Campaign for a new party launched

by Michael Fri May 27, 2005 08:27

The Socialist Party already exists, and I think it meets all of the requirements set out above. I'm not a member (I'm been accused here of being a member of the Special Branch, of FF, FG, Labour and the GP though).... I wonder whether it might not be best to just join the Socialist Party if your aims and means are so similar.

by Mark P - Socialist Party (personal capacity) Fri May 27, 2005 10:50

The intention of the people and groups behind this campaign is to work for the creation of a broad left wing party or a new mass party of the working class. Amongst other things this means a broader organisation than the Socialist Party or for that matter any of the existing groups.

The Socialist Party is also in favour of the creation of a new mass party of the working class. However it differs with at least some of the people involved in this initiative on what it is possible to achieve in this regard at the moment.

I hope that helps clear things up.

by Major Woody Fri May 27, 2005 12:07

As Joan was recently expelled from the SP rejoining it probably isn't that much of an option!

by Fact Fri May 27, 2005 12:15

Joan Collins left the Socialist Party. She was not expelled. She did not agree to sign the pledge that a council position would be a party position (every party candidate of most parties have to sign such a pledge). Dermot Connolly also left the Socialist Party and was not expelled.

by w - dissent Fri May 27, 2005 12:23

This is pretty hilarious, just shows how impotent the "party" leftists are when they want to get into bed together in the vain hope of getting a bit of power.

Up against the wall mofo's..

by Major Woody Fri May 27, 2005 12:29

I think what 'fact' outlines is what the Labour Court would call 'constructive dismissal'.

Anyway I don't care one way or the other - I was just pointing out one of the more obvious problems with Micks suggestion.

by An alternative view Fri May 27, 2005 12:35

Mark and Fact give a one dimensional 'loyalist view' of Joan's departure. From the archives an alternative view.
----------------------------------------------------------
An analysis by Dermot Connolly, ex Secretary of the Socialist Party

Joan Collins is standing as an anti-bin tax candidate, not a Socialist Party candidate, in the local elections. This article explains why and looks back at anti bin tax campaign.
Members of the Socialist Party (SP) and indeed left wing activists in Dublin will be surprised to hear that Joan Collins will not be standing for the SP in the June local elections. They will, or should be quite surprised, that a person with an extremely good chance of actually winning a seat on the council has felt it necessary to withdraw from selection for the SP and to stand as an independent anti bin tax candidate.

Over the course of the last year it has been clear that an element of the SP leadership in Dublin did not want JC to stand as a party candidate. In the summer of 2003 opposition to her standing was expressed by these elements on the spurious basis that there was no party branch in the area. This 'condition' for standing has never been applied before. If it did, there would have been very few candidates put forward over the last twenty years, and that includes areas like Mulhuddart, Dublin West and Dublin North.

At the same time as opposing JC on this basis, the SP were encouraging people to stand in the Liberties and in Finglas. Were there party branches in these areas? No, there was at the time one SP branch covering the whole of Dublin city. The opposition to JC standing was cut across at a meeting of the National Committee when the issue was raised by M Murphy from the Tallagh branch. It was subsequently reported in the Voice (SP journal) that JC would be a candidate in Crumlin. In the same report the SP were unable to name candidates for the Liberties or Finglas.

The SP were unable to persuade anyone to stand for them in Finglas. At a meeting of the now established city north side branch late last year to discuss this, Kevin McLoughlin stated that the party only had the resources to stand in one area of the city. No one was under any illusions that this would be the Liberties where Diarmuid Naessens had come forward as a candidate.

If any further proof were needed as to the SP leaderships' attitude, in a discussion with JC both KMcL and Michael Murphy (from Swords) told her that there was a lack of trust in the SP regarding her role in the anti bin tax campaign, and that in their opinion she should not stand but spend some time concentrating on work in the south side party branch. Apparently JC needed to spend some time on her 'rehabilitation'.

This is some way to treat a hard working, loyal member of 17 years involvement. Not once in all of this has there been a discussion initiated by the SP leadership of the prospects for the June elections in Crumlin, what vote could be gained; could she win a seat; how a campaign could be run; what resources would be available?

Every indication by this element of the leadership has been that JC wanting to stand was not an opportunity but a problem. This leaves aside any argument about the desirability of the anti bin tax campaign putting forward an alternative in one of the most working class electoral areas where there is also one of the strongest anti bin tax campaigns. If K McL and MM had their way, there would be no candidate in this area.

Having failed to pressurise JC into withdrawing, and obviously having to contend with questions in the SP on the issue, the SP leadership wrote to JC outlining five conditions under which they would accept her as a candidate. Before dealing with these conditions it is necessary to deal with the reasons why the SP argued this course of action was justified.

The letter begins with the statement that ' there are important differences between your views and the party on; tactics in the bin tax battle and work in broader campaigns; estimation of the mood in the working class and the basis for for a new left formation; and the tasks of building the SP'.

It goes on to state that ' there have been serious public disagreements between you and the party over the last year where you have knowingly opposed the agreed position of the party regarding the bin tax.'

The claim that JC publicly and seriously opposed the SP on tactics in the bin tax struggle will come as a surprise to many actually involved in that struggle. It seems that The SP leadership have a difficulty distinguishing between discussions in the SP and publicly opposing the party line. Where and on which occasions did JC publicly and knowingly oppose the SP on tactics in the bin tax campaign?

[continues]

by Tony Fri May 27, 2005 12:49

The difference between a broad party and the SP or the SWP is that they are fairly rigid in all their positions and threr isn't really any room for dissent. This is ok, if its what you are looking for - parties with strong leadership immediate lines on every issue and an analysis of their past that never critises previous positions. Some on the left like this decisiveness. A united party that has a leadership that gives direction can be more effective.

Others think that there needs to be a little more flexability. A broad party would ideally have some core positions that are the reason to come together under but allow more dissent within its ranks. This is more accomodating and attractive to workers in my opinion. Others may disagree.

Personally, I wouldn't join the SP (possibly the SP wouldn't want me) but I respect the SP and the SWP as Parties that are genuine in their commitment to their own ideas of socialism and a core part of the broad progressive movement in Ireland.

Looking at Scotland, the SP and the SWP were botth hostile to the formation of the SSP. After some time they both decided to become involved in the SSP as a broad left party. I don't think the similarities are immediate or altogether comparable, I am just making the point that their initial misgivings were overcome gradually.

