Red Banner magazine ceases publication.

by Dub Thu Jun 07, 2007 16:31

Any political reasons for this 'split'/decision? I've often read Red Banner. What will the new publication be?

by Dub Thu Jun 07, 2007 16:33

Who are the people with the "pirate" Red Banner? What's their political line?

by Jack Sparrow Thu Jun 07, 2007 16:34

Looking forward to issue 29. And congratulations on the website.

by Red Arrow - Workers Inaction Thu Jun 07, 2007 17:07

Well done to the three comrades. Now you are editors of a non-existing magazine. This will fit nicely with your membership of a non-existant broad campaign, the CIL, your sterling work in a comatose anti-EU constitution campaign, and your hard work in last years 'sort-of-anti-partnership' campaign.

Im worried though that you might overstretch yourselves by joining in a campaign that involves doing something other than meeting in the Teachers Club, so ease up there lads. Can I suggest that, in response to the fiendish comrades X and Y (surely theres a comrade Z involved?) who stole the glorious Red Banner from your work-worn hands, you should call your new magazine, which you are no doubt working on at this very moment, Red Langer. Kinda suits yez.

by Red Banner editorial collective Thu Jun 07, 2007 17:16 red_banner at yahoo dot com PO Box 6587, Dublin 6

Contrary to a hoax message which has been going round, Red Banner magazine is alive and well.
Issue 28 is available now from the above address and good bookshops. The new Red Banner website is also online.

by Mark P - Socialist Party (personal capacity) Thu Jun 07, 2007 17:20

Like one of the people who commented above I've read Red Banner for many years now. In fact I think I've only missed a half dozen or so of them. It was (or is?) often interesting, often useful and occasionally downright infuriating.

One of it's chief flaws was always its insistence on covering debates on the left in a dishonest way. Its writers would lay into what they felt were the flaws of various forces on the left, without openly saying who their comments were addressed towards and giving them the chance to defend themselves. The result was argument by insinuation, an approach it made almost into a point of principle. Remarkably this is an approach which the Red Banner editorial board has maintained even in its own fallings out. We can, I suppose, at least admire their consistency, if not their dedication to clarifying political disagreements.

The above statement tells the readers and subscribers of Red Banner almost nothing about the dispute which has led to a split in its editorial board and, it appears, to two rival publications pushing for "left unity". It doesn't tell us who the two activists who it accuses of hijacking Red Banner's name actually are (although those of us who have been around the left for a few years will probably be able to guess). More importantly it doesn't give any indication as to what disagreements led to the split or what political issues were at stake. It doesn't even tell us what the difference beween the two publications coming out the split is to be. The impression it leaves us with is that one person on the editorial board has a personal dislike for someone else on the editorial board and... well that's about it. We are told that there are "irreconcilable differences" between the two editorial board factions, but apparently we are not to be told what those irreconcilable differences were actually about. There is indeed a certain irony in this, given that the statement boasts about Red Banner's tradition of "free and open" debate.

There is a further irony in a magazine which so frequently complained, mostly by insinuation, about the supposed dominance of various left wing organisations by their leaders that it should itself split amidst allegations that members of its committee refused to accept democratic decisions and viewed the magazine as something akin to private property.

by Long John Silver Thu Jun 07, 2007 17:27

A-har, Jim lad! Shiver me timbers and walk the plank!

I've been reading Red banner on and off for 2 or 3 yrs, and this is the first I've ever heard of these 3 having anything to do with it. I've never seen them selling it at demos etc. Des Derwin writes in it every few issues, but the other 2? Has John Meehan ever written in it? The fact that the magazine is continuing without them shows how crucial (not) their contribution was to it. Whatever the reason for their departure (and it can't be that unreasonable, or they'd tell us what it is) they're making a much bigger effort against Red Banner than they made for it.

