SWP plummet to new depths

by girlfriend in a coma Sun Mar 16, 2003 00:01

I think the SP, SWP, SDLP, UUP, and most political parties target young people, patronising the elite student clique. In the holylands, belfast you can't breathe at a snooty student without getting arrested. All these political parties target students, because they know these students will one day graduate to become professionals earning big money which they can donate to their political party. If as an ex holyland resident association member, I had just battered a noisy student fuk, you can bet that the SP, SWP, SDLP etc would be calling for me to be lynched for beating lickle mammy's boy/anti social rich student fuk, even though I have supported those those political parties since I was 16. These political parties know what side their bread is buttered on, on the side of the rich and the professionals, certainly not on the side of working class communities. I commend school pupils for their ANTI WAR stance, and their common sense in not allowing this ANTI WAR stance to hijacked by opportunist political parties.

by Cleo Sat Mar 15, 2003 23:41

I don't think school pupils should be exploited by political parties, nobody wants a war, but we should not be interfering with childrens education during school days. In sowetto in the 1980's school kids were shot dead by police for participating in protests against apartheid. During the recent school protests in Belfast there was a lack of organisation which resulted in confusion for the last protest, with wee kids leaving school only to find there was no rallies in Belfast. There should be supervision of children during the protests and those organising the protests should consult with school staff to ensure the safety of pupils is taken into consideration at all times. Better organised next time. School staff would be more willing to allow their pupils to participate in the protests if these concerns were addressed. I know quite a few pupils were not allowed to leave their school premises. Some pupils held sit down protests in the school when they were not allowed to leave the school premises. Sixth form pupils and prefects in some schools seem to have organised and rallied pupils to participate in the protests. If these same pupils could supervise the younger children that may be satisfactory.

by Anthony Jackson Sat Mar 15, 2003 21:38

The person from Rathmore says they got an email cancelling all protests - thats nonsense, the rally at City Hall was cancelled but that was all. The point is surely anti-war activity is not the preserve of any one group. I myself am connected to the SAW, but YAW are also organised in some schools. Both have posters up around Belfast. In my school pupils who have picked up the anti-war vibe have no affiliation to either. The point is the war, not the group. Get organised, walkout on Day X but don't get on like spoilt children about who owns the ball.

by Daniel T. Fassbender Sat Mar 15, 2003 17:55

Yet more bickering between Youth Against War and the SWP. With the SWPs record I can't say that I'm surprised.

Youth Against War is a broad anti-war group. It operates in dozens of schools around the country and it is affiliated to the Irish Anti War Movement. It was set up by Socialist Youth but any young person who is against the war can get involved.

So far it has organised school student strikes involving thousands of people all over the country. On May 5 nearly 10,000 school students took part in the day of action called by Youth Against War. Yesterday YAW organised walkouts in a large number of schools in the South. Some of those schools attended a rally at the Dail, other protests took place in Ballyfermot, Swords, Cork, Drogheda etc. More YAW walkouts took place in the week between the two big events, notably at Bertie Ahern's old school where more than 300 went on strike.

Youth Against War has called and organised the most significant protests against the war which have so far taken place, with the bleedin obvious exception of February 15.

You might think that all of this would result in widespread congratulation. And it has. From everyone except the SWP.

The SWP appear to be furious that a mass movement of school students is developing without them having any influence in it. Instead of getting involved they have set up a front (or multiple fronts as the name keeps changing) to try and cut across Youth Against War in the most viciously sectarian manner.

They played almost no role in the March fifth events, limiting themselves to a cancelled rally and a mention on their front's website (and they are now claiming to have brought out a couple of hundred students in West Belfast if true at least that is one useful thing they have done). They also played no role in calling or organising yesterday's protests.

That of course didn't stop them from showing up with recruitment in mind. Their 30 year old organisers dug up their school students front for the day. It hadn't been seen in the South for nearly a month but the mere fact that it doesn't exist isn't an obstacle for an SWP front.

They weren't involved in building for or advertising or setting up the protests which took place yesterday but they certainly managed to turn up to one of the rallies bearing armfuls of placards and leaflets. This is the SWP gameplan when it comes to school students, let others do the hard work of organising and then show up to try and "make the gains". They even had the cheek to try and lead a section of the Dail rally to a meeting of theirs, shouting "school students meeting now" as people began to disperse.

