Building the left republican alternative

by John Meehan Mon Jul 21, 2003 15:40

Eoin's sentiments are fine.

But Sinn Féin, unlike its left wing rivals the Socialist Party, the SWP, and Séamus Healy - leaves open the possibility of going into governmental coalition with right wing parties such as Fianna Fáil.

Even worse, it has participated in a right wing coalition with the Unionists and the SDLP in Stormont - and the party is campaigning to do the same again if and when the British government decides to allow the Stormont Assembly Elections to go ahead.

So - Sinn Féin is, in reality, playing exactly the same left reformist sport as the Labour Party and the Greens in the 26 Counties. The left wing policies will be sacrificed for the spoils of office. The party's anti-war position was sacrificed becasue commitment to getting back theStormont institutions meant participating in a demeaning public relations charade with warmonger George Bush, along with unapologetic USA allies such as Ahern and Trimble.

In some single issue campaigns you are more likely to met SF supporters than Labour loyalists - for example campaigners against bin charges - in others you meet far more labour party people than shinners - for example camapigners for abortion legalisation.

by Justin Moran - Sinn Féin Mon Jul 21, 2003 15:50 maigh_nuad at yahoo dot com

Sinn Féin's bottom line is easily stated, a 32 county independent Irish socialist republic.

Sinn Féin will debate and decide on the merits of any coalition proposal, whether from Fianna Fáil or from the Socialist Workers Party in an Ard Fhéis and we've stated that several times.

As for the Assembly, yes, we were in a coalition with the right and far right. This goes back to the Good Friday Agreement, a Peace Process, thirty years of violence and a mutual desire to end it. I continue to wait for some-one on the left to come up with a better idea, preferably one grounded in reality.

I don't believe we sacrificed our anti-war position, we meet with everyone, everyone, who wants to talk to us. Loyalist Death Squad leaders, British securocrats, British government officials, we meet, we talk and we confront. We made the case to America that their war was wrong on the streets, in the media, in our publications and in person, face to face. Meeting Tony Blair doesn't make us any less republican. Meeting David Ervine doesn't make us any less republican. Meeting George W Bush doesn't make us any less opposed to his war on the Iraqi people.

I'm not sure what point the last para is trying to make. I've never met a Labour Party member in Dublin protesting against Loyalist attacks or the undemocratic nature of the Northern state. I also wasn't aware that there is a checklist of campaigns we must be involved in and a certain number of activists that must be involved in them to win the approval of, well whoever's posting to Indymedia that day.

I will take the opportunity however to agree that Sinn Féin's position on the right of women to choose is neither socialist nor progressive and is deeply wrong.

by Saoirse Mon Jul 21, 2003 16:49 Derry

As has been argued on many occasions by socialists, particularly Eamonn McCann and his lot, Sinn Fein could become the principled opposition in Stormont instead of putting their noses in the trough alongside the North's Tories in the SDLP, UUP and the out-and-out bigots of the DUP. If they were to do that, they wouldn't "have to" implement privatisation of the Health and Education systems as Bairbre de Brun and Martin McGuinness have. Instead, they could lead the opposition to such privatisations. But it seems they really enjoy the trappings of "power" as anyone who has visited Stormont will have seen!

by Jim Monaghan Mon Jul 21, 2003 17:11

Justin in a previous post talked about trade union activity which on the face of it is fine. But he talked of it in the context of the trade union leadership which is not really the activist layer of the trade unions. I have no problem talking to and sharing platforms with the likes o
f Geraghty or Cassels on the rare occasions where we share concerns like on Timor and other places far from Irealnd. But I have bitter memories of the cold shoulder we got in the H-Block days from these shirkers.
Mick O'Reilly and a few others are the only class conscious trade union leaders worth bothering with as allies.Look at what they tried to do to him. He and his mentor Matt Merrigan were on the H-Block marchs not Greraghty, Cassels and co. The rest must be supped with with a long spoon.
I don't go for the SWP's distrust of all official trade union leaders but they are for the most part so absorbed into the state that they must be treated with caution.
If you are suborned into a minor role in either coalition alternatives (It will be sold on the basis of the national good, Even now I can see Ahern polishing up his so-called Republican credentials.) you will go the way of the Clann na Phoblachta. McBride thought he could out manouvre the right and they destroyed his party leaving a vacuum.
Right the chances of the SWP/SP etc getting enough seats to be a factor in a left wing gov are slight to say the least but Sinn Fein and the Greens could be a real basis for a Left alternative, drawing in the best of Labour and the small groups.It would not yield dividends in the short term but would in the long term. If you go for a ministerial seat now you will sacrifice your party and even if it does not disappear like the Clann it will be indistinguishable to Labour and the rswt of the fakirs.
To retain or get power FF and FG will concede anything as long as it is meaningless. A few bob for poor areas which leave them powerless and does not really change anything.
The friendlier the enemnies of the prisoners in the H-Blocks and Armagh in the Dail and the media get to you the more distrustful you must become. You are getting respectable.I write none of this with any satisfaction.Because I can see noone else gaining except FF and FG if youn join them. You would only destroy the hopes of your supporters and the communities you serve. Tell the pro coalition people inside and outside to take a hike.

by PK Mon Jul 21, 2003 17:48

"....but Sinn Fein and the Greens could be a real basis for a Left alternative, drawing in the best of Labour and the small groups. It would not yield dividends in the short term but would in the long term."

Very interesting - the foundation for the new Irish political landscape is to be based on parties who:
a) are not explicitly anti-partnership (SF seem to be against this one but not the concept)
and
b) who either on one hand fully support bin charges and on the other are a bit confused by the issue.
And we can throw in a whole plethora of other examples where they are in opposition to class politics.

If that is an incorrect reading I apologise in advance but it does seem like a very dodgy foundation on which to be advocating the building of a Left Alternative.

by Davy Carlin - Socialist Mon Jul 21, 2003 18:54 carlindavid at hotmail dot com

I believe that things should not be judged soley on words but in facts and in deeds.
In saying that Sinn Fein is for 'a 32 county socialist republic' one should look at this practically and if one can also objectively while questioning. Does sitting in a centre right assembly implementing {for whatever reasons} Thatcherite policies bring that objective any more closer? Even today the Vice Chair of Sinn Fein was quoted as Saying that 'Sinn Fein misses the Assembly not being there'. How many working class people does one think sorely misses such a centre right governence and actually expresses in vocally? Does one think a coalition {which the SF leadership wants} with FF will bring such an 'easily stated' position forward. If so how?

I know of genuine left wing activists and councillors in the Provisional republican movement even though the 'movement' has embraced and is increasingly doing so the politc of class Nationalism. I have stated not long back in articles both in the Irish and Andytown news that if Sinn Fein one day does achieve that Republic they may do it but it will be without Republicanism as they have and continue to go down the historical route of no return of Constitutional Nationalism with the concretising internally of that politic of the unity of class Nationalism.

I find increasingly that class alliances externally and moreso internally within Sinn fein and a growing raise in a Catholism/Nationalism pushed agenda - is a far cry from the tactical shift to the left - leadership lead {or part of} a few decades back. Of course one needs to talk and meet others as I have done to attempt to begin an understanding of differing positions. But to shift ones principles and in doing so create a new politic internally for the benefit of comproimise might seem fair enough to some. But there is a world of difference between the politic of compromise and the politic of conformity. One can compromise in part as a tactical move against the state but when compromise because conformity, one first becomes part of - then very quickly will become the state.
As Sinn Fein will finalise very shorty in the North when they support and urge the joining of the old RUC of new. Do Sinn Fein members believe the state which then includes Sinn Fein will over throw itself?

What will have happened is that the wheel of history will have turned full circle and those once violently opposed to the state will be the state using the reppression of their state to then smash those still opposed to it. Not believe it? Just watch it happen not very long off.



Some may believe that a left wing Republican party may look to deliver a Socialist Republic but for a Nationalist Party? Would the SDLP would FF? Why then would Sinn Fein? These are but observations and my acquired understanding, What do others think?

I would like to say that this discussion I find in the Republican News I find both interesting and wecome.

PS for any one who is interested the blanket is up and running again

by Killian Forde Mon Jul 21, 2003 19:04

Just some comments here on the project that we are embarking on of building a republican left.

The fact is that our policies and approaches are endorsed by communities that the micro-left wants to claim representation over.

Now there is no strategic reason why SF should develop a Jesuitical approach to our politics. The SWP, the SP, John Meehan, PK or nay other self defined socialists are not the oracle of the left. Given that fact, there is no moral imperative that we look over our shoulder to ensure that the purity of our politics is to the satisfaction of people who will never vote or support us anyway.

In my opinion the major difference between the whole spectrum of the left in Ireland is not so much a matter of ideology but one of scheduling. As republicans we see our primary goal as the establishment of a 32 county socialist republic, how we schedule that in is our business and prerogative. If SF believed that being in opposition in 6 counties could be of benefit to our longer-term objectives the party could have pursued those options. However any right thinking persons knows that SF taking a token opposition stance in Stormont would have been to the longer term detriment of the parties development and, yes, POPULARITY, across the island.

I don’t want to be in a party that squats around engages in small smoky pubs back rooms discussing dead Russian writers – I am not interested. I am not interested in battling it out with the SWP to see who gets eliminated last in a local council election. The left that I work with is one that is ambitious, confident and positive. It is one that will seek to gain power and sell left wing politics as a positive force and not an oppositional wank fest. So much of the Irish left is engaged in the narcissism of small difference that is and has proved to be essentially destructive, inward looking, and rhetorically aspirational.

So in a spirit of true co-operation…..why don’t yese all just fuck right off and go and some work ;)

by Davy Carlin - W/Belfast SWP Mon Jul 21, 2003 19:33 carlindavid at hotmail dot com

The last point although a bit frenzied {Did I hit a sore point?} had some decent points. Pity about the fuck of at the start and the end, the usual micro left, wankers, smoke filled rooms etc. It might surprise you but their are some genuine left activists outside of Sinn Fein who are also active on the ground and seek a 32 county socialist republic and who do not hold your term Jesuitical politics, but seek to acquire their own knowledge from many quarters. If you are a left republican supporter {Which I personally hold much understanding for} and want to debate then lets. If your as confident in your politics to deliver as I am in mine then lets debate with the usual rhetoric one tends to get bored of put aside. As for your point of not wanting to disscuss dead Russian writers {is your problem just with Russian writers} or do you not discuss and read up on dead Republican writers? For me Nationality of a writer does not count as I read and disuss them all including dead republican writers. In fact I have found much can be learnt from them all.