If I can't be on the team, I'm going to burst the football - who said the left were all petty and immature?

by The assorted peoples judean continuity real red banner Thu Jun 07, 2007 17:28

This has to be the most ridiculous thing I have read in a long long time. My favourite bit is this "in the case of Red Banner, the left has disgraced itself again by splitting" wrong lads you have disgraced yourselves, this has feck all to do with the left and all to do with 5 people who have split. Also the story is incorrect https://www.indymedia.ie/article/82813 as you can see Red Banner hasn't ceased publication. Also the worst part is you don't even want to continue publishing Red Banner you want your own publication so instead of doing just that you try and destroy Red Banner. Why don't the three of you go off and make your own publication and leave the Red Banner editorial group to continue publishing Red Banner which they seem to have done anyway.
This is an absolute joke!

by Elvis Aaron Presley Thu Jun 07, 2007 17:57

Ladies and gentlemen, I am the real Elvis Presley. That guy who died on the crapper 30 years ago weren't nothing but a phoney. As the real Elvis, I hereby announce that I'm a-gonna stop anyone else but me recording any rock + roll music. And I do believe I have a glittering career ahead of me on the editorial board of this here new publication that's been announced - The Head Banger.

Thankyouverymuch.

by Red Arrow - Workers Inaction Thu Jun 07, 2007 18:03

Sorry folks I just cant contain myself with the excitement.. oh just the thought of these three producing anything..anyway here goes: Red Spanner, Red Banger, Bad Red Manners, Red Hammer (Heads). More on the back of a Dail envelope to: The Home for Deluded SWP Front-Fodder, Henrietta St, Dun Laoghaire (northside enclave)

And finally. How many John Meehans does it take to change a light bulb? None, because strangely enough, it was already changed during the ANV abortion referendum campaign due to the deep insight and timely intervention of John Meehan. Ok I'll stop now but its such fun shooting fish in a barrell!

by R. Isible Thu Jun 07, 2007 18:10

The Home for Deluded SWP Front-Fodder,
For those of us not in the know, what does this have to do with the SWP? Don't think I've ever read Red Banner or seen it anywhere, so what's the background to this whole thing?

by Mark P - Socialist Party (personal capacity) Thu Jun 07, 2007 18:12

Anonymous personal attacks on people who do at least have the honesty to sign their names to their statements are not particularly useful. I hold no brief for any of the three people who produced the above statement but a brief look at the index on the new Red Banner website shows that Brendan Young has contributed four articles to it, John Meehan three and Des Derwin eleven. Eighteen articles is a not inconsiderable contribution to a small magazine and, of course, there are many other things which people involved in such a publication can usefully do other than simply write articles. These tasks include subediting, proofreading, fundraising, distribution, outreach and countless other things which are invisible to those of us who simply read the magazine.

I don't know how the workload was split up amongst the Red Banner editorial board and other supporters and I strongly suspect that few other people on this thread do either. We do know however that the magazine did have an editorial board, a structure which all involved apparently agreed to set up and to abide by and it seems that the majority of its editorial board have been unceremoniously dumped by its minority. This may have been necessary and important, but none of us have any information from either side to justify that conclusion at the moment.

Imagine for a minute that similar events had taken place in a more prominent corner of the left. Say for instance there had been a split in the Socialist Workers Party Political Committee. The minority side, including say Richard Boyd Barrett and Kieran Allen, had decided to ignore the meetings and decisions of the wider Political Committee, in effect excluding its majority and carrying on as if they were the SWP. Then its majority posted a statement here saying that this was illegitimate, that they represented the majority of the organisation and that they were winding the whole thing up and setting up some new project. Would they be greeted by people saying "what are you talking about? There is still an SWP! Look this website proves it! This is ridiculous! You people are do nothing wasters anyway"?

Well, yes, they might. But anonymous comments along those lines would certainly be viewed with a healthy suspicion by the rest of us. From my point of view, as someone who buys and reads Red Banner, but has no greater involvement than that, the whole situation remains a mystery. One side has said nothing at all and has carried on as if the other side never existed. The other side have given us this cryptic statement. Neither side apparently trust us peasants with any more detailed or useful information, which is at least an amusing turn of events for a magazine supposedly dedicated to free and open debate.

by Mark P - Socialist Party (personal capacity) Thu Jun 07, 2007 18:47

R.Isible, the remark about "deluded SWP front-fodder" is probably a relatively simple reference to the fact that some or all of the three signatories above are regarded by some on the Irish left as "soft" on the SWP and its various campaign fronts. Given the general hostility towards the SWP amongst people who have been around the left for a while, advocating working with the SWP in any capacity is probably enough to get you labelled as such.

