Labour Youth in support of MayDay protests

by a cynic Fri May 07, 2004 01:21

Before my rant ill just say, yay support even if its a little late.
Today has been odd, a posting from yfg who seem to no longer find indymedia anethema, especially when they are trawling for support. Then this which is by no means as bad. I accept that members of labour may have been there in support and that others not present supported the thrust of the weekend. Your input was probably far more than my party politcal unaffiliated marching. However open, honest and well publicised messages of support would be far more welcome before the event as a means of diffusing hysteria, publicised support would have been great, however waiting until afterwards, when the anarchist hysteria invasion was proven to be false smacks of playing it safe. I probably just missed your previous statements of support but if the mainstream media had been told of this support it would have been nice to see it communicated to the masses before the event so as to defuse the vilification of the marchers.

On an equal footing, I was there and as member #9930 of The Tick Society (the mystic order of arachnid vigilance) i feel it my duty to inform you that m.o.a.v. fully supports the actions of the marchers , had members present at the marches supporting those involved and believes the hype beforehand was scandalous, unfortunately we will not be running candidates in the near future:( Though we as ever embrace those of open mind, who live bright and savage lives that bring salivia to the mouths of the unitiated.

Let freedom ring to our great battle cry ...Spoon!

by labour_member Fri May 07, 2004 16:55

I got correspndence from LY that there would be LY people present on Dame St. I missed Dame St, but I went along to Heuston. No LY visible.

I went along to O'Connell St that evening, but didn't go on the march, as I had to attend a family gathering. No LY visible for the time I was there.

I'm in LY, but not doing much as I'm just too busy with LP stuff.

But if LY want to support these protests (which I do) then more visibility - FAR MORE - is required.

So Rebecca Moynishan or whoever, I'd suggest getting on the case!

Rant over.

by Ois - WSM Fri May 07, 2004 18:48

Come on now, lets be fair. Although I have massive massive ... massive differences with labour's politics (or lack thereof), it has to be said that, they are democrats and the majority of ly members act in a respectful manner. I imagine it is for this reason, if not for others as well, that labour didn't turn up with a banner on the DGN shtuff. As for ly members being there I was talking to at least three on the march. Also as any DGN head would know, a prominent member of ly is also a prominent DGN activist. (He's the only Anarcho-Social-Democrat I have ever heard of, but there you go.)

So thank you ly for being respectful and co-operative. I think some activists could learn a lot from y'all (here's looking at you trotsky).

by VenusInFurs - SP (personal capacity) Fri May 07, 2004 19:09 cogstar at hotmail dot com

So because LY didn't bring a banner to the DGN events, that makes them democratic?

Hmmm, so does that imply WSM and ISN have no regard for democracy because they brought their banners along and 'enforced' their presence amongst all those attending the events? Still scratching my head over that one....

Do you not think it's the right of any organisation involved in activism to bring their banners/ flags/ literature along to such events?

by Ois Mon May 10, 2004 00:57

The WSM and the ISN are both libertarian organisation, the WSM bring Anarchist and the ISN being Libertarian Marxist. Both organisations have been involved in grassroots. Both agree to the grassroots principles. So they were completely justified and right in attending the DGN march with banners.

LY, the SP and the SWP are all explicitly anti-libertarian (although LY does have at least one libertarian member). For LY, the SP or the SWP to bring a banner to a march that is explicitly libertarian would be similar to the WSM bringing a banner to a march to celebrate the life of Lenin. The only possible reasons that the WSM would bring a banner to an explicitly Leninist march would 1) to stir shit or 2) to be opportunistic and try to make a few recruits (or maybe this second one doesn't apply to us). Likewise the only reason LY, the SP or the SWP to bring a banner to a march that is explicitly libertarian would 1) to stir shit or 2) to be opportunistic and try to make a few recruits.

So no LY not bringing a banner does no does not make them democrats, but it does show that they at least act in a respectful manner. The SP does as well, except for on occasion, (ahh don't us libertarians know how to hold a grudge, but March 1st was only over a year ago). The SP heads that were on the DGN demos on Mayday didn't bring banners etc. which was nice. The SWP did bring flags, and did try to stir shit, and were opportunistic.

So stop scratching.

by Jonno - SP (personal capacity) Mon May 10, 2004 01:35

Any left organisation or individual has the right to bring banners or literature to distribute to any protest. To argue otherwise isn't "libertarian" at all.

The SWP have every right to bring their little flags and their leaflets and their papers to a march organised by "libertarians". Those who disagree with them are under no obligation to accept their literature or their mass-produced placards.