Now they are calling for a school students rally in Belfast on Day X safely after the school day is finished. Wouldn't want their handful of school student members to actually have to do something like walk out. So what effect will this have? Well it's certainly going to cause confusion in the one city where their front actually has some existence and make organising walk outs harder but that's a small price as far as the SWP are concerned when it comes to trying to score a point in their real war, their struggle to control everything that moves.

Some SWPers like to describe anyone who criticises them as sectarian. They might like to look at the display of almost chemically pure sectarianism they are giving through their actions on the edges of the school student movement against war if they want to know what the word means. The sect places its own interests ahead of the movement and the SWP do that again and again.

by hunter Sat Mar 15, 2003 16:49 hunterthompsonmachinegun at yahoo dot co dot uk

well looks as if the article is true afterall. well well well. interesting development there. SSAW fuck up in the north over the walkouts, then try and claim credit for something organised by YAW in the south. i assume SSAW did no prepartion work in building for the protest, just turned up with a stall, and of course the obligitary placards (which can be seen in one of the photos from the protest on another thread). it wouldn't surprise me if a 'SSAW spokesman' had appeared in todays papers claiming credit for organising the demo. oppurtunism at its most blatant.

then there is this half arsed attempt at saying that YAW is not affiliated to the IAWM - far as i know it is - and that its not broad enough. from what i know about SY, it has many active members -all i assume involved in yaw, but the YAW campaign seems to have taken on a life of its own. and now the swp/ssaw want to try and insert themselves into this movement. well i think the example cited above about Day X speaks volumes. ssaw dont call for walkouts but for a rally at 4.30. so this is the kind of tame tactics that ssaw put forward. if i was in school i know which group i'd join. but you can rest assured that when the walkouts do happen, ssaw will try and take the credit for it.

for all people say 'it doesnt matter who is behind it' (and i feel the same way myself) i imagine it is quite disheartening to have organised something and then have someone else come in and try to take the credit. and it also angers me that the swp/ssaw act in this manner. i read on another post that ssaw organised a demo in one school and rbb spoke at it. this was not a walkout (which is fair enough) but again it seems ssaw are taking the tame option.

credit where credit is due - well done to all involved, especially youth against war and lets hope day X is bigger and better.

by Sure they only have a few Sat Mar 15, 2003 16:31

I wonder what those 150 students lead by SWP teachers at st Louises or those 100 in st donomics or those locked into Menscoil etc etc etc would feel in West Belfast. What was that again about, 'invisible' sorry revisionism. 'Outside Belfast' they have no members' one just might have to wait and see. If as SP constantly state SSAW are just a few members then don't panic yourselves as it will be just a few schoolstudents on their own. As for the 12.30 demo who knows what SSAW and {their few members} have planned. Methinks lets just wait and see what those {few} anti war schoolstudent, teachers against war and lectures branches have in mind.I Will be looking forward to seeing the seventy YAw schools {as you state } coming out' while those 'few' SSAW stand around own their own - LETS JUST SEE WHAT HAPPENS.

by St Marys CBS student - Youth Against the War Sat Mar 15, 2003 13:56

I also went to the first Schools Against War meeting and also left them. I did walk out and have joined Youth Against the War who organised the walkouts. I am now facing possible suspension for refusing to go in for the detention we were given for walking out.
Schools Against War organised no walkouts or demonstrations in West Belfast. Elsewhere their few members in schools like Methody did not walk out.
Now they are going from bad to worse. Youth Against the War are calling all on school students
to walk out at 12.30pm on Day X and march to town and city centre rallies. Any genuine school students organisation would get behind this and build the attendance.
But not Schools Against War. Instead they have called a rally in Belfast for 4.30pm. Outside Belfast they have no members are are organising nothing.
Why 4.30? Because its safely enough after school hours to allow their members in Methody who won't walk out to attend.
All this tame rally will do is confuse students and make it more difficult to organise the walkouts.
School students trying to build for a significant protest against the war are not helped by this weak-kneed Schools Against War, but only after school hours!

by rathmore pupil belfast - ex schools against war Sat Mar 15, 2003 12:43

Ex Schools Against the War member Belfast

As a pupil at Rathmore I went along to the first Schools Against War meeting in Belfast but soon learned better. This group is run by someone called Dan Buckley who is not a school student but is a member of the Socialist Workers Party. All the school students I know who did turn up have left.
My school supported the Youth Against the War walkouts on March 5th. I see that Dan Buckley and SAW claim they organised marches and walkouts on that day. As an early member I am still on their email list. On 2nd March they (Dan I presume) sent us an email cancelling all their protests for March 5th.
In case anyone doubts what I am saying I am reproducing it below:

"From: “Schools against War”
Sent: 02 March 2003 22:42
Subject: Correction, no rally on Wednesday, sorry

Ok, there is no rally on Wednesday either, sorry for any confusion, it lies in the layout of the poster/leaflet. If you look at the thing then you will see what I mean. There will still be a rally on DAY X
Again a million and one apologies for any confusion caused."

