WSM plagiarism!

by Makhno Tue Nov 22, 2005 17:26

It is worthy of note how many ex-militants are zealous in their attacks on the left.

by Ex-Militant Tue Nov 22, 2005 16:26

Colm if I was you I'd be less sceptical. I don't think there is any doubt that it was a member (however unrepresentative) of the SP who wrote the piece you were talking about nor for that matter does it seem that Mark P thinks otherwise. Some of the members are zealotry in their defence of perceived threats on 'the party'.
Of course the poster who advises you to be sceptical doesn't even see the irony of using the same author name as the person who slagged your (and others) organisation off - or do they? Don't rule out the author of the alleged 'plagarized' article being all over this thread.

by SP Member Tue Nov 22, 2005 15:40

It very hard to believe that the vast majority of the stuff on here has come from genuine sources. As someone who worked side by side with members of the ISN during the election campaign I can say that I have nothing but the utmost respect for those involved. I belive this would also be representative of the entire SP.

by Colm Breathnach - ISN personal capacity Tue Nov 22, 2005 14:21

I'll leave the 'oh yes he did'...'oh no he did'nt' debate to others but I can't help putting a question to the person using the name 'SP Member'. He described the ISN amongst others as an 'irrelevent little sect'. He's entitled to his opinion but he might have a problem explaining how members of this irrelevent little sect worked their butts off for the SP candidate in Dublin North in the last general election, a small piece of assistance that was warmly welcomed by the Socialist Party. He might also be unaware that ISN members work together with SP members in a consistently fraternal manner in the Finglas Anti Bin Tax Campaign. To be honest, given his insulting and intemperate language towards others on the left who have worked constructively with the SP despite our differences, I doubt very much whether 'SP Member' is an SP member.

As to the important point about a new party of the working class, whatever about other groups, the ISN has consistently argued that that is exactly what we are working towards, not some reshuffling of the the small deck of far-left cards. The only difference with the SP that I can discern is that the ISN believes that steps should be taken now to begin the process of creating such a party, whereas the SP sees even such preliminary steps as premature. As for the recent meeting in the Teachers Club which brought toghether various groups and individuals to start such a campaign, I promised to give a full report, but unfortunately I was out of the country for the last week, so I did'nt get a chance to post it. I'll do so as soon as I have the time.

by organise Mon Nov 21, 2005 22:10

are the SP opposed to copy left? have they strict copyright procedures in their publications, God, this is a pathetic example of why the authoritarian left politcs are so outdated, irrelvant, and unneccesary in contemporary left wing social movements

by Amused Mon Nov 21, 2005 18:00

You come out of this glowing whereas the sectarian inward looking SP show themselves up again.

by guydebordisdead Sun Nov 20, 2005 20:11

If the WSM would be the grown ups we know they can be and simply stop rising to the SP's bait, be the bigger people, let them say whatever they need to about these similar articles and stop dignifying them with responses.

by pat c Sun Nov 20, 2005 15:25

concentrate on the theme of both of the articles.

by an imcer Sun Nov 20, 2005 14:02

are supplied intravenously with coffee and fag smoke up the nose and have eyelids propped open with coctail sausage sticks 24/7 with small children available at all times to hit the refresh button

they're the editors

by Joe Sun Nov 20, 2005 13:42

I find it interesting that people return from the pub/parties at 2, 2.30 and even 5 in the morning and check indymedia before going to bed!

by Having a laugh Sun Nov 20, 2005 13:23

anyone?

by another history guy Sun Nov 20, 2005 12:34

"No expulsions followed"

Except for the expulsion of the whole group from the CWI...

by History guy Sun Nov 20, 2005 12:28

More petty sniping from the SP.
Sir, he copied my homework.
And added to it
And subtracted from it
Or did he.
Who cares anyway.

If Socialist Party comrades want to talk about plagiarism here are 3 good examples.

The Socialist Party paper used to be called 'Socialist Voice'. They had to change the name because the Communist Party objected to the theft of their southern Irish paper's title, 'Socialist Voice'

The Socialist Party of England and Wales stole the name of the still existing (and oldest) socialist party in Britain - the Socialist Party/SPGB. That is why the electoral authorities do not allow the SPEW to run in elections under their own name, they have to run as 'Socialist Alternative'

The CWI section in the Ukraine organized a fraud to steal money from other socialist parties a couple of years ago. No expulsions followed, which must mean that it was not deemed a bad thing by the CWI.

A statement issued through the Socialist Party of Great Britain 's official journal, Socialist Standard, summed up the scheme as follows:

"Members of this group would contact groups in the West by e-mail feigning agreement with their political position; if the groups from the West sent a delegation to the Ukraine to check, the Trotskyists concerned would assemble a dozen or so of their supporters, all of whom had been coached in the views of the group concerned.

Thus, our delegates who went to Kiev in November 2001 met a group of individuals who expressed socialist views and had no reason to doubt their sincerity. Any money sent went into the coffers of the Trotskyist group. At least 10 groups seem to have been taken in by this scam including, besides ourselves, the SLP of America, the Socialist Studies group [of SPGB dissidents], and various rival Trotskyist outfits"

by Phuq Hedd Sun Nov 20, 2005 06:33

If the WSM really are copying the SP in believing that there's something wrong with capitalism (nice one SP! can I buy your paper?) then the WSM should be careful, because, as George Orwell pointed out: just as much as thought corrupts language, language corrupts thought.