PS Isn't Indymedia for debate, then if thats what your online for then lets do it in a way that each can make their points but each can respect each other right to hold differing views {Its called debating your politics} - with that then let the readers make up their own minds.

by Justin Moran - Sinn Féin Mon Jul 21, 2003 19:41 maigh_nuad at yahoo dot com

Some very good points in a debate refreshingly free (Touch wood) from sectarian nonsense.

Jim Monaghan, as is his habit, makes a load of good points and I found myself nodding in agreement the whole way through. I agree that when Sinn Fein engages with the Trade Union movement is should be conciously engaging with it in an effort to democratise and radicalise it. As you say though, we cannot ignore the Trade Union leadership nor avoid working with them and I don't think such a policy of acoidance is either desireable or what you are recommending.

I agree with the idea of a Labour, SF, Green bloc voting and acting in Government but simple arithmatic suggests some right wing party might be necessary to form such a coalition. Common sense suggests it might be a Hell of a long way off.

I agree with everything else you say and so no need to go on.

PK, Sinn Fein has in fact opposed every partnership deal since the foundation of the process. And we are opposed to Bin Charges and not confused on the issue at all. If you can come up with a better left wing alternative, I look forward to your next post.

Davy, Sinn Fein doesn't have a vice-chair. We have a Chairperson (Mitchel) and a Vice-President (Pat Doc) so I assume it was one of them. Considering that thousands of people took part in protests against the suspension of elections to the Assembly I think it is fair to say people want it back. I think the Assembly serves a useful purpose in pushing for independence by devolving power, however limited, to Irish people and the British minority. Yes, we have implemented loathsome policies, and stopped many more being implemented as well as succeeding in getting through things your party campaigned for such as the removal of the 11+. The nature of the Executive creates the coalition necessity.

I don't think the Sinn Fein leadership wants coalition with FF and frankly I find the notion that this is their desire absolutely bizarre. The leadership is not opposed to coalition in principle with anyone but in practice would be strongly opposed to such a decision at this time to go into power with FF. I can put my hand on my heart and say I have not heard that suggested seriously by anyone.

I dispute vigorously the idea that the Movement has embraced the politics of class nationalism. We believed that the creation of a pan-Nationalist front which included non-left parties was necessary to advance the process and get the best deal for people. We were right in this.

Considering our latest policy documents such as the submission on property rights, oour education policy document, our policy document on PPP/PFI and more that are in the pipeline I would see a shift to the left in policy development even if I do agree that we need to be more open about saying this.

As for the points on the RUC, with all due respect anti-SF activists in the North have been saying we were about to back it 'any day now' for years. Similarly there is a stack of SP/SWP propaganda saying that FF and SF were all set for a coalition deal after the General Election. You also said we'd never abolish the 11+. With the greatest respect, your track record on such predictions inspires little confidence even while I accept the criticism is constructively meant. When you guys start getting more of your predictions right than wrong, I'll take them with greater seriousness.

I'm glad you're enjoying the debate in the Phoblacht and I would suggest you contribute to it. I know a members of the Socialist Party and Scottish Socialist Party have already contributed.

I look forward to a similar open, critical and constructive debate in the Socialist Worker.

But even when I agree with opinions suggested by Davy, Jim or others, I come back to a couple of very cardinal points.

1. None of you have our level of political support for your arguments and thus no chance of implementing the policies you say we should be implementing. Blunt maybe, but true. Like Killian I want to win, glorious failures no longer attract republicans, or the people for that matter.

2. Very, VERY, rarely do I see any left wing party other than us, arguably Labour, or the Greens put out well-thought out policy documents. This is not to say the talent to do so does not exist in those parties, it certainly does, but it's still not done. Thus we don't see the alternative being put forward. It's all very well to shout One Solution - Revolution, but some coherent policy development wouldn't hurt either.

3. Despite all the accusations of selling out and going into coalition with FF it just has not happened and if you would all be so generous as to hold your breath until it does happen we might be a few Trots short. ;)

by Justin Moran - Sinn Féin Mon Jul 21, 2003 19:48 maigh_nuad at yahoo dot com

I think the fact Killian put a smiley at the end indicates the use of the word fuck was not meant in anything but a lighthearted manner.

And I would agree with the use of the term micro-left though frankly as a Shinner I spend a lot of time in smoke filled rooms as well. With all due respect the SWP for example has about as much support as Nora Bennis's mad people and was beaten by Aine Ni Chonaill in Dublin South Central. It might not be a nice thing to hear but micro does kind of get the point across.

The dead Russian writers comment is basically a reference to the ability of the micro-left (I'm just saying it for badness now) to have long involved endless debates about the Bolsheviks, Stalin, Trotsky, Lenin and when you chuck in a few Anarchist next thing you know we're re-fighting the Kronstadt. Occasionally useful, mildly diverting, doesn't get a single mother and two kids into a house.

by PK Mon Jul 21, 2003 20:10

If I'm wrong well than mea culpa but this was the first time that I can recollect a really good argument from SF (Arthur Morgan in the Dail)against Partnership and on pure hearsay I was told that Daithi had said at the recent WEF union meeting that SF were not opposed to Partnership.

As to the Bins I won't rehash the whole Sligo argument but do wish that the SF representaives were a bit more active on the ground. I appreciate that it is hard to do everything but I think that there is more to be gained by Sinn Fein getting involved in these campaigns more visibly.

Its a shame that Killian lumped me in with the trots because I do happen to think that SF could be a vehicle for serious change but I've yet to be convinced. I happen to agree with many of the arguments made by Justin in the recent An Phoblact series but am dismayed by some of the responses I have seen to date. As to Killians fuck off and do some work I am also dismayed that when doing the work that I feel is relevant that I don't come into more contact with members of SF be it in the Bin charges campaign, increasing awareness about the privatisation agenda, the anti-partnership campaigns, the anti-war movement, abortion campaigning etc. etc.

I'll see Killian's old saying with another with regard to his "As republicans we see our primary goal as the establishment of a 32 county socialist republic". Just because it says Lyons tea on the side of the bus it doesn't mean that you get Lyons tea on the bus.

by Justin Moran - Sinn Féin Mon Jul 21, 2003 20:21 maigh_nuad at yahoo dot com

PK, below the speech made by Seán Crowe also opposing Partnership process in Leinster House a couple of months ago. I'm not sure what the WEF union meeting is or was but the truth is we have opposed every single partnership deal even if, and I accept a point you make elsewhere, we do not campaign on this as much as we might, mainly because of our well-known weakness (Part self-inflicted, part inflicted by others) in the Trade Union movement.

You don't state when you refer to your dismay about responses whether they are my responses, responses from other people or whether they were in the Phoblacht or on Indymedia. Some of the responses dismayed me too but I would point out that we are the only left wing party to encourage and stimulate that kind of open, critical debate in our party newspaper. That in itself is a healthy sign.

I think Sinn Fein has been very active on the Bin Charges though I admit it can vary from area to area. We're not strong everywhere and we can't show the same level of strength in Dublin North West for example where we have three very active cumainn, as we can in areas we are weaker.

As for the campaigns, remember, Sinn Fein is, to my shame, not a pro-choice party, so you're hardly likely to come across our people in such campaigns. I was involved in a minor way in the last anti-Partnership campaign and I think we have a good record on the other campaigns, especially the anti-war campaign. We ran arguably the most effective and certainly the largest progressive campaign against Nice II. From my point of view, I rarely run into people from the SWP or SP in protests about Loyalist attacks on Nationalists, or on collusion and the argument about not getting involved in our protests because we're sectarian (Oh, the bitter irony) is a little hollow when they don't bother to campaign on the issue at all.

Lastly, the point on Lyons Tea is a good one and a very nice turn of phrase.

by Justin Moran - Sinn Féin Mon Jul 21, 2003 20:22 maigh_nuad at yahoo dot com

Draft on National Economic and Social Development Office Bill 2002

I would like to share my time with Deputy Martin Ferris.

The debate on the legislation before us today has become a debate about whether or not social partnership has been a success. I want to put on record my firm belief that social partnership has been extremely successful. It has succeeded in creating one of the most unequal societies in the developed world. It has succeeded in maximising profits, and minimising wages. It has succeeded in pushing the agenda of organisations like IBEC and their political wing the Progressive Democrats. It has done all this at the expense of Irish workers. When Deputy Kitt in a contribution to the debate earlier said that social partnership has served Ireland well, he should have clarified exactly what section of Ireland he was referring to.

There has been great talk during this debate about the levels of economic growth stimulated by, according to Government TDs, social partnership. Of course to talk about economic growth is itself a deeply flawed way of determining the success of a country. James Connolly pointed out the flaw in such an analysis when he wrote that “…prosperity such as they speak of is purely capitalistic prosperity – that is to say, prosperity gauged merely by the volume of wealth produced, and entirely ignoring the manner in which wealth is distributed amongst the workers who produce it.”

The success of the Irish economy is often described in terms of Gross National Product or Gross Domestic Product. These measures do not show how this growth in income is distributed among the population. In terms of income distribution Ireland is one of the most unequal countries in the EU and OECD and these inequalities have been worsening over the period of Partnership. Analysis of shares of income and other inequality measures show the same thing - in the mid 1990s the bottom 10 per cent of households had approximately 4 per cent of total income whereas the top 10 per cent had about 25 per cent. While this situation was bad enough, between 1994 and 1998 there was a further redistribution of income away from the poorest towards the top.

In 1987 6.2% of households were below the relative income poverty line. By 2000 this had increased to almost 12% and one third of households were below 60% of the average income.

These are the statistics of Partnership the Government does not use, this is the kind of Ireland created by Partnership and which is to be sustained for as long as this Government is in power. If a country is experiencing a time of unprecedented economic growth, as unquestioningly this state has over the last ten years, this by itself is not good enough. A careful analysis from an Irish republican perspective exposes the truth at the core of the Partnership process; that it is about maximising profit and exploiting labour. Far from delivering a more just society, this process has in fact created wider divisions than ever before in Irish society. The gap between rich and poor has become a yawning gulf. Our health and social services are in continual crisis. The quality of life has deteriorated while the cost of living has soared.

The quality of life has deteriorated. While the productivity of Irish workers has increased, their wages have not kept pace. During the 1990s output per head almost doubled, while at the same time between 1985 and 1999 the cost of labour fell by about 20 per cent. There might have been a reduction in the cost of labour, but there was no reduction in the profits made by business.