They organised no rally and no walkouts. Their "leaders" put their heads down and did not walk out.

by Not to worry Sat Mar 15, 2003 12:08

Chris everyone in N.Irelands anti war coalition knows it is not an SWP front and know all the work that SSAW have put in, that is why the scores of groups had no problem agreeing SSAW to speak as the student representation of N Ireland students on the massive FEb 15th Rally in Belfast rather that YAW. You will get the SP in the South fed information from the North most of it factually incorrect, wild estimates, or sometimes out right lies.

SSAW have been called an SWP front all those in the coalition know it is not including yourself as an active organiser. They have said it is just SWP members everyone in the coalition knows it is much much broader than that. They have called six schoolstudent walkouts and lockouts in West Belfast involving several hundred students 'phathoms' or 'invisible' {concentrating on the one school that they said they 'organised' so every other one did not happen or were 'invisible'} even though they were covered in the local press and the coalition groups know they happened. The hundreds of scoolstudents who attended debates in W/Belfast, the hundreds more at teach ins, etc all did not happen in SP eyes. Don't worry about it chris this is their own wee world were everything else is 'invisible' if they do not play a part. In the real world the people that matter and those scores in the coalition know the facts and that is why SSAW spoke and spoke well at the FEB15 th rally. Lets build the movement and let the SP up here continue to tell the South what they want to hear- there is a coming war and we need to work against it- such wild estimates, infactual information and inventions are just the nature of a certain form of politics and we are all used to it from such groups. SSAW are doing a great job and everyone knows it within the movement and in communities so lets all just get on with building this movement and let others fantasise to their membership elsewhere.

I am waiting to hear that the media termed recent 'historic' Falls and shankill March mainly organised by leading members of the SWP which seen SWP activists march from the protestant Shankill with others to the catholic Falls RD, or the vital role that everyone has stated {including ICTU} that the SWP played in first forming the coalition then building the FEB 15th rally and feeder marches, or the motions being passed by SWP activist in some of the Norths largest union branches for active support of the Anti War Movement being termed as 'phanthom' or 'invisible' or attempted revisionism . Hold on a second did they not raise such similar points for these that they now raise against SSAW. Strange that isn't it?

by Not to worry Sat Mar 15, 2003 12:07

Chris everyone in N.Irelands anti war coalition knows it is not an SWP front and know all the work that SSAW have put in, that is why the scores of groups had no problem agreeing SSAW to speak as the student representation of N Ireland students on the massive FEb 15th Rally in Belfast rather that YAW. You will get the SP in the South fed information from the North most of it factually incorrect, wild estimates, or sometimes out right lies.

SSAW have been called an SWP front all those in the coalition know it is not including yourself as an active organiser. They have said it is just SWP members everyone in the coalition knows it is much much broader than that. They have called six schoolstudent walkouts and lockouts in West Belfast involving several hundred students 'phathoms' or 'invisible' {concentrating on the one school that they said they 'organised' so every other one did not happen or were 'invisible'} even though they were covered in the local press and the coalition groups know they happened. The hundreds of scoolstudents who attended debates in W/Belfast, the hundreds more at teach ins, etc all did not happen in SP eyes. Don't worry about it chris this is their own wee world were everything else is 'invisible' if they do not play a part. In the real world the people that matter and those scores in the coalition know the facts and that is why SSAW spoke and spoke well at the FEB15 th rally. Lets build the movement and let the SP up here continue to tell the South what they want to hear- there is a coming war and we need to work against it- such wild estimates, infactual information and inventions are just the nature of a certain form of politics and we are all used to it from such groups. SSAW are doing a great job and everyone knows it within the movement and in communities so lets all just get on with building this movement and let others fantasise to their membership elsewhere.

