (one of the first anarchists) wrote in the 1870's:

"If the workers of the West wait too long, Russian peasants will set them an example." But he warned that either the State must be destroyed or one must "reconcile oneself to the vilest and most dangerous lie of our century . . .: Red bureaucracy."

Bakunin summed it up as follows: "Take the most radical of revolutionaries and place him on the throne of all the Russias or give him dictatorial powers . . . and before the year is out he will be worse than the Czar himself."

And yet every new 'red' dictatorship was greeted with astonishment by marxists and they still haven't absorbed this - proven - prediction over 130 years later. Now that's foresight!

by former militant member Mon Aug 23, 2004 02:14

It is a shame than an editor deleted John Throne's previous post. True, there was some cut and paste, but there were also some interesting reflections on the CWI's recent summer school which readers would have found interesting.

Following from this, what all the present material from the CWI/ SP, and from what their own accounts of internal CWI summer schools also show, is that there is a complete rigidity of thought and organisational forms on their part at present. Some examples.

We used to say that the advantage of Marxism over other currents of thought was that of foresight over astonishment. We then made the following crucial and important predictions:

1. There was no possibility of capitalism being restored to the former Soviet Union.
2. 1973-74 marked the end of the post war economic upswing. Henceforth, there would be recurrent and deepening recessions, leading inexorably to a a new crash on the scale of 1929.
3. There would be a wave of radicalisation which would find its first expression in the mass workers parties, causing deep ferment and eventually splits from which mass revolutionary currents would emerge.
4. In Northern Ireland, this radicalisation would firstly express itself in the trade unions, who would go on to build a mass Labour Party.

Now, these are BIG mistakes. But you would search high and low for any serious acknowledgement that they occurred - and you will never find a serious discussion of WHY they occurred. Instead, the CWI leaders who made them still pronounce with an air of papal infallibility on current world topics - as if the past never happened. Can they be serious?

It must surely be the case that such colossal blunders (and of course the Trotskyist left in general made similar huge mistakes) arise in part from the CWI's method of organising. This assumes that a few key people have all the key insights and can transmit this to the rank and file, without problems or anything that most other people would recognise as genuine debate. It is absolutely amazing on the CWI website how much of anything important comes from the pen of Peter Taaffe - Pope Peter, possibly. Where are the new voices from the ast ten years? Why does no one else have anything of theoretical substance to say? Are they only allowed to publish their views if Peter agrees with every dot and comma? No lively internal life is possible on this basis.

On the website of the Ted Grant group that split or was expelled in the early 90s, now that Ted is retired, anything of importance is written by Alan Woods. The strain must be terrible - from history to philosophy to science to the politics of Venezuala, the man tries to present himself as a polymath. But in real life, no one man knows as much about anything as he tries to know about everything....

There is no sign on the part of either group of a vigorous internal life, real debate, of many voices being heard, of new directions being sought, of a commitment to new and more inclusive forms of organising.

On this tired old basis, only sects can be built. The first step to foresight is an honest appraisal of the past, and for this we are still waiting - and waiting......

by Marc Mulholland Sun Aug 22, 2004 20:41 marc.mulholland at stcatz dot ox dot ac dot uk

I find out from this thread that an old article of mine has been posted on the Socialist Party website. While I have no objections to this, it should not be taken to mean that I have re-joined the Socialist Party. (Nor, I'm sure, is it meant to give that impression).

by SPwatch Sun Aug 22, 2004 15:09

I think you will find that the LP in Finglas put up plenty of Lp Vote No posters and gave out several thousand LP vote no leaflets. The SP produced ZERO VoteNo posters or leaflets.

by agreed Fri Aug 20, 2004 22:20

the same old shit, some anon attacks the sp. they ignore it, and then someone (probably an sper) attacks the swp and they ignore it, then we have a slagfest and no ones questions get answered and we can't really blame sp representatives like joe higgins or clare daly for not bothering with it. its a shame because there are questions to be answered but as long as they are constantly asked in such a stupid way they are let completely off the hook.
And I often wonder do any of the anons have the guts to say any of this to an sp members face? somehow I don't think so.
If people really are concerned write a half decent critique and put a bit of effort into it, SIGN your name and email to sp hq and then publish it.
John throne has done this as well as publishing critiques in newspapers and so did Dermot Connolly, the other crap is just that, crap. its much more convincing especially to sp members who I presume the author was aiming at.
And try to have something actually new to say!
becuase like it or not the sp remain the only socialist party to actually get some votes!!!! So as far as the left is concerned in Ireland
is concerned Joe Higgins and Clare Daly are the only well known figures (and they're not even that well known!) IN CONCLUSION THE SP NEED TO CHANGE AND SHOULD BE ENCOURAGED, so try and speak to them in person or even write articles with this in mind instead of point scoring, like John Throne,

by old timer Fri Aug 20, 2004 20:57

Do us all a favour and go away until you either have a) some news or b) some NEW talking points.

Check out this thread linked below as an example of what serious and rational DEBATE looks like. This slanging does no-one any favours and is pretty much an ongoing insult to the intelligence of the users of IMC -

http://www.indymedia.ie/newswire.php?story_id=66227

by Amused and disgusted Fri Aug 20, 2004 20:08

you do neither of your viewpoints any favours by resorting to "fucking" and "asshole". It makes you both look emotional and unreliable. Add to that that there's a certain homoerotic edge to this intense dirty-talk with each other and you may want to reconsider your standards of debate (unless of course you really are getting it on with each other).

by observer Fri Aug 20, 2004 19:40

You should never attempt to aruge with someone of superior intelligence. I KMOW what the SIPO audits. It details donations but it also details expenditure and all of that does not have to be sourced.

For example; In Dublin North that creature Daly spent nearly 10,000 Euro in her campaign, of which just over 2,000 allegedly came from donations from Higgins.

In the same constituency the SF candidate Davis spent 7,500. So where do you get off with SF being loaded with corporate money? And where did the other 7 grand that Daly spent come from? Donations from the workers and youth? Pull the other fucking one....

by observer Fri Aug 20, 2004 19:04

So what happened to the bin charge campaign money where the SP was in charge? How much do they get from the party in Britain? Where does that come from? Who keeps Peter "Hadden" in the style he is accustomed to? Ever hear of the fucking person in the glasshouse, asshole?

by murky Fri Aug 20, 2004 17:45

Observer, you really don't know you're on about do you. Every political party, by law, has to account for its election spending to the Standards in Public Offices Commission. This information can then be obtained by anybody under Freedom of Information provisions. If you want to make allegations then provide some proof, othwerwise, fuck off.

by Required Fri Aug 20, 2004 17:35

The SP drones might like to look at their own party rather than engage in excessive mudslinging, its quite annoying and once more is a perfect example of the SP attitude that everyone is wrong but them and essentially what they think comes down from the English section dictated by Taffee and instructed to the Troika to be implanted in the drones.

by observer Fri Aug 20, 2004 16:09

It is not irrelvent in the context of you claiming that they are a "corporation". Do you even know what a corporation is? Doubt it somehow. Of course no business people ever help out the SP by giving them money or the use of rooms for free in pubs? Notice btw that the SP does not even account for its election spending. Might upset some people in the bins campaign perhaps

by SIPOC Fri Aug 20, 2004 15:59

Whether Leitrim steel fixers are a big company or not is irrelevent. They still exploit their workforce, they will still be on the side of the capitalists against the working class.

by SIPOC Fri Aug 20, 2004 15:50

You obviously didn't read the document properly, Labour did get corporate donations one example is this one

Robert Butler Investments Ltd. - €1,200 paid to Dick Spring.

by Me Fri Aug 20, 2004 12:10

"PS - a prominent SP member is, I believe, training to be a solicitor. I hope he doesn't contribute any money to the Milis if he ever gets a practice!

You believe wrongly.

by paul - peter, paul and mary (pers. cap.) Fri Aug 20, 2004 01:17

All of Peter's post is sectarian to one degree or other. All he's interested in doing is saying he organised the biggest or more radical activities while the sp and swp youth and anarchist are doing stuff Peter is at their throats over it while simultaneously looking down his nose at anyone who isn't radical enough for him.

His post is a sort of macho posturing, the Peters on indymedia (from all parties and anarchists) are more interested in petty point scoring than working together.

All the Peters come in with their set beliefs and changes reality to suit them. For instance claiming that "the swp got a good vote" or "The anarchists put everything down to electoralism". Or even worse Peter lays claim to secret knowledge about how "it's obvious the sp campaigned against the referendum but that doesn't suit anarchists out to prove some completely different point."

Peter is in his own little sect and happy attacking the SP, SWP, WSM, and the students. Its a shame becuase with some effort Peter might pull some slight things off.

However his ridiculous assertions (which seem to favour the SP despite his attempt to muddy the waters with the seemingly pro-SWP tidbit above) show that Peter is an internet activist with no foundation in reality. Who else could claim that " the SP are big in the communities and suburbs, the anarchists have the ear of the alternative youth, the swp the students, and the sp to some extent the workers."

Al together Peter might actually add up to something howerver small, but its much more fun petty point scoring. Shame on Peter!

After glancing through Peters stuff in this post i'd say it applys to the whole irish Peters, wheter trot or anarchist, you are really living in your own realitys too busy infighting to actually do anything.

Don't tell other people to do stuff. Do it yourself.

by peter - if there was one!!! Thu Aug 19, 2004 20:50

All of the irish left is sectarian to one degree or other. I remember reading reports of anti war activity, on x day all people on indymedia were interested in doing was saying they organised the biggest or more radical activities, the sp and swp youth were at each other throats over it while the anarchists were looking down their noses at anyone who wasn't radical enough for them. A sort of macho posturing, the left on indymedia (from all parties and anarchists) are more interested in petty point scoring than working together. Everyone comes in with their set beliefs and changes reality to suit it, the sp like to believe only they have any influence in the working classes, even after the swp got a good vote. The anarchists put everything down to electoralism, its obvious the sp campaigned against the referendum but that doesn't suit anarchists out to prove some completely different point. Joan collins was all but expelled for slightly going against the sp line and the swp destroyed the IAWM by ametuerishly packing meetings. Everyone is in their own little sect and happy attacking each other, that is including the SP, SWP, WSM, and especially underlining it all the students. Its a shame becuase with some effort the left might pull some slight things off, the SP are big in the communities and suburbs, the anarchists have the ear of the alternative youth, the swp the students, and the sp to some extent the workers. Al together it might actually add up to something howerver small, but its much more fun petty point scoring. Shame on you all! After glancing through tourishs stuff on sects i'd say it applys to the whole irish idelogical left, wheter trot or anarchist, you are really living in your own realitys too busy infighting to notice what non party people think. thats all i'll say

by Careful Reader Thu Aug 19, 2004 20:37

I never denied that the trade unions give donations to the Labour Party and quite substantial ones at that. Unions also gave money to Fianna Fail and Fine Gael candidates on those lists. Ending the situation where the trade unions helps to feed the hands that bites us, by funding right wing politicians is one of the major tasks facing socialists in the movement.

That said, Labour also receive quite substantial business donations. The list linked to above includes an investment company and a consultancy firm. In the small subset of corporate donations that list includes, Labour actually get more than the Progressive Democrats, Fine Gael, the Greens and Sinn Fein put together. It is fair to say though that the small size of the sample has skewed the statistic and overall Fine Gael and the PD's have better access to Irish corporate money. Sinn Fein obviously have better access to American corporate money.

