‘Sectarian Bickering’: Dave Lordan of the SWP on the Afghan Hunger Strike – A Response

national | anti-war / imperialism | opinion/analysis

Wednesday June 21, 2006 02:34

by Fintan Lane - Anti-War Ireland (and Irish Socialist Network)

antiwarireland at gmail dot com

There are occasions when the sheer wrongheaded analysis and distorted facts of a newspaper or magazine article cause you to stiffen with annoyance. Nine times out of ten, these articles are found in the mainstream press; the Independent Group of newspapers, for example, is a reliable purveyor of sly and explicit attacks on left-wing and progressive ideas, campaigns and parties, often underpinned by distorted ‘facts’ and baffling interpretations. It can be a frustrating experience to read these wilful misinterpretations of left-wing ideas and actions. Unfortunately, the socialist media cannot claim an entirely clean record in this regard either.

Last week, while attending the IAWM’s excellent debate on Iran in the Royal Dublin Hotel, I bought a copy of the SWP’s new magazine, titled the New Left Journal, mostly as an act of solidarity with a new left-wing publication. However, a quick read of the first article, which deals with the recent stand-off at St Patrick’s Cathedral, provided one of those hair-bristling moments that I generally avoid by not buying the Sunday Independent.

Penned by Dave Lordan, a stalwart of the SWP, much of the article is uncontroversial, from a left-wing point of view. The general arguments are familiar ones: the Irish refugee system is rightly assailed as restrictive; the treatment of asylum seekers is criticised; the poor conditions in Afghanistan are highlighted; and racism is to be viewed in the context of class inequality. So far so good. However, this is padding and the main thrust of the article is in fact an attack on socialists and anti-racists, more specifically on those who stood in solidarity outside the cathedral during the Afghan hunger strike.

Lordan doesn’t mince his words; those of us who gathered in solidarity in very difficult circumstances – facing the taunts and physical aggression of racists – are accused of following a ‘ridiculous strategy’ and of exacerbating racial tensions in the area. It is a no-holds-barred polemic that either betrays a profound lack of knowledge of what actually happened outside the cathedral, or is a wilful distortion of the facts to suit a sectarian agenda. It’s hard not to plump for the latter when Lordan manages to link his misrepresentation of an article I wrote (calling for greater solidarity) to old divisions within the anti-war movement; there’s a distinct whiff of aged scores being settled. Perhaps there is a third choice – a mix of ignorance, misinformation and wilful distortion. Who knows?

At any rate, Lordan – who appeared once outside the cathedral during the course of the week – makes a number of claims that simply cannot be substantiated and he grossly misrepresents the nature of the solidarity that occurred. In truth, his analysis, if adhered to, would pretty much damn fairly typical solidarity work as worthless ‘substitutionism’. He writes not one word that indicates his support for, or even empathy with, those who participated in solidarity work for the Afghans; on the contrary, his tone is relentlessly hostile.

Interestingly, however, his dismissive attitude to the Afghan solidarity vigils was implicitly contradicted by a leading SWP member last Saturday. Speaking at the ATGWU left-unity conference, Kieran Allen made it very clear that left-wing activists should have mobilised for the vigils, particularly because of the strong presence of racists. Somebody is off-message in the SWP and, for the purposes of this response, I’m assuming it is Dave Lordan. Consequently, even though Lordan’s article was published in an SWP journal, I accept that there is a doubt as to whether this piece is the official party line. If it does reflect party policy (and I sincerely hope it doesn’t), then the SWP badly needs to rethink its position on left unity and how that is to be achieved.

First of all, I’ll give a lengthy extract from Lordan’s article, which sums up his argument, and then I’ll respond to it, distortion by distortion.

DAVE LORDAN ON THE AFGHAN SOLIDARITY WORK

“Failure to recognise the real causes of racism and to provide a strategy to uproot it was unfortunately all too evident during the St Patrick’s Cathedral protests. Half way through the week, one of the spokespeople for the Afghan supporters web-published an article attacking left-wing organisations for not sending enough members to man the twice-daily vigils at the cathedral.

This was sadly reminiscent of the kind of sectarian bickering and point scoring that has been the real obstacle to sustaining a broad-based anti-war movement in this country. It was also quite clearly a ridiculous strategy.

Even if every activist in Dublin had stood at the gates of St Patrick’s Cathedral 24/7, it would not have altered the wider balance of forces in Irish society that contributed to the hunger strikers’ defeat. Instead of arguing that activists should substitute themselves for a mass anti-racist movement, all energies should have been put into gaining wider support for the hunger strikers, not least among those living in the vicinity of St Patrick’s Cathedral.

The way some dealt with the anger at the hunger strikers expressed by some of the locals was self-defeating. The whole country listened to a broadcast on Radio One’s 5-7 Live of one overheated activist engage in a drawn out slagging match with a local. The exchange was peppered with choice expletives on both sides.

In the background we could hear a rising chorus of ‘RACISTS OUT, RACISTS OUT’ directed at a crowd of locals gathered across the road. The effect of such intemperate argument is, as everyone who has been in a pub late at night should know, to escalate tensions and to entrench the opposing sides within their own positions.

In other words, if activists adopt a preaching tone with those who have been conned into believing the racist myths generated by the tabloids and the right-wing politicians, the effect will be to drive people further into the arms of the racists.

A calm, reasonable, well argued approach is what is needed when confronting racist sentiments in Irish workers. Do they want to be on the same side as Harney and Ahern? Is it the refugees who closed down the local hospital? It is not the refugees who decide how much the local builder pays, and so on.” etc. etc.

A RESPONSE TO DAVE LORDAN

1. “Failure to recognise the real causes of racism and to provide a strategy to uproot it was unfortunately all too evident during the during the St Patrick’s Cathedral protests.”

This canard is repeated throughout Lordan’s article, as if he’s reporting on a dithering anti-racism conference. I’ll be returning to this, but two points to bear in mind: first, this was a fire-brigade style solidarity action in response to an independent action by desperate Afghan refugees and not a think-tank on anti-racist strategy, and, secondly, most of those who stood in solidarity have a very clear understanding of the ‘real causes’ of racism. Speaking for myself, what ‘real cause’ of racism is it that I failed to understand? Mmm…are we talking class analysis and locating racism within an understanding of capitalism? Would that be the sort of thing that the auld thickos down at the cathedral (political neanderthals all) didn’t quite get? I mean, really!

2. “Half way through the week, one of the spokespeople for the Afghan supporters web-published an article attacking left-wing organisations for not sending enough members to man the twice-daily vigils at the cathedral.”

Well, that would be me he’s talking about, though what is this about “an article attacking left-wing organisations”? In fact, what Lordan refers to is an article I published on indymedia, following a tense vigil, where the handful present, including schoolkids, were heckled by a number of racists. The article can be found at the following link:

http://www.indymedia.ie/article/76130

The article was a clear call for solidarity and urged left-wing activists to turn up in greater numbers. At that stage, only handfuls of activists were turning out for the solidarity vigils and, unchecked, racists were likely to make the situation intolerable. Indeed, as the media continued to hype up the tension and spread nonsense about the Taliban directing the hunger strike by mobile phone, the number of racist hecklers grew and, if even only for the sake of security, we needed a good turnout of experienced activists. Why would any socialist distort such a mobilisation call by misrepresenting it as an ‘attack’ on the left? The answer comes in the very next line of Lordan’s missive.

3. “This was sadly reminiscent of the kind of sectarian bickering and point scoring that has been the real obstacle to sustaining a broad-based anti-war movement in this country.”

Now, to most people this must read like a genuine non sequitur. What is the connection? Well, there’s me and there’s Anti-War Ireland (who called the evening vigils) and there’s an unfortunate, though unavoidable, split that happened in the IAWM at the beginning of 2004. As hard as I’ve tried, I’m afraid that I cannot read this reference as anything other than a crude attempt to settle old scores. What is most remarkable about this, however, is that the broad anti-war movement has begun to meet and work together in a very constructive fashion (through the Anti-War Network) over the past few months. Why poke at old wounds, particularly as relations are improving?

I have no interest in revisiting the details of the division that occurred in early 2004, except to state, emphatically, that the break was not caused by ‘sectarian bickering’. This deliberate distortion, which was put about at the time also, obfuscates the real issues, which were to do, initially, with differing strategic and tactical approaches. Political differences, in other words. The break, when it came, was actually, for me anyway, to do with underhand behaviour and the ‘stuffing’ of a national meeting: it was to do with democratic process.

To be honest, apart from this distorted reference to past events, Lordan’s tone generally concerns me. The recent gatherings in the Teachers’ Club have been very constructive in building trust, coordination and cooperation between the various anti-war groups. It’s a wonderful development and it baffles me why anybody would want to renew the bad feelings of two years ago. Certainly, Anti-War Ireland has developed cordial relations with the IAWM and, hopefully, these will continue to develop. The anti-war movement in Ireland needs to unite and what happened two or three or four years ago should be put firmly to one side. Grudges? Life is too short and the issues are much too important.

4. “It was also quite clearly a ridiculous strategy.”

The pejorative use of the word ‘ridiculous’ is clearly meant to be insulting, but it’s this thing about ‘strategy’ that puzzles me. Again, we are back to a fire-brigade action treated like some sort of anti-racism conference. According to Dave Lordan, mobilising a solidarity vigil outside a cathedral where desperate Afghan men were hunger striking constitutes a ‘ridiculous strategy’. What were we to do exactly? Abandon the streets to the racists? Allow the night air to be dominated by chants of ‘Let them die! Let them die!’? No, of course not. Like all self-respecting anti-racists, we realised that a solidarity presence was essential.

Does this constitute a ‘strategy’?

I certainly wouldn’t make a large claim like that. In fact, because of the way in which this situation unfolded, those involved in solidarity work were very much reacting to events not of their own making or choosing. As the week moved on, and more and more people got involved, the scope grew for extending the solidarity work beyond the cathedral. However, because of the poor numbers for much of the week, it took a while before we could seriously contemplate anything very significant. Nonetheless, we did plan to leaflet the area and to call to people’s doors to discuss what was happening. And we considered other possible ways of connecting with the community. For instance, I remember Emmet Farrell of the Socialist Party going off in search of local community activists one evening, but unfortunately he found no-one in.

People also took group initiatives – and this was open to all left-wing parties and anti-war organisations. Nobody owns solidarity. The Socialist Party, for example, distributed several thousand leaflets in the area. Socialist Youth mobilised schoolkids to come to the vigils.

We held after-vigil meetings, although, because of the tense atmosphere (with racist abuse and latent aggression), street gatherings weren’t really possible. However, on Thursday night, we held a large meeting of supporters in a nearby church hall and there were many suggestions for extending the solidarity. People made banners and posters, stalls were organised for the city centre and – following a call by Residents Against Racism (RAR) – we continued to build for a picket of McDowell’s clinic in Ranelagh. We also, as I’ve mentioned already, planned to leaflet the Liberties area and one person took on the task of drawing up a leaflet.

Press work was strictly left to RAR because they had a pre-existing relationship with the Afghan men and were in direct contact with them. In that regard, we also acted in solidarity with RAR.

Dave Lordan claims that mobilising people for a solidarity vigil represented a ‘ridiculous strategy’. It’s an interesting claim and, I suppose, it’s a criticism he’ll be able to level at many events in the future. The Ireland-Palestine Solidarity Campaign, for example, often organises pickets and solidarity events where those present are almost entirely activists of one hue or other. Is this the type of ‘substitutionism’ and ‘ridiculous strategy’ that Lordan would like to stamp out? I can think of many events over the years that wouldn’t have occurred if we followed the Lordan line on solidarity actions.

More to the point, a bit of research would have told him that the solidarity work at the cathedral was somewhat more complicated than this, was broadening out and included plans for engaging with the local community. But, I suppose we can’t allow the truth to get in the way of a good distortion, especially when there are old scores to settle.