This is redistribution of wealth at its worst, wealth is being taken from the people who create it, in many cases ordinary PAYE workers, to the profiteers in the private sector. This is a point that must be driven home. The wealth of this nation is produced by workers, not by businessmen and women who take their profits, often take them out of the country. Those workers in many cases have not benefited from partnership

One supposed protection for workers has been that the Trade Union leadership, an integral part of the social partnership process, would be able to influence Government policy. We were told it would deliver rights for workers in the area of trade union recognition. Seventeen years of Social Partnership and we still have not achieved that basic minimum. Instead over the lifetime of the process we have seen anti-Union legislation being introduced in the form of the Industrial Relations Act, 1990 and the Amendment Act, 2001.

In 1996 the community and voluntary sector was included as one of the social partners. Speaking on the debate earlier, several Government deputies in particular praised this element of the Partnership process. But there is a growing feeling within that sector that their has resulted in a measure of institutionalisation into the structures of Partnership at the expense of local activities.

The Community Platform opposed, as did Sinn Féin, this latest chapter in the social partnership process, Sustaining Progress. They did state however, that while they opposed this agreement, they were still committed to the process of social partnership and wished to continue to try and work with the Government. But they received a rude awakening from the Government who booted them out of the process entirely. The Simon Community who deal with homelessness across Ireland claim that the Taoiseach misrepresented their position in the Dáil when he said they “rejected the proposals and the whole partnership process, so obviously they are out of the process.” This is simply untrue, they rejected the deal, not the process that led to the deal. But it would appear that so-called Social Partnership is now open only to those who fully endorse the Government’s position.

In their treatment, they have perhaps seen exposed again the true nature of social partnership and the cosy cartel of Government and Big Business, which gangs up on Irish workers every time a Partnership deal is negotiated. The Government, far from being a neutral player, is an ideological partner of IBEC. Partnership negotiations revolve around IBEC and the Government taking on the Trade Union leadership while the Community & Voluntary sector is ignored. And when the Community & Voluntary sector does raise its voice in opposition, it is kicked out of the process.

And what are they raising their voice in opposition to? Let us examine some of the statistics since 1987. The rate of return on capital has doubled since 1987. This is one of the statistics the Government is fond of quoting. I note they have failed to point out that this means a corresponding decline in the wage share of national income of almost 10%. By 1998 the profits share of national income had risen to 38 per cent. This is even more remarkable given that the number of people in work has risen since 1987. Internationally, Ireland experienced the largest increase in profit share among European Union (EU) members, Japan and the United States. In other words, workers have lost out, while business has profited,

And even when times are harder, as they are now, the first instinct of this most right wing of Governments is to give business a tax break with another massive reduction in Corporation tax. And in order to fund this tax break they implement savage cutbacks in community employment, public sector workers and capital investment in schools to name a few. They abandon a new promise they made before the election every day.

Social Partnership has failed Irish workers, it has failed the poor and the disadvantaged in Irish society. The legislation before us today will do little to tackle the root cause of inequality in Irish society today. It is little more than tinkering around the edges of the system when the sad truth is that under capitalism, inequality, poverty and disadvantage are inevitable, no matter what so-called Partnership agreement is in place. As Plato said, ‘There can be no partnership between the unequal.’

by Davy Carlin - W/Belfast SWP Mon Jul 21, 2003 20:47 carlindavid at hotmail dot com

Justin sorry, was refering to {Pat Doc}. Your first point in relation to wanting the Assembly back. Firstly it was wrong that democracy was cancelled and I was one of those persons like many others who may have had problems with the Assembly but would and did stand with many others against the cancelling of democray as we did recently. There were not thousands though but hundreds that took part in the North with alot of them Sinn Fein members. So while some of those hundreds may have protested about getting the Assembly up and running many were also protesting in the main against the cancelling of democracy. Again a few hundred is but a drop in the ocean to those hundreds of thousands of voters. It did not seem important to the vast majority. Why? Well I have given my reasons in a question form as above.

Secondly you state that a coalition with FF {as I stated} you find Bizarre. Why? If SF have sought a pan Nationalist Alliance, if they have been in governance with right wing Unionists, if they have in the past worked with and held Alliances with corporate politicans and some right wingers in the US, why would it seem bizarre to think of a coalition with FF?. Was there not decided in the recent past that a special meeting would be called to discuss such if it were to arise? Your point to go into coalition with FF 'at this time' does not mean such would not araise, has not been dicsussed, and is not wanted by leading members of SF.

Justin it is my firm belief looking at the situation in the North that SF has embraced the politics of class Nationalism and as they are in the ascendency within the movement, the movement as a whole has been and is continued to be steered into this ever concretising politic. Although their may be many within the movement opposed to this direction, nevertheless it is the direction that Sinn Fein has and is going in the North and such voices against it have got less and less. Such is its development over the years to many of its activists it is now but the norm. This will continue as those who were around in the seventies or early eighies become less and less and /or replaced with the 'new' activists

On the situation on backing the old RUC I do not say it in abstract terms. I base it on Gerry Kellys continuing statements and the obvious preparations through various media outlets in Nationalist/Republican areas preparing the ground for the joining. I will tell you here and now they will join in the not long distant future - even putting aside the obvious indications,the political situation they believe calls for it. On this one Justin all I can say is wait and see.

By the way on the track record who are you referring to? Me personally?

Finally I agree with you and I have always stated one cannot be abstract and we need to deal with the realities and I have said before and I repeat it I do not believes in sloganism, one needs to deal in hard fact and practicalities. Therefore my call is not on 'Sell Outs' or whatever but on the situation as I have seen it developing and with in part an understanding also developed by speaking to those many friends, colleagues and family activists whom are active within various left wing paties etc.

Finally finally I believe one should never hold ones breath if you believe you are right and that something needs said, On that basis I have always believed and always tried to follow the wording of

'Stand Firm and Speak Out'.

by path in residence Mon Jul 21, 2003 21:09

Even though I wouldnt share the politics of the above two people, it is refreshing to see an intelligent debate pop up on the newswire that isnt clogged with the mundane one-line rantings we've come to expect. Well done to all involved.

by strictly speaking I'm avoiding IMC ireland @ that moment. - [over-exposure] Mon Jul 21, 2003 22:04

killian Forde on SF above:
"The fact is that our policies and approaches are endorsed by communities that the micro-left wants to claim representation over".

interesting term "micro-left". I wonder does that include those who see your attempts at representation in both states of Ireland with jaunidced eyes? It is instructive to see class politics be raised by SF. I had always thought class politics to be based on the needs of the "lowest" class, "the poorest of the poor". But my reading of SF thought seems to base "class politics" on the wants and aspirations of several demographically different types of modern Irish voter accross two states.

Great debate though. & let's be honest it out-lasted the Swimmie one.
[with smilies :-) :-) ;-) %-) ]

by Anti-Partnership activist Mon Jul 21, 2003 22:58

SF activists have repeatedly supported Partnership agreements within the Trade Union movement. One example, a SF candidate at the last General Election, Mick Davis, was a member of the National Executive of the CWU and supported the partnership deal and privatisation within Eircom. Remember Eircom, 7,000 jobs lost and thousands of ordinary people conned into buying shares

by Killian Forde Tue Jul 22, 2003 00:16

Davy and PK the "fucks" were tongue in cheek. Based on the 'auld Mr Brennan' spoof radio ads. It seems my attempts at satire has failed, as satire to work has to be obvious.

On the dead Russian writer, obviously the nationality of a writer is unimportant or his/her health status, but the way the micro-left uses the abstract writings of Russian writers as "proof" is akin, in my view, to the way the Jesuits would interpret and 'own' religious text and their true meaning. This should also explain my Jesuits jibe.

I would be the first to admit that members of the SWP and the SP are incredibly hardworking and omnipresent at many events. Given their numbers they certainly punch above their weight in city centre based events and the campaigns such as the bin charges. However therein lies the difference, I would see much of the work being done as 'preaching to the converted' at mutual admiration events.

In contrast SF would prioritise community work and development as a way forward. I tonight spent not my time at an anti-war meeting or an anti bin-charges meeting but knocking on doors with my party comrades in a council estate in the northeast suburbs.

Of course people raised the bin charges stuff and we explain the position and the impending privatisation of services in Ireland. We also discuss the policing issue, health and the economy. Now going back to the bin charges I always pass on to anybody who asks about charges the names of the anti-bin charges campaign local contacts, who are SWP, and I will offer to sell them one of those Don't Panic, Don't Pay tickets and advise them not to pay, and their rights based on much information given to me by a SP member. But do I want to join up on a campaign with people who barely tolerate my party and consider themselves superior in outlook and sneer at a core belief that all republicans and I hold. Obviously the answer is "Do I Fuck" so we do our own thing.

Davy, my belief is that the pursuit of purity is what holds back the left from either uniting or developing into an electable bloc. For example we often hear about the Sligo bin charges as the proof that SF are a bunch of sell out fascist blah blah. Now lets get this in perspective; the bin charges are not the end of the world nor the start of the revolution and in a small town in the north west of Ireland, SF councillors voted in favour of a budget for the town, which included bin charges which were already established in the town. If you ask me, no he shouldn't have done it, but does that mean that we aren't socialists, no of course not, it reflects that certain elected reps in the party have different views on how to advance the party’s development. Unfortunately the micro-left has come down on this with their own members and against SF members that this one little incident gets blown out of proportion, everyone is one the defensive and the right must be just chuckling away at us. You see Davy the very purist for purity means that anyone who steps out of line in the eyes of the SWP and SP is not just suspect but guilty of the most heinous crimes. I once sat in a café with a SWP woman just before a march who did not know my political affiliation and during our little chat I asked her about SF and she launched into a tirade about SF being racist, involved in drugs, Gerry Adams being a millionaire with a huge ‘ranch’ in Donegal but then added that she knew some of their activists in Dublin and they were sound. It was a bizarre experience, as the woman who was a teacher was well read, passionate about human rights and antiwar but the most animated emotion was for some sort of constructed racist, drug dealing Sinn Fein activists.

And so where does that lead us, well,

Some 'probable truisms' are;

· The SWP and SP will never get enough seats to be major coalition players.

· No single party will ever get more than 75 seats in Leinster House again.

· There will never be more than 20 independents elected.

Given that, it is likely that SF if ever in Government will be in coalition with e.g. Labour, Greens and, inevitably a right wing party. The numbers are still so far off for a left bloc of 83 seats as to be a pipedream. Coalition is the reality of recognising parliamentary elections in Ireland, and engaging in elections otherwise is to stand for permanent opposition and all the irrelevance that the opposition of our parliamentary set up means.