I am waiting to hear that the media termed recent 'historic' Falls and shankill March mainly organised by leading members of the SWP which seen SWP activists march from the protestant Shankill with others to the catholic Falls RD, or the vital role that everyone has stated {including ICTU} that the SWP played in first forming the coalition then building the FEB 15th rally and feeder marches, or the motions being passed by SWP activist in some of the Norths largest union branches for active support of the Anti War Movement being termed as 'phanthom' or 'invisible' or attempted revisionism . Hold on a second did they not raise such similar points for these that they now raise against SSAW. Strange that isn't it?

by VIL Sat Mar 15, 2003 12:01

ok this needs some clarification,

Right, Youth Against War(SP) were approached by the IAWM at a steering committee meeting and asked if they would affiliate and open it up to the movement as a whole instead of being just afilliated to the SP. The SP were the only organisation involved and there were concerns that it would be just a front for them as part of a plan to revitalise their party. Their answer was: "...we don't know" so the last the IAWM knew was that YAW was not going to be affiliated. YAW is not exclusivly socialist it is anti-war yet the SP seems to have wanted to have an anti-war group that was exclusivly linked to themselves and separate from the movement. So on the basis of this SSAW was initiated(by others including the SWP) as the school student part of the IAWM. Which would allow for the maximum unity which has shown to be so successful. Hopefully YAW will become a genuine part of the IAWM and so youth activity will be part of the movement not just a party operation. That is why we were on the demo.

PS i am not speaking of behalf of the IAWM. Just recounting what i know.

by James McKenna Sat Mar 15, 2003 11:06

If the SWP are working for the CIA and they have helped so much to organise the anti-war demos, then what are the people who are against the CIA doing? Sitting on their arses singing a paranoid lullaby?

Or maybe the SWP are as they declare and it is their detractors who best serve the aims and objectives of the US Corporate Army (CIA)?

by socialist Sat Mar 15, 2003 10:04

i wouldn't say that the swp is run by the cia, i'm sure it isn't. but why they behave as if they were?????

by Chris - SSAW Sat Mar 15, 2003 00:03

Just to sort this out: SSAW is not an SWP front - far from it. Believe me, I have some authority in what SSAW does, and it is in no way influenced by the SWP. I take offence that anyone would suggest that in the first place, as I have put in a lot of hard work out of my own time. It is true that it does contain a member of the SWP, but this is no grounds for concluding that the organisations are one and the same. Indeed, such a conclusion merely shows ignorance on the part of the writer.

by Irony is dead Fri Mar 14, 2003 23:21

YAW in the North is lead by the 25+ full-timer of the SP's. He's called Mr Dynamism and is the most eloquent speaker from a platform. You could say he assumes the persona of a shy 14 year old asking his first date out - probably why he has such an affinity wif de yewf!

I know its a bit personal but when you get shite threads like the above you just have to sink to the gutter level.

by Irony is dead Fri Mar 14, 2003 23:16

They didn't know the words.

by DarkerCloud Fri Mar 14, 2003 22:11

Seeing Kronstadt mentioned.-- The policies advocated by the Kronstadt Comrades- who sang The Internationale as they were shot down on Trotsky's orders, were the same policies Trotsky had been unsuccessfully advocating in the Central Committee the year before.

by Informant Fri Mar 14, 2003 21:49

But enough of this bickering! Unity comrades! Unity!

Surely the SWP will work in solidarity with their fellow Trots in the United Front provided by YAW? To do otherwise would be to engage in sectarian politics.

(Hey Intransigent Des! Remember Kronstadt!)

by confused non party lefty Fri Mar 14, 2003 21:46

Sounds typical swp. Just a couple of questions to those who may know.

1. Who is behind, if at all, the Youth Against War??

2. My understanding is that both the Irish Anti War Movement and the Anti-Bin Tax Campaign are either SWP or SP fronts or a combination of both. Is this correct??

I ask this as I consider my self a socialist, in the broadest sense, and have been active in both the anti-bins and war stuff but am reluctant to 'dive in' as such because I dont want to join any political party and as such not keen on doing the bidding or work for these two political parties.

Does anyone know of any genuine grassroots organistaions these days, I ask because I revently attended a local anti-racism meeting and the platform was loaded with SP/SWP!!

Its not that I have a problem with either just I want to be sure any organistions or campaigns I get involved with a driven for the right motives.

Clarity....anyone?

by hunter Fri Mar 14, 2003 21:00 hunterthompsonmachinegun at yahoo dot co dot uk

i am assuming this story is a hoax?

however if it is true, then 'a new low' is right! i mean they didn't even "intervene" as the SWP but as a basically non-existant organisation (SSAW) and then tried to pass themselves off as the organisers!!! oppurtunistic or wha?

(of course this is if the post is true)