5. “Even if every activist in Dublin had stood at the gates of St Patrick’s Cathedral 24/7, it would not have altered the wider balance of forces in Irish society that contributed to the hunger strikers’ defeat. Instead of arguing that activists should substitute themselves for a mass anti-racist movement, all energies should have been put into gaining wider support for the hunger strikers, not least among those living in the vicinity of St Patrick’s Cathedral.”

I’ve dealt with this above, but I may as well reiterate that nobody ever suggested that we were either a) expecting to alter “the wider balance of forces in Irish society”, or b) substituting ourselves “for a mass anti-racist movement”. I mean, honestly, are these serious claims? It was a solidarity action not an attempted putsch! That said, it should also be borne in mind that it was a solidarity action involving many people with complex understandings of racism whose solidarity arose from their left-wing and/or socialist perspectives on the world. It wasn’t a gathering of political illiterates. Why is Dave Lordan so intent on misrepresenting the nature and purpose of the event?

6. “The way some dealt with the anger at the hunger strikers expressed by some of the locals was self-defeating. The whole country listened to a broadcast on Radio One’s 5-7 Live of one overheated activist engage in a drawn out slagging match with a local. The exchange was peppered with choice expletives on both sides.”

First of all, the reader should bear in mind that Lordan’s impression are gleaned from listening to the state broadcaster, RTE Radio 1.

Of course, what is remarkable about this paragraph is its hostility to those who stood in solidarity, while facing a barrage of insults and threatening behaviour from racists. If Lordan had been present, I suspect he would have a different view, as the tension and friction was liable to cause tempers to snap at times. That said, I never saw ‘overheated’ activists engage in a ‘slagging match’ with ‘a local’. I suppose it must have happened and it is exactly the sort of incident that the mainstream media zooms in on. Was it representative of what occurred? Not at all. Protesters, by and large, held their nerve and behaved admirably under intense pressure. I remember for example, on the Friday night, when a concerted effort was made to pull the ‘No Deportations’ banner from solidarity activists, it was resisted successfully with calm and presence of mind. Nobody lost the rag. Those involved in that incident included leading members of the SWP.

So, why is Lordan accepting such a negative portrayal of us by the mainstream media as ‘fact’? The media was generally hostile to the Afghan men and radio phone-ins facilitated naked racism. Nonetheless, Lordan is happy to damn solidarity activists by reference to the mainstream media. This is very strange, especially for a revolutionary socialist.

7. “In the background we could hear a rising chorus of ‘RACISTS OUT, RACISTS OUT’ directed at a crowd of locals gathered across the road. The effect of such intemperate argument is, as everyone who has been in a pub late at night should know, to escalate tensions and to entrench the opposing sides within their own positions.”

What locals gathered across the street? Did he see this on the radio? As anyone present would know, the racists were in our face. They were never ‘across the road’. But yes, ‘Racists Out!’ was chanted, though much less often than ‘Racism Out!’, which itself was chanted much less than ‘Let them Stay!’

Again, Lordan displays an unrelentingly hostility to those who gathered in solidarity, even drawing an analogy with people having a row in a pub. Is that how he views politics? At any rate, the chanting that occurred was generally in solidarity with those in the cathedral and occasionally, and importantly, at times against a small knot of ideological racists who were leading racist chants such as ‘Kick them Out!’ ‘Let them Die!’ and so on. With the arrival of racist hecklers, the solidarity vigil necessarily became a simultaneous protest against racism.

Lordan’s distortion of what actually happened is pretty low for a self-declared anti-racist. It is simply NOT true that those present dealt with the growing number of racists by shouting ‘Racists Out!’ at them or that we used confrontational tactics. In general, we were trying to avoid the disruption or breaking up of our solidarity vigil.

Moreover, it quickly became clear that there were a number of layers to the racism that manifested itself. There was a small group of, perhaps, six or seven (sometimes a few more) ideological racists who were there to stir up things; there were some local adults also chanting racist slogans; there was an at times largish contingent of older teenagers doing likewise and, sometimes, acting aggressively; and there was a swarm of kids and younger teenagers who were jumping on the racist bandwagon. We dealt with each group in a different way.

The ideological racists were those who had ‘Racists Out!’ shouted at them, not the locals. Generally, however, the chant was ‘RACISM Out!’ and this wasn’t directed at anybody in particular. Much more often, as I’ve already said, the chants were of ‘Let them Stay!’, and so on. The older teenagers and adult locals were approached at times by some solidarity activists in an attempt to engage them in some sort of dialogue; unfortunately, the response was not always very good, largely because of the context. It was a fraught situation.

The young teenagers and kids, however, were a different story and several of us spent quite a bit of time talking to them, teasing out their reasons for being there and explaining the situation to them. It was time well spent, though the general excitement made it difficult to hold their attention at times. It became clear to anybody who talked to these kids that they were soaking up racist misinformation about displacement and immigrant ‘welfare spongers’, and so on.

My general point being that we tried to engage the hecklers on many different levels. Lordan’s unsympathetic depiction of a belligerent and anti-local mob of solidarity activists is a disgraceful misrepresentation. It’s not just unfair, it is in fact completely untrue and the sort of distortion that one would expect to read in the Sunday Independent rather than in a serious left-wing magazine.

8. “In other words, if activists adopt a preaching tone with those who have been conned into believing the racist myths generated by the tabloids and the right-wing politicians, the effect will be to drive people further into the arms of the racists. A calm, reasonable, well argued approach is what is needed when confronting racist sentiments in Irish workers. Do they want to be on the same side as Harney and Ahern? Is it the refugees who closed down the local hospital? It is not the refugees who decide how much the local builder pays, and so on.”

Yes, Father Lordan, we shall try to avoid ‘a preaching tone’ in future. Seriously, though, here we have an attempt to construct those who took part in the solidarity vigils as political idiots. If Dave Lordan was present, he would know that exactly these arguments were made. A ‘preaching tone’? What could he be referring to?

A FINAL THOUGHT

It is also worth noting that threaded through the early part of Lordan’s article are some remarkable claims, most notably that what occurred at St Patrick’s Cathedral was an utter defeat for anti-racists and ‘marks a political victory for the right.’ More than that, Lordan insists that the ‘defeat’ of the Afghan hunger strikers ‘has widened the political space for racism’, i.e. bad tactics lead to bad results.

I would suggest that such negative conclusions are based on an extremely short-term view and we have yet to see how the protest by these Afghan men plays out in the longer term. A defeat? Surely, it’s too early for such defeatism, especially in the light of the dropping of all charges against the protesters. Arguably, the controversy and solidarity have had an impact of sorts and who knows how this case will develop over the coming months.

Meanwhile, please, let us all continue to work together – anti-war and anti-racism activists – in a constructive manner. I felt obliged to respond to this article because I found it particularly offensive, but the SWP and the IAWM contain many excellent activists, including good friends of mine. One hopes that Dave Lordan’s distorted perspective is wholly his own.

No Pasaran.

save preference

Comments (76 of 76)

Second issue out - no critical response to Lordan's article

by Curious

Sun Dec 03, 2006 22:07

Here was the second comment on the above article:

"the article
by Swper Wed Jun 21, 2006 10:00
does not reflect the SWP position, the magazine is a discussion journal. I am sure another comrade will respond to it in the next edition."

Err...so where is this 'response' from 'another' SWP comrade??? The second edition of this New Left Journal is out and not even a slight indication that dissent exists within the ranks. Not a whimper. Or have the leadership stomped down on critical responses to the bould Dave Lordan?

So, are we to take it, that the rank and file of the SWP agrees with this drivel from Dave Lordan?

There's your reason

by anon

Mon Jul 03, 2006 02:20

you've given the exact reason people arn't getting involved

People do not want to do this because you end up involved on a one to one basis and it is like case work and physically and emotionally exhausting especially the last few weeks and it has in a sense taken over alot of our lives for the time being because alot of the cases are immediate and people can be in danger and when a person rings for help you do not say well I cannot help you right now because I am having some down time and I understand maybe people are not prepared to give that level of commitment.

so what can be done about that do you know?

the umanageables ( no we dont say P C )

by madam k

Mon Jul 03, 2006 01:57

"sp swp to the anarchist and libertarian movement have your online debates and theory forever but that is not going to chance anything it is about time the left got up off their ass and did something "

I`m still waiting ...

socialist activist

by hs

Sun Jun 25, 2006 17:02

You make fair points there it's hard to argue against them. Although I have my doubhts if he was making a concious sectarian attack. But I suppose as you say he wrote what he wrote.

Oh well, swp alienate another bunch of activists!

All I can say to Emma is, if she wants our help contact the Dublin West branch of the party and if theres any work needing to be done in Blanch, and i'll do my best to help out. There's contact details on the website. www.socialistparty.net

Things are getting muddled here

by Socialist activist

Sun Jun 25, 2006 16:50

Just a few points.

1) hs, I agree with you that daves article is appalling primarily because of its very poor analysis. However that is not the only problem with it - it is also a blatent sectarian attack on left-wing and anti-racist activists doing there best in very difficult circumstances. That attack is based on a misrepresentation of what actually happened and is appallingly condescending. It is inexcusable not just as bad analysis but also as a shameful attack on comrades. Such attacks should be left to the right-wing - and before anybody sez "constructive criticism", what dave wrote is the exact opposite to "constructive", it is negative and downright hostile.

2) The issue with emma and RAR shouldnt be muddled up in all of this. The vast majority of those of us who were outside the cathedral were not RAR or even connected to RAR. To be honest, I was there because of the call put out by Antiwar Ireland regarding racist abuse. Yeah, should have been there earlier and I accept that. It will make me think twice the next time something like this happens. Some of what emma says is spot on in that regard - RAR probably haven't been getting enough back-up. However the sort of anti-everybody approach that emma is taking isn't helpful either. I respect RAR but who wouldnt find the "better than thou" approach offputting?

All of that said, how one individual in RAR views the world has nothing to do with the important issues at stake here. Solidarity is a key concept among socialists and to trash it as "substitutionalism" like dave lorden has done is not acceptable. It is shameful.

Emma

Sun Jun 25, 2006 16:18

You see the problem is how do you get beyond being five or six people, or get beyond only being able to mobilise a few hundred people at best. If there were more activists (ie a wider socialist movement), you could have more people to help you. I can understand you are angry because pretty much the whole of society has abandoned your cause and your only allies are a very small and weak left. But the only way you are going to spread the ideas of anti racism is fighting on other issues as well. As for Joe responding to a request from RAR, isn't that a good thing? Isn't it good that you had a TD willing to do that and will do it again.
Its not down to whats vote getting and not vote getting, its about doing whats right and as a political party we aren't a single issue campaign. We have to work on all issues, while you will accuse us of not doing enough on migration on another thread someone will say we're not doing enough on anti war, trade union, local issues etc. And everyone obviously see's there own campaign as more important. The best we can do is offer to help you out and others, we can't solve the migration issues alone, but we do our best to help and get as many people involved as possible. And personally I think the trade union movement is a sleeping giant which could do wonders for the whole issue and we should work towards that to.

Sun Jun 25, 2006 16:01

You've got me there, his analysis as you say is bad. I just wonder whether the article was written as an attack an RAR in the first place. As in context it's not ok, its still wrong, but it didn't read as a blinding sectarian attack. I disagree with it, as I've said RAR and other activisists including ourselves did our best in a bad situation, and as another commenter above pointed out it has been a success in that nobody was deported.

Where I'm coming from is that I don't think Fintans origanal article, was asectarian attack on the rest of the left, he pointed the obvious, we weren't there and Dave in his own way replyed to that, wrongly but I don't necessarily believe it was an attack an RAR and Fintan because of the split in the IAWM.

Just bad analysis and only that part of it regarding the activists.

Throwing out the child with the bathwater

by Seán Ryan

Sun Jun 25, 2006 13:59

I think Ann that you are doing the exact same thing that you are accusing Emma of doing, you are painting the whole organisation with the same brush due to the statement of one person. Is racism now ok because you disagree with the opinion of an anti-racism activist?

Look at the cause itself, and judge that and act on it. Simple. Daft maybe. But I'm entitled to be daft as I've used my own reasoning to arrive at my conclusions.

