Labour National Conference Supports SINALTRAINAL Coke Campaign

by . Mon May 30, 2005 00:51

get FG to support it and it will become government policy when you get them into power!

by socialist Mon May 30, 2005 10:16

The Labour Party Conference also backed the EU Constitution by OVER 90%. This is further evidence that the Labour Party have no decent left-wingers in their ranks. The Labour conference backed a FG coalition by about 80%. The remaining 20% were not opposing coalition but rather opposing it so that either open door for FF or to gain more seats and then go in with FG.

by Boycotter Mon May 30, 2005 10:31

"Given SIPTU’s influence in the party and the size of their delegation, the approval of this motion is a great victory for the campaign and another step forward in ensuring that awareness about the human rights abuses in Colombia is raised at both a national and international level."

Let us see the motion. Perhaps its wording made it acceptable.

by UCD head Mon May 30, 2005 10:37

Jane opposed the Coke boycott in the two UCD referendums and even went around handing out bottles of Coca-Cola at polling stations at the sabbatical elections that year saying "Coke for Communists". She also campaigned for Fianna Fail member James Carroll against the Socialist Party's Darren Cogavin in that election. This person is now the front woman for the Labour Party in UCD! It says alot about Labour.

by Chris Bond - UCD Labour, UCDSU, Campaign against Killer Coke Mon May 30, 2005 11:00

You are talking through your rear end, i`ll have you know that Jane was handing out anti coke leaflets to delegates the morning of the conference session that the coke motion was discussed. Also in response to socialist the fact that our party allows its members to vote on policies like the EU constitution shows that we are a democratic party, contrast that to the authoritian, run from the top down nature of your party wherby policy is made by 3 geezers behind closed doors..

by Gerry Maguire Mon May 30, 2005 11:06

Just show us the motion

by Chris Bond Mon May 30, 2005 11:30 chrisbonn_irl_2000 at hotmail dot com

It was an emergency one so therefore it did not appear on the preliminary or conference agenda, but as soon as i fish out a copy of it i`ll post it heare

by Dan Mon May 30, 2005 12:48

If you want to have a go at Labour over coalition with FG, there's a thread further down the newswire on that very subject, get stuck in there. It's a good thing this motion was passed, despite the efforts of SIPTU bureaucrats. Let's just leave it at that - amen...

by Lasc - Lasc Mon May 30, 2005 12:48 info at lasc dot ie

congratulations are in order to the delegates that voted to support Sinaltrainal, just as congratulations were in order to those Siptu members who voted to support a disinvestment call that was defeated by a narrow margin at teh regional Dublin conference.

Point scoring about other issues is just that, point scoring. Once again the opposition to the boycott campaign want to discuss everything except the issues.

by Zaytoun Mon May 30, 2005 13:31

There was a motion down at the Labour Conference calling for a boycott of Isreali products. Maybe Chris or Jane can let us know if it was passed or defeated.

by socialist Mon May 30, 2005 14:15

Chris has a childish go at my party despite not knowing whether I am in one or not. The fact is that there are votes at SP, SWP, ISN, WSM, etc. conferences and they do debate the EU. The fact is that any left-wing party or organisation will never support the EU Constitution. The vote at the Labour conference was not tight and did not have a considerable discontent minority that wish to "reclaim" Labour. The vote was over 90% in favour of the neo-liberal EU Constitution. The Labour conference even invited Rasmussen the Cutback King of Denmark to speak. Rabbitte is claiming to be in line with social democrat mainsteam in Europe (ie Blair's war wongering for oil, Schroeder's anti-working class 'reforms', etc.). Chris cannot claim to say that there is attempts to "reclaim" Labour. 90% support EU Constitution, 80% support Fine Gael coalition. Only question remains is why is Chris in Labour if he wants radical politics? And why is Dan sympathetic to Labour? Why does it matter is Labour do or do not pass motions on Israel or Coke? It means nothing!

by Dan Mon May 30, 2005 14:35

"And why is Dan sympathetic to Labour? Why does it matter is Labour do or do not pass motions on Israel or Coke? It means nothing!"

Go and play in your sandpit, child. Come back when you are willing to actually read what people write

by Peter Murray Mon May 30, 2005 14:41

My sources tell me that speakers in favour of the motion said that this was not a vote in favour of a Coca Cola boycott. This makes sense when we read again the carefully crafted words at the top of this thread:

A.
“expressing solidarity with the Coca-Cola workers of both Colombia and of the Naas Rd, Dublin”

(It is would be odd to show solidarity with a group of workers and then campaign for them to be put out of work again through a successful boycott campaign. Note, there is no boycott campaign in Colombia: not likely when Coca Cola workers there, including in Sinaltrainal, still produce it.)

B.
“support for the international campaign called by SINALTRAINAL in 2003 in defence of the right to join a trade union.”

(More Mom and apple pie. Who could disagree with that? Where is the explicit reference to a boycott of Coca Cola?)

This can be clarified when we see the actual motion passed. Strangely, it is not included in the piece above. Chris Bond says that “as soon as i fish out a copy of it i`ll post it heare” (sic).

Still fishing Chris? Anything biting? Murky waters I expect.

The killing of trade unionists, women, young people, teachers, lawyers in Colombia goes on. It is far more widespred than attacks on some workers who work for Coca Cola. The attacks are carried out by death squads acting on behalf of the Colombian state and its military allies.

YOUTH DELEGATION TO COLOMBIA
Find out the situation in Colombia for yourself - go on the youth delegation to Colombia in August:

http://www.justiceforcolombia.org/submenu6/upcomingdelegations.html

Youth Delegation to Colombia - go for it!

Students and young people in the firing line

by Boycotter Mon May 30, 2005 14:47

As I thought.

by Mr. Plow Mon May 30, 2005 16:55

Comrades, oh Comrades, will the bickering ever stop? No-one can say anything these days without a huge argument as the result. It's so stupid "uh I'm more left than you, uh uh the labour party are crap and right wing, uh uh." Fucking ridiculous. Cop on.

by Chris Bond - LY, UCDSU, Campaign against killer Coke Mon May 30, 2005 16:57

''It is would be odd to show solidarity with a group of workers and then campaign for them to be put out of work again through a successful boycott campaign. Note, there is no boycott campaign in Colombia: not likely when Coca Cola workers there, including in Sinaltrainal, still produce it.''

Not really, firstly because as i said before i see no correlation between solidarity and putting people out of work. The loss of the jobs in the Naas road had nothing to do with the Coke Boycott campaign and everything to do with the insaitable greed of Global Capitalism in its quest to maximise profits. The bottling plant managers in collussion with the Coca-Cola Company are paying money into the bank accounts of paramilitaries, so that they can go in intimidate coke workers in the plants in bogotas, and replace them with workers who earn $110 dollars per months , thats little over 40% the pay of the former. Its the actions of the Coca Cola company that will put their employers out of work more than people. The loss of Jobs in ireland and the treatment of workers in Columbia are linked in the sense that they result from multinational`s lack of concern for ordinary people and their livlihoods and rights as human beings.

by Jane - LY Mon May 30, 2005 17:21

I find it extremely hard to fathom how anyone calling themselves “Boycotter” could sneer and belittle the motion passed at the Labour Party conference in the manner I have witnessed on this thread.

The original motion submitted by the UCD Labour Branch contained the word boycott (and also “murder”) but was rejected by Standing Orders Committee and no reason given. We were then faced with a choice of either rewording the motion and making it a primary focus of our delegation’s trip to Conference to hand out leaflets and letters to all delegates which DID contain specific calls and references to the human rights abuses in Colombia, or throw in the towel and give up altogether. Perhaps our time could have been better spent on the internet criticising people who were actually making an effort to further the campaign, which is what I infer from a number of posters on this thread.

As a result of our efforts at Conference, each delegate has gone home to their constituencies with a letter from SINALTRAINAL detailing the reasons for the campaign and with Labour Youth material which explicitly details Coke’s involvement in the murders of trade unionists in Colombia. Further to this, the motion called on the National Executive to distribute material about trade union rights in Colombia to all constituency councils and branches. How on earth can someone who calls themselves “Boycotter” criticise us for this? How on earth would the alternative (giving up) have helped the campaign in any way? Do you really think that SINALTRAINAL would sneer and disparage the result of the motion and belittle the genuine efforts made by UCD Labour to increase awareness about the issue? Wake up.

So much for all the high-minded talk about concentrating on what unites the left rather than what divides us. It seems that when an issue does arise which has seen united action from many left wing groups and organisations, people still see it as productive and helpful to criticise and make sarcastic comments about the genuine efforts of one of these groups to further such a cause. As far as I’m concerned, people like you are no better than the “careerists” for whom you have such disdain. You are concentrating on point scoring and personal advancement rather on what really matters. Perhaps one day the tinted spectacles might be removed and you’ll see the passing of this motion as it should be seen; a victory for the campaign and an undoubtedly significant heightening of awareness among Labour party members concerning the human rights in abuses in Colombia which will subsequently be disseminated to branches throughout the country. What a DISASTER for the campaign, I’m sure. Again, I’d ask you to please wake up to yourselves.

As for the allegations about me thrown by consistently anonymous posters, they are becoming so tiresome and ridiculous now that it is farcical.

by eeekkkkk Mon May 30, 2005 17:28

"The original motion submitted by the UCD Labour Branch contained the word boycott (and also “murder”) but was rejected by Standing Orders Committee and no reason given. "

Jane - can't you call them and ask why? Are they a secret committee?

by Peter Murray Mon May 30, 2005 17:33

Chris

I have just checked the website of the International Union of Food Workers (www.iuf.org), which has extensive information on the struggle against Coca Cola, Pepsi and other beverage multinationals. I also checked the Justice for Colombia site and other Colombia solidarity sites. I don’t see that allegation mentioned. I wouldn’t put it past employers, but where did you get the information on that one? And can you show me the link to Coca Cola bottlers and to the Coca Cola corporation? The money trail would be interesting – have you an inside track?

By the way, where is that motion (I know you are not forgetting.....)

Below is information on trade unionists who were attacked in Colombia: More information with names of assassinated trade unionists and their unions at:

http://www.justiceforcolombia.org/tradeunionhrabuses.html

HUMAN RIGHTS ABUSES AGAINST COLOMBIAN TRADE UNIONISTS
The information contained here covers the previous three years. Of all the abuses listed approximately one third were committed against trade union leaders while the remainder were committed against grassroots trade union members and activists.
Although there are three trade union federations in Colombia (the CUT, the CTC and the CTGD) over 90% of human rights abuses against trade union members in Colombia are committed against members of unions affiliated to the CUT, which is Colombia's largest and most militant federation.

The statistics show a consistent increase in anti-trade union violence in the past three years with 2002 registering 396 cases of human rights violations against trade unionists, 2003 having had 533 and 2004 having had 656 cases. When looking at abuses against women trade unionists there has been a huge increase with 28 cases registered in 2002, 181 in 2003 and 230 cases in 2004 – an increase of nearly 800%.

For a partial list of Colombian trade unionists assassinated in the past three years, please click on page above.

• Total violations of all types against trade unionists by year
(SEE GRAPHIC FOR FIGURES)
• Violations against women trade unionists by year
(SEE GRAPHIC FOR FIGURES)
• Who is responsible for the violations against trade unionists?

The most recent data available covers 2004 and indicates that, where the author is known, those responsible for human rights violations against trade unionists are as follows:

Paramilitary death squads: 49.3%
Government forces: 39.9%
Common criminals: 6.1%
Left wing guerrilla groups: 2.8%
Employers 1.9%

If looking at those responsible for only the assassinations of trade unionists (not other types of violations), where the author is known, those responsible are as follows:

Paramilitary death squads: 72.7%
Government forces: 27.3%

Sources

Central Unitaria de Trabajadores (Bogotá, Colombia)
Escuela Nacional Sindical (Medellin, Colombia)
International Confederation of Free Trade Unions (Brussels, Belgium)
Federación Colombiana de Educadores (Bogotá, Colombia)

Note: the 1.9% of human rights abuses attributed to employers is not thought to include Coca Cola. (Unless Chris can tel us different.) For further information on the attacks in Colombia, click on the Justice for Colombia link.