It doesn't change the fact that Labour gets money from business interests. If the amounts of money involved are so trivial to your party, can we expect you to put a motion to the next Labour conference banning the acceptance of donations from companies or business people? Surely if the money doesn't matter you would have no problem putting the motion and getting it passed and implemented?

by chuck - feeny Thu Aug 19, 2004 20:34

chuck fenny anti trade unionist, 5 million to SF, Donald Trump guest of honour at one of the many 1,000 dollar plate receptions by friends of sf, you can go on and on and on.

by Author name (required) Thu Aug 19, 2004 20:22

For pete's sake grow up will you, regardless of your opinions on Labour it's quite clear that their finances are sourced primarily through the trade union movement and to a small extent from personal donations, e.g. from Pronsias de Rossa.

The businesses mentioned above are to "corporate" as "Socialist Party" is to "mass workers party." If some lad in Leitrim, who for all we know runs a business out of his shed, decides to give a few quid to Labour, so what. In the childish analysis he might be part of your petit bourgeoisie, so stop worrying, no doubt when the revolution comes he'll be murdered anyway.

PS - a prominent SP member is, I believe, training to be a solicitor. I hope he doesn't contribute any money to the Milis if he ever gets a practice!

by Careful Reader Thu Aug 19, 2004 19:40

Amazing how the story changes. First those who pointed to corporate donations were lying. Now, well that bit has gone and line is that they might exist but they don't matter.

As I have explained on a number of occasions, those lists are only of a small proportion of donations from companies and business interests. They don't include a single one to the Progressive Democrats or Fine Gael. They do however include a number to Labour candidates, including one from a Consultancy firm and one from an Investment firm. SF got a single such donation. The only surprise from this small subset of donations is that Labour came second only to Fianna Fail.

The bulk of donations from business interests to all of these parties are not included on these lists. Sinn Fein are unusual in that they are presumably less likely to get money from Southern Irish business. Still they make up for that with American donations, Coke and Feeney are only the most famous donors. This is all in the public domain and I am frankly amazed that anyone is trying to contest it.

Let's get this straight. Are you denying that:

A) Labour gets donations from business interests.

B) Sinn Fein gets donations from business interests, American ones in particular.

If you do in fact accept that both parties get money from business then we have nothing to discuss. If you don't accept it, then I'm afraid I may as well argue with someone who thinks the world is flat.

by observer Thu Aug 19, 2004 19:22

The person who posted the original item about SF and LP corporate donations tried to give the impression that the list contains a massive list of donations from "corporations". Even you as a diaper marxist should be able to recognise the difference between a corporation and the businesses including Leitrim Steelfixers (wow are they a subsidiary of Exxon???). Besides, all of the donations are small - averaging 1,000 Euro and are probably from personal friends.

So don't fucking even attempt to patronise me. Im well used to you and your like over a long time in politics and trade union activity so go off and get your ma to wipe your arse.

by Careful Reader Thu Aug 19, 2004 19:15

A minute ago you were claiming that the Socialist Party were lying because not one corporate donation appeared in those lists for Labour and Sinn Fein. In fact, as anyone with basic literacy skills could have found out, the lists show four corporate donations to Labour candidates and one for a Sinn Fein candidate. It must be wonderful to have so little regard for the accuracy of your statements that you feel no responsibility to retract your allegation that people were lying.

To put that in context, the same extremely limited lists show precisely zero company donations for the Progressive Democrats and zero for Fine Gael. Only Fianna Fail shows more such donations than Labour.

As I explained, these lists only represent a small proportion of all business donations. Donations other than during that particular election campaign are unlisted. Donations to the party as opposed to individual candidates are unlisted. Donations made by business owners but not through their company do not appear as corporate.

What they do show is that Labour receives a surprisingly high number of this particular subset of corporate donations. Sinn Fein get more than Fine Gael or the PDs but not a statistically significant amount more.

Sinn Fein's business backers are much more likely to be American than Irish and thus are much less likely to give money directly to individual candidates. Coca Cola is the most famous example. Their five thousand went to Friends of Sinn Fein and thus would not appear on these lists even if it was donated at the correct time. Other very famous business backers of SF include Chuck Feeney.

by observer Thu Aug 19, 2004 19:01

LMFAO - this is the best you can do? Leitrim Steelfixers are a corporation are athey? What do you know about them then? Who owns the company? How many does it employ?

by Careful Reader. Thu Aug 19, 2004 18:54

From that list alone:

Labour candidates got donations from:
Cerena Consulting Ltd
Derevan/Sextan Solicitors
Murray Bros Ltd
Robert Butler Investments Ltd

Sinn Fein candidates got money from:
Leitrim Steelfixers Ltd

The most important thing to remember is that these are lists only of donations made specifically for the last general election to specific candidates. In addition donations made by business owners are not listed as corporate unless they actually come through the company. Donations to the party as opposed to individual candidates are not included. Donations made other than during that particular election are not included.

A look through the Progressive Democrat lists for example reveals that not a single company donation appears, as opposed to four for Labour and one for Sinn Fein. I didn't do a full count for Fianna Fail or Fine Gael but we are talking about similarly sparse numbers.

The great bulk of corporate funding does not appear on the above links, although what does appear shows Labour candidates as amongst the most likely to receive money from businesses. Sinn Fein candidates are neither more nor less likely to get the type of donation listed. Then again, I don't think anyone expects southern Irish business to donate signficantly to SF. Most of their rich backers would be in America and would not be giving money directly to individual candidates. Coke's five grand to use an obvious example went to Friends of Sinn Fein.

by observer Thu Aug 19, 2004 18:35

I have looked at the file. There are no references to corporate donations to any of the SF or LP candidates. Typical SP lies.

by SIPOC Thu Aug 19, 2004 18:10

here's a link to corporate donations of successful candidates at the last election
http://www.sipo.gov.ie/27be_246.htm#BB

by SIPOC Thu Aug 19, 2004 18:06

http://www.sipo.gov.ie/2836/table3.pdf

Have a look at this file for all the corporate donations to the Labour Party and SF in the last General election

by Ray Thu Aug 19, 2004 17:58

"Most of the people running in the locals had announced their candidatures before it was fully clear that the referendum took place. "

I don't see what that has to do with it? I'm not suggesting that people who were going to run for election should have withdrawn their candidacies, and worked full-time against the referendum.

I'm saying that the people running for election knew that opposing the referendum would cost them votes. So they didn't oppose it as loudly or as openly as they would have otherwise.

The SP talk a lot about how they are embedded in the community, how their members are known and respected. If those members had taken a strong stand on the issue, said loud and clear that the referendum was wrong, that refugees should be welcomed in Ireland, that it was disgraceful to even consider deporting children, some of the local respect might have translated into local opposition. But it would also have cost them votes, so they kept their opposition quiet.

Sinn Fein publically opposed the referendum, but almost entirely in terms of the Good Friday Agreement. They didn't make any hard arguments about racism, because they didn't want to lose any votes by opposing their constituents.

by Edward - sp Thu Aug 19, 2004 17:43

"Their call for a no vote was couched in very dishonest terms, including the pretence that the referendum was nothing to do with racism. "

that's not the case at all. What the Sp said was that not all those that would vote for the amendment were racists, not that the government were not racist. Of course the referendum was racist, it singled out immigrants and attacked their citizenship rights.

"Their calls for a no vote were also generally buried inside their less read and longer pieces of literature"

Not true, look at one of the manifestos, the piece calling for a No vote is quite prominent with a large headline on the main inside page.

"They did not canvas for a no vote."

Where you out canvassing for the SP? Obviously not

by Badman Thu Aug 19, 2004 17:04

To correct our 'realist', I should point out that I never said anything that implied that any party should have gone along with the CARR campaign. I'm criticising them for doing as close to nothing as possible - regardless of whether they were in or out of CARR.

Your realism is pretty much an admission that your stated principles are secondary to your desire to gain power. The way in which you express this, as if any other opinion could only be some crazy, ultra-leftist utopianism shows just how deep into the dung heap you have sunk. You can stick your realism where the sun doesn't shine buddy.

by CARR supporter Thu Aug 19, 2004 17:02

"And they were more concerned with getting votes in the election than with fighting the referendum."

Most of the people running in the locals had announced their candidatures before it was fully clear that the referendum took place.
I know you don't support elections but a bit of context wouldn't go amiss.

by Ray Thu Aug 19, 2004 16:38

And that's the problem.
The SP and SF included short pieces in their longer literature saying they were opposed to the referendum, but they didn't make a big deal of their opposition because they knew it would cost them votes. And they were more concerned with getting votes in the election than with fighting the referendum.

But its only those crazy anarchists who think there is a cost to electoralism.

by realist Thu Aug 19, 2004 16:19

Badman - what is the common thread in all of what you say?

OK. I'll tell you. None of the groups decided to go along with the way CARR organised the campaign. You think maybe just maybe that had something to so with the incompetent manner in which it was run right from the first choosing of the title? And of course parties are going to put their electoral prospects first. Why not? But all of the ones you mentioned did mention in their election literature that they were opposed to the referendum and I distinctly recall Adams making a point of this at the SF election launch.

by Badman Thu Aug 19, 2004 16:12

All of the left parties who were serious about running for election did as little as they could possibly get away with in the referendum. They knew that every ounce of effort that they put into the campaign against the referendum would cost them votes in the council elections and that logic won out every time. It is as simple as that. A few things to support this: SF - 1000's of full colour posters all over the place for euro candidates and local election candidates. None for the referendum. Not even one. Their entire contribution was to give a small sum to Carr. Apart from a tiny number of self-motivated activists, they did not distribute Carr leaflets nor had they any real involvement in the campaign. They did not canvas for it or put it in their electoral literature. LP - Apart from a small number of posters, their performance was similar to SF's. They actually instructed candidates not to raise it on the doorsteps and they openly said that they would only give out CARR leaflets if they were asked on the doorsteps - utterly pathetic. SP - They did not even get involved in the CARR campaign and did not put up a single referendum poster of their own. Their call for a no vote was couched in very dishonest terms, including the pretence that the referendum was nothing to do with racism. Their calls for a no vote were also generally buried inside their less read and longer pieces of literature which would mostly be read by politicals anyway. They did not canvas for a no vote. Greens - Again they had virtually no involvement in the CARR campaign, a tiny, tiny fraction of their posters was about the referendum, they did not raise it on the doorstep, they had very few mentions of it on election literature. A worthless contribution. WCA - Not even a single mention of the referendum on any of their leaflets. SWP - While they behaved in their usual disruptive manner in the campaign, they did at least highlight their no stance prominently on their leaflets. I believe that they also raised it on the doorsteps. On the other hand, their electoral campaign was never very serious and they did a minimum of canvassing anyway. ISN - I believe that they did raise it on the doorsteps, but I haven't seen their literature so I can't comment on them. Elections are great aren't they.

by loyalist Thu Aug 19, 2004 15:37

To all you dissident SP'ers and cynics


I keep a close watch on this Party of mine
I keep my eyes wide open all the time.
I keep the ends out for the leadership binds
Because I don’t whine,
I tow the line

I find it very, very hard to be true
I find myself alone when each day is through
Yes, I'll admit I'm a fool for you
Because I don’t whine,
I tow the line

As sure as night is dark and day is light
I keep you on my mind both day and night
And happiness I've known proves that the Party’s right
No I don’t whine,
I tow the line

You've got your ways to keep me on your side
You give me cause for love that I can't hide
For you I know I'd even try to turn the tide
Because I don’t whine,
I tow line

sorry johnny

by Finglas voter Thu Aug 19, 2004 15:32

"Apart from a couple of tokenistic gestures they contributed nothing to the wider campaign, and were indeed outflanked by, of all people, Labour, SF, Greens and others in CARR. Not for the first time, not by any means."