And another thing is, what have the Greens done wrong to incur the wrath of so many people on this site? I hope it is not related to just the bin charges, they after all believe it is the right policy and they seem to be sticking to it. No left party has to follow others so not to be accused of selling out, the Greens, it seems to me, have their agenda and objectives and if they can get a deal from a right wing partner on say, renewable energy, so be it they have set out their stall have open policies and the right to pursue them. I really can't ever recall the Greens making any sort of fantastic claim (I could well be wrong here) of representing the 'working class' or will be developing the revolution for a global socialist utopia. So what’s the hostility about?

Oh my god the length of this post – I must be turning into what I never wanted to be, Justin my resignation will follow in the morning. :)

by confused - left republican Tue Jul 22, 2003 02:37

The new left alternative being proposed by SF appears to be (according to AnP) the dropping of the fight for a "socialist Republic" to an "Ireland of equals" Radical indeed.

by the oricle Tue Jul 22, 2003 02:51

Its getting close to d day in SF where the left will either have to take a stand against the populist, get elected by any means necessary, leadership. If not you will slowly see SF become more and more like FF maybe a little more populist and a little less PD. SF has more working class voters and supporters than any other party at the moment. These votes were given on the basis that people saw voting for SF as a way of telling the powers that be to fuck off. Working class areas have seen the celtic tiger come and go and have found themselves WORSE off than they were in the mean and lean 80's. The left in SF have to remember their constituency. If they decide to go the purely electorial road they will proceed with wooing the middle class and develop policies to suit. Now is the time for SF to reassert its commitment to a socialist republic and attempt to radically change our society in the interests of the majority of the people.

by Justin Moran - Sinn Féin Tue Jul 22, 2003 11:11 maigh_nuad at yahoo dot com

These are going to be quick.

Davy, wwhile the numbers protesting the suspension of the elections were in the thousands, over 300 in one Dublin demonstration alone and almost 40 protests in Dublin in the weeks leading up to it, including everything from pickets to banner drops. I think most people in the Six were upset about the suspension of elections but there's probably a bit of crisis fatigue up there.

Coalition with FF is bizarre for all the reasons Jim advanced. Even if you believe the leadership of my party is willing to sell us out to FF for sixpence (And I do not accept that for a minute) I would have thought you had a bit more respect for our intelligence. We are aware, very aware of the history of parties like the Clann. I'm not saying coalition with FF will never ever happen, but to think of it as feasible in the near future is madness. The SPecial Ard Fhéis is if we are approached for coalition by ANYONE, not specifically FF.

As for class nationalism and your third paragraph I didn't write a two page article for the Phoblacht calling for a left turn in party policy and activism for laughs. I accept we need to move to the Left but we are not nearly as far to the right as you and your party attempt to portray.

I'll wait and see on the RUC. If we don't get the changes we demand I don't see us entering.

strictly:

Class politics is based on the advancement of the working class. The use of the word micro is a reference to the small sizes of the organisations, not their criticism of us.

anti-partnership:

That was not a Partnership agreement, it was a privatisation, and I would have disagreed with Mick Davis on that one. The point is that Sinn Fein members are in Trade Unions all over the country but there has never been an organised Trade Union Dept until now. I know many Sinn Fein members in Trade Unions, including myself, who opposed and campaigned against Partnership and the Phoblacht repeatedly called on workers to vote No.

confused:

An Ireland of Equals is a socialist republic. Do you think anything other than socialism can deliver true and real equality?

Oricle:

If we wanted to get elected by any means necessary we'd be a very different party and we'd have a lot more seats.

You are also incorrect on one fact, the party with the greatest number of working class voters and supporters is Fianna Fáil. Remember that all of you.

by Davy Carlin - W/Belfast SWP Tue Jul 22, 2003 12:12 carlindavid at hotmail dot com

Killian I found your recent reply interesting and would like to comment on a number of points.

Firstly the 'pursuit of purity', this statement to me personally reminds me at times of those who believe as a Socialist that I should be running around in rags digging up a field within some kind of collective in Donegal, but I understand what you are getting at. So lets deal with that issue killian.

For me the only time I have been subjected to purism was within the intense doctrine as a child within Catholism. I vowed after that that I would always then seek to acquire my own knowledge on all aspects of life. Within any party Killian there are those who will hold a dogmatic purist line that all things are Gospel we have seen it within Republicanism {leading to splits} as we see it in Socialist organisations. For me I learn from all those great writers and activists of the past, and those not so well known, both in Ireland and Internationallly as I am an Internationalist in understanding. For me such persons are a base {albeit an important base for my understanding as they can teach us much. Yet from there I then look around and pull in many other strands of practical experience which I believe are important in present day and with that I develop my own understanding of a world and how I believe one can effect change.

To me my main problem is not with Republicanism, anarchism or whatever {in fact I can hold understanding for some of their views} but with the state, and with the system. Therefore while I will debate and discuss our differences I work also for commonality.

Killian I remember as I stated before on this site when I first joined the SWP six or so years ago. Standing on a picket line of a mixed workforce a few weeks after I had joined I went to show solidarity. While standing there talking to a protestant worker the 'leader' of a Northern Socialist Party said to the worker while pointing to me 'do you know his party supported the IRA. Then later that day he came to me with a newspaper from the seventies {Knowing I was a new SWP member} and started to rant on about what the SWP had said in the early seventies. I just turned round and said to him 'listen mate I wasn't even fucking born' are we all not here to support the striking workers? So my first ever experience of attempting to build unity for striking workers seen another parties concentration on causing division? The same individual still attempts today although less overtly at times but to little avail as he has become quite isolated as most others have eventually now seen and realised his workings, and continue to let us know of such.

So what needs to be done I believe is that all should attempt to move away from this type of behaviour - who gains from it really?

I would like to touch on Justin point on the SWP not campaigning on loyalists attacks on Nationalist or on collusion. Justin our members {including leading members} in Belfast have with many others got their skulls opened on the Galvarghy, Ormeau and Springfield roads by RUC batons. We have been at the interfaces in North Belfast and East Belfast offering support, we have written, spoken out and demonstrated on such and much more. So I disagree with your all embracing statement Justin.

Finally Killian, writings from whomever once written long ago are only abstract if one makes them so. Republicians have learnt from and used many differing tactics and stratagies tried, tested and written about generation upon generation.

Its all about putting and testing and learning from that theory and history and putting it into practice {in a real} way from whatever understanding or 'tradition' one takes it from.

by Davy Carlin - W/Belfast SWP Tue Jul 22, 2003 12:45 carlindavid at hotmail dot com

Justin on FF I did not state it was in the near future {I did state and do believe The old RUC of new will be embraced more quickly} but that it does not mean that such a coalition again Quote, 'will not arise, has not been disussed, and is not wanted by leading members of SF. On the specifics, correct me if I am wrong but was not FF and coalition specifically discussed?

On your article and a calling for a left turn, I know you did not write it for laughs but as I said Quote ' Although there may be many within the movement opposed to this direction {centre right class Nationalism in the North}, nevertheless it is the direction that SF has and is going in the North and such voices {like yourself} have got less and less'.

by chris loughlin - sp Tue Jul 22, 2003 13:27

interesting debate. just wanted to add a few comments, observations, etc in a fraternal manner.

but, it seems to me this discussion has been based an awful lot around the idea of electoral politics. the reason the sp, swp, etc will never win more than a few seats in a capitalist political government north or south is due to our revolutionary class politics stance, which is for a change in the entire power structure in society, ie workers and communities deomcratically electing officials with the right of recall at all levels. ok, i know you will say its far fetched and 'unrealistic' but those are the ideas behing the position.

however, the winning of a seat for joe higgins in dublin to be elcected to the dail shows there is space for openly socialist candidates to get elected to the dail. socialist politics is again being put on the agenda, the reason? capitalism has not and will not change and evolve a differnet society any more, we live in an era of globalisation and imperialism. there are still only two classes in society the workers and the bosses.

i find it interesting that SF are beginning to talk socialism now. just after the assembly collapeses (they don't have to implement thatcherite policies while talking about socialism). i think everyone can see the contradiction in terms there, the sf activists included! ;-) but also just after the biggest anti-war movement in history took place and a huge global downturn in the economy.

but, the fact that SF still does not rule out coalition government and has basically completely embraced the ballot box is a party sees power only as coming through existing power structures. just as a further observation what is the if any difference now between sf's stance now and the stickies during the 80's. both embraced electoral politics based on independence for Ireland. we all know what happened to the workers party, what wil happen to sf?

i hope i have added to discussion and debate, the comments are not meant as attacks, merely observations from a smoky bar revolutionary activist who enjoys reading dead russian, irish and british writers!!;-)

by Justin Moran - Sinn Féin Tue Jul 22, 2003 14:29 maigh_nuad at yahoo dot com

Falling way behind on work so will probably make this my last one on this for a good while.

Davy, my point about the SWP/SP not campaigning on collusion, marches etc. was a DUBLIN reference. I stand by that comment. I think we should both remind ourselves that I'm a Dublin based Sinn Fein activists and you're a Belfast based SWP. You're also refreshingly unlike most Dublin SWP I meet and debate with.

I would point out that, like Killian, I have had that SWP conversation where I'm told my parties shit, my policies are shit, my leadership is shit, our candidates are shit but you might just be one of the genuine activists in the party....copy of the Socialist Worker? Subtle. Extremely subtle :)

On FF and coalition, certainly we discussed it because it was an issue that arose on several occasions, especially when FF said they wouldn't enter coalition with us which came as a surrpise as we hadn't asked them.

Chris,

I take the point on the elecotral focus of the discussion but at some point it ended up talking about coalition and it seems to have run away on that issue. I agree struggle is not purely elecotral and I think SF could benefit by focussing on other areas of struggle.

I think the remark we have 'just started' talking about socialism is spurious. There are frequent referencres to socialism in Sinn Fein policies, books by Sinn Fein leadership figures and in Phoblacht. The article I wrote for the paper that started the debate was published when it was published because that's when I finished it.

I think there's a world of difference between us and the Sticks. First of all, the Sticks didn't want national independence and did everything they could to undermine attempts to obtain it. Secondly, they ignored the development of the North, proof of the first point, and never became a significant force in the Six Counties. Thirdly, the Sticks method of running its party meant a clique developed in the parliamentary party which broke away from the control of the members and then split the party. Not the case in Sinn Fein.