For information on the contrasting worldwide fortunes of workers in Coca Cola and Pepsi, go to the International Unin of Foodworkers site (www.iuf.org), click on the 'Sectors' link on left hand bar, and go to the 'Beverages' link.

www.iuf.org
www.justiceforcolombia.org

Numbers of trade unionists attacked and assassinated in Colombia (see text)

by REsearcher Mon May 30, 2005 17:39

http://www.justiceforcolombia.org

and yes I have read the about us page

by Peter Murray Mon May 30, 2005 17:57

No need for Chris to come back now, unless he wants to give us the exact wording of the motion.

Jane's explanation above makes it clear that the motion put to conference did not support the boycott. The motion appears to mandate the Labour party (the wording would be handy) to distribute information on the killings of trade unionists in Colombia.

Good.

This should spur on labour Party members to become involved in Colombia solidarity. The boycott campaign is not necessary for that. It also makes solidarity with Irish Coca Cola workers possible - it would have been impossible with the boycott campaign.

Well done Labour Youth!

One thing though, the heading at the top of the page is misleading - like most of the information in support of the boycott. Would Indymedia like to change it?

www.justiceforcolombia.org

by . Mon May 30, 2005 17:58

www.justiceforcolombia.org = [ 212.84.175.71 ]
Domain ID: D101311987-LROR
Domain Name: JUSTICEFORCOLOMBIA.ORG
Created On: 05-Sep-2003 12: 48: 58 UTC
Last Updated On: 15-Dec-2004 06: 00: 04 UTC
Expiration Date: 05-Sep-2005 12: 48: 58 UTC
Sponsoring Registrar: Melbourne IT Ltd. dba Internet Names Worldwide (R52-LROR)
Status: CLIENT TRANSFER PROHIBITED
Registrant ID: 10686235094960
Registrant Name: Justice for Colombia
Registrant Organization: Justice for Colombia
Registrant Street1: 9 Arkwright Road
Registrant Street2:
Registrant Street3:
Registrant City: London
Registrant State/Province: Middx
Registrant Postal Code: NW3 6AB
Registrant Country: GB
Registrant Phone: 44.8701208888
Registrant Phone Ext.:
Registrant FAX:
Registrant FAX Ext.:
Registrant Email: transfers@names.co.uk

by eeekkk Mon May 30, 2005 18:00

I have a very big feeling that a hell of a lot of the deaths of Union members and organisers in C. at the hands of paramilitaries is at the behest of employers.

I mean who else benefits? Employers get paras to do the dirty work - only psychos would carry out assasinations of workers at the workplaces they manage and the small percentage for this category indicates that there are even a good few of those same 'psychos'.

You are whitewashing for these employers who do nohing to uphold the rights of their workforces to organise.

I'm not going to get into the details of the coke argument but on this above argument alone I think your attitude and arguments stink and that you are essentially an apologist for Big Business and Corporations in colombia who fight for compliant workforces by colluding with paramilitaries in murder kidnapping and intimidation. You are also promoting a letter writing outfit while smearing and undermining a very effective international campaign which has been the most effective to date in raising general issues regarding workers and colombia to date.

Lies lies and damned statistics.

by Gaz - -(A)- ucd Mon May 30, 2005 18:30

"asserted the Labour Party’s support for the international campaign called by SINALTRAINAL in 2003 in defence of the right to join a trade union."

I assume that the motion didn't mention support specifically the boycott but rather the Coke workers right to join a trade union. I'd say it was fudged to become "an acceptable motion". The ATGWU already hate Labour/ Rabitte for not going it alone, the last thing they wanna do now is piss off Siptu aswell.

by Peter Murray Mon May 30, 2005 18:30

The death squads are essentially agents of the military. The Military are agents of the state and of the big landowners and of the local capitalist class. The state is the agent of US imperialism. US imperialism is in business to promote US capitalism at home and abroad. Murder, assassination and torture is not a problem in pursuit of same.

Happy with that?

Now, what do you want to do? Boycott every company in the world, every company that does business in Colombia? Or just Coca Cola? If so, why just Coca Cola and do you think that those who work for Coca Cola in Colombia or outside it who are against the boycott should have a say ?

I already wrote in relation to what Chris had written “I wouldn’t put it past employers”. But where are the facts? Isn’t it possible that the money comes from the US Plan Colombia or some other US or Colombian state slush fund? Employers are notorious about parting with their own money when they can get governments to subsidise their activities, whether it is union busting or murder. The state’s primary activity is to protest its business class and the capacity to do business in a way they think essential.

Again, give me facts, not supposition and innuendo (including vast generalizations about what I write).

I don’t know where you get the idea that Justice for Colombia (which by the way, unlike like the boycott campaign, has the support of the CUT in Colombia) is simply involved in letter writing. If that was the case, why did the authorities try to prevent their entry into Colombia last November and why did the CUT and other trade unions launch street and other protests to demand that they be let in?

By the way, why not go to Colombia on this Youth Delegation - find out for yourself. But try not to write any letters (or emails) home about it if you do.

Also see;
www.iuf.org

Find out more at Justice for Colombia

by eeekkkk Mon May 30, 2005 18:32

"asserted the Labour Party’s support for the international campaign called by SINALTRAINAL in 2003 in defence of the right to join a trade union."


Main international support tactic called for as far as i know - promote an international BOYCOTT

by eeekkkk Mon May 30, 2005 18:38

How is what I wrote a vast exaggeration of this quote below from your post I was replying to in ""'s? After all you've just agreed with my analysis of why the figures you quoted are esentially meaningless. There is no political or intellectual consistencey to your or 'anton's arguments. Just face saving for siptu.

All the lefty rhetoric spouting you are doing is a disguise for your blatant intention of undermining the local manifestation of a successful international awareness raising campaign centered on a boycott. Show me any signs of succss of the outfit you are pushing as an alternative.

"The most recent data available covers 2004 and indicates that, where the author is known, those responsible for human rights violations against trade unionists are as follows:

Paramilitary death squads: 49.3%
Government forces: 39.9%
Common criminals: 6.1%
Left wing guerrilla groups: 2.8%
Employers 1.9%

If looking at those responsible for only the assassinations of trade unionists (not other types of violations), where the author is known, those responsible are as follows:

Paramilitary death squads: 72.7%
Government forces: 27.3%

Sources

Central Unitaria de Trabajadores (Bogotá, Colombia)
Escuela Nacional Sindical (Medellin, Colombia)
International Confederation of Free Trade Unions (Brussels, Belgium)
Federación Colombiana de Educadores (Bogotá, Colombia)

Note: the 1.9% of human rights abuses attributed to employers is not thought to include Coca Cola. (Unless Chris can tel us different.) For further information on the attacks in Colombia, click on the Justice for Colombia link."

by Enda Duffy - UCD LY Mon May 30, 2005 19:04

First of I would like to thank Dan and LASAC for the support. We knew when we submitted this motion that it would be a difficult battle.

The main body of the motion was “Conference supports the international campaign called by the sinaltrainal trade union in 2003”. And it also called for the NEC to provide information regarding this campaign to all branches in the country. This is support for the boycott and an endorsement of it. It won’t directly affect coca-cola because labour doesn’t own any shops to boycott it from but it will embarrass them even further and pressurize them into cleaning up their act and ensuring justice for the dead. It is an expression of solidarity and a commitment to highlight the issue in local branches and communities. It is a support for the boycott or was there another campaign that I am forgetting about that was called by Sinaltrainal?

The motion was an expression of solidarity; support for the boycott and an encouragement to all members to individual boycott the products. Happy now?

I’m so fed up with all the keyboard warriors in the SP and the SWP all the do is complain about Labour calling us right wing and so on. The labour party is more transparent and democratic than the SP and SWP and labour members are much more active. I would like to challenge or any SP or SWP member to a debate on coca-cola and I would ask them to present to us what exactly they have done on this issue. The great thing about Labour is that we the members decide our policy and elect the party leader, every member has one vote. On top of this we are entitled to criticize him and point out where he is going wrong What would happen if a member of the SWP disagreed with Richard Boyd Barrett, he would probably be shot in the upcoming revolution that what.

The truth regarding the coke boycott is that many of the members of the sp and swp don’t even support it. They don’t even agree with boycotts. During the campaign in UCD it was members of the labour party along with committed lefties anarchists and activists that highlight this issue. The SP or the SWP hardly came into this configuration. Labour again were at the forefront in trinity. We have campaigned on this issue and managed to get support for the boycott at USI congress ECOSY and now at the Labour party conference and all we get is criticism from revolutionary parties when we make progress. It wouldn’t kill you to say fair play to the UCD delegates for campaigning on the issue.

On top of this I don’t support the EU constitution nor do I support entering into government with right wing parties and I won’t campaign for FG but I will campaign for Tommy Broughan my local TD who agrees with me on this issue and we won’t be asking any labour voters to transfer to FG. I will also be campaigning with labour youth against the EU constitution and not sitting on front of a computer complaining about other parties and how useless they really are.

by Jane - LY Mon May 30, 2005 19:12

"One thing though, the heading at the top of the page is misleading - like most of the information in support of the boycott. Would Indymedia like to change it?"

Peter, I don't see how the heading "Labour National Conference Supports SINALTRAINAL Coke Campaign" is misleading when the motion specifically said that Conference supported the campaign launched by SINALTRAINAL in 2003? If it's not a campaign about issues arising out of events in Coke bottling plants then what is it?

Also, there's no need for snide comments asking if we are "forgetting" to put up the motion. We're not. The reason why it isn't immediately available is because it was handwritten down at Conference and handed to Standing Orders Committee like that, who then typed it up themselves and circulated it to delegates. They have the electronic copy and it will be available as soon as they put it on the Conference section of the Labour Party website. If it's not up soon then I will drop an email to Standing Orders about it. There's no conspiracy here so please stop trying to create one.

Lastly, we were in contact with Standing Orders committee about why the motion was rejected by letter. Their explanation that it was due to legal issues was not one which we found acceptable for a variety of reasons that I'll go into if anyone wants, hence why I said no reason was given. I'll rephrase that to "valid" reason, which is more accurate. They then agreed to meet with us down at Conference to discuss the situation, which we duly did and ensured an emergency motion appeared on the agenda. Anyway, I'm confused as to what purpose it serves you asking me "Are they a secret committee". Of course they aren't. Of course we made an effort. The best was made of a bad situation. And I once again completely reject any argument that getting the motion passed was anything other than a good thing for the Coke campaign.

by Peter Murray Mon May 30, 2005 19:17

“All the lefty rhetoric spouting you are doing is a disguise for your blatant intention of undermining the local manifestation of a successful international awareness raising campaign centred on a boycott.”

One thing is for sure; it is certainly not a successful boycott. That part of it, you appear now to admit, is a joke.

It is an “international awareness campaign” is it?

No it is not.

It is an ‘international embarrass Coke into paying reparations to Sinantrainal in its court case’ campaign. Good luck to them, but don’t ask the other Coca Cola workers in Colombia (where there is no boycott) to stay silent or other Coca Cola workers whose jobs are targeted by this campaign to remain mute. Can you get it into your head that it is ordinary workers who have a problem with this campaign, which goes against the first principles of trade unionism? Nothing to do with trade union bureaucracy.

I never said the figures I gave you were meaningless. Yet another supposition on your part. What exactly is your problem with them? Are you saying the figures are wrong? They are a powerful indictment of the Colombian state and of its allies. They are more than enough to mount a campaign among students, who don’t need to be patronised with misleading information that fanatacises them against Coca Cola workers who object to slogans that have as their immediately practical aim the loss of their jobs. Students don’t need advertising slogans. Enthuse them with the facts – the truth will set them free. Capitalism and imperialism condemns itself by its actions; you don’t need to massage the truth. You do need to print information that is verifiable and true. Otherwise Colombian solidarity is undermined.

Enda Duffy (more or less) admits above that the motion did not mention the boycott. Still appears coy about giving us the exact wording. Speakers for it said it was not a vote in support of the boycott campaign.

by eeekkkk Mon May 30, 2005 19:29

Teamsters Call Coke Boycott as Strike Continues in LA - Los Angeles Times - 28 May 2005

by Gaz - -(A)- Mon May 30, 2005 19:29

"students, who don’t need to be patronised with misleading information"

What misleading information?

If you don't support the boycott then whats your altenative?

by eeekkkkk Mon May 30, 2005 19:33

Teamsters Call Coke Boycott as Strike Continues in L.A.