Both of these Parties should moniter where this initiaqtive goes before making any hasty judgements.

by Mark P Fri May 27, 2005 13:48

1) I never gave any view at all in this thread about Joan Collins' decision to leave the Socialist Party, "loyalist" or otherwise.

For the record I think that Joan is a fine activist and I am sorry to see her leave. On the other hand I don't accept that she was treated in any way unfairly.

The Socialist Party insists that our candidates agree to represent our democratically agreed political positions. We have every right to do so, particularly given the problems caused a number of years ago when an independent councillor joined us and voted twice against our policies on important issues. Joan decided not to accept that and instead to stand as an independent. That in turn is her right and I wish her every success as a councillor.

2) A "broad party" is not defined in this context by its organisational looseness as opposed to some supposed rigidity on the part of a revolutionary organisation. The key point is a political one. A mass party of the working class would at least in its early stages include all kinds of different socialist and working class trends, reformist, revolutionary, centrist, ultra-left, whatever.

The Socialist Party is in favour of such an organisation, which we would join and build it while simultaneously building a revolutionary organisation within it.

We would have a number of political disagreements with the various different forces involved in this call on a range of questions. Not necessarily the same disagreements with each component, I should be point out. For instance, we don't think it was ever conceivable that the Labour Party would lead "an alliance of the left". Most importantly, we maintain absolutely the need to build an organised revolutionary party at all times.

On the central issue here however I think we are in agreement that a new mass party of the working class is something we should look towards helping to create. Where we disagree is on what exactly is possible in current circumstances. We don't think that a call for a new party or even some preparatory formation will get much of an echo currently. I'd like to be wrong on that, but I don't think we are.

3) The sister organisation of the Socialist Party in Scotland, the International Socialists, has been involved in the SSP since its foundation. What's more they always supported the idea of founding the SSP. Where disagreements arose was over the necessity of building a revolutionary organisation within the politically broad SSP.

by Tony Fri May 27, 2005 14:21

ISM leaders desert CWI


AT A conference on Sunday 14 January, a majority of our sister organisation in Scotland (International Socialist Movement - ISM) decided to leave our international organisation, the Committee for a Workers’ International (CWI).

Hannah Sell, Socialist Party Executive and CWI international executive committee

A quarter of those present (it was not a delegate conference) voted to remain in the CWI. This minority has the support of many more CWI members in Scotland.

We regret the decision by the ISM leadership to desert the ranks of the CWI. For three years there has been a debate between the ISM majority and the CWI over serious political differences.

The ISM majority has not had the support of any other section from among the 34 sections of the CWI. Despite this we wanted to continue the discussion within the CWI. To this end the CWI sent two representatives to Sunday's conference, Peter Taaffe and Per Olsson, and the Socialist Party sent one representative, Hannah Sell. Additionally, Joe Higgins, Socialist Party MP in Ireland, and all five Socialist Party councillors in England, including Dave Nellist, have made clear they disagree with them on all the political issues but, nevertheless, urged them to stay.

This debate began when the ISM (then called Scottish Militant Labour) leadership took the decision to hand over all of the painstakingly accumulated resources of our Scottish section to a new party that they proposed to form; the Scottish Socialist Party (SSP).

Read in full

http://www.socialistparty.org.uk/TheSocialistIssue189.htm#article4

by Sp Member - SP/CWI Fri May 27, 2005 14:33

'We believed that it was possible to successfully relaunch our own party, whilst continuing to build the precursor of the SSP, the Scottish Socialist Alliance. This proposal was not accepted by members in Scotland. However, we were also willing to support launching the SSP as a politically broad party.'

by Johnny Jay - none Fri May 27, 2005 15:10 sligo

Whilst not doubting the genuine motivation of those involved, hasn't this been tried before. For a couple of hundred years infact we have had various "parties of the left" leading our class into struggle then into parliament and then into despair. Given that many of those who are part of this have been through the Labour party, the Workers party, Democratic Left, Militant, the Socialist party etc etc isn't it time you guys tried something new.

In the opening platform you commit yourselves to openess and democracy. But there is already a hierarchy with parliamentary leaders. I hope you square the circle of parliamentary electoralism and democracy but I will honestly eat my hat if you do.

by Mark P Fri May 27, 2005 15:30

In your haste to score a point and your cropping of a document you have managed to dramatically misinterpret the discussions which took place in the Committee for a Workers International over the foundation of the Scottish Socialist Party. The central disagreement was over whether or not it was necessary to build a revolutionary organisation within any broad party.

The CWI as a whole argued for either of two options to be taken. One was for the SSP to be launched as a revolutionary party. The other was for the SSP to be launched as a broad party while continuing to build a revolutionary organisation inside it. What the CWI argued against was the launching of a broad SSP without a commitment to building and strengthening a revolutionary organisation at the same time. Both the people in Scotland who left the CWI and the people who remained in it were members of the SSP right from the start.

You can find all of the major documents produced by both sides of that discussion at the CWI's Marxist archive website. If you are interested you should read them although I do warn you that they were writted for internal discussion and thus the language and assumptions aren't always clear to "outsiders" www.marxist.net

by Just Wondering Fri May 27, 2005 16:11

I thought it would be right up their street at the moment. Then again given the politics of 'respect', they are probably looking for something not quite so left wing.

by frustrated Fri May 27, 2005 16:21

There deffinatelly is a need for a broad left-wing party, but their isnt a need for another party to add to an already crowded list. This new party will only serve a purpose if it can unite the left, and i hope it does. The problem is that many people on the left spend too much time criticising each other ie the coment about respect. Havent people noticed that we all have more in common than things which are different. There is far too much talking and bickering and not enough action. A breakthrough is needed

by Al Fri May 27, 2005 16:29

It seems to me that there is very little choice in political parties. Too many of them base their campaigns on one item and have no idea how to tackle others.
As a garda and a citizen I will not vote for SF. I despise the PD's (guess why) and I dont believe FF should get a third shot. Now for the likes of me who is the best party? I obviously cant go SWP (they would sack me) and I do not want a party more concerned with patting criminals on the head than helping the victims.
Its a choice between Labour and FG and considering they will go together do I really have a choice?
Maybe I should just stay in bed come elecion day

by Rob Fri May 27, 2005 17:28

A 1998 CWI World Congress resolution specifically state in the first sentence."This World Congress of the CWI places on record it's strongest possible opposition to the decision of SML to launch the Scottish Socialist Party"

by SP Member Fri May 27, 2005 19:03

Publish the full text of the motion from the World Congress, not the half a sentence that Alan McCoombes and Francis Curran plucked from it to attack the CWI.