Beyond that it is difficult to say because of the absence of a culture of honest debate amongst sections of the Irish left. Various activists and small groups have been in or around various left regroupment projects for a long time. Groups and individuals go in and out of these projects without ever explaining why or what the points of agreement or disagreement were. At the same time Red Banner covers these developments, but in its characteristically cryptic style which leaves open more questions than it answers.

Recently for instance there was an article in the magazine which broadly speaking argued that the bigger left groups were beyond the pale and the small left groups and individuals should stop looking towards them and form something themselves. This was written by an activist who is, I strongly suspect one of the minority of the editorial board which has continued on without the people above. Who this was actually addressed to was never remotely clear but we can make a fairly educated guess if we remember that at this same time the SWP controlled People Before Profil Alliance was making frantic overtures to the Campaign for an Independent Left. The latter group included some of the smaller groups and independents, including some or all of the people involved in the Red Banner editorial group.

So it is probable that the Red Banner article concerned was aimed at anyone who was thought to be wavering on the subject of the SWP/PBPA. The new issue of the "Provisional" Red Banner contains an article on left unity by Des Derwin, which, without having seen the thing, I would guess is a response to that earlier article and I would further guess that it argues that it is a funny type of left unity which takes as its starting point a refusal to have anything to do with most of the left.

That might give you some context for the "deluded SWP front fodder" comment. I very much doubt if it explains the Red Banner split though, given that Des Derwin's article appears in the "Provisional" version of the magazine.

by Annette Curtin Thu Jun 07, 2007 19:32

Mark P complains that Red Banner criticises the Socialist Party in a way that doesn't let them reply. A couple of issues ago, the SP pamphlet on the GAMA strike was reviewed in the magazine, and had some criticisms of its author - not opposing the work permit system, especially. What's to stop the author, or Mark P, or anyone else in their organisation, answering that? Where exactly is the "dishonest" debating going on here?

by Michael O'Kelly - none Thu Jun 07, 2007 19:54

I think this statement needs to be taken with an extremely big pinch of salt. Everytime someone leaves a left wing group, they always cry that they have been forced out or expelled, whether they have or not. So just asserting you've been forced out doesn't mean anything in itself.

The Red banner website does show that one of the three signatories has written a lot for the magazine. The two others have three articles each. One of them hasn't written anything for over four years. The idea that they have all been heavily involved behind the scenes seems a little far fetched IMHO. If they were involved in the technical side of the magazine, they wouldn't have to ask the others to give them the assets. If the remaining editors can produce a magazine without them, then they couldn't have been indispensable.

The other side seems to be staying out of this - but that could be for good reasons. No-one's obliged to engage in conversation with the nutter who sits next to them on the bus - usually you just smile and look out the window. Ignoring this and getting on with things seems to be their response.

Finally, can the SWP-bashers take a day off, please?

by Mark P - Socialist Party (personal capacity) Thu Jun 07, 2007 20:24

Annette:

You will find that my comment was not about criticisms of the Socialist Party in Red Banner. It was about a general approach to debate on the left in that magazine. Contributors regularly make serious criticisms of the existing groups on the Irish left but they do not, in general, specify which groups precisly they are criticising and more particularly which allegations are meant to refer to which groups. As far as I can tell, the Socialist Party is not the most regular victim of this approach.

This has a number of unfortunate effects. It amounts to argument by insinuation - where the precise details of the sin alleged are never made clear. It also encourages argument by amalgam - where allegations can be made which might validly refer to one group, but which are treated as applying to a wider spread of the Irish left because the writer never has to clarify who precisely has done x, y or z. Finally it strongly discourages people from arguing against these vague claims because doing so necessarily involves accepting that these coded claims were being made against the organisation which the person responding represents - "If the cap fits". None of this is at all desirable in a magazine which aims to be a forum for "free and open" debate on the left.

