New Socialist Voice

by Cult Watch Wed Sep 08, 2004 17:08

"Cultwatch never addressed the notion that struggle necessitates privations big and small be it time, energy or material comfort. Is his definition of a cult so broad that anybody who doesn't solely focus on their own material advancement is cultish."

Indeed. But cults fetishise the sacrifices. People have to give big chunks of their salary to the Cult. In the SP it has to be said thgat the Swamis themselves live an austere lifestyle. They are badly paid. Even the Head Swami KML would be paid no more than anyother fulltimer.

The point is that the majority of ordinary people and the majority of sane political activists have another life in the real world. They will make sacrifices to advance their own families and to help friends, even to win a strike. They wont do so to build a cult.

As for Clare Daly, I think CWW is protesting too much. I reckon the SP Swamis have already decided that Clare will take redundancy. That way Clare will be working fulltime to be elected and she will (like a good devotee) hand over her €40,000 redundancy check to the SP Swamis for the greater glory of the SP Cult.

by pat c Tue Sep 07, 2004 15:12

I wanted something rempely drinkable.

by Historian Mon Sep 06, 2004 17:41

Isn't that what the CWI said in Scotland?

by R. Isible Sun Sep 05, 2004 22:06

No ice or tonic water I think Pat. Something more like vodka and ouzo with a squeeze of lime in a tall glass with a twisted paper napkin hanging out the top?

by pat c Sun Sep 05, 2004 15:56

Did anyone ever come up with a drinkable Molotov Cocktail? What would you mix in?

How about lime juice, tonic water, crushed ice, vodka, black rum, port, and a dash of peach schnaps?

by R. Isible Sat Sep 04, 2004 20:53

Although I do like the idea of a Winner-Takes-All Dialectical Mud Slinging and Wrestling Competition. We could stage it as an Indymedia fund-raiser.

by hs - sp Sat Sep 04, 2004 18:21

lets finally settle it all with some sect olympics,

trot boxing (with two red corners obviously)
the jargon marathon
high moral ground jumping (anarchist speciality)
cycling (critical mass step forward)
molotov throwing (take the shinners out of retirement)
karate (black block nijas please)
dissident throwing (out)
and of course our own irish invention
faction fighting.

by Badman Sat Sep 04, 2004 01:53

"The day any member of the SWP comes on this site and writes about fellow socialists in the same manner is the day I leave the left for good."

So how many years ago did you leave the left then?

Brian, for all his faults, has a clue about politics. Anybody who is familiar with trolling patterns on this site (and you're currently reading the words of _the_ authority) will agree with his analysis. Probability 90% SF 9.9% LP, 0.1% ANOTHER. Anarchists enjoy trot-boxing and have been sitting on the sidelines munching popcorn, but to think we'd participate is the height of lunacy.

by Dub swp - SWP Sat Sep 04, 2004 00:07 Dublin

Brian brian.Just read this tread and yes I agree with the last comment of yourse, hard to believe that anyone would answer such dreadful nonsence.
Funny enought I thought that at the start of your sectrian rant about my org. Lesson is if your content to publish the self agrandising drivel you put here about your party and how bad the swp are you are only inviting all sorts of lunitics to contribute. I hope for Christ sakes that you dont actually believe half of the guff you wrote. But I fear the worst.
The day any member of the SWP comes on this site and writes about fellow socialists in the same manner is the day I leave the left for good.

by guess Fri Sep 03, 2004 22:27

Brian C. I wouldn't be surprised if our cult watcher guy is from the millieu of the Belfield Anarchists

by Curious about cultwatch Fri Sep 03, 2004 17:51

Cultwatch never addressed the notion that struggle necessitates privations big and small be it time, energy or material comfort. Is his definition of a cult so broad that anybody who doesn't solely focus on their own material advancement is cultish.

by Brian C. Fri Sep 03, 2004 17:50

Is there any reason why people are indulging this particularly crass troll with sensible answers? Just feeling bored today?

It isn't as if he is actually interested in the truth of any of the issues he raises. It also isn't as if he is coherent enough or plausible enough to mislead anyone who doesn't know better. It's just standard issue anonymous bile.

The only amusement value he presents is in trying to guess which particular political organisation he is a member of. Earlier in the thread we had someone who was almost certainly in the SWP. This lad is no sharper than the last anonymous troll, but he is raising the same inaccurate stuff about how we expected to do in the local elections as some Provo was recently. Sinn Fein or maybe Labour?

by Swami watch Fri Sep 03, 2004 17:42

"I think the ruling Swamis are SB, KMcL, MM (not the Cllr) and of course on a higher plane, PH."

Delusions abound. Not even the SP would have SB as a ruler.
He's the enforcer. Hard to believe as he's about as frightening as a gummy poodle but it says a lot about SP members that he seems to have an impact.

by CWW Fri Sep 03, 2004 17:36

The SP did make gains in Fingal though unfortunatly not enough to bring them more seats. They ran 7 candidates in five of the six wards compared to 5 candidates in four wards in 1999. Their vote in 1999 in Fingal was around 3,200 in 2004 it was 7,500 though the turnout was admittedly higher.

Your remarks about Clare and redundancy are beneath contempt. The SP can't win in your eyes - if Clare takes redundancy (which she won't) Cult watch or someother Labour hack would be quick to call her a sell out. However if she loses her job and get statutory redundancy it will case of her being painted the victim of a cult like her comrade MO'B.

They way you threw in that remark about Clare really shows you up for what you are Cultwatcher

by CW Fri Sep 03, 2004 17:26

Prior to the local elections the SP were raving about the gains they were going to make in Fingal. They made no gains. Clare Daly will not be elected to the Dail in the next election.

Is Clare going to take redundancy from Aer Lingus so that she can work full time at being a public representative?

by CWW Fri Sep 03, 2004 17:21

Even the capitalist press rated Clare as being in with a shout during the last general election in 2002 when her previous highest vote at that stage was 2,900 and she got the third seat out of five in the 1999 local elections with 1,200 votes.

As it transpired she got 5,500 votes despite a national swing to FF and subsequently reelected to the council, topping
the poll with 2,700 votes and 400+ for MO'B in the same ward.

You obviously don't live in the north county, hence the mistakes you free admit to. Therefore your talk of "dream on" is really based on nothing. Of course future events can make Clare's election more likely or less likely but you seem too ill informed to be taken seriously in your predictions

BTW This "troika" is a moveable feast. It seems to alter in makeup to suit each thread of anti SP abuse.

by Cultwatcher watcher Fri Sep 03, 2004 17:06

Steady on cultwatcher, your overuse of the word cult will have you tounge tied.

For your info an effort was made to manage the vote but it didn't come off. Sinn Fein had similar problems where they ran two candidates their better known sitting candidate far far outpolled the second candidate.

In terms of the Swords ward the same councillors were returned as last time ie Labour already had two in Swords. They already had one in Malahide and Balbriggan too. Local and Dail Elections don't always correspond. Sure Fine Gael had and continue to have three councillors in the North County and yet they lost their Dail seat.