by . Fri May 27, 2005 21:34

this half quote idea is catching on, two so far.

pity this interesting thread has been diverted.

by Juan Pablo Sat May 28, 2005 00:00

wow sounds like its important, i mean world congress!! come on ;-).

by even more frustrated Sat May 28, 2005 02:27

'Frustrated' says there is'nt space for a new party and he/she's correct but there is no suggestion in the original post that these groups are founding a new party. They are simply starting a process aiming at founding a party. Of course it suits some people in the Socialist Party to pretend that these groups are setting up a new party, so that they can convince their members that this is a premature attempt to start a new party before the 'objective conditions are right'. Its a bit difficult for them to dismiss this initiative epecially as the SWP are not involved and all the groups involved have a real base in the working class and cant be dismissed as 'usual suspects'. The reality is that despite their consant refrain of 'make me pure Lord but not just yet' the SP leadership see themselves as the new party of the working class and have no interest whatsoever in building a broad left party.

by Anthony Smith Sat May 28, 2005 15:27

The Socialist Party support a new broad party for working class activists. I spoke to an SP member I know well from college. He was strongly in favour of a new party but argues that there is not a rise in working class activism that would warrent the launch of a new party at this stage. He told me that the CWI are involved in new broader parties around the world now. In Brazil, Germany, Scotland, Netherlands for example. I think that they are correct on this and I look forward to joining a new broad party that will have working class activists including the SP.

by Mark P Sat May 28, 2005 17:13

The Socialist Party's sister parties around the world take part in broader formations in a large number of countries. Pretty much anywhere where there is a new workers party or an organisation that could help create one in fact. That includes for instance Holland, Italy, Scotland, Germany and Brazil. In previous periods, before the drastic shift to the right by the Labour and Social Democratic parties, almost all of the groups in the Committee for a Workers International participated in those organisations too. Given those hard facts I don't see how even the most cynical observer on the left can honestly believe that the Socialist Party and the CWI generally prefer a "go it alone" strategy. When the Socialist Party says it wants to see a new mass workers party in Ireland, we mean it.

Where we differ with many of the people involved in this new campaign is in our assessment of the current situation. We don't think that the forces are there for a new party or for a pre-party initiative of some kind to get an echo at the moment. We would like there to be but we don't think there are.

Take a look at the people and groupings mentioned in the original article. There are some excellent and serious activists involved but it has to be said that they are much the same people who have been around the left for years at this stage. The ISN, Dermot Connolly, some of the Red Banner people (who were involved in the abortive Socialist Alliance experiment a few years ago along with Des Derwin). All good activists. I'm pleasantly surprised to see Seamus Healy and the WUAG involved given that not long ago Seamus seemed to be calling in the press for a Labour/Provo/independent alliance. Those with longer memories will recall however that they were involved in the Taxation Justice Alliance with the Socialist Party all of eight years ago.

This is looks to me like much the same activists looking for a different political formation. There's nothing inherently wrong with that. But there is no sign at all of new forces getting involved in these discussions. There's no sign that workers are actively looking to get involved in creating a new party. I simply don't think that this call is going to get much of an echo outside of the small existing circles of the left. As I said I would like to be wrong about that. I would love to be wrong. But I don't think that I am.

Finally, Rob, if you are interested in learning about the discussions which went on in the CWI around the formation of the Socialist Party you should follow the link I provided. All of the documents produced over the couple of years the discussions went on for are available on the CWI's Marxist resource site. You will find, as I outlined above, that the CWI opposed not the launching of a broad SSP but the launching of a broad SSP without a commitment to building a revolutionary organisation within it.

by even more frustrated Sat May 28, 2005 19:49

Two questions for Mark. Since these activists are not setting up a new party but starting a campaign which will put forward the call for such a party, whats the difference between their position and the SPs other than that they are wiiling to do something other than just repeat an abstract call for such a formation while doing nothing to bring it about? What exactly is the SP doing to advance the idea while they are waiting for the objective conditions to change?

by observer Sat May 28, 2005 22:03

the campaign will be watched by sper's with interest, and i wouldn't write it off or write off the sp getting involved so quickly.

by Mooneys Sat May 28, 2005 22:59

Perhaps this new grouping, the Socialist party and Sinn Fein should look at building a broad anti - imperialist left wing alliance here in this country. There is a need for a co-ordinated left wing alliance to take on the conservatives in this country, whther it be FF, FG or Labour. While there would be differences within these parties, they would have more than enough in common to unite as a broad front.

by one prob Sat May 28, 2005 23:28

imperialism is a very different thing to the sp than it is to sinn fein

by . Sun May 29, 2005 00:09

left is a different thing for Sp than it is for SF!

by Mooneys Sun May 29, 2005 03:55

But the SP, SF, Seamus Healy etc have more in common with each other than anyone else and should work together within the Dail and outside on the streets. Sure, everybody could nitpick. I'm sure Clare Daly coul take Joe Higgins to task on some issue or Sean Crowe could take Aengus O Snodaigh to task on something else but at the end of the day they all need to work together to achievea fairer and socialist Ireland.

by Mark P Sun May 29, 2005 15:19

It isn't entirely clear from the original article what these activists intend to do concretely to advance their call for a new party. Nor is it entirely clear what sort of structure they are creating now or how they see a new party emerging. I suppose that they will expand on all of this in time but until they do it isn't possible to precisely outline where their views and those of the Socialist Party converge and diverge. I'm no attacking this new initiative. I wish it well although I think it is highly unlikely to get an echo. It is certainly an advance that there is no talk of creating a new party or alliance right now, regardless of circumstances.