Don't read SP toilet matter or you could end up soiling your mind. (The thoughts in this post are (c) Phuq Hedd. No unauthorised head reproduction allowed without prior agreement. By reading these words you agree to a full head audit)

by jack white - wsm Sun Nov 20, 2005 06:01

... ah lads, i came in tonight and started laughing when i read this. But its all a bit much isn't it?

by Alan MacSimoin - WSM Sun Nov 20, 2005 02:19

Damn, I arrive home to find I'm up before the court of proletarian justice, and me without even a good suit for the appearance.

To reply or not to reply? Why not, I'll try to put this to bed before going to bed myself. I know that wiser folk will tell me that if I feed the trolls they won't go away.

Ah, what the hell, go on Alan, says I, throwing myself on the mercy of the vengeful masses
.

"Bertie Ahern pretended to be sympathetic when he said that the company was engaging in "sharp practice"."

.....Um, this came from his widely reported statement to the Dail on September 28th:
“It is sharp practice, is totally unacceptable in the Irish labour context”

"SIPTU cannot sort this out with court cases nor with appeals to the government."

....Blindingly obvious I would have thought. Certainly not something that wouldn't occur to any socialist, anarchist or Leninist. Is ‘appealin’ not why the destination of the recent protest was shifted from the Irish Ferries office to Government Buildings?

"A strike to shut down Irish Ferries would give Rothwell and his pals something to think about. A commitment by trade unionists in the ports of Ireland, Britain and France to refuse to handle its ships would quickly bring a halt to their gallop."

.....Whatever our anonymous SP friend may think of the WSM, surely he/she will grant that anarchists know what Irish Ferries does and where it trades? And that action in Britain and France would be of great assistance.

"Our unions have the power to shut down Irish Ferries until they agree to employ all of their staff on trade union rates of pay."

.....Again, is it not obvious that our unions do have that power? After 30 years as a union activist I didn't just discover this a few weeks ago!

But, to keep our friend entertained, I've left the best 'till last.

"His fellow cabinet member Tom Parlon said that new employees of Irish Ferries would be better off than they would be in their own country because they would be getting €3.50 an hour and their board and lodging!"

.....This did indeed come from Stevie's article. As I didn't for a moment think that Parlon had rushed off to Thomas Street to give the SP an exclusive interview I reckoned it had been spotted in one of the mainstream newspapers. It was a good one to use and was glad that Stevie spotted it.

And, yes, I did see Stevie's article while writing mine. And, yes, I found his quite useful in tightening up my own one. His structure was good and helped me to get rid of some my excessive verbiage so that I could get it down to the mere 400 words the cruel and heartless Workers Solidarity editorial committee had told me as the absolute maximum.

Now that I have publicly paraded myself in the required sackcloth and ashes, beating my breast and begging absolution from all and sundry, maybe we could get back to giving some thought to the matter of putting teeth back into our unions.

And to finish on a good note. I got a mail yesterday which seems to say that another firm trying to do an Irish Ferries didn't get away with it:

"We are to advise that we have had a significant breakthrough in our above dispute in the late hours of last night. All employees will be returning to work on Monday. Redundancy notices have been lifted. Rates of pay restored.

"We wish to thank every branch who has contributed to the Doyle Concrete / Steelite Strike fund either through a work collection by shop stewards or in the purchase of tickets for our Benefit Night which takes place tonight. Our members are most grateful for whatever funds they receive as they are mostly married men with families to support. Please send on any money from the sale of tickets to this office as soon as possible so that we may help alleviate the loss they have suffered over the last six weeks and help them coming up to the festive season.

"Once again many thanks to all for the support which we have received.

Regards,

Adrian, John & Evelyn,
SIPTU, KILDARE/LEIXLIP BRANCH"

by eeekkkk Sun Nov 20, 2005 01:22

"Therefore your comments about me not referencing my sources are not relevant."

Why not?

Such stuff is only relevant when a holier than thou sectarian pointscoring sp member thinks it's relevant in the interests of 'a bit of a laugh'?
Sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander Steven.

"The majority of the facts in my article came from information that had been printed in the majority of newspapers, or were contained in news broadcasts by various television and radio stations or came from SIPTU press statements, interviews given by Jack O’Connor and broadcast on the public airwaves or the Dail records.
Joe Higgins has had meetings with Irish Ferries workers; therefore his statements to the Dail contain, as you put it, primary souring of information. The reference to Tom Parlon and what he said does not come from a newspaper, but was a comment I heard him make in an interview. Therefore your comments about me not referencing my sources are not relevant."

Wha? That is a straightforward confirmation of my deliberately over the top provocation?

JH's primary research is your secondary research. All the rest is secondary research.

I only said it as 'a bit of a joke - slaggin like' - now you've gone all serious and are overreacting and displaying a lack of a sense of humour.

Took the bait - proved my point - thank you and goodnight.

by Stephen Boyd - Socialist Party Sat Nov 19, 2005 23:39

Stephen Boyd, Editor of The Socialist.