Similarly the Greens had only one Councillor when Sargeant topped the poll. Clare's vote and share of the vote has been contiually on the up and she will poll well across the constituency. Ryan has indicated he won't run for Labour. None of the sitting Labour councillors in the North County would have the same constituency wide profile as Clare.

My prediction for Dublin North in the next general election would be 1GP, 1FF, 1 SP and FG and Lab who will be fielding new candidates on similar programmes to fight it out for the last seat.

by CW Fri Sep 03, 2004 16:54

I dont think MO'B ever was a member of the Troika. I think the ruling Swamis are SB, KMcL, MM (not the Cllr) and of course on a higher plane, PH.

by Cult Watcher Fri Sep 03, 2004 16:47

"1) MO'B was Clare Daly's running mate in the SWORDS ward not Malahide."

Even I make mistakes. I am not perfect like you Cultists.

"2) The SP polled 3,200 votes in Swords which in most local elections would be enough for two seats but the high turnout prevented this. A vote of 433 for MO'B in the context of a strong running mate is hardly derisory"

Due to your Cultist method of organisation you are incapable of managing your vote. Any normal party would have split up the Ward and asked voters in certain areas to vote number one for MO'B.

"3) The size of Daly's vote indicates that she will win a Dail seat in which case her council seat will have to be passed on to another member ie MO'B. Better if that member has had some electoral exposure."

It must be great to have a crystal ball! It indicates no such thing. The SP made no gains in Fingal. The Greens gained 2 seats and Sinn Fein gained a seat. The gains by the Greens were in the Dublin North part of Fingal. Labour have 2 seats in Swords to the SPs one.

In the Dublin North Area of Fingal Labour have 4 seats and the Green Party have 3 seats. The SP have 1 seat. You are a true optimist if you think Daly is going to win a Dail seat.


"4) MO'B has a new job"

I am truly glad to hear this. I hope he doesnt have to give too much of his salary to the Cult.

by Curious Fri Sep 03, 2004 16:26

Don't quite agree with Cultwatcher. If MO'B is part of the so called Troika along with Kevin and Stevie well then how can he be the subject of manipulation at the hands of leadership to which he belongs himself.

by PSEUdo union Fri Sep 03, 2004 16:18

1) MO'B was Clare Daly's running mate in the SWORDS ward not Malahide.
2) The SP polled 3,200 votes in Swords which in most local elections would be enough for two seats but the high turnout prevented this. A vote of 433 for MO'B in the context of a strong running mate is hardly derisory
3) The size of Daly's vote indicates that she will win a Dail seat in which case her council seat will have to be passed on to another member ie MO'B. Better if that member has had some electoral exposure.
4) MO'B has a new job
5) MO'B and the SP are not unique in the matter of jobs being lost. All sorts of sacrafices have been made by people the world over for principles, lost jobs, lost lives etc, do they all belong to cults??? Are militant trade unionists who are sacked victims of a union cult??

Who knows maybe cynical Cultwatcher might someday find something worth making a stand over. Don't hold your breath though.

by Cult Watcher Fri Sep 03, 2004 16:01

The SP have hard working dedicated members in the Unions, their actions are a credit to them and by extension to the SP. But this is true of many Cults, they send out their members to make an impact to try and attract more members and finances and further build the Cult and inflate the Egos of the Swamis at the apex of the Cult.

Look at what the SP have done to MO'B. They got him to resign his job to stand for election to the Council. He never had a chance of winning a seat. The pitiful vote he received shows that. Only in the fevered imaginations of the Cult leaders could the SP have won a second seat in Malahide. It was the Labour Party which secured 2 seats in the Malahide Ward.

Now MO'B is left with no job and no Council seat. Another victim of the Megalomania of the SP/CWI Cult.

by PSEUdo Union - Dept of Education Fri Sep 03, 2004 14:11

I asked MO'B at the time and he described the guy as "some prick from Revenue in Cork". MO'B guessed he had Guards in the family or whatever and passed it off as handbag stuff. Anyway a lot of booze was taken.

Other hilarious drunken exchanges included Tom Geraghty (nephew of Des) claiming that cops attacking pickets was the stuff of 50 years ago AND Dan Murphy telling MO'B that he should have more sense than to be aping Pat C and the indymedia shower!

So there you have it IM is read by everybody from Ministers of "Justice" to right wing cop loving union bureaucrats!

by pat c Fri Sep 03, 2004 11:26

If threats were made, it should be followed up. Name them! Lemme at dem!

I remember that dust up. Colgan got the worse of it. As well as the damage M'OB inflicted on him, Colgan also had a busted hand. M'OB has a hard head!

by Pat C admirer Fri Sep 03, 2004 11:18

You didn't get any threats Pat, you're a hefty fellow.,Though I recall O'Brien mixing it with Maurice Colgan from Youth Defence in UCD years ago.

by pat c Thu Sep 02, 2004 18:28

I certainly bear M'OB no grudges. Fair dues to him in what he did and the others who carry on the Sisyphusian task of fighting the system in the PSEU. I just got tired of it myself and felt my efforts and time would be better spent elsewhere.

I remember when I was the only person ever to get up at an ADC to oppose the ratification of Dan Murphy as Gen Sec of the Pseu (hes been in the job since 1968!). I also got a lot of abuse. But not physical threats. If M'OB was threatened over opposing Maybury then the names of those who issued the threats should be made public. Even make a complaint to the Garda! No joke meant. If the Garda took no action then it would be a handy thing for Joe Higgins to raise by waty of a Dail Question.

Its criminal that M'OB had to resign from his job to contest election to Fingal Council. It sharply illustrates how civil servants are denied full civil rights.

I'm not full au fait with the situation in NIPSA but people often disagree on tactics. An allout strike isnt always the best option at the start. Maybe it was in this case but hindsight is a perfect science.

I've defended Jim Barbour of the FBU in the past when hes come under attack here. I still believe that he is a class fighter.

The left lost this round in the CPSU but they havent gone away you know. I would be surprised if the SP members in the CPSU had failed to campaign for a no vote.

I still have a lot of differences with the SP but just needed to clarify my position on the above matters.

by Avid Reader Thu Sep 02, 2004 17:59

A SP member who can use the word ex. And what's more they used it twice.
Perhaps only the editor of the Vice has a problem with the word ex. particulary in relation to Joan Collins.

by PSEU union head - Dept of Education Thu Sep 02, 2004 17:09

During my ramble I didn't notice that Sectwatch's posting was removed!

by PSEUdo union - Dept of Education Thu Sep 02, 2004 17:06

He is making a sly reference to MO'B who had to resign from the service in order to have his nomination for the local elections accepted. Anybody who is acquainted with him knows that rather than it being a "party before union" easy choice, it was a hard decision. Anyway there are lots of other things besides unions (important though they are) for an activist to get stuck into. Besides from my last conversation with him he is now a member of IMPACT in his new job, a union that could do with a few more lefties.

Left activists remain in the PSEU range from SP members like AMOC (ex ISN) and Pat W and SWPers like Alice and Aoife, ex IWGers like Bernadette and others with no party or group alignment like Dearbhla, Cathal and John R who is on the Executive.