On the more general question you ask, the Socialist Party is doing its best to advance the day when a new mass party can be born by doing everything in its power to encourage working class struggle. The Socialist Party has played a key role on issues like the bin tax and the GAMA dispute, in building left bodies within the unions and on countless smaller issues. We make a contribution on this wildly out of proportion to our actual size and numbers as I think even our opponents would have to admit. This in my view is the key thing that the Socialist Party can do at the moment to help bring about a new mass party. It is a rise in working class struggle that will ultimately determine whether or not a new party can succeed.

by left-winger Sun May 29, 2005 15:24

Why would SP go into an alliance with SF? SF are a sectarian party and have implemented right-wing policies up and down the country when given the chance. If workers' unity in the North is to be build lefts will have to realise that Catholic sectarianism is not an alternative.

by Real South Down Republican - 32 County Sovereignty Movement Sun May 29, 2005 15:58

Will this new party be endeavouring to organise in the 32 counties, will they be against the GFA as it promotes sectarianism, will they back calls for Irish Unity and an end to partition and British rule? The imposition of Britains illegal sovereign claim over part of Ireland is at least as big an issue as the imposition of Bin Tax and the denial of Ireland's right to sovereignty is as important as the same lack of sovereignty in Iraq. I would love to see the creation of a genuine left wing pro republican party in the 32 counties but if the left wing continue to ignore the partition issue then it is not only letting down the people but also letting down the vision of one the people the left would claim as as a forefather, James Connolly.

by Workers Unity Sun May 29, 2005 17:11

There should be no "genuine left wing pro republican party in the 32 counties". There should only be a broad party launched that has an appeal to ALL workers in Ireland. Nationalism/Republicansim and Loyalism offers no alternative for the Irish working class. I also want a broad party to be internationalist in perspective. I would like to see a new workers' party be a part of an international working class fight against imperialism and liberalism.

South Down Republican should realise that nationalism excludes workers that are protestant and it makes workers be proud of "their nation". The working class will only be successful by abandoning the ideas of nationalism. Socialism will not work in one country. The workers of England are much closer to me and my interests than the Irish capitalists that you so like to promote.

by Real South Down Republican Sun May 29, 2005 17:49

Number One i agree with workers unity on the issue of nationalisim, hence i am a republican and most certainly not a nationalist. As an anti Imperialist i am interested in removing British colonialism from Ireland, this is consistent with what i believe to be the view of the left. I consider my self a socialist, what in my republicanism contaradicts this? There will be no coming together of loyalism and republicanism when Britain guarantees unionism with a veto over political change in Ireland. Unionism and Loyalism are reactionary doctrines. Sectarianism has been fed and bred (by the British) in the traditional Loyalist working class areas that some aspects of the left in Ireland seem to regard as a hope for class solidarity. This will never happen and there is absolutely no evidence to suggest it will. Indeed those in the Unionist community least hostile to the all Ireland dimension are middle class buisness people and even they are pretty hostile. Republicans cannot wait untill loyalism sees the light on the road to Damascus and the error of their ways. Anyway can anyone answer what this new party's outlook on the national question will be? even socialists must understand the sovereignty issue.

by Workers' unity Sun May 29, 2005 20:37

You seem to want workers' unity but on the terms of catholic workers! The fact remains that 1 million people in Ulster do not want an Irish 32 county state on the basis of capitalism where the catholic church and southern capitalists will have a significant influence. A capitalist united Ireland would continue the local exploitation by protestant capitalists and by international firms. I want to see a socialist Ireland as part of a socialist world where the working class will control the wealth regardless of the ethnic, historical, cultural, etc. differences. I do not want to see a capitalist united Ireland.

It amazes me at times at the ignorance that many republicans have towards working class protestants. Ulster protestants do not oppose a united Ireland because they're "backward". Yes, loyalism is backward (as is nationalism and republicanism). But loyalism is not a mainsteam view among protestant working class people in NI. The protestant working class did not gain a distrust of a united Ireland entirely from British imperialism. There is a distrust towards the backward conservative southern Irish capitalists. (I think this distrust should have been adopted by workers in the south more!).

Nationalists claim that Ireland should be sovereign. I am opposed to partition as it divides the working class and furthers sectarian thinking and other backward ideas. I think that there should be all-Ireland political and economic structures under a socialism as that makes sense (not out of your mythical and sentimental attachment to the "nation"). There should also be strong integrated political and economic links with the British working class and the working class of the world. The best way to defeat imperialism is not to write off the Ulster protestant working class, rather imperialism will be defeated by rejecting nationalism and building an international working class movement without the backward ideas of loyalism, nationalism and irish republicanism.

I would not like to play any role whatsoever in a broad workers' party that would have a nationalist or republican or loyalist position on the national question. These ideas will only appeal to one sectarian grouping and will do nothing to unite the working class in opposition to capitalism.

"South Down Republican" what's your attitude to the British working class? Do you support unity with them and workers around the world over unity with "fellow Irish" capitalists?

by Real South Down Republican Mon May 30, 2005 00:30

I am all for unity amongst the working classes of all nations but while at least the British workers are just that, British workers what am i? A member of the Irish Working Class? The Northern Irish working class? The Ulster working class? because under British rule i am still considered a member of the British working class in that i am expected to submit to British law, rule and diktat. This for me is not acceptable and it is British rule in Ireland that has and is stunting the growth of class politics in Ireland when the classes are more concerned with the national question than with capitalism, it's a reality that will not go away no matter how much SWP types wish it would.

by . Mon May 30, 2005 01:44

How do you defeat Brit imperialism?

by .dot.dot.dot Mon May 30, 2005 03:29

Do you reckon either RSDR or WU will add greatly to:
"urgent discussion on the need for a new Independent party of the left".

Tis a wondrous thing to be so right, so young.

by Workers' Unity Mon May 30, 2005 10:23

Again you show your nationalism and your dead-end ideas. You say that you are labelled as a member of the British working class. What's wrong with that? Is there a stigma to that? What's wrong with being working class? Who cares what emblem is on the front of your travel ID documents?

The British working class have to live under the rule of British capitalists. Because of your idiotic nationalistic thinking you think that British workers are to blame for British imperialism! You think that Ulster Protestant workers are naturally backward and are happy with exploitation by capitalism.

South Down Republican, your thinking offers no alternative for working class people. If a new workers party would accept nationalist ideas there will be prejudice and false barriers put up against the working class of other capitalist countries. You stalinist-type republicans may be happy with socialism in one country but I'm not going to tolerate any nationalism in the workers' movement.

by Trotwatcher Mon May 30, 2005 15:18

The SWP would just love to be involved in this new party, but are excluded. Dermot Connolly and Des Derwin made this clear at a meeting in Trinity College last year. As I understood what they were saying, it was that people from a whole range of left-wing groups - ISN, Red Banner, Socialist Alternative, Socialist Democracy, The People's Front for Red Socialist Democracy Networking Alternatives, etc. were welcome, but not anyone from SWP or SP. If an individual wanted to get involved, they would have to leave the SWP or SP - but people from ISN/Red Banner could keep their membership of that organisation.