The precise article you refer to is somewhat of an exception in that regard, in that it does actually make it clear at some points who precisely it is accusing of what precisely. I suppose the editors had little choice in a review of a Socialist Party pamplet dealing with a victorious struggle largely led by the Socialist Party. It raises two criticisms, one a broad one about asylum seekers, open border and "economism" which I completely disagree with and the other being the one you mention about work permits. On that latter point I actually agree with him as I suspect would the author of the pamphlet - it makes the correct arguments as to why the work permit system is wrong but omits the specific demand to end that system. The point is implicit in the text but should have been made explicitly.

There was nothing stopping me or any other member of the Socialist Party writing a response to that article if any of us so chose, for the simple reason that the article doesn't obey the Red Banner convention of argument by insinuation. It commends certain things about the Socialist Party and it criticises other aspects of our approach and it does so clearly and openly. The example you choose actually bolsters my point. If Red Banner (in either its Provisional or its Official form) is serious about debate on the left, it will carry more articles like this one and less articles in the style it usually reserves for debate on the left.

Given the total radio silence from one side in their own internal dispute and the cryptic statement from the other, I don't hold out that much hope that they have decided that clarity is the way forward however.

Michael:

If the people concerned are equivalent to "nutters on a bus" it rather leaves me wondering why they were put on the Red Banner editorial board in the first place?

Apparently the people producing "Provisional" Red Banner thought highly enough of them to agree to them being put in that position, to work with them over whatever period of time preceded this squabble and to publish 18 of their articles in just 28 issues of the magazine. As far as can be told we are talking about the majority of the magazine's editorial board here! They may be right or wrong, they may be stoic grafters or dead weight, but it hardly holds water to assume that they aren't even worth discussing in the context of a magazine of this size.

by Chekov - 1 of indymedia ireland moderators Thu Jun 07, 2007 20:51

This thread has been full of sock-puppetry.

The following comments all come from the same IP: those by "Michael O'Kelly", "Annette Curtin", "Elvis Aaron Presley", "Long John Silver" and "Red Banner editorial collective". Abusing the anonymity of the commenting facility by using multiple identities to post comments is an abuse of the editorial guidelines and may lead to hiding of comments, or banning.

by observer Thu Jun 07, 2007 20:53

These three boyos (Derwin, Young and Meehan) are making a fair fist of isolating themselves within the Dublin far left. First they fell out with the ISN in the CIL and now they've fallen out with their mates in Red Banner. Where to next?

by Mark P's hand in a sock - The hand in in the SP, the sock is strictly unaffiliated Thu Jun 07, 2007 21:42

I strongly suspect that this thread is about to get a lot quieter as the rather embarrassed Provisional Red Banner supporter scuttles off.

That's quite an interesting collection of posts which turned out to all be from the same person. They were all very hostile towards and dismissive of the original posters but they otherwise represented themelves in quite different ways. As Red Banner Editorial Collective, the poster adopted an official identity, giving the Red Banner email, web and postal addresses while adopting a lofty, factual seeming, approach.

A few posts later as Long John Silver the gloves were off (and the sock was on). While claiming to be a recent and not all that frequent reader, the poster claimed to have never heard of the original posters in connection to the magazine, describes them as not doing much and then insinuates that they are petty and bitter. Two posts later the same poster is calling the original three headbangers as Elvis Aaron Presley.

The next two identities are a bit more interesting. Michael O'Kelly is positioned as another neutral party, with a clever nod towards the SWP, and then in a very reasonable voice casts doubt on the idea that the original posters did anything apart from write their 18 articles, compares them to nutters on the bus and portrays the decision of the remaining Red Banner editors not to engage with them as sensible. That last bit is a particularly nice touch in a comment which now seems to have been revealed as coming from one of the remaining Red Banner editors or a close supporter. "Michael" does make a good point about everyone who has ever left a left wing organisation ever claiming that they've been forced out, it has to be said.

Annette Curtin actually gets off the posters main point (dismissing the original posters) to defend the magazine's editorial policy against my earlier criticism. This new identity was necessary because using the editorial collective tag would have made it clear that they were continuing to monitor and engage with the thread, while using one of the later puppets would have compromised their supposed neutrality.

