Europe Needs a New Left

by Dubcek Fri Aug 01, 2008 11:42

Socialism seems to have lost its meaning; there are 157 varieties, including the Bertie Ahern version. Terms like 'The Left' have also become ambiguous, although obviously socialist Bertie and his government would never have allied themselves with opposition to the Anglo-American invasion of Iraq, whereas a centre-right leader like President Chirac did.

by Analyst Thu Jul 31, 2008 21:11

See link below, for a particularly idiotic CWI/ Socialist Party analysis of the Glasgow election:

http://socialistworld.net/eng/2008/07/28scotla.html

This asserts, of course, that Solidarity is on its way. In fact, the result for both Solidarity and the SSP was dismal. Disillusionbment with New Labour is at its height - a point stressed in this article. But even under these conditions the alternatives to Labour on the far left continue to sink like a stone. Petty left sectarianism is clearly a dead end - unless you are a CWI hack defending the indefensible and turning logic on its head. In this world, defeat is victory and stagnation is progress.

Over and out for both SSP and Solidarity, I am afraid.

by D_D Thu Jul 31, 2008 15:20

More numbers, I’m afraid.

Note the election results below for the SSP and Solidarity (Tommy Sheridan, SWP & CWI [Socialist Party]).

Constituency - Glasgow East
UK Parliament By-Election 2008
Election for Member of Parliament - 24 July 2008

Candidate Party Elected Number of Votes
CREIGHTON, Chris Independent 67
CURRAN, Frances Scottish Socialist Party 555
CURRAN, Margaret Scottish Labour Party 10,912
DUKE, Eileen Scottish Green Party 232
HOWITT, Hamish Freedom-4-Choice 65
MASON, John F Scottish National Party (SNP) Elected 11,277
MCLEISH, Tricia Solidarity - Tommy Sheridan 512
RANKIN, Davena Monica Scottish Conservative and Unionist 1639
ROBERTSON, Ian Scottish Liberal Democrats 915

by sigh Mon Jul 21, 2008 18:04

Ah yes, why change it if it ain't broke? Petty sectarianism has served us well until now, so why bother seeking cooperation and left unity? Much better to continue with the intra-left competition and sniping. Sure, the far left wouldn't be the same if they actually tried to get on.

by The Wonderer Mon Jul 21, 2008 17:27

So, the ISN want to discuss left unity with SP, SWP, Eirigi, CPI, WP, CWAG, and the WCA. There's no harm in some face to face discussion, but what is the objective?

As I understand it, the CPI and WP still look to the old Soviet Union as a rough model. The WP have even sent some of their leaders to North Korea to express their support for that totalitarian dictatorship.

The ISN, on the other hand, dispute the idea that the Soviet Union was socialist. They not only reject Stalinism but Leninism as well.

What is the 'socialism' this unity is in aid of? Surely you need to know what your goal is before you can start looking for allies to help you achieve it.

Or is it about trying to get a pact where the different groups do not run candidates against each in next year's local elections?

by ISN'er Mon Jul 21, 2008 13:44

I should have said also that the ISN doesn't see left unity in terms of "instant noodles". Dialogue leading to a worthwhile outcome could - and almost certainly will - take quite some time. There are indeed important issues to be teased out.

by ISN'er Mon Jul 21, 2008 12:17

In fact, what the ISN is proposing is face-to-face dialogue rather than megaphone diplomacy.

We do have a preferred outcome, but we are actually sensible people and realise that not everybody envisages left unity the same way as ourselves. The important thing at the moment is that dialogue occurs and that would involve exploring the issues that you raise. Left unity won't emerge via indymedia threads or as a result of calls at public meetings.

by HP Mon Jul 21, 2008 11:26

There is a lack of honesty in the contributions of those who advocate the "instant noodle" variety of left unity on this thread. The ISN proposed and facilitated a meeting to discuss the idea of left unity in Ireland. It is impossible at this stage to have left unity in Ireland. That would require a monumental political shift to the left by the likes of the SWP which is not going to happen.
Do any of you honestly believe that the SP could unite with the SWP when the political differences are so big? The ISN's claim that there is more that unites us than divides us is juvenile. The political differences are significant, and not just to do with the USSR as you glibly mentioned - but on the national question in Ireland there is a gulf between the two parties. Get real and stop trying to fool people.
It is only a matter of weeks since a leading member of the SWP not only refused to support the Belfast Airport workers but actively worked with the general secretary of Unite to defeat them, forcing two of them to go on hunger strike out of sheer desperation. This same SWP member is sitting in government buildings negotiating a new social partnership deal with the government and big business. In the campaign against the water charges the SWP have regularly sided with the union bureaucracy against the SP. These are not trivial issues. They are a clear indication that the Irish SWP will tend to follow the example of their British comrades political opportunism or their German comrades who sided with the leadership fo the Left Party in a witch hunt against the CWI.
What should be discussed and debated is not how to achieve left unity but how will a new working class political "party" or alliance be formed. These are two distinctly different things. BC's contributions are important as they outline basic questions that need to be addressed. But the responses of D_D and the ISN member and others are alarming. Rather than try to address these questions, you have all basically stated that the questions are irrelevant. Your positions can be summed up simply - please don’t raise any issues that maybe contentious - if you do raise questions, differences etc then you are being sectarian - what the “left” need to do is blindly agree to forming something, we don’t know what that is - but lets make a start and once the “train has left the station” then whatever we are doing will take shape and lead to something positive!
I would suggest that it is you and by you I mean the SWP (stop insulting our intelligence by trying to pretend that PBP is not an SWP front) the ISN and those individual lefts like D_D, Joan Collins etc who should revisit what has actually happened in Europe.
The SSP is dead, it is just waiting to be buried. Respect is dead. The RC is termininally ill. All of these organisations have failed because their leaderships were politically opportunist, they make political compromises, and they paid the price. These organisations followed precisely the path put forward by the ISN and the SWP. That political programme is not important, that political differences are not important. The lesson from Europe is the opposite to what D_D and others claim, rather than an example for us to follow, it is a lesson in what we shouldn’t do.
The SSP made huge political compromises, before its collapse there was even a debate within sections of its leadership that they should go into a coalition government with the SNP. Respect needs little comment. The SWP made huge political compromises, staing at one point that women’s rights and gay rights should be sacreficed in order to have unity with right wing Muslims. They allied themselves with very unsavoury people, many of whom are now joining new Labour and some are even joining the Tories. The RC’s collapse is on the back of their leadership becoming a conduit for neo-liberal attacks on Italian workers because of their support for capitalist governments.
Can someone please explain why we should follow any of these examples. Can someone please explain why you ALL attacked the SP and the CWI because we pointed out in advance the political mistakes that were being made in the SSP, Respect, the RC etc. At the time you said we were being sectarian. However, unfortunately for working class people, all of these formations failed precisely for the reasons the CWI said in advance and during the events as they unfolded.
The reason why the SP and the CWI continue to make these points about the importance of the political programmes of new formations and of the importance of democracy within these formations, and on the question of coalition with right wing parties is because these things do actually matter. And when these new political formations fail they can do damage and harm. The failure of the SSP has damaged the working clas in Scotland. The failure of Respect has done less damage, but nevertheless it is still used, as is the example of the SSP by even so-called “left” union leaders in Britain to argue that it isn’t possible to build another working class party and that the way forward is to reform the Labour Party. And these arguments can and do sway people.
In the South of Ireland the objective conditions that will give rise to more struggles by the working class, and the development of a new layer of trade union and political activists that can be the basis for the development of a new working class party are unfolding. However it still hasn’t happened yet. Your attempts are premature, and the reality is that the left forces you want to play the key role in creating a new working class formation are even weaker than in the past when similiar attempts were made.
If the train has left the station, then it has done so without the Socialist Party. It won’t be too long before it is derailed.