Life goes on in the PSEU though it has never been a particularly fruitful but MO'B made a decent stab at it in the four or so years and in the context of talk of left co-operation I can only recall Pat C ever having a beef with him over anything and even then I don't think there are any grudges held.

And before anybody mentions the appointment of George Maybury I can testify that at this years ADC MO'B got up and opposed his ratification and got verbals and threats of violence from certain quarters for his trouble.

Of course results are what matter at the end of the day when it comes to activity in the unions, but sometimes even the best efforts and intentions don't yield the outcome we want. By the logic of some of the idiots on this site the lefties who try the hardest are to blame for the state of the unions.

by Brian C. Thu Sep 02, 2004 15:39

It really is amazing me how some people, from a range of different political backgrounds think that if they adopt a vaguely neutral sounding alias then the wildly partisan nature of their comments won't be obvious. Watcher is 95% likely to be a member of the SWP, stung by dismissive remarks in this thread but lacking the honesty to say it openly. Come on Watcher, show some dignity!

In case anyone is misled by Watcher's anonymous vitriol, he can even have one brief answer. Socialist Party members have been central to the creation of the two strongest left groups in any Irish trade unions, the CPSU Activist and the Time for Change group in NIPSA.

These are left groups that are the envy of left activists in other unions in Ireland and they have both managed to put the union right wing on the defensive. In NIPSA, Time for Change came out of the biggest trade union dispute the North had seen for years, when SP members and others led the term time workers to victory. The CPSU Activist has been the result of years of work in that union.

Both unions however are still run by the right wing bureaucracy, with the left as a significant and organised opposition. In NIPSA, Time for Change has argued and called for an escalation of the industrial action throughout the current dispute despite the bizarre slurs spread recently on this site by SWP supporters. There is now a ballot on all out industrial action.

In the CPSU, the Activist group was in large part responsible for getting a No vote to the first section of the most recent partnership deal. Unfortunately, the right wing managed to regroup and get a Yes vote to the second part.

The slurs Watcher seeks to spread about SP members in the FBU are quite inexplicable. For those who don't know what was happening, the employers were refusing to pay money owed to firefighters in the wake of the defeat of the last strike. Serious industrial action was on the cards again, but the employers backed down removing the immediate cause of action.

I have no doubt that yet more anonymous slurs, distortions and lies will follow, but I'm not going to be dragged off the topic of this thread.

by Watcher Thu Sep 02, 2004 14:28

"It's what our members are doing in NIPSA and the FBU and the CPSU "

What exactly is Brian on about here, lately the SP havent done much in the FBU other than acquiesce in the acceptance of the latest sell out deal. In NIPSA the SP have sapped the militancy of the rank & file through a series of small scale actions. Worse of all in the CPSU the SP didnt even run a campaign for a no vote in Sustaining Progress. This resulted in more than 60% of CPSU members voting in favour of the deal.

All in all this is hardly a record to be proud of.

by Brian C. Wed Sep 01, 2004 21:21

Thanks for that contribution, Colm. It is good to see a degree of agreement around the idea that there is currently no basis for either a new workers party or a workable socialist alliance.

I do of course recognise that others outside the ranks of the Socialist Party are also involved in the kind of day to day activism that I am talking about. If that were not the case, if it really was a case of ourselves alone, then we would all be in real trouble.

I presume that Colm would acknowledge that such a description doesn't fit all of the left however. There are significant sections of what we call "the left" who in my view do more harm than good in much of their political activity.

That's a real problem with a concept as amorphous as "cooperation on the left". It sounds as obviously good as loving your family and tending to the sick but without context the notion is so vague as to be nearly meaningless. Every proposal is concrete. Who exactly are we talking about as "the left"? What kind of cooperation exactly are we talking about? And to what end?

The forces represented at the meeting are a very mixed bag and even then are only a subset of the whole Irish left. Some of these people we have had success cooperating with in the past. Others we have had much less pleasant and useful experiences with. To attempt a general coordination of activities with, say the SWP or the united communities people, would not in my view be a sign of open mindedness, it would be a sign of an inability to learn from experience.

by Colm Breathnach - ISN personal capacity Wed Sep 01, 2004 20:09

As one person who attended the meeting under discussion, I'd like to make a few observations:

As far as I can recollect nobody at the meeting suggested that a left alliance or new workers party should be launched any time soon. What was on the table as far as I understand was how the left might cooperate/coordinate in a better way than in the past.

Even the SWP representatives, who are generally the ones most eager to set up a formal alliance, were quite restrained in their proposals, simply arguing for a broader meeting in the future. To be fair to the SP reps they only put forward their party's position that the conditions do not exist at the moment for a broad party of the working class.

My own view on this is quite clear: It is obvious that conditions do not exist for a new party of the working class. It is also quite likely that a formal alliance of the left would not work at the moment. So where does this leave us?

A new party can't be conjured out of the sky, but neither will it just appear when the conditions are right. So we need to constantly put forward the proposition that the working class needs a party that represents its interests. We also have a responsibility to debate what such a party might look like, how it might be organised, its priciples and programme. Secondly a greater degree of cooperation (as opposed to a formal alliance) between left groups is desirable even if only to avoid duplication, to head off sectarian conflicts and attract more working people to the left as a whole. This in my view is what we can reach through the current discussions.

Of course this does not mean that any old structure will do or that such cooperation always works. To take a negative example: the ISN pulled out of the IAWM after a long struggle because it was hopelessly compromised by the manner in which the SWP operated at its helm. But this did not lead us to an isolationist position nor did it preclude us from cooperating with the SWP again. What we did conclude is that cooperation with other left groups should be on an open and democratic basis right from the start. As Brian knows cooperation does not mean assimilation: for example the ISN actively worked for Clare Daly, the SP canidiate in Dublin North in the last general election, despite a fairly wide difference of position on how a socialist party should be organised internally.
Finally, when it boils down to it my only real quibble with Brian on this issue is the fact that he proposes no steps towards greater cooperation on the left and his suggestion for moving towards a new party of the working class is to get involved in day to day activism which, I am sure he would accept, is not the preserve of the SP, as the ISN and many others on the left are heavily involved in a range of grassroots activity.

by Brian C Wed Sep 01, 2004 19:35

> Don't worry about the attendace of the SWP > thats beyond your control, rather, look at
> the poor attendance from the SP two
> members, something you could have had > a say in.

Rory, if the Socialist Party decides to send representatives to a meeting we decide who to send, not whoever called the meeting. The Socialist Party is a political party, if you want to negotiate something with us you should contact us as an organisation.

> What the article does is rubbish the idea of > left unity by citing former attempts to build
> unity thats unfortunate because the SP are > convinced its doomed before it even
> develops.

The examples are very real ones of "left unity" initiatives that did more harm than good. It could have mentioned the Irish Socialist Alliance and the RESPECT Coalition while it was at it.

The article explained that we do not think there is the basis for a socialist alliance here at the moment. We don't think it would be a step towards a new workers party. We don't think it would make our activity more effective.

That does not mean that we would be against broader structures in any circumstances, or even against initiating such structures ourselves. If such a formation would involve much wider forces, new people, then it would be a step forward. So where are these new forces?