Some of this is quite sophisticated, but the fatal flaw was posting too much material, in too similar a style, too quickly, thus attracting the attention of an editor.

by Derek Thu Jun 07, 2007 22:37

They could join another 'organisation' like the SP and then they could get down to some serious bitching and back stabbing, as a rural type I have never heard of the Red Banner. Love the red letters Chekov!

by Derek Thu Jun 07, 2007 22:48

I forgot to add, that having joined the SP, they could have the thrill of being denounced as enemies of the people by Stalin! Re the story, it's enough to make you weep, by the soul of saint Marx I feel like nipping around to McDowell's office and surrendering, sadly he's gone.

by Mr. Socko - First Time Poster On This Thread Thu Jun 07, 2007 22:48

From what I can make out after reading a longer (more excruciating) version of this 'resolution' is that a member of Red Banner resigned from the editorial board. Don't know where the law of meetings comes in (I'm sure Mark P might have more expertise in these matters) but I'd hazard a guess that there was no longer a majority able to make a decision. Therefore two members of RB decided to press ahead with the next issue while two members attempted to hold it up whilst whoever threw the hissy fit changed their mind. I'm guessing those pleading paralysis where actually doing their own bit of paralysing. It's not nice but political differences arise, splits happen and they are not always down to sectarianism.
Of course it's a bit rich of Mark P (a sock puppet himself) to come over all indignant about the fact that a spat has arisen and we're not getting both sides of the argument. Want to point me in the direction of that website were both sides of a dispute are archived on the CWI website.

by observer Thu Jun 07, 2007 23:00

Mark is not a sock puppet - he is consistently using one name on this thread.

Does anybody know if there is some political content in this Red Banner bust up? On the face of it, it seems not.

by Mr Socko Thu Jun 07, 2007 23:06

I've confused sock puppet with somebody with different aliases.

by Mark P's hand in a sock - The hand is in the SP, the sock is strictly unaffiliated Thu Jun 07, 2007 23:43

I was about to respond to you by pointing out what a sock puppet is in an internet discussion, and explaining that I am not using one. I gave the same name in my contributions and I gave my organisational affiliations, even though the latter isn't particularly relevant to this thread. Then I saw your apology, so fair enough.

I am not, by the way, at all indignant about the cryptic nature of this split, although I do find a certain black humour in the situation given the loud claims made for Red Banner's traditions of free and open discussion. No group that I'm not a member of is required to give me an explanation of their disputes, which is a great disappointment to me because I'm nosy by nature.

That said, there is a difference between an internal dispute and an actual split. If a political group splits and the resulting two groups see fit to present themselves to the public as two separate groups committed to exactly the same thing and yet don't see fit to explain why they are now two groups, they can only expect a few confused looks. Much the same can be said about a socialist magazine committed to left unity, which then reappears seemingly as two rival socialist magazines committed to left unity. If they do so and the only explanation they give is that one of the people who was on the editorial board wouldn't let everyone else play, then I don't think a raised eyebrow is entirely out of order! It isn't a very serious way to go about your political work, I'm sure you'd agree.

I think it's a pity that Red Banner seems to have split because I like the magazine, despite what I view as its flaws, and have a pile of them on a bookshelf to prove it. I don't think that airing disputes in this apolitical manner helps anyone - with one group giving a version of events which seems to be all about someone on the other side being mean, and someone from the other side seemingly abusing them from anonymity. If there is some political difference of importance they should say so openly and explain themselves. If it's purely an organisational squabble, they should sort it out themselves rather than spewing it all over Indymedia in this embarrassing way.

By the way, in answer to your rhetorical question, here's a link to a website of the Committee for a Workers International which includes all of the documents produced by both sides in internal debates over things ranging from the Scottish Socialist Party to the fall of the Stalinist regimes: http://www.marxist.net

by redjade Thu Jun 07, 2007 23:59

Mark P said: 'I was about to respond to you by pointing out what a sock puppet is in an internet discussion'

Wikipedia: a pejorative term for a false online identity used for purposes of deception within an Internet community
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sockpuppet_%28Internet%29

- - -

Note: this does not mean pseudonyms or even using multiple pseudonyms but using pseudonyms 'for purposes of deception within an Internet community'

in otherwords, in reality sock puppets talk to themselves to create an impression there is a real conversation going on - thus fooling the reader.

to be clear: on Indymedia.ie pseudonyms are allowed (redjade, for example)

by observer2 Fri Jun 08, 2007 11:03

I'm still waiting to hear of a political basis for this split. It is beginning to appear that there is none and that this is simply a case of five people no longer able to get along on a personal, working level. If that's all there is to this, why on earth do the trio above think the rest of us should be in any way interested?