by BC - SP (personal capacity) Sun Jul 20, 2008 18:37

I am not saying that anyone is trying to form some group here slavishly modelled on the SSP or the Left Party or the new party in France. In fact, the current noises about left unity tend to be so vague that it's impossible to tell what kind of alliance is being proposed at all. I am making the much more limited point that in the articles published by the Irish SWP and PBP, in the speeches at the public meeting the other night, and in the general arguments coming from those circles, international examples are conflated with each other and wheeled out as examples of the left "getting its act together".

They are never examined closely, the differences and similarities with the situation in Ireland are never drawn out and no serious attempt to learn whatever lessons can be learnt from them. Instead the argument can be summed up as follows: "The left in Europe is uniting. Here's a random example of some project in some other country. We need to get our act together too." What I'm saying is that if people want to look at these projects, let's actually examine them rather than just using them as generic examples of all things good.

I quite agree that anything that emerges in Ireland will be "a project quite different to those that exist elsewhere". The problem is that nobody, at least nobody at the meeting this week, was talking about what it would look like, how it could come about, what the political basis would be, what forces it would involve, what kind of structures it would have, what its orientation would be. Instead we get "left unity" presented as the obviously wonderful political equivalent of smiles and sunshine. In your post you mention that the ISN is only interested in a new formation if it is explicitly socialist and based on class politics. In that one sentence you said more about the political basis of the kind of formation you are interested in than the SWP and PBP managed at the entire meeting I attended. I was left with the vague impression that whatever they are pushing is to be "anti-neoliberal" and that's about it.

As far as dialogue is concerned, I agree with you it is useful and necessary. But there is no point in having a dialogue if it's actually just a series of monologues, reciting the eternal joys of left unity. There's nothing unfair or carping about the quite basic points I've been trying to make to D_D and PBP in general. These are the kind of issues that anyone who is proposing something this vague should expect to have addressed to them.

by ISN member Sun Jul 20, 2008 18:12 irishsocialistnetwork at dublin dot ie

By the way, BC, I have no idea what the nature of the PBP 'invitation' to the SP is or isn't. My remarks are with regard to left unity and are not in support or opposition to anything PBP has been saying to your party. The ISN is not part of PBP and they are well able to speak for themselves.

Our own position is very clear: we want to see the emergence of a radical unity formation that is based on the working class, articulates class politics and is explicitly socialist.

by ISN member Sun Jul 20, 2008 17:52 irishsocialistnetwork at dublin dot ie

"Trying to form something like the German Left Party in Ireland would involve a very different process to trying to form something influenced by the new party in France. Yet this is never discussed or analysed by people pushing for some kind of alliance in Ireland. These phenomena are treated as if they are all the same and whatever is being pushed here is treated as the local incarnation."

BC, the problem with this argument is that nobody is slavishly attempting to form an Irish version of Die Linke or the emerging LCR-driven initiative in France or the Left Bloc in Portugal. How could we do such a thing, even if we wanted to? The conditions in Ireland are completely different. We can learn from these alliances - and from the experiences in Britain - but we have to move forward from where we are here and on the basis of what we are...which is a very fragmented and small radical left. Left unity in Ireland will be a project quite different to those that exist elsewhere. But what's wrong with that?

The highlighting of left unity projects such as Die Linke, Left Bloc, SSP, etc. etc. is done, not as a crude argument for carbon copies in Ireland, which would be impossible (the German situation is immeasureably different, for example), but to point to a trend across Europe, to a growing leftist fightback against neo-liberalism and capitalism. It is encouraging, even if many of the projects are imperfect (from a radical leftist position). Anyhow, it is hard to understand why you are so eager to throw cold water on this trend; the rest of the radical left is not stupid - we do actually see the pitfalls. The ISN, for example, is very clear that whatever left unity formation emerges has to be firmly based on class politics and has to be explicitly socialist - we're not looking for a left-social democratic formation; let Ivana Bacik and Michael D Higgins establish that if they are so minded.