That makes me think it's just another bunch of people who think THEY have the holy grail. Either a broad party is open to everyone or not and whatever you think about the SWP or the SP, they both have people working at the grassroots in working class areas across this island. What is needed is something where everyone works with everyone else and no one is excluded. Otherwise, the left will never get anywhere in this country.

by Trotwatcher Watch Mon May 30, 2005 15:26

He huffed and he puffed and he blew the straw man down.

There is no party. Just a call.

Of course Trotwatcher wouldn't be a SWP member. The author name is so clever.

by Mark P - Socialist Party (personal cap) Mon May 30, 2005 18:40

"Trotwatcher" may or may not have a fair point to make but the childish attempt at subterfuge actually damages that point. Why not just come straight out and make your argument under your own name or under a consistent psuedonym? I don't often agree with the SWP but I would be more inclined to listen to somebody who said "I am in the SWP and I think..." rather than hamfistedly trying to hide their affiliations. People from every group and political current on the left do it here sometimes and never seem to grasp that it only succeeds in making themselves seem shifty and dishonest.

That kind of behaviour is distinct from a related source of irritation - people who post from regularly changing psuedonyms while making factional attacks on other people on the left. The problem with that isn't dishonesty, they aren't trying to pass themselves off as something else after all. The problems are cowardice and cynicism. They want to attack some other grouping, for factional purposes, but don't want to look like they or their own group are carping or being negative. Even more to the point they don't want the objects of their scorn to be able to say "hang on a second, let's compare our record with your own". Again it's not hard to work out that this is something done by people who are members of every group or current on the left and it doesn't make anyone look good.

Anyway, on Trotwatcher's core point, I'm not sure if he/she is correct. The original article doesn't make it clear what kind of structure this new campaign will have, if any. It doesn't make it clear how organisations can affiliate or if they can. It doesn't make it clear how individuals can join or if they can. Nobody associated with this project is posting on the thread, at least not openly (perhaps one of the anonymistas?), so none of the uncertainties raised have really been clarified. Until these things are expanded on it seems a bit unfair to assume an answer and then attack it.

by Real South Down Republican Mon May 30, 2005 19:36

Workers Unity you ask me what is wrong with me being labelled as a member of the British Working class, I'm Irish, and Britain is occupying my country against the wishes of the majority of the people. Would a Polish or Ukranian Worker object to being called Russian? Of course they would, would a palestinian worker accept being called a member of the Israeli working class because to call himself Palestinian would be 'Nationalistic' and non-socialist, of course not. Would a left wing Basque object to being called a Spanish worker, particularly under a right wing Spanish government, of course. Why is it wrong for Irish people to assert the fact that they are Irish yet the left prattle on about Palestine and a nation and peoples rights there. A wee bit of consistency please. This reminds me of the Prick Bono in the 80's slabbering about Nicuragua and El Salvador yet ignoring the liberation struggle just up the road. There is no contradiction between being a Republican and a Socialist.

by Barry Mon May 30, 2005 23:10

Dont mention the war .

James Connolly wouldnt be let in the door of his party .

I wouldnt worry too much about it .

by SD supporter Tue May 31, 2005 10:10

Readers might be interested in the long article on left unity and a new workers party recently published by Socialist Democracy. SP members will be irritable but that can't be helped.

by Workers' Unity Tue May 31, 2005 14:56

South Down Republican you again show your dead-end nationalism. You say that you've a big problem with being labelled as British. Fair enough, you are born, bred and work in Ireland and see yourself as Irish. But that's not my point. My point is that why have you got a grudge against the British working class? They are also oppressed by British imperialists. They are allies not enemies.

You also don't take up my point about protestant workers. The fact is that your nationalism is a barrier to Ulster protestants. Protestant workers are also oppressed by British, Irish and international capitalism. Why do you want to infuse an ideology into a workers' party that seeks to exclude and blame them for the crimes of capitalism!

On the point of Connolly made by another poster. Yes I have very serious criticisms of Connolly. I think he made a serious serious error in joining in the 1916 Rising and reducing the workers' movement to second place behind nationalists who resisted any notion of a workers' state. Connolly also made a serious error in not building a political alternative for working class people. In saying this Connolly did make a serious contribution to the workers' movement in Ireland. Connolly's mistakes were largely due to the context of the 1913 Lockout set-back and international political isolation in the war years.

by Trotwatcher Tue May 31, 2005 21:48 Dublin

I am an Irish republican. But I do go to their events to see what they are saying about us and I was at the meeting in Trinity when Dermot Connolly said that SWP and SP members would not be allowed to become involved in their new sectlet. The SWP were livid. Ask D. Connolly or D. Derwin. Both were there [and know who I am].

by Darragh Ó Bradáin - LY UCD (pers cap) Tue May 31, 2005 23:43

What would this new party's view be on the promotion of the national language, Gaeilge?

by Matt Brown Wed Jun 01, 2005 00:45

I am a member of the Protestant working class, and also consider myself an Irish Republican Socialist. Just putting in my own two-penneth worth I'd like to state that my own ideas are more akin to "Real South Down Republican" above. I find it quite bizarre that 'Worker's Unity' somehow bends and twists these postings to suggest that there is some kind of anti-British Working Class agenda here.
Unfortunately, the former poster is correct in stating the futility of waiting around for aeons until the protestant working class as a whole wake up to the 'correct socialist analysis'. The majority of the protestant working class are held solidly under the influence of British Unionism and Ulster Loyalism. They deem their interests to be as one and, not only that, are willing to shed their blood for it (and other people's!). In any revolution throughout history it has been shown that there will always be a section of the working class who will choose to fight and die in defence of the status quo and I'm afraid this is no different.
The SWP and similar left groups are reluctant to address this issue no doubt because it makes them extremely uncomfortable, and because a more rigorous stance against Loyalism and Unionism would alienate them from (in their eyes) "prospective Protestant party members".
One thing that many "traditional" left groups in the North seem to forget is that their direct influence in the resistance struggle against British occupation in Ireland in the past 30 years ranges from minimal to zero.
I can state with confidence however is that many Working Class anti-imperialists living in Britain have (and continue) to support the Irish Republican struggle, especially where the issue of Republican prisoners is concerned.

by Hackwatcher Wed Jun 01, 2005 01:31

Trotwatcher can be easily exposed for the dishonest party hack he is: the original post makes it perfectly clear that these groups are not forming a new party: "There is no proposal at this time to declare the formation of a new party". Their intention seems to be to start a campaign to advance the idea. Like Mark P, I'm not sure how they are going to go about it or whether its the right time to do so and until things are clearer Ill reserve judgement but Im not going to denounce them out of hand.