We do not believe that being in government in the 26 Counties woud suddenly make us all-powerful, we do accept that there are other areas of struggle and we are a campaigning party. But we do believe taking seats in Leinster House allows a platform for our ideas, gives us access to vast amounts of information and resources and strengthens the republican project.

by oricle Tue Jul 22, 2003 14:43

Of course you are right Justin. I actually meant that SF were the largest working class party proposing a radical agenda.

by oricle Tue Jul 22, 2003 14:47

I have just finished reading Ed Moloney's book on the IRA. I suspect he isn't considered a 'friend' of SF but he certainly put across the impression that SF and indeed the IRA do have leadership cliques. I would assume that any organisation connected to an armed wing would, by necessity, contain cliques

by Davy Carlin - W/Belfast SWP Tue Jul 22, 2003 15:09 carlindavid at hotmail dot com

Chris interesting piece. Just a few points. As you are probably aware there is the beginnings of a formation of a Socialist bloc in the North and your sentiments 'Socialist politics is again being put on the agenda', and I would say needs to be but on the agenda is to the fore of it. So I totally agree with that position. However although most of the smaller left parties, are in discussions with a number of leading trade unionist, community activists and others, your parties position in the North is not to put important Socialist politics and positions to the fore of that agenda and to work with the rest of us, but to look to talk to one or two individuals to stand on a 'defend public services platform'? The problem here in lays that such a person may be for better public services, but could be against a womans right to choose, hold racist or sectarian ideas or similiar. While I agree that one needs to build an electoral allaince to stand in the Assembly - as a Socialist I would find it of neccessity to ensure that some basic positions on Race, Sectarianism etc would be fundementally to the fore.

Imagine the situation if a Socialist or Socialist party was endorsing and actively supporting someone who held such views on women, ethnic minorities or working class 'communites' etc, what would happen if it came to light, one can only imagine, and it has happened before not that long ago. So while one needs to be tactical with such a move it is only the very commonist of sense that a Socialist or a Socialist party ensure their endorsements is not of a 'good defend public service activist' who may be Racist of Sectarian. Therefore a Socialist Bloc where a situation of a basic platform {including that of defending public services}, which also includes signing up against racism, sectarianism etc is not only important but a neccessity. That is why most of the organised left in the North see it as a good idea and are willing to discuss. Such a block will be formed in the North to also work with others within other aspects of community and trade union work as well as that tactical use of elections. Chris I agree with your sentiments but it is the opposite of what your leadership in the North has advocated, your comments are to be welcomed especially in the fraternal way they were presented. I hope we have given each other food for thought

by iosaf (spawning imitation) - i have not been around as much as people think. Tue Jul 22, 2003 15:59

now we have the Micro Left.
resneting your encroachment of their traditional territory.

and the Micro Republicans campaigning for political status crime again.
your traditional territory.

When shall we read an exposé of Ireland's
micro right?

You are a thinker. and door to door knocker.
you really are dangerous aren't you?
there will only ever be 20 independents?
too too sure, Killian too too sure.

[:-) ;-) %-) smiley and fk disclaimer]

by Anti Partnership activist Tue Jul 22, 2003 19:34

Justin said
"That was not a Partnership agreement, it was a privatisation, and I would have disagreed with Mick Davis on that one. The point is that Sinn Fein members are in Trade Unions all over the country but there has never been an organised Trade Union Dept until now."


Come on Justin, the justification that it was privatisation and not a partnership deal is really splitting hairs. Not alone did Mick Davis support the privatisation of Eircom (and other partnership deals in Eircom) as soon as the deal was done he took the redundancy deal being offered. He was then selected and stood as the SF candidate in the General Election. It looks like SF didn't have much problem with his behaviour.

Justin said
"I know many Sinn Fein members in Trade Unions, including myself, who opposed and campaigned against Partnership and the Phoblacht repeatedly called on workers to vote No."

I know many SF members in the Trade Union movement and ALL of them have supported (a) Partnership deals, be they local or national, (b) supported the official trade union apparatus, (c) opposed workers moving into struggle.

Sinn Fein is a mish mash of people with different ideas from the right to the left. There are people in SF that are committed genuine socialists but there are also people that are on the right (or populist) or moving in that direction. I my opinion these people are clearly in the majority. When conflict arises in SF on the issue of socialism (and this will happen) then people will be kept in line by playing the green card "We have a chance of achieving a United Ireland, don't jeopardise it by talking about socialism"

by hs - sp Tue Jul 22, 2003 19:51

I would agree with justin that this is obviously not the first time sinn fein and the republican movement have dicussed socialism, there was saor eire and republican congress long before the stickies. But one point does seem to roll through all the left turns which is a sort of popular frontism. The IRA and SF in its different phases have always tried to unite the nationalist or catholic people in the struggle. But the point of this is to unite all the nationalist people across classes sometimes (or usually) more radical socialist policies had to be dropped so as not to scare off the catholic middle classes,fair enough you might think.(and of course just like within the labour party the churches influence played a huge role) But the socialist policies were and are the only thing that had a chance of appealing to protestants. So by creating one alliance you intentionally or not prevent the traditional republican (unity of catholic protestant and dissenter) alliance from happening. And as far as I can read the communist party agreed with this tactic too at least at the time of civil rights.
Sinn Fein moving to the left now would not be suprising at all, there is alot of left wing activists in the party. The debate shouldn't be about "we are more left than you" and sinn fein moving to the left should be encouraged by everyone. But at the same time we shouldn't be blind to history. As far as I can see Adams has succeeded in doing what goulding failed to do. Bring a united IRA and SF out of the war. I would also be suprised to see SF go into a coalition with FF so soon. It would be plain stupid. But for the main republican goal a united Ireland I think a pan nationalist front of any kind will do more damage than anything it will alienate protestants more(if thats possible). As for the united ireland I can't see it happening under the umbrealla of nationalism either left or right, after the troubles SF will have their work cut out convincing protestants of anything. I think only a labour or socialist party can do it. The swps call could be a beginning although it should include as many campaigners as possible and definitely not stand against them if we don't. Class based politics doesn't necessarly have to start with a fully rounded out party but people standing for and with their class.

by Justin Moran - Sinn Féin Tue Jul 22, 2003 20:30 migh_nuad at yahoo dot com

Anti:
I'm not splitting hairs, nor am I saying I agreed with Mick Davis' actions. I'm merely making the point that they are different things. I am aware he was a Sinn Fein candidate at the last election.

As to your point on the track record of Sinn Fein activists as I have stated, with all due respect four times now on this thread and others, we do not have as co-ordinated an approach in Trade Unions as other parties. I voted against Partnership and, apart from Mick Davis, I don't know a single SF member who didn't vote against it. This is not to call you a liar, I am sure you are correct, but simply to point up that the party takes an absolutely clear position on this issue.

hs:
Some really interesting points there.

I would make one point I think is sometimes missing, a lot of the alleged, and in some cases mythic, opposition to left wing politics in SF is not an aversion to that politics per se, but an averson to what in the past has been linked with it, a move away from armed struggle.

Some of the people who were advocating left-wing policies also advocated, and in the case of the late 60s and early 70s did so in a blind, foolish, dangerous and ultimately fatal manner.

I think a lot of your other points are well taken and I would be sympathetic to them.

So anyway, I'm quitting for the day but I do have a question I mean in a serious manner.

When can we see a similar debate in Socialist Worker or Socialist Voice? When are we going to see people publishing articles or letters in those papers debating party policy or being critical of the party leadership?

I've asked that rhetorically a few times before but I would like an answer. I think it's fair to say on this thread and others, stimulated by that debate in the Phoblacht, we've had some of the more reasoned and respectful debates on Indymedia. Perhaps some......glasnost?...within those parties might allow for better debate within those groups, and in the wider Irish left.

by hs - sp Tue Jul 22, 2003 21:04

socialist voice is a monthly 12 page paper, and the point of a paper for a small political party (especially when its only monthly) is too put forward the parties opinions and the parties policies. You know us you've seen us and we simply don't have the resources yet to produce a weekly paper the size of aprn. so its a matter of priorities, for example the cpgb as you well know decided to put its resources into a weekly paper for the activist left. But i think for anyone not involved for at least a year or two it could be from mars. On the other hand we went for basically a paper to put forward our own views.
Personally I would love to see a left newspaper independent of the parties and open etc. But a party can't really set that up as it misses the point. Red Banner is making some effort at that. For SP internal discussion their is the Socialist Youth internet thing. but I've never been on it so can't vouch for it.
But a weekly or daily newspaper that had room for this would be fantastic. I think indymedia can do it sometimes, sometimes not. Its the best attempt yet anyway. As for the sectarian stuff I must admit I don't miss an issue of weekly worker.
I think though a sixteen page weekly would be enough space for different ideas and letters etc. But for now theres indymedia.

by john throne - labors militant voice Wed Jul 23, 2003 05:14 loughfinn at aol dot com

I do not consider SF to be a working class party if this is understood to mean a party of the working class. The number of votes a party gets from the working class is not decisive in this regard. If it was then Fianna Fail would have been the main working class party in the South for the past 70 plus years. I feel that a working class party is one that the working class, when it moves as a class, actually builds. I also feel that it has to have a program that at least in the basics recognizes the role of the working class as the only force that can change society. SF has many working class votes but it fits neither of these criteria. Neither are the SP and the SWP parties of the working class but from adifferent point of view. They are parties in my opinion FOR the working class but they can only become parties OF the working class if and when the working class or significant sections of it move into their ranks and begin to make these parties their own.

I do not agree with the emphasis on electoral politics in this discussion. I agree with those who believe that capitalism cannot be ended through winning elections and through parliaments. In this I would have some agreements with the anarchists. However where I disagree with them is that I do not believe a mass movement to end capitalism can be built without using the electoral process. Elections, electoral politics, the existing mass consciousness in society, these reflect a mass dialogue in society. They reflect the struggle of the capitalists in society for the consciousness of the working class. I believe that at all times we have to explain that electoral politics can not change society, that no matter whether the left get a majority or not a mass movement on the streets and the workplaces has to be built as this is the only way to end capitalism.

Flowing from these opinions I believe that SF will be continually in internal struggle and debate as the party's leadership and increasingly its financial links in the US and elsewhere work to make it the main catholic capitalist party in the North and the main capitalist party in the South. And at the same time the mainly working class people in its ranks and who vote for it will be pressurizing it to solve the problems of the working class. However because the party has not been built by the working class and because it does not have a program to end capitalism it will continually be pulled back into coalitions with capitalist parties and into implementing the program of the capitalist offensive. As a result it will increasingly be isolated from its working class voters needs no matter how many working class votes it may get. Look at the history of Fianna Fail.