Left unity is needed. Dialogue is always a good first step, but this is best approached with positive rather than negative feelings. Optimism of the will; pessimism of the intellect.

by BC - SP (personal capacity) Sun Jul 20, 2008 17:50

I think PJ, that we already have quite enough in the way of vacuous "positive remarks" about left unity. What's needed is closer examination of the things being proposed, the political basis for unity, the forces that are involved, the situation on the ground, the structures needed. It is really quite a straightforward point to make that the people talking most loudly about "left unity" are leaving all of this stuff very vague.

Examples from abroad are wheeled out simply as examples of the left "getting its act together". They aren't examined closely and neither the differences nor the similarities with the situation in Ireland and the proposals being made in Ireland are drawn out. It may be that these experiences have much to teach us, in both a positive and a negative sense, but we won't learn anything from them by treating them in this shallow manner. It seems as if the main figures associated with this latest unity drive prefer to discuss "left unity" only in the vaguest terms, as something nobody could possibly object to, like sunshine and smiles. In my view that isn't very helpful.

To give a particular example, an SWP and PBP member at this meeting invited the Socialist Party to get involved. It wasn't clear whether the invitation was to join PBP or to discuss forming a broader alliance that might include PBP as a component. But these are different things. If you were to ask a random bunch of PBP supporters which was meant, I suspect that the answer would vary depending on who you asked because nobody is clear about it. Buzzwords like "a new left" and "representing the movements" are thrown into the mix, but they are never explained let alone backed by argument.

What the political basis of an alliance is to be is never discussed. Neither are the potential forces involved or the kind of structures that are being proposed. Its as if none of that stuff matters, but in reality that sort of thing should be at the absolute core of discussions about left unity. As you yourself say, there is a lack of detail. The kind of straightforward questions that anyone serious about their politics would have are left unanswered. In that context I feel quite comfortable leaving the backslapping and vague expressions of joy and support for left unity to others.

The people involved in PBP are issuing invitations to the rest of the left to get involved in something. It's not excessively or carpingly negative to expect what that something is to be explained without waffling generalities. It's particularly amusing that a lot of these invitations to unity are aimed at the Socialist Party, but when you get a response from a Socialist Party member looking at what is being proposed you seem happy to assume that I'm just looking to cause trouble and that there is no point in answering the quite basic questions and points that I put forward. Aren't PBP supporters supposed to be trying to convince us that we need to unite? Nobody shows much sign of trying to do that here and PBP won't even allow my comment on their blog feature. But I can safely predict that the Socialist Party won't be getting involved in any broad alliances with anybody without detailed and serious discussions about policy, structure and orientation first.

by PJ - none Sun Jul 20, 2008 16:47

All I can gather from BC is really the following:
1. Every other left alliance situation in the world are different to Ireland
2. Every other political situation in the world where left alliances are forming are different to Ireland

Leaving us with what from BC...
From his postings there is
a. little or no positive remarks
b. a suggestion almost that because there is no ten point plan, conditions are not perfect then...Do nothing!

I support both moves by PBP, CWAG, Camp Ind Left, ISN etc for trying to move things forward on left unity.

BC may say questions posed have not been answered and there is a lack of detail- may be true BUT I believe BC is more interested in focussing on this as a basis for no progress.
Well done to all who are trying and theyb deserve support and encouragment not this negative nonsense.

by BC - SP (personal capacity) Sun Jul 20, 2008 16:31

Hi D_D,

Thanks for the honest admission about the numbers issue. I was perhaps getting unnecessarily tetchy about it, because it seemed to me that you were implying that I was under counting those present out of some sort of malicious or sectarian motive. 130 is, in my view, a pretty good attendance for a public meeting. People don't often apologise on Indymedia when they get something wrong, so I do appreciate you holding your hands up on this.

On the political points I raised, I am familiar with the international debates you linked to but I don't see how they address any of the points I made. The points I made (numbered 1 to 5 above) were quite specific and, while your answers might be informed by those previous international discussions, it isn't really good enough to offer an article about Britain or Italy or Europe generally as an answer to questions about a particular project in Ireland.

This is particularly the case when most of the writers you recommend were actually on the opposite side of those debates from the British SWP! It strikes me as very unlikely that the Irish SWP have, without ever saying so or making any arguments along those lines themselves, secretly adopted Murray Smith's point of view as against that of their British sister party. Were I to try and extrapolate the views expressed in those articles by SWP writers to Ireland, the answers I could come up with would be very different to those I would come up with by extrapolating from Murray Smith's views. Even if those debates addressed Ireland - and they don't - pointing to a debate with a range of contradictory views wouldn't answer any of my questions. Which arguments from those debates am I to take it inform your views and are your opinions really representative of the ideas of the people who set up and run People Before Profit?

In fact one of the points I made above was that there was a tendency to assume that the situation in Ireland is the same as that pertaining in whatever other country we are discussing and that PBP or some new alliance project is the same as whatever is being done in that other country. Neither of these things are so obviously true that they can be assumed without explanation or discussion. In particular, various new parties in Europe are lumped in together without any assessment of their strengths and weaknesses, their political differences and the different circumstances and forces that created them.

To given an example, the new party that the LCR is forming in France for instance seems likely to be a great deal more radical in its politics than, say the Left Party in Germany. They have been formed by very different groups, for different reasons and with different policies. Trying to form something like the German Left Party in Ireland would involve a very different process to trying to form something influenced by the new party in France. Yet this is never discussed or analysed by people pushing for some kind of alliance in Ireland. These phenomena are treated as if they are all the same and whatever is being pushed here is treated as the local incarnation.