> You have to get over your past with the
> SWP. they were not the only group at the
> meeting.

They were the only group other than ourselves with significantly more than a dozen activists. This makes them one of the two main components of any of the would-be alliances being discussed.

If you want us or anyone else to ally with them, you will have to mount a more convincing argument than trying your best not to mention them. You can't propose an alliance featuring the SWP as our chief partners but not want to discuss the problems that come along with trying to work with them.

> Everyone agrees a broad left party is a
> great idea but no-one is willing to initiate a > project to develop one.

You responded to a point about a broad left paper with a point about a broad left party, which I presume was a typo. When I said I think a broad left paper was a nice idea that does not mean that I think it should be a priority of ours. I think that a left run meeting hall would a great idea too, but I don't think it is a practical priority either.

I addressed a whole series of questions to you about what kind of paper you are talking about and didn't get any reply, which leads me to suspect your seriousness on this issue.

> You're right, its very vague considering
> there was one meeting (about two hours)
> not a lot of time for people to express or
> formulate any specific outcomes.

Presumably the main movers of this initiative have their own ideas about what they want to see emerge. Presumably you do too. What is it that you, yourself, want to see happen?

by The Mekon Wed Sep 01, 2004 18:13

Brian C boasts of the SPs influence in the CPSU. Perhaps thats what was responsible for the CPSU voting to support the latest National Wage Deal. Good work SP!

I am also at a loss to understand how Brian can claim that the SPs actions make the ground more fertile for the development of a mass Workers Party. How have the SP gone about this? Well they edged out Dermot Connolly who was in favour of such a party. They also deselected Joan Collins when she was an SP candidate. Good work SP!

Brian, the Beria of the SP, just cannot handle the truth.

by rory Wed Sep 01, 2004 17:45

>The article never states one way or the other how the meeting was called or who was invited. It does give an accurate count of the attendence, something you initially disputed.

Why not? There were more than 20 at the meeting

>I have no doubt that a well advertised public meeting on the subject could attract a bigger audience, particularly if the SWP stuck a three line whip on its members to go. The attendence would be bigger, but I suspect that the forces represented would be much the same.

Don't worry about the attendace of the SWP thats beyond your control, rather, look at the poor attendance from the SP two members, something you could have had a say in.

>Now, now, Rory. There is no need to treat me like a child here. For very obvious reasons this is hardly the initiative only of the person you are implying.

Sorry Brian, read the article in the SV it states- 'The main organiser of the meeting was Councillor Joan Collins.' So you cannot dump that one on me. The SV said it all I said was that the article was incorrect.

>I was merely pointing out that your exclamation that the article was "Wrong" on this point was itself incorrect. On the more general issue, I have no idea if anyone mentioned these examples at the meeting. The article was correctly using them to illustrate that "left unity" initiatives misapplied can be destructive rather than constructive affairs.

What the article does is rubbish the idea of left unity by citing former attempts to build unity thats unfortunate because the SP are convinced its doomed before it even develops.

>As I said above, I am not in any way diminishing the importance of socialist activism. I am saying that those who see a cure for our ills in some variant of unifying the little left groups need to get a sense of perspective. Our activism will not be the central cause of the kind of changed political situation which would put a mass party on the agenda.

This was only mentioned by one person in attendance at the meeting. You are convinced it would not work or be counter productive. I don't know if this proposal would be the outcome of these discussions but untill the discussion is had, I think it is better to engage in the process than rubbish it.

>I was being quite restrained in describing some of the SWP's pronouncements as "hysterical nonsense". If you really need evidence I can provide a link to their official report to their international sister organisations from a few months ago. Amongst other things it predicts a No vote in the citizenship referendum and a 100,000 plus turnout for the Bush protests. That's the same article that invents fictional autonomists carrying out fictional anti-trade union actions. There is no meaningful engagement with reality in the SWP's political thought and I don't regard it as intemperate to point out the obvious.

You have to get over your past with the SWP. they were not the only group at the meeting. I am sure if I went back to old copies of militant I would see some political howlers like vote labour or calling for general strikes or whatever. Predictions are dangerous and making them can land you with egg on your face. All on the left are guilty of overstating things at one point or another.

>I am not against the creation of a broad left paper. One of the reasons I contribute to this site is that it has some potential to fill part of that niche, at least if some of the contributors grow up a little. I am however against sacrificing what our organisation has built to gamble on creating that paper. If much wider forces were seriously interested in such a project, I would argue that the Socialist Party should contribute as we can. I will not argue that we should substitute ourselves for those forces.

Everyone agrees a broad left party is a great idea but no-one is willing to initiate a project to develop one. I would argue that it is the SP's responsibility, among others, to initiate such a project as the SP are a major force on the left in Ireland. If socialist organisations are not willing to make sacrifices to build socialism then we are all waisting our time.

>You say early on in your post that you are not calling for some kind of formal alliance along the lines of the abortive Socialist Alliance but instead for greater cooperation. The problem I have with that statement is that it all gets a bit vague. It sounds nice in principle but it has a rather undefined content. Who exactly do you want to cooperate more closely? On what political basis? And with what formal or informal structures

You're right, its very vague considering there was one meeting (about two hours) not a lot of time for people to express or formulate any specific outcomes. The SP have, from that one meeting, managed to conclude its a lost cause. What I am saying that the left needs to become a more cohesive force and concentrate its limited resources, this process could help. I would not be as bold to predict if it will or not - I will wait and see.

by Lavernty Beria Wed Sep 01, 2004 17:18

Why can't we just murder Comrade Dermot and the other deviants like in the old days? What kind of Marxists are you at all????

by Still Militant Wed Sep 01, 2004 16:50

Skewed and Brian C. have given an exemplary analysis of the obvious flaws in this premature project. It's akin to setting a match to a firelighter sitting on steel. However, the best course of action when people are planning to waste their time and money on this kind of doomed exercise is to:-

(a) explain the error loudly and clearly (and in writing, for the historical record),

(b) retire to a safe distance,

(c) observe and record as the SWP wreck it just as they wrecked the SA in Britain before decamping to take up with a mob of Islamic mysoginists, homophobes and fascists, and

(d) document the disaster for future reference.

The SP has discharged its duty under (a) and it's now time to set about (b), (c) and (d). Let them at it, if they're so keen.

I'm disappointed that a Marxist organiser as experienced and talented as Dermot is initiating this fiasco. However, the best lessons are learnt from practical experience and I'm sure that he will emerge from this mess a wiser man. With luck it will lead him to the conclusion that a committed Marxist should focus his energies in a revolutionary party, argue for his perspectives within that party and act in unity with his comrades, even if his views on every minor question of tactics don't prevail on every occasion.

by Brian C. Wed Sep 01, 2004 16:39

> The point Brian is that the SV article gives
> the impression that the meeting was to
> discuss socialist unity and that 20 people > attended. Therefore the SP give the
> mistaken impression that a meeting on
> socialist unity could only attract 20 people

The article never states one way or the other how the meeting was called or who was invited. It does give an accurate count of the attendence, something you initially disputed.