The main issue internationally today is the capitalist offensive against the working class. The main task facing the working class is to confront and throw back this offensive. The revolutionaries and working class activists should see the building of an anti capitalist working class movement based on taking on and defeating the attacks of the capitalist offensive through direct action fight to win policies. In this way a new movement can begin to be built which explicitly opposes capitalism and its attacks. It is against the aim of building such a movement that the tactics of the various parties have to be judged. Making deals and going into coalition with capitalist politicians, making deals with trade union leaders who carry out the offensive, these steps work against the building of such a movement. They create illusions in the capitalist parties and in electoral politics and in the trade union bureaucracy. They do not help build an independent combative working class movement that is anti capitalist and that can change things.

John Throne.

by Hal Silk Wed Jul 23, 2003 11:21

So theres no room in (his masters ) Voice for criticism of the SP leadership. But why should there be? After all the leadership are always correct therefore only heretics and apostates would have any criticism of the line that is handed down from Trotsky to his prophets Taafe and Hadden.

Forward to the Revolution! Then all of those who question the party line can be shot in basements or sent to Gulags. We can have show trials where Finn Geaney and Denis Tourish will admit that they were always agents of Fascism. An assassin will be despatched to take care of the troublesome John Throne.

Tourish is correct, the SP/CWI are a Cult. I wonder why hs and Chris have not replied to Prof Tourish on the SY travel details for camp thread?

by Agent of Chaos Wed Jul 23, 2003 11:43

I was also curious as to why the SP hadnt responded to the comments by Dennis Tourish, they were quick enough to gratuitously insult him. But when he posted there was no comeback from them.

To clarify things for the readers of this thread, I will post the relevant comments below. This will obiviate the necessity for switching from thread to thread.

I also thought hs had some neck saying that the the Voice hadnt room for criticism of the SP leadership. You will never see criticism of the Troika or Hadden in that rag.


_______________________________________________
A happy ex-member writes....
by Dennis Tourish Sunday, Jul 20 2003, 3:44pm


Some of the comments on this site have indeed been drawn to my attention. My response is:

1. I believe that the CWI is a cult, and that those habits it exhibits (eg fear of dissent; demonising of dissenters; expelling of dissenters; purging of factions; concentration of power at the top; excessive believe in the ludicrous notion that it has all of the worlds wisdom in its hands - plus more) have gotten worse rather than better over the years. I have written extensively on this, but interestingly no one from the CWI has ever challenged my analysis. Instead, I am accused of ranting. Very interesting. A considered argument is dismissed as ranting while the substantive points made are ignored - just actually what one would expect from a cult.

2. I left the CWI because I was increasingly appalled by its internal regime, and in particular by the behaviour of Peter Hadden in The North. I have no wish to excessively personalise the issue. Rather, his name is unavoidable because he held such a position of authority nationally in the CWI. However, unfortunately, it was not possible to debate these issues amongst the leadership, who were also not interested in facilitating a discussion among the wider membership. I am certain that many other former leading comrades, including Finn Geaney, have had similar experiences. My own case would not matter a jot - except for the tiny little detail that it has been widely shared, and is always enjoyed by anyone who tries to challenge the intolerable internal regime.

3. No mass organisation capable of changing society can be built on this basis. The SP has a choice. It can have an open regime characterised by debate, respect for difference (and for the efforts of many people who worked hard for it over a long time) OR it can do as it now does ' and opt for monolithic control over a tiny and dwindling band of not so merrie men (and women). In which case, I will continue to regard it as a cult, and happily debate the point any time in any forum that the SP sees fit to organise.

by Please enter the author or producer of the piece Wed Jul 23, 2003 12:53

(again)

by Davy Carlin - W/Belfast SWP Wed Jul 23, 2003 13:08 carlindavid at hotmail dot com

Debate - discussion, critical, constructive or otherwise within any organisation is of fundamental importance. If an organisation has an all seeing eye or 'leader' who can continually decide the politic or direction of that organisation without challenge then that organisation is not only undemocratic, 'but fucked', in the long term. I welcome the debate within Republicanism and it is both good and healthy to see that such a debate can happen openly, internally and externally, in relation to both the organisation and its membership.

In response to Justin's remark if people have genuine issues they wish to take up within their organisation then of course it should be raised in various quarters including that of their party paper after all it is not only the tool to the class but the paper for the party.

To 'hs sp' I agree any electoral alliance should include as many Campaigners as possible, but again they should sign up to not only 'defending public services' but essentially against Racism which is on the rise in the North against Sectarianism and other such essential stances. The correspondence between the SWP and SP highlights this, although for some reason an SP member I spoke to believes there has only been five pieces of correspondences there in fact had been six up to a few weeks back?

To john, the emphasis is on electoralism at this time because it is an on going debate as discussions are taking place on such in the North and is also being called for in the South. As I have already stated that most of the organised small left parties, well known trade unionists, communities activists and others from both 'traditions' are in discussions in the North. In fact most of the main activists groups apart from the SP are involved with the SP searching for a 'defend public services' campaign if they can get other campaigners involved. I have already given some reasons as above as to why as a socialist I find this suggestiion at the least possibly offering very serious problems. Nevertheless John elections is but an initial platform and that is why the Socialist bloc while partaking in that process using it as a platform, it is not only its sole purpose. It is also to form working partnerships in the unions and working class communities as many did around the anti war movement.

by Agent of Chaos Wed Jul 23, 2003 13:26

Its trolling to criticise the SP?! What will things be like if they ever get ant power!

by iosaf Wed Jul 23, 2003 13:31

concerning the SP newspaper, and the justification for same. Cool enough, micro left parties always have newspapers. Now that the Dublin News is closing is there not a gap in the market? Would it be possible for the micro left and the macro left, [killian your cleverness could backfire on you] join with the micro republicans and micro greenies and macro republicans and macro greenies in producing a once a month magazine/newsletter? The debate accross the Macro-alternative agenda is very postiive, time to present it to the macro-apathetics of Ireland ¿no?

by Taaeffy Tuck Wed Jul 23, 2003 13:32

....dec power

by Chekov Wed Jul 23, 2003 15:42

Having read a couple of these pieces in APRN, although not them all, I just don't agree with the fundamental argument: that a leftward turn is the best strategy for Sinn Fein to achieve electoral success and eventual state power. As far as I can make out, that is the basic argument in both Justin's and Eoin's contribution. Unfortunately I just don't see this as being the case and think that history tells us otherwise.

In the South, Sinn Fein is almost totally unchallenged on their left and will probably continue to increase their vote among poorer workers regardless of what they do (within reason). Their best strategy, imho, is to imitate the populist-nationalist example of the early Fianna Fail. They need to continue their growth among the poor by maintaining their populist rhetoric, while avoiding any coalitions in the medium term that allow them to be seen to be responsible for what the government actually does. This shouldn't be too tricky. A coaltion as junior partners to Labour alongside a right wing party would allow them to say that they gave it their best shot but their hands were tied. As long as they are not seen to prop up a right wing government single handedly they should escape the flak.

While they continue their populist rhetoric, the task of SF is to convince the ruling class (oh yes we do have one) that they are no threat to their fundamental interests, or at least that the threat is manageable and indeed that SF represent a handy pressure valve for discontent. As long as they fail to do this, they will never win the support of the wealthier workers whose opinions are largely shaped by the ruling class and thus won't be capable of becoming the dominant player in a government. This will entail implementation of various parts of the neo-liberal agenda when they attain positions of power. These should be explained away as being either 'the actions of individuals' as with the Sligo bin-charges vote, or as being 'regretable but necessary given the political pressure on SF', as with the Bush meeting.

In the North, the process is more advanced. SF are completely unchallenged on their left and look like being so for the forseeable future. They also appear to have entirely given up the thankless taks of trying to gain the support of protestant workers. Their only electoral battle is with the SDLP, which they have already practically won, to be the representatives of nationalism. The journey that they have made includes a fair amount of proving of themselves as responsible delegates of the ruling class, as we see with the Bush meeting, their participation in implementation of PFI/PPP, and the rest of the neo-liberal agenda. Although they may be doing it under protest, with their hands tied, the ruling class doesn't really care why they do it, nor what they say about it, they just want to be convinced that they will do it.

To sum up, I think that Sinn Fein's best strategy is to continue with their populist rhetoric while they continue to prove themselves 'responsible' rulers. They will, from time to time, lose good activists who are disgusted with the disparity between what they say and what they do, but this will happen in dribs and drabs, as they have already achieved the break with the past and organisational allegiance is a powerful thing.

Finally, can I make a plea to leave the SP out of the debate. SF are much more of a political force, and imho a threat to the emergance of a genuine workers movement. The SP are tiny and weak in comparison.

by Jim Monaghan Wed Jul 23, 2003 16:07

While it was correctly stated that the Greens are not opposed to coalition I don't think this exempts them or other parties form criticism on this count. The history of all alliances with parties of the Right esp FF, FG and the PD is that in return for a Merc and some minor concessions is that the governments pursue rightwing policies.
I exaggerate but FG would fuind a wind power station or two in return for membership of NATO (Oh It will be a liaison role with NATO so that the Greens can pretend we have not joined, It will be a peacekeeping mission (demanded by Sean O'Shea of GOAL) so it will not be Imperialism.Some people will swallow anything

FF will offer the SINN FEIN party anything as long as it is meaningless.
Short term illusory gains will destroy the long term chances of rela power based on an enthusiastic mandate by a risen people.

Thouh this debate is primarily with Sinn Fein The Greens should not be left off the hook.The 100,00 plus march against war shows there is a real constituency out there without a real home. The vacuum is only partially filled by the Greens and Sinn Fein and assorted independents of the Left. A national, radical alliance could galvanise this group and draw in the dispossed and deprived by offering real social change rather than different managers of our awful Capitalist system.

For real change not Mercs for the chosen few.

by Davy Carlin - W/Belfast SWP Wed Jul 23, 2003 17:23 carlindavid at hotmail dot com

Jim such a radical national alliance would be brilliant if it were to be achieved. Yet by reading other postings and their comments in relation to this, one can see the amount of tensions held between various left groups. That is not to say it would be an impossiblity as the developing discussions in the North has showed. All parties and organisations have a past, yet while working in the present to attempt to effect change for a better future we need to begin to hold an understanding of others while attempting to build some aspects of unity.