The political points and questions I raised in my previous posts require can't be dealt with by a vague reference to international debates. Something is being proposed in Ireland. What exactly that project is, or should be, has been left extremely unclear. There isn't any discussion about the politics of an alliance, the structure of an alliance, the relationship of People Before Profit to an alliance or the relationship between this proposed alliance and various projects in other countries. Instead all we get are general appeals to "left unity", which in those broad terms is about as meaningful as a general appeal to sunshine and happiness. Everybody is in favour of smiles and good things. What we all need to know is what is actually being proposed or formed, what organisation, with what forces, on what political basis.

Unfortunately nobody seems open to actually discussing this. Nothing of substance was said about any of this at the public meeting. Nothing of substance has been said on this thread. I posted some of my earlier posts on this thread as a comment on the report on the People Before Profit blog. It disappeared into moderation and doesn't look likely to be allowed at this stage.

by Wondering Sun Jul 20, 2008 12:20

Without wishing to be disrespectful to anybody, I'm wondering (in a very general sort of way) if these terms are not just very superficial labels which do more perhaps to breed tribalism, and useless distractions of all kinds, than anything else?

At the present time at least, such labels don't (for example) tell us ANYTHING at all about where the "labelled" person or group stands on the extremely important matter of human rights law -- such as (for instance) the United Nations International Aarhus Convention Agreement -- which the Republic of Ireland Government signed in 1998, and has STILL not "laid before Dail Eireann" as is required by Article 29.5.1 of Bunreacht na hEireann (the Constitution of the Republic of Ireland): but does, nonetheless, continue to make smithereens out of on a daily basis throughout our entire "Nation State".

Is there a case -- I find myself wondering -- for spending less time on yet more "tribal warfare" between "left" and "right", and all the associated distractions which normally seem to go with such activities: and more time on trying to see to it that human rights law (as set out by the United Nations) is actually enforced in daily life?

Surely by now it must be becoming more and more obvious to more and more people that it is the NON ENFORCEMENT of human rights law that is making human rights abuses (of ALL kinds) a "piece of cake" for the relatively very small number of greed-driven despots and plutocrats of our world? And, that the more distractions there are (to help bury human rights law issues), the better "they" like it.

Maybe we need a "Human Rights Party" (which includes "left", "right" and "centre")? -- and maybe it's because we don't have one that so much human rights abuse is still taking place in our particular State, and in so many other states of the world: some 60 years after the "United Nations Universal Declaration of Human Rights" came into existence?

by D_D Sun Jul 20, 2008 10:29

After asking around, BC, the general opinion is that there were indeed about 130 at the PbP meeting. So, my years of stocktaking do not seem to have stood me in good stead on this occasion. So I concede and apologise. The intention was to reflect the correct attendance, not to insinuate that you were misleading Indymedia readers.

In referring to the SP meeting I was being ironic about dick measuring on the left. Like attendance exaggeration it should be given over.

Your general points are debated extensively elsewhere. Many links to it have been put up on Indymedia threads. It is an international debate on an international development: new broad left parties. E.g the Australian magazine 'Links' devoted Issue 26 to it. It's on line. 'Marxsite', 'Frontline' and the (British) SWP's International Socialism Journal sites have a lot of it. I would recommend googling Murray Smith. socialistrenewal.org.uk and socialistvoice.ca are interesting on organisation. Cf too http://www.internationalviewpoint.org/spip.php?article1416 and http://www.internationalviewpoint.org/spip.php?article1413

Fraternally.

by Marlin - none Sat Jul 19, 2008 09:32

As far as I know, and Im not involved in the organisation of it so I just going on what an indep. leftie told me, these are the groups invited: SP, SWP, Eirigi, CPI, WP, CWAG, WCA and the ISN. Its a private meeting with just two delegates from each group and, again Im just going on what I was told, its going to be chaired by an independent.

by BC - SP (personal capacity) Fri Jul 18, 2008 19:56

Thanks delegate. Which organisations are invited?

by BC - SP (personal capacity) Fri Jul 18, 2008 19:53

There were indeed less people at the Socialist Party meeting after Lisbon - a meeting organised at less than three days notice and advertised with a very small number of posters. Now, did you have some point to make with that bit of penis measuring?

I was at the meeting. I did a count of those present. I was also sitting right at the back. Your claim that there were 200 people present, including people who had to stand because there were no seats, is false. There were approximately 130 people there at the high point.

And yes, you are getting tedious. Mostly because your posts have consisted only of insinuations that I'm not telling the truth about attendance and about the contribution of the Workers and Unemployed Action Group speaker. You haven't engaged at all with any of the points I made about the meeting, whether to agree or disagree or to express an opinion of your own. Perhaps you prefer this kind of bickering about numbers to actual political discussion, but I don't.

In case you missed it the first time:

1) Despite Francois Duval's billing as the main speaker, none of the other speakers, whether from the floor or the platform, had anything much to say about France, the prospects of the LCR's new party there, or the political basis that party is to be founded upon. Instead it was simply taken for granted that (a) we should follow their lead and that (b) People Before Profit is an Irish example of the same process as the new party in France. Two statements which are not in fact obviously true.

2) All the talk about a "new left" and "representing the movements" is extremely vague. Nobody bothered to explain how some groups who have been knocking around the left for donkey's years constitute a "new left" and nobody explained what "movements" are to be represented.

3) In keeping with this vagueness, there was no discussion at all of what structure any new alliance should have or what forces it should include. There was even less discussion of the political basis and policies of such an alliance. Everything was presented as if "getting together" was the obvious thing to do, and such trifling details as the basis for unity or what exactly we have unity for simply weren't important.

4) It wasn't clear, and indeed seemed to shift from speaker to speaker, whether People Before Profit itself is being put forward as an "alliance" people and other groups should join, or whether People Before Profit was proposing an alliance, which it would be just one component of.