I have no doubt that a well advertised public meeting on the subject could attract a bigger audience, particularly if the SWP stuck a three line whip on its members to go. The attendence would be bigger, but I suspect that the forces represented would be much the same.

> Brian, you know who organised the
> meeting, as do all the SP members who
> were invited by letter.

Now, now, Rory. There is no need to treat me like a child here. For very obvious reasons this is hardly the initiative only of the person you are implying.

> Brian, I will give you the benefit of doubt as > you didn’t go to the meeting but as far as I > know no one talked about formations like
> the SA or SLP or RESPECT.

I was merely pointing out that your exclamation that the article was "Wrong" on this point was itself incorrect. On the more general issue, I have no idea if anyone mentioned these examples at the meeting. The article was correctly using them to illustrate that "left unity" initiatives misapplied can be destructive rather than constructive affairs.

> What you seem to argue is that all the
> bored members of sects/micros like the
> SP etc should wait till the ‘working class
> move into struggle’ well, I would argue, as > I’m sure you do, that the left exist to
> organise and agitate and light the ‘spark’
> that will move the working class into
> struggle. I’m unsure how the article in SV
> fits in to that struggle?

If the ground opened up tomorrow and swallowed the Socialist Party and for that matter the other left groups, the working class would still move into struggle. That basic fact is a result of the nature of capitalism itself and the exploitation inherent in it.

As I said above, I am not in any way diminishing the importance of socialist activism. I am saying that those who see a cure for our ills in some variant of unifying the little left groups need to get a sense of perspective. Our activism will not be the central cause of the kind of changed political situation which would put a mass party on the agenda.

That doesn't relieve us of a responsibility to do our part. But our part is not necessarily to build some model alliance that the working class can flood into. Our current contribution to the building of a new party is to do our best in working class communities and trade unions to increase the level of struggle and of political understanding.

That's the work that the Socialist Party is involved in. It's what we are doing when we spend years - years - going door to door to build the anti-bin tax campaigns. It's what Joe and Clare and others were doing when they refused to back down when faced with court injunctions. It's what our members are doing in NIPSA and the FBU and the CPSU and BATU and so on. It's what we are doing when we take up issues like infill housing or at the opposite extreme the war in Iraq.

We evaluate proposals for alliances or coordination or whatever else with other left groupings with that in mind. Will an "alliance" with a particular group in a particular concrete situation make us more or less effective? For instance, would having the SWP tag along in some community campaign strengthen or weaken our activity? Well every experience we have had so far indicates that it is more of a hindrance than a help.

> Wow Brian, only you could start a
> contribution by stating -lets try to have one > in a reasonable and moderate tone. And
> then go on to write the above drivel. I would > hate to be in the SP and disagree with you > and be labelled a purveyor of Hysterical
> Nonsense.

I was being quite restrained in describing some of the SWP's pronouncements as "hysterical nonsense". If you really need evidence I can provide a link to their official report to their international sister organisations from a few months ago. Amongst other things it predicts a No vote in the citizenship referendum and a 100,000 plus turnout for the Bush protests. That's the same article that invents fictional autonomists carrying out fictional anti-trade union actions. There is no meaningful engagement with reality in the SWP's political thought and I don't regard it as intemperate to point out the obvious.

> Socialists should be working together to
> produce an alternative newspaper that will > challenge the bourgeois press and have a > national circulation. Now that goal fits
> squarely into the points you make in your
> contribution, so why not enter into a broad > left project to do it?

A wonderful idea in principle, but lets look at what you suggest more seriously.

Where are the resources to produce such a paper to come from? In the first instance you can only be talking about the SP and the SWP with some relatively minor support from others. Even the combined resources we currently put into newspapers would not be sufficient to drastically alter the scale on which they are produced. And even to accomplish that small printrun increase we would be talking about the end of our own newspaper as a clear proponent of our own political views.

How is it to be sold? Are you again talking about the current networks of paper sellers hawking a new product or are you talking about something distributed through newsagents, again a major financial burden.

What is the editorial line of such a paper to be? What is it to say about the North? Or about Palestine? Or about the trade union movement? Or about the bin tax? Or any of the other things that have caused disagreement on the left? Is it to be so bland that all of us can accept it? Or is to be effectively a discussion forum?

What would be the impact on every other aspect of our work of the enormous drain of finances and effort that such a project would entail? And would it really be worth it to get a publication with even twice the circulation of the current publications combined but with a lower level of political clarity?

I am not against the creation of a broad left paper. One of the reasons I contribute to this site is that it has some potential to fill part of that niche, at least if some of the contributors grow up a little. I am however against sacrificing what our organisation has built to gamble on creating that paper. If much wider forces were seriously interested in such a project, I would argue that the Socialist Party should contribute as we can. I will not argue that we should substitute ourselves for those forces.

> So Brian, tell idiots like me what the SP
> have done in the last number of years to
> reach that goal [of a mass workers party]?

I already dealt with this above, but briefly again: Over the last years the Socialist Party has been deeply involved in community campaigns and in workplace struggles, from the bin tax to the term time workers. We are doing our best to contribute as we can to the reemergence of working class struggle. In so doing we are contributing to the eventual creation of a new workers party.

You clearly want a response detailing all the various efforts we have made to liase with various other political activists. On that score we have been central to building most of the relatively few strong left bodies which currently exist in any trade union. In building genuine, activist groups however we have as usual found the SWP and the like to be more of a hindrance than a help.

I have a serious question for you Rory, particularly as you seem to think that I'm not engaging with you point of view.

You say early on in your post that you are not calling for some kind of formal alliance along the lines of the abortive Socialist Alliance but instead for greater cooperation. The problem I have with that statement is that it all gets a bit vague. It sounds nice in principle but it has a rather undefined content. Who exactly do you want to cooperate more closely? On what political basis? And with what formal or informal structures?

by rory Wed Sep 01, 2004 12:30

>As I understand it there were indeed around twenty people at the meeting. That is seven members of the SWP, one or two people from each of the Socialist Party, the ISN, Working Class Action and the West Dublin united communities thing, and six or so others. That estimate may be a few people out either way, but nothing which would greatly alter the scale of the meeting.

The point Brian is that the SV article gives the impression that the meeting was to discuss socialist unity and that 20 people attended. Therefore the SP give the mistaken impression that a meeting on socialist unity could only attract 20 people – therefore, to the uninformed it is logical to assume that there is little interest in left unity. In fact the truth is different – each candidat and director of elections was invited. The fact that the SP choose to send only two people to the meeting rather than sending all their Dublin candidates and their directors of elections contributed to the turn out that the SP consider poor.

>I am willing to take Rory's word when he says that Joan Collins was not the main organiser of the meeting, though if he feels this correction is so important, I feel compelled to ask him who exactly was?

Brian, you know who organised the meeting, as do all the SP members who were invited by letter. Why does the SP choose to identify Joan Collins when they know the truth to be different? I don’t know why, but I’m sure there is some reason why the SP would deliberately misinform readers of the SV.

>The article mentions the Socialist Labour Party and the Socialist Alliance in Britain after the SWP takeover as examples of how prematurely and, in particular undemocratically organised, formations can act as a hindrance rather than a help. Rory's riposte, such as it is, is to claim that the British SWP are now involved in RESPECT instead of the Socialist Alliance.