What's your excuse?

Ann

by Jerry Cornrelius

Sun Jun 25, 2006 13:51

Ann is a clever rightwinger and very likely a racist who is taking this opportunity to stick the boot into RAR and Emma in particular. Emma may have put things too strongly, but she was angry, and she had a right to be angry.

Ignore Ann and the other trolls be they racists or SWP who are trying to divide the real left.

Sean

by Ann

Sun Jun 25, 2006 13:27

Sean you miss the point. The dreadful self righteousness Emma has displayed on this thread is enough to put anyone off getting involved in RAR. There is a lot happening on our doorstep related to war - it's just down the road in Shannon. She belittles people who are working in that area and anyone doing anything other than what RAR do. she is the one creating the division. I wouldn't touch RAR with a barge pole after reading what she and one other person from them has written. It makes me think they are crowd of insular people stoking each others sense of self righteousness and egotism, cult like in their zeal. It would give anyone else this same impression.

There is nothing worse than this type of holier than thou crap to turn people against involvement and divide a movement. To condone it Sean is absolutely misguided and just plain daft on your part.

Multi-faceted

Sun Jun 25, 2006 12:28

I haven't read the article in question, nor do I need to do so. Fintan has gone to the trouble of highlighting the article's short comings, and I agree with him.

Activists were an essential ingredient at St. Pats. If this is not the case then apathy is a viable form of protest. Direct action is more than just action, it is action in response to something. Putting one's response on the long finger, drains the effectiveness and the legitimacy of the response.

The solidarity and activism were not only a success, but were successful on many different levels. It will be virtually impossible to deport the men and children in question due to the fact that our government have made them 'high profile' in Afghanistan. It enabled many different groups to work together. And it highlighted the fact that the problems of our nation will not be fixed by some singular and glorious action. The edifice must be taken apart brick by brick.

Because of the above, I reckon Emma has a very valid point. And I hope this point is not lost due to personality clash. Let us not focus on ourselves and our pride, but on the issues. Like I said, one brick at a time. All our issues are interlinked, their diversity should be used as a tool by us - not on us, to create division. Otherwise we play into the hands of those who would and do stifle our needs and voices.

I think emma is essentially right

by eeekkkkk

Sun Jun 25, 2006 11:00

what rationality is there behind ignoring or washing your hands of what goes on on your own doorstep while worrying loudly about about doorsteps half way around the world?

where can people make a concrete difference now in other peoples lives?

The answer is not iraq or afghanistan.

In response to Emma

by Gerri

Sun Jun 25, 2006 04:08

A question for Emma. Emma writes ' while you stand in o connell street with your stalls and papers and marches against the wars to countries were people are being deported to'. What war torn countries have Ireland deported people to? When did this happen? Could Emma or any other RAR member please clarify this? It seems fair to say that Emma and RAR are concerned mainly with the issue of deportation and that they interpret deportation, in each and every case, to be a manifestation of state-racism. Is this a correct interpretation?

Emma's statement that 'deportations is more important than anti war because it is happening now in this country' seems bizarre. How is military aggression that can and does result in the violent deaths of thousands of civilians somehow less important and less worthy of our attention than the removal of people from the Irish state?

I would like to ask Emma and any members of RAR what kind of asylum system would they envision that Ireland should adopt instead of the 'inhumane and humiliating' system she alleges is currently in place for asylum seekers.

unbelievable

Sun Jun 25, 2006 01:22

If RAR want to get more people involved some of them are going the wrong way about it. The breathtaking sanctimoniousness I see on this thread would put me off joining even though it's an issue I care about and have been active in on many levels before. The idea that something is less important because it happens in a foreign country is ridiculous. All youre doing here with the self righteous rants about how your work is more important than everyone else's is put people off getting involved. I think you do good work but really you could do with an attitude adjustment. I would not personally wish to associate myself with people who had this type of attitude even though I would gladly help asylum seekers on an individual level when I can.

The importance of truthfulness

Sat Jun 24, 2006 23:49

One final point: hs, you think dave's attack on the vigilers looks ok "in context". Explain. Those comments stand on their own. They are full sentences and full paragraphs. How does the rest of the article make it alright? His depiction of the vigillers is either correct or it isn't. Well I was there and, like others who have commented, I can state as a fact that dave has completely misrepresented what occurred and how the vigilers behaved. So, if he's not telling the truth how do the general uncontroversial points in his article make things any better?

Sat Jun 24, 2006 23:37

"And I'd bet most people who commented on Fintans article hadn't read dave's. So I took the parts that were quoted by Fintan, and in retrospect after seeing the quotes in context I don't think the article was that bad." - hs

hs, first off, you assume a lot about what people had or had not read. I read the article before commenting and I think it's impossible not to come to the conclusion that dave was having a serious go at people that he should have been supporting. You'd want to be blind to not spot his linkage of the alleged 'ridicolous strategy' of the Afghan solidarity activists to previous splits with the IAWM. Otherwise what was all that stuff about it reminding him of the so-called 'sectarian bickering' that bust up the IAWM??? Why mention it? Why not refer to sectarian bickering within the bin charges campaign or somewhere else? Coz he was directly linking the AWI-called vigils to the bust up in 2004 in the IAWM. It's blindingly obvious!!! Having said that, it doesnt really matter why he wrote what he wrote, what matters is what he wrote - and it a disgrace. It's a public attack - with no sympathy shown - on people offering solidarity in very tough circumstances. In fact I suggest you read Lorden's article again. He actually goes as far as to blame the activists for the confrontation! Remember that these were people holding a vigil, who were heckled and abused by people - racists - determined to break up the vigil. Who went looking for who? The solidarity people were holding a peaceful vigil and they had to face appalling abuse. What does dave have to say? Oh its the vigillers fault! He blames the Left. Everybody on the Left who was there. And youve seen the responses above from people who were present, people who are responding directly to the quotes fintan gives from dave. Those quotes are not made up and they form a major part of daves article. I read all of the article but to be honest it is enough to read the quotes given to know that daves depiction of what happened is a bloody disgrace. Its a downright misrepresentation of the truth.

To say that it's just bad analysis is fine as far as it goes and I think thats largely true. However, his misrepresentation is awful and can't be defended under any circumstances. It's a blatent sectarian attack on left-wing and anti-racist activists, with no justification.

by Emma-RAR

Sat Jun 24, 2006 21:38

I do not have time to sit and type a long winded reply I have other things to be doing.

Anti racism campaigner the fact that you are posting as an anon proves a certain point I disagree and what I say is not going to be popular anti racism and deportations is more important than anti war because it is happening now in this country and the same countries that you are saying are being occupied are the same countries deportation orders are being issued to I know it is a vital issue but this is more so I think.

The reality is only 5 or 6 people do the work in RAR and we are not just getting calls from asylum seekers in Dublin we are getting them from all around the country and to be honest I got around 50 seperate calls alone this week for help and that could be said for others in RAR who's number is well known amongst asylum seekers and other activists. People do not want to do this because you end up involved on a one to one basis and it is like case work and physically and emotionally exhausting especially the last few weeks and it has in a sense taken over alot of our lives for the time being because alot of the cases are immediate and people can be in danger and when a person rings for help you do not say well I cannot help you right now because I am having some down time and I understand maybe people are not prepared to give that level of commitment.

I think my assumptions are right what or groups are involved in anti racism at the moment? Can you name one? RAR is not my group but I am a member.

It was surprising people turned out to chant let them die but the hostility was not and maybe if you were involved you would understand that RAR members during and after the cathedral have got death threats and other forms of abuse and that is on going not just related to the cathedral.

Mark P of the SP SY were quite helpful with the minors school friends that is not being denied but yeah I think not only the left should be on a major guilt trip on this issue for not doing enough but society in general this is horrific have you or any other group thought of what caused the men to go into the cathedral? the whole system is inhumane and humilating for asylum seekers and we as left activists are not doing enough on this issue I do not understand why we are not rioting against this.

Your point we can not do much about an earthquake and tsunami son lets do nothing at all and also they are forces of nature not bloody government policy. I cannot remember the last time anyone in SP came to an RAR meeting the only time is when there is a high profile case and you as in SP did not raise the case of Kunle in the dail Joe Higgins did and I thnk one of the reasons is because we asked him but when is the last time you asked about his welfare or where his case is at now.

You say you cant give a range of resources or something to that affect but the truth is you wont it is not a popular issue and it wont get you voted will it. You sound so party line so while your 'building the socialist movement' people are being deported well aren't you just bloody fantastic that is great logic how many more hundreds and thousands of people are going to be deported while you stand in o connell street with your stalls and papers and marches against the wars to countries were people are being deported to.

Again how is knocking on doors going to stop deportations? you are doing party political work and argue all you like and have meetings but for now what is that going to do for an asylum seekers going to be deported say next week.

Bad points? Explain? I did not attack anyone specifically and I will be honest I am if you like attacking the whole of the left on their lack of contribution on this issue.

Deirdre

by hs - sp (per cap)

Sat Jun 24, 2006 19:37

I didn't read in in full as I hadn't the magazine in question. But it was since put online by the SWP so I could. Its quite possible most people who commented ahead were taking what fintan said to comment on, (its the nature of indymedia for people to have a discussion relateing to a piece, ie Fintans) as anyone who wasn't at the IAWM conference probably wouldn't have had the opportunity to buy a copy. And I'd bet most people who commented on Fintans article hadn't read dave's. So I took the parts that were quoted by Fintan, and in retrospect after seeing the quotes in context I don't think the article was that bad. I wasn't having a go at Fintan, As with the nature of indymedia and the comments list, the whole nature of the debate can change as it goes down. So while its obvious fintan read daves article and gives his analysis, its unlikely others had. I think Fintan over empasised some of the quotes from Dave.

I didn't mean that this disagreement was a "split", what I meant was the actual split within the IAWM may have clouded Dave's judgement and possibly made some of the commenters on the other side of the argument a little over sensitive.

As for the split and Fintan does believe it was the reason for Dave Lordans critisism, I don't know. to be honest I think it was just bad analysis and probably thinking in the abstract and forgetting that the people involved would read the essay.

PS I always reserve the right to change my mind : -)

True

Sat Jun 24, 2006 15:43

I agree it's not a heayweight analysis by Lorden - much of it is sound but its the sort of stuff that people are thinking anyway (if they're on the left). The real problem is that the main focus is his assault on the intelligence, integrity and actions of those who took part in the solidarity. This undermines everything else he says. Its the main point of the article.

On top of that he seems to have no understanding of what 'substitionalism' is or what constitutes a 'defeat'. Overall I think its fair to say that its a very odd article with poor analysis of current events. Dunno what motivated it and dont really care - its just very bad political analysis by any measure.

by Deirdre Clancy - Pitstop Ploughshares

Sat Jun 24, 2006 15:18

"I was out of the country during the split between the SWP and the rest of the anti war movement, although I have read of the reasons. I would hope as Fintan mentioned in his article this doesn't cloud the analysis of actual political events. I doubht the ANL would have organised the vigils in any different way if it still existed. But by the same token activists on the other side of the split should read Dave Lordans article as a whole."

With regard to your comment about reading the whole article, I am astounded that you would assume the people who have commented on the article didn't read the whole thing in full. It's very clear from Fintan's analysis that he has - have you actually read that analysis in full? I would never comment on an article myself unless I had read it in full and absorbed the whole context. This is not a "split" in the movement - it's a disagreement. Maybe you analyse people's writing without reading it in full, but please don't project that onto others.

I read Lordan's article in full and there were of course valid points in it, but nothing new that activists wouldn't already be familiar with. It was a competent, workmanlike description of left-wing ideas in relation to the issues in question. However, even ignoring the objectionable parts, I don't think Lordan would win Marxist Theoretician of the Year on the basis of this article. Beyond this, I found his assumptions about people on the vigils not having thought through the root causes of racism bizarre in the extreme. And the ill-informed attack undermined the article as a whole for me.