In decades past, Trotskyists and Anarchists alike used to make a point of bringing leaflets, publications and banners to protests organised by much larger Stalinist organisations. They weren't welcome and they were occasionally beaten up for their troubles, not that it stopped them.

Nowadays the people most fond of such "bans" are liberal pacifists and their ilk, who sometimes like to call silent protests, with no banners allowed. The idea is to silence the radical left and that means Anarchists at least as much as it means Trotskyists.

Socialists of all stripes should be entirely against such bans.

by Agent Mon May 10, 2004 08:11

Does anyone in the Socialist Party understand what the word "ban" actually means?

Here's a helpful hint. It means to prohibit; to make illegal; to stop; to forbid.

Now where does saying that something's not appropriate come into that?

It only takes someone even suggesting that maybe a newspaper isn't the best idea, or might be better at another time, and the Trots&Tots come out with nostrils flaring...YOU'RE TRYING TO BAN US! Go on...say that it's fascist. Disgusting, even. You know you want to!

What are you going to do when something actually gets banned, and you've used up your fury when it's not really a "ban"? Ever heard of the Political Party Who Cried Wolf? You can have the right, the uncontested right to do something, and still have it pointed out that you don't agree with it....

by Joe - WSM pers cap Mon May 10, 2004 11:25

There was a bit of discussion in DGN on the subject of trot banners but there was no decision that they were not welcome on the march. Most I think said they didn't want DGN to prevent people carrying whatever they wanted some said if they turned up they'd give them some abuse. In the context of SWP/SP/AEIP announcing on newstalk on the morning of the DGN march that it had been cancelled (so everyone should go on theirs!) its not hard to see why people might have been inclined to abuse them. In the event there were a dozen or so SWPers with their flags on the march.

The rightous indignation of the trots is a bit hard to swallow however. They jailed and murdered 10's of thousands of anarchists the one time they actually had state power. Their cries of 'ban' when all that might have happened was some verbal abuse is a bit hard to take!

by Libby Mon May 10, 2004 11:25

"Nowadays the people most fond of such "bans" are liberal pacifists and their ilk, who sometimes like to call silent protests, with no banners allowed. The idea is to silence the radical left and that means Anarchists at least as much as it means Trotskyists.
Socialists of all stripes should be entirely against such bans."

I never thought I'd see a SP member write something calling Lenin a liberal pacifist.
Didn't Lenin ban all factions at the tenth congress?
Hardly the act of a liberal pacifist, more like an authoritarian dictator.
Although, we do agree when you say that socialists of all stripes should be against such bans. But then I don't defend Lenin. How can you?

by Jonno Mon May 10, 2004 15:45

Joe, if you can please give me a precise quote from a member of the Socialist Party speaking on Newstalk about the DGN march, I will be more than willing to discuss it with you.

The point I am making is that I don't accept the right of protest organisers to decide what political ideas are or are not acceptable on their march. I don't care if those organisers are socialists, anarchists, liberal pacifists or anyone else. Historically, anarchists have a pretty good record on opposing such bans which makes it all the more surprising to see Ois's line of argument. Left groups and individuals have a right to distribute their material and raise their banners if they wish.

Predictably my views also attracted a certain amount of trolling in response. I wouldn't normally respond to such an obvious red herring, but I'm bored so Libby get's a single paragraph.

The SP tries to build on the ideas of people like Marx, Engels, Lenin, Luxemburg, Connolly, Trotsky and many more. That doesn't mean that we agree with everything that all of those people argued or did. The precise example you raise is just such an issue. The SP does not in fact think that banning factions was a good idea at all.

by Joe Mon May 10, 2004 15:48

The radio comments were made by your (ie SWP/SP/AEIP) spokesperson Rory Ahearn, I don't have an exact quote.

That aside, what are you arguing against. As I explain above no ban existed. I'm sure you do see the actions of Leninism in power as a mere detail of history but to the rest of us the comparison makes your huffing and puffing about a non existent ban a bit of a red herring.

by Chekov Mon May 10, 2004 16:07

Peronsally I'm against all 'bans' of political banners and flags from marches. However, I'm also of the opinion that if people feel that a political banner is inappropriate on a march, they should let that be known to the holder of the banner. For example, I'd say that it would be quite valid for people to approach an SWP flag holder and let them know that the displaying of such a flag is inappropriate given the lack of SWP support in building and promoting the march.