Chekov talks of organisational allegience, this is held in all organisations. In any organisation one will have their own policies their own politics, positions on Ireland, Internationally, on Imperialism, Capitalism, on how to change the world and why it should be changed. Socialists, Republicans, Anarchists, Greens, Reds and whatever have their own pamplets, books, newspapers, websites etc. We all have differences with eachother and even with others within our own organisations on various issues, yet this diversity not only holds weaknesses but also holds strengths.

By looking out and attempting understanding through debate and discussion one can first begin to attempt that understanding of differing persons or organisations positions. Maybe not agreeing with much or some of it, agreement can though be found on other matters and with that an alliance or unity on those commonalites can begin. If one starts with the position of the SP in the North for example that 'we want to discuss all the problems we have ever had with you going back to the year dot and to have a political discussion on every aspect of opposing political positions and disagreements, we would never get anywhere. As we would then want to raise all the problems we have had {And I could raise many even in my short time in politics} then others would want to raise simliar then everyone would then have to debate their position on Russia, Ireland, Capitalism. etc etc etc.

My difference to this is that I do not want to start at the differences and Disunity but on a common plaform we can agree and speak from. Of course one would need to discuss issues but it would be better if it is done within a common platform of agreement rather than a starting point of disunity and disagreement, and most of the organised left in the North agree, with this thus the discussions.


For me if someone is against racism, sectarianism, for womens rights, for fighting for a decent health services etc, and are prepared to sign up to such a plaftorm I will support and canvass for them. If they want to have a discussion on Russia or whatever I will do it while offering support to an agreed platform. In such a situation, in such an electoral alliance, allegience should be to the class.

So by reading, discussing and debating with eachother like on Indymedia we can begin to create an understanding on what the problems are and the views held about others or indeed about ourselves and our organisations, so while discussion may take place between elected leaderships or whatever, all can engage, via indymedia our party papers or other avenues. My replies to and from, Justin, Andrew, Chris, Killian ect and reading Pat C, Jim, John, Chekov and many others as well as members from the various parties has gave me - and I hope my postings has give others and insight into my beliefs and understandings. A begining for unity begins with attempting understanding, practical engagement through to practical activity can only do good and benfit not only the left but the 'working class' as a whole

by s Wed Jul 23, 2003 21:06

Some well thought out points Dave, one point i am interested in, is there a basis for an alliance between the socialist left and republican left including SF?.

by Davy Carlin - W/Belfast SWP Thu Jul 24, 2003 12:50 carlindavid at hotmail dot com

To 'S'. Firstly in relation to elections as I have stated on many occassions above what is needed is a 'Socialist bloc' and Sinn Fein {although they do hold some socialists within it} are not a socialist organisation. The Socialist bloc is for like minded Socialists to come together to stand as socialists in elections and also to hold a working relationship within communities and unions.

This is different to an attempted working alliance of groups such as seen within the 'Social forums' or the 'United Fronts' as seen around the war in Iraq. The Socialist bloc is to stand on a platform as socialists advocating Socialist policies, while campaigning alliances {North, South, National} radical or otherwise can and already do involve NGO's SF, Trade union officials, as well as socialists, left republicans, anarchists etc.

Similarly as the Andytown news editoral talked about today of a 'United Nationalist bloc' which includes I presume SF, socialists I believe should try and eventually bring around both a National Socialist Alliance while also contining to establish networks with those who may not be socialists but whom hold progressive views with the view of working in broader platforms, again with the view I believe of achieving this on a National basis. Both type of alliances on a National basis would be brilliant, but although we need to begin where we are at I believe it can happen if people really really want it to happen. We all hold our differences, we all have a past, lets understand that, lets use diversity not for its weakness but for its strength and so in the present lets at least attempt together to effect change for a better future.

by iosaf Thu Jul 24, 2003 13:28

was May 23rd.
A Catalan language special of Egunkarria
was produced in Barcelona.
Egunkarria was closed earlier this year and was the only basque language paper.
The Catalan Special dealt with culture and language and was a solidarity issue.
But within statements of support were made in all the jargons and with all the logos of the varying parties and groupings of the "left" of the "greens" of the "anarchists" [ranging from CNT to Okupes].
It convinced me that together those groups can say something postive, and present a united front.

To have a "pact" together against the Capitalist parties is not "unite" or "end" difference it is merely to highlight "unity".
And the best way is as I said before a "common almost rainbow" gesture.
A newspaper or magazine produced together on one issue perhaps, with a page for each group.

by Jim Monaghan Thu Jul 24, 2003 16:23

"To 'S'. Firstly in relation to elections as I have stated on many occassions above what is needed is a 'Socialist bloc' and Sinn Fein {although they do hold some socialists within it} are not a socialist organisation. The Socialist bloc is for like minded Socialists to come together to stand as socialists in elections and also to hold a working relationship within communities and unions."

Davy Carlin writes the above presumably SWP policy.
Question. Is Socialist just self declared or self described Trotskyist. What about other forces? During the H-Block days and many other I had and so did the SWP more in common on critical issues with Sinn Fein than the SP.Whether we like it or not there are other Leftwing groups such as the CP, WP etc. Has Kevin Wingfield drawn up a criteria, has anyone?Sinn Fein is by membership and support very workingclass and militant.Is being a self proclaimed Marxist the litmus test.Is it the bin charges? Does it have to satisfy Pat C.(Joke)
My take is broader. I see a Socialist Block as acting as a positive anti coalition force against the sell outs in Sinn Fein and the Greens who wish to coalesce with any of the bourgeois parties FF, FG, PD or the equivalent up North. Obviuosly it should include Finian McGrath and Seamus Healy.In fact by including these independents who have mass support it might alleviate the suspicion that exists between SP and SWP.There is a problem in that the SP do not see the SWP bringing anything substantial in the electoral arena to such a front. If the Socialist Block were to bring in Healy, McGrath and other Socialist independents in enough numbers it would possibly overcome this.The SWP have to make meaningful gestures to their opponents. They could make a start with their former members who have been treated shabbily (Derwin, O'Cathasaigh etc.). (Treating former members shabbily is endemic on the Left not just the SWP)
If such a Socialist Block had a degree of momentum it would exert a force/attraction on the Socialist elements in Sinn Fein and the Greens and counter the siren calls to "realistic" politics now being peddled by especially the Johhny come lately "friends" of Sinn Fein.
Alas, I feel that there is an element of truth in the slag that this is just a device to show /expose everybody elses class collabiration (OK pick your own mortal sin) of their opponents.
This eternal sectarian dance adds grist to the mill of those pro-coalition forces in the much larger Sinn Fein and Greens who say the far left are for the birds.

by Davy Carlin - W/Belfast SWP Thu Jul 24, 2003 18:09 carlindavid at hotmail dot com

'Presumaby SWP policy'

Jim through reading other postings I believe that it might actually seem strange to some that as an SWP member I do still express my own opinions. In that last small piece I stated {I believe} no less than three or four times in relation to points I had made. Again it might seem strange for some who believe we 'preach from a Gospel', that all I write I write without having it submitted, checked, monitored, approved etc. They are but my thoughts, my opinions, albiet as a member of the SWP.

I believe one should be able to express ones opinion without fear of 'stepping out of line' as others have expressed to me in other organisations. I believe if it needs said then say it. When policy is decided by conferance then we of course work that policy as democratic centralists, but to think one cannot express opinions throws me back to the people who think socialists should be in rags digging up the earth in some collective.

Jim On your points of bringing in other independants, campaigners, forces etc I have already above given my own understanding on such.

I agree in your sentiments of momentum and positive coalition forces but wish {although difficult} to get away from the mindset of seeing other socialists solely as 'opponents' while working to attempt some basic unity.

Although your posting holds I believe some negativity it in general does make some interesting or positive remarks.

by Davy Carlin - W/Belfast SWP Thu Jul 24, 2003 19:35 carlindavid at hotmail dot com

Jim sorry, one other brief point, no 'Socialist' is not just self declared Trotskyists. Again if you read my various postings above I explain in great detail as to my understanding of a Socialist bloc and its platform, which reflects much of your points.

by hs - sp Thu Jul 24, 2003 20:51

so hal silk wheres your paper, where's your critisism, or for that matter who are you?
Are you in a party, have you any opinions?
----------
The role of our small newspaper is to get our point of view accross. I think thats simple enough, just like we make flyers to get our view accross.

With a weekly paper we could have room for letter pages and more critical arguments. But we have 12 pages a month thats not a lot. We could turn it into a idelogical paper arguing out different points but then people wouldn't know our actual position.
We have weekly branch meetings all over the country where we debate issues. We just don't have the resources to print it all.

If as some of you claim there was no room for any form of critisism we wouldn't exist. If you expect 15 people sitting in a room to agree on absolutely everything you know little of human nature. And there would be less chance we would have got anyone elected to anything.

The role of the voice again is to tell people we exist and what we think of certain subjects. And thats it. An idelogical debate newspaper would be lovely so would oe for party members to debate the way forward, but until they come the voice will have to do.

by iosaf Fri Jul 25, 2003 15:44

Perhaps a common newspaper/magazine/pamphlet
could be produced for the weekend which would have seen the WEF meet in Dublin.
Perhaps all the parties/groupings could contribute one page. Perhaps they could be arranged in alphabetical order.
Thus the order would be: Anarchists-CY-Greens-GR-SF-SP-SWP-WP-WSM etc.,
or it could be.
page one Connoly youth on aardvarks.
page two Globalise Resistance on aardvarks.

I know this suggestion will not be entertained, but it would be interesting to see for once the Left united at least by recycled paper.
***
Solidarity Egunkaria was produced for 23/4 which is Catalan national book giving day.

by Hal Silk Fri Jul 25, 2003 15:56

The SP leadership will never be criticised in the Voice or anyother SP publication. SP members cannot openly disagree with the SP Party Line. If they did, they would get the John Throne treatment.

Anyone who is interested in the reality of "Democracy" in the SP/CWI should read Dennis Tourish writings. They are a dangerous Cult. The treatment of John Throne, Finn Geany, John Reimann has shown what happens if you dare to disagree with the leadership. The entire Pakistani section of the CWI was expelled because they wouldnt follow the diktat of the London leadership of the CWI.

by s&m Fri Jul 25, 2003 17:28

i think the term 'National Socialist Alliance' might be a bit off putting to some...

by Davy Carlin - W/Belfast SWP Fri Jul 25, 2003 17:44 carlindavid at hotmail dot com

Not A name but simply a point I was making within the context of my posting. Thought that would be obvious. But hey maybe a comma may have been called for, for those not reading it within the context of the complete article. Heck at least I will know for the next time.