I think most people involved in that original "split" of 2004 have put it behind them in the interests of the anti-war movement. I wasn't directly involved myself, but this is the impression I get. There are a few stray individuals on both sides who haven't left it behind. It does cloud analysis in those cases (this very much includes those who were against the SWP/IAWM), insofar as there was helpful analysis available from those individuals in the first place, which there often was not. I can't say for sure whether it is clouding analysis with Dave Lordan, because I have no way of knowing what motivated him to write the attack. But I find it hard to think of any other logical reason for the attack than a sectarian grudge.

Fri Jun 23, 2006 20:10

Fair point, its hard to keep up with political language sometimes : )

On reading Dave's article in Full

Fri Jun 23, 2006 20:09

I think apart from his mistakes on the notion of the "strategy" of the people manning the vigils and his analysis of the arguments/discussions between the activists and locals, most of what he says is correct in the general sense. But it's down to how we organise ourselves to gain these roots. Unfortunately this article seems to have been more divisive than anything else. While it's correct that it was mainly activists involved and not a mass anti racist movement, we should recognise the people who are actual trying to do that (and the time and effort they put in) rather than saying they are not as good as... It would be liking saying a mass socialist party would be better than the SWP or the SP. Of course it would but wishful thinking won't make it happen.

I was out of the country during the split between the SWP and the rest of the anti war movement, although I have read of the reasons. I would hope as Fintan mentioned in his article this doesn't cloud the analysis of actual political events. I doubht the ANL would have organised the vigils in any different way if it still existed. But by the same token activists on the other side of the split should read Dave Lordans article as a whole.

by R

Fri Jun 23, 2006 20:04

Please don't use the term 'non-national'. Seriously, I know you meant no offence but everybody has a nationality. People are not 'nons' (non-people?) just because they live in a new country.

Anti Deportation Supporter

Fri Jun 23, 2006 19:44

No problem, the thread did go slightly off topic. Emma did make some bad points but it was and is a pretty emotive issue. Whether Dave's article was political point scoring (which would be ironic in thats what he was accusing Fintan of) or just bad analysis I don't know. Either way its wrong for many of the reasons pointed out above.

But I still do believe that anti racism work can't be seperated from other work. (in saying that I recognise single issue campaigners can often be better placed to do individual firefighting work as in individual deportations etc.) We do also need people who have gained some little reputation on fighting for their own communities to stand behind non nationals rather than just soley anti racist activists. And this will have to be based on class as much as the point that racism is wrong and irrational. There is a housing shortage and there are school shortages and we have to in our analysis point out why, and hopefully if we have amongst our ranks people who fight on housing and other issues it makes our position vis a vis anti racism 100 times stronger. Dave may have meant some of these points in which the swp call moralising (which is a pretty condesending turn of phrase), Which at least if anything is moving beyond their old very moralistic way of fighting racism in the old Anti Nazi League.

(if I misunderstand the term "moralising" i'd appreciate a correction from a swp member)

Course all thats thats easier said than done with such a small and weak left. I think on all issues we have to do what we can as in the end they are all linked in one way or another. My own analysis would be a party can link all those issues, but thats just me. And I do recognise the quality of work that can be achieved by independents focusing on one issue in ways political party members would find difficult. RAR for one example do incredible work considering their size and resources. And I would like to see party members involved in a more organic way in campaigns but like I said with such a small party it's very difficult for members to find the time.

As for Fintans article, well the activists were attacked and the SP and SWP weren't there. Its fact whether we like it or not and Fintan had every right to point it out, and was correct to.

PS. As for the books what better way to whilst away the hours spent sitting in front of bin lorries than a good read!

And the SWP?

by anti-racist

Fri Jun 23, 2006 16:47

Dave Lordan has exposed his poor grasp of socialist praxis but we still don't where the SWP stands on this nonsense. What is the SWP's position on this ? Do they support Dave Lordan's attack on the vigilers ?

Observer & hs

by Anti deportations supporter

Fri Jun 23, 2006 10:59

Observer: The point I was making that all Mark P (SP) had to say was that Lordan's article contained a few overblown comments. Personally I think it was an odious piece of work. If you had read my comments closer you would have seen that I think Fintan is 100% right on this.

hs: Apologies I accept after reading the article that you were only answering the points made by Emma. I agree they were unhelpful. It is unfortunate that she picks one person out of an organistation and shouts that they weren't there. But the gist of what I was saying was that the article was an attack on Fintan, AWI and the RAR. The SWP have scores to settle with these people. I thought Mark was very soft on the article and repeating the mistake of Lordan, that of commenting in the abstract. I felt that you were falling into the trap of over individualising Fintan's comments by your mentioning of the work you do in Blanch. My mistake was sticking to the specific intention of the thread.
Out of curiosity did the SP sell many books on the bookstalls they set up at the bin truck blockades?:-)

Be fair

by Observer

Fri Jun 23, 2006 10:13

In fairness to the SP, they got stuck in during the siege of St Patricks. Whatever people think about them in general they pulled their weight on this one.

My point of view on the issue/ Sp position

Thu Jun 22, 2006 23:33

You can find my point of view here if interested, (although this is just my opinion and not the socialist party's),

http://www.indymedia.ie/article/76208

The official Sp position is as follows:

Anti-refugee government exposed by
Afghan asylum seekers' hunger strike
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Kevin McLoughlin
Everybody has the right to live in decent conditions with a sense of security. Real problems like poverty wages and lack of money, poor services, lack of a home and fear of abuse or violence blight the lives of many Irish people.

Recently such conditions continuing over a number of years provoked over 40 people into organising a protest to demand their rights. That was how the protest of the Afghani men and students started on Sunday 14 May.

The united hostility from the political establishment and the media, some of whom portrayed the Afghani protesters as manipulative spivs, terrorists and abusers in a number of unsubstantiated reports, was a disgrace.

The Afghani protesters were at different stages in the asylum process but the majority had their initial cases rejected. Cut off from society in hostels for up to five years in some cases, not allowed to work, and not knowing what the future holds – all this is a recipe for isolation and desperation. Ireland and Denmark are the only two countries in the EU who have maintained a ban on asylum seekers working.

Despite claims by Michael McDowell to the contrary, Afghanistan is a war-torn, poverty-ridden country, the bulk of which is in the hands of vicious warlords, including the Taliban, to which it is not safe for these men to return.

Even by international standards very few people here are granted asylum (less than 10%), very few appeals are granted, and very few others are given "leave to remain". The Refugee Appeals Tribunal is the only such body in English speaking countries that isn’t obliged to publish the basis for its decisions. Two people have resigned from the Tribunal in opposition to its bias.

That a small number of people from the area around St Patrick’s Cathedral came down to abuse the asylum seekers does reflect a certain sentiment that exists in society but the media overstated the significance of this group. Many other locals came down to show their support.

Polls indicated that a majority of people were not sympathetic to the Afghanis but that situation could have been different. The hunger strike and the occupation of the Cathedral was not understood or seen as justified by a lot of people given that the refugees weren’t under immediate threat of deportation. The State and the media portrayed the refugees as taking provocative action to justify their intransigent position.

Last year in the case of Kunle, the school student from Nigeria, there was a lot of public support because the State was seen to have acted in a disgraceful way. This was linked to the positive impact the quick action of his schoolmates had on people’s attitudes.

The preparedness of the Afghanis to make a militant stance for their rights is to be applauded. However it is clear is that, if possible, there needs to be activity and preparation in advance of such struggles in order to win public support which is essential to defeat the anti-refugee and racist position of the State.

See also:

School students take a stand against deportations
Afghan asylum seekers hunger strike ended by Gardai
Desperate hunger strikers should be granted asylum!
Stop Irish Govt deporting innocent people to Afghanistan
@
www.socialistparty.net

Anti Deportations Supporter

Thu Jun 22, 2006 23:19

Did you actually read my comment or speed read it. Cause I don't see how you got any of those arguments from it..

"They seem to supporting one of Lordan's points that Fintan's original article was moralising in the extreme"

Where on earth did you get that from? For the record I joined in on the debate when some commenters were giving out about members of the socialist party not being involved enough on racism issues, if you read the 5 or so comments above mine it will make more sense.

. "The most either of them can bring themselves to say is that there were a couple of overblown statements."

? I never mentioned overblown statements, In fact I never even mentioned Fintans article or Dave's article.

"Whatever about that, Fintan's article was in answer to nasty events happening on the ground. Lordan's article was a cold blooded attack way after the event. IMHO Fintan wasn't having a pop at individuals in Blanch. He was calling on organisations to get involved. You might not have been able to make it from out in Blanch but doesn't your party have a branch in the Liberties. Wouldn't this have been local work for them?"

??? Who on earth said fintan was having a go at people in Blanch. I just said I couldn't do everything as I do alot of political work in Blanch, for the record I did manage to get into town and support the strikers, not as much as I liked. As for the party members in the city branch they were there, and as mentioned by quite a few posters above and in the origanal article, they canvased and leafleted the liberties and mobilised quite a number of school students. And yes it was local work for them. Have a look at revolt videos documentary on the week.

"Then your organisation would have involved and Fintan's call would have been answered. As it was SPY were involved and they don't seem to think Fintan was moralising."

As above, who said anything about moralising? You might be mixing me up with Dave's article.

"The call out I think was more aimed at that other bunch of moralisers who claim to be able to organised hundreds whenever they decided the moment is right 'for all out now'. When they did arrive unfortunately it was with tables and papers. How sad?"

God forbid, what next books!

In conclusion, I think you're having an argument at your imagined sp rather than ourselves, that I think is a the real shame.

On Dave's article, I think you are right it does go too far, there is nothing more annoying than sniping from the sidelines, or people saying you should have done this that and theother when they weren't involved or belittle other people's hard effort. of course the swp woulndn't be the first or last to do that, your snipe about papers comes from the same school

hs

PS I don't think mark was defending Dave's article or attacking Fintan Lane or any of the activists either.

What 'overblown statements'?

Thu Jun 22, 2006 19:06

What 'overblown statements' did Fintan Lane make in that original article? Here, have a read of it again:

http://www.indymedia.ie/article/76130

I see nothing 'overblown' in any of what he wrote.

SP stance

Thu Jun 22, 2006 18:18

Ok two SP members have commented on the article and both seem to be prevaricating. They seem to supporting one of Lordan's points that Fintan's original article was moralising in the extreme. The most either of them can bring themselves to say is that there were a couple of overblown statements. Whatever about that, Fintan's article was in answer to nasty events happening on the ground. Lordan's article was a cold blooded attack way after the event. IMHO Fintan wasn't having a pop at individuals in Blanch. He was calling on organisations to get involved. You might not have been able to make it from out in Blanch but doesn't your party have a branch in the Liberties. Wouldn't this have been local work for them? Then your organisation would have involved and Fintan's call would have been answered. As it was SPY were involved and they don't seem to think Fintan was moralising. The call out I think was more aimed at that other bunch of moralisers who claim to be able to organised hundreds whenever they decided the moment is right 'for all out now'. When they did arrive unfortunately it was with tables and papers. How sad?

Activists and Anti Racism Work

by hs - sp

Thu Jun 22, 2006 17:53

I don't think you can say anyone not involved directly in anti racism work, is uninvolved. For example I'd knock on doors at least twice a week in the blanchardstown area, race relations comes up quite alot. In fact coming up to september there will be a shortage of school places in the area. Guess who's being blamed? Its up to us to make the arguments in our own areas and in our workplaces. Another example would be the gama dispute, it strictly had nothing to do with racism, but how would a right wing party have dealt with it? I think racism goes beyond deportations and protests (not that i'm belittleing their importance) but there's alot of other work involved. We've huge estates all over blanch which are almost majority non national. And although there may not be problems now prevention is better than a cure. And like Mark said having a left that earns respect on local issues, whether it be housing or services or whatever has alot more authority when we call on people to stand behind non nationals (asylum seekers or not) in trouble. Unfortunately we can't all do everything. There's I don't know how many campaigns i'd like to be involved in. But everything I take on means something else is dropped. And whatever about activists in ireland in blanch we're even shorter.