5) There was a call made for the Socialist Party to involve itself in this process, but not only was it not clear if this was a call for the SP to actually join PBP, it wasn't even made clear whether or not PBP are planning on actually standing against the SP in the forthcoming elections.

I would actually welcome your views, and those of other PBP supporters on any of the above. I'm not however holding my breath.

by D_D Fri Jul 18, 2008 18:54

BC, you did a rough count. So did I. After that it gets tedious, like you say.

There were people standing at the back for some of the time.

My memory is that there were less in the room at the SP meeting. But now I'm getting really tedious.

by delegate Fri Jul 18, 2008 18:44

BC,

The ISN-convened meeting is a delegates-only meeting of nine leftist organisations that include the SP. It's a not a public conference and it's about ascertaining where groups stand on left unity, formal and informal. Hopefully it will be productive. It's simply to establish a face-to-face dialogue.

by BC - SP (personal capacity) Fri Jul 18, 2008 18:11

I forgot to ask, are there details of this event organised by the ISN available anywhere? I don't see anything on their website.

by BC - SP Fri Jul 18, 2008 18:08

D_D, as I was at the back of the meeting I can guarantee that there was never at any stage "standing room only". Everybody was seated throughout and there were always at least some empty seats. At one point a few extra seats were brought in to the back of the room, but even then there were seats available nearer the front and in the middle of rows.

I did a rough count at the high point of the meeting. The room had three broad columns of seats, with about fifty people sitting in the most densely packed column (on the left if you were facing the platform), and around forty in each of the other two columns. There were less people than that very early on and towards the very end. I could have miscounted by a few, but not by seventy plus. Discussing attendance numbers is tedious, but I counted them and then mentioned them precisely because it is almost traditional for whoever organises a meeting to make absurd claims afterwards.

I'm not sure why you are pointing out, apparently in response to me, that Joan Collins "went further than general cheerleading and expressions of hopes for left unity", given that I expressly said that she announced that she and the small group around her were planning on joining People Before Profit. The South Tipperary Workers and Unemployed Action Group speaker did not however say that his organisation was joining People Before Profit. It may be that they will, but that was not what he said at the meeting. What he said went further than "hopes for left unity" only in that he welcomed the meeting and said that his group was interested in a process for forming an alliance. I don't think he even mentioned People Before Profit by name. The Workers Party speaker was, as you note, vaguer.

I note that aside from insinuating that I was trying to mislead people, you don't engage with any of the other points I made. Perhaps, we could have a more constructive discussion if you did.

Finally, I don't see why JE should avoid putting a link to an SWP site at the end. He has ever right to, given that People Before Profit was set up by and is controlled by the SWP. If only they were always so honest about the connection!

by D_D Fri Jul 18, 2008 17:28

JE's note was an skillful summary of the meeting. It was spoiled a bit by adding a reference to an SWP site at the end.

It is a change to see someone on the left (not JE) exaggerating an attendance figure DOWNWARDS. There were about two hundred people in the room at one stage. Standing room only for a while.

I would be positive also about the Socialist Party post-Lisbon meeting held in the same room (!) shortly after the referendum. Unity was also a theme of that meeting, with a specified aim for a broad working class party. There were no practical or immediate steps proposed towards that.

Joan Collins and Paddy Healy were a little more engaging with the PbP than general cheer leading and expressions of hopes for left unity. In both cases there was a declaration of intent, one of them coming as a pleasant surprise. The Workers Party speaker was more general, but expressed his Party's interest in this particular project.

There is a left unity/alliance/cooperation conference this weekend convened by the ISN. Perhaps this too will be a step in the long stumble forward, here and abroad, to a new left alternative.

by BC - SP (personal capacity) Fri Jul 18, 2008 17:09

One of the stranger things about the meeting is that, despite having Francois Duval of the LCR as the main speaker, after his speech was over there was very little else said about France by the other platform speakers or the speakers from the floor.

It seemed that few speakers actually had much interest in discussing the situation there, the prospects for the LCR's new party or the political basis it is to be founded on. Instead the French left was merely wheeled out as an example of what we should be doing here, as if it was obvious that the situations in France and Ireland are similar and without any discussion of whether the LCR's new party in France has much in common with People Before Profit or with whatever broader alliance is being proposed here.

Almost all of the discussion was focused on the Irish left and the prospects for an alliance in this country. As I said in my previous post, it wasn't clear if People Before Profit was being presented as this alliance itself or whether it was to be one component in a newer alliance. In fact, for all of the undoubted good will expressed at the meeting, it's notable that there was little discussion of what kind of politics an alliance should have or what kind of structure it should have. About all that I can recall was Richard Boyd Barrett talking about how People Before Profit was about uniting opponents of neo-liberalism and Kieran Allen talking about how it needed to be of the "new" left, representing "the movements". What movements he was talking about was left unspecified. Most of the talk about alliance was about "getting our act together", with the content left unspoken.

For that matter, what exactly this "new" left is, isn't expressed very clearly either except in aspirational terms. The SWP and CWAG, the two groups who appear to be in People Before Profit, consist of people who have been around the left for a long time. The Workers Party (!) and the STWUAG are hardly fresh to the left either. I was sort of left wondering what was "new" precisely about this left?

Frankie: He's stood in the last two European elections and I would be very surprised if he is not standing in these ones. I can't think of any reason why the Socialist Party wouldn't stand him, although no selection convention has been held.

by frankie Fri Jul 18, 2008 16:52

The train is leaving ??????? Are you all off ur fucken heads? Does Joan seriously think that now is the time for a “turn to the left”? Where have we heard that before?
The economy is nose diving and the left has very little representation anywhere (3 councillors in the whole of Dublin) and are almost none existent in all working class areas countrywide. When we see CWAG and PbP merge we can be sure it is from a position of weakness. Maybe if people forgot about left unity and actually did a bit of work on the ground in these areas there would be something to unite around.