Brian, I will give you the benefit of doubt as you didn’t go to the meeting but as far as I know no one talked about formations like the SA or SLP or RESPECT. All that was discussed was greater co ordination between socialists. Why the SP would feel so threatened by this is beyond me.

>The other mistake which is made is to see small left groups and the small number of independent left activists as being the people who will change the general political mood. That is, the mood will change if only we "get our act together", by forming some kind of alliance. The left jargon term for this kind of attitude is "substitutionism", it's an attitude that places far too much significance on the actions of what are for the most part small and politically isolated groups of activists. The working class will move into struggle. That's a basic axiom for any Marxist, or for that matter class struggle anarchist. If you don't believe that will happen then you really shouldn't be wasting your time in boring socialist activity.

Brian, who will change the political mood? Not small left groups, not the SP then or ANY of the existing left forces in Ireland. PEOPLE change the political mood, always have and always will. Left activists are left activists because all people’s interests are served better in a socialist society than in a capitalist one. What you seem to argue is that all the bored members of sects/micros like the SP etc should wait till the ‘working class move into struggle’ well, I would argue, as I’m sure you do, that the left exist to organise and agitate and light the ‘spark’ that will move the working class into struggle. I’m unsure how the article in SV fits in to that struggle?

>For me, forming an "alliance" with the same old suspects, rearranging the deck chairs, has little to do with that. Would we be more or less effective in encouraging real working class activity by tying ourselves to the SWP? The answer, as far as I can see, is less effective. We would have to spend more time and effort dealing with their hysterical nonsense, leaving us less resources to use in meaningful activity. And when an important campaign is in full swing, they can be relied upon to be more of a hindrance than a help. As for the other forces represented at the recent meeting, they number some fine activists among them but we are as usual talking about the same people who have been kicking around for years.

Wow Brian, only you could start a contribution by stating -lets try to have one in a reasonable and moderate tone. And then go on to write the above drivel. I would hate to be in the SP and disagree with you and be labelled a purveyor of Hysterical Nonsense. Meaningful activity = Recruitment, Recruitment, Recruitment. Lets just say one person’s meaningful activity is another’s waste of resources. Take for example the SV or the SW or any left paper/newssheet. How many people does it reach? Are they papers bought weekly/monthly by the masses? No. Socialists should be working together to produce an alternative newspaper that will challenge the bourgeois press and have a national circulation. Now that goal fits squarely into the points you make in your contribution, so why not enter into a broad left project to do it? Or, as you see the goal to move the working class into struggle, why have the SP not championed such an endeavour?

>The Socialist Party makes no apologies for saying that our goal is to create a mass revolutionary organisation. We are in favour of such things as a mass workers party not because it is necessarily our end goal but because it would represent an important step forward for the workers movement and a step towards the creation of that revolutionary party.

So Brian, tell idiots like me what the SP have done in the last number of years to reach that goal?


>I have no doubt that I will be denounced as "pessimistic" for stating these points of view. I'm not a pessimist at all. I think that the general political situation is improving for socialists, I just refuse to interpret that with blind optimism. I think that the basis will be laid for a new mass working class party, I just emphasise the importance of working class political activity in creating the necessary conditions over the actions of small left groups. If Rory were to do the same he might find himself reacting with less cynicism. He might even realise that we repeat certain key points about how a working class party will be built not because we love the sound of our own voices but because some of our critics seem incapable of learning the first time.

Well, I welcome your contribution. I am not in the habit of denouncing anyone I leave that to the little Stalin’s that gravitate to leaderships of the left in our beloved country. ‘I just emphasise the importance of working class political activity in creating the necessary conditions over the actions of small left groups’ its all relative Brian – define a small group? Repeating ‘key points’ can be like eight year olds memorising the catechism for their first communion unless its backed up with some political engagement with others who disagree.

by lmfao Wed Sep 01, 2004 12:04

Long live the mass party of the revolutionary Irish working class !!!! Are you sure this meeting was not part of a shoot for the Simpsons?

by Info for info Wed Sep 01, 2004 11:38

A letter went out in Mick O'Reilly's name and he chaired the meeting but he didn't organise the event as was clear by his insistance that whatever the outcome he will remain a member of the Labour Party.

The initiative originates with Dermot, Joan, Pat Dunne and the ISN and one of them almost certainly wrote the text for the letter signed by Mick.

They chose to invite candidates and their agents therefore neatly bypassing the elected leaderships of the SP and too a lesser extent the SWP because their leading members happened to be candidates.

The invitation letters were received by SP candidates the day before the meeting itself even though it was dated a week earlier. However thanks to a tip off the SP suspected a meeting was afoot and its National Committee discussed its attitude and who it would delegate to attend if the meeting was to take place.

At the meeting itself SP member Susan Fitzgerald had to endure heckling from the "United Communities" representatives. They are the people who accused Joe Higgins of abandoning the bin charges campaign as well as being soft on organised crime and paedophiles! They also called for people voting for them to continue their preference to Martin Christie of Sinn Fein (now suspended) who himself had no record of activity on any issue in Mulhuddart.

A follow up meeting was proposed for next Saturday. Dermot Connolly stated his determination to get something off the ground. Working Class Action share the SPs caution about the initiative.

Watch this space.

by info Tue Aug 31, 2004 20:30

of the ATGWU organised that meeting that Brian and others refer to.

by Brian C. Tue Aug 31, 2004 18:32

If Rory really wants a discussion around these issues, then lets try to have one in a reasonable and moderate tone.

Firstly to address the specific points where Rory seems to think the original article was factually incorrect:

1) As I understand it there were indeed around twenty people at the meeting. That is seven members of the SWP, one or two people from each of the Socialist Party, the ISN, Working Class Action and the West Dublin united communities thing, and six or so others. That estimate may be a few people out either way, but nothing which would greatly alter the scale of the meeting.

2) I am willing to take Rory's word when he says that Joan Collins was not the main organiser of the meeting, though if he feels this correction is so important, I feel compelled to ask him who exactly was?

3) The article mentions the Socialist Labour Party and the Socialist Alliance in Britain after the SWP takeover as examples of how prematurely and, in particular undemocratically organised, formations can act as a hindrance rather than a help. Rory's riposte, such as it is, is to claim that the British SWP are now involved in RESPECT instead of the Socialist Alliance.

Rory is wrong on that. The Socialist Alliance still exists at least in name and it is still the wholly-owned property of the SWP. It is currently a part of RESPECT. Even if Rory had been correct on this point, I fail to see what bearing his correction would have on the point being made. The RESPECT Coalition is still at too early a stage to fairly judge in its entirity, but all the indications thus far are that it is even less democratic than the Socialist Alliance was and that it too will play little positive role. Raising it is in effect to raise a third example of exactly the same thing the original article was talking about.