The simple fact is that DGN had no stewards and therefore could not enforce any ban, even if there was one in place which there was not. If individuals and groups on the march want to let their feelings be known about the carrying of particular banners or flags, they are always free to do so. You hardly expect DGN to 'ban' criticism of certain groups on its marches do you? If you call such individual criticism a 'ban' you are implying that DGN should somehow 'ban' such criticism and we won't be following Lenin down that road, thanks very much.

by Jonno Mon May 10, 2004 16:25

So what you are saying is that a member of the SWP said something you didn't like on the radio. That has nothing to do with me and has nothing to do with the Socialist Party. Your attempt to hand us the blame for Rory - a pleasant individual but also a total fruitcake - mouthing off is not appreciated. Rory is not and never will be a spokesperson for the SP.

On the main point - I never suggested that the DGN march had banned banners from political groups it disapproved of. I was arguing against Ois who seemed to me to be in favour of such bans. If he is not in favour of preventing the SWP or any other left group from bringing their banners or leaflets then it appears that we have no disagreement.

by pat c Mon May 10, 2004 16:43

its more a question of being diplomatic. If a large section of a crowd is likely to be provoked by certain banners, then its best not to carry such banners. I dont think the problem here lies with the SP, they generally have the cop on to know when carrying a banner is inappropriate. eg If a community based march is occurring and the organisers dont want party political banners then its hardly a good idea to get peoples backs up.

the same holds true for this march, neither the SP nor SWP played any part in building it.

i didnt see any SP members acting inappropriately on the march. however the SWP were more than a bit headbanging, RBB & ahearne ordering people thru megaphones to move back was literally an incitement to riot. also some SWPers were telling people to sit on the ground when DGN members were trying to get people to move back.

by Joe Mon May 10, 2004 16:53

Jonno maybe I'm under a wrong impression here but I thought the SP were part of AEIP and I know Rory is the spokesperson for AEIP. It's standard for a spokesperson for an organisation to be accountable to that organisation precisly because people will presume their words represent the words of those they represent.

I'm guessing I'm not wrong here but this is simply part of the normal SP practise of letting the SWP run the show and do all the work but demand a speaker in return for using your name. The SP is propping up the IAWM under the same principle (or lack thereof). Sorry but if you want the benefits of doing this (a speaker) then you must accept the downside (some measure of accountability for what the SWP say in your name).

by Jonno Mon May 10, 2004 17:06

I'll tell you what, Joe, I'll let you know when we decide to let the SWP speak for us on anything. It will be a cold day in hell, but you will be the first to know about it.

You know as well as I do that we have no way of influencing what Rory said off the top of his head (or from an SWP script) to a radio interviewer. Personally I didn't even know that he'd given whatever interview you are talking about until just now. Your attempt to associate us with whatever nonsense he spouted is a little dishonest.

The Socialist Party has representatives who speak on our behalf to the media or at events. We have publications, a website and leaflets that carry our point of view more thoroughly. If you want to know what our attitude is on some issue it isn't hard to find out.

by Jonno Mon May 10, 2004 17:12

Sorry I didn't reply to you in my above post. You do of course make a fair point that there is such a thing as appropriate behaviour. What's appropriate in one circumstance may not be appropriate in others.

Each organisation has a choice about whether or not to bring banners and so on. Sometimes they will choose not to (as the SP did at the DGN march). But it is important to defend the right to make that choice, or to choose differently. In fairness to Ois, I'm not so sure now that he was arguing otherwise.

by Chekov Mon May 10, 2004 17:12

"You know as well as I do that we have no way of influencing what Rory said off the top of his head (or from an SWP script) to a radio interviewer."

You can't control what Rory says, but you can certainly control whether he speaks on your behalf. You can

A) insist that any 'alliances' that you belong to have spokespeople that are accountable to the members

or, failing that

B) Not join any alliances which will speak on your behalf without giving you an input into what they say.

Time for the SP to stop hiding behind the SWP. If you choose to prop up their fronts, you share responsiblity for what the fronts do.

by Joe Mon May 10, 2004 17:13

Jonno I'm not convinced. If I'm part of an alliance of any sort then I feel some responsibility for what the spokespeople for that alliance say. More so in print its true than on the radio.

The SP seems to have a strategy around globalisation and war of being the sleeping partners in a range of SWP fronts (GR, AEIP, IAWM). When things go well you claim part of the credit but you try and blame the problems on the SWP. Life doesn't work like this, to an outside observer you have to share part of the blame as well.

by Ray Mon May 10, 2004 17:26

One of the regular SP criticisms of anarchism in these parts is that anarchist 'leaders' are unaccountable, because they haven't been elected to a central committee. Of course, this isn't true - when an anarchist speaks or acts for an organisation, he/she is accountable to the members of the organisation.

Now we have the spectacle of an elected? appointed? spokesperson for the AEIP making comments on the radio, and the SP saying it has nothing to do with them!