BC, is Joe Higgins running in the European Elections next year?

by JE Fri Jul 18, 2008 16:19

You complain about the tone of my report. My posting of a report of a very encouraging meeting helping to lay the basis of left co-operation provokes you to instantly go on the attack.
Re-read my report. There was no "bullying" or "manipulation" of anyone. People expressed their views and indicated a willingness to find ways of coming together and my report reflected this.
The metaphor of the train moving was in the context of the working class no vote, the inability of any fragment of the left to fill the political vacuum on its own, the looming economic turmoil and the expressed desire of ISME to cut the lowest paid wages by 12% and the perfectly reasonable concern that if the Left does not present an alternative the far right will. I would have thought this was obvious.
I am happy for others to contrast the tone of the meeting and my report with the comments by curious and judge who, if anyone, is "trying to ensure it doesn't happen".

by BC - SP (personal capacity) Fri Jul 18, 2008 16:14

JE's report is broadly accurate in its description of the meeting. There were about 130 people there in total, including SWPers, people from other left groups and a few of the usual cranks as well as people in off the street. It was mostly an older crowd, with a scattering of younger people.

Joan Collins announced that she and the small group around her (the CWAG) were planning to join People Before Profit before the local elections. Speakers from the South Tipp Workers and Unemployed Action Group and the Workers Party came in from the floor and said that they were in favour of an alliance of the left, but didn't say that they were joining People Before Profit. It was unclear from the various speeches by SWP members whether People Before Profit was being put forward as the alliance other groups should join or whether it was to be one component of a broader alliance.

There was a fair amount of the expected guff about this being the most significant left wing meeting in many years and about trains leaving the station, mostly from SWP members. There was no mention of whether or not People Before Profit were planning on standing against Joe Higgins in the European elections.

by curious Fri Jul 18, 2008 14:43

I most certainly wasn't out to cause mischief. I am genuinely interested in left unity and am hoping that PBP has the sense to realise that the left will not be flocking behind their banner - anything that emerges will have to be completely new.

And, by the way, the tone of your report with remarks like "the train is leaving the station" etc. are foolish in the extreme. Do you really think you can manipulate or bully groups into left unity? Are you trying to ensure it doesn't happen or something?

by JE Fri Jul 18, 2008 14:36

Curious: I gave what I thought was the gist of Joan's comment. You put it in inverted commas that made it look like I was directly quoting her. I was not.
I think the sense of the meeting was that a coming together of diferent strands of activists, community groups, campaigning groups, socialist organisations, individuals, etc was the process that we are all interested in and the way forward. PBP is a start in that direction. Nobody is claiming to be the fount of all wisdom.
But I think you knew that already and were perhaps making mischief...

by curious Fri Jul 18, 2008 14:00

Joan Collins said "the people she was working with were interested in the development that PBP represented "

Are you saying that People Before Profit are presenting THEMSELVES as the way forward?

by JE Fri Jul 18, 2008 13:40

Very large and enthusiastic meeting with a broad diversity of people. Francois Duval spoke about the French developments coming out of the defeat of the EU Constitiution in 2005, culminating in the gathering together of a new anti capitalist party in formation at the present time.
Joan Collins spoke well and said that the people she was working with were interested in the development that PBP represented and were discussing ways of uniting. Paddy Healy relayed a message from Seamus Healy that they too were supportive, as did a speaker from the Workers Party. Joan Collins spoke of the urgency of the situation saying something like "The train is moving, it's time to get abord".
Richard Boyd Barrett gave a barnstorming speech that was very entusiastically received. He pointed out that the No vote was a class vote that indicated the lack of representation of the huge number of people that rejected privatisation and the rest of the neo-liberal agenda, rejected the militarisation of Europe. Neither labour, nor the Greens could provide that alternative and it required the creation of a new ledt.
Someone else, to great appause, called for Joe Higgins and the SP to be fraternally encouraged to participate. Joan and others commented that the talk of the time not being right was a big mistake. "If not now, when?"
These are just a few snapshots and my impressions of one of the most important meetings Dublin has seen in a long time.

by me2 Thu Jul 17, 2008 15:51

Mind you, even when he was a member, he never went on about it much. Check out his 2007 election website. No mention of SWP.

http://www.mycandidate.ie/candidate.php?cid=166

by Same Old Thu Jul 17, 2008 14:42

I would be very surprised if that were true. Although if it is true, I suppose its a novel way of increasing the number of non-SWP members in PBP.

by me Thu Jul 17, 2008 12:36

might have been half-a-dozen non-swp members of PBP before but there's seven now. Any truth in the rumour that Rory Aherne has left the SWP? I heard last night that he has and from somebody who should know.

by Same Old Thu Jul 17, 2008 12:23

MichaelY says My own estimate of the situation in the PbP is that there is a healthy debate on the way forward and that the non-SWP activists have a very good understanding of the issues involved.

The six of them have a "very good understanding of the issues involved"? Given that most of the half dozen non-SWP activists involved are old lags in terms of this sort of crap, you would expect them to have learned a few lessons by now. Unfortunately they show few signs of learning anything much at all. But that's irrelevant to my point. Regardless of whether the handful of non-SWP members in PBP are strategic geniuses or well-meaning fools being used as the acceptable face of yet another front, People Before Profit remains an essentially fictional organisation.

The SWP make up an overwhelming majority of its activists. In fact there are almost no non-SWP members involved at all. The SWP provides the concept, the framework, the organisational muscle, the drive and the candidates. They also exercise complete control over the decisions of the organisation. If they were to disappear tomorrow, PBP would instantly disappear too because it has no existence independent from the SWP. It has no life of its own. You know this, I know this, that's why you don't actually engage with this central point.