By Nancy Cleeland, Times Staff Writer

The International Brotherhood of Teamsters launched a boycott against Coca-Cola Co. products late Friday, targeting the traditional Memorial Day kickoff to a thirsty summer.
The boycott comes in support of about 1,700 striking union members in Los Angeles. They walked picket lines for the fourth day Friday at all seven Los Angeles-area bottling and distribution plants operated by Coca-Cola Enterprises Inc., an Atlanta-based company that distributes most of the nation's Coca-Cola products.

A Coca-Cola Enterprises spokesman could not be reached for comment late Friday. Earlier in the week, he said the company was prepared to replace striking workers with supervisors. The dispute is over a proposed five-year labor contract, to replace one that expired in early April. The company has said it offered generous wages and benefits, but union officials said the overall increases would barely cover rising health costs.
Teamsters officials said their members would distribute leaflets at major shopping outlets this weekend.

by Jane - LY Mon May 30, 2005 19:50

If we were passing a motion in support of let's say, a campaign by USI to pressurise the government to centralise the grants system (for example), would the motion read..

"Conference supports the campaign by USI to centralise the grants system, their letter writing and protesting measures, their tactics involving the use of the media, etc etc ad nauseum"

No, it wouldn't. It would assert support for the campaign as a whole. Support for the SINALTRAINAL campaign is implicitly support for the boycott.

Peter, I find it extremely disingenuous for you to try and use myself and Enda's own posts to support your own argument. If you disagree with us, fine, but we clearly have our own position on the matter and I'd thank you not to try and twist our words any other way.

by f - sp (pc) Mon May 30, 2005 19:54

"I’m so fed up with all the keyboard warriors in the SP and the SWP all the do is complain about Labour calling us right wing and so on. "

Do you not think they have a point? Why not argue back and actually debate the issues they raise. My experience of the LP is any time these issues are raised they fail to actually debate! I would look forward to actually debating with someone in the LP on exactly how they think they will bring about socialism through the LP. I'd like to actually debate why they support partnership, EU treaties etc etc.

"The labour party is more transparent and democratic than the SP and SWP and labour members are much more active. "

Are you really serious? the LP are nowhere near as active as the SWP or SP. Please stop deluding yourself. The Sp is a democratic organisation at our conferences and regular branch meetings we have full and frank debate.

The LP are nowhere near as democratic, they are dominated by a leader and an unaccountable parliamentary party. In the past when there was actually real opposition to the leadership the leaders turned to expulsions, hardly the actions of a democratic party!

"I would like to challenge or any SP or SWP member to a debate on coca-cola and I would ask them to present to us what exactly they have done on this issue."

I was in UCD during the referenda. The SP did do alot on the campaign. Not as much as we would have maybe liked but if you can remember we were busy battling with the cops on bin tax blockades, in court and in jail. We're a small party at times we have to prioritise things. The SP does support the Coke boycott. Boycotts can be very effective, but we don't have illusions in boycotts alone. We don't think we can all boycott ourselves to socialism, ultimately action needs to be taken by the working class.

by Bakunin the USSR Mon May 30, 2005 20:13

The Labour party wants Enda kenny to be the next taoiseach, it's in favour of the EU constitution, it's not against ASBOs.

Labour Youth and the Labour Party are two totally different entities. LY might be aginst the FG pact/EU constitution/ASBOs etc but LY don't have to worry about votes. It's alright being leftie but if you wanna get elected (as cllinton and blair showed) you have to move to the right. basically, you have to sell out to get elected. Thats party politics for you.

LY would probably be better off affiliating to the new leftie party (http://www.indymedia.ie/newswire.php?story_id=70001&condense_comments=false#comment109262) if they want to support a party thats close to their views even the SWP or SP would be closer than the main Labour Party would be

by Peter Murray Mon May 30, 2005 20:26

I have had rather more luck that members of the Labour Party writing here in procuring a copy of the motion on Colombia that all delegates received yesterday.

It is clear the boycott is not mentioned once. The reference to Sinaltrainal’s campaign is in reference to the right to join a trade union. The best that boycott supporters are going to get out of that is support for the boycott by subterfuge and sleight of hand (par for the course and not exactly comradely, eh?). But such a claim would be somewhat undermined as the speaker in favour said that it was not a call for support for the boycott.

The call to inform labour members is as I described it above "information on trade union rights in colombia", not the boycott campaign.

FINALLY TO EEEKKK

The Teamsters in the US are calling a boycott in the US while they are on strike in the US. Absolutely correct. To consume coca Cola in those circumstances would be strike breaking. Maybe Sinaltrainal could take a leaf out of the Teamster’s book and try and get support for a strike in Colombia. At present there is no boycott in Colombia. Sinaltrainal members continue to produce Coca Cola for the Colombian market, alongside other workers who do not support the boycott.

As soon as the US strike ends, the boycott ends. Workers do not want people to boycott what they roduce, while they are producing it. Simple.

By the way the US Teamsters do not support the boycott in Colombia. There is no contradiction – see above. When the Sinaltrainal President spoke on a Teamsters platform with other Coca Cola union representatives form around the World in New York, outside a Coca Cola shareholders’ meeting, he did not mention the boycott once. Would you like the reference?

Colombia solidarity yes, pressure on Coca Cola yes, support for Sinaltrainal yes. Support for all trade unionists under attack yes. Boycott no, unless the workers choose to go on strike and stop producing Coca Cola - they have not made that choice in Colombia.

Try again Eeekkk?

The motion that Labour Youth could not produce

by Jane - LY Mon May 30, 2005 20:51

"The best that boycott supporters are going to get out of that is support for the boycott by subterfuge and sleight of hand"

I'm unsure as to how the Labour Party's support for the international campaign initiated by SINALTRAINAL only means support for the boycott by "subterfuge and sleight of hand"? The boycott is the main tactic of the campaign, is it not? Seems pretty straightforward to me. Again, the creation of a conspiracy theory where there is none.

Peter, do you have a vested interest in this debate? If you do, maybe you could declare it?

"But such a claim would be somewhat undermined as the speaker in favour said that it was not a call for support for the boycott."

There were two speakers in favour of the motion, Enda Duffy and Paul Dillon. Who are you referring to? Can you paraphrase more specifically exactly what you claim they said? You weren't at conference, this information is second hand and it's not supportive of your argument.

The fact that you were able to secure a copy of the motion is also not anything which indicates a conspiracy or coverup on our part. As I mentioned before, it was handwritten and submitted to standing orders, and we didn't have an electronic copy. If we were ashamed of the wording of the motion, trying to conceal it from people would be completely pointless, as they would inevitably eventually see a copy of it, as you've just proven. We aren't ashamed of it, we stand by it and also what it means for the Coke campaign. You're now reducing your argument to lightly concealed insinuations about the reasons why the motion wasn't posted up originally and vague comments with no specifics which imply that members of the UCD branch supported your argument in their speeches.

by jack white - wsm personal capacity Mon May 30, 2005 20:59

now no-one's saying you have to be bright to post here or anything but it'd help if you were literate.

See the image you posted up?

Check out the third line - "Conference ... (edit) supports the international campaign launched by SINALTRAINAL in July 2003 in defence of the right to join a union".

You do realise that the international campaign is the boycott don't you?

BTW fair play to the UCD labour heads for getting this passed.

by adobe Mon May 30, 2005 21:03

"Labour Youth and the Labour Party are two totally different entities."

No they are not. All the so-called LY radicals are on the right on the key issues. For example in UCD Paul Dillon, Cian O'Callaghan, and Ray Rowan support the EU and social partnership. Dermot Looney supports coalition. He said on live TV that coalition was good and he would not rule out going into coalition with Fine Gael as he did with Fianna Fáil, PDs and Sinn Féin. Jane Horgan-Jones supported a Fianna Fáil member against a socialist in SU elections and used red-scare tactics. I could go on and on about the dodgy politics of Labour. But all I've to say is Enda, Paul, Ray, Cian, Dermot, Jane and all the rest of LY UCD enjoy picking up transfers for Fine Gael candidates in next election! If they were real radicals they'd leave Labour now before humiliating themselves on the doorsteps calling for Fine Gael transfers.

by eeekkkk Mon May 30, 2005 21:28

1. There are no coke workers in ROI anymore so by your reasoning it is now time for siptu to back the boycott.

2. All these people are being deluded by LASC heads right? Ha Ha ha

3. I'm not going to bother here no more. Your arguments make no sense and hold no water.

 
The Boycott Coke Campaign is supported by:

* UCD Student Union

* Trinity College Student Union

* National college of Art and Design Student Union

* Queens Students Union Belfast

* Bard College in New York

* Carleton College in Minnesota

* Lake Forest College, Illinois

* College of DuPage, Illinois

* Oberlin College in Ohio

* Salem State College in Massachusetts

* Third University of Rome
 
* The Teachers Union of Ireland

* Union of Students in Ireland

* International Labor Rights Fund

* National Union of Students (UK)

* SINALTRAINAL

* UNISON, the UK's largest union with 1.3 million members

* NIPSA, the Northern Ireland Public Services Association

* Service Employees International Union (SEIU), with 1.7 million members

* Communications Workers of America (CWA), which represents 700,000 members

* American Postal Workers Union (APWU),

* The Labor Council for Latin American Advancement (LCLAA),

* The American Federation of Teachers (AFT),

* The International Longshore and Warehouse Union

* India Resource Centre
 

* The European Young Socialists (ECOSY)

*INTO

* Irish labour party??

by eeekkkk Mon May 30, 2005 21:37

Sneeky Pete sez:

"but don’t ask the other Coca Cola workers in Colombia (where there is no boycott) to stay silent or other Coca Cola workers whose jobs are targeted by this campaign to remain mute. Can you get it into your head that it is ordinary workers who have a problem with this campaign, which goes against the first principles of trade unionism?"

Show me one example of a rank and file publication from colombia or ireland where they dont 'stay silent' on this? Don't quote me bureaucrats - we know where they stand here in erron on this.

"it is certainly not a successful boycott. "

Look at the list in my post above - I'd say it is and the tactic is spreading like wildfire to india and colleges in the us and the CEO of the company (irish background) is certainly paying attention - he has been quoted saying as much - maybe he hired you??? Ha Ha Ha

Now I'm excited - had a lovely dinner of taytos and yes . . . Mecca Cola

*free can of mecca cola and packa taytos to anyone who spots the Lou reed reference above ;-)*

by Dan - ISN (per cap) Mon May 30, 2005 22:27

It's perfectly true that, judged from a radical socialist point of view, Pat Rabbitte is a useless gobshite, and a coalition with FG will be a failure. This point can be fairly made without denouncing people in Labour who are doing good work. I know quite a few people from Labour Youth, and their views vary considerably, some are fairly moderate, some are pretty radical (the poster above who lumped Paul Dillon in the same category as Ray Rowan will give anyone who knows them both great amusement).

I have to say, I think they're barking up the wrong tree in the long run - Labour won't ever become a radical party. But I understand why they're in the Labour Party - at this stage, Ireland doesn't have a broad radical left party that could attract people who don't want to go into government with FG, and it'll be a while before we do. When a party like that does emerge, I hope many if not most of the people I've worked with from LY will be members. In the meantime, I think it's better for people to be active in the Labour party, than not to be active at all.

The important thing is, THESE PEOPLE ARE NOT THE ENEMY. If you need a reminder of this, you only need look at the contributions of "Peter Murray" on this thread. If you want to put your energy into denouncing someone who purports to be on the left, and uses pseudo-left rhetoric, while being a total fraud and an enemy of socialist politics, I can't think of a better candidate.

I think some people who contribute to this site need to set aside their dreams of becoming the Lenin of the keyboard, and try arguing for their position in a way that attracts people instead of alienating them. The guilty parties appear to be a tiny handful of SP members whose talents might better be employed by the Sparts. Remember, just because someone disagrees with you, doesn't necessarily make them a traitor to the socialist cause. It's quite possible that they're well-intentioned but mistaken. Or they might even be right, who knows? This kind of hysteria is worse than useless.

Anyway, the important thing is - another organisation has given support to SINALTRAINAL's campaign. Hurrah for that.

by imcer Mon May 30, 2005 22:59

some overenthusiastic h**db*ng*rs forget we from all points left have a public to entertain enlighten and get involved in things - there is no chinese wall around this site that says 'small group of activists only allowed to enter and read'

by eeekkkk Mon May 30, 2005 23:01

Just what was needed to back story up make it watertight (unlike your fevered ramblings) and get it onto the front page ;-)

by Chris Bond Tue May 31, 2005 01:59

''The LP are nowhere near as democratic, they are dominated by a leader and an unaccountable parliamentary party. In the past when there was actually real opposition to the leadership the leaders turned to expulsions, hardly the actions of a democratic party!''

