Clondalkin goes unplugged. Fundraiser for Gino Kennys election campaign

by Buda Mon Mar 12, 2007 15:38

You did very well as an SWP candidate in the Local Elections. I am sure you will do just as well as a PBPA/SWP (I presume you haven't left the SWP in the meantime) candidate this time out.

Just make sure that you remember to mention Socialism in your election literature. Otherwise People might be confused about what you stand for and vote for someone who does call himself a socialist Before they vote for you. No Profit in that.

by Mark P - Socialist Party (personal capacity) Mon Mar 12, 2007 16:47

Hi Gino. This meeting notice isn't very detailed. I wonder could you tell us what constituency you are standing in and for what party?

by sean Mon Mar 12, 2007 17:39

mark a little initiative please. "Clondalkin goes unplugged"
i would therefore hazrd a guess the gino will stand in clondalkin
"gino kelly people before profit"
hmmmmmmmm wonder what group he will stand under
maybe ehhhhh people before profit

now of course this is all really a set up for your next Q
"oh didnt u stand as swp before"
"are u not a socialist anymore"
"why can i not understand the premise of working with other people in a united front"
blalblalaletc etc etc

by Mark P - Socialist Party (personal capacity) Mon Mar 12, 2007 18:19

Actually Sean, I wasn't making a particular political point so please try to keep your paranoid twitches under control.

I was curious because I hadn't heard somewhere (possibly on this site) that there are just 4 People Before Profit Alliance candidates and Gino wasn't mentioned as one of them. I was verifying that Gino is in fact a PBPA candidate and was wondering what constituency he was standing in. Clondalkin, as you may know, isn't a general election constituency. From memory, I think that most of Clondalkin is in Dublin Mid-West, but I'm not sure if all of it is.

I don't think it's outlandishly hostile to ask where Gino is running and under what banner he is running. Particularly considering that Gino has stood for election under a different name in the past and that the SWP have just stood candidates for two different organisations in the North.

As for all your snide nonsense about "not understanding the premise of working with other people in a united front", I'd rather not get into that kind of bickering with you. If you really feel the need, please feel free to explain it to me. My understanding of the united front is that it is a coming together of different strands of the workers movement to fight for particular joint objectives. While the different groups work together, they also freely and openly criticise each other and raise their different ideas. Have I misunderstood something?

Perhaps you could also explain exactly how this relates to the People Before Profit Alliance, given that so far the PBPA seems not to actually involve any significant forces outside of the SWP? Can you have a "united front" if it doesn't involve uniting with anyone much else?

by sen Mon Mar 12, 2007 18:58

"My understanding of the united front is that it is a coming together of different strands of the workers movement to fight for particular joint objectives. While the different groups work together, they also freely and openly criticise each other and raise their different ideas. Have I misunderstood something?"
ok, you are right this is the basic premise of a lenist theory of the united front. Now, atempt to apply this to today.
With the collapse of the commuist parties, the disintegration of the social democratic parties and the emergence of small fight backs around various issues and more geralised movements against war etc, movements and fightbacks that are not necesarly socialist, organised into a party, or represented by any of the main political parties. Therefore the biggest section of the workers movement is unorganised.
Lenin never stipulated united fronts had to be with organised forces.
I think people before profit is an attempt to recognise this.
Maybe it hasnt pulled enough forces together yet, mayb the left alliance thing that is coming togther will have a better chance.
Outside of it, you can win a small but important all ready existant audience to socialism and within it, work alongside people and win them to socialism.
Hence the fact the swp still exists.

Lastly, all the theoritical analysis of the ist on this question is available on various websites. You should really no the answers anyway

by Mario Buda Tue Mar 13, 2007 10:17

What you have written above shows a basic misunderstanding of the concept of building a United Front. However, in this case, the tactic of the UF does not apply as the PBPA is just an SWP Front. Apart from a few individuals, the membership of the PBPA overlaps with the SWP. You know that, Mark knows it, I know it. So please quit the codology.

You might also address the question as to whetre Gino is standing: is it Mid West or South West? You seem to know a lot about the PBPA, so you should be able to answer that question.

by Gino Kenny Tue Mar 13, 2007 16:02

im running in the dublin mid west constituency, as people before profit, for the comrade in the sp. ran last time as swp. hope to bring as many people on board as possible, in a wider alliance of people. in the area. And for the person whos says, that i wont mention socialism, i have more socialism in my small toe, than you ever will, MY FRIEND.

by Dub Tue Mar 13, 2007 16:18

I accept that Gino is a socialist. Gino did well in the last local elections. Fair play to him and the rest of that campaign team. However questions have to be raised about the complete dropping of socialism from the SWP. On Richard's website there is not a mention of socialism once. SWP are not contesting this election as themselves, instead they are running their candidates as PBPA. From what I can see the Socialist Party and ISN run under their own names and also get many people involved from outside their ranks. Do the SWP think that Socialism will discourage people from involvement? What does this say about their attitude towards socialism? What does it say about their attitude to working class people? These are all legitimate points to make. It appears that the SWP are making the mistake again of spreading their forces too thin on the ground. I expected them to have 2 candidates this time around (Smith and Boyd-Barrett). SP have 4 candidates and ISN only 1. But more and more candidates are springing up form SWP. I suspect they will regret this tactical mistake.