Sad as it might be that I am looking at Indymedia on a Saturday night, I am glad that I did as I have stumbled upon an entertaining thread.
Alan can use, or copy anything he wants from The Socialist or Socialist View if he thinks it is worthy of reproduction. I have to agree with comments from Mark P and SP Member that it is funny that Alan has been "inspired" (as Mark P put it) by my article. However that’s all it is as far as I am concerned, it is funny and ironic and Chekov and eeekkkkk have over-reacted.
In your last posting eeekkkkk you say that you doubt that I did any primary researching for my article. The majority of the facts in my article came from information that had been printed in the majority of newspapers, or were contained in news broadcasts by various television and radio stations or came from SIPTU press statements, interviews given by Jack O’Connor and broadcast on the public airwaves or the Dail records.
Joe Higgins has had meetings with Irish Ferries workers; therefore his statements to the Dail contain, as you put it, primary souring of information. The reference to Tom Parlon and what he said does not come from a newspaper, but was a comment I heard him make in an interview.
Therefore your comments about me not referencing my sources are not relevant. If you read many of my articles you will see that I regularly credit sources for my information when that is appropriate. Revolutionaries need a sense of proportion at all times, and I will cajole Alan next time I see him because it is humorous.
There is a good film on TV3, Scent of a woman with Al Pacino, I recommend watching it……..

by eeekkkkk Sat Nov 19, 2005 22:29

would not have been public

and would have been absolutely fair enough

indy style it's very public and is - considering the seriousness of the content of the articles and the fundamental political agreement demonstrated by them taken together - blatant very public sectarian nit-picking and pointscoring

by Mark P - Socialist Party (personal capacity) Sat Nov 19, 2005 22:23

Just two points as my pint is getting warm.

1) Would it really kill you to just adopt a consistent psuedonym and stick with it? In particular one that doesn't give the impression that your every word is somehow an agreed statement of our organisation.

2) While I understand your frustration, I don't think it's particularly helpful to lose your temper and just indiscriminately lay into every other group you can think of. The Socialist Party has been very clear that we don't see a "realignment" of the currently existing groups and grouplets as a particularly important and useful step. What's the point in calling every other group "an insignificant sect"? It may or may not be true in each case but it doesn't add anything to your political point either way. In some countries our sister organisations are insignificant - it doesn't mean that they are wrong.

by Mark P Sat Nov 19, 2005 22:15

As I have to go down the pub and talk to some non-party members (thanks for the explanation eeeek), I'll have to be brief here but anyway...

1) I think you are wildly misinterpreting the response of the Socialist Party to Alan's little piece of "inspiration". There are no formal complaints to the Workers Solidarity Movement. No response at all from the organisation because frankly on an official level I doubt if anyone knows or much cares.

All that has happened here is that someone noticed that a piece posted to Indymedia had been at least in part half-inched from a six week old Socialist Party article and they pointed it out in the comments section. As far as I'm concerned that's amusing, but not particularly important and if the original comment hadn't provoked such howls of outrage nobody would even have remembered the, ahem, expropriation in twenty minutes time. I actually agree with what you are saying about why any activist writes an article and I do actually think it's a good thing (if not a very significant one) that the WSM found our line of argument so convincing. But really if you can't use the comments section to point out that an article has been borrowed almost sentence for sentence from another publication, you'd have to ask exactly what the comments are for.

2) The piece on the bin tax was initially written as part of a discussion within the Socialist Party. We had been the most prominent leaders of a very important campaign which we had done more than any other organisation to build and fight. That campaign had seen major tactical and strategic divisions on the left, not least between the advocates of spreading blockades from Fingal on the one hand and our council area / suburb / street isolationists on the other. It was an experience rich in lessons on how socialists should build campaigns, how we should deal with adverse conditions and state repression and how we should view the role of elections. Yes, thinking about that is a priority for us. Of course we wanted and in fact needed to discuss that in real and serious detail.

Now that document could have been kept for internal discussion. In which case no doubt the same people would be whining about our lack of openness in criticising the role of other people and organisations in the campaign without letting all of those interested see what we were saying and having the opportunity to answer back if they desired. Instead it was published in a limited fashion, chiefly on the internet. Why? Partly because we think that there are people outside our ranks who can learn from our experiences. Partly because we thought it necessary to make a point about how the remaining bin tax campaigns were sleepwalking towards defeat. Partly in response to a lengthy and not altogether coherent polemic against our own role in the campaign which had already been published here.

It was made clear at the time that this was not our final, public account of the bin tax campaign and that it was not aimed at a general audience. It's not how we address the public at large as you can see from our publications, which in one case has a print run of 60,000, and which rarely carry articles about our disagreements with others on the left. When it comes to writing that account - which certainly won't happen until the campaigns are actually over one way or the other - we will have rather different points to make. A more basic outline of what the tax represented, how it was fought and what lessons can be learnt from that fight in other words.

3) In response to your needlessly unpleasant sneers I think its necessary to make a couple of broader points clear.

The Socialist Party is these days the biggest organisation on the socialist left in this country as well as the one with the most support. That's sounds like boasting but it isn't - we have grown but we are still in the greater scheme of things tiny and marginal. What we do have, in contrast to most others on the left, is the political and organisational capacity to have a real impact from time to time.

You accuse us of being inward looking, yet which organisation was it which spent years going to door to door to build non-payment of the water and then bin taxes? Which organisation is it that uncovered the GAMA scandal and then played a vital role in fighting alongside those workers? Which organisation is whose members were central to the leadership of the term time workers strike in the North? Which organisation is at the core of most of whatever serious union left bodies exist on this island? The answer in each case is the Socialist Party and even if you didn't know at first hand it is simply unimaginable that any other currently existing left group could play that role. If that's what being "inward looking" entails, then I only wish there were more inward looking socialists around.