Labour, SF and the Greens did fuck all in Finglas. I know for a fact that the Labour candidate told her workers to avoid the issue at all costs and that SF were waiting for word
from their head office, which never came. The Green candidate only ran a token campaign in the area. So less of the bouquets - all of the political parties (claiming to be against the referendum) acted despicably in working class areas.

by Icey McPickPick Thu Aug 19, 2004 15:24

The usual nonsense from the SP. Their behaviour during the referendum was absolutely inexcusable. Apart from a couple of tokenistic gestures they contributed nothing to the wider campaign, and were indeed outflanked by, of all people, Labour, SF, Greens and others in CARR. Not for the first time, not by any means.

While they won't admit it on so public a forum, privately a number of Trots admitted they refused to campaign on the issue (1) because of their ultra-electoralism (strange that for a 'revolutionary' party) and (2) 'because the working class have a tendency to be racist'. (2) is very easily tied into (1) - they didn't campaign for a No vote (and regardless of what yiz did on a few sheets of paper, it doesn't constitute a 'campaign') because they would lose votes in their 'strongholds.'

Their accusation that Labour take huge corporate donations is ridiculous to anyone with a clue of politics outside of the SP sect. While SF have taken a small amount in the past everyone knows where Labour get their money from. I don't know why I'm even replying to this, in truth the SP, while comprising some excellent individual campaigners, are an irrelevant organisation, part of an irrelevant tendency.

by Curious Thu Aug 19, 2004 15:03

What a brilliant debater you are! Asshole. SF gets its money in the States from working class Irish Americans. The Coca Cola donation was returned and SF members in the Universities campaigned in favour of the boycott. It was SF TU representatives of Coca Cola workers who were opposed as mandated by the workers they represent but Im sure people like yourself are unfamiliar with democracy, open debate and differences within a party.

by Sf watch Thu Aug 19, 2004 14:28

'Friends of Sinn Fein' raise hundreds of thousands of Euros to SF every year. Just look at the link below which is a link to the website of the Public offices Commission

http://www.sipo.gov.ie/268a_246.htm#I

Everybody knows that 'Friends of SF' get the vast bulk of their donations from corporate America. For example it is widely known that coca cola gave SF a $5,000 donation, just prior to leading SF members campaigning against boycotts in universities.

by karl radek Thu Aug 19, 2004 09:43

What huge corporate donations do SF get?

Can you assholes not respond to legitimate criticsm without resorting to lies? I realise you belong to a self-referential sect that suppresses individual thought but just for once and for your own future mental stability try and think about an argument before responding with the same old boring cliches (delivered with a chopping hand movement)

by f - sp (pc) Wed Aug 18, 2004 21:13

‘Down with this sort of thing’, I find it ironic that you accuse me of hiding behind anonymous names, when you fail to give your own name or political affiliation, why not let people know who you are so we can all judge your own contribution and the contribution of your organisation (if it still exists) to the No campaign. I do have a very good idea who you are so I’ll break my usual rule of not replying to 'anonymous' posters.

"the SP's involvementn in CARR was pathetic"

The SP were not affiliated to CARR. Your statement is like saying that Roy Keanes contribution to the Chinese beachvolleyball team is pathetic! The SP did campaign for a No vote as was mentioned previously, thousands of leaflets were distributed and thousands of doors were canvassed.

"There campaign material for the local elections carried a small paragraph calling on people to vote no at least Sinn Féin, Labour etc all had the balls to stand up and say vote no."

I am not aware of any specific leaflet from SF on the issue, from what I remember they covered it in their election literature. You must remember that Labour and SF are very very rich parties that take huge corporate donations, they can aford to put out more leaflets and hang more posters. The SP do not take money from big business and so must try to combine literature on the 3 different campaigns into one.

I think some things need to be said about Labours leaflet calling for a No vote.They shyed away from the issue and really failed to tackle it head on. Their leaflet failed to tackle the real issue, that being the scapegoating of immigrants and the attempt to deflect attention away from the governments attacks. Instead the leaflet concentrated in arguing that the proposed amendment was legally flawed so should not be ratified. This leaflet allowed LP canvassers an easy way out when confronted with reactionaries at door steps, I'd hardly call this approach 'having balls to tackle the issue head on'.

"As well as seeing SP election candidate posters I saw these really big anti war posters that the SP did. They were along the line of vote against war vote SP. Not even one of these called for a NO Vote."

Michelle, those posters were not put up by the SP, they were published by a group that was set up by the IAWM, it called for votes for the SWP, SP, Greens, SF,Labour and anti war independents. It seems to me the whole idea was the SWP's.

by Recordman Wed Aug 18, 2004 21:00

The Socialist Party distributed around a quarter of a million leaflets, election addresses and local newsletters calling for a No vote in the run up to the referendum. That is a huge number for what is after all a small organisation.

I would be interested in hearing how many leaflets the Campaign Against the Racist Referendum put out. I suspect that it would add up to a quite significantly smaller total. That isn't a criticism of CARR, which like the Socialist Party operated on very limited resources. It is however something that various anonymous critics here should give some thought to.

by Michelle Wed Aug 18, 2004 19:21

Finghin if the SP NO Vote campaign was so good, how come you didn't even bother to erect one single SP poster calling for a NO Vote. As well as seeing SP election candidate posters I saw these really big anti war posters that the SP did. They were along the line of vote against war vote SP. Not even one of these called for a NO Vote.

Saying that portions of your leaflet called for NO votes is nothing. Even De Rossa and Bacik did the same on their leaflets - and De Rossa carried it in his adds in the papers. The SP were a disgrace on the referendum - yet again these so called r-rrevolutionaries were outflanked on the left by reformists. Pathetic!

by Down with sort of thing Wed Aug 18, 2004 15:29

You wrote:

"Well at least f and Brian C are real people who are prepared to give their identities. Do you really think people would be more likely to believe some anon troll on indymedia!"

I dont think Finghin, one half of the Trotsky twins tag team, was cristened F nor do I think Brian Cahill signs his name Brian C.

Lets get two things straight here, the SP have not been straight with people on this thread. We've seen certain elements dive in under the false username's and try to slur others and avoid answering any criticism of the "Sacred Party." No prize for guessing whos behind this is there? I wonder would it be the aforementioned pinky and perky or UCD?

On a more serious note however the SP's involvementn in CARR was pathetic. There campaign material for the local elections carried a small paragraph calling on people to vote no at least Sinn Féin, Labour etc all had the balls to stand up and say vote no.

by theorist Wed Aug 18, 2004 14:09

could it be that the reason why the SP stayed away from CARR, assuming that it did not have 'the correct approach', might be that as a more independent organisation it was not one of their fronts, amenable to manipulation, and therefore possibly not just a recruiting organ for their party? It seems to me that the SP, like the SWP and kindred organisations, is more obsessed with the invariably fruitless struggle to boost its numbers than with making a real difference in society.

by Archivist Wed Aug 18, 2004 12:37

This thread started off as a critique of the SP so this caught my eye. Here is a critique of Militant (and other groups - the critique of the SWP is still equally relevant) from 1988. Any of it still relevant with regard to the heirs of Miltant? Although the article is a bit dated because Militant was forced to give up its policy of entrism (and thus become the SP/CWI) there are still three examples relevant today:

'The single most common complaint made against the Militant is that at meetings their members will endlessly reiterate the basic line, in spite of the fact that one of their comrades has just finished making the same speech with identical turns of phrase and the same curious hand movements.'

'Militant seldom publicly acknowledges that other Left groups exist, but in private it is recognised that they are a danger to the young, on a par with drugs, drink and glue sniffing. New recruits are given a rather undifferentiated description and warning about their rivals, who are given the collective name of The Sects. Every member is warned of the cancerous nature of these groups and the danger involved in extending any toleration to them.'

"In the early 1980s we were told that the group’s journal was to become a daily, but as the speed of recruitment slackened the proposal was quietly abandoned. Not even the most loyal supporter would read its unchanging contents every day: really, it would be better as an annual."

by dont feed trolls Wed Aug 18, 2004 01:43

Well at least f and Brian C are real people who are prepared to give their identities. Do you really think people would be more likely to believe some anon troll on indymedia!

by 007 Tue Aug 17, 2004 18:50

Well we'll have the last laugh when some more dissidents find that they are suddenly outside of the party.

The SP continually denied on Indymedia that Dermot Connolly was going to leave the SP: then guess what? Dermot leaves the SP!

The SP continually denied on Indymedia that Joan Collins had been deselecyted: then guess what? Joan stands and is elected as an independent!

No sane person believes anything that SP hacks like f or Brian C posts here.

by f - sp (pc) Tue Aug 17, 2004 13:50

Mary Muldowney made a point that the SP shunned away from the referendum campaign in June. This is rubbish and if she was involved in the SP election campaign she would know that this was rubish.

In the SP manifesto (which was distributed to more or less every house in wards which the SP contested) there was a sizable piece caling for a No vote. In the 'Socialist Voice', which was sold door-to-door during the election there were articles calling for a No vote. In Joe Higgins' election leaflet which went to 150,000 houses in working class areas in which there was not a SP candidate there was a piece calling for a No vote. Also in canvassing, which covered thousends of houses, the issue was brought up and it was not shyed away from.

The SP did not participate in the CARR, basically because we didn't believe the approach was the correct one. But that does not mean the SP were inactive in campaigning for No vote.

BTW
I laughed after reading 007's account of the 'fallout' after the election.

by karl kautsky Tue Aug 17, 2004 10:16

As I said before, try reading something other than the approved works. Liebman falls into the latter category. It is not history. It is polemic. So read - if you dare - Solzehenitsyn and the rest. Test your beliefs by challenging them not by seeking endless confirmation in the writings of people like Liebman who were never in the USSr and never looked at an archive or spoke to a participant.

The roots of totalitarianism in the USSR were sown in 1917 and the early suppression of ALL dissent. That can only ever have one consequence and that is mass murder and repression. That would have continued under Trotsky or Bukharin or Zinoviev as much as under Stalin. Indeed it is ironic that Marxists ought to place so much wieght on the personality of one man - J.V Stalin - rather than seeking to discover what systemic factors were responsible for the slaughter in the USSR, and China, and Eastern Europe and Vitenam and Laos and North Korea. And the same will happen again if marxism ever again comes to power with the same totalitarian power structures and dogma.

by archivist Tue Aug 17, 2004 01:41

I want to thank Mary M for her useful contribution. It also brought up for me another question. Brian Cahill and other SP loyalists always respond to the long list of ex-leaders with the refrain that every organisation has some turnover. Yes, we have lost people, but so does every organisation, so what is the problem?

the problem is this. EVERY person of any standing who has serious criticisms of the SP ends up outside its ranks! Most of them (evidently, including Dermot Connolly) frind that either any means of expressing their views are effectively blocked, or they know that they will get so much crap (and 'place themselves outside the organisation') that it isn't worth it. The protestations of democracy from the SP are no more convincing than Stalin's shiny 1930s constitution was - which, let us remind ourselves, many leftist intellectuals at the time argued made the Soviet Union the most democratic country in the world.