Yes f i agree, we should be ashamed of ourselves for allowing the party leader to be elected on a one member one vote basis, what were we thinking. How undemocratic of us.

''My experience of the LP is any time these issues are raised they fail to actually debate!''

Is two hours coverage on RTE of live internal debate not good enough

''For example in UCD Paul Dillon, Cian O'Callaghan support the EU and social partnership''

That is an untrue dispicable, fabricated and self serving statement.

''Dermot Looney supports coalition''
Was there another dermot looney at the conference, because the dermot i know was called to the podium to speak against rabbites strategy, his quote is even on page of todays times.

I ask these so called activists of the SP that are posting on this thread where they were tonight for the umberella meeting of groups against ASBOs? The answer is that they were too busy having a swipe at other organisations on indymedia to even think of doing anything politically constructive. Too often do they retreat to keyboard warfare, launching paranoid attacks on other organisatons. Anyone who has an iota of disagreement with these posters on the smallest of issues, is branded a ''right winger''. If you gave these people gold they`d want silver. For their own good i would encourage these people to get their heads out of their arses and do something constructive.

by Mark P - Socialist Party (personal capacity) Tue May 31, 2005 02:17

There is a need here for some people here to relax a little bit and learn to discuss things with each other in a more civilised and less accusatory manner.

My view is that Labour is a party indistinguishable from Fianna Fail or Fine Gael when you get right down to it. It's overwhelmingly in favour of the EU constitution which enshrines neo-liberalism at the heart of Europe. It's entirely in favour of participating in right wing coalition governments. The only thing its members were debating at their conference was whether they should arrange their marriage before or after the election. These are the activists we are talking about here, the conference delegates rather than the leadership. Rabbitte and Company are even worse.

That said there are some well meaning people in the Labour Party, some sincere activists. I don't think that there are very many these days but there undoubtedly are some. And Dan is right that they aren't the enemy.

However the fact that they aren't the enemy doesn't mean it is unfair or mean or "sectarian" to criticise them even in very sharp terms. The criticism shouldn't be personalised and we should have things to say them other than criticism, but criticism of their politics and actions is both reasonable and from a socialist point of view necessary. These are people who, however well meaning they might be, are acting and will act in the next election as footsoldiers trying to elect another right wing government. These are activists who help to shore up a party that is committed to supporting the EU Constitution and which has nothing to offer working class people.

There's no need to be gratuitously offensive about it. We want to win any remaining decent activists in the Labour Party over after all, not just score a few points off them. But that doesn't mean making any concessions at all to their misguided political choices. Criticisms should be fair but they also need to be hard.

by Peter Murray Tue May 31, 2005 02:41

Jack White

A campaign with an overriding strategy will say what the strategy is. This Labour motion does not. Delegates did not vote on supporting a boycott. They voted on supporting trade union rights. I support that. It could not be plainer. Don't kid yourself.

Could I say that I think the motion is weak in that it does not mention the wholesale slaughter of trade unionists by the state and its forces. But then that is a problem with the boycott campaign promoted by Sinaltrainal. It tends to concentrate on the issues confronted by Sinlatrainal, which, because half of its national total of 1,400 members work in Coca Cola, is understandably fixated on winning its court case with Coca Cola. I hope they do win. The hundreds attacked per year are left out of the picture, though. Are they being killed and attacked by other employers, or by someone else, the state and military perhaps. Is this fact being obscured? I think it is.

GENERAL COMMENT (for Eeekkk, Dan and others)

If you read what I have written, you will find that I have tried to stick to factual argument. I have made data available and I have made the central piece of information, the motion, available (as the proposers of the motion appeared to have difficulty producing it for whatever reason). I have not quoted selectively. I pasted the whole motion here. I have refrained from insulting those I am debating. I accept that those on the other side of the boycott debate are genuinely interested in Colombia solidarity. I accept the give and take of debate, accusations of selective interpretation that are common to debate of this nature. I am as guilty as any. Quite rightly, for instance, Jane accuses me of recruiting her and Labour Youth to my cause. I was clearly being a bit of a smart ass on that and she pointed it out. No harm done.

On the other side generally, however, there appears to be no hesitation in accusing me of being “a total fraud and an enemy of socialist politics”. The author of this remark, Dan, then issued a plea to others not to gang up on the Labour Party or alienate readers. Instead, he wants concentration on the common enemy, me! Eeekkk, on the other hand accuses me of being engaged in “Just face saving for siptu”, an organization of which I am not a member. He argues further that I am “essentially an apologist for Big Business and Corporations in Colombia”. Eeekkk has also taken to referring to his behind in graphic terms and to writing “Ha ha ha” on more than one occasion (which I take to be the literary equivalent of hysterical laughter). Eeekkk has also not answered my response to his analysis of the Teamsters’ strike boycott, which presumably means that he accepts my view on this (though I am not betting on it). It is a common enough mistake for my opponents to confuse their boycotts. That is why they have also made irrelevant allusions to the boycott of South African EXPORTS during the Apartheid period and the refusal of workers (yes WORKERS) in Dunnes Stores in Henry Street to handle South African goods (which the employer could have sourced elsewhere without loss of Irish employment).

I merely ask anyone reading these observations to read what I have written and to ask themselves if the over the top charges make sense. Perhaps these outlandish accusations are a sign of a weak argument. I leave it to readers of the thread to judge.

It is a pity. It is a product of the fact that that boycott campaign is not a policy, it is political fetish (in the sense of a commitment to which “one has an excessive and irrational commitment”). Both Chris Bond and Eeekkk have written that the employers (all employers?) in Colombia are colluding directly with paramilitaries. Chris wrote that “The bottling plant managers in collusion with the Coca-Cola Company are paying money into the bank accounts of paramilitaries”. This is sensational stuff. But where is the backup? I am sure that the right is politically organized and that this includes business people. I have suggested that employers are notoriously stingy even in their own interest. In Colombia they have a compliant and corrupt state at their disposal, which is backed by the US government, the CIA and US Army. Don’t you think it is at least if not more likely that forces operating inside the state, or protected and directed by state forces, are launching the hundreds of attacks on trade unionists each year. Again, I have given the figures above (for some eccentric reason of his own Eeekkk seems to discount them).

It is in the nature of capitalism to be based on extreme individualism and selfishness, and that applies most of all to employers. The state is the effective and necessary executive committee that acts in the collective interests of the business class, and that is why the police and the army are not privatised. That is why they do the killing, repression and torture on behalf of business interests. The state at the same times masquerades as the collective voice of all the people and it organizes other collective activities without which the state could not function. I am sorry if that sounds like left wing rhetoric, but I believe it demonstrates why it is far more likely that the state rather than Coca Cola is actively organizing killing Colombia. If it was left to the private sector, it would result in immediate and permanent civil war that would expose the business class to endless conflict that would make capitalism essentially unworkable. In effect the boycott supporters are fighting this imaginary capitalism, nakedly pursuing its class interests in military attacks against its own workers. I can assure you, we have not got there yet.

I am not a fan of big business (the charge is groundless). However, even less am I a fan of making rhetorical and grandiose arguments that have no basis in fact, that big business will swat away like a fly. Here is a whole campaign putting all its emphasis on Coca Cola in Colombia, when hundreds of trade unionists are being attacked and slaughtered by death squads in the pay and under the direction of the Colombian state. There is direct evidence linking the state to the death squads and to military repression, killing rape and torture of trade unionists and others. A lot of the argument with regard to Coca Cola is thin to non-existent. The question has not been answered, how come only Coca Cola is accused of acting in this manner? Are they the exceptions or the norm?

Some would rather be associated with a boycott campaign that has earned the opposition of most workers in Coca Cola in Columbia, in Latin America, in North America, in Europe and in Ireland. Instead of dealing with this problem (and those who are serious will see it as a problem), there is the childish resort to catcalls about bureaucrats. People you call bureaucrats in SIPTU have been slandered, because, for some, sectarian politicking is more important than solidarity – check out the ludicrous “Coke Workers Repaid For Loyalty” thread for an example of inexcusable bile replacing the opportunity to work together despite differences. The charge hurled at SIPTU is devoid of merit and is contradicted directly by the evidence, by (yes) the facts..

All I have said is that this is unnecessary. You don’t have to support the boycott to support the just demands of Sinaltrainal. You don’t have to characterize those who disagree with the boycott as ‘enemies of the people’, etc. As I have also said before (I think), think about it.

This Lenin of the keyboard is off to bed now. Goodnight.

The Death Squad killings, rape and torture goes on and on and on

by Chris Bond Tue May 31, 2005 03:08

''Both Chris Bond and Eeekkk have written that the employers (all employers?) in Colombia are colluding directly with paramilitaries. Chris wrote that “The bottling plant managers in collusion with the Coca-Cola Company are paying money into the bank accounts of paramilitaries”. This is sensational stuff. But where is the backup''

it is outlined in a document produced by the Labour research institute at the university of berekely in New York, it also outlines, allegations of torture by paramilitaires, intimidation for union activity, the manager of the bottling plant going on public radio and threatening to exterminate the union, and the manager of the bottling plant socialising with the paramilitaries.

Other reports show that the Coca Cola company blocked labour inspectors from entering their bottling plants.

by Peter Murray Tue May 31, 2005 09:33

Chris
The activities of that bottling plant management in the mid 1990s are the basis of the Sinaltrainal case. The case is a good one and Coca Cola clearly have a case to answer for the activities that franchise bottler (since removed).

However you wrote:
“The bottling plant managers in collusion with the Coca-Cola Company are paying money into the bank accounts of paramilitaries”. What is the evidence for that? You are referring to the Coca Cola Corporation, as well as the current bottling plant franchise, are you? Can you be more precise about the source? For instance Berkeley is in California, just across the bay from San Francisco (not New York), as far as I am aware.

Coca Cola engage in ordinary industrial relations in Colombia, not without great difficulty and struggle on the part of unions (as a glance at www.iuf.org will show). Sinaltrainal and the other unions have a published collective bargaining agreement. The unions also face extraordinary repression in the form of killings, torture, rape, directed by paramilitaries and the state. Are you saying that the Coca Cola corporation finances this. Perhaps you could give us the evidence in some more detail? Absolutely sensational, it would give a big fillup to the Sinaltrainal court case if you can provide the details (in more detail).

Thanks.

by Gypsy Davy (WSM pers cap) Tue May 31, 2005 11:05

Congratulations on Labour youth for PROGRESSING the campaign. It is probably more than most can claim to have done.

Oh and statements like
''For example in UCD Paul Dillon, Cian O'Callaghan support the EU and social partnership''
don't help real debate. they don't and never have

by Michael Moore Tue May 31, 2005 12:27

Gypsey Davy:
"Statements like
''For example in UCD Paul Dillon, Cian O'Callaghan support the EU and social partnership'' don't help real debate. they don't and never have"

Well said Gypsy Davy.

Now if the same type of irrelevant (to this debate) accusations directed at those who oppose the boycott strategy could end as well.......

by Jane - Labour Youth UCD Tue May 31, 2005 12:49

Peter, I'm finding that you have an increasing tendency to avoid points made by other posters which seem to undermine your argument that the motion passed at Conference was nothing to do with the boycott.

Perhaps you forgot, as you seem to think we "forgot" about posting the motion, so I'll recap for you, and I'd be interested to hear your response.

You said the heading at the top of the page was misleading, and asked Indymedia to remove it. If it's not a campaign about issues arising out of events in Coke bottling plants then what is it? The Labour party expressed support for this campaign. What exactly is misleading about Labour National Conference Supports SINALTRAINAL Coke Campaign?

Also, you never answered my direct question to you. Peter, do you have a vested interest in this debate? If you do, maybe you could declare it?

You made grandiose claims that the speakers from UCD in favour of the motion somehow gave weight to your argument. No reference to what exactly was said, or to who exactly your "sources" were. So I'll ask again. There were two speakers in favour of the motion, Enda Duffy and Paul Dillon. Who are you referring to? Can you paraphrase more specifically exactly what you claim they said?