4) If you were at that Teachers Club meeting, how about writing a report? You say that the issue of how to cooperate with the Socialist Party was discussed, well what conclusions were reached? I'm genuinely interested to hear it.

by eeekkkkk Sat Nov 19, 2005 22:10

I just proposed the 'plagarised' article as a feature on here

Now I'd love to ask alan if I could put my (real) name to it

Would you sue me sp member/sb?

I note there is no sourcing of anything in the SB article

I doubt he did a bit of primary research beyond siptu website / newspaper reports/ RTe / socialist worker.

I accuse him of plagarising from media workers without explicit permission and without crediting his sources

I submit that mashing up a mash up has nothing to do with plagarism as the term is traditionally understood

I also submit that the mash up of a mash up is the better article because it (and follow ups from the author) deals with the industrial relations act and is reality oriented

by lola Sat Nov 19, 2005 22:03

at some sp convention if i remember correctly joe higgins said that the time was not now for left unity.....thats a prety big block to "any real realignment in Irish politics" dont you think? i dunno how you propose to unite the working class if your ideology is our way or the highway.

by SP Member Sat Nov 19, 2005 21:50

seedot you said, "I was at the meeting in the Teachers Club about a possible broad left formation (despite the easy assumption that the only reason to get annoyed is because of membership of the wsm I am most definitely not an anarcist). Relationship with the SP was an item for discussion - but tbh honest the type of behaviour that is consistently displayed here strengthens the argument that the SP are not only an irrelevancy but are a block to any real realignment happening in Irish politics."

The Socialist Party is not a block to "any real realignment in Irish politics", as you put it - the Socialist Party is opposed to the idea that the way forward is to have a realignment. We have no interest in realigning with anyone on the so-called left in this country in the south or the north. We are interested in developing a new working class party with workers, not with insignificant sects like the SWP, WSM, ISN, Community and Workers Action Group (CWAG), the Sparticist League etc. We are not going to liquidate our party for short term opportunist political gains, we are not the SWP or CWAG, we have political principles and we put the interests of the working class first unlike the SWP or CWAG who put their electoral careers above everything else it seems.

by lola Sat Nov 19, 2005 21:40

i posted on this thread the other day and then unfortuantely as i have a life outside my computer i didn't get to look a tit til today. and now it has just descended into a rant from SP member over who said what first. so fucking what if someone in the wsm robbed your article. you shouldve been glad they were readin your trot rag in the first place.

anyway....here here seedot. good post.

by seedot Sat Nov 19, 2005 21:26

or else be left behind in their ghetto.

Mark, I wrote this piece about a bin tax action in Crumlin. It was picked up more or less word for word by both the Independent and the Examiner with the amusing difference that the Examiner misread my piece and seriously overstated the numbers involved. This was a good thing - I wrote the piece so people would read it - no other purpose.

Good political writing is written to convince people of a course of action, of a certain analysis - the Leadership of Ideas. It is what is hoped for when we see groups deciding to engage with indymedia - that they will use the facilities of site to contribute to the ever widening debate here and try and bring value, news and analysis to the site. Bad political writing, imho, is written either for profit (Hitchens, Myers etc.) or to further a particular organisation - at the expense of others in the same milieu.

I would view Your positing of 30,000 words on the bin tax as bad political writing and another example of SP irrelevance. Not because someone signing themselves SP says this (every group has it's loose cannons) but because it shows all too clearly the priorities of the SP. The response to this article on its own may be funny (someone read what we wrote and agreed with - hilarious?) but the pattern is tedious, destructive and very informative about the party that, at times, you can be a well informed and congenial advocate of.

Perspective:Why does it matter. Well, for a start the readership of Indymedia is bigger than the total combined vote achieved by your party in any election. Secondly - I was at the meeting in the Teachers Club about a possible broad left formation (despite the easy assumption that the only reason to get annoyed is because of membership of the wsm I am most definitely not an anarcist). Relationship with the SP was an item for discussion - but tbh honest the type of behaviour that is consistently displayed here strengthens the argument that the SP are not only an irrelevancy but are a block to any real realignment happening in Irish politics.

When SF published their financial proposals, I thought the idea of locally managed stamp duty on house sales was an interesting possibility that offered real potential for independent local government finance without introducing rates while also hitting property speculators. Likewise I thought the greens idea of a refunded tax credit had the potential of mvoing towards a basic income which is, imo, the best redistributive mechanism available. One of the problems with electoralism is everybody is so busy cheering for their own team that these ideas must be dismissed immediately by all other parties - politics must be competitive.

One of the outcomes of both the irish ferries dispute and the Gate Gourmet dispute in the UK is that the trade union legislation is again being discussed but this time in concrete terms, in relation to specific instances. Strong arguments can be made for the re-introduction of secondary picketing - arguments that would have a resonance amongst much of the population. When Alan above puts this argument (which may or may not be developed from, copied from or implanted in his brain through mind control by the Socialist Party) your competitiveness, sectarianism and complete inability to engage with politics in a real sense rather than seeing everything through the prism of your organisational objectives means you support the SPuppie in their tedious derailing.

Choose Mark - co-operative, open debate on the issues of the day, putting your analysis forward or petty pointscoring and rallying around the outdated notion of revealed political truth. If the latter - please go away.

by SP Member Sat Nov 19, 2005 21:14

Chekov, your arrogant barefaced attempt at trying to deny the obvious has really pissed me off so lets make this even simpler for you. I have taken some examples from the articles to illustrate what everyone else can plainly see, that Alan MacSimion copied an article written by Stephen Boyd from the Socialist.