This is impolrtant for many reasons. But one of the most important is this. The SP always argue that the Russian Revolution degenerated because of its isolation, backwardness, 21 foreign armies invading etc. No doubt this did not help! But there are no 21 armies invading the SP. It is not isolated in a backward country - well, not one that backward. Yet it has degenerated in terms of its democratic norms, as has the entire CWI. This rather suggests that there is something systemically wrong with its approach to political activity.

Its persistent failure to address any of these problems means that it has no future, other than as a tiny sect depsperately preocuppied with recruitment - a preoccupation made necessary because its lack of internal democracy (not to mention some strange politics) helps to ensure a colossal turnover of people. The spectacle is sad rather than inspiring.

by Badman Tue Aug 17, 2004 00:56

Congratulations, my dear Lenonist, you have been awarded Badman's prize for worst contribution to a political debate of the month. This is a first for an internet post as the trophy has long been firmly in the grasp of members of the Spartacist League for their classic interventions in meetings.

The judges were particularly impressed with the way that you managed to squeeze so many examples of how not to argue into such a short space.

Your refutation revolved around exactly one word of content ('bullshit'). Beyond that we had a nice selection of logical fallacies, from the straw man (waking up one morning and deciding to kill all anarchists) to guilt by association (that's the same thing that the right say...).

The grammar and spelling mistakes are pretty standard on the internet, but yours is still a nice specimen of the art.

But what really made the judges sit up and pay attention was your expression of sympathy towards the idea of the mass killing of political opponents. This really put the cherry on the cake. You seem, in your uniquely inarticulate way, to want to make the point that Trotsky was less brutal than Stalin. To round off your argument with an expression of sympathy towards Stalin's mass murders is the sign of a true master of this particular genre of debate.

Take a bow my dear Lenonist.

by Lenonist Front - Hist Soc Tue Aug 17, 2004 00:00 Kronstat

"Trotsky was a physopath who would have been no different to Stalin"
Bullshit. least any innocent takes these fools word on this(which incidently is EXACTLY what the right say in order to discredit the very idea of revolution, see R Service et all), you should try reading M Liebmans "Leninism under Lenin"
Contray to these fools scriblings Trotsky, Lenin and the Bolsheviks didnt wake up on day 2 of the Revolution and say "least kill a lot of anarchists"
(although when I read such tripe about a revolutionary that died trying to keep the idea of working class revolution on the agenda and not let it be distroyed by Stalinism I wonder if thats a bad idea these days..)

by Mary Muldowney Mon Aug 16, 2004 23:30

My first reaction on being told of the latest anti-SP thread on Indymedia was to hope that finally somebody in the SP (other than Henry S. and his consistently thoughtful interventions) would be moved to respond to criticism with reasoned debate, rather than the usual defensive invective. So far - so disappointed. Whether or not Shane K. has joined the Labour Party is hardly the issue and it is a pity that some SP members have indulged in the pathetic ‘shunning’ behaviour that he is not alone in experiencing.

My own name was mentioned in the context of ‘victimised’ dissidents who left the SP after suffering political disillusion, at least according to Brian C. Brian seems to think that condescension might disguise the consistent refusal by the SP leadership to deal with the essential criticisms of the organisation that were raised by various people who left because its internal mechanisms obstructed open communication and debate. I have certainly never been victimised by anybody in the SP (I’d like to see them try!) but neither have I received a response to the points that I raised at the time of my resignation.

With respect to the many genuine activists in the SP who work dedicatedly in so many different arenas, I know that the class struggle has primacy. The SP leadership does them no favours by dismissing people who have concerns about decisions taken and the direction adopted, without at least considering that the class struggle might benefit from a preoccupation with issues other than recruitment and in some cases, the protection of personal fiefdoms.

One of the problems I had with the SP was an increasing trend towards avoidance of significant involvement in potentially divisive issues. A particularly nasty example of electoral considerations surmounting socialist principle was the dishonesty of the excuse given for refusing to engage seriously in opposing the recent racist referendum. Such formerly effective anti-racist activists as Joe Higgins and Mick Barry were notable for their deafening silence. Surely the final result (not to mention the blatant racism in the exit polls) proved that the SP leadership’s pre-referendum analysis was incorrect, but will the implications of the political decisions underlying that analysis be examined by the membership of the organisation?

While I did not outline my concerns about the lack of democracy in writing (at least until I left the SP) that can certainly not be said about my consistent contributions at regional and national committee meetings and several national conferences. I don’t wish to speak for others, but so many ‘dissenting’ voices have been raised about various issues over the years that it defeats me how Brian could be in ignorance of them.

Rumours of my (political) demise have been greatly exaggerated. Yes, Brian, I did become disillusioned but not with the struggle for a socialist society. This contribution arises from my belief that the only effective way forward will be based on a non-sectarian approach to political activity that is grounded in a focus on the ends that we hope to achieve and not the self interest of small groups. I am not so naïve as to imagine that there are not enormous difficulties inherent in such an approach but we can’t afford to lose sight of the fact that without convincing ordinary people that socialist revolution is essential, all the squabbling about which small organisation owns the key to the universe will be exposed for its futility.

by interested Mon Aug 16, 2004 18:48

the cwi split badly over the issue, the founder ted grant set up a new group which remained in the labour party as well as the spanish and italian parties, the most important at the time.

by 007 Mon Aug 16, 2004 18:48

The fallout regarding the SP election results continues apace. Ruth Coppinger and Clare Daly have rounded on the SP Junta for saddling them with unelectable running mates. Whether they would have done better with other candidates is debatable but it certainly didnt help when MOB and Redwood were imposed on them.

What little forces the SP have left in Dublin City are in disarray after their farcical performance. It galled them to see the SWP racking up impressive votes in so many wards. (Dont mention Joan Collins.)

Shane Kenna is not the only one who was driven out of the Tallaght SP by the appalling behaviour of their candidate. Since hes been elected however things have really gone to MMs head and branch attendance is dropping off. The opposite of what you would exprct after getting a Councillor elected.

A split, perhaps even a sizeable one may well be on the cards.

by interested Mon Aug 16, 2004 18:44

the sp like their sister groups in the cwi were a faction of the labour party. About ten years ago the cwi had a vicious debate about leaving the social democratic parties and going alone, or making an "open turn". The cwi website has republished some of the documents on
http://www.socialistworld.net/

maybe another "open turn" wouldn't be such a bad idea?

by james redmond (wsm pers cap) Mon Aug 16, 2004 18:37

'Who was it that used CFE for internal Labour Party shaftings on McCarthy?'

Why the hell would any campaiogn endorse some guy that showed up at only one organisatiojnal meeting: and that was to seek a nomination? Cop the fuck on.

If UCD people want to have a UCD centric discussion, save everyone else that uses indymedia a headache and have it on the ucd boards or newswire at http://www.ucdsu.net

People reviving discussions that happened two years ago to score points off each other is as boring as fuck,
have you people no critique to offer on where the student mvoement is at the moment, or no valuable contributions to make to it ? Cos fuck knows we need it, but maybe the kind readers of indymedia shoudlnt be subjected to it .

by SPwatch Mon Aug 16, 2004 18:22

It wont be there for long.

by interested Mon Aug 16, 2004 18:18

marc mullholand is republished on the ni sp website, is he back in the party?

http://www.geocities.com/socialistparty/Archive/1990OtBridge.htm

by SPwatch Mon Aug 16, 2004 17:33

I think Shane has already given enough reasons. See above.

I wonder why SPers never reflect on what has happened to so many members of your organisation. Do you not think it strange that Dermot Connolly went so quickly from being your Leader to an Enemy Of The People?

by Labour Watch Mon Aug 16, 2004 17:10

Shane why have you joined the Labour Party?

by karl kautsky Mon Aug 16, 2004 13:16

Spot on Spuppy Spotter. Trotsky was one of the leading advocates of terror - the inventor of War Communism as his acolytes remind us - and would have been no different to Stalin if he had remained in power after 1924. As for the myth that Trotskyism was the main victim of Stalinism that is just plain wrong. Genuine oppositionists made up a tiny proportion of the victims of the Bolsheviks after 1924 and were a far higher proportion between 1917 and 1924 when the Bolsheviks wiped out the anarchists, SRs, Mensheviks and internal oppositionist. I would recommend all Trotskyists to read Solzhenitsyn, Medvedev, Conquest, Volgonikov and others to get a genuine historical view of what actually took place and not rely on the approved works.

by SPuppy SPotter Mon Aug 16, 2004 12:33

"As Kevin well knows there is literally a "river of blood" that separates the struggle of Leon Trotsky and the Russian left opposition against Stalin and the Russian bureaucratic elite that he represented."

And what about the rivers of blood that seperated Trotsky from his Left oponents? Hundreds of thousands of Anarchists and Left Socialist Revolutionaries murdered by Trotskys "Red" Army. Not just in battle, Trotsky was notorious for having prisoners shot afterwards, eg - the thousands of Anarchists shot after the capture of Kronstadt.

Trotsky also ordered the execution of thousands of "Bourgeois" hostages after the attempt on Lenins life.

Trotsky was part of the Russian bureaucratic elite, he called for the militarisation of labour and supported the banning of factions in the Bolshevik party. Eventually the chickens came home to roost and Stalin sidelined Trotsky.

Trotsky was a blood-thirsty Psychopath who would have been no different to Stalin in power.

by david grey Mon Aug 16, 2004 12:23

Who was it that used CFE for internal Labour Party shaftings on McCarthy? Who was it that wound up CFE after being elected? who was it that used the authority of CFE to endorse all sorts of oppurtunists and chancers in SU elections (ie Kitching, Looney..)?

by Conor - SAucd Sun Aug 15, 2004 20:57

I did not say that the Sp have a Narrow, dogmatic monopoly on socialism, just that the “most dogmatic do” - which is, by definition – true. In this thread, my vague critique of the SP was met with what I see as a typical “you’re not a socialist” - “this is socialism” - “get up the yard” string of 3rd rate dogmatic analysis – by an SP member (read back through the posts).

I do indeed have a reasonably similar view on what kind of society I would like to see as you and most other leftists. There are some large differences though - principally to do with power structures and historical/cultural analyses. To get into that would take all day (we still have to have that discussion on “culture”)

There is nothing wrong with having positions and opinions. An opinion is a “personal belief or judgement”. I have no regard for opinions based on beliefs. A judgement is based on the “ability to analyse critically” I will listen respectfully to an opinion based on judgement (even within a belief structure – if Im feeling ultra tolerant).

My problem with the SP (and indeed the SWP) , more specifically many (a majority) of its members is that working from their opinions, I have come to a reasonably sound conclusion (judgement if you will) that their opinions are based on a belief centred on a dozen or so texts, rather than a dialect or analytical judgement. As a result, I am constantly suspicious of their opinions and Party.

I think this poisonous culture of following leadership from campaign to campaign rather than analysing, criticising and acting is mostly the fault of the party structure rather than its individuals. I understand the SP has various forms of democratic accountability to its membership – but so does out capitalist State. The subtleties of interpersonal discourse and internal structures will doubtless be discarded in the reply to this post with the usual response of “anyone can be out leader, therefore we (collectively) do not follow”.

At this stage, I will say that I am a Socialist – not an Anarchist. I have found Anarchist groups and individuals easier to work with during campaigns, than Socialist groups and Parties (including the SP, more prominently the SWP). This is due to the fact that a majority of anarchists do not follow a group / party line, and within a campaign group are more likely to analyse, criticise, and change the nature of the group in a constructive manner, within a progressive set of parameters. This is as a result of the fact that their opinions are more weighted in the judgement/analysis rather than the belief end of the scale.