I don't think that the SWP set up PBP with the intention of running it as a wholly owned subsidiary. I do however know that that is what they have ended up with. And it is useful to them. It may have been intended to facilitate regroupment of the left or to encourage some "new left" to spring fully formed from Kieran Allen's forehead. If so it has failed utterly on that score. But it has provided the SWP with some handy camouflage for their electoral interventions. They can drop all that scarey "socialist workers party" stuff, and for that matter all the stuff about socialism or class politics and get on with the real business of standing candidates as nice presentable left-liberal "community activists".

At least when the British SWP abandoned much of their own politics to set up Respect, they were doing so as part of a compromise with some real social forces. In Ireland the lesson they seem to have drawn from the messy, often hilarious, disaster in Britain hasn't been to hold to their political principles, it's been not to bother with the real social forces in the first place. The ungrateful bastards might get ideas of their own I suppose.

The funny part comes when SWP member after SWP member at meetings gets up and introduces themselves as being "from People Before Profit", even though everyone else in the room knows well who they are. Or when their paper earnestly quotes various representatives "from People Before Profit" as if they weren't the very same people producing the paper. I sometimes wonder if this split-personality stuff gets confusing for them.

by MichaelY - CAEUC/iawm Thu Jul 17, 2008 10:34

The People Before Profit alliance, with and without its SWP activists, has done, and continues to do a fantastic amount of work within the NO campaign. My own estimate of the situation in the PbP is that there is a healthy debate on the way forward and that the non-SWP activists have a very good understanding of the issues involved.
The Indymedia regulars who take pleasure in attacking anything that even indirectly links or connects to the SWP should understand that what some of us in the Left, who're not sub paying members of political outfits, are fully aware where we want to go and how to get there.
In the CAEUC, for example, it has been a joy and a privilege to witness the effort put in by political activists who, under 'normal' circumstances would not even acknowledge each other....why? Because the battle in front of us and ahead us requires unity.

Tonight's meeting, next Sunday's NO campaign National meeting [pls see relevant thread] and next Monday's picket/demonstration to welcome the arch-militarist and big-time arrogant Sarky are examples of how such unity can, step step by step, inch-by-inch, be forged.

PS The Sarkozy gig is at 12.30 in front of the Government Buildings in Merrion Square and not in Dame Street as the note at the top of this thread says. All welcome - including our friends who don't particularly like the SWP!!

by anti capitalist Thu Jul 17, 2008 03:25

I am NOT a member of SWP! I am just interested in issue based activism. I am sorry that you are so blindly caught up in your own personal vendetta against these guys that you can't accept the fact that not everyone agrees with you.

Whatever you may think about these folk, they are always the ones I see out on the street when it counts. Can the same be said of you??

Anti capitalism gets to the root of many of the problems facing the world and Ireland today. Sure It would be better if there were no political parties gaining political capital from the issue but I'm still happy to see PBP highlighting the issue directly and consistently.

And regardless of whether they have links with SWP, their message is still a valid one. Don't throw the baby out with the bathwater!!

by Same Old Wed Jul 16, 2008 21:02

I think that you may have me confused with one of the many other people on the Irish left who has an accurate view of PBP.

As for chilling out, I'm entirely calm. The internet sometimes doesn't convey tone very well. I'm not remotely angry, just amused at the SWP's petty deceptions.

by Canary Weeds Wed Jul 16, 2008 20:33

Same Old puts out a fab mag called barren end - it never mentions a left organisation's name - chill out!

by Fred Johnston Wed Jul 16, 2008 00:18

Why don't you ask them? I would be all for a New Left, a more potent Left. But it would have to be careful to recognise fellow-travellers, of whom, no doubt, there would be a few. I do hope any New Left would understand too that Labour no longer functions as a socialist party in any real sense and that the old matrix of the Labour Party, so easily dismantled, is not merely patched up and repaired.

by Same old Tue Jul 15, 2008 21:49

...and there we have the entirely predictable anonymous response from an SWP member pretending to "not be a member of any organisation" but to find the front of the month "interesting".

You will note that he/she doesn't actually dispute any of the comments above. That's because no factual defence of the independent existence of People Before Profit can be made. If the SWP disappeared at lunch time tomorrow, by the time we were doing the washing up People Before Profit would have disappeared too. It contains no more than a handful of independents, its meetings are organised by the SWP, its policies are decided by the SWP. Despite their best efforts they couldn't scrape up more than one non-SWP member willing to stand for them in the last elections. The one they could find has since left, belatedly realising what PBP was.

I don't doubt that the SWP would like PBP to be a real organisation, with an activist base of its own. But factually speaking it is no such thing. In reality it is simply a disguise that the SWP wear when they want to promote their members as left liberal "community activists" and don't want to be burdened by scary talk of socialism or class. To talk about PBP as if it is a real organisation is to assist deception.

by SP member Tue Jul 15, 2008 21:47

The SWP, a former socialist organisation, is piling up failure after failure in its attempts to cobble together front organisations under whose banners it hopes to build - or to con the working class into electing it under any name except the SWP. This meeting is its latest attempt in Ireland.

The SWPs abject failure in building Respect is a rich lesson for the Irish working class. It is a lesson in what not to do when trying to build a new working class political force. The SWP abandoned what little politics it had when it established Respect. It formed unholy alliances with right wing Muslim organisations and it consciously dropped its socialist rhetoric and moved to the right.

Now it is paying the price - Respect is finished, and so to is its replacement Left List/Left Alternative. In a reflection of the shift to the right in the SWP one of their members has left them and joined the Tories!

East London Advertiser - 13 February 2008
A RESPECT councillor, former ally of George Galloway and member of the Socialist Workers Party has dramatically defected to the Tories in what is being seen a major milestone in Tower Hamlets politics.
Ahmed Hussain, who represents Mile End East at the Town Hall, met the Tories' shadow London minister, Bob Neill, and Tower Hamlets group leader Peter Golds to seal the move this morning (Wednesday)....