Socialist Party –
Bertie Ahern feigned interest in the plight of the Irish Ferries workers when he declared that the company was engaged in sharp practice.

WSM -
Bertie Ahern pretended to be sympathetic when he said that the company was engaging in "sharp practice".

Socialist Party -
Tom Parlon the Minister of State at the Department of Finance said that the prospective new employees of Irish Ferries would be better off than they would be in their own country because they would be getting €3.50 an hour and board and lodging!

WSM –
His fellow cabinet member Tom Parlon said that new employees of Irish Ferries would be better off than they would be in their own country because they would be getting €3.50 an hour and their board and lodging!

Socialist Party -
SIPTU cannot solve this crisis with trips to the High Court for temporary injunctions, nor by empty appeals to the government.

WSM –
SIPTU cannot sort this out with court cases nor with appeals to the government.

Socialist Party –
A strike to shut down Irish Ferries must be called immediately. Irish Ferries will be defeated if the leadership of SIPTU makes it clear that they will mobilise trade unionists in the ports of Ireland, Britain and France to refuse to handle its ships.

WSM –
A strike to shut down Irish Ferries would give Rothwell and his pals something to think about. A commitment by trade unionists in the ports of Ireland, Britain and France to refuse to handle its ships would quickly bring a halt to their gallop.

Socialist Party -
SIPTU has the power to shut the Irish Ferries operation down until they agree to employ all of their staff on current trade union rates of pay and conditions.

WSM –
Our unions have the power to shut down Irish Ferries until they agree to employ all of their staff on trade union rates of pay.

Chekov – if you are still claiming that "that it's not as obvious as you say" I would suggest that you apply to New Labour or Fianna Fail for a job as a spin doctor!

by eeekkkkk Sat Nov 19, 2005 20:35

has made me puke up my overboiled eggs and tired drowned soldiers.

Paul Kinsella is speaking sense. I do wish he'd publish his letters here daily.

I'll happily plagarise them as I go and I'm sure he won't say it's funny or call me a thief or refer to jamjars of cookies or use any lingo usually used to admonish children.

Totally depressing thread.

The sp seem to have an 'our eggs are always better boiled than yours' complex.

I also confirm that I'm not an anarchist and I didn't laugh one bit about any of this.

Gallows humour perhaps at a push - with the sectarian left's neck in the noose.

by Chekov Sat Nov 19, 2005 20:32

"but stamping your feet about how unfunny it is just makes it all the more amusing. As for NO IT ISNT!!!! AND ANYWAY WHO CARES!!, that's a masterpiece of SWP logic - it isn't true and even if it is, so what?"

The point is that I would rather cannibalise my arms than bother arguing about the probability of plagiarism. Hence I've simply pointed out to you that it's not as obvious as you say, and that I don't care anyway.

Can you explain to me where the humour is, by the way? I genuinelly find it bizzare that you think it's funny and don't see where the joke is. It's yet another of the occasions that reminds me that I seem to live in another mental universe entirely to trots.

by Mark P Sat Nov 19, 2005 20:15

but stamping your feet about how unfunny it is just makes it all the more amusing. As for NO IT ISNT!!!! AND ANYWAY WHO CARES!!, that's a masterpiece of SWP logic - it isn't true and even if it is, so what?

by Chekov Sat Nov 19, 2005 20:14

"I'm sure Indymedia readers, contributors or editors would be too happy if they saw one of their feature pieces from the front page suddenly appear, with slight edits, in some for-profit publication of the O'Reilly or Murdoch empires."

Yep, we'd all be effing outraged if the Murdoch press started running stories with virulently anti-captialist themes and angles.

You really don't get what any of this is about at all.

by Chekov Sat Nov 19, 2005 20:09

"It's blindingly obvious Chekov if you follow the passages side by side."

No it's not and who effing cares anyway.

"the utter humourlessness of some anarchists when they or their organisations are on the sharp end of the joke."

Read the above thread, there are a couple of SP members going on about how hilarious it is. Nobody else (anarchists or non-anarchist) seems to share the opinion. Some of the non-spers have tried to return to the theme of the article, while several others have pointed out how bloody small minded and petty the SP response has been.

Nobody's laughing because the joke isn't funny.

by Mark P Sat Nov 19, 2005 19:35

It's blindingly obvious Chekov if you follow the passages side by side.

By the way, another thing I find funny is the utter humourlessness of some anarchists when they or their organisations are on the sharp end of the joke. Willing to dish it out, but get all offended and narky the second they get even the gentlest prodding in return. You should be talking about something more serious instead of poking fun at us! - really Chekov you wouldn't take that from an SWP member.

by Chekov Sat Nov 19, 2005 19:29

"I cracked up laughing when I saw that Alan was caught "borrowing" from an article in the socialist for his own newspaper."

Why? I don't think that it's clear at all (as I said above), but its still a weird reaction to think that it's funny and who effing cares where the structure of the article came from.

As seedot has pointed out above, two far left parties write articles with nearly identical politics and identical choices of what to highlight. Instead of perhaps commenting on ways forward in Irish Ferries, we get typically sectarian point-scoring from the most embarrassing leftist on indymedia.