The only reference I can find in your last post dealing with what the motion actually meant is this,
"A campaign with an overriding strategy will say what the strategy is."
Will it? I tried to show with an analogy how a motion tabled at a national conference wouldn't always give details of all the tactics used in the campaign the body was expressing support for. Just because you make this blanket statement and use nothing to back it up, doesn't make it true. I can say "Labour will win a majority in the next election", but that doesn't make it true, despite my confident tone.

I'll sum up again. The international campaign called by SINALTRAINAL is one which centres around the call for a boycott of Coca-Cola products. The Labour Party conference expressed its support for this campaign as launched in 2003. You say "They voted on supporting trade union rights." Not really the correct interpretation, seeing as the word "support" isn't even in the same paragraph as the reference to information about trade union rights in Colombia. It's in the same paragraph as the reference to the international campaign. They voted on supporting the campaign called by SINALTRAINAL in 2003. That is stated unequivocally in the motion which you yourself posted.

by bonzo - ucdsu Tue May 31, 2005 13:36

Just to get back to some accusations made earlier about LY's jane.

Yes its true that as a first year in ucd she campaigned for a Fine Failer no its not true that she handed out bottles of coke at polling stations etc...

I just want to ask the question of UCD head and anyone else of like mind ....... Is your goal to actually increase the number of people campaigning on issues such as workers rights or is it just point scoring for your little party or group or point of view?

If you actually do want to increase the number of activists then you must accept some people, especially the young, will have to change their minds. They may have done some things in the past that you may not agree with but should be welcomed into any campaign they see fit to get active on.

UCD head not everyone is born on the left give people a chance who have obviously done some great work both for UCDSU and LY stop trotting out the same old tired accusations that are mearly for point scoring.

by Peter Murray Tue May 31, 2005 14:15

Dear Jane,

My apologies for seeming to ignore your questions, I did not mean to. There were rather a lot of questions and comments directed my way.

Point A
I have no “vested interest”, no shares in Coke and not a member of SIPTU (though there is presumably nothing wrong with being a member of or working for a trade union, is there?)

Point B
I have not got the identity of the person who said it was not a vote in favour of a boycott. But when I do I will pass it on, as quickly as I posted the Labour Conference motion. I don’t personally know the people concerned and I have never met them. Do you? Were you there? Perhaps you can tell us, or perhaps you could ask someone who was there. I am at a disadvantage, as you can imagine. However, I will do my best. My track record is not bad so far, wouldn’t you agree?

Point C
The motion itself. The central feature of the Sinaltrainal campaign (the part I do not agree with and the part that has caused all of the controversy) is the boycott campaign: or “one which centres around the call for a boycott of Coca-Cola products” as you put it. The motion doe not mention it, once! It talks about “defence of the right to join a trade union”. You have a kind of convoluted argument that I do not entirely follow as to why this is so. I would have thought it was obvious. We will have to agree to disagree on that one. I will say that your statement that labour will win a majority in the next election is not on the same plane of probability as the plainly verifiable fact that the campaign to boycott of Coca Cola products is about the only thing the campaign in support of Sinaltrainal does. Seems obvious that it should be mentioned.

I will also say it would have been odd to support the right of Irish workers to produce Coca Cola products and then demand in the same motion that the Irish public should not buy them. Maybe that is another reason why the boycott point was left out?

This part of the motion is weak in that workers are in unions and have collective bargaining agreements with Coca Cola. The problem is in the fact that death squads and the military shoot trade unionists generally. The killings are widespread. Chris seems to think that Coca Cola is planning and executing them. I await the (sensational) evidence on that.

Coca Cola have a duty of care toward its employees, whether in franchise bottlers or not. The International Union of Foodworkers (IUF) has been trying to force a worldwide agreement on Coca Cola in recognition of their responsibility for the activities of franchised bottlers. You will find information on a recent meeting between the IUF and Coca Cola on:

http://www.iuf.org/cgi-bin/dbman/db.cgi?db=default&uid=default&ID=1969&view_records=1&ww=1&en=1

In addition on that page is a link to a copy of “the first common document” signed between the IUF and Coca Cola on trade union rights in the Coca Cola system.

Point D
The motion does not say that the NEC will provide information on the Sinaltrainal campaign, an assertion of one of your colleagues above. It says it will pass on information “on trade union rights in Colombia”. That is good and can only lead to increased awareness of the plight of trade unions in that country.

Are you aware for instance that well over half of those attacked and or killed by death squads are in the education sector. Right wing reactionaries and fascists have a well known antipathy to knowledge, especially in aid of the working class, but also to information that radicalises middle class youth. These attacks are not something that is well known here, but is something that could be highlighted (unless you have something against teachers? Only kidding.). The information is on the Justice for Colombia.org website.

The ‘Mayday Colombia’ report by British educational workers.
http://www.justiceforcolombia.org/submenu5/specialreports.html

Have I answered your points? Did you ever think of going to Colombia? There is a Youth Delegation in late July Early August, hosted by the colombian union of students . All this passing info back and forward at second hand might cease if you had a look at the situation on the ground. Go to www.justiceforcolombia.org for details.

Best of luck (but not with the boycott!),
Peter

That motion again

by Joe Tue May 31, 2005 14:24

This is pretty silly so I looked up what the 'international campaign launched in July 2003 by SINALTRAINAL' that (the Labour Party) conference is in solidarity with.

Lo and behold 22 July 2003 was the launch of the boycott campaign! Which this motion says conference supports.

Seems straightforward to me.

by Curious Tue May 31, 2005 14:25

"Point A
I have no “vested interest”, no shares in Coke and not a member of SIPTU (though there is presumably nothing wrong with being a member of or working for a trade union, is there?)"

Do you work for SIPTU?

by Sean Hill Tue May 31, 2005 14:45

The fact is that Paul Dillon and Cian O'Callaghan do support the EU and social partnership. I know this for a FACT. Why do WSM and ISN members not give criticism of Labour who are an establishment party. It's one thing to say there may be activists in Labour but if you are genuine in your radical politics you will at the same time say they are in the wrong party. Even their 'radicals' are in favour of establishment politics.

by Peter Murray Tue May 31, 2005 14:55

No

However, it would be strange if people on this website had a problem with someone because they worked for a trade union. It would reveal a tendency toward prejudice aimed at those who represent trade union members' point of view (in this case accurately)..

One of the things that has amazed me, and others, is the boycotters' total incomprehension, both on why Coca Cola workers oppose the boycott and also why they expect their trade union to express that view (all around the world, including in Colombia). There is no bureaucrat-worker split on ths issue.

Coca Cola is an icon of US capitalism. The boycott campaign has that going for it. It is sold on reverse marketing. But an icon is not the substance. You are attacking form without (very much) content. The world of work is the real world, one that is hard for students to connect with. They think they are, but often only theoretically, peripherally.

Go to Colombia. Find out for yourself.

(Classic piece of irrelevant argument from Sean Hill there.)

by Lasc - Lasc Tue May 31, 2005 15:06 info at lasc dot ie

Peter which seems to be yet another pen name for a well known pedant claims that Sinaltrainal only concentrate on their own situation. Nothing could be further from the truth. The Kankuamo indigenous people who were invited to Ireland by Lasc in April of this year have received support from many of the organistions involved in the boycott (don't get smart Peter by asking why "many" and not "all"). They have also received constant support from two trade unions in Colombia, Sinaltrainal and Sintraminercol. Sinaltrainal is also involved in campaigns around the situation in the department of Arauca and belongs to the campaign Colombia Clama Justicia.

The arguments presented so far by Peter are that lots of people are being killed but Coke is not responisble and he urges people to go to Colombia to find out the truth. Yes the truth, but what does Peter expect them to find, that coke is not guilty?

Your arguments as always are the same. coke is one of many multinationals doing bad things therefore we should ignore it.

Why have the anti boycott crowd dropped their arguments about job losses in Ireland?

by Strawman watch Tue May 31, 2005 15:06

More old huffing and puffing. I seem to remember an article by one of the ISN on the Labour Party and I'm sure the WSM struggle site is full of info on the uselessness of the Labour Party. To the best of my knowledge none of their members were ever in the Labour Party. Now I wonder can our purveyor of the strawmen say the same about his/her own comrades?
Does your revolutionary puritanism stop you from saying well done on this issue? But c'est la vie in the Church of the Withering Inwardness.

by Peter Murray Tue May 31, 2005 16:37

'LASC'
Never said anything of the sort. Total nonsense. You, whoever you are, have brought along a paper bag to argue with. Blow into it ten times and calm down. You have introduced irrelevancies that, from your point of view, bamboozle (and hopefully impress) your audience.

Got a problem with young people going to Colombia and finding out first hand? Have you the copyright on that, or something? Feeling threatened? Curious.

by Dan - ISN (per cap) Tue May 31, 2005 16:58

WSM and ISN are close to Labour?
by Sean Hill Tuesday, May 31 2005, 1:45pm

"The fact is that Paul Dillon and Cian O'Callaghan do support the EU and social partnership. I know this for a FACT. Why do WSM and ISN members not give criticism of Labour who are an establishment party. It's one thing to say there may be activists in Labour but if you are genuine in your radical politics you will at the same time say they are in the wrong party. Even their 'radicals' are in favour of establishment politics."


Paul and Cian do not support social partnership. I know this for a FACT. Because I have SPOKEN to them ABOUT social partnership.

In fact, Paul and Chris Bond came along to a meeting organised by the ISN in UCD on the subject, where Des Derwin spoke, and took part in the discussion. They also organised a LY meeting with Brendan Ogle on the same topic. I can't say the attendance for either meeting was sensational, but they were both pretty useful.

"Sean Hill", whose identity is about as opaque as a clear blue sky, knows pefectly well that I have been critical of Labour, as have other ISN members, many times. There is no point PRETENDING otherwise. Because it is transparently FALSE.

However, I think there is a right way and a wrong way to go about this. I think it is useful to sit down and write a proper analysis of what's wrong with Labour, and argue for a left alternative. Then you should make this available to any Labour member who wants to read it. After that, you should pretty much leave them to make up their own minds. There's no point shouting at them every time your paths cross, saying "YOU'RE IN THE WRONG PARTY! LEAVE NOW! OR ELSE YOU'RE A SELL-OUT!".

"Sean Hill" knows this perfectly well - he knows that not a single member of LY has left because of his demands, posted under god knows how many different names on various websites. People are capable of thinking for themselves. Anyone who wants people to leave Labour should put their energy into building a viable alternative to Labour.

It's not realistic to expect people to leave and join the SP - it's perfectly obvious that they don't want to be in a Leninist / d-centralist organisation. I'd love if they all joined the ISN, but at the moment we can just about field a football team with a few subs, so I'm not gonna pretend that they have the option of joining a mass party.

In the worst case scenario, all the people I know and like in LY will be absorbed into the party and de-radicalised. This is perfectly possible, it's happened before. The best way to prevent it from happening is to keep up a friendly dialogue with them, and work hard to build an alternative (and I'd gently suggest that the SP might show a little more urgency in working for a broad left party; the rest of us aren't quite sure when conditions are ever gonna be right to satisfy the SP).

In the best case scenario, people who are currently active in Labour will politicize quite a few people who would otherwise not have got involved, because they have a higher profile and more resources than the far-left groups. Then, when the experience of Labour in government exposes the gap between rhetoric and reality, many of these people could be won over to a left alternative that was broad enough to accomodate them.

Anyway, this is all in the future. For the time being, these people are in Labour. That is their decision, and there's no point abusing them every time they pop their heads up above the parapet, it won't make any difference - in fact, shrieking abuse will just entrench people in their positions, as this thread shows perfectly clearly.

There aren't that many people active on the left that we can afford to chase people like Paul, Cian, Enda, Jane or Chris away because they don't agree with us on everything. In my experience, the Coke boycott campaign has been the best recent example of different people on the left coming together, setting aside differences and achieving victories. We should learn a little from that.

In the meantime, THE SHRIEKING MUST STOP. It's just not acceptable to abuse people every time they post on any subject under the sun, repeating the same arguments, no matter what the context. I know not every SP member carries on like this, there are several regular millie posters on this site who are perfectly calm and courteous. But the tiny handful to whom I referred are poisoning the whole atmosphere of Indymedia with their bile.