On the afghan strike, people did what they could, it wasn't planned and neither was the campaign. The left is small and weak and obviously doesn't have enough roots sunk in most areas. But I don't think anything much else could have been done in this case.

Ironic thing

by Local

Thu Jun 22, 2006 17:46

In Ballybrack where the SWP were involved in the 'keep work in the community campaign' a lot of the locals supported them because they believed that the campaign was against foreign workers.
And they lecture people on this issue on how to deal with the local community. Not enough people on the left have reflected too deeply on that campaign.

The SWP are proud of Lordan's rubbish

by surfer

Thu Jun 22, 2006 17:19

If people are wondering what the swp think of Lordan's disgraceful attack antiwar and antiracism activists, surf over to their website. Their new magazine is now on the frontpage and two of the articles are accessible. One of these is Lordan's so-called 'analysis". Click on this link:

http://swp.ie/newleftreview/01/nlj01-01.htm

RAR fundraiser tonight

Thu Jun 22, 2006 15:15

Don't forget the RAR fundraiser tonight folks. For details check out the events listings.

Clarifications

by Deirdre Clancy - Pitstop Plougshares

Thu Jun 22, 2006 13:20

I understand the frustration of people in RAR, but I also would tend to agree with the Socialist Party person that other groups are involved in equally worthy campaigns and can't be omni-present.

Just to clarify, many on the vigils had anti-racism experience, including Fintan who was involved in such solidarity work with immigrants and anti-racism work for several years in Cork (I mention this specifically because he put up the original posting/analysis here). Some of this involved confrontations with people who were handing out racist literature on an ongoing basis and who were active for a while there. In that sense, his analysis is backed up by plenty of experience, though obviously nobody is obliged to read it if they don't wish to do so.

One of the (many) reasons I chose to focus on anti-war activism in the last three years was because I felt that the bombardment of the Middle East had a racist component, in its indifference to the lives of people in that part of the world. I also feel that the West's attitude to African conflicts (pretty much ignoring them and allowing wholesale slaughter to occur) has a similarly racist component, and is a legacy of the historical colonialism. I think many who campaign for fair trade with African and Latin American countries and an end to economic abuse and for proper measures to combat AIDS in developing countries would feel there is a racist element to the Western indifference to all of these issues. People choose their battles, because human beings are limited in energy and resources.

So while I do think frustration is understandable, I also agree with Mark from the SP that people do have to choose priorities from often very limited resources, and that this is something that should be recognised also. I think all these issues are interlinked - they are part of a geo-political picture in the world at the moment that is not very pretty, and it's important that there are people who focus on each of them. Although I am not involved directly in solidarity with AIDS victims in Africa (to take an important example), I would fully support those who are involved in whatever way I can. I wouldn't expect those people doing this importnat work to drop that campaign and redirect their energies to the demilitarisation of Shannon Airport and ending the occupations of Afghanistan and Iraq, because both are equally important and people have to have a focus to be effective. Just as I wouldn't expect RAR to redirect its focus, because the work it does is highly vital and necessary.

I think campaign groups in general need to build alliances. This is best achieved when people understand and respect the work of other groups, rather than making accusations and assumptions about them.

However, I agree with Emma and Mark that it's important that people turn up to deportations if at all possible. It's terrible that people can be put on planes regularly and sent to dangerous situations without resistance from Irish people. RAR is right to call for more mobilisation in this regard; and yet I can also say I fully back Mark from the SP in his comments about other contibutions people make and the need to respect that.

Let's just be nice

Thu Jun 22, 2006 13:12

The Dave Lordan philosophy: "A calm, reasonable, well argued approach is what is needed when confronting racist sentiments in Irish workers. Do they want to be on the same side as Harney and Ahern? Is it the refugees who closed down the local hospital? It is not the refugees who decide how much the local builder pays, and so on.”

Yeah, Dave, see these guys, well when they start harassing left-wing demos, I nominate you as the man to reason with them. Who knows, they might buy a paper.

Aimed at again

by Mark G

Thu Jun 22, 2006 12:57

I meant exactly what I said Mark I can't make it any clearer. You seem to want me to begin a list of people who continually waffle away about anti racism without any experience. The list would run into the hundreds if not thousands.

To Mark G and Ant-deportations supporter

by Mark P - Socialist Party (personal capacity)

Thu Jun 22, 2006 12:37

1) Mark G: But who are you claiming has "no anti-racism experience" and therefore "shouldn't expect us to waste time reading their 'analysis' of the situation"? You are self-evidently having a go at somebody or some group but you seem strangely reluctant to make it clear who.

2) "Anti-deportions supporter": You make a fair point that trying to convince everyone else to do more on a political issue isn't the sole prerogative of anti-deportations campaigners. And I hope I made it clear in my last post that such an attitude is understandable. I'm not arguing against "calls to action" and I'm certainly not arguing that it is ok for the left to shirk its responsibilities during times of crisis, whether that's the Afghan hunger strike or the jailings of anti-bin tax activists. That said,I think that you are rather missing the point that I'm not interested in providing "cover" for Dave (who can fight his own battles). I was responding to a direct and unfair attack on my own organisation and the left generally a few posts ago. I was also trying to make a wider point, rather than just concentrating on the main theme of some of the anonymous contributers to the thread which seems to be that Dave is a bastard.

To Mark P

Thu Jun 22, 2006 12:17

"Implicit in her argument above is essentially: anti-deportations campaigning is the most important thing we can be doing, "this is the real war now". People's lives after all are at stake. And that leads to a sort of guilt-tripping of others on the left. Why don't you do more? Why weren' t you there at x number of deportations (or y number of vigils)? Don't you care? Isn't the issue popular enough for you?"

And of course the SP didn't partake in any of this type of carry on during the bin tax campaign or any other campaign which they think is of paramount importance! Get a grip Mark. People in glasshouses.....
Your missing the point of the discussion here. This whole situation arose out of a response to a spontaneous action of others. None of the left groups had prior knowledge. Fintan put out a call after seeing first hand what was going on. (As you said yourself you weren't around so you don't know what was going on.) Fintan thought it was a volatile situation, was he wrong? He felt that members of left wing groups might be better equpped to dealing with ongoing situation than others, was he wrong? You are coming on here and giving cover for Lordan's odious comments. Maybe an SP member who was around St. Patricks cathedral at that time might be in a better position to comment. Your being a little bit too theoretical. Just like Lordan.

Aimed at

Thu Jun 22, 2006 12:15

It wasn't aimed at anyone it was a general response. If people want to concentrate on other campaigns that is their prerogative. However they shouldn't expect us to spend time reading their "analysis" of the sitaution if they don't have any anti racism experience. Campaigns should be about getting solutions from those directly involved and affected by that particular campaigns focus, not people who think they know it all about every campaign.

To The Marks

by pat c

Thu Jun 22, 2006 12:01

Mark P: Yes, it is correct, RAR members are not just involved in Refugee work, they are active in other campaigns and political organistions. but you are also right, not everyone can be involved in everything simoultaneously.

Mark G: I think RAR has come in for some unfair critcism and the trash by Lardon is beneath contempt. But not everyone who criticises you is your enemy. There is such a thing as constructive criiticism and that imho is what Mark P was attempting.

A question for my near namesake

Thu Jun 22, 2006 11:54

Mark G, who exactly is that targeted at?

RAR

Thu Jun 22, 2006 11:44

RAR is made up of activists who are involved in various other campaigns, political parties and other political associations. We have activists who are involved in anti war activities, homeless campaigning, community groups, trade unions and many other worthy campaigns. We also have full time jobs. The reality is that we are only responsible for our own actions, and the actions of others that we can have an influence on. Racism is on the rise in Ireland, with that comes the potential for fascist organisations to emerge. How weak would the socialist movement be if we were left to fight both the state and open fascism on our streets. RAR members face death threats and continual harrasment from racists, we are constantly lied about and often we are left on our own in situations that could easily result in somebody getting seriously hurt. Racism is a serious problem in Ireland, that is the reality. The situation is only going to get worse. It will not get better by the inactions of socialists on the issue or by liberal groups holding wine and food tasting parties. It is socialists who have the arguments to take into communities against racism, the media will not cover these arguments as it does not suit their agenda. The media coverage as a whole was a disgrace on the afghan hunger strike issue, the open racism on display was a shock to many activists. What also shocked many people was the failure of many activists to turn up. What shouldn't be a shock is that many of these same activists will then write commentaries on what needs to be done and pretending as if they have some deep rooted experience of anti racism campaigning in Ireland. There are many worthy campaigns out there, but racism is going to get worse unless people realisticaly start putting time and effort into campaigning on it. If your not going to get involved than don't, just don't waste our time.

A reply to Emma

Thu Jun 22, 2006 11:26

I think Emma's contribution above is quite useful. Not because I agree with it - I don't. But because it illustrates a certain attitude amongst some (by no means all) refugee solidarity activists towards other left wing activists who don't make solidarity with refugees the central focus of their activism to the exclusion of most other things. "Anti-racism campaigner" is right to call that attitude self-righteous, but perhaps doesn't make it clear enough that it is also understandable and flows from a reasonable frustration with the inadequacies of the anti-racist movement here.

Implicit in her argument above is essentially: anti-deportations campaigning is the most important thing we can be doing, "this is the real war now". People's lives after all are at stake. And that leads to a sort of guilt-tripping of others on the left. Why don't you do more? Why weren' t you there at x number of deportations (or y number of vigils)? Don't you care? Isn't the issue popular enough for you?

The thing is though that the same kind of logic can apply to many other causes. What about the war? People are dying in much bigger numbers because of that. Why aren't we doing more on that issue? Or to take another couple of issues the Socialist Party was heavily involved in over the last couple of years, why weren't we all doing more in solidarity with the victims of the earthquake in Pakistan and Kashmir or the Asian Tsunami? Uncountable numbers died after all. Why aren't we doing more about child malnutrition? The list is endless and similar dismissive or outraged remarks could be made about others on the left by anyone who has been particularly heavily involved in any one of these issues. For that matter, and I don't mean to be snide here, I presume that even Emma spends some time in her life doing things other than supporting asylum seekers, that she has a life outside of political activism - time which by this kind of logic could be considered wasted on frivolity.

It is a fact that the Irish left is small and relatively weak. As groups and as individuals we have limited resources, time, money. From the point of view of the Socialist Party we are a group of a few hundred people, with little money and quite disproportionate responsibilities in the union movement, in community campaigns and in wider campaigns like that against the war. We would love to be able to give a huge range of issues the kind of attention which they deserve and need, but we can't. If we transformed ourselves into a refugee support service, for instance, that would mean cutting drastically into our ability to fight on other issues.

Contrary to Emma's remarks, by the way, the Socialist Party has a very good record on supporting refugees. Our Dáil office issues a constant stream of letters supporting individual asylum seekers. As Fintan remarked in his original post, we tried our best to bring arguments supporting the Afghan hunger strikers into the local community, distributing thousands of leaflets and our youth wing went out to schools trying to mobilise school students. In the Kunle case, we raised it in Dáil, provided significant assistance to his classmates in their campaign to have him brought back and arranged for our Nigerian sister organisation to look after him there. Is that enough? No of course it's not enough in so far as it doesn't meet the real needs of the refugee solidarity movement. We could stop doing everything else and guilt-trip our members into devoting their whole waking lives to refugee solidarity and unfortunately it still would not meet the very real needs of refugee solidarity.

In fact the biggest contribution we can make, given our position in society, views and experiences, is to build a stronger socialist movement a stronger workers movement and a stronger anti-racist movement. Strengthened, larger movements will be able to put more resources into individual issues because they quite simply will have more resources and more activists. A politically strengthened labour movement will understand the necessity of using part of its massive resources to fight for asylum seekers. The Socialist Party, of course, is involved in other anti-racist work outside of the refugee issue. That means putting out more general anti-racist material through things like street stalls and the like, but in a concrete way it has meant taking up the issue of the exploitation of migrant workers with what I think it's fair to say has been significant effectiveness. Challenging racism is a much broader issue than providing solidarity and assistance to individual asylum seekers.