BTW, Trotwatch shows his utter ignorance by describing the groups involved as Trotskyist. Whatever about the Red Banner group, the ISN, Tipperary Group and CWAG are definitely not Trotskyist organisations.

by justadot Wed Jun 01, 2005 02:08

Obviously the left does - but what about the republicans?

by Dr John Coulter Wed Jun 01, 2005 16:30

Republicans across the island should lend an ear to the present separate political debates taking place amongst the Left in Britain and Northern Unionism on the concept of party unity.

The General and local council elections in the North have placed Sinn Fein firmly in the middle ground as the main voice of Northern nationalism.

It may not have delivered the same electoral annihilation to the moderate SDLP in the same way Ian Paisley's DUP hammered Ulster Unionism, but it has confirmed Sinn Fein's place as the lead negotiator of the nationalist cause.

The muddied waters of 'who speaks for Northern nationalists' is now crystal clear - last year's European election victory over the SDLP was not a 'one-off fluke'.

The republican movement should use this new, reinforced mandate not simply to advance the peace process, but to further strengthen the concept of the pan-nationalist front throughout the island.

One immediate tactic it should deploy is for Sinn Fein to outflank the DUP by dropping its ban on MPs taking their Westminster seats. The stumbling block has always been the oath of allegiance, but in this respect Sinn Fein needs to listen closely to the sound advice of one of the great stalwarts of the Left, Tony Benn.

The abstentionist policy may have been central to the republican electoral strategy in 1918 when Sinn Fein clinched the majority of Irish seats when the entire island was ruled by Britain.

However, the time is right for the republican movement to prove it is a truly democratic nationalist party like the Scottish National Party.

Just as the DUP needs to deliver on power-sharing with nationalists, so too Sinn Fein can shake off the perception it is merely the IRA Army Council's wee political puppet by having the vision to scrap abstentionism and take the oath at Westminster.

Practically, it is not being asked to take any other oath which is different from that taken by the Left or nationalist MPs, or indeed any future radical Islamic movement MPs.

Historically, supposedly true republicans are as much opposed to the Dail in Dublin as they are to British rule in the North. Yet Sinn Fein TDs sit in Leinster House and participate fully in debates to such a degree the party could become a serious contender for coalition government with Fianna Fail after next year's Southern General Election.

Republicans should remember the impact which a young Bernadette Devlin made in 1969, when as a Unity candidate, she won the Mid Ulster Westminster by-election and took her seat in the Commons.

She did almost as much to highlight and progress the republican cause at Westminster than a generation of Provisional IRA bloodshed on Northern streets. As things currently stand, many republicans are asking themselves the question - did IRA hunger striker Bobby Sands MP die so Sinn Fein could agree a deal to make Ian Paisley the de facto Prime Minister of a partitionist parliament at Stormont?

This question has been the key one in fuelling the growth of the militant dissident republican cause in Ireland, as espoused by the Real and Continuity IRA's and political movements such as Republican Sinn Fein.

Sinn Fein needs to convince its ranks and file supporters that a purely democratic strategy will take the movement closer to the historical goal of a 32-county, socialist republic.

Sinn Fein needs to look to the example of Eamon de Valera. As a vehement anti-Treaty activist, he lost the Civil War. But he became leader of the South by joining Fianna Fail and going into democratic government. Now that Sinn Fein has moved from the perceived 'extremes' to the middle ground of Northern politics, it is imperative abstentionism is ditched otherwise it will become a Biblical mill stone around Sinn Fein's neck.

Speaking of Biblical mill stones, there is also the real danger Paisleyism's highly volatile fundamentalist clique could become the DUP's Achilles' Heel. The Sinn Fein leadership can outgun the Paisleyites by confronting them on their newfound 'home turf' - the Chamber floor of the House of Commons.

On the Provisionals' side, they need to transform the IRA into an old comrades' group known as the Irish Republican Association. Eventually, too, Sinn Fein once it is totally democratic could merge with the SDLP to become a united, single movement known as The Republican Party of Ireland.

Long-term, Ireland should have only one republican party. In the South, Fianna Fail pushed the ethos of 'The Republican Party'. Now is the time to start building the foundations of transforming the pan-nationalist front into this single republican party.

Fianna Fail needs an all-Ireland credibility. Sinn Fein needs a democratic credibility free from the perceptions of criminality. The SDLP needs to maintain its middle class power base.

In terms of mergers, the time has come to unite all three nationalist movements - not into a 1974 loyalist-style Unionist Coalition, but into a single party wedged firmly in the Catholic middle class and ensuring the working class never feel the need to return to armed struggle.

Maybe the time has also come, for the sake of republican unity, not simply to transform the IRA into an association, but also to consider the unthinkable - mothballing the title 'Sinn Fein' itself.

by holdmeback Wed Jun 01, 2005 17:32

"a single party wedged firmly in the Catholic middle class and ensuring the working class never feel the need to return to armed struggle" !

Yeah, it certainly gets the middle classes worried when the working class start throwing punches.

by nosey Wed Jun 01, 2005 18:49

Who are the Community and Workers' Action Group? Never heard of them.

by Barry Thu Jun 02, 2005 03:52

Im very much in agreement with Matts comments . While throughout history republicans have made immense contributions to socialist theory and action , the left have made damn all contribution towards the national issue .
The perennial excuse of the likes of WU that opposing the occupation alienates unionists is simply a cop out . A gutless one at that .

Was Ho Chi Minh for example wrong to have sought an end to colonialism and partition in Vietnam in case it offended the Vietnamese Roman Catholic minority in the south ?

To hear Connolly criticised for being a hare brained idiot of some kind for opposing colonialism sums that useless position up to a T .

Karl Marx himself was a staunch supporter of the Fenians . At the height of their bombing campaign he brought 1000s of working class British people on to the streets in support of Irish independence . No doubt he was an idiot too .

It is the persistent interference of the British government in Irish affairs which has led to and cemented the sectarian divisions in this country . In order to remove those divisions its root causes must be tackled . The primary cause of this is the British occupation of Irish soil .

I think the problem with people like Workers Unity is that they wish they were born in Britain rather than here . They identify more with the British than their own nation , a classic symptom of our native inferiority complex , itself a direct result of colonialism .