Yis know who you are, and so does everyone else. Honestly - grow up, or join the Sparts. Lenin's habit of denouncing anyone and everyone who disagreed with him in the harshest terms was a vice, not a virtue. The same goes for Trotsky. And just because Lenin! always used exclamation marks! as if he was the manager of a supermarket! announcing its closing down sale! doesn't mean you have to as well!

by tuc? Tue May 31, 2005 17:08

International Solidarity and the Coca-Cola boycott


Justice for Colombia, the TUC’s solidarity project with Colombian trade unions, recently published an article named “No support for Coca-Cola Boycott” (Justice for Colombia, Trade Union Delegation to Colombia, November 2004). The article is notable as much for the inaccuracy of its content as for the gratuitous style of writing, the disingenuity of the opinion presented and what would seem to be deliberate distortion and misrepresentation of fact designed to undermine support for Sinaltrainal (National Union of Workers in the Food and Drinks Industry) the Colombian union who launched the International Campaign against Coca-Cola.

Sinaltrainal have asked the Colombia Solidarity Campaign to respond to this article in light of several very public attacks against their reputation and their activities by members of the Justice for Colombia organisation (JFC) over recent months. It is worth mentioning the most serious, which occurred in July 2004, when a member of JFC’s executive committee, while giving a presentation to the T&G women’s committee, insinuated to his audience that Sinaltrainal was connected to the ELN guerrilla. As JFC members know only too well, the tactic of inventing links between trade unions and the guerrilla is one used often by the Colombian government to delegitimise the activities of trade unions, and to justify the assassination of trade union leaders. Whatever their feelings toward an individual union, JFC should know better than to stoop to such depths. When the Colombia Solidarity Campaign wrote a letter of complaint to JFC requesting an explanation and assurances that such comments would not be repeated, we never received a reply. The second public attack came this time from the Chair of Justice for Colombia who wrote a letter to trade unionists around the country attacking Sinaltrainal, the campaign against Coca-Cola, and Sintraemcali, the public services union in Cali. Two trade unions in Colombia have already responded to this incident, and since the letter contained similar misinformation and distortions as the “No support for Coca-Cola Boycott” article, it does not really need further response from us. Although this response is notably longer than the original article, it is hoped that the public will read and take on board the information presented, and that the attacks against Sinaltrainal from sections of the trade union movement in this country will cease.

The article in question begins by stating that SIPTU (Irish General Union) had a meeting with Sinaltrainal, “the small union that has called for a boycott of Coca-Cola”. Certainly when compared with its British counterparts, Sinaltrainal is a small union. But after decades of repression from the state and other economic interests all Colombian trade unions are comparatively small. It is worth pointing out that there are less than 450,000 unionised workers in the whole country. Sinaltrainal however, is one of the few national unions that has managed to survive in the private sector, and represents more than half of all unionised Coca-Cola workers, as well as workers in other food companies such as Nestle and Kraft. To call them small in this context is to deliberately misrepresent the reality of Colombian trade unionism.

SIPTU are well known for their partisan views on the Coca-Cola boycott. They are of course entitled to these views but let us not pretend that they were on a mission to investigate the facts of the case against Coca-Cola. Long before they met with Sinaltrainal, they had been outspoken in their criticism of the boycott, had organised meetings in Dublin against the boycott, and had even sent their shop stewards to campaign against the boycott at University College Dublin, when the students voted to remove Coke products from their campus. Let us continue by describing the content of the meeting between SIPTU and Sinaltrainal. According to a report released shortly after the meeting by Sinaltrainal, the SIPTU representatives advised Sinaltrainal to put an end to their confrontational relationship with Coke and to develop a more “European” approach to industrial relations. They then threatened that unless Sinaltrainal abandoned the boycott, SIPTU would call for an international boycott of Sinaltrainal. It hardly seems that SIPTU are the impartial judges that this report would have us believe.

“Coca-Cola boycott- a demand not supported by the main federations in Colombia.” The end of the above sentence is even more wrong than the beginning. The two principle trade union federations in Colombia, both the CUT which represents about 80% of trade unionists and the CGTD which represents 15%, have both repeatedly supported the International Campaign against Coca-Cola and the call to boycott. Both union federations announced their support for the campaign and the boycott at the Public Tribunal against Impunity- “Hector Daniel Useche Beron – Sinaltrainal Demands Justice” in Bogota in January 2003, and reiterated their support at the official launch of the boycott on 22 July 2003, which took place at the CUT Headquarters and was addressed by both Carlos Rodriguez, President of the CUT, and Domingo Tovar, Human Rights Director of the CUT. Literally 100s of other social organisations and regional branches of the CUT and CGTD pledged their support at these events and again in the Declaration of Santiago de Cali in December 2003. It is to the CUT's credit that despite the pressure that some sections of the international trade union movement have applied in an attempt to force them to abandon their support for Sinaltrainal, that they have thus far not done so. We must remember that those Sinaltrainal leaders who were murdered by paramilitaries allegedly in the pay of Coca-Cola were also members of the CUT. As Lucho Hernandez, President of Sintraemcali stated when questioned about the validity of the boycott as a tactic, “the Colombian movement will decide for themselves which tactics to employ. The reality for Colombian trade unionists is very different to that of British trade unionists.” Their response to repression is likely to be very different as well. It should not be too much to ask us to support them.

Next follows a brief description of some of the crimes of which Coca-Cola is accused. “The best documented case is the killing of union leader Isidro Segundo Gil by paramilitaries in 1996, which was followed by the forced resignation and flight of other union activists.” Perhaps it is worth mentioning here, that 2 weeks before his death, Isidro Gil had written to Coke HQ in Atlanta informing them that the plant manger had threatened workers that he would use paramilitary groups to destroy the union. Coke did not respond. Instead, armed paramilitaries entered the Coke plant, killed Isidro Gil, left and went and burned down Sinaltrainal’s office before returning to the plant, killing another worker and forcing the entire union to renounce its membership at gun point on forms prepared earlier by Coke management. 36 union members were subsequently forcibly displaced from the area under pain of death. Isidro Gil’s wife was also killed by the paramilitaries when it became clear that she was going to testify against Coca-Cola.

The article continues, “The bottler running the Carepa plant changed its plant management in 1997.” It fails to mention that the previous manager was on the run; a warrant for his arrest was issued for involvement in the formation and financing of paramilitary groups. Unsurprisingly he has managed to avoid capture.

Next follows a description of the current trade union in the Carepa plant, and the fact that there are 13 trade unions in Coke in Colombia. Only 1 of these (Sinaltrainal) supports the boycott. The article does not mention that of these 13 unions, Sinaltrainal is by far the biggest, bigger in fact than all the other unions put together. Sinaltrainal still represents 56% of all unionised Coke workers, this despite the fact that their numbers have been decimated by an on going and brutal campaign of attacks against members and their families. It also fails to mention that of these 13 unions, only 2 have defended Coke from the charges that they face. The first is SICO, a union made up of approximately 45 members in Carepa, where Sinaltrainal were totally wiped out by the paramilitaries, and the second is SINALTRAINBEC who it is estimated have 9 workers in the Coca-Cola system.

The article continues, “There is very little concrete evidence against the company. It is hard to make a convincing and serious case.” There is in fact a whole wealth of concrete evidence against the company, plenty of which has been accepted and verified by the Colombian police and courts (not the most union friendly institutions in the world). Take as an example the case of Luis Eduardo Garcia (one of the claimants in the court case against Coca-Cola) who along with 3 fellow Sinaltrainal members in Bucaramanga was arrested on charges of terrorism and imprisoned for 6 months. Coca-Cola pressed charges against them after a bomb was found in the Coke factory. The judge trying Luis Eduardo and his colleagues concluded that not only had the accused not planted any bombs, but that no bomb had ever existed at all. A Colombian judge found in court that Coca-Cola had fabricated evidence of terrorist activity, and as a result 4 innocent men spent 6 months in prison.

Further concrete evidence- in October 2002, Sinaltrainal members in Barancabermeja saw Coke managers in a meeting with Saul Rincon, a well-known local paramilitary chief. They complained to management. Management’s response was to file a complaint against Sinaltrainal for slandering Saul Rincon who according to Coke, was a member of their client’s association. This complaint is on file at the Attorney General’s Office. On 22 June 2004, Saul Rincon was arrested by police in Barrancabermeja. He is currently awaiting trial for homicide and the formation of paramilitary groups.

As the JFC article states- the best-documented case revolves around the murder of Segundo Isidro Gil. Months of investigation and 100s of eyewitnesses have testified as to events surrounding his death. This is evidence that has been accepted as concrete and serious by a judge in the USA (also not the most union friendly institution imaginable) who ruled on 31 March 2003 that cases alleging human rights violations committed by paramilitaries on behalf of Coca-Cola bottlers can go ahead. It is astounding that sufficient evidence exists for the Colombian police, the Colombian courts and the US courts to have found that Coca-Cola have a case to answer in questions of murder and are guilty of false imprisonment of trade unionists and consorting with paramilitaries, yet the evidence is considered too thin on the ground for the TUC and Justice for Colombia.

The article finishes with various quotes from the IUF regarding the boycott campaign. “The boycott call is based on unsubstantiated allegations and empty political slogans.” The IUF did unfortunately say this in public in response to the boycott call. However, they have said very differently in private. The following is an excerpt from private internal correspondence from IUF General Secretary Ron Oswald to David Begg the General Secretary of the Irish Congress of Trade Unions in relation to the boycott. The letter is dated Geneva 29th February 2004 reference number ro/pg/0205. It is interesting that the IUF recognize internally that there is concrete and serious evidence in the case of the murder of Isidro Segundo Gil. This quote comes from page two and three of the letter.


“The most credible allegation cited in both the boycott campaign material and the Florida lawsuit, which to a degree the campaign seems in support of, refers to the killing that took place in 1996 inside the franchised Coca Cola bottling plant in Carepa. This was followed by coercion by paramilitaries to force people out of the union (a practice that follows a tragic pattern for Colombia and one that is confirmed by local people in Carepa whom I have met in Colombia, most recently in November 2003).

In the case of the 1996 murder in Carepa, it appears clear that, at the very least, local plant management did little or nothing to protect a local union leader who was killed by paramilitaries inside the plant. Based on information we have received from Colombia, we believe that specific allegations around this atrocity appear to have substance and we have therefore raised and are currently discussing this matter with the company.”


This is completely the opposite of what the IUF say in public, a situation that needs clarification in itself. (For more information about why the IUF have repeatedly attacked Sinaltrainal, it is worth reading a short report from a Canadian Churches Commission, available online at www.killercoke.org “Why does the IUF attack Sinaltrainal?”)

The IUF finish by saying that they have always called for a full investigation of these crimes, a call clearly not heeded by Coca-Cola. In July 2004, Duvall L Patrick, Coke’s chief counsel in the court case resigned after his attempts to get Coke to carry out an investigation of events in Colombia failed. Considering that Coke has never investigated these most serious allegations, it makes you wonder on what evidence they base their denials. And on what evidence some sectors of the international of the trade union movement base theirs.

We hope that this reply answers any doubts regarding evidence and the legitimacy of the call by Sinaltrainal and the Colombian unions to boycott Coke. We fully accept that the TUC might not be ready to lend their support to the campaign, but we would ask that both they and Justice for Colombia cease disseminating such inaccurate and misleading information regarding Sinaltrainal and the International Campaign against Coca-Cola. We must remember that the trade union crisis in Colombia is likely to elicit a radical response that might not always be to the liking of trade unions in the North. Even if we cannot fully support them we must respect their positions, and we must not undermine their legitimate demands for justice.

by pinkerton hater Tue May 31, 2005 17:15

Go on JFCs next package holiday. See what they got up to on their last cheap holiday in other peoples misery:

"It is worth mentioning the most serious, which occurred in July 2004, when a member of JFC’s executive committee, while giving a presentation to the T&G women’s committee, insinuated to his audience that Sinaltrainal was connected to the ELN guerrilla. As JFC members know only too well, the tactic of inventing links between trade unions and the guerrilla is one used often by the Colombian government to delegitimise the activities of trade unions, and to justify the assassination of trade union leaders."

You are like something from the Pinkertons Peter. Sent to undermine a fighting union. Go Away.

by Chris Bond Tue May 31, 2005 17:23

Great post Dan that was spot on.

by Enda Duffy - UCD LY Tue May 31, 2005 17:34

The Irish labour party does support the boycott and no one can argue that it doesn’t. And thank you to those for the support but to the knockers and begrudges we don’t really care what you have to say and make as many smart and snide comments as you like on this web-site because at the end of the day no one really cares.