I await with some eagerness a succession of anonymous posters claiming that I've "attacked" Residents Against Racism, or something similar.

really?

by celebrity watch

Thu Jun 22, 2006 11:16

Was RBB there? When? I never saw him.

Hunger strike

by Con Carroll - Class-War

Thu Jun 22, 2006 11:13

we should ignore Lordon article
we know who were in solidarity and stood out all hours
Boy Barrett showed up for camera shot
Allen tried this stunt at A T G W U conference sat 17

by activist

Thu Jun 22, 2006 10:57

Emma, I can understnd your frustration but you are just giving the likes of Dave Lordan ammunition by going on like that. He twisted a call on the left by Antiwar Ireland to get down to the cathedral into 'moralising' (big sin in the SWP's book!). It was nothing of the sort. However your general attack on everybody for their supposed inaction is exactly the sort of thing that allows people like Lordan to get away with his bullshit comments. We can't all be everywhere, or do everything, at the same time. Do you attend antiwar meetings/activities? Do you help out with homelessness? Do you campaign on housing issues? No coz you do everything! The situation at the cathedral was different because men were on hunger strike and a soldarity mobilisation was absolutely essential there and then. It was important that people made the effort particularly because of the presence of racists. But on an ongoing basis we all have to pick and choose where we put our energies. Some focus on racism, others focus on homelessness, some focus on trade union work, others focus on antiwar campaigning, etc. etc. You can't slam people for that.

Say whaa

by moi

Thu Jun 22, 2006 10:31

"I do think its a mistake for anybody to constantly call for 'the left' to come to the Afghans aid or for 'anti-war' activists to go to Shannon, which is the language which AWI uses,"

Huh? Any postings I've ever seen by AWI simply call for mobilizations in the same way that all campaigns do. All campaigns engage in a bit of this 'it's up to us all' stuff. What's the problem? What about the SWPs occasional 'All out on whenever!' sloganizing that it tends to go on with when there's a demo ?

People are getting desperate when they start complaining about mobilization calls. Probably an attempt to derail us from the main issue actually which is Lordens disgraceful attack on those who organized solidarity. to be honest, I think the SWP have big problems with AWI and RAR and its entirely because they don't control them. As for Lorden, he's clearly sectarian to the bone.

How many turned out to the courthouse Monday?

Thu Jun 22, 2006 02:39

How many of you turned out to the courthouse Monday? You are pretty much right Emma but anti-racist work is very difficult to be involved in, can I ask you how many non-left/activist, non-immigration-aiders turned up outside the court? and why not more, that is the question

its not irrelevant

by redjade

Thu Jun 22, 2006 01:26

Dear 'by anti-racism campaigner'

Look at these two images and tell me that anti-racism activism and refugee solidarity do not go hand in hand with anti-war activism.

Both of these images are more than 20 years old and still today we live with the repercussions.

Donald Rumsfeld meeting Saddam in 1983 - Reagan Era

Zbigniew Brzezinski arming Afghan groups in 1979 (i think or early '80)

not helpful

by anti-racism campaigner

Thu Jun 22, 2006 00:25

I have noticed comments from one or two people in residents against racism before criticising the left for not turning out to deportations and while I understand the frustration the tone is self-righteous. a lot of people outside the cathedral do not just regard themselves as anti-war activists.......most of them actually were anti-war activists who had given a lot of time to it. I don't see what is wrong with this. Residents against racism don't turn up at every anti-war action and that campaign is equally important. you don't do yourself any favours by hitting out at people b ecause they prioritise other equally important things.

Don't make assumptions about the people who were there to show support. Several were surprised by these hostile attacks as people who had been involved in immigrants rights or anti racism groups for years. don't assume that just because they aren't in your group that they' don't or haven't worked for the cause.

Deirdre Clancy - PSP

by ?

Thu Jun 22, 2006 00:23

Deirdre Clancy - PSP......what does PSP mean?

Article etc

Wed Jun 21, 2006 23:19

I do not have time to respond in detail so I will be brief. I did hear many people regard themselves as anti war activists outside the cathedral but not many anti racism/deportation activists. There was no way of knowing this was going to happen and the so called mass mobilisations of people you cannot get activists out when a deportation is happening never mind a mass mobilisation. Do you really think a march up and down O'Connell street is going to change the system? fairly obvious question to answer I think-NO- The attuitude and involvement in anti racism/deportation activism is pathetic from the Irish left and that is from the sp swp to the anarchist and libertarian movement have your online debates and theory forever but that is not going to chance anything it is about time the left got up off their ass and did something about this. How many of you turned out to the courthouse Monday? virtually none. This is the real war now and something we have to fight but be truthful because I know I am really pissed off with this.
I did not see Kieran Allen down at the cathedral or elsewhere although there was groups with their papers which I thought was in bad taste for that time.

Unbelievable Article written by D. Lordan

by Jackie Fallon

Wed Jun 21, 2006 22:40

Dave Lordan has succeeded in insulting all who turned out for the vigils in support of the Afghan Hunger Strikers. His article was written in a very arrogant and dismissive manner and in my opinion contributed nothing and was an absolute disgrace.

I attended the vigils on three occasions and I found at all times the people standing in solidarity with the hunger strikers arguing their points in an admirable manner, there were at times very heated debates but that is to be expected and shows people are passionate about defending what is right.

In my opinion there was no defeat and the vigils were a success. Because of the action taken by the hunger strikers and the vigils the plight of all asylum seekers in Ireland was highlighted and many discussions took place in homes and workplaces as well as on tv and radio around Ireland on the asylum process that would otherwise not have happened - the fact that the charges were eventually dropped speaks for itself!

Dave, stick to the poetry you have a great talent for that, or maybe that award has gone to your head and your too full of your own self-importance that you must condemn all others actions as ridiculous!

Call everyone, undermine no-one.

Wed Jun 21, 2006 22:07

I do think its a mistake for anybody to constantly call for 'the left' to come to the Afghans aid or for 'anti-war' activists to go to Shannon, which is the language which AWI uses, but then as pointed out the SWP 'rhetoric of mass mobilisation' which may never happen is used not just to disagree but actively undermine others. same old same old from the SWP. and no amount of platitudes will disguise that.

Response to Dave Lordan

by Deirdre Clancy - PSP

Wed Jun 21, 2006 21:03

1 "It would have been better to qualify my remarks by giving due praise to those who provided the bulk of the solidarity work during the week of the hunger strike. A lot of good sincere and committed people involved for sure."

I don't think anyone was personally affronted, only politically baffled. Nobody is fishing for compliments here.

2 "But it didn't make sense to me merely to congratulate everybody on their good work in the wake of the defeat of the Afghan protest. It is my believe that the desperate and entirely understandable tactics of the hunger strikers was one factor in their defeat. It did not give the left the time to mobilise the kind of public pressure that would have been required to force the governemnt to back down."

Whether you agree with the tactic of a hunger strike or not, it seems strange, even arrogant, to suggest that the Afghans should have consulted the left before they took action, particularly given the fragmented nature of the left in Ireland. Who should they have consulted? The SWP? The SP? The ISN? WSM? While we all agree that mass collective action is preferable, sometimes people deem it necessary to use their agency without the blanket backing of the left. They’re entitled to do this. Sometimes, the context demands it, especially in the absence of collective mass action that is effective. These were men who feared for their lives.

3 "Now Fintan is right to say that seeing it as a defeat may have been a short term view. The pressure exerted by the protesters is a factor in the charges being dropped. We can all hope that they will not now be deported. But does the state and McDowell, from the point of view of refugess, now appear more or less powerful?. I think the latter.
The points I was trying to make relate to how the left, up against it from the beginning as it was, contributed to the defeat."

How exactly could the left have contributed to the "defeat"? Would it have been better to have the men leave the cathedral without any show of solidarity from supporters, or just to cries of 'go home' and 'let them die' from racists? There is no intellectually logical argument in your article regarding the contribution of the left to the so-called “defeat”. Why not blame the effective siege situation created by the authorities, which isolated the hunger strikers from those in RAR they knew and trusted? Why not blame McDowell & co.? To blame those supporting the men when there was a show of authoritarian might from the authorities is much more divisive than the original Web article calling for solidarity.

4 "I don't think Fintan's original web article was helpful. I think it was a mistake to publicly castigate the left in the middle of a struggle. The tone of the article is moralistic in the extreme. Fintan has linked to it but I think it is worth quoting from to illustrate what I am talking about"
Of course, and entirely predictably, a good portion of the rest of thread (127 comments) is given over to swipes against the SWP, amongst others. Activists competing against each other to show how 'good' they had been in turning up x ammount of times to the vigil. This kind of think makes the far left look like a goon show. Now I am certain that wasn't what fintan wanted to do. But he didn't do anything to undo it either.
I don't know how anyone good see this as anything other than divisive. I don't believe people, organised socialists or not, can be hectored into solidarity. Certainly I found it discouraging having spent a good deal of time, in the difficult circumstances of a full frontal tabloid assault, trying to encourage others to support the protest. The response of one workmate who read it was 'what's the point in going down there when they're all fighting each other anyway'. I doubt if he was the only one who thought that."

For years, the Catholic Church in Ireland (and generally) would not tolerate any public criticism of its lack of action on certain issues from within its own ranks, for fear of demoralizing and losing the flock. It all blew up in its face in the end, as a litany of abuse and inaction to remedy this abuse was revealed in the media. It may seem like a ridiculous analogy to you, but would you seriously suggest that it's better to keep silent about failings on the left than to discuss them openly? That's an Irish solution to an Irish problem: sweep it under the carpet and it will go away. Let's all pretend everything's hunky dory. This is unhelpful in the extreme. If the left in Ireland (as a whole - I'm not just referring to the SWP) can't handle a call for more action during a crisis, then it must be pretty weak in its convictions.

I think the fact that a lot of the comments targeted the SWP was unfortunate, because many SWP members were consistent in their support for the men. I agree with you that sometimes the SWP-bashing is rather kneejerk and predictable on Indymedia. However, I don’t believe it was Fintan’s responsibility to police the responses to the article.

5 "The second point is to do with the way locals were handled by the protesters. Fintan thinks I am taking my lead from the Evening Herald etc. I am referring to a recording broadcast on 5-7live which lasted about five minutes in which activists fuck and blind at a local who is against the protest. This was, according to activists I have spoken to, and not just from the SWP, pretty representative of the approach of some of the protesters to the locals who had been gathering to oppose the protest…”

5-7 Live may have been representative of some, but not of the majority of protestors. One thing your article didn’t address was the presence of ideological racists at the counter-demonstrations, trying to influence the local kids. A lot of the ‘racism out’ chants were directed at these individuals, who were carrying banners with ‘Let them Die’ and other such pleasant hate-messages written on them. Many activists engaged positively and consistently with the locals and made a genuine effort to listen to their grievances and address them calmly, and this engagement was consistent throughout all the vigils.

6 “Actually I turned up at the vigil twice and carried on other solidarity work with the strikers, including writing an article in their support which was fwded to thousands of activist around the country. This was the best my current personal circumstances could allow. The fact that I feel obliged to make such a personal defense, feeling like a poor sinner before a monsignor, points to the root of the problem I was trying to illustrate. We won't beat racism by being 'good' , but by building a mass movement. That means the existing left has to think about how to make itself a hospitable place for the many out there who substantially agree with us…etc”

I don’t think anyone should have to apologize for their personal circumstances: I agree with you on that. However, I do feel that if you’re going to write an article which characterizes the protestors in a consistently negative way, and makes such strongly worded blanket judgments, then it helps to have had a bit more of a consistent presence. I would say this about anyone analyzing an reporting on a situation like this. I think this is why there was a conclusion drawn by some I’ve spoken to that the article was related to old scores – there just didn’t seem to be any other logical rationale for the level of unsubtle ridiculing of the action taken by people that week.