I suggest a good read of Franz Fanons wretched of the earth and a few paracetomal as a remedy .

by Workers' Unity Thu Jun 02, 2005 14:05

I do not think that British imperialism should go without criticism. British imperialism has played a disgusting role in Ireland. The Protestant working class has also suffered from British imperialism. Nationalists claim that protestants are somehow guilty of British imperialism.

Marx gave Irish and Polish nationalism very critical support. The reason was that if there was Irish independence it would be a gain for the peasantry of Ireland and would be a blow to British imperialism. It's not because he loved Irish nationalism. He had no love of nations. Marx gave the US Republican Party critical support in the 1860s does not mean that marxists support George Bush!

Why should I feel "proud" of Ireland? Why? I am proud of working class tradition and politics in this country and other countries. But I've no love of Ireland. Nationalist love of their country means that they will back up the likes of Tony O'Reilly, Dermot Desmond, Bertie Ahern etc against other capitalists simply as they've a harp on their passport. Tell me exactly what is wrong with having an affinity with British workers? or German workers? or French workers?

by Karl McDonagh Thu Jun 02, 2005 14:43

Why is this thread all about the SP?? I am more interested in the Healy proposal and work. Whats it all about? how can I get involved in Roscommon? How will it differ from the SWP? apart from the obvious who else is involved? Is it Dublin/Tipp only? Please give us more information about the idea behind the move and less about the SP/SWP - I already know what they are about.

by confused Fri Jun 03, 2005 11:39

The SP Manifesto in the 26 counties

In the south

Workers' Rights
- A guaranteed right to a job or training with decent wages and full workers' rights.

reform

- For a minimum wage of €12 an hour tax free with no exemptions.

reform

- For a 35 hour week without loss of pay.

reform - what about part time workers?

- For a decent social welfare payment, linked to average earnings.

reform

- Free childcare for all.

reform

Reclaim the trade unions
- For democratic trade unions to fight in the interests of their members on pay, conditions and job security.

reform

- Full time union officials should be regularly elected and receive the average wage of those they represent.

reform

- Scrap the anti-union laws. An end to "social partnership".

reform

Health
- For a free public national health service. No to private health care.

reform

Education
- Free, quality education for all from primary to university, with a living grant.

reform

Housing
- For a massive public house building programme, funded by central government to eliminate the housing waiting lists.

reform

Privatisation
- No to privatisation, public private partnerships and private finance initiatives.

reform

- All publicly owned services and companies to be run under democratic working class control.

only publically owned? - reform

Equality
- An end to discrimination on the grounds of race, religion, sex, sexual orientation, disability and to all forms of prejudice.

reform-already exists

- For the right to asylum and the scrapping of racist anti-asylum and immigration laws. For the right to work, with full protection, for immigrant workers.

reform

Local Taxation
- Scrap the bin charges - no to double taxation in any form. Local authorities to receive proper funding from central government funds.

reform

Waste management
- For major investment into a publicly owned recycling service to combat the waste crisis. No to waste incinerators.

reform

On top of all the reforms proposed in the manifesto in the "South" they have no idea or explaination of how any could be achieved, how they could be paid for etc.

WHERE IS THE REVOLUTIONARY PARTY CONTENT?

by Leftover Fri Jun 03, 2005 17:32

Having observed both the SP and the SWP for some time now, it is my humble opinion that as they stand, the power wielders in either party couldn't organise a fry-up around a forest fire!! There will be no Irish socialist revolution in my life time.

by SP Fri Jun 03, 2005 19:37

Confused your posting above is dishonest. What you have posted is a selective version of the Socialist Party's What We Stand For column from the back page of our paper The Socialist. You deliberately left out the following paragraphs:

International
- Oppose the big business dominated European Union. No to the militarisation of Europe and to a European Army.

- For solidarity of the European working class. For a socialist Europe.

- No to imperialist wars. End the occupation of Iraq. For a socialist Iraq.

Northern Ireland
- Build a real peace process based on uniting the working class communities, not on bringing discredited sectarian politicians together.

- Joint trade union and community action to counter all forms of sectarianism.

- An end to all activity by all paramilitaries, loyalist and republican. Complete demilitarisation.

Socialism
Capitalism is the cause of poverty, inequality, environmental destruction and war. We need an international struggle against this system and its effects. The working class can build a socialist world in which the resources of the planet are used to satisfy the needs of the mass of the people not the thirst for profit of a tiny minority of super rich.

- Take all major industry, banks and financial institutions into public ownership and place them under the democratic control and management of working class people.

- For the working class to democratically plan the economy to provide for the needs of all, and to protect our environment.

- For the building of a mass political party capable of uniting the working class in the struggle for socialism in Ireland.

- For a socialist Ireland as part of a free and voluntary socialist federation of England and Wales, Scotland and Ireland.

by Barry Sat Jun 04, 2005 21:21

No mention of an end to British occupation , itself the root cause of sectarian division .

An end to paramilitarism ? fine . But why did republican paramilitary groups spring up in the first place ?
to resist British occupation . No mention of the British crown forces in this document . Presumably they are regarded as legitimate but armed working class groups are not .

And who set up armed and directed the loyalist paramiltary groups in the first place ? The British " security" establishment .

No mention of an end to their rotten and murderous interference in Irish affairs .

And you want all of Ireland to be federated with the UK ?

GO FUCK YOURSELVES .

Its the alliance party with a che Guevara t-shirt . Whats worse this party seems to have adopted the states line of blaming the working class for paramilitarism and making no mention of the conditions which give rise to resistance in the first place . Indeed as they want all of Ireland to be linked to Britain its hardly surprising they refuse to lay the blame for the mess that is the north at the door of British interference . This Socialist Party is actually controlled from Britain, is it not ?

A waste of space and an insult to peoples intelligence .

by Mark P Sun Jun 05, 2005 18:41

Thanks for those words of wisdom Barry. It's a darkly amusing experience to have someone who supports the organisation responsible for the Omagh bombing muster the cheek to be outraged by the Socialist Party's politics.

For anyone who is actually interested in the politics of the Socialist Party, the What We Stand for column is a useful summary. It is not however and does not claim to be our analysis of the historical reasons behind the national conflict in Ireland. For a detailed account you would be better advised to turn to some of the books and pamphlets we have produced on the subject over the years. Some of these publications are available in full on our website and all of them are very clear about the central role of British imperialism in creating the conflict in the first place.