And to add further humiliation three other councillors from the SWP front have left them and joined New Labour!

Socialist Worker (Britain) - 1 July 2008
Sadness as east London councillors quit Respect
by Chris Bambery Tuesday 1 July 2008
Last week’s news that councillors Oliur Rahman, Rania Khan and Lutfa Begum have left Respect was greeted with sadness by all those who fought to get them elected.
Press reports suggest the three councillors either have joined or are going to join New Labour. Respect Renewal councillor Shahed Ali is also reported to be joining New Labour.
This marks a further stage in the decomposition of the original Respect council group in Tower Hamlets, a majority of whom have now quit Respect.
If the former Respect councillors do join New Labour – a party committed to the occupations of Iraq and Afghanistan, and to the further involvement of the private sector in public services – it will leave a bitter taste in the mouths of those who voted for them in 2006.....

Well to intensify Chris Bambery’s sadness they did join New Labour and here we have them explain their reasons why in their own words.

"All three remaining ‘Respect Unity Coalition’ councillors on Tower Hamlets Borough Council, who split from George Galloway’s party last year, have today joined the Labour Party.

Councillor OLI RAHMAN, the first councillor to be elected under George Galloway’s ‘Respect’ banner in 2004, Councillor LUTFA BEGUM and Councillor RANIA KHAN will all join the group which runs Tower Hamlets.

Councillor Rahman (St Dunstan’s and Stepney Green) said today:

“I know in my heart that the Respect Party has no future and that the best way I can help achieve lasting improvements for my community is to work as part of the mainstream Labour Party.

“The real choice at the next General Election will be right-wing Conservative representation which would be the worst possible result, or a Labour MP like Jim Fitzpatrick who will continue to stand up and deliver what is needed by the local community.

“It is time to put our differences aside and work together and that’s what I will do.”

Councillor Begum (Limehouse), who works as a Community Practice Nurse said:

“Respect is totally split and incapable of delivering anything positive for the people of Tower Hamlets. I stood for council to help make things better for my local community - particularly to improve health care and to fight for a better deal for women.

“I know that our Prime Minister, Gordon Brown, is working hard to deliver on the issues that concern people in Tower Hamlets. It is clear today that the only party doing that can change things for the better for ordinary people is Gordon Brown’s Labour Party.

“I have been encouraged by the vast majority of local residents in my community to join the Labour Party.”

Councillor Khan (Bromley by Bow) said:

“I became involved to help make a real difference. The best way to achieve that change is by being part of the Labour Party which is rebuilding in Tower Hamlets and going from strength-to-strength.

Labour’s JIM FITZPATRICK, MP for Poplar and Limehouse said today:

“I welcome this boost which reflects hard by Labour’s team both locally at Tower Hamlets Council and nationally at Westminster to be on the side of ordinary people delivering real improvements to their lives.”.....

This is the price you pay for political opportunism and for anyone considering getting involved with the PBP/SWP front ask yourself what political compromises are they making in Ireland?

One of their leading members is currently sitting at the negotiating table with the government and IBEC negotiating the new social partnership agreement! Not only that he - Jimmy Kelly (SWP) has argued in favour of a new partnership deal!

One of its leading members, Kieran Allen, wrote in relation to the last deal Towards 2016 in the Irish Times, 21 June 2006: "The deal should be sent back and the negotiators told to bring back an improved version that better reflects the contribution that workers have made to the Celtic Tiger". On the same day on Five-Seven Live, RTE Radio One, in reply to the question "Is a bad deal better than no deal?", Kieran Allen replied: "That's not the choice, the choice is....union activists can tell their negotiators please go back and negotiate for a better deal".

And incredibly the SWP/PBP also argued that it was possible to renegotiate a better Lisbon Treaty!

by anti capitalist Tue Jul 15, 2008 19:54

The basic anti capitalist message of people before profit is a good one. Go along and make your own mind up rather than listening to the usual cheap character assassinations here. You might be pleasantly surprised. At this time, we need to address the root cause of many of our ills in this world. People before profit are one of the groups doing this directly as far as I can see. I am not a member of any organisation, just someone who has attended a few PBP meetings and found them interesting and informative and getting to the root of things.

by Same old Tue Jul 15, 2008 15:31

It's quite impressive that they managed to misleadingly describe every one of their three platform speakers. Joan Collins is described as representing an organisation that no longer exists. Richard Boyd Barrett is described as representing an organisation that has never existed. Francois Duval is described as representing an organisation that does not yet exist.

Leaving aside the SWP's customary dishonesty, the only interesting thing about this blurb is that it's so confused. The quite different phenomena of the LCR's new party in France, the Left Party in Germany and (by implication) the fictional People Before Profit Alliance are lumped in together as part of some "new left", with no attention paid to the politics of these projects or to the differing circumstances in each country.

The Left Party in Germany, for instance, is a left social democratic formation arising out the coming together of some trade unionists in the former West Germany with the ex-Stalinist turned social democratic PDS in the former East Germany. It isn't clear what the new party the LCR are pushing in France will end up as, but it is clearly intended to be a much more radical organisation than the Left Party in Germany, with a clear commitment to a socialist transformation of society and arising primarily from the good elections results achieved by the openly Marxist LCR. These parties are both "new" and are both "left", but they are not equivalent to each other in size, origins or politics.

People Before Profit, of course isn't even as radical as the Left Party and has nothing like the social base of even the LCR's new party. It's simply a useful disguise the SWP wear when they want to pass their electoral candidates off as left liberal community activists.

by Aragon Tue Jul 15, 2008 12:46

I ain't been swimming in these waters very long but surely the last thing the left needs is yet another incarnation of itself?

The idea of 'left unity' seems to be a better route to go down?