What's the story, lads? Is Rory accountable to the membership or not? Do you stand by what he says, or is the AEIP an undemocratic body where members have no control over the spokespeople?

by Jonno Mon May 10, 2004 17:30

Once more: The Socialist Party does not accept any responsibility for the politics of people like Rory Hearne or Richard Boyd Barrett. We never have and we never will.

We make our point of view perfectly clear through our own spokespersons and our publications. We get involved in broad campaigns for various reasons, normally to help us achieve clearly defined goals. That does not mean that we give others involved in those campaigns the right to speak for us.

AEIP is a good example. It was a loose body put together to organised a protest. Nothing more nothing less. It had no mandate to speak on behalf of any of its affiliates on anything.

By the way, the Socialist Party is not currently involved in GR. We hardly could be, given that the organisation has disappeared again.

by Ray Mon May 10, 2004 17:38

Is Rory a spokesperson for the AEIP or not?
Are you a member of the AEIP or not?
If he is, and you are, then he is speaking for you when he speaks for the AEIP. That's what being a spokesperson _means_.

That's true whether its Rory speaking for the AEIP of which you are a member, RBB speaking for the IAWM, of which you are a member, or Joe Higgins speaking for the Anti Bin Charges Campaign. They are spokespeople. They speak _on behalf_ of others. That's what the job means. This semi-detached bullshit doesn't stand up - either you're a member or you're not.

by Jonno Mon May 10, 2004 17:39

Was Rory accountable to the membership?

I would have to say that he certainly wasn't accountable for whatever he said on the radio as (a) the vast bulk of the membership won't have heard him and (b) it was on the day of the protest itself so there would be no opportunity to correct whatever he said afterwards. In fact I'm still not sure what exactly he is supposed have said!

Once again, I have to say that I find the attempt to associate whatever Rory said with the Socialist Party to be a little dishonest. You know very well that we had no input into what he told some radio interviewer. And neither did the Greens or any of the other AEIP affiliates.

by Ray Mon May 10, 2004 17:44

So, when you give out to anarchists about not having 'accountable' leaders, you mean we should have people who
- don't have a mandate
- don't consult the people they're speaking for
- aren't recalled when they say or do objectionable things

I never used to understand why people had to spend so long studying Marxism, but if _all_ of your definitions are so complicated I think I can see the problem...

by Jonno Mon May 10, 2004 17:58

The Socialist Party would not have set up a body along the lines of the AEIP group. We don't share the SWP's methods of organising and we think that they are fundamentally undemocratic.

That said, Marx made a perceptive statement about people making their own history but not under the circumstances of their own choosing. If I had spend more time studying Marx I might be able to give you the quote in full. We don't always get to decide how to organise a broad coalition. The SWP try their best, in fact, to get there first and then present everyone else with accomplished fact.

Assuming that they manage to pull some people around them, that leaves others with three choices. They can set up an alternative body, splitting the campaign before it even begins. They can do their own thing. Or they can join the SWP-initiated campaign with whatever reservations.

The Socialist Party's responses to various SWP initiatives have fallen in different circumstances into all of those categories. We weigh up the options and then decide how we can make the most impact with our limited forces. You clearly think that the best option would just be to refuse to get involved in any circumstances with SWP-initiated campaign groups. That's a reasonable and consistend approach, although I think it tactically naive.

As for our own methods of organising, we elect and choose our leadership. Our leaders and spokespersons are accountable to our membership and they are indeed subject to recall.

by Archivist Mon May 10, 2004 18:01

http://www.indymedia.ie/newswire.php?story_id=64458

On 20th April AEIP press release goes out, showing who is involved with AEIP. As follows:
Another Europe is Possible is a broad alliance that involves Mick O Reilly (ATGWU), Patricia McKenna (Green Party MEP), Pat Cahill (ASTI), Barry Nevin (SIPTU Aviation Branch), Irish Anti-War Movement, Residents against Racism, NGO Peace Alliance, Irish Palestine Solidarity Campaign, Campaign against the Bin Tax, Community Workers, Sinn Féin, Socialist Workers Party, Workers Party, Socialist Party

Then some more press releases follow:
http://www.indymedia.ie/newswire.php?story_id=64488
http://www.indymedia.ie/newswire.php?story_id=64625
http://www.indymedia.ie/newswire.php?story_id=64689
http://www.indymedia.ie/newswire.php?story_id=64712
http://www.indymedia.ie/newswire.php?story_id=64764
http://www.indymedia.ie/newswire.php?story_id=64878

Funny I haven't noticed one intervention from the SP stating what their true relationship is with AEIP. You are doing what you did with the IAWM. Shadowing the SWP for speaking rights. Unless of course, the SP were successful in democratising the IAWM at the meeting on Saturday. If you have - you are being very quiet about the momentous occasion.