"Troubled Times":
http://www.socialistworld.net/publications/tt/index.html

"Beyond the Troubles":
http://www.marxist.net/ireland/index.html

"Divide and Rule":
http://socialistalternative.org/literature/dandr/

"For Workers Unity":
http://www.geocities.com/socialistparty/Publications/FWUIntro.htm

And no, the Socialist Party is not "controlled from Britain". We are organised as one party on both sides of the border and our highest decision making body is our annual national conference. Internationally we are affiliated to a worldwide grouping of socialist parties called the Committee for a Workers International which is organised in forty or so countries.

by Darragh Ó Bradáin Mon Jun 06, 2005 14:18

Did anyone come up with an answer for this question yet:

"What would this new party's view be on the promotion of the national language, Gaeilge?"

by Lefty Mon Jun 06, 2005 15:26

I'd say that a new broad left-wing workers' party would have the policy of defending the right of Irish speakers to use their language in services, Irish speakers should be entitled to education rights (such as Irish language text books in schools), Irish speakers should have a right to use Irish in their employment also. I personally would not favour a new party having a position of Irish being 'better' or 'more worthy' than English. I'm an English speaker I'm no lesser a person!! I also think that a 'cupla focail' type use of Irish that establishment parties have should not be tolerated.

by avid Mon Jun 06, 2005 17:05

The position of a left wing working class party should be straight forward. There should be equal language rights for all. No discrimination on the basis of language, the state should facilitate minority languages as far as practicable. In saying this no language is superior to another.The state should not promote one language over another, to do so is nationalism.

by Once again Mon Jun 06, 2005 21:54

Darragh and others, please, please read the original post again: there is no new party, its the start of a campaign by a number of seperate groups for the creation of a new party in the future! How can a party which does not exist have policies???

by Darragh Ó Bradáin Tue Jun 07, 2005 02:15

Read my post again, above poster. My question used the word WOULD, not IS.

And just to clarify my own views, I do not believe that any language is superior to another. My concerns are with the struggle to keep Gaeilge alive, as it is in danger, despite what some may claim. To promote it would not actually be nationalism, it would simply encourage the use of a minority language in a country where English is the dominant language, and is in no danger of dying out!

by still confused Tue Jun 07, 2005 10:30

SP policy seems to be - the further you are from Ireland the more revolutionary you are........................

by Linguist Tue Jun 07, 2005 14:41

The Irish Language is not dying out. Of all the languages in the world Irish is a very well spoken language. There are Irish language schools, newspapers, books, and workplaces. If a party had a policy of equal rights between languages and not promoting Irish the language would still survive well. I don't think that Irish should be promoted either. Why should it? It's not going to die out. It's not superior or more worthy than English. I think there is a hint of nationalism there.

by Michael Gallagher Tue Jun 07, 2005 16:40

If you or your friends want free Irish language classes, check out Connolly Books, they used to have free classes before they moved across the river.

by Darragh Ó Bradáin Tue Jun 07, 2005 19:05

"The Irish Language is not dying out. Of all the languages in the world Irish is a very well spoken language. There are Irish language schools, newspapers, books, and workplaces. If a party had a policy of equal rights between languages and not promoting Irish the language would still survive well. I don't think that Irish should be promoted either. Why should it? It's not going to die out. It's not superior or more worthy than English. I think there is a hint of nationalism there."

Well at least you're agreeing with what I said about all languages being equal. And no, it's nothing to do with nationalism. The fact of the matter is, English does not need promotion, as it is the third most spoken language in the world. However, Gaeilge does need promotion if it wants to survive in a highly Americanised world.

by Leftover Wed Jun 08, 2005 21:44

Listen you lot, is this a nutcase site or what? Get back to the core issues, why did the Socialist Party dessert the anti-bin tax campaign? Was the grass not green enough?

by smithie Fri Jun 10, 2005 13:42

The original post tells us that the Labour party has an "undivided commitment to coalition". Now this is simply is not true.The ATGWU,Labour Youth and some TDs all reject coalition deals with right wing parties.

I wish the new group well. But I say this:we all need to look outside of ourselves and target the support of right wing parties. The Labour party has 22 seats and around 11-15% support.In my view,the left should look at how to convince peole to turn away from the right rather than target each other and seek to divide up what is in fact a rather small cake.

by Observer Fri Jun 10, 2005 14:22

When was the last time the Labour post general election didn't look to go into coalition? Have to go back a bit? I'd call that a pretty "undivided commitment to coalition".
Miniscule sections within the Labour party opposing things just help give the LP the veneer of being open and democratic. Just see what would happen if they grew. They would be purged like Fabius in France.

by raymond deane Thu Jul 07, 2005 21:57

This discussion proves yet again that the right have one colossal advantage over the left: they don't let differences on doctrinal detail come between themselves and power. The fact that they share one overriding ideology - profit before people - means that they're willing to come together at all costs (costs to other people) in order to impose that ideology. The left continues to bicker about differences which, while real in themselves, tend to negate their overriding ideology - people before profit. The reason why this ideology is divisive is that it's based on principle; the other one is based on its absence.

Let's encourage the formation of this new party, and give it a chance.

by Steve Wed Jul 09, 2008 23:04 flabbyvegan at hotmail dot com

This particular set of comments just underscores all my cynicism about left-wing politics; grand ideas quickly degenerating into a squabble, to sum it up. Besides that, the whole idea just seems incredibly self-righteous, it's that whole "we know what's best for everyone" arrogance that I associate with the left wing so often. How broad do you want this party to be? Dictatorship of the proletariat or dictatorship OVER the proletariat? I'm instantly distrustful of anyone who wants that kind of power.

Besides, it's ineffectual to organise like that. As even a simple posting on a website shows, it's hard for two socialists to agree on two issues! If this got off the ground you'd have schisms all over the place within a short time. In my opinion, the most effective way to unite working people for common goals is to encourage people to take the task on themselves in their own workplaces and localities and watch federations build from there. An imposed Ireland-wide single movement would just end up with the few at the top being compromised by employers, and the whole thing would be undermined. No one is incorruptible no matter what you believe. Hierarchical structures are not the way forward, but raising widespread consciousness of how capitalist exploitation operates is!

As for the partition issue, it's a huge tangled mess that has no personal significance for me, so I don't feel in any position to offer an opinion. But I will say that it's great how much the North has moved away from violence and bigotry, on both sides.