Really profound stupidity from the SP members here.

by eeekkkkk Sat Nov 19, 2005 17:53

I think your headbanging shapeshifting colleague might be talking critically about your forgiving attitude from a position of we're always right revolutionary trotskyite atheism

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Kings_Tavern

Else he's dissing you for talking to non party members in the pub

;-)

by eeekkkk Sat Nov 19, 2005 17:36

"This comparison is insightful, well thought out and not even slightly rediculous"

No it's Not.

The shannon story for instance was covered here in great detail here by many before anywhere else.

Likewise Shell in mayo recently.

likewise the gitmo express

likewise the rts police riot

etc etc ad nauseum

We (some of us - not speaking for everyone) ring up journalists and give them stories and they never credit source.

Coverage of recent mass - deportations is a case in point.

do we care that we get no credit?

Hell no. It's exactly what is meant to happen.

I never waste my time giving out about journalists who take the research and run with it. It's a waste of time. Others likewise in my experience.

I would certainly never question anybody even vaguely on the same side for doing so.

Spread the good word and let the good word spread and don't attack anyone spreading the good word for purposes of sectarian pointscoring. Otherwise it's a ghetto folks.

Now for greater sins of 'pointscoring' and lesser of 'not crediting research' I suggest the SP member and Alan go to the wikipedia gulag for their sins and contribute something for their penances

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Irish_Ferries

And for those would reduce the oh so proprietorial accusation of plagarism in the context of political speech to a laugh look at the legal stuff on the indymedia publish form and behold the multiple ironies of our sp member making the article and his comments available as part of the creative commons. You might also find out why it's making some ppl a little angry. You'll find these links there

http://www.opencontent.org/
http://www.creativecommons.org/

by Mark P Sat Nov 19, 2005 17:18

The reactions of some people here - and I don't mean my multi-psuedonymed party colleague - are getting a bit bizarre. I cracked up laughing when I saw that Alan was caught "borrowing" from an article in the socialist for his own newspaper. It's amusing, and certainly worth a bit of slagging, but it just isn't a very big deal.

Joe and seedot, as you should be able to tell quite quickly what is being remarked on is not that the two articles both call for strike action or that they are in political agreement but that the agreement is expressed in identical words and phrases and with the same structure. Alan must have been in a hurry or had his mind on something else and not done a very good job of disguising his source material. This kind of thing happens all the time on the left and the fact that someone noticed it and caught him (insert naughty child, stolen foodstuff metaphor of choice here) is certainly cause for a ribbing.

For what its worth, I think its a good thing that the WSM are in such total political agreement with us on the issue. I just think its a little funny that the agreement extended to publishing a barely rewritten article of ours as their own! As for seedots other comments about what this ahem, scandal, indicates, might I suggest that you get a bit of a sense of perspective.

PS I agree on the psuedonyms thing - in the name of Christ is it really so difficult for some of you to just pick a name and settle on it? It doesn't have to be your own name. Its just intensely irritating to take part in dicussion with someone who keeps changing their names.

by Joe Sat Nov 19, 2005 16:57

I hate to break it to you guys but the idea of a 'far left' paper suggesting that the way to deal with an industrial dispute is by going on strike is hardly original thinking (in either case). I think everybody is plagarising the tomb builders of Deir el Medina in that respect (1st recorded strike in human history) but they are dead 3500 years so unlikely to contribute here.

I agree that if the article was written as a student essay then you'd be expected to footnote the sources of your facts.But then its not a student essay.

Seeing as the SP members here are determined to keep this discussion going can I ask one obvious questions. The Workers Solidarity article is careful to point out the dangers of the Industrial Relation Act - why didn't the SP article do the same? It seems a little irresponsible arguing that Irish Ferry workers should adopt a strategy that could see their houses etc being targetted without a least pointing to this danger. Politically this would seem to be a more important issue here than who copied what from where.

Oh and while I might be "Joe" a lot of people on the left know who I am and I let everyone know not only my organisation but also my branch. Like a large number of other contributors I don't normally use my real name because I often post from work. What's your excuse for the constant shifting of pseudonyms (especially as you appear to be a student) - why not choose one and stick to it? Other SP members do this

by seedot Sat Nov 19, 2005 16:49

This thread confirms previous thoughts about the SP. When an article is published that agrees with their previously stated political line is this a cause to
(a) seek common ground in action
(b) point out that agreement exists across political lines
or
(c) use the opportunity to derail the thread for the purpose of sectarianism, reducing the possibility that the agreed course of action could ever take place, that an outsider could see the left as anything other irrelevant and pointless and that anybody could actually want to express an agreement with the SP again.

What exactly is to be achieved by any of this SP member - and Mark, can you not see how counterproductive this type of activity is and have a word with your members.

Back on track - how did the French prevent Iris Ferries from docking earlier in the summer? Who (what grade of worker) has the power here?

by Mark P Sat Nov 19, 2005 16:24

Even chunks of the article which would never appear in a SIPTU press release or an Irish Times piece are repeated almost verbatim. Unless the old lady of D'Olier Street has taken to demanding immediate strike action and ignoring the courts I suppose. There's metaphorical jam smeared all around Alan's mouth.

Basically this is cause for a bit of slagging rather than some terrible crime.

I don't get the reference to the King's pub though.

by wading shoes Sat Nov 19, 2005 16:20

I meant not too happy.

by W Sat Nov 19, 2005 16:19

"I'm sure Indymedia readers, contributors or editors would be too happy if they saw one of their feature pieces from the front page suddenly appear, with slight edits, in some for-profit publication of the O'Reilly or Murdoch empires."