Many cannot change their spots - it seems

by Davy Carlin

Wed Jun 21, 2006 16:28

Michael Y makes some good points that I can nod in agreement with when reading his post,
-
As does Checkov, -

- including quote -

’ By demise I refer to their shrinking size / relative importance on the far left (which is pretty obvious to anybody who has been going to demonstrations for years)’

Spot on –

AND IN REAL TERMS – {for example}

- and as recorded elsewhere, RE – Belfast - for example -

, from being at the forefront of mobilising hundreds and thousands onto the streets of Belfast {with increasing regularity}, - they have not mobilised ‘ANYTHING’ new onto the streets of Belfast in almost 2 years –

BUT -

- such mobilisation of scores, hundreds, and again thousands onto Belfast Streets in that time since, continues – and had and has seen, individual Socialists, Anarchists, Libertarian Socialists etc, now at the forefront in initiating and organising such –

Indeed with that, helping to win real working class victories

-Indeed it can show no clearer a ‘demise, ---

- and the reasoning’s {for such} as stated in above post have long been given by many.

On Dave’s points, well I suggest that Dave should listen to activists and their points raised, indeed if not, then that Demise will further continue,

On demise - well I have been ‘predicting and stating the SWP demise for the last few years based on the same reasoning’s that I now give and which I have given going back to those correspondence 3 years ago –

-where I had told the leadership that if such ‘ways of working’ did not change then such a demise would be forthcoming, unfortunately this has been the case as those ways of working had not and still has not changed.

And so, also, with Dave’s points – I unfortunately see little change, and little lessons being learned and so, I believe such demise will continue, as the same ‘ways of workings, still continue in many regards with little aspiration for positive change ascending in real terms it seems.

Problems

by chekov - wsm - personal capacity

Wed Jun 21, 2006 15:35

Any and all analysis of the hunger strike must take on board a few facts.

There was no preparation whatsoever, since nobody knew that it was coming. The first that anybody heard of it was after it had started. This created, as Fintan says above a "fire-figthing" situation where the important question was what can be done right now, considering the fairly bleak situation that nobody would have wished. Since there really aren't any anti-racist campaigns in existance (in practice RAR is essentially an asylum seeker advocacy/support group) there wasn't any infrastructure in place to embark on the type of propaganda campaign that most of the supporters recognised was required. Fintan eventually pulled together a meeting to co-ordinate a leaflet and a start of a campaign in the local area, but by then the hunger strike was almost over. Incidentally, I don't believe any SWPers attended this meeting or ever tried to organise anything different.

There were also the difficulties caused by a lack of information - the hunger strikers were reticent about their own situations (characteristically of asylum seekers) and their supporters really didn't have much idea what was going on - helped in no small measure by the misinformation flying about in the media.

Given these facts, anti-racists had pretty much two choices in the immediate term - try to get to the solidarity vigils and pull together a campaign or surrender the streets to nasty racists. Having a go at those who did turn up for not solving the deeply embedded racism in Irish society is just crazy.

That took my surprise a bit by the way because my general experience of the SWP's approach to anti-racism campaigning and anti-fascist campaigning is that they tend to go long on the liberal moral arguments and short on the class arguments.

It's simply rank opportunism (as usual). Since they played almost no part in the solidarity, they attack those who they perceive as leaders of it and aren't too picky about which arguments they use. The SWP's demise seems to be pushing them into the traditional criticising the leadership from the sidelines approach of the tinier trot groups: if we had led it, it would have been completely different. It almost reads like something that socialist democracy could have written.

More thoughts from Janus the odious weasel

by Dave - SWP

Wed Jun 21, 2006 15:31

Although it will be hard to be heard above the frothing of the gathering anonymista lynch mob (respect to those who are prepared to name themselves) i would like to clarify that the responsibility for the content of the article rests entirely with myself.

Not getting it, is he?

by h

Wed Jun 21, 2006 15:28

Dave Lordan: "I don't think Fintan's original web article was helpful. I think it was a mistake to publicly castigate the left in the middle of a struggle."

The problem my dear boy is that the Left were not in the middle of a struggle. They were absenting themselves and leaving a couple of dozen people to face racist abuse.

Discussion

by Mark P - Socialist Party (Personal Capacity)

Wed Jun 21, 2006 15:14

This could develop into a useful and interesting discussion about anti-racist activism and solidarity with refugees. So hopefully the outraged interjections by anonymistas of the "I'm so outraged so and so said that..." variety will be kept to a minimum. I can understand why Dave's article caused irritation (and I can understand why the post of Fintan's he quotes from did too) but lets try to keep this constructive.

I picked up a copy of the SWP magazine recently too. It was pretty shoddy looking (all too common a problem on the left) but some of the articles were interesting. Mostly interesting for good reasons, although I thought the couple of pages on Germany were little short of vile - two articles attacking those people in the new WASG party who want any merged left wing party in that country to stand against cuts, privatisation and coalition in a very dishonest way. Anyway hopefully this magazine will last longer than its predecessor ("Resistance"?). And hopefully it will posted online eventually. Presumably the delay is so they can sell enough of the print version to make it sustainable?

Dave's article caught my attention for a mixture of good and bad reasons. I thought that it made some solid points about the nature of racism and about a need for a movement against racism that reaches out to the widest possible section of the working class rather than preaching to the converted. That took my surprise a bit by the way because my general experience of the SWP's approach to anti-racism campaigning and anti-fascist campaigning is that they tend to go long on the liberal moral arguments and short on the class arguments. On the other hand, from memory, I thought that it made some sweeping and at times overblown statements. And I thought that its section on solidarity with the Afghan refugees (quoted in the original post) was likely to raise some hackles.

Before commenting further I should make something clear - I missed the whole struggle as I was out of the country at the time. I wasn't at any of the events at the Cathedral and so can only go on second hand reports. I am not in a position to comment on whether holding daily vigils outside was a necessary short term reaction to difficult circumstances or a strategic preference. All I can say on that is that, circumstances permitting, I would tend to be of the view that getting leaflets out in the area and trying to explain to locals what was happening and why would seem to be an important priority. I think in fact that both Fintan and Dave probably agree.

On a related tactical issue, the report in the latest issue of "The Socialist" makes what I think is a sound point: "The preparedness of the Afghanis to make a militant stance for their rights is to be applauded. However, it is clear is that, if possible, there needs to be activity and preparation in advance of such struggles, to win public support, which is essential to defeat the anti-refugee and the racist authorities." Preparation, laying groundwork, is important in any fight particularly one which revolves to a large extent around winning public support.

Keeping to the general, there is the question of how we go about building an anti-racist movement in Ireland. Just holding a rally and declaring one open for business isn't enough. What are other people's thoughts?

Michael

by Mike Davis

Wed Jun 21, 2006 14:59

"2. Personal position or not
I don’t know. I was at the last Saturday ATGWU Conference and I noticed Kieran Allen of the SWP too making it very clear that left-wing activists should have mobilised in strength for the vigils, particularly because of the strong presence of racists."

KA is a different kettle of fish from Lordan. Kieran is respected both as a trade unionist and as an academic in UCD; thats why he was elected head of the School of Sociology. KA would be able to apply his 35 years of political experience to a problem and see that what occurred at the Cathedral was correct.

But Lordan is one of the grey eminences brought onto the SWP NC by RBB. His article got into the Review because it had RBBs backing. What we are seeing here is part of the internecine war that has been in progress for some years in the SWP. RBB, the young pretender, istrying to displace Kieran.

I suspect RBB and Lordan have gone too far this time. We might yet see both of these odious characters departing from the SWP.

Still throwing mud

Wed Jun 21, 2006 14:55

Lordan doesn't give up, does he? Here he is throwing mud again in the hope that some will stick.

2 of his 'points' are the following:

1. Fintan (though he didn't attack the left) should be held responsible for any anti-swp comments posted on indymedia. This idiocy doesn't even deserve a response. Its mudslinging. Keep throwing it and some might stick! There is nought in the quote dave uses from Fintan that points to anything other that a call on lefties to mobilise. Nought. Zero.

3. fintan allegedly claims that Dave took his lead from the Evening Herald. So says Dave anyway. Where? A textual analysis shows that fintan indicates that dave took his impressions largely from 5/7 live - and Dave continues to use those radio clips as the basis for his critique!

Dave is doing his best to hide behind his swp comrades in this pathetic response. However the swp didn't actually appear on the pickets until the end of the week and they stood around carping. And if they told Dave what he claims they told him, then they must have been wandering around with their eyes and ears closed.

Weak as piss response.

Looking forward to the past

by MichaelY - iawm

Wed Jun 21, 2006 14:50

I wrote my post below before reading Dave's reply. I am delighted he has responded and of the way he has responded. I will leave however intact what I said rather than edit/change it with the help of hindsight.

There are indeed occasions, as Fintan so rightly says above, when the sheer wrongheaded analysis and distorted facts of a position or a comment, coming supposedly from the Left, cause you to wonder why you bother….often underpinned by distorted ‘facts’ and baffling interpretations. It can be a frustrating experience to read these rants in left-wing media. I am not referring here exclusively to the article in question but to quite a lot of the stuff that passes here in Indymedia as 'debate'.
I bought the SWP’s ‘New Left Journal’ at the same IAWM debate FL did. I read Dave’s article later that evening and while I found parts of it straight enough, references to the activists who supported the Afghani hunger strikers around the Cathedral made me wonder about his attitude and knowledge of the facts. I will not repeat and dwell on the very detailed criticism Fintan outlined – with which I agree. I will, however, concentrate on what I would consider to be the main three points where Dave got it wrong:

1. The strategy question
2. Was this a personal opinion or does it reflect a ‘Party’ position and
3. Whether this was a defeat for the hunger strikers and the Left.

1. Strategy:
“Failure to recognise the real causes of racism and to provide a strategy to uproot it was unfortunately all too evident during the St Patrick’s Cathedral protests” Dave asserts. It is as if all those activists, whose numbers grew as the week progressed, older and experienced comrades from many organisations and non-aligned people, as well as younger brothers and sisters from SP and LP Youth, schoolkids, passers – by, anti-war activists, RAR friends….all of us individually and almost by some divine intervention, decided to assemble outside a Church…to stay there for hours every day, to be hassled and, some of us abused…not knowing why we were there and why we had come and, most importantly, where we were going.

If one takes Dave’s argument to its logical conclusion, we were there because we had nothing better to do and that it would have been better if we weren’t there for in that way we would not have provoked the local response – which we didn’t know how to handle anyway!! I doubt whether Dave believes all that but I must say this type of reasoning brings up a whole set of questions of action, of response to changing (and often unexpected) situations, of tactics and strategy, of attitude to incipient or outright ideologically committed racism. And to top it all, Dave writes not one word that indicates his support for, or even empathy with, those who participated in solidarity work for the Afghans. His tone is condescending if not hostile! And this from a man who was there only a couple of times. One can answer these questions generically but, to be fair, it is Dave’s task to do it…he comes in and out of Indymedia quite often and he knows his way around this gig.

2. Personal position or not
I don’t know. I was at the last Saturday ATGWU Conference and I noticed Kieran Allen of the SWP too making it very clear that left-wing activists should have mobilised in strength for the vigils, particularly because of the strong presence of racists. In the same meeting, I was also told by one of the ‘New Left Journal’ editors, a woman comrade I know well and whose judgement I trust, that she had considered hard and long before inserting Dave’s article into the journal. This is something, of course, SWP comrades will have to figure out and sort out themselves. But, to see the slightly funny side of this, it is an argument that left-wing organisations, even as ideologically unified as the SWP is supposed to be, have disagreements amongst their members. I am really looking forward to hear and read Dave Lordan’s response to all of this.

3. And then there is this amazing statement. “Even if every activist in Dublin had stood at the gates of St Patrick’s Cathedral 24/7, it would not have altered the wider balance of forces in Irish society that contributed to the hunger strikers’ defeat.” This, of course, ties us back to point 1 – were we, all of us empty-headed eejjits, really expecting to ‘alter the wider balance of forces’ in Ireland? To defeat the Minister of Injustice, to bring down the Coalition, to see tens if not hundreds of thousands into the streets demonstrating against racism? And why was it a ‘defeat’? What would have victory been like? 42 deaths perhaps?