If this is no more than a personal falling out, then please take it outside the door and don't be boring us with it.

by Red Banner Fri Jun 08, 2007 11:58 red_banner at yahoo dot com

It has been pointed out to us that two statements have been posted on Indymedia, one signed "Red Banner Editorial Board", and the other signed "Red Banner Editorial Collective", mentioning our e-mail address.

We would like to point out that neither of these statements comes from the people who bring out Red Banner magazine.

Indymedia editors will be able to contact us to verify this, if necessary.

by observer2 Fri Jun 08, 2007 12:11

In reality, the only posting to use your email address was the 'Red Banner Editorial Collective', who was exposed as the sock puppet.

The three lads comprising the 'Red Banner Editorial Board' don't seem to have used any email address.

by pip Fri Jun 08, 2007 23:25

Nobody read it and nobody cares.

Bye now.

by cropbeye - none Sun Jun 10, 2007 14:54 cropbeye at yahoo dot com

A few points we might wish to remember amid all the sniping.

For an independant left publication in Ireland Red Banner has had a pretty

good run. 28 issues over about ten years is in fact fairly unique.

Re the veiled reference to groups on the left in some of the articles. The irish left

has always been and continues to be plagued by personalities and they all have hugely inflated

egos so that every Paddy or Richard with a handfull of mates can claim to be a big national

movement and the revolution is just around the corner. As regard right to reply Red Banner always

had a right to reply to the actual points raised in an article not to give people a chance to rant in a

pre cooked ideological sense. We are all familiar with the political parties official papers always on

sale tripping over each other outside our union meetings etc, these organs heavly censor letters and

contrbutions in print. Keeping a publication going is not easy. There are many on the left who will micro analyse everything seeing any slight change disagreement or whatever as a conspiracy.

In real life friends sometimes fall out and have to go their own way nothing to do with the ideological
paranio of some.

I enjoyed the Red Banner while it lasted. I would like to hear from those out there who feel they can
have a better stab at Left Unity , what their short and medium term goals are, and what approach they
would take to a genuinely independant left organ that might make a national impact.?

Many of the articles RB brought out over the years were very good and there is certainly now a challenge to any of us to do better.

by JJ Mon Jun 11, 2007 10:57

I was talking to a member of the red banner editorial and was advised that it intends to continue publication. People should be weary of any statements otherwise.

by a.n. other Mon Jun 11, 2007 11:01

Likewise. Reports of Red Banner's death are obviously much exagerrated.

They were selling Red Banner at the Palestine march on Saturday. There is no question but Red Banner is going to continue, though (as far as I know) there is now only two people left on the Editorial Collective.

by cropbeye - None Mon Jun 11, 2007 20:15

If there are only two left on the editorial bord

dosnt this leave the magazine in a very weak position especially as one of the aims

of the publication is to build a broader agreed left unity platform in Ireland.

by JJ Mon Jun 11, 2007 22:02

i wouldn't worry too much. There are plenty of able and willing people who would jump at the chance to be associated with Red Banner, by far the most interesting and thought provoking left journal.

by Mr. Socko Mon Jun 11, 2007 23:16

If you have a board of five and one resigns and three attend the next meeting, whats a quorum? What happens with a 2-1 vote? Any revolutionary legal experts?

by I'm an SP troll ;-) - SP - presonal cap Wed Jun 13, 2007 00:31

"Want to point me in the direction of that website were both sides of a dispute are archived on the CWI website."

Yes, i would LOVE to point you in that direction. I'll even give u exact directions and addresses if you want, seen as you asked so nicely.

That would be the cwi site which records the debats, www.Marxist.net

Here are the documents of the 3 main debates that took place in out international

On the collapse of stalinism: http://www.marxist.net/stalinism/index.html

On the open turn i.e. leaving labour http://www.marxist.net/openturn/index.html

On Scotland i.e. the role of socialist in the SSP http://www.marxist.net/scotland/index.html

Glad i could be of assistance.