This comparison is insightful, well thought out and not even slightly rediculous.

by SP Member Sat Nov 19, 2005 16:17

No it doesn't actually matter, and if others want to use the Socialist as a resource for information, political argument, and programme they are welcome to do so, after all it is why the SP exists - to give political leadership!
My purpose in raising this issue was precisely to point out that it was funny, in fact it is fucking hilarious that the WSM has done this!

by wading shoes Sat Nov 19, 2005 16:17

The difference between what you're doing and the copying of text as demonstrated by the SP member above is you've quoted your source Jonathan Bardon and given the title of his work. Alan MacSimoin is passing the above piece off as his own work without giving any nod to the original text that he's copied and altered slightly.

If Alan was in college he'd be kicked out for plagiarism... its only a subtle difference of making a reference but it just means you give a bit of acknowledgement to the people that put together the words first.

Yeah its dumb sometimes, and it borders on the mentality of aggressive copyright, DRM, patents owned by corporate companies etc etc... but at the least it extends a bit of courtesy to people who put in a bit of extra effort to write original pieces.

I'm sure Indymedia readers, contributors or editors would be too happy if they saw one of their feature pieces from the front page suddenly appear, with slight edits, in some for-profit publication of the O'Reilly or Murdoch empires.

by W Sat Nov 19, 2005 16:13

Why would a respectable member of the wsm even be reading the sp's paper?

Compare any two news stories from similar publications and you will find that they are nearly always very similar. This my friend would mostly be because there is an accepted style of writing articles and news stories in which you arrange the facts in a logical order based on importance, relevence, blahblahblah..

Shouldn't you be off defending North Korea?

by SP Member Sat Nov 19, 2005 16:12

It is great to see that the WSM are inspired by the Socialist Party. And Mark P, might your concilatory tone reflect too much time spent in the male monarch's tavern!

by x Sat Nov 19, 2005 16:08

Alright, so it really looks like Alan from the WSM copied some large chunks of the article. Does it matter that much in the end enough?

by Joe - WSM - 1st of May (personnel cap) Sat Nov 19, 2005 16:05

This is pretty weird stuff all right.

I'd presume Alan doesn't know Eamonn Rothwell personally so therfore Alan couldn't have obtained some of the facts in the article first hand by asking him over breakfast. But then this presumably also applies to the author of the SP article.

So we can be sure both must have copied these facts from another source or sources. Perhaps this could have been in parallel (both pulling the obvious facts out of the Irish Times or a SIPTU press release. I wonder if Geraldine Kenny will chime in next?) Or indeed it could have been in series (SPer copies facts from Irish Times, Alan copies facts from SPer).

The really odd thing (as eeekkk points out) is seeing this process as a crime. How do you think human knowledge works - did you spend your childhood re-inventing the wheel? People copy from each other all the time - its only Bill Gates, Sony and the like that see this as criminal behaviour!

[Confession - I've actually spent the day copying facts from a book called 'A history of Ulster' onto a file on my computer. I also intend to publish an article using such copied facts because I'm afraid I missed the 1880's first time around. I do hope this does not lead to Jonathan Bardon (the author) stalking me in a similar manner. Here is a stolen fact presented for your amusement

Land league meeting at Brookkeborough, Co. Fermanagh on 9 Dec 1880 banned by conservative magistrates “yet farmers gathered in force to listen to James Little and James Thomas, both masters of Orange lodges”. Lord Deramore warned “A weeks since, the Land League invaded Ulster .. men who voted for the Conservatives last April are now openly fraternising with democrats whom six weeks ago they would not have touched with a long pole, and the wave of communism has spread like wildfire”. Davitt addressing 2000 protestants farmers at Letterkenny, Con Donegal on 21 Jaunuary 1881 said “You are no longer the tame and superstitious fools who fought for their amusement and profit with your equally foolish and superstitious catholic fellow workers .. No, my friends, the landlords of Ireland are all of one religion – their God is Mammon and rackrents, and evictions their only morality”

by eeekkkkk Sat Nov 19, 2005 16:01

Mark you're right. I for one however don't like headbangers running around when I'm having the proverbial soft boiled and 'soldiers'. Someone always gets eggs on their face or on the floor.

;-)

by Mark P Sat Nov 19, 2005 15:57

It's pretty obvious that Alan was, "inspired" by the article from the Socialist, borrowing its structure and some of its turns of phrase rather than just repeating the same facts. And it's amusing that someone spotted him with his hand in the jam jar.

But really, it's hardly a big deal. I'd venture a guess that every left paper occasionally carries an article which has been "inspired" by reports in other left publications or even - shock horror - indymedia.

by eeekkkk Sat Nov 19, 2005 15:49

licking them off plate

I'm not Alan.

by eeeekkkkk Sat Nov 19, 2005 15:45

setting my breakfast times. Ever see a sign anywhere saying 'all-day breakfast'?

Shouldn't you be out selling your heavily copyrighted version of the facts papers? I do hope you are consistent and tell those that buy them that they can't be using the facts therein as material for their own community newsletters etc as the sp is very down on 'plagarists'.

by SP Member Sat Nov 19, 2005 15:40

eeekkk, Alan or whatever! Bit late for breakfast even on a Saturday!

by eeekkkkk Sat Nov 19, 2005 15:37

I'm impressed by your single minded devotion to slicing things up for your sectarian breakfast

Now tell me - is there a copyright notice on the facts (or even on your article?)