Enjoyed the debate and discussion on Indymedia on this one and there are still a few ongiong that are very good and informative, signing of but will no doubt return again.

by Saoirse Fri Jul 25, 2003 20:25

Davey,
S&M has a point and it's one that should make you - as someone is clearly a serious socialist - rethink your emphasis on the need for a 'National' Socialist Alliance. I imagine you probably mean a 32-county Socialist Alliance. This is very different to a 'National' one. Remember what James Connolly had to say about the relevance of national identity to socialism "the capitalist of my 'own' country is my enemy, the worker of other countries my fellow patriot". I think it's really important for all socialists to be REALLY hard in their opposition to all forms of nationalism [republicanism, loyalism etc]. These have been a poison at the heart of Irish politics, especially here in the North, for far too long. For a socialist, THE divide in society has to be that of class, while nationalism is by definition all-class. History has shown us what "National socialism" produces and it's time we were clear that the two can never go together. I really hope these discussions on a socialist alliance work out as it could finally present an alternative to stale sectarianism of the Executive parties who all seem willing to sell their grannies for power.

Jim - it's hard to see how Sinn Fein could be included in a socialist bloc in the North when i) they have been the most ardent privatisers in the Executive here and ii) they register as nationalists in the Assembly. Any serious socialist grouping would HAVE to register as 'others' in the Assembly - otherwise they are just bullshitters. I guess this is why, from what I hear, neither the PUP nor the IRSP have been invited to join the socialist unity talks that are going on.

by Davy Carlin - W/Belfast SWP Mon Jul 28, 2003 11:54

National, Nationwide, All Ireland, 32 county, Ireland wide, etc it was but a practical point and those reading it in that context of the article would know what I meant - but I do see your point. Having written articles on both National Socialism and Irish Nationalism I hold a firm understanding of each. But I have found increasingly articles I write are becoming increasingly more scrutinised from many quarters. So in future on Indymedia as else where I will ensure I dot my I's put in my comma's and to ensure as in the above case those whom just glance over the posting don't take the wrong reading from it. Thanks for the points Saoirse as constructive critism is often worthwhile and I have learnt a few political and practical points from the entire above engagment.

PS - the discussions on a possible Alliance is coming on very well and more and more people are enquiring about it. Davy Carlin

by hs - sp Mon Jul 28, 2003 19:29

hal you still haven't answered my question. To me you are no more than a crank and a coward, you will attack but you don't have the guts to tell us your who you are what your politics are (if you have any). You are very hard to take seriously. But I will try

"The SP leadership will never be criticised in the Voice or anyother SP publication. SP members cannot openly disagree with the SP Party Line. If they did, they would get the John Throne treatment."

No one has been expelled from the SP since I joined about six years ago. John Throne was expelled by the american section which was upheld by the international. If the sp was as you think/say (still don't know if you're serious) wouldn't the irish have saved him. He was actually the founder of the irish party. And we didn't rush to rescue a "great leader" as you would put it.

"Anyone who is interested in the reality of "Democracy" in the SP/CWI should read Dennis Tourish writings. They are a dangerous Cult."

Not excatly sure but if you mean the thesis your a bigger crank than I thought. I did read it, great to find out my life has so much meaning now. Funny though the all controlling cult hasn't had too much effect on my life.

"The treatment of John Throne, Finn Geany, John Reimann has shown what happens if you dare to disagree with the leadership. The entire Pakistani section of the CWI was expelled because they wouldnt follow the diktat of the London leadership of the CWI. "

John throne was perfectly happy with the rules of the organisation he helped found for twenty years. The pakistani section were being funded by NGOs we are very strick about funding. If we didn't expell them the finger of corruption would have been (rightly) pointed at us. A party is very much effected by who funds it. CWI sections are funded by their own members and supporters. We DO NOT take money from anyone else. No apologies for that.

Now i've been as open with you as possible for an anonymous troll. Please reveal yourself. are you an interneck hack/nerd/troll/general muppet (take your pick) or someone to be taken seriously. We await your answer out in the real world. If you want a serious discussion i'll be very happy to continue but I think you should at least reveal your own politics. Sorry if i seem rude but anoynomous hacks are annoying.

by john throne - labors militant voice Wed Jul 30, 2003 03:13 loughfinn at aol dot com

Comrades i do not think that any effort to build a left alternative such as is being discussed here or as is suggested elsewhere by the SWP can succeed unless it is part of a process of being involved in the day to day struggles of the working class and is actively recruiting new fresh working class activivts into its ranks. I believe that the failure of the Socialist Alliance in England and Wales is primarily because they were basically electoral and political alliances. They did not as alliances get involved in the day to day struggles of the working class in the localities and the workplaces in a direct action fight to win manner. If they had, and if they had been involved in these struggles in a direct action fight to win manner they would have been growing with new working class members in the localities and the workplaces. This would have provided the basis for the different left forces to work together as these new working class forces would have acted as a restraint on the sectarianism and also as an inspiration and a check on the various left forces. They would have also provided the base against which the different ideas would have been considered and on which the different groups and individuals could have grown and developed and begun to evolve with some kind of organic unity. I believe that the success of the SSP in Scotland compared to the Socialist Alliances in England and Wales is to a great extent, not exclusively but to a great extent, because of the day to day work and struggles of the SSP on the ground.

Therefore I think that this discussion is in danger of being stll born. I think that it will lead us somewhere only if we include in it the issue of how to struggle on the ground against the capitalist offensive and from this how to mobilize into any left alternative new fresh working class activists. After Seattle we had Direct Action Network (DAN) here in Chicago. All the left groups and most activists were drawn into this because of the attractive power of Seattle and the role of DAN in that. For a while we were able to keep active in local working class struggles, this in turn brought us new working class activivvts. This brought some reality to the group and restrained the input of the post modernists etc. But the less we able to succeed in this local work and drawing in new forces the more that the sectarianism was unrestrained and the more DAN declined. I feel therefore that there is a vital ingredient missing from this discussion. That is how any alternative would relate to the day to day struggles on the ground in the workplaces and the neighbourhoods and the schools and colleges.

I am sorry to have to respond to the CWI issue again but the last post brought me up again. He/She said I was happy with the internal life of the CWI before I and the clear implication is before I was in the minority and expelled. This young Comrade cannot be blamed too much for this statement as he/she is only passing on the lies they were told. But of course she/he is not totally blameless as she/he does have a responsibility to check the both sides of the story. Before there was ever a faction fight or a division in the US section, before I was ever a minority in it, before I was ever fired and expelled, I formally resigned from my position on the International Secretariat because I could no longer go along with the way in which the internal life was developing.The CWI leadership can share my statement on this with the Comrade if they wish. But I have no doubt this statement and my resignation is never mentioned because it does not fit the dishonest story. As the political confusion continued in the CWI after our mistaken perspectives on stalinism and capitalism in the late 1980's and 1990's then the bureaucratic tendencies developed and gained strength. I resigned as the only way I could see at the time to try and understand and oppose these developments. My firing and expulsion and slandering came after that not the other way around.

Comrade we are again back to the CWI telling lies to its new members. Comrade the only way that the CWI can be free of this and can transform its internal life and can open up in a way that can allow it to become a mass organization is to face up to its mistaken internal life and openly discuss it. This includes the way in which it "dealt" with myself. As it is look at what happens. Its new members, Comrade you say you are only six years in the organization, I do not suppose that we have ever talked and yet you are repeating the lies of the leadership about me. This is part of what i mean about the corrupting of the internal life.

John Throne.

by hs - sp -cwi Thu Jul 31, 2003 17:32

John after I joined the party the first national conference I went to was around the time you were expelled by the american section. I was very new so didn't take part in any discussions or take any sides. And really it wasn't the first or biggest split in the cwi so forgive me if I don't know everything about it.

But about the expulsion and resigning from the international secretariat I never said such a thing or even mentioned the international secretariat. I never implied you did or didn't quit before or after the explusion. Nobody lied to me about any such thing. It cannot be implied I was lied to because i didn't mention something or even hint at it. that is putting words in my mouth.

This is excatly what I said:

"No one has been expelled from the SP since I joined about six years ago. John Throne was expelled by the american section which was upheld by the international. If the sp was as you think/say (still don't know if you're serious) wouldn't the irish have saved him. He was actually the founder of the irish party. And we didn't rush to rescue a "great leader" as you would put it."


I simply said you were in the party and at leadership level (and in fact founder) for a long time before you were expelled. John you were a founder of the party no one is more responsible for the rules laid down than yourself. Whether you were part of the int. secretariat or not before you were expelled isn't really an issue to what I said. My other point is that you as a leader were not treated as a god, just as ted grant wasn't and as peter taffe isn't. Which alot of the anonomyas hacks are trying to say about SP and CWI "great leaders". I said the after the faction fight in the us you were expelled and the rest of the international backed it up.

With all due respect, your name has become a stick to beat the sp with by anonoymous hacks. I know this is nothing to do with you and you obviously would be opposed to this but its the case. In the attacks being made it is said the sp is an undemocratic etc etc organisation because of what happened to you.
The same people who are trying to say the sp is a cult and anti-irish and lots of other things.

I simply pointed out you helped found the party and you yourself played a big role in laying down the rules. Therefore I took it for granted, (maybe I should not have, you tell me) that you were happy with them.

Whatever about what happened in the US the SP here has still the same people involved and we are busy trying to build a decent sized party until a new workers party can be formed. Attacks will be made on us especially if we do get a decent vote, the not irish enough tactic will be used as always and the "cult" not democratic attacks will be made. Indymedia is just a silly taste of what the capitalist press will say if we win a couple of seats. Your name I am afraid will be another bullet in their arsnel.

But anyway again I am replying in defence of myself and people in my party, you implied I said alot of things which i had not said at all. And added that I did so because I was lied to. Which in short is patronising and offensive . Either way I want to set the record straight. I said excatly what I said and I meant what I meant. I did not say anything more or anything that you implied I said.

as for the cwi makeing mistakes, i agree completely, the ussr did collapse and how you (plural) didn't see that coming you can ask yourself. But the sp remains the best party in the country and I will remain in it mistakes or not. Point to me a perfect party and i'll call you a liar, there is none.

Fraternally

hs

by the way its a he

by john throne - labors militant voice Fri Aug 01, 2003 16:00 loughfinn at aol dot com

Comrade from the SP please send me your email and we can continue this off the indymedia as I think that most indymedia readers have heard me on these details before. I would very much like to discuss it further with yourself. Comradely John Throne.