I don’t think it’s true to say that SP members do listen and discuss with others in a genuine way. I find this “genuine” façade is a front to the appropriation of belief structures so prevalent in (among others) Vatican2, the Cliffites, dogmatic Anarchism, and Trotskyism. Again: Opinions – Beliefs or Judgements?

You have not used campaigns like the SWP – that is true; my initial comment (above) was hasty and vague. My problem with the SP in campaigns is more general. The SP tried to position itself at the front of the CFE campaign in UCD by bannerage/ megaphoneage/ articles in college press, and jumping the gun on the electoral future of that campaign in the students union.

All I have said above should be taken in good faith as appropriate criticism between comrades. I do not wish to detract from the good work done by SP members in campaigns. I think it is a Party with many good people (as is the SWP). I do however think it is a party whose collective opinion lacks depth according to the reasons marked out above.

by f - sp Sun Aug 15, 2004 18:25

Conor,

I think you are wrong to say that the SP have a dogmatic and narrow view of Socialism and I don't think that is your overall personal experience of the SP.

Lets get one thing straight - the SP does not have a monopoly on socialism, yourself, the SWP and many other groups on the left have a more or less common view of socialism, where we all differ is on what tactics and methods will get society to socialism.

I don't see what is wrong with having these differences and defending them, whats the point in having opinions if you are not going to defend them and try to win people to your position. Doing this does not make one dogmatic.Again I think in general SP members do listen and discuss with others in a genuine way.

I would like it if you were to detail the wrongs that we made in campaigns that you were involved in. I acknowledge that we make mistakes but I don't think we abused campaigns like other forces on the left have done in the past. For example I don't think you can credibly call the Anti bin tax campaigns undemocratic recruitment fronts for the SP.

by Conor - SAucd Sun Aug 15, 2004 16:34

Not being a fan of the CWI , their methods (espically in campaigns) or their ideology would indeed imply that I am not in favour of their Ideal Society. The implication that im not a socialist as a result relies on the presumption that the ONLY form of socialism in existance (or not yet....but will someday.....oh YEAH!) is Trotskys/the CWIs. This is false. Only the most dogmatic could BELIEVE rather than THINK this, and im sure most do.

Means define an end- rather than justify it. Means to an END - a poor cover album if ever there were one.

by companero Sun Aug 15, 2004 10:21

Names have nothing to do with trolling, even if no-one has explained to me yet what 'trolls' are.

1. It's the message that matters more than the medium. Sometimes, the very sight of a name will prejudice people from reading further in a message, barring good communication.

Trolls could just invent names to put up frivolous or irrelevant arguments anyway, and who'd know the difference? - Unless they want to know something about your off-line life, or find some blemish or inconsistency in your realtime life.

2. You're proper name can be personated, and even more damage can be done if you are misrepresented in such a way.

3. Inside sources may be in no position to say who they actually are, but may have valuable contributions to make to the discussion.



========================================================================

ON THE SOCIALIST PARTY
paraphrasing the Marx Brothers - i wouldn't join any club that'd have me as a member'.

I've only been in two parties (not counting the initiating FF gatherings of my youth), but including my sojourn with the SWP (from which i was expelled after three months in 1995).

I was a member of the Socialist Party from September 1996 till December 1999. I left because i wasn't a Marxist, and i didn't think the party paid enough attention to the suffering of the victims of ethnic cleansing and (dare i say it) 'genocide' in Bosnia and Kosova.

I began to realise that sometimes, people put one principal above everything else; and the SP principle was a justifiable suspicion of NATO. I had a feeling at the time though, that their expertise on the Balkans issue was coming from Britain and the 'Internationalist' or whatever the paper was called.

This 'crush internal dissent' stuff is not the party i know. Like any club, if you disagree with enough of the fundamentals, you shouldn't be there.

As far as the 'news of the day' or 'media' issues are concerned, most of these won't be debated at the Party conference.

I thought that one person running for Council, i was campaigning for, had her hands tied, because she could not in any way be permitted to sympathise with concerns of local residents in Rathfarnham, on their concerns about the possible location of a second or third halting site in the area. The democratic unity of party policy meant that the people, and many part of the local grassroots of the organization, didn't matter, as far as the SP was concerned on this issue.

Socialist Party is the most genuine/sincere, down-to-earth, practical party there is, and more power to their elbows.

You can't beat the free spirit of not being labelled or tied down, leading or being led by example, or, just coalescing when single issues bring people together.

by dennis tourish Sun Aug 15, 2004 02:02

thanks conor for the link to the indymedia discussion where my views were responded to by an sp member - I did not have this to hand. However, it was part of the wider link I supplied, which has a bunch of material I would commend, including the one you attach so much weight to.

I would point out that the particular link you have supplied is more than a reply to me from the SP member - it stimulated a wide ranging debate, in which I participated. I am happy to leave it to others to judge who made the best points, and whether my interest in this is an obsession, a passing interest or - a useful contribition to debate on the left.

Which ever category it falls into, of course, it is the substance of the argument that matters, rather anyone's mental state. There is a slight tendency on the part of your organisation to imagine that if they can sneer at what they imagine (usually, erroneously) to be someone's personality, then you have disposed of their arguments.

I would respectfully suggest that is never likely to be a convincing position to take,

by . Sat Aug 14, 2004 20:51

Conor does not like the 'desired society' that the SP advocate. So you don't think socialism is a good idea You don't agree with working class people and the oppressed taking owenership and control of the wealth in society? Conor why don't you actually see what the SP actually stand for and why not get involved in campaigns before you offer your great insights.

by Informer Sat Aug 14, 2004 14:08

Did you know that the SP have officially (internally only) declared the bin tax campaign defeated. Now there is openess and transparency for you.

by Conor - SAucd Sat Aug 14, 2004 13:59

Im not a fan of the CWI , their methods (espically in campaigns) their ideology, and desired society, However, it is a group with integrity , unlike the SWP , who have shown their true worth by joining a coalition with religous homophobic reactionaries for the sake of electoral success. I hope the SP will take a broader social analysis, embrace theory, and stop joining campaigns for the sake of recruits and publicity. It has many good people - and it is a socialist group - which is more than can be said for the SWP.

by SP Member Sat Aug 14, 2004 13:58

Just for a bid of balance please refer to a previous discussion on indymedia where a member of the SP more than adequately dealt with Tourish's accusations.

Denis for someone that is gone from the CWI and the left in general for about 20 years you appear to have an enormous interest in the activities of this so called cult. Could your interest be bordering on an obsession? Just wondering.

http://www.indymedia.ie/newswire.php?story_id=60690

by SP member (personal capacity) - Socialist Party Sat Aug 14, 2004 10:08 info at socialistparty dot net

Readers may find it useful to take a look at the origional article.

A regular columnist and Drugs spokesperson for the Scottish Socialist Party, Kevin Williamson, recently penned an article in the SSP's newspaper, the Scottish Socialist Voice (see www.scottishsocialistvoice.net, no. 176 "From Left to Right"). He used his column to launch a concerted attack on some of the basic ideas of Marxism and Trotskyism, and in fact the idea of socialism itself. In this response Philip Stott a member of the Committee for a Workers’ International (CWI) platform of the SSP replies to Kevin Williamson with the aim of...