I read them carefully already - you dont have to spoonfeed me your runny over-egged pudding.

by eeekkkk Sat Nov 19, 2005 15:34

At least a couple of wsm'ers through voluntary work help you (by providing broader audience and self-publishing capability) distribute your paper already dont cha know

http://www.indymedia.ie/newswire.php?story_id=73072

bite the hands that feed

I hate the taste of overboiled eggs and sectarianism on a satterday morning

by SP member Sat Nov 19, 2005 15:33

Read the following sections of both articles and see how similar they are, and in some parts the WSM article is identical word for word. The only major difference between the articles is that the WSM article didn’t reproduce the quotation from Joe Higgins.

Socialist Party -
Eamonn Rothwell, the Managing Director of Irish Ferries who is trying to sack 543 workers and replace them with migrant workers from Eastern Europe, earned €687,000 last year. In fact he got a pay rise of €35,000 in 2004.
That is approximately €20,000 more than what he intends to pay his "galley slaves" for a whole year. One last statistic - this man who claims that his company needs to replace unionised labour with migrants on slave wages in order to stay competitive earned more than 45 times the wages he proposes to give one of his new workers!
Neither the government nor IBEC are complaining about his wages. No, once again it is the "lower orders" (as one commentator called them) that are being made to suffer for the profits of big business.

WSM -
The dispute at Irish Ferries is about greedy bosses, very greedy bosses who want to replace their staff with modern day galley slaves.
Eamonn Rothwell, Managing Director of Irish Ferries, plans to get rid of 543 workers and replace them with migrants on €3.50 per hour. Rothwell earned €687,000 last year. That’s €338.00 an hour. But there is no talk about replacing him with a yellow pack boss from Eastern Europe!
Our so-called ‘social partners’, government and IBEC are not complaining about his wages. Yet again it is ordinary workers who are being screwed to boost the profits of big business.
_____________________________________

Socialist Party -
Bertie Ahern feigned interest in the plight of the Irish Ferries workers when he declared that the company was engaged in sharp practice. The truth is that Bertie Ahern and his PD coalition partners support what Irish Ferries are doing. This government have consciously encouraged migrant workers to come to Ireland not just because there is a labour shortage but also so that big business can exploit and use them to drive down the wages of all workers. Tom Parlon the Minister of State at the Department of Finance said that the prospective new employees of Irish Ferries would be better off than they would be in their own country because they would be getting €3.50 an hour and board and lodging!

WSM -
Bertie Ahern pretended to be sympathetic when he said that the company was engaging in "sharp practice". This is just empty guff designed to stop vote losses. The truth is that Bertie Ahern and his government support what Irish Ferries are doing.
His fellow cabinet member Tom Parlon said that new employees of Irish Ferries would be better off than they would be in their own country because they would be getting €3.50 an hour and their board and lodging!
_______________________________

Socialist Party -
SIPTU cannot solve this crisis with trips to the High Court for temporary injunctions, nor by empty appeals to the government. A strike to shut down Irish Ferries must be called immediately. Irish Ferries will be defeated if the leadership of SIPTU makes it clear that they will mobilise trade unionists in the ports of Ireland, Britain and France to refuse to handle its ships. SIPTU has the power to shut the Irish Ferries operation down until they agree to employ all of their staff on current trade union rates of pay and conditions.

WSM -
SIPTU cannot sort this out with court cases nor with appeals to the government. A strike to shut down Irish Ferries would give Rothwell and his pals something to think about. A commitment by trade unionists in the ports of Ireland, Britain and France to refuse to handle its ships would quickly bring a halt to their gallop.
Our unions have the power to shut down Irish Ferries until they agree to employ all of their staff on trade union rates of pay. However, doing this would bring our unions into conflict with the law. The Industrial Relations Act makes solidarity action unlawful.

by eeekkkkk Sat Nov 19, 2005 15:27

and I think as I indicated above that you are point scoring in a grimly sectarian way

I sometimes repeat Joe H's take on things as verbatim as I can in argument using same structure of argument - sometimes in writing

Am I a plagariser?

Nope - I'm not a headbanger either. Someone else on here is though.

You go and try to copyright the facts of the irish ferries dispute.

It's your inner bill gates speaking.

by SP Member Sat Nov 19, 2005 15:05

If you read both articles carefully you will find that the WSM article is structured the same, the majority of points made in WSM article are a slightly re-written version of the SP article.The WSM article was virtually copied from the Socialist and slightly altered. In future the WSM should just reprint the SP material or maybe they would like to go further and just sell our paper for us!

by eeekkkk Sat Nov 19, 2005 14:49

Marx 'plagarised' engels and if I had half an hour I'd prove it with a bunch of links.

Who gives a fuck. I certainly don't. Marx is still worth reading in parts at least.

Why not say - 'there are substantial areas of agreement' rather than 'you plagarised us'?

What do you think is plagarised? The facts of the matter? Where did the Socialist plagarise them from? Or did (s)he produce them from the brain ex-nihilo.

Depressing.

Really depressing.

by Chekov Sat Nov 19, 2005 14:40

I socialist party article doesn't mention the Industrial Relations Act, the WSM article is mostly about that act. I really doubt whether there's too much direct 'inspiration' - the common bits are just the bits that you'd expect any socialist group to highlight.

by Mark P Sat Nov 19, 2005 14:28

the term you were looking for was "inspired by"... (sincerest form of flattery and all that) :-)