With a bit of hindsight, as the charges against the Afghani comrades have been dropped, as they have been de-criminalised, as our society is a bit more aware of the plight of refugees but also the horrific situation prevailing in Afghanistan….and most crucially, as I saw five of the hunger strikers attending political meetings, criticising US Embassy Councellor McClennan, telling him that it was the US that was responsible for their decisionto leave their country - to leave families and friends behind…I think we should debate with a bit more care and sensitivity of what constitutes defeat and victory in the political struggle.

In summary, I feel confident that the kind of solidarity and trust that developed outside the Cathedral, among activists [of many nationalities] and the Afghanis will help us continue to work together in a constructive manner. And having met Dave Lordan a few times, and spoken to him, I feel he will be with us on the same side. Having perhaps re-considered / re-edited some of his ideas. At least I hope so.

Good man Dave

by No Deportations supporter

Wed Jun 21, 2006 14:42

You must have studied Julius Caesar for the Leaving. Because I've never seen a finer rendition of 'I've come to bury Caesar not to praise him' with that apology that started your comment. Nothing like a man of conviction. So you are standing over your odious piece of work then. Good for you. Good for the SWP.

A few remarks

Wed Jun 21, 2006 14:23

I am sorry to have caused the obvious personal affront. That was not the intention of the article. It would have been better to qualify my remarks by giving due praise to those who provided the bulk of the solidarity work during the week of the hunger strike. A lot of good sincere and committed people involved for sure.

But it didn't make sense to me merely to congratulate everybody on their good work in the wake of the defeat of the Afghan protest. It is my believe that the desperate and entirely understandable tactics of the hunger strikers was one factor in their defeat. It did not give the left the time to mobilise the kind of public pressure that would have been required to force the governemnt to back down.

Now Fintan is right to say that seeing it as a defeat may have been a short term view. The pressure exerted by the protesters is a factor in the charges being dropped. We can all hope that they will not now be deported. But does the state and McDowell, from the point of view of refugess, now appear more or less powerful?. I think the latter.

The points I was trying to make relate to how the left, up against it from the beginning as it was, contributed to the defeat.

I don't think Fintan's original web article was helpful. I think it was a mistake to publicly castigate the left in the middle of a struggle. The tone of the article is moralistic in the extreme. Fintan has linked to it but I think it is worth quoting from to illustrate what I am talking about

“Especially disappointing was the non-appearance of many anti-war and socialist activists, who one would expect to be there. Certainly, some activists had prior engagements - or had turned out for the 12.30pm vigil - and some had sent their apologies in advance. However, that goes nowhere near explaining the poor turnout both last night and tonight. Where are the activists from the so-called 'far-left' parties? The non-appearance of members of mainstream parties is scarcely surprising, but where is Ireland's revolutionary left? This absence, in my opinion, needs to be explained”

Of course, and entirely predictably, a good portion of the rest of thread (127 comments) is given over to swipes against the SWP, amongst others. Activists competing against each other to show how 'good' they had been in turning up x ammount of times to the vigil. This kind of think makes the far left look like a goon show. Now I am certain that wasn't what fintan wanted to do. But he didn't do anything to undo it either.

I don't know how anyone good see this as anything other than divisive. I don't believe people, organised socialists or not, can be hectored into solidarity. Certainly I found it discouraging having spent a good deal of time, in the difficult circumstances of a full frontal tabloid assault, trying to encourage others to support the protest. The response of one workmate who read it was 'what's the point in going down there when they're all fighting each other anyway'. I doubt if he was the only one who thought that.

The second point is to do with the way locals were handled by the protesters. Fintan thinks I am taking my lead from the Evening Herald etc. I am referring to a recording broadcast on 5-7live which lasted about five minutes in which activists fuck and blind at a local who is against the protest. This was, according to activists I have spoken to, and not just from the SWP, pretty representative of the approach of some of the protesters to the locals who had been gathering to oppose the protest. Again I don't see how anyone could feel this was anything other than counterproductive. Its underestandable for sure- i've lost my temper with working class people mouthing prejudice too- but it just serves to build a higher walls between us and the people we should be trying to influence. I think the struggle against racism in this country is going to be a tough one and we are going to need a lot of patience to win it.

Actually I turned up at the vigil twice and carried on other solidarity work with the strikers, including writing an article in their support which was fwded to thousands of activist around the country. This was the best my current personal circumstances could allow. The fact that I feel obliged to make such a personal defense, feeling like a poor sinner before a monsignor, points to the root of the problem I was trying to illustrate. We won't beat racism by being 'good' , but by building a mass movement. That means the existing left has to think about how to make itself a hospitable place for the many out there who substantially agree with us, but, because of our own weaknesses, don't see us as a serious option at present.

To be expected

Wed Jun 21, 2006 14:14

On deeper reading of the points, I must say, that although some may be simply amazed that a leading member of the SWP could come out with such an analysis,

I say simply read back 18 months or so and u will find much raised here as to the reasons I give for leaving the SWP,{ or even further back to 3 or so years if SWP members have been given ‘access to my correspondences, in regard to the very same concerns raised also then}

Such as -

Attempting to create A reality instead of dealing with the reality, distortions, attacks on other lefts, purity of politics, advocating ‘mad tactics, ‘mad leadership analysis, following a Sectarian agenda, Undemocratic and unaccountable manoeuvrings, etc etc etc

- Again, leading members have shown that there is no such change in regard to much of those situations that I as a member {as had others}had aired back then and before - and indeed the SWP, if they have any savie left, will of course come back with 'their' leadership position -

Whatever the case.

- Daves points though, just cements, yet again, much of that that has been raised many times before in relation to the SWP– and for me, in regards to yet another SWPer that I had held in close regards - indeed, as with others, I may not read or listen to his words {in this regard} in the same way again.

lordan and the SW

Wed Jun 21, 2006 13:36

Is Dave Lordan on the national executive of the Socialist Workers Party? If he is, this must be what they are thinking. What is his position within the SWP?

Back on Planet earth -

Wed Jun 21, 2006 12:24

I have only limited time presently will come back, but briefly'

Quote

Dave Lordan claims that mobilising people for a solidarity vigil represented a ‘ridiculous ‘strategy’.

I think that Dave has lost the plot, I really do. I understand the SWP ‘rhetoric of mass mobilisations etc, but as I said before, and indeed one of the reasons as recorded as to why I had left the SWP, - because of their belief in a 'specific hand book of tactics, where one cannot step outside of.

Whether or not this is solely Dave's position, and as a leading member, it is nevertheless worrying, and shows, and cements, in real terms where the SWP have headed and how removed they are from the real world of Solidarity activism.

As for those ‘ridiculous Solidarity vigils well, for oneself, in recent years it has seen, in very very real terms, in local communities all around Belfast racists and racist attacks pushed back, with people feeling secure enough due to that Solidarity shown - and so they did not have to ‘flee the area– {this due in large part to those such‘‘Ridiculous vigils and Solidarity}–

It had also seen pressure brought to bear {and major victories won} in relation to various deportations – politicians and their racist words being censored – racist advertising withdrawn, and much much more – because of such ‘ridiculous Vigils –

It had seen as the SWP own paper stated ‘an Historic Victory in the re - instalment of a trade union Colleague – because, in part, of such vigils
-

Of course these vigils, in all these cases where just a part of a growing momentum created in the process of such Solidarity – but without them there is no doubt whatsoever, and in very real terms, that such gains, however substantial or limited, would have not have been won

And briefly on the quote -

‘It is also worth noting that threaded through the early part of Lordan’s article are some remarkable claims, most notably that what occurred at St Patrick’s Cathedral was an utter defeat for anti-racists and ‘marks a political victory for the right.’ More than that, Lordan insists that the ‘defeat’ of the Afghan hunger strikers ‘has widened the political space for racism’, i.e. bad tactics lead to bad results’.

AND SO -

- Fintan is 100% right when he quotes’

‘I would suggest that such negative conclusions are based on an extremely short-term view and we have yet to see how the protest by these Afghan men plays out in the longer term. A defeat? Surely, it’s too early for such defeatism, especially in the light of the dropping of all charges against the protesters. Arguably, the controversy and solidarity have had an impact of sorts and who knows how this case will develop over the coming months’.

Two points here, firstly this again cements, in real terms, some of the leading SWP members short - termism of politics.

Secondly – A Defeat? Well, INITIALLY, we have seen the dropping of charges and the stopping therefore of criminalisation, but as I stated on another post –

Quote –

‘Activists, of course will watch - re - the 'final and 'just outcome for our fellow human beings as to what CONTINUED solidarity may be required - {to achieve such stated goals}.

For most activists they will understand the nature of such long term campaign and struggle, {and the various tactics to attempt to secure victory} - but as stated u Dave have, again, re- enforced, in very real terms what many in the movement already knew – that of the short -termism {in many ways} of the SWP – and its rhetoric and, again, ‘mad analysis’ {and ‘purity} -

- which has absolutely no bearing whatsoever with reality, and indeed if such ideas, and 'MAD tactics' where ‘won, in the Movement, it would be completely detrimental to it – again, and yet, another reason why I left the SWP.

I will come back later if have time, as there is so much mad guff to reply to.

Anybody got a link to the article in entirity?

Two women activists were abused and threatened.

by Chris Murray - The Unmanageables

Wed Jun 21, 2006 11:34

They stayed there and They went back.

One was verbally threatened in St Patricks Park, in the presence of
her daughter. The other, who was carrying a camera was physically
assaulted by a gang of racists. She stayed there.

This was not a few locals, but an organised attempt to de-rail an
act of solidarity. It was frightening for people to witness, but it did not
stop them.

The local protestors had genuine poverty and alienation issues which
were projected onto the situation.
However the organised and threatening campaign of abuse that
targeted these women is a completely different story.

Rationalising the defecit inherent in the lack of response from some
members of the left is unacceptable. Fintan you did a good job
despite what had been exposed to you during the vigils and
in this article.

Another activist had to intervene in the assault on a woman
activist and ask Gardai to help. They were maintaining a line behind
barricades and did not help this woman. None of the 'riot' police
were wearing id numbers.

it would be helpful if...

Wed Jun 21, 2006 11:10

'does not reflect the SWP position, the magazine is a discussion journal. I am sure another comrade will respond to it in the next edition.'

it would be helpful if the SWP offered this publication on their website http://swp.ie - unless I am mistaken, it is not online.

What Fintan has written does not surprise me in the least - but when I went to go find the original material to judge for myself, i couldn't find it.

When it is placed online - let's hope that, as a SWP pub, it will be published CC/CopyLeft http://creativecommons.org/

SWP.ie screenshot: Why does the Vertical imitate the Horizontal so?

A discussion journal?

by Confused

Wed Jun 21, 2006 11:08

The magazine is not an internal discussion journal as 'Swper' claims. It is a party magazine sold to the general public to promote the views of the SWP. Wake up my friend!

Unbelievable stuff

by No deportations supporter

Wed Jun 21, 2006 11:01

I think Dave should stick to the poetry. What really worries me though is that this is an official journal of the Irish SWP and as such I am sure has an editor and/or editorial board. The article must have been requested and/or vetted before publication. Makes you wonder.

the article

by Swper

Wed Jun 21, 2006 11:00

does not reflect the SWP position, the magazine is a discussion journal. I am sure another comrade will respond to it in the next edition.

My God!

Wed Jun 21, 2006 10:08

Does Lordan have even the slightest clue what substitutionism is??? What a disgraceful analysis of the St. Patricks Cathedral events. Shameful.

Number of comments per page

Upcoming Events

New Events

Other Press

User Preferences

Feeds

Blog Feeds

The Saker

Public Inquiry

Human Rights in Ireland

Lockdown Skeptics

‘Sectarian Bickering’: Dave Lordan of the SWP on the Afghan Hunger Strike – A Response

Comments (76 of 76)