We realise we are fighting a battle and all the labour activists in UCD that I know have worked and campaigned hard not only on the issue of coke but on many socialist issues in the world including the release of a member of the SP who was a student in UCD, imprisoned over the bin tax. I know for a fact the Sp would never campaign for the release of a labour member, and that the problem with your party to me that is not socialism. Its time the sp gets over these childish problems and get on board with the broad left. Is not the labour party that is your enemy? Your jealously gets the better of you, we can’t help our electoral success and the support we receive in working class areas.

I do not support the EU or social partnership and anyone who knows me knows I am active on these issues the same can be said for many of my comrades. I don’t really care what the SP says about me because all you do is make accusations, and critics labour. GROW UP. I have much more respect for the ISN and Anarchists and other members of the broad left, because they are willing to discuss and debate socialists issues with me in an amicable and adult way. Certainly we don’t agree on everything but we respect each others views and unite behind different causes.

I think it is interesting to note that many members of the sp are former members of labour and still hold a grudge about that. Until you forget the past you will always be on the fringes of socialism.

by Matthew Tue May 31, 2005 17:45

This Ban has gone on long enough.
Jobs have been lost in this country JUST LIKE WE SAID! because of this ban.
its time to respect the mandate of the students of NUI Maynooth and UL and drop this ban.

by Trade Union Head Tue May 31, 2005 18:12

The allegations against SIPTU in that long diatribe are completely false. The author complains about misrepresentation and then introduces his own.

SIPTU did not send Coca Cola shop stewards to UCD. Coca Cola workers went of their own accord. They had found out about the boycott referendum through a relative of one of the workers who was studying in UCD and were determined to have their say. The workers were never consulted about the boycott. (This is a bit irrelevant, but part of the boycott propaganda is that SIPTU workers cannot think or act for themselves. They have to be 'sent' everywhere, like schoolchildren.)

SIPTU never threatened Sinaltrainal. They were not given a chance to deny this pernicious allegation and to kill it stone dead. LASC posted it on the internet and simultaneously sent it as an 'open' letter to SIPTU. I believe a dismissive reply denying the allegation was sent to LASC, who never published it.

In fact SIPTU involved Sinaltainal and its case in discussion with Coca Cola, in Colombia. They had Sinaltrainal invited to a European works council meeting in Italy a week later, after they were supposed to have issued the fictitious threat that Indymedia published prominently.

This episode can be put down to a deliberate case of sabotage, when SIPTU were engaging in solidarity activity despite their disagreement on the boycott. The allegation appears to have been designed to make that joint work blow up in every one’s face and to reintroduce suspicion and paranoia. It was a disgraceful episode. It was probably the worst piece of sectarianism in this whole sorry episode.

If Colombia Solidarity is relying on a certain individual for their information, then it is no wonder they are ill informed.

If anyone in Britain referred to a relationship between Sinaltrainal and a guerrilla group at a meeting, that is out of order and should be criticised. We have enough of Michael McDowell's kind over here to understand where that leads to. Has this been verified or is it another rumour blown up into fact. Most of his looks like a nasty scrap between two British solidarity organisations. The SIPTU portion is garbage.

by Amused Tue May 31, 2005 18:19

"This Ban has gone on long enough.
Jobs have been lost in this country JUST LIKE WE SAID! because of this ban.
its time to respect the mandate of the students of NUI Maynooth and UL and drop this ban."

So you don't believe in the UCD or Trinity mandates? That's balanced

by Chris Bond - UCD Labour Party, Campaign against Killer Coke Tue May 31, 2005 18:22

You clearly havnt read the thread and your statement ignores a lot of realities. The loss of Jobs on the Naas road is nothing to do with the boycott and everyhthing to do with the fact that coca cola are moving elsewhere where Labour costs are cheaper in order to upsize their profits. The contempt of the Coca-Cola for workers rights in their insatiable greed for more profit, will lead to the loss of Irish Jobs quicker than any precieved affect a boycott of cokes product will.

by Matthew Stiles Tue May 31, 2005 18:26

Congratulations from the UK. As a member of the British Labour Party I am very pleased and pleasantly surprised that the Irish Labour Party has done this.

As to "Peter Murray" or "John South", one of the points of the Coke boycott is that it will draw people's attention as to what is happening more generally in Colombia.

As for his links to the IUF, to my knowledge the IUF has never criticised the Colombian state for backing the paramilitaries. It limits itself to criticising the state for not giving protection to trade unionists and for not investigating murders of trade unionists properly but that is about it. Hardly surprising given the nature of its main affiliate SINTRAINAGRO.
Ironically, though, SINTRAINAGRO has itself called for a boycott of Coke products in the region of Uraba in support of the SICO union which operates in the Carepa factory (see rel-uita.org). It seems that SICO leaders have been sacked. No mention of a strike though. As a tactic it seems that quite a few unions are adopting the boycott strategy.

by Peter Murray Tue May 31, 2005 19:04

Before Colombia Solidarity published those slanders against SIPTU in Britain, did you check them with SIPTU first or ask to see its response?

If not , do you think you should do so now?

(On a lighter note: most of my detactors, including mathew, should be in the police. They see conspiracy everywhere: links to IUF, TUC, SIPTU, Justice for Colombia.)

by Foot in mouth Tue May 31, 2005 19:35

"Ironically, though, SINTRAINAGRO has itself called for a boycott of Coke products in the region of Uraba in support of the SICO union which operates in the Carepa factory (see rel-uita.org). It seems that SICO leaders have been sacked. No mention of a strike though"

Really.

Why would SINTRAINAGRO do that now, if Sinaltrainal had already supposedly been running a boycott campaign in Colombia these last two years?

Or is the observation that there has not been a boycott campaign in Colombia correct? Would you agree, our British Labour Party friend?

by Darragh Ó Bradáin - LY Tue May 31, 2005 23:52

Maith sibh, a chomráidí i bPáirtí an Lucht Oibre, as ucht an rúin maidir le Coke a chur chuig an National Conference. And well done for gettin it passed with such a convincing majority. Táim an-bhródúil as mo bhallraíocht le LY.

by Chekov Wed Jun 01, 2005 00:12

"Why would SINTRAINAGRO do that now, if Sinaltrainal had already supposedly been running a boycott campaign in Colombia these last two years?"

Because a second trade union calling for a boycott would add to its effectiveness? It's not rocket science.

Jumping to the conclusion that this proves that there was no prior boycott campaign in Colombia is itself proof of poor reasoning abilities or a willingness to clutch at very flimsy straws.

This debate is an awfully strange creature. If you were to accept that the contributors are being honest about their motivations, we are apparently witnessing a vigorous defence of the rights and jobs of a group of workers by persons unknown.

The funny thing is that these persons unknwn are spending so much energy defending the workers against a campaign that they claim is absolutely ineffective and thus can't threaten the workers' jobs. Meanwhile the workers have actually lost their jobs and their defenders don't seem to notice.

A right rum affair.

by Jane - Labour Youth UCD Wed Jun 01, 2005 01:08

Firstly, Peter, you have still failed to answer my first point. If you are no longer of the opinion that the title of this thread is inaccurate ("One thing though, the heading at the top of the page is misleading - like most of the information in support of the boycott. Would Indymedia like to change it?") then fine, but please say so rather than ignore it. I'll paste, again.

If it's not a campaign about issues arising out of events in Coke bottling plants then what is it? The Labour party expressed support for this campaign. What exactly is misleading about Labour National Conference Supports SINALTRAINAL Coke Campaign?

Secondly..

"I have not got the identity of the person who said it was not a vote in favour of a boycott."

This revelation comes after a post in which you stated;

"My sources tell me that speakers in favour of the motion said that this was not a vote in favour of a Coca Cola boycott."

I'm pretty confused here. You're confident enough in your sources to use their "evidence" as a central point in your argument that the the motion had nothing to do with the boycott, yet two days later, you don't know the identity of the person who told you this? Was it even THIRD-hand information then, and even less worthy of notice or respect? More and more holes...

"I don’t personally know the people concerned and I have never met them. Do you? Were you there? Perhaps you can tell us, or perhaps you could ask someone who was there. I am at a disadvantage, as you can imagine"

Yes, I know both the speakers who proposed the motion. Yes, I was there. No, they didn't say that the motion was nothing to do with the boycott. And if you are at a "disadvantage", as you are happy to admit, then why use this half-assed evidence to try and support an already flimsy argument?

Lastly...

" You have a kind of convoluted argument that I do not entirely follow "

I thought I was being quite clear. But I'll try this one more time.

It is quite obvious from the motion that the Labour Party explicitly supports the international campaign launched by SINALTRAINAL in July 2003. I quote..
"Conference...supports the international campaign launched by SINALTRAINAL in July 2003 in defence of the right to join a union."

The International Boycott of Coca Cola started on the 22 July 2003. It was called by SINALTRAINAL (Colombian Food and Drinks Workers’ Union). ( Source : http://www.colombiasolidarity.org.uk/cocacolacampaign.html )

I fail to understand how you can continue to obtusely deny any connection between the motion and the boycott. The motion supports the campaign called by SINALTRAINAL in July 2003. SINALTRAINAL called the boycott in July 2003.

The fact that the motion also mentions that the campaign was in defence of the right to join a trade union does not negate these facts. That it is in defence of the right to join a trade union is its PURPOSE, the boycott is its TACTICS (for want of a better word), and the two are not mutually exclusive.

Peter, the debate about the boycott itself is one which we will probably never agree on. But I find it offensive and indeed incomprehensible that you do not see how this motion is inextricably linked to the boycott campaign. I've tried to be as clear as possible here. I think most of the other readers of this thread can see that. I've laid out the argument and I think it speaks for itself. Argue your case against the boycott honestly, on the issues, and not by playing around with words and motions to try and get them to suit your own agenda.

by Matthew Stiles Wed Jun 01, 2005 01:09

To Foot in Mouth
Your logic escapes me. Given the unfortunate weakness of Colombia's trade unions (something like just 4% of workers are affiliated to trade unions), it should be obvious that calling for a boycott will not automatically lead to everyone stopping buying coke. Most trade union activities in Colombia go completely unreported in the press and other media, so I would imagine the boycott campaign is bound to have a tough time. Anyway, to clarify, the article (available on the IUF's Spanish language website), about the boycott call from SINTRAINAGRO does not mention SINALTRAINAL's campaign. It seems to be about other matters, that is, recent sackings of SICO leaders. The point is though that it is interesting that other trade unions in Colombia feel that consumer boycott calls can be effective.

To Peter Murray, what are the slanders about SIPTU you are referring to? If you are referring to the article posted above, then it should be borne in mind that it was posted in response to a delegation report which really put the boot into SINALTRAINAL in a very damaging way (a delegation which 2 SIPTU reps went on). My impression is that Colombia Solidarity Campaign accepts that there will be disagreements over the boycott as a tactic and that fears over threats to jobs are real fears but sometimes criticisms of the boycott have overstepped the mark. Anyway, if you feel that there are falsehoods in the article let me or the campaign know.
http://www.colombiasolidarity.org.uk/

by undercurrents Wed Jun 01, 2005 01:46

Hi
We are launching Marks DVD at Glastonbury festival if anyone wants to hook up and do screenings in Ireland

Paul
44 1792 455900
info@undercurrents.org

by Jane - Labour Youth UCD Wed Jun 01, 2005 02:01

"You don't know the identity of the person who told you this" should read "you still don't know the identity of the speaker you claim said this"

Eh, I'm drowing in a sea of semantics, somebody put me out of my misery. :)

by Matthew Stiles Wed Jun 01, 2005 12:00

Re-reading some of the comments, I see that there is a defence of SIPTU from someone called Trade Union Head, and I assume that that is what you mean by the slanders. I don't have the knowledge of what is going on in Ireland to respond to that and nor I did write the original article. If you are so concerned, I suggest that you write to the Colombia Solidarity Campaign. I would guess though that most organisations wouldn't respond to messages from people using aliases.
As to conspiracies, I don't know what you are talking about. I would just suggest that we concentrate on solidarity work with the Colombians and leave out the sniping.

by Peter Murray Wed Jun 01, 2005 12:17

It is clear from Mathew’s response that he has not learned our Irish style of debating: deny the evidence before your eyes, fire off a speculative shot about something you have not researched, and either introduce or reintroduce a point peripheral to the one being addressed. Then sit back and watch the confusion develop and multiply.