Defending a Socialist programme
Kevin reveals his position when he says in his article: "Those who see politics purely in terms of capitalism or socialism have yet to make any serious attempt to explain how a controlling class can be prevented from arising to a position of power in a post-capitalist society."
Kevin Williamson heavily implies in these lines that he is looking towards a mythical "third way" - neither capitalism or socialism but something else instead. Without spelling out what he is putting forward, his article is a re-hash of the ideas defended by some on the left in the past that it was possible to reform capitalism into something better or fight for something less than socialist revolutionary change in society.
People putting forward such ideas in the past have used as a justification that socialist revolution would inevitably lead to a dictatorship. But the ideas of Marxism and genuine socialism are even more relevant today than ever before.
As Marx explained capitalism is the ever increasing concentration of wealth into fewer and fewer hands. Today for example the assets of the richest 200 people in the world have more than the combined income of the poorest 2.4 billion people. Half the world’s population live on less than $2 a day.
In the 21st century capitalist governments internationally have embarked on brutal attacks on the past gains of the working class. From pensions to wages, free education to the destruction of public services, the reforms won in the past are being clawed back by the capitalist class.
They have taken to this road because of a crisis in profits. It has led to a whole series of governments internationally, like Blair in Britain and Schroeder in Germany, embarking on a programme of cuts and privatisation.
Of course Marxists support and actively fight to prevent the rolling back of the previous gains of the working class. We also support the struggle for every reform, however temporary, that can be squeezed out of capitalism.
But at the same time the responsibility of Marxists and socialists is to explain that there is no long-term solution to the problems facing working people internationally unless a decisive break is made with capitalism. That's why we support the demand for the public ownership of the multinationals that dominate the economy to be under the democratic control and management of the working class.
We have therefore opposed reformist ideas when they have been put forward by leading SSP members: for example when Tommy Sheridan came out in support of a "mixed economy" i.e. big business existing alongside elements of public ownership it was the CWI who challenged this in the SSP.
The SSP leadership opposed amendments, proposed by members of the SSP and the CWI, for the public ownership of the economy under working class control to be part of the European manifesto of the party, and for the party to support a socialist Europe. Instead the manifesto argued for a "social" Europe.
Yet, despite Kevin Williamson's appeal to the contrary, as the last 150 years, since the writing of the Communist Manifesto by Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels, has proved repeatedly, it is precisely a question of either capitalism or socialism. Or in the situation we face today socialism or barbarism, war and environmental destruction.
Militant and the CWI
By clear inference, Kevin's article also represented a criticism of Militant and the CWI who have defended and updated Marxism and Trotsky's method over many years.
Kevin Williamson, like a number of leading members of the Scottish Socialist Party is a former member of the Militant and the Committee for a Workers' International. They left over fundamental disagreements over the need to continue to defend Marxist ideas and the need to build support for the programme of the CWI. Since then, many of our former members in Scotland have become opponents of Marxism.
Militant was built into the biggest and most powerful Trotskyist organisation in British history with 8,000 members by the late 1980's. We played a central role in the mass battles that erupted between Liverpool City Council and the Thatcher government between 1983 and 1987. We also played a leading role in the anti-poll tax movement that eventually removed Thatcher from power in 1991. Despite the difficult period that has existed for socialists during the 1990's we have maintained a powerful organisation with deep roots among the working class and the trade unions.
Internationally the CWI has made important strides forward in a whole series of countries. We continue to defend the basic principles of Marxism and have refused to succumb to the pressure from capitalist society during the decade of the 1990's to abandon, water down or accommodate our ideas to the propaganda onslaught by the ruling class.
Sadly, the same cannot be said of Kevin Williamson who has broken decisively from Marxism and Trotskyism and is now attacking and denigrating ideas he would have previously defended.
In doing so he is unfortunately resorting to many of the lies and distortions that the opponents of Marxism and socialism have used for decades to undermine support for these ideas amongst the working class.
Kevin begins his article by referring two ex-members of Militant who abandoned Marxism and as a consequence then moved to the right politically, eventually accommodating themselves with the Labour leadership. By giving these examples the author hopes to show that fundamentally all these "Trotsykists" are really interested in is power.
Kevin deliberately ignores the vastly greater number of members of the Militant and the CWI who are or have fought and sacrificed for the cause of socialism and the working class.
Many of our members who were councillors in Liverpool were surcharged and banned from office by the Thatcher government following the city council battle. People like Tony Mulhearn, Harry Smith and Paul Astbury are still active in the Socialist Party in Liverpool to this day.
During the anti-poll tax campaign not only was Tommy Sheridan jailed but more than 20 other members of Militant were also imprisoned including our MP Terry Fields in Liverpool. In Ireland our MP (TD) Joe Higgins and councillor Clare Daly were jailed for a month last year for defying the courts when they refused to comply with a court ruling that instructed them to play no further role in the bin tax campaign of last Autumn and Winter.
There is also the example of the eight SP/CWI members of the PCS civil service union who have recently been elected as part of a broad left leadership by low paid civil service workers, sick of a right wing leadership unprepared to fight the attacks on union members.
All of our members stand, whether in the trade unions or for parliament, on the basis of a workers representative standing on a workers wage. The CWI has been extremely successful in being able to build real roots among the working class in a number of countries including leading mass struggles. Not that you would know that from Kevin’s article.
Stalinism
The capitalist class internationally used the example of Stalinism in the Soviet Union and Eastern Europe to scare workers away genuine socialism by arguing that it leads to dictatorship.
Kevin Williamson unfortunately accuses Marxists and Trotskyists who defend the idea of workers control and management of the economy of: "regurgitating a few glib phrases about accountability and rotation of delegates, this will somehow not end up as the totalitarian nightmare of centralist control that we witnessed in the former Soviet Union, China and Eastern Europe"
As Kevin well knows there is literally a "river of blood" that separates the struggle of Leon Trotsky and the Russian left opposition against Stalin and the Russian bureaucratic elite that he represented.
Trotsky himself, as well as many of his own family were murdered, along with thousands of other Trotskyists who opposed Stalin's policies. They stood for an overthrew of the Stalinist bureaucratic elite and it's replacement with genuine workers democracy under a planned socialist economy.
Stalin saw in Trotsky and his supporters, a mortal enemy, a force that stood on the side of the working class and against the caste of officials and functionaries that had usurped control of the running of the state from the working class.
This was only possible because the Russian Revolution was isolated in an economically underdeveloped, agrarian and war-devastated country.
Both Lenin and Trotsky, the leaders of the Russian revolution, understood that the struggle for socialism had to be an international struggle. Particularly given Russia’s economic backwardness, it was urgent that the revolution spread to the more economically advanced nations like Germany, France and Britain, which could provide resources to assist Russia. When the revolutions in those countries were defeated, due to the lack of a mass party with a clear Marxist leadership, it left Russia isolated.
The Russian working class had achieved miracles, successfully defeating the twenty one capitalist armies that had invaded Russia in an attempt to crush the first workers’ state. However, many of the most active Bolsheviks and thousands of workers were killed and starvation was widespread. Only in these conditions could the Stalinist elite consolidate their grip on the running of the state.
Workers democracy
Perhaps even without realising it, Kevin Williamson is using the arguments of the capitalists and their mouthpieces who have used similar methods in an attempt to show that the working class are incapable of running society and that any attempt to organise to overthrow capitalism will inevitably lead to a new elite taking control.
The idea that the working class can, through elected and representative bodies, take control of the economy and society and organise a democratic plan of production is simply not conceivable to someone like Kevin Williamson.
However, every revolutionary movement has demonstrated the potential of the working class to organise society. In Russia, in the period of both the 1905 and then 1917 revolutions the Soviets or workers councils in Russia were made up of elected representatives from the factories, the army, navy and poor peasantry.
These delegates were accountable, took no extra privileges and were subject to the immediate right of recall and replacement by the workers they represented.
They were established by the working class in the white heat of revolutionary struggle as a conscious expression of their desire to build a new society under their control. It was for this reason that Trotsky described the Soviets as the most democratic form of organisation in human history.
It was the existence of the Bolshevik party, a Marxist party which won the support of the overwhelming majority of the working class in Russia, which was the essential ingredient in the first ever overturn of capitalism.
However, the Bolshevik party campaigned for ‘all power to the Soviets’. The Soviets had massive authority among the working masses and the Russian revolution could not have taken place without the existence of such organisations.
It is not an accident that every revolution since has seen workers committees or councils formed including in the Spanish revolution in the 1930's, the great general strike in France in 1968, Chile in the 1970's, and even in the recent mass revolts against neo-liberalism in Latin America.
Strike action by workers, including the occupations of workplaces for example the UCS work in the 1970's, Timex in Dundee in 1983, Caterpillar in the late 1980's and the Glacier's occupation in Glasgow in the mid 1990's all involved the setting up of strike or occupation committees with delegates and regular mass meetings which organised the struggle.
They were a microcosm of the potential that exists among the working class to run industry and the economy.
At a local, regional, national and international level genuine participation through representative bodies would be essential to draw up a plan of what needs to be produced. In conjunction with the organised working class as a whole and a socialist government, such organisations would form the basis of a truly democratic socialist alternative to the capitalist market.
Given the advances in industry and technique in the relatively modern economies, unlike Russia in 1917 the working class would have ability to play a full role in the building of a socialist society both here in Scotland, throughout Britain and internationally.
Nevertheless the conditions spelt out by Lenin in 1917 in an effort to prevent the rise of a bureaucracy: of all representatives to be accountable, living on the wages of the people they represent, subject to the immediate right of recall and positions to be rotated would still carry their validity today.
The future
Despite the difficulties that characterised the decade of the 1990’s, today we are faced with growing opportunities to reach a new generation who are looking for an alternative to war, poverty and environmental destruction.
What is needed is a determined struggle to build clear socialist ideas into a mass force. That means striving to build a mass party and international based on the working class armed with a programme that calls for a decisive break with capitalism.
It is the ideas, programme, methods and tactics of Marx, Engels. Lenin and Trotsky, based as they are on the historical, and updated for the contemporary, experience of the working class that thousands of the new generation will look to, and not it has to be said, the tired and failed ideas now being reheated and served up by Kevin Williamson.

by Belfast - Northern Ireland Sat Aug 14, 2004 10:04

Thank you for them as I had not seen them before.

by . Sat Aug 14, 2004 08:55

Amongst all the great stuff that appears on indymedia there is some real crap.
Previously on this site the SP have been accused off,

Gun running from Nigeria
Drug dealing
Owning a pub in Dublin
Rigging national elections
Brain washing
Taking donations from Coke

The SP are not alone in receiving this treatment.

It is a fair guess that most of this stuff comes from the hands of politically motivated trolls as the level of stupidity needed to actually believe it is not possible for any normal person.

Enough crap, stop making a laughing stock of indymedia.

by dennis tourish Sat Aug 14, 2004 03:02

There is, thus far, nothing new on this thread, and I do not intend to get bogged down in a repetition of points made in the past. But given that my name has been raised, I would like to offer a reminder.

I have written extensively on the SP's predecessor (Militant/ CWI) and the most lengthy comment I have made on it can be accessed at this link:
http://www.rickross.com/reference/general/general434.html

There have also been previous discussions on the SP in Indymedia. The one in which I was most actively involved , and a very interesting description of what life in the organisation is actually like from former CC member Marc Mulholland (as opposed to what Brian Cahill claims it is like) can be accessed at this link:

http://members.optushome.com.au/spainter/Organising.html

For the curious, or those like Brian who are merely and conveniently amnesiac, there is plenty of information on this latter resource on why I personally left the CWI quite some time ago. Its only significance is that it is the path trodden by anyone with substantive criticisms of either the organisation's politics or internal life. Anyone attempting to seriously address either question ends up in the same position - outside the CWI...

I hope that some of the above links will be useful for some Indymedia readers who might have missed them in the past.

by SPuppy SPotter Fri Aug 13, 2004 19:56

Yes Brian I could name many more who have felt the wrath of the SP/CWI Junta. But why bother? You know the truth. One day you may even fall victim to the SP/CWI internal regime monster yourself.

You may try to comfort yourself with your lis above, but does it really work? Are you genuinely self-deluded? In the past, on Indymedia, you have claimed that SP members have the right to form a tendency/faction whenever they wish. You know thats not true. Dermot Connolly, Joan Collins and others were forced out because no disagreement with the SP Junta is allowed.

by Brian C. Fri Aug 13, 2004 19:44

One of the many problems with arguing with an anonymous troll is that you tend to get every half-witted attack that has ever been launched on your organisation on the newswire regurgitated in lists of poorly understood "crimes".

For the record:

John Throne was kicked out of our American sister organisation by its rank and file because they objected to his behaviour as a leading figure in it. I wasn't a member of the Socialist Party at the time and my interest in the man is only slightly higher than my interest in anonymous trolls. I have no idea when or why Denis Tourish decided to leave Militant, it was more than a decade before I joined. From what I have read of his work, however, I can safely say that we were well rid of him.

Dermot Connolly and Mary Muldowney I do know and I have a lot of respect for both of them. That doesn't mean that I think for a second that either of them were treated harshly by the Socialist Party. Neither made any serious attempt to argue for their political perspectives with the organisation, so claiming that they were victimised for such doesn't hold much water. That they decided to leave is unfortunate but we are a voluntary organisation and if someone doesn't want to be involved that is their business.

Shane I also know slightly and am amused to see his decision to leave the Socialist Party recast in a more "political" light. The problem his branch had with him wasn't his opinions. In fact, the only time I've ever heard a political opinion from him was when he was advocating that we should call ourselves communists more often and use the hammer and sickle as a symbol. How he squares that with joining Rabbitte's party I have no idea. The problem his branch had with him was with his activity levels, or more precisely the absence of them.

So my anonymous friend, why don't you list every single person you can remember who has ever left the Socialist Party and claim that they were "victimised"? I mean in an organisation of a few hundred people that has been around for thirty years, surely you must be able to do better than that? Where is Joan Collins from your list? Or Finn Geaney? Where is Michael Gallagher? Come on, there must be dozens of people you can falsely claim that we "victimised" because they left our party?

Many people do not join a political party forever. Some join and find the level of activity expected is not to their taste. Or they join and after years of effort get disillusioned. That's life, I'm afraid. It doesn't mean I have any less respect for people like Dermot or Mary, but it's not the fault of the Socialist Party. People leave every political organisation, some on good terms, some on bad.

by anon Fri Aug 13, 2004 19:38

This is the same tired boring nonsense thats been trotted out ad nausem before...just one big yawn!

by SPuppy SPotter Fri Aug 13, 2004 19:21

"As far as the particular nonsense on this thread is concerned, well, we've heard it all before. It was rubbish the first time and its rubbish now."

What? The writings of Tourish, Throne, Mullholland, Connolly, Muldowney are rubbish? You are not even fooling yourself. You know that if you disagreed with the SP/CWI leadership and tried to argue your case you would either be expelled or forced out.

Anyway, you havent heard Shanes complaints before so why dont you deal with them? Are you happy with the way he was treated?

by Brian C. Fri Aug 13, 2004 19:16

It's a while since there has been a thread this pointless, bitter and downright stupid on the newswire. That's a good thing, maybe it shows that some of the more infantile regular users of the site are beginning to grow up a bit.

Still, the existence of even one of these threads is a fairly sure sign that we aren't there yet. Anonymous members of political organisations (whether its Labour or Sinn Fein or the SWP or the Socialist Party or anarchists whoever) spewing vitriol at each other is not an example of the newswire at its most attractive. It's unfortunate that some seem to find it impossible to debate with each other without resorting to smears.