Lets face it, when the SP sets its mind to it - it is very clear about the nature of the SWP. The bin tax struggle and the building of a mass party. You have a very clear line as to why they should be avoided.
Yet you are not so clear when it comes to things that you don't particularly want to commit a lot of resources to. Here you allow the SWP free rein. If you don't have the resources for a campaign, don't cop out and allow the SWP run it.

(1) Oheochai land is that place where, well after the event, you shoot the messenger. So called because in the past week the SP has changed it's line of argument on the debacle of March 1st 2003. 'Oheochai went a bit OTT'. Now they are trying to say that Rory doesn't speak for them even though as convenor of the AEIP they have given him full rights to do so.

by another european Mon May 10, 2004 18:09

Not a big lover of the SP but something here strikes me as a bit unfair. Maybe cos its implicity criticism of me too!!! It seems quite clear that Hearne made up some bit of policy on the hoof on the radio. I dont see that any of us in Another Europe are responsible for that. Like jonno I hadnt heard about this interview until it came up here.

Can someone tell me exactly what he said that was so bad? and why the hell anyone else in Another Europe is to blame?

by Ray Mon May 10, 2004 18:21

Because Rory was speaking for them.

Look, you knew, or should have found out immediately, what you were joining. When did Rory get to be spokesman for the campaign? Who elected him? Who was in charge? Who decided when demonstrations would be held? Who decided what the line with the media would be?

If you couldn't be bothered finding these things out, then you shouldn't be involved. Go along to the demonstrations, sure, but why be a member of something like that?

The SP's attitude is particularly pathetic. They'll sign up for whatever front the SWP starts, as long as they get a seat at the press conference and a speaker at the march. "Oh no, don't blame us - its that nasty SWP!" You're all big boys now. If you want more democracy in these campaigns you could get it, or you could leave.

The fact is, you just don't care. So you're going to have to deal with the consequences. If you join an SWP front, then you are going to be held responsible for the things you do nothing to prevent. You can't blame everything on Richard Boyd Bogeyman.

by another european Mon May 10, 2004 18:28

Why wont any of you just tell me exactly what he said that is so bad?

If a spokesman says something off the rails after the last Another Europe meeting has taken place I dont know what you expect us to do about it.

If you can convince me that Hearne really did say something unacceptable on behalf of Another Europe then I will certainly oppose him acting as a spokesperson for anything I am involved in again. Thats a big if though.

by Jonno Mon May 10, 2004 18:45

This argument is going around in circles, but the central point of disagreement seems to be whether or not it is acceptable to get involved in a campaign that isn't organised as you would choose it to be. In practice that often means an SWP-initiated campaign but it could also mean a whole range of other campaigns.

Ray seems to be of the opinion that we should never get involved. I take a more tactical approach. Sometimes getting involved is the best way to make an impact with limited resources. Sometimes it isn't.

It would be wonderful if we lived in a world where those of us who care about such things as making sure a campaign is as democratic as possible could always get our way. Unfortunately we don't live in such a world. All we can do is our best with the limited resources we have available.

I would like to ask Ray, seriously, what he would have the Socialist Party do differently. Should we have refused to get involved in AEIP and set up a third(!) body to organise a protest? Should we have devoted great amounts of time and energy to combating the SWP's influence in a body that existed only to organise a single march? Do you think that Residents Against Racism or the Provos or any of the other affiliates should have done the same?

by Ray Tue May 11, 2004 10:02

Did the SP representative in AEIP do ANYTHING to make it more accountable? Anything at all?

I'm not asking if the SP organised a march down to Henrietta St. I'm not asking for speeches in the Dail and ten page articles in the Voice.

But when you joined AEIP, what did you ask for? Was it just for the usual 'speaker at the press conference, speaker at the march' deal? Did you even raise the issue of accountability? Did you try anything at all?

Its not that you fought long and hard in AEIP for democracy and accountability, but the SWP overruled you in the end. You didn't care enough to mention it at all, as long as you got your speakers.

Sure, its okay to get involved in a campaign that isn't perfect, as long as its doing something worthwhile and there are no better alternatives. But you have to understand that by putting up with those failings, you are accepting some of the responsibility for them. And when you don't even try to improve the campaign, you're damn right you'll be criticised.

by Curious Tue May 11, 2004 10:50

What did you think of Rory's/AEIP open letter to the movement?