Mathew’s point about the media in Colombia is plausible. The right wing media there promote the state’s and military’s case and down play the abuses carried out by state and its death squad allies. The media reporting Colombia from the outside over emphasizes the tiny proportion of deaths of trade unionists resulting from guerilla action and ignores the far more numerous death squad and military killings (well over 95% - I give the figures above). The point is taken up in the British education workers report on their trip to Colombia (referred to above – go to www.justiceforcolomia.org). The same thing happens here in relation to reporting Northern Ireland.

A short-term local or national boycott campaign in support of a strike or protesting sackings makes sense. I deal with the Teamster’s boycott in support of their strike in the US above. The Sinaltrainal international boycott campaign was initially due to last one year in support of Sinaltrainal’s US court case. That case was arguable, though I remain to be convinced about the usefulness of long term boycotts in this context. Instead it has become a permanent international boycott campaign, which never once (not once) consulted with other workers in the Coca Cola system.

The Response here to this objection is that the objectors are all 'scab' unions or 'scab' workers – in fact anyone who criticizes the boycott call is a ‘friend of Coke’, ‘ally of the death squads’, 'scab', etc (such is the level of debate). Sinaltrainal made an error in not trying to win support for its point view from other workers. Boycott campaign supporters here have compounded this error by characterizing anyone who disagrees and campaigns against the boycott call as a 'scab' - I have been reviewing some of the material. This is mixed with total schizophrenia about workers who are against the boycott. Boycotters cannot bear to state openly that workers are opposed to the boycott and have clearly worked out reasons why they have this view (they have a fetishised view of workers alongside a fetishised view of the boycott tactic). It is always the 'bureaucracy' or some other malign force thwarting their clear and simple view of how the world should work. The evil ones are confusing the workers who act like scabs when they campaign against the boycott....... but they don't mean It really. How could they? Otherwise all the workers In the Coca Cola system are scabs, apart from Sinaltrainal. This would be a bit too unusual a point to try to establish.

As for Chekov, he speculates that two boycott campaigns that do not refer to each other and that appear by all accounts to have no connection, one with the other, are In fact one and the same thing. This does not make sense. Either there is no pre-existing boycott campaign or the latest boycotters simply never heard of the permanent International two year old one (going with Mathew's argument). Mathews is the more plausible, but I don't go along with it either. Even If the mainstream corporate media did not or do not report it, workers organizations always have alternative means of organizing and communicating messages and strategy - this is part of the history of workers' organizations in every society. There has been no boycott campaign in Colombia. It does not exist in practical terms (Mathew more or less concedes this).

As for the SIPTU refutation of the allegations against them, why not contact them yourself and ask to see a copy the refutation and ask to speak to the branch concerned. Do you want me to do all your research? Will I get you the telephone number (Could do that I suppose, want me to look It up?).

(Jane, I will come back to you later.)

Just spotted your last point Mathew - couldn't agree more with the last point. Ceasefire anyone?

by Oisin - SP (personal capacity) Wed Jun 01, 2005 16:37

I've just finished exams so I have only been able to contribute to this thread now. I'm surprised that Enda is so insulting towards the Socialist Party when a few members of the Socialist Party raised criticisms of the Labour Party. Surely debate is a healthy thing?

Enda is wrong to say that the Socialist Party would not campaign for a member of Labour that may be imprisoned for political actions. This is a serious insult in my opinion. The Socialist Party would always seek the release from prison for any person that is imprisoned for their political beliefs. The fact is that the CWI has a long history of opposing imprisonments of political activists.

Enda says that the Socialist Party is on the fringe of the left (which was news to me!). The opposite is the case Enda. Socialists in the Labour Party are on the fringe of the left. Enda, surely you know that the vast majority of your party are not socialists. No socialist would vote for coalition or the EU Constitution, therefore there can be at maximum about 9% of Labour's conference that were socialists. I had a look at some of the debate on coalition. There was absolutely no-one whatsoever arguing for Labour to be a workers' party and not go into a capitalist establishment government. The arguments were really about tactics over how to win more seats. Of the 20% or so voting against the NEC motion mnay wanted to leave the door open for Fianna Fáil if the numbers were there!

The Socialist Party do support the broad left and are a part of the left in this country. That's a plain fact. The Socialist Party wish to see the launch of a broad party of the left in Ireland that will be an organisation for working class political activity. Just because we criticise the Labour party does not mean that we are not left wing. Just because we do not wish to compromise our left-wing politics does not mean we are not left-wing. Just because we don't think that at this stage UCD work is a priority over other important work doesn't mean we are not left-wing.

Enda, I think that you and others I know that are in the Labour party are genuine enough. I think that you are in the wrong party. As if you want left-wing activism the Labour Party is not the place to go. The recent Labour conference should confirm that Labour is a dead party in terms of left-wing politics. I find it hard how you or any other genuine person will call for a vote for Labour and a transfer to Fine Gael at the next election.

The SP members that were in Labour were not Labour members to be uncritical of that Party. Militant joined Labour as Labour had many active members and we believed had the ability to become a mass working class party. That's why we were in Labour. When activists emptied out of Labour we left as there was no point in giving support to an establishment party.

Finally I'll deal with points you make about electoral support. It doesn't matter what the electoral support of a party is. Votes can go up and down. We all know that Fianna Fáil were traditionally the party with most working class votes. This means nothing. It's party programme and policy that matters. The Socialist Party stands in elections on a clear socialist programme and on a good fighting record. We've had electoral success given our size. We've a TD (probably 2 or 3 next election), 4 councillors and won over 5% in Euro election. This is the biggest on the left and is an indication that we have a good level of respect from the working class. Contrast this with Labour who don't have a socialist programme and have no prospect of having one. Labour in their election material will be calling for a FG number 2 vote. Labour will be calling for support of the neo-liberal EU Constitution and will be claiming to be in line with "mainsteam social democracy in Europe" ie Blair and Schroeder.

I think that debate is a healthy thing. I think that throwing around incorrect points about the SP being unsupportive of political prisoners, etc. is harmful and counter productive. I look forward to a debate on the key issues such as coalition, the EU, etc.

by R Elephant Wed Jun 01, 2005 17:03

What possible relevance has Oisin's comment to the point's being discussed? Could it be moved to another thread where the toss can be argued about the Socialist Party, the Labour Party, the birthday party, etc, etc.

by Mark P Wed Jun 01, 2005 17:21

Oisin's contribution was in response to remarks made a few posts earlier by someone called Enda. I think it's a useful, measured response, which I suppose by itself makes it a bit out of keeping with this bad tempered thread.

The thread has wandered over all kinds of matters but postings which deal with the Labour Party conference are still on-topic in a thread started by an article about a decision made at that conference.

by Sherlock Holmes Wed Jun 01, 2005 17:48

Thank you Oisin. Only the SP are socialists, everyone else is merely reformists. Sinn Fein got more votes than the SP Oisin but I suppose they are bourgeois nationalists to you. It must be pretty demanding being the "biggest" socialist party, other people refer to your authoritarian party as a "cult". As for me I think it would be best if you pulled your head out of your ass.

The labour party was a delegate conference. As such the percentage supporting certain motions does not reflect the percentage of the entire party in support of such motions. Each branch might of had much closer votes. You should know this as you attended a USI congress which is also a delegate system. However i'm sure you are ignoring this to suit your argument. I must point out that i am not a member of the Labour party, nor do i vote for them, but false arguments should not be tolerated.

by R Elephant Wed Jun 01, 2005 18:37

The thread is about a Labour motion on Colombia. It is too broad a leap to start boring contributions about the relative merits of various left wing parties.

The Colombia discussion may have been 'bad tempered' - it was also more entertaining (and more important) than this. Go away.

by Enda Duffy - Labour Wed Jun 01, 2005 18:53

Sorry Oisin but I’m in the right party and I don’t think my mind is going to change in the near future. Certainly I have criticism of the party and I think that is healthy for democracy I accept the decisions taken at conference I don’t agree with them and I will campaign against the EU constitution.

I am a democratic socialist. I do not believe in a revolution I believe Ireland can change through democratic politics. I hope to see in my lifetime the labour party becoming the second largest party in the state and the leader of the next collation government. I will also hold you to your support if I get arrested in Scotland next month.

To say that the labour party is part of the establishment would also mean classing the socialist party as part of the establishment as they to use established politics to bring about change. Call the labour party established if you will but the SP are also tarred with that brush.

Labour at its conference also made many positive decisions. One year free child care, released a program for tackling disadvantage, supports the coke boycott, reaffirmed its position on Shannon and will refuse to go into government while US war plains are still landing there.

Knock us all you want but at the end of the day we are making progress and are extremely active on certain issues hospitals, taxation, education and childcare. These are the things that matter to people in this country and these are issues that the labour party will rectify if in government.

by James Connolly Wed Jun 01, 2005 19:04

Enda Duffy:
Labour "supports the coke boycott, ...... and will refuse to go into government while US war plains are still landing there [Shannon]"

Neither assertion is true - in the sense that the motion does not support the boycott (that's good) and the planes wil be redesignated as 'peace' planes (that's bad). Just wait.

Prepare for disappointment.

by Jane - Labour Youth UCD Wed Jun 01, 2005 19:13

It is quite obvious from the motion that the Labour Party explicitly supports the international campaign launched by SINALTRAINAL in July 2003. I quote..

"Conference...supports the international campaign launched by SINALTRAINAL in July 2003 in defence of the right to join a union."

The International Boycott of Coca Cola started on the 22 July 2003. It was called by SINALTRAINAL (Colombian Food and Drinks Workers’ Union). ( Source : http://www.colombiasolidarity.org.uk/cocacolacampaign.html )

The motion supports the campaign called by SINALTRAINAL in July 2003. And SINALTRAINAL called the boycott campaign in July 2003. So can we please put this to bed? Unless I'm going seriously wrong somewhere here, and I'm still waiting for someone to point that out to me...

by eeekkkk Wed Jun 01, 2005 19:30

is here to spread disinformation and confusion.

The motion explicitly supports international boycott called for by sinaltrial

any interpretation that sees it as not supporting the boycott is the equivalent of black=white

by their friuts shall ye know them (disinfomanics)

by socialist Wed Jun 01, 2005 20:36

"I do not believe in a revolution I believe Ireland can change through democratic politics."

I take this quote as meaning you don't believe socialism is possible? That capitalism is the only system? Do you think that all we can do is hope the liberal section of the ruling class which is represented by the Labour Party becomes a larger party?

These are not the views of a socialist.

by Dan - ISN (per cap) Wed Jun 01, 2005 21:10

Oisin, nobody has a problem with criticism of the Labour Party (or at least, nobody should). The problem is when some people (a tiny handful, as far as I can gather) seem hell-bent on exposing everyone else on the left as "fake", and spend all their time taking quotes out of context or saying things that are simply false (for example, that Paul Dillon is in favour of social partnership). This achieves nothing, it just makes the targets ratty and defensive, and more entrenched in their positions. Eventually the whole thing descends into mutual mud-flinging.

And "socialist", I wouldn't agree with Enda's perspective on the way ahead in Ireland either. But I don't think I'm gonna convince him or anyone else simply by saying "you're not a real socialist if you believe that". If I had the time, I'd write an article explaining why I don't believe social democracy is good enough, and why I don't believe you can abolish capitalism by parliamentary means alone. If you strongly believe that the Labour position on coalition, the EU, or whatever else is wrong, you should take the time to write an article on the subject and post it up here. The left needs more analysis and less sloganeering in general.

It's all relative anyway. Anarchists presumably believe that the both the SP and my own organisation are heading up an electoralist dead-end because we are in favour of running candidates. I respect that view, although I don't share it. But I'd start getting narky if, anytime I posted on Indymedia, WSM members responded by telling me that I wasn't a true revolutionary.

Of course you have to draw a line somewhere. There wouldn't be any point in me trying to persuade Ruairi Quinn that we should socialise the banking system. But I think it's fair enough to assume that most people who frequent Indymedia are on the right side at the end of the day. If you think their particular brand of socialism is wrong-headed, by all means say so, but persuasion is far more useful than denunciation.

BTW I don't think it's fair to say that SP members wouldn't protest against the imprisonment of a Labour member, that's certainly not the impression I have anyway.

by The Insider Wed Jun 01, 2005 21:22

Endless talk about this fucking issue when there are hundreds of others to discuss.

I haven't seen anything on the Leas Cross Scandal, even though it shