SWP AND SP ELECTION ALLIANCE

by hs - sp Thu Sep 12, 2002 00:17

Whats all the fuss about?

I am putting up this post because of a recurring theme on Indymedia. That is that the election was a disater for the left because the SP refused to set up an alliance with the SWP. This is a nonsense for the following reasons.

1 All candidates who did work in their area over a number of years got credible results. Including Richard Boyd Barrett of the SWP. The SP as policiy only put up candidates who put in the work first.

2 The SWP and Sp did not clash anywhere, the posters were almost identical and the majority of people outside leftie land would not have spotted the difference. So for all intents and purposes we did stand under the same name.

3 The Sp are still not percieved as a party by most of the public most of our votes come because of the work the candidates did rather than the party name. We have yet to make that breakthrough

4 The election was not a disater for the SP, it was a serious dissapointment not to get a second TD and become known as a party but we still doubled Clares vote and made gains eleswhere.
And remember we have only existed as the socialist party for just over five years.
The SWP were very over optimistic about what they could achieve with unknown candidates.

5 If we had run under a socialist alliance banner
(changing our name again, which would be a problem) The same candidates would have gotten the same votes. The SA wouln't be a huge breakthrough the media would have ignore it like everything else.

6 A real left alliance would have to go beyond the SP and SWP it would have to include the Unemployed and Workers Alliance and independents and the Stickies.

7 Parties should look at the reasons for success or failure in elections by looking at the tactics sloganns and candidates used rather than simply blaming other parties. What would be said now with the same results if we had been in an alliance. "SP Sectarians hogging resources"

by Watchdog Thu Sep 12, 2002 00:18

This is far from news, infact its the usual mind numbing shite that's been plagueing this newswire for far too long. Come on people write some articles its not that hard!

by hs - sp Thu Sep 12, 2002 00:29

If you notice its the only one of the few origanal things written, everything else is generally cut and paste. And this debate has been going on allover the place. It will go away again just as the anarchy v socialism ones did, funny no one complained about them though

by OK - SP Thu Sep 12, 2002 00:32

What is it that we are trying to create in a 'Socialist Alliance'. If the idea is to step towards forming a mass workers party, that's a good idea. However teaming up a few small political parties will not form a mass workers party.

Mass workers' parties are formed by objective conditions. Not the willingness of the SP to jump into bed with the SWP for the SWPs short term gain.

We are serious about the formation of a mass workers party in Ireland and internationally. The people that will make up a mass workers party are latent at the moment. The working class have not fully moved into struggle as they have in the past.

To go into a SA would not do anything for the formation of a mass workers party. If anything it would be a set back if, and when, the SWP were to get up to their old tricks.

by Ray Thu Sep 12, 2002 09:00

But its really a comment on an ongoing thread, and should have been put there, not posted as an original article.

From the guidelines -
In general, posts may be removed for any of the following reasons:

being comments, not news - comments belong with the story being discussed - to have your say in response to a story on the site, use the "add your comments" link at the bottom of each story.

I think its fair to say that anyone interested in the whole SP/SWP/SA thing haas been following the existing thread. There's no need to post this as a new article.

by Andrew Thu Sep 12, 2002 10:22

Hey HS,

as you are almost certainly aware anarchism is a wing of the historical socialist movement rather then something opposed to socialism. Unlike the SWP/SP we don't imagine socialism requires some party running society on behalf of the working class. In fact we say as long as you have such a set up socialism is impossible.

by hs - sp Thu Sep 12, 2002 14:09

Sorry Andrew I didn't mean it like that I meant the socialist parties v anarchist debates. I was a bit rushed when I wrote it. Obviously anarchism is a part of the socialist movement and although I don't agree I have the upmost respect for the movement.

by Kevin Wingfield - SWP Thu Sep 12, 2002 22:02 kevinwigfield at oceanfree dot net

HS of the Socialist Party writes

"6 A real left alliance would have to go beyond the SP and SWP it would have to include the Unemployed and Workers Alliance and independents and the Stickies."

The SWP agrees 100%. Will the SP meet now with the SWP to discuss this and jointly approach the WP and the Workers Alliance and other Independents to try to get this off the ground? We are ready to move just as soon as the SP agrees.

Kevin Wingfield
Socialist Workers Party

by OK - SP Thu Sep 12, 2002 22:26

It's not a question of just collecting all the differenct groups together in one big happy family.

Do we want a Socialist Allaince as in Britain where it's merely a collection of Socialist sects all fighting with each other and all gossiping in the pages of the Weekly Worker?

If there is to be any Socialist Allaince it must include groups that actually get support from the working class!

In my own opinion the SWP want an alliance with people that get support so that they can get instant support from workers, support which others have fought for an gained through long hard work.

by sick of this crap Thu Sep 12, 2002 23:04

Kevin you come across quite arrogant and patronising shape up

by Anthony Fri Sep 13, 2002 10:54

Is Kevin Wingfield now the SWP Full-timer for the internet?

or is the SWP just not doing anything these days and resting for the Iraqi war.

by Irony is alive Fri Sep 13, 2002 12:18

Kevin Wingfield, SWP, 1999, Local Elections, Ballymun Whitehall, 69 votes, 1.10%, quota 0.04,
lost deposit.

by Pat the Baker Fri Sep 13, 2002 14:52

Some people collect this stuff... Other people collect postage stamps, some make castles out of match sticks... others wander around talking to themsleves. Get a life!

by hs - sp Fri Sep 13, 2002 16:41

I think the sp would involve itself in an alliance with a number of groups, but just us and the swp I can't see it happening. Most of us simply don't trust them. People should remeber until very recently the swp opposed elections, now without explanation they are for them. Pretty much overnight decesion, whos to say it won't change back after the required amount of recruits are in? The other parties we know are serious the jusrys out on the SWP. The last election was the first the ran for seriously.
And this is a relevant discussion.

by Harry Pollitt Fri Sep 13, 2002 21:01

I think the jury came in on the S.W.P. along time ago. But then the the jury reached it's conclusion on Leninism over 80 years ago.

by Happy Leninist Sat Sep 14, 2002 00:41

Why is it that Anarchists have hang-ups about 'Leninism'

It really annoys me when some anarchist gets on indymedia and slags off 'Leninists'.

Anarchists amount to nothing. No supporters, no organisation, no support from workers.

You are only a crowd of middle-class armchair activists that still have post-Berlin wall/1990's hang-ups.

by Andrew Mon Sep 16, 2002 10:21

Could be something to do with the fact that Lenin in power murdered, jailed or exiled 10's of thousands of anarchists and other working class activists.

Check out the web page below for details, those who refuse to learn from history are condemned to repeat it, first time as tragedy, second time as farce!