by Gino Kenny Tue Mar 13, 2007 16:34

we have been planning to run for a long time, and if anybody out there feels they want to give us a hand, you are more than welcome.

by Joe Soap Tue Mar 13, 2007 16:36

Listen Dub, you are talking rubbish. If the swm members running with PBP put swp or socialism on their PBP website you'd say they were using PBP to promote themselves, when they dont mention it they are not socialists anymore. And now you almost as fact- that they say they think socialism will scare people away. In fact I was at there conference at the weekend and they were very much arguing that swimmers in PBP should be vocal about being socialist and that it was infact important. dont know what your basing your claim on. I'm sure you'll let me know.
Oh and by the way rory hearne is a swimmer and his leaflets in Ringsend clearly mentions his membership of the swp on his election leaflet.
You say that your points are 'all legitimate points to make'. Well so far they dont stand up cause what I've seen pbp members who are swp is the opposite to what you are saying.

by Intrigued Tue Mar 13, 2007 16:44

Am I alone in thinking it odd, that if it was decided to run Gino some time ago, that his name wasn't on the list being circulated on the Independent Left Alliance leaked statement?
Was there some problem within the proposed ILA in adding Gino's name to the list or did PBP want to give the impression of running less candidates to the other individuals/groups and drip release further names to the slate?

by Dub Tue Mar 13, 2007 16:46

Why do the SWP think that by dropping the name "SWP" from the ballot paper they will get more people voting for them and getting involved in the election? It all comes down to a lack of confidence in socialism. They think that working class people are somehow put off by it. RBB's website mentions loads of organisations/campaigns he's involved in. Not one mention of SWP. They could have said "Richard is a member of the SWP, Save our Seafront, etc. But they did not. It's a glaring ommission. Yes, at Marxism they will mention their socialism. But why not mention it on the doorsteps. I lived in West Dublin and I remember Joe Higgins in my estate mentioning the need for a socialist alternative when he got into discussions with some neighbours. I suspect the SWP will not do this in this election. I think that it is a shame that the 2nd biggest socialist organisation in Ireland will not even argue for socialist ideas openly.

by anon Tue Mar 13, 2007 16:49

Five People Before Profit candidates thus far declared and four are SWP members (Boyd Barret, Smith, Kenny, Hearne). Carmel McKenna in Wicklow (splitter!) seems to be the exception, though perhaps she's not.

Truth be told, the PbPA slate appears to be almost a complete replication of the SWP slate at the last election.

by sn Tue Mar 13, 2007 16:53

ok dub, manifesto deosnt mention socialism. Of course not that can be brought through parliment anyway.
Question. Socialist party stood in belfast. Of course it said there was a need for a socialist alternative. You know that all pwerful "socialist alternative" that mean regardless of what you say on other situtions makes your politcs pure.
SP candidate said this about policing

"the police must also be able
and equipped to deal with the
problem of anti-social behaviour
that blights so much of South
Belfast. Vulnerable people such
as pensioners must be able to
feel safe in their own homes.We
need a police service that is accepted
by and accountable to all
communities"

The police need to be equipped to deal with anti social behaviour. In northern fucking ireland, what do you want more battons, more guns , more cops to carck kids heads in.Doesnt talik about the underlying causes, poverty, aeilnation etc
Its says "socialist alternative" but who really gives a damm with politics like this.

by Fyodor Tue Mar 13, 2007 17:03

Where soes it say in any socialist maxim that Anti-social behaviour is to be tolerated? I think you are mixing your anarchist ideals up with what makes good policing during a transition period from a profit reliant/driven society to a socialist people/welfare driven one.
Anyone who preys on the weak/infirm and aged in our society betray everything socialism represents and should be treated accordingly.

by soc Tue Mar 13, 2007 17:28

what should the starting point of a socialist be.
1Fight the underlyin causes of poverty, ailineation which cause crime
or should it be
2smash the kids

We should to the job of the right for them

by soc Tue Mar 13, 2007 17:30

That should read
We should not do the rights job for them

by KM Tue Mar 13, 2007 17:40

"I think that it is a shame that the 2nd biggest socialist organisation in Ireland will not even argue for socialist ideas openly."

Hang on, isn't Sinn Féin socialist? What about the Workers Party? The IRSP? SIPTU? The ATGWU? IWU? There must be many more socialist organisations in Ireland which are bigger than the SWP.

(Of course some will say that the organisations mentioned are not "truly" socialist. But the same could be said of the SWP)