As far as the particular nonsense on this thread is concerned, well, we've heard it all before. It was rubbish the first time and its rubbish now.

The Socialist Party is a democratic organisation. We elect our leadership every year and we discuss our decisions in the branches, at aggregates and at our conferences. Disagreements are common as you would expect but arguments are carried out in a largely fraternal manner. tAre we perfect? No of course not. Are we democratic? Yes we are.

I don't expect the anonymous members of other political organisations attacking us on this thread to believe me but their opinion is of precisely no interest to me. I suggest to the various Socialist Party members on this thread though that getting dragged into this kind of crap only makes us look as childish as our axe-grinding anonymous critics.

by SPuppy SPotter Fri Aug 13, 2004 18:56

Khalid have you read Shanes comments? Do you not wonder why the SP do not address them? Why the SP always indulge in diversonary attacks to get the debate away from their internal regime?

When Labour Watch & Tallaght Echo use their real names, I'll use mine. In the meantime the SP have still not addressed the issue of their Stalinist style internal regime.

by Khalid Fri Aug 13, 2004 18:51

You are a troll, if you want to be taken seriously use your real name.

I would not be surprised if you were one of those fools that deliberatly take on various opposing personas in an attempt to stir things up.

by SPuppy SPotter Fri Aug 13, 2004 18:44

Dont let the SP off the hook. This is not the place to discuss the national question. The SP have the right to their opinion on this. Its how they arrived at it that matters.

Concentrate on their internal regime. Make them answer for the way they crush any dissent.

by Khalid Fri Aug 13, 2004 18:21

Padraig can you not see that for Socialists and revolutionaries the crucial question regarding the nation question is whether or not there is socialism. Who cares if there is a united capitalist Ireland or not? Under united or partitioned Ireland, if it is a capitalist ireland we will still have sectarian conflict.

Under a capitalist united Ireland as with a partitioned Ireland there will stil be poverty, exploitation, corruption, declining living standards, taxation injustice, neo liberalism... Under capitalism there will always be sectarianism and discrimination as the ruling class will deliberatly create and whip up divisions in order to divide the working class.

The real enemy of the Irish working class, Protestant and Catholic, is the capitalists and their system. A capitalist united Ireland or capitalist union with the UK is no solution and offers no way out for the working class.

by jude Fri Aug 13, 2004 17:56 judenb at hotmail dot com dublin 00000000000

“This is a serious thread so no trolling or sectarian abuse please”. This is a truly unbelievable statement in the original article given it clear bias against everything SP and the number of sweeping unsupported statements. I normally make a habit of not replying to troll post but I feel that such lies need to be exposed.

First I find it offences the insult the writer pays to the hard work of the anti bin tax movement and the anti war movement in general by imply that these were not “Mass Struggles”. The results off both had a measurable effect on the country as a hold. The anti bin tax through non payment could only but be decide as a mass struggle and not just of the working class. The results of which have force the government into multi million euro propaganda campaign and financially help the poorest parts of your society by saving them from another form of double taxation. I don’t think anybody can deny that the SP played an important part in this movement and for this everybody with a social conscience should at least acknowledge this fact. The size of the part they played is the only thing in question. The other parties that the writer implies are “more democratic” ignore the will of the vast majority of there supports and population at large. Yet some somehow it’s the left and in particular the SP that is danger to democratic process.

The writer goes on to imply that somehow people being more involved in the decisions that effect them will lead to totalitarianism. That “committees, or councils of actions, elected in workplaces and local communities” somehow decrease the democratic process and makes people more acceptable to totalitarianism. I find this hard to believe and it should be noted as fact that the former Soviet Union and China did not have such elected committees. This seen to be more than an attack on the SP but on any person or organization that hold any local democratic values. This is a complete topic and one that I feel deserves not to be butchered by personal assumptions back up by no evidence at all.

The writer goes to great lengths to say what a failure the SP is and yet he’s hold they are a great danger. The writer seems to think that we have to watch out because the SP which has two members will impose the USSR on us. The only lie I think that match this is the “war on terror”.

If the writer of this unjustified article did not write this for party political reasons. I hope that he can ask himself why he wrote such a troll article. The anti bin tax movement was not an academic exercise and help thousands of people with real financial problem. I hope the writer bears this in mind next time. The last line of the article is “Please don’t ruin this thread with sectarian abuse or trolling”, this must have been a joke.



I’m currently not active in any party. I am a socialist but have read only a little trot.

by SPuppy SPotter Fri Aug 13, 2004 17:55

Perhaps your fellow spuppies could tell us about the LP branch meetings and conferences they have attended lately?

SP diisidents over the years from Tourish through Throne to Mulholland on to Connolly and Collins and Muldowney and now Shane Kenna have given us chapter and verse regarding the undemocratic internal life of the SP/CWI.

Now, enough diversion.

Deal with the points that Shane made.

by Padraig Fri Aug 13, 2004 17:51

I recently read an SP propaganda piece about how they had increased their support in the local elections, and that their ideas were getting a platform.

I wonder how people in the working class communites would react to the fact that the SP is oppossed to the reunification of Ireland?

I also read in the reply to the SSP how the Socialist Party have never watered down their policies for electioneering purposes, well I quote this from its website:

"The Socialist Party advocates a socialist Ireland, and a socialist federation of Ireland, Scotland, England and Wales, on a free and equal basis, as part of a socialist federation of Europe

* Working for an agreed settlement on the national question, including tackling issues such as unemployment, poverty and social deprivation throughout Ireland

* The building of a mass workers' party to unite Protestant and Catholic working class people to fight for a socialist solution "

Theres no mention of its opposition to a United Ireland? Funny old thing that.

I pose the question if there were an referendum on a United Ireland tomorrow would the SP publish material calling for a No vote in a referendum, in essence sharing the call with the Orange order and the DUP/UUP etc??

by PT Fri Aug 13, 2004 17:45

This just shows you the sorry state that the SP is in.

A generally good member like Shane leaves the party, because of backstabbing and a lack of democracy, and the SP launch a muddy attack on his past and what he is up to now to divert attention from their despotic internal structure.

I hope people can see for themselves what they are getting themselves into with the Socialist Party.

For the information of some of the SP's the LP is actually a very different party to that of the when the SP leadership hark on about. Grassroots do have a say, there are a number of policy fora and several different party sections to deal with an influence on policy regarding, women, disability, education etc. On top of this members of the LP can freely voice criticism.

by bantam Fri Aug 13, 2004 17:12

So 'SPuppy SPotter ' could you please outline your experience of attending SP branch meetings and conferences. You seem to speak with some authority

by SPuppy SPotter Fri Aug 13, 2004 17:05

"The Labour Party is certainly not a grassroots organisation. It is run by a completely unaccountable leadership that dictates all policy to the party."

That sounds like a description of the SP leadership.

"In the Labour Party, conference is just at best a talking shop and in reality is just seen by the party leadership as an oppurtunity to get a few more minutes in the media. "

Again this is more like the SP conference. Try getting a motion that the Troika disagree with on to the agenda! The otgoing SP NC chooses the incoming NC! This is then "democratically" endorsed by the SP conference.

"The Labour Party is not a party that open to reform from within."

Thats the SP you are talking about. Shane, Joan Collins, Dermot Connolly , Mick Gallagher, Mary Muldowney etc etc. have found this out to their cost.

by Labour watch Fri Aug 13, 2004 16:51

"some opportunity to stay involved in left politics without being clobbered constantly by their party leadership for expressing dissent."

This is a joke. The Labour Party is certainly not a grassroots organisation. It is run by a completely unaccountable leadership that dictates all policy to the party. In the Labour Party, conference is just at best a talking shop and in reality is just seen by the party leadership as an oppurtunity to get a few more minutes in the media. Where is LP policy decided? Is it discussed at length at regular branch meetings? NO! policy is handed down by the parliamentary party which is not elected by the membership and not accountable to the membership. At that it is not even the PLP that decides policy it is those that are close to Rabbite and his cronies.

The Labour Party is not a party that open to reform from within. There is no internal democracy and there is room for an organised socialist voice within the Labour Party, can people remember what happened to the Militant and other socialists within the LP when they started to organise an effective opposition within the LP? The got EXPELLED!

Another thing that is worth noting, the so caled Labour left is not what would have been called left in the past. All these 'lefts' such as those in the universities backed the Blairite Rabbite in the ledership contest, they support social partnership, Nice, coalition government.... The Labour Party is rightly seen by most people in this country as another establishment party - they may get some electoral success in the next election from an 'Anyone by FF-PD mood' but people are not under any illusion that the LP is just anothe establisment right wing neo liberal party albeit with a different face.

by Muck watch Fri Aug 13, 2004 16:48

I think tallaght echo should clarify his links to the SP. Don't you?

by clarify Fri Aug 13, 2004 16:41

I think Shane should clarify his relationship with the Labour Party and with Fianna Fail so that readers can decide what weight they should attach to Shanes comments.

by Peter Hadden Fri Aug 13, 2004 16:39

It's a bit rich for the SP to drive people out of their organisation and then crow when they join Labour. Bad as the LP is, I can understand why people end up there; it does give them some opportunity to stay involved in left politics without being clobbered constantly by their party leadership for expressing dissent. If the SP could only learn a thing or two about democracy, I'd say a lot of reluctant Labour party members would be very happy to join them

by Curious Fri Aug 13, 2004 16:24

SP members are well known for throwing mud and a lot of time it doesn't stick.
Is Shane really a member of the LP?
Sure wan't Kevin McLoughlin, Stephen Boyd et al once members of the Labour Party?

by SPuppy SPotter Fri Aug 13, 2004 16:23

Well why dont you deal with Shane had to say instead of trying to smear him? This is the typical SP tactic, dont deal with the points raised by dissidents. Instead they carry out diversionary attascks.

Well no matter how many red-herrings you let loose here you will not be allowed to avoid the main issue: The Stalinist Style Internal Life Of The SP.

by tallaght echo Fri Aug 13, 2004 16:15

There are a few things that Shane neglected to mention. Firstly he is now a member of the Labour Party secondly Shane has also recently been a brief member of Fiana Fail.

by meme Fri Aug 13, 2004 15:09

'You might also consider yourself fortunate to have had this experience here and now. If you were living in North Korea, or had been in the USSR between 1917 and 1953, you would have been murdered or imprisoned. That might sound like gross exaggeration but it is ture, and millions of revolutionaries have learnt that over the past 80 years.'

He's dead right on that you know, why assume that if a party can not act in a democratic manner within or without its structure, that such behaviour in a period of heightened tension and activity would not logically translate itself into how the party would relate with the working class and other activists. As some one said previously in this thread, Marxists have yet to deal with power, put power and the inherantly undemocratic organisational structures of Leninism together and you have one fine mess.

Stalin did not Fall from the moon.

by MOB fan Fri Aug 13, 2004 13:52

" I had to make sacrifices if i wanted to be a true revolutionary"

Follow the example of MOB.
No job - no seat, that's the type of dedication needed.

by karl kautsky Fri Aug 13, 2004 13:42

Unfortunately they are. Do you think that people who will shun you in the street or call you a "class traitor" would hesitate to denocunce you to the secret police?, or torture you? or kill you? They would not.

by Shane Fri Aug 13, 2004 13:20

The SP are not like that. While I i am very let down by the party, i would NOT go that far and say they would engage in such activity as i know that they would not

I'm not going to say anymore on this thread.

by karl kautsky Fri Aug 13, 2004 13:12

Your experience unfortunately is not unique. How others, like the German CWI comrade, can therefore divorce internal party life from what socialism might be like, is beyond me. The whole point of undemocratic and totalitarian party organisation - which is common to ALL marxist organisations - is inevitably replicated within the power structures of the revolution.

You might also consider yourself fortunate to have had this experience here and now. If you were living in North Korea, or had been in the USSR between 1917 and 1953, you would have been murdered or imprisoned. That might sound like gross exaggeration but it is ture, and millions of revolutionaries have learnt that over the past 80 years.

by Shane Fri Aug 13, 2004 12:58

As another dissident, I find the comment from the German Cwi Comrade on Democratic Centralism quite Naive and idealistic.

Democratic Centralism or "Democractic Unity" which the SP calls it is one of the most undemocratic methods empolyed by a political party in the modern age.

In theory, Democratic Criticism allows for internal argument and while party members were bound to carry out a policy upon its adoption, there is the ability to engage in a democratic input inside the party.

That of course is theory. Look at the reality, should any significant number of "comrades" oppose the policy, they would be looked on as "Reformist", "disloyal" "Class trators" etc, and the party apparatus would move against them or to "Re-educate them."

During my time in the SP, I built up friendships and bonds, however of these friendships only a few have not frozen me out since I left. In the time that I left I have been ignored on the street by some SP members, I and have had my name blackened as a "Class Tratior."

Why did I leave the Socialist Party? Three months before the Local elections, I was told I was no longer welcome at my party branch meetings, by a member of the branch, this comment had come through the local party representative. The reason for this was that I had made it clear that I couldnt campaign for his election due to approaching exams.

The following day I contacted the party representative who made it clear I wasnt welcome and I have been told that he refused to contact me back.

Arising form this I alerted a senior party official that I was resigning from the Party, at which time I agreed to meet him for a discussion.

I was very surprised from what I heard in the discussion, excuses were made for the Party Representative. The old party line that "you can only do as much as you can" was dropped. I was told in no uncertain terms that

" I had to make sacrifices if i wanted to be a true revolutionary"

By this stage I began to think I strongly wanted out of the Socialist Party. I was told on from this that my exams didnt matter, I could repeat college at anytime in the future if I failed. This ignored the fact that College is expensive and I could in no means afford to go back.

Confused I agreed to return to the "Fold" which I did in Socialist Youth due to the friendships I had with some members. I still had doubts about the Party and stayed away from it, but had decided to do branch work every forthnight. But this was a wrong decision, why should I stay woth a party which has no interest in my life? So I left, I couldnt take any more of it.

The internal bitching, the undemocratic nature and the way I was treated got the better of me and looking back this was no surprise.

For example Socialist Youth is an absolute disgrace and an organisational mess. The party bosses would agree with me on that. Allow me to give you two examples from my experience of its undemocratic nature.

Firstly the organisation hasnt had a conference in two years.

I abstained from the second conference, because of how I felt the organisation was being run, however i was invited to put forward motions, which I did.

I had put forward a motion calling for the rights of Travellers and the homeless to be imporved from what I can remember. The motion was, as one would expect passed, however to my surprise I found out that the motion I put forward had been edited by a then senior comrade, to this day I dont know what I wrote.

Thirdly some people might remember, the scheduled visit of Tony Wentworth of the Young BNP to TCD. I alerted the Party and the Youth of this fact. In College a group of students, myself included had organised a seperate campaign among all interested parties in trying to stop Wentworth from having a platform. In this group I represented the SP, other groups included Sinn Fein, the Socialist Workers, RAR, and a number of independent graduates.

Outside the college the SP had organised a seperate movement to stop the BNP having a platform at the college Phil society. To cut a long story short, I was arrived at the Socialist Party centre one saturday, and to my amazement saw that details of the protest to stop the BNP were already planned, posters were already prepared, I as the SP member in the college campaign hadn't even been informed of the decision.

The SP had no knowledge of the situation, regarding the Wentworth meeting. Had the meeting have gone ahead it would have done so at 8pm, the SP had decided to hold a protest at 4. I made my opposition to this clear and argued I should have been informed, and that it was too elarly to have the protest I was ignored.

I'll leave it at that, I hopeI have not offended the few friends i have left in the SP. This was not and will never be my purpose.

by ;-) - it's the socialist litter tray isn't it? Fri Aug 13, 2004 00:44

do I still get greetings for reading your little comment?

by soviet_1917 - cwi member Fri Aug 13, 2004 00:16

a revolutionary party is not supposed to be a socialist mini-society. the organisation looks different from a possible future society, because the aim is not to make socialism inside the party that acts inside a capitalist society, but to find the best way to destroy the capitalist system. the party is the tool, while socialism is the end.
i don´t say that the end justifies the means, but that you have to look at them seperately.
a socialist society doesn´t have to be organized with democratic centralism. that even would be counterproductive, as you have seen in the stalinist regimes. in this case you had a small clique that tried to manage the whole economy, but they just couldn´t overlook everything, so they made mistakes in their plans.
but democratic centralism can be necessary now, because our enemy is armed with a very good organized, and strongly centralised weapon: the state.
how do you think can we fight it? by building our own small socialist communes and do that so long until there is nomore capitalism?
look how a strike is organised: the workers vote, and if the majority is in favour of a strike, all the workers have to strike. if you don´t strike, you´re a strike breaker. but if you strike when all the others want to work on you can put all the other workers in a very dangerous situation. so, all the workers do what the majority voted for. basically, that´s democratic centralism.
well, i have to fo to bed now.
greetings from germany to all the comrades

by SP Member Thu Aug 12, 2004 20:08

A couple of sideswipes at the SP could hardly be considered a critique John. A critque should and usually does include a detailed investigation and analysis of all or a specific aspect of a particular topic. Copying and pasting a couple of short quotes from two articles hardly comprises a critique. If you want a serious and considered response to any topic posed you really are going to have to put in a bit more work than the 15 seconds it took to come up with this stuff.

by hs - sp Thu Aug 12, 2004 19:34

...I think everyone has to keep their feet on the ground and actualy listen to what people are saying, the fact is at the moment in ireland the left is very weak and has very little support. Idelogical arguments alone will not win people to socialism, whether its socialist or anarchist, the moral argument alone won't do it. And politics cannot be ignored either, including elections. The only party hard left party in ireland that puts action, idelology together and wins actual support (small as it is) is the socialist party.

All the better to have a multi tendecy bigger socialist party, but that will only happen when we've a few groups like the sp, say if the swp or the isn won more support or if joan collins builds something around her election win. But i honestly can't see the swp and sp getting together before the swp win some support and drop the blind optimism.

on the plus side I left ireland 4 years ago and the left was completely non existent, getting 100 people on marchs etc, i returned a few weeks ago and the left is existent, not huge or mass or anything but definitely moved forward somewhat.

by hs - sp Thu Aug 12, 2004 19:14

not really hebe, i am answering the question of the sp being in decline over the last decade or so, as john said. A decade ago there was one counciller, now theres four and a td. Now i'm not claiming its a new mass party, i'm not claiming its a new mass movement. I'm just pointing out the sp in ireland hasn't lost everything over the last decade. Its in fact gained. How many people had heard of militant? how many people have heard of the sp? In blanchardstown where i'm from, the sp is known by everyone and supported like an actual party (rather thean little revolutionary group no ones heard of). Imagine what some others on the left would say if they one 4 cllrs and a td!!!! we'd have a time and date for the revolution already, within weeks cmds!!!! But if you want to look at it concretely, the sp have built up a lasting base and is putting down roots. The last election showed that. Its slow but against the biggest boom in irish history and the rise of sf, its not so bad. but the sp never has claimed the revolution is round the corner or its a big party (just it would like to be)

if you want to talk about the english sp, there was the split form labour and the split with ted grant, then the ussr collapsing. lots and lots of reasons (but the whole of the left was wiped out). as far as i can see the sp in england and wales stayed in labour just a little too long, (They were still inside during the poll tax) where the sp in ireland left in time for the water charges. (but thats before i joined so i can't really be sure)

by Hebe Thu Aug 12, 2004 18:57

You are usually more honest than this. You must know that at one stage the CWI had approx 100 members in the North. The sP gained 2 council seats but these candidates had been trying for years. In the the SP heartland of Fingal you did not gain seats. In Malahide ward the SP have 1 seat, Labour have 2. In Mulhuddart the SP have 1 seat, LP 1, SF 1. In Fingal it was SF and the Greens who made gains.

by hs - sp Thu Aug 12, 2004 18:53

As long as I've known the sp its never had more than a few hundred members. People in the labour party buying the old paper hardly count. Now the sp has a couple of hundred members, a td and 4 elected councillers with actual support bases in north and west dublin. (as in different candidates in the area getting votes on the party name) Hardly a revolution, but not excatly a decline either. The left I think does need to open up and unite, but it's critics too must look at reality rather than what you'd like it to be. To say the sp in ireland is in decline after they got 5.5% in dublin is not really facing up to the truth.
The ssp have shown what is possible though.

But thats not going to happen until people start to look at reality, when RBB said 1 million would march against bush and then only a few days ago the cork group of swpers tried to get the confederate flag banned from the cork gaa stadium, you can't really blame people for not joining forces. its embarrassing. The same as the slogan "one solution revolution" I mean what does that mean!!!

i'm presuming by your style of critisim you're in the swp. if you're not sorry but its your own fault for not telling us your own beliefs. (very one sided debate, no?)

Sometimes when reading the swp points on unity it seems like the left in ireland only has to say the word and we'll be winning seats left right and centre, ignoring sf for one thing, kind of like the million man march, respect votes etc

Probably it will be down to others outside the swp and sp to get the ball rolling. Its a shame but thats the way it is.

On the poing of people leaving and becoming right wingers, find a party of any half decent size (communist anarcist or socialist) and this will be the case. You probably didn't notice the right ward drift of society over the last two decades, pretty easy to see it though if you just open your eyes. that reality thing again. On the plus side the party itself remained socialist, unlike many others over the same period.

One more last point, because often someone will write something, i'll answer and then i'll be called sectarian authorian or something else because I disagree with the persons analysis, just to get in ahead. it's not that, i just don't agree with you.

by karl kautsky Thu Aug 12, 2004 17:48

As the poster states, Marxists do need to examine the whole issue of power as there is very little indication that they have learnt anything from the awful lessons of the past. They refuse to abandon undemocratic methods of organisation and still cling to concepts such as the dictatorship of the proletariat that were the excuse for totalitarianism.

by Hebe Thu Aug 12, 2004 16:39

Unfortunately the SP are incapable of accepting criticism. This is all too obvious from the comment above, which fools no one. I wonder which one of the evil twins posted it?

It is high time for the SP/CWI to undergo some self appraisal. In Britain the SP/CWI is down from 8,000 to a couple of hundred members. In Ireland their membership has picked up again in the South but in the North they would scarcely have 2 score members even on paper.

by RED BHOY Thu Aug 12, 2004 16:27

Can you blame these activists?? The people they try to defend are basically monkeys who cant see the bigger picture! So they jumped ship and started looking after their own interests!

by C sna C Thu Aug 12, 2004 16:17

I'm not in SP or anything but your obliviousness to the hypocrisy of calling for no sectarian abuse in reply to your sectarianism is worthy of a trolling right-winger 5to sample a few;
"the absolute fancefullness (sic) of the Socialist Party."
"SP couldnt gather over 100 demonstrators at any demonstration"

Are you for real? SWP? New Republic? Throwback? What?