On the meat of Rory's post, I see little I can really agree with. A few on the left seem to me to have been rather carried away by what was a modest improvement in the electoral fortunes of left wing candidates. The Socialist Party made a small breakthrough in some areas. A few longstanding leftists got very good votes as independents in some other areas. The Workers Party slowed its decline a little. The SWP got three pretty good votes but came nowhere even close to a seat and also got some very bad totals. There was no sudden surge of new activists and campaign groups standing, just the same people who have been around for years. The improvement is welcome but it does not of itself represent a huge change in the political situation.

Some of these people would do well to take a more sober look at where we really are. There has been a small increase in working class combativity and activism but coming from an incredibly low base. The trade union movement is still at an all time low in terms of strikes and for that matter industrial action of any kind. Most of the major unions have been involved in national partnership deals for a very long time. On a community level the bin tax is notable not because it is typical of the kind of struggle that is being waged but because it stands out from the relative lack of other serious struggles.

Now some of the sharper people who want to see a new alliance of some kind can see that, unlike the SWP who remain convinced as always that there is a huge change in the situation at hand and everyone is just looking for the opportunity to fight. Even they however, seem to me to be mistaking what is a real but small improvement in the situation for a more general mood of struggle.

The other mistake which is made is to see small left groups and the small number of independent left activists as being the people who will change the general political mood. That is, the mood will change if only we "get our act together", by forming some kind of alliance. The left jargon term for this kind of attitude is "substitutionism", it's an attitude that places far too much significance on the actions of what are for the most part small and politically isolated groups of activists. The working class will move into struggle. That's a basic axiom for any Marxist, or for that matter class struggle anarchist. If you don't believe that will happen then you really shouldn't be wasting your time in boring socialist activity.

A move into action by significant sections of the working class will lay the basis for a new mass party, not the activity of small left groups. That is not for a second to say that the actions of socialists are currently meaningless or irrelevant. The question is what can we do to encourage and strengthen signs of increased struggle in the workplaces and in the communities.

For me, forming an "alliance" with the same old suspects, rearranging the deck chairs, has little to do with that. Would we be more or less effective in encouraging real working class activity by tying ourselves to the SWP? The answer, as far as I can see, is less effective. We would have to spend more time and effort dealing with their hysterical nonsense, leaving us less resources to use in meaningful activity. And when an important campaign is in full swing, they can be relied upon to be more of a hindrance than a help. As for the other forces represented at the recent meeting, they number some fine activists among them but we are as usual talking about the same people who have been kicking around for years.

The Socialist Party makes no apologies for saying that our goal is to create a mass revolutionary organisation. We are in favour of such things as a mass workers party not because it is necessarily our end goal but because it would represent an important step forward for the workers movement and a step towards the creation of that revolutionary party.

We are not under any illusions about our own political significance in the greater scheme of things. We don't think that we "are the party of the working class" or that we will just grow into such a party, no matter how often people like Rory claim otherwise. My advice to Rory is that he should try to get a similar sense of realism about what exactly the likes of the SWP or the smaller groups and long standing independents really represent.

I have no doubt that I will be denounced as "pessimistic" for stating these points of view. I'm not a pessimist at all. I think that the general political situation is improving for socialists, I just refuse to interpret that with blind optimism. I think that the basis will be laid for a new mass working class party, I just emphasise the importance of working class political activity in creating the necessary conditions over the actions of small left groups. If Rory were to do the same he might find himself reacting with less cynicism. He might even realise that we repeat certain key points about how a working class party will be built not because we love the sound of our own voices but because some of our critics seem incapable of learning the first time.

by rory Tue Aug 31, 2004 12:37

From the so called "Socialist Voice"
A new left alliance?

>AT A MEETING of twenty activists in Dublin in late July it was argued that the local election results show that there is the basis for a left alliance or a new working class party.

Wrong. The meeting was of canditates that stood in the elections and there were more than twenty at the meeting.

>The main organiser of the meeting was Councillor Joan Collins. Two members of the Socialist Party attended.

Wrong. Joan was not the main organiser.

>The Socialist Party shares the genuine desire of some activists for the establishment of a new mass working class party and will help build one when the political conditions for its development exist.

When will they exist? When the SP doubles/trebles its membership? The SP are unwilling to even enter negotiations into broadening the levels of cooperation. They are afraid they may loose a member or two to the dreaded SWP.

>However the Socialist Party does not believe the basis for the launching of a "socialist/left alliance" or a new mass party of the working class exists at present. The Socialist Party is opposed to a premature launching of such an alliance or party because it would not involve significant new sections of working class activists. In reality it would simply be the coming together of the already existing left forces.

Change the record. I can see this 'holy grail' being as true as the old chestnut about the impossibility of the USSR returning to capitalism.

>Premature initiatives, in particular when they are undemocratically organised like the Socialist Labour Party and the SWP dominated Socialist Alliance in Britain, can set back and complicate the process towards the formation of a genuine alliance and a new party of the working class.

Wrong the SWP are not involved in the Aocialist Alliance they are involved in RESPECT.

>It is a significant overstatement to say, as some claimed at the meeting, that the local elections represented a dramatic breakthrough for socialists or that 10 councillors not just four were close to being or could have been elected. Without the bin tax struggle, the vote for a number of the left or independent candidates in Dublin would have been seriously diminished.

Ok, well its just as significant an overstatement to say that the SP had a significant breakthrough in the Local elections as said in the last SV (the one that didn't mention any of the left/anti bin charges election results)

>Just under 27,000 votes were cast for up to 29 candidates who would claim to be connected to the anti bin tax campaigns. Four were elected, three from the Socialist Party (all getting between 15 - 20%) and Joan Collins in Crumlin (just under 14%).

Again a negative analysis fits nicely into the SP retreat on the bin tax.

>Three other candidates came close - a switch of less that a hundred votes would have resulted in the election of Ciaran Perry (9.5% - Cabra) and Lisa Maher (7.5% - Dundrum) and the possible election of Pat Dunne (7.5% - Greenhills). However it would be wrong to underestimate the conditions necessary to increase votes by such amounts. The best votes were generally achieved in areas where parties or individuals had either a real record of campaigning or had seriously fought the bin tax. In some areas, the existence of a working class, left tradition was also an important factor.

The SP are extremly negative in the above analysis. As usual the SP ignore the impressive vote of Brid Smith, Richie Browne and Kenny in Clondalkin but whats new. You could actually say that in Dublin the SWP did better than the SP! (the shame of being out polled by a 'sect'). Socialists however would have a less sectarian approach and say overall the left did well in the elections. Particularly in light of the SIGNIFICANT results of Sinn Fein who overall managed to capture the working class vote. Why did this happen? Because the left is not active on the ground in many working class areas and because the left bicker like children at each other.

>The Socialist Party got just over 13% of the vote in the areas where it stood. The SWP got just over 5%. The credible bin tax candidates who were independent of these two parties got just under 9%. Some of the votes for left candidates were credible. But overall, especially when it is looked at from a national point of view and not just from a Dublin perspective, these votes don't represent a decisive move by sections of the working class towards the building of a new working class political force.

This is a cop out. If the SP used the same analysis then the wouldn't attempt to organise in any area that they didn't have a presence. Shouldn't the SP rather be saying the result needed them to review their poor showing in the City? Or look at ways that the left vote could be maximised in the future. No, the reality is for all their bullshit they believe the SP to be the party of the working class, if they can only recriut a couple more members BTW this is classic sectarianism.

>The view that a slate of candidates would have qualitatively increased the votes of individual candidates is exaggerated. The Socialist Party was in favour of a slate of anti bin tax candidates but in order for a slate to have had the impact that some claim, there needs to be a developed mood and an active searching on behalf of the working class for such a political alternative. In the current situation with the absence of struggle in society a slate would have had a limited effect.

Improved cooperation between radical socialists will have a positive impact on the overall vote of the left.

>Establishing a slate is not primarily about votes, it's about what do the candidates/slate represent for the working class. We were not in favour of endorsing as "anti bin tax candidates" people who were not prepared to seriously build the campaign and fight in the actual struggle. To give such endorsments would undermine the anti-bin tax struggle.

This is rich considering the SP said "the campaign was over" at the meeting.

>If the Socialist Party's proposal for a real slate of genuine campaigners had been agreed in the Dublin City Campaign, it could have resulted in an all Dublin slate of up to twenty candidates. Those candidates who the Socialist Party opposed endorsing only got on average a vote of just over 3%.

>Another meeting will take place in early September to have further discussions about a new political formation. The Socialist Party will support political initiatives that can take the working class movement forward in a real way. A new mass party of the working class will emerge in future when tens of thousands of working class activists all over the country are roused into political struggle.

And we will all die waiting for them to be roused unless the left get serious. FF have conned the people of Ireland that they were the party of the working class for 70 years, the SP are, through its sectarianism, going to allow SF to do the same.

>For now the most important issue is to assist the working class and young people to get active in struggle against the anti-working attacks of this government.

Translation: Join the SP and get the assistance to struggle in a meaningful way, avoid all other leftists they are impure!!

by observer Tue Aug 31, 2004 10:26

And you still haven't replied to my questions regarding the ability of DCC to abolish the charges or SF's consistent opposition over 30 years to DCC estimates.

by Skewed Tue Aug 31, 2004 02:23

While I'm glad to hear from so many of our SWP friends on a site they often seem to shun, I am not exactly overwhelmed by their level of understanding of the written word.

The original article deals with an overview of left results in Dublin over the four council areas in the context of a discussion about the meeting Joan Collins convened. It points out that across the whole four areas the Socialist Party got roughly 13% where it stood. The SWP got 5% where it stood. Credible left wing candidates other than SP or SWP members got around 9% where they stood.

An SWP member complained bitterly that the article didn't emphasise the wonderful results that his party achieved in the City Council area. I pointed out that the SWP in fact did not get wonderful results even in that Local Authority area. They got one good result which didn't come within a thousand votes of a seat. They also got one respectable vote and alongside that they got four bad votes.

If they had half a brain between them they would only have stood one candidate, or possibly two, in the whole area and concentrated on getting Brid Smith elected. But they didn't, instead they stood six candidates, four of whom were always going to do badly.

Then somebody else comes along and complains that I didn't take into account the results of Boyd Barret and Kenny. In fact the original article does take their votes into account, along with that of Lordan and anyone else they stood in the other three council areas in Dublin. I didn't because I was responding to an earlier complaint about how the article didn't emphasise the allegedly good results achieved by the SWP in the City Council area.

After an empty boast about how the SWP had done well in that area, our original anonymous SWP correspondent seems to have gone all quiet about those great votes. Instead we find him gloating about how the Socialist Party stood only one candidate in the same Local Authority, as if standing an arse load of joke candidates was something to be proud of.

by Fact straight - Stato Soc Mon Aug 30, 2004 23:47 Numerical City

eh ,....excuse me, no fan I of the SWP but if your gonna comment on their election result have the good grace Not to lie so obviously; G Kenny got over 1100 votes in Clondalkin and Boyd Barret over 1200 in Kingstown....sorry if this dosnt fit with your theory but facts are facts...

by The Mekon Mon Aug 30, 2004 18:17

The SP write about the Left Unity meeting:
"The main organiser of the meeting was Councillor Joan Collins."

The SP fail to mention that Joan is a former long standing member of the SP who only left recently. Nor do they mention that Joan was an SP candidate until she was deselected by the Troika.

by Cliffhanger Mon Aug 30, 2004 17:51

No hurt feelings just a bit astonished at how the SP distort facts. I guess I should know better. My point was that the SP are very poorly organised in the Dublin City Council area. Otherwise why didnt they stand more than one candidate?

by Skewed Mon Aug 30, 2004 17:29

Cliffhanger, an SWP member, accuses the Socialist Party of ignoring the "very good results of the SWP in Dublin City". I'm left wondering what exactly he means?

Brid Smith scored a good vote in Ballyfermot but only half the score she needed to win. Richie Browne did respectably. The others, Wingfield, Connolly, Ryan, O'Donohue all did poorly. One good vote, one respectable one and four bad ones.

The Socialist Voice article is not an in depth look at the results of every left candidate, just a general overview of the small electoral support the left enjoys in the city. What exactly are you suggesting it should have said instead?

by observer Mon Aug 30, 2004 17:22

Typical avoidance of the issues:

(1) Can DCC get rid of the charges if the City Manager decides to impose them?

(2) Has SF ever voted for the estimates?

by Skewed Mon Aug 30, 2004 17:19

Sinn Fein has always voted against the Bin Tax on Dublin City Council, but that isn't true everywhere is it? SF openly admit that they have voted for the tax in other places, see under Sligo.

What's more two of their Dublin City Councillors produced sick notes for the crucial vote that brought in the bin tax in the first place, the single most important vote in any of their careers as politicians. Given the background only the most partisan of provos could find suggesting that SF might need to have a bit of backbone reinforcing surgery all that outrageous. Or is it just that SF councillors in Sligo are sell outs while their Dublin counterparts are pure as the driven snow?

The article makes the point that councillors who have represented themselves as being to some degree opposed to the bin tax hold a majority on the council. If they had any backbone or principles this would see a refusal to pass any estimates including the bin tax.

In reality, it won't mean that. Sinn Fein won't be put to the same test they failed so spectacularly in Sligo, because Labour will save them by failing faster. The estimates will in all probability be passed and that puts us all back in the same position - preparing the ground for community based direct action.

by Cliffhanger Mon Aug 30, 2004 17:10

As usual the SP dont let the the truth get in the way of a good fairy tale. They totally ignore the fact that the SWP scored some very good results in Dublin City where the SP were only capable of standing one candidate. What is it about the SP? Do they think that readers of the Voice dont have access to other sources of information?

The article in question is; http://www.geocities.com/socialistparty/paper2004JD/0409NewLeft.htm

by observer Mon Aug 30, 2004 17:05

McLaughlin's article is politically illiterate.

(1) DCC has no control over the imposition of service charges since the legislation was changed earlier in the year;

(2) SF is not part of the ruling majority on the Council and has voted against the estimates every year since 1985 so it hardly needs the SP to advise it

by AGB Mon Aug 30, 2004 16:32

Yes, this is the correct place to put your link, as it is "other press". This replaces the previous method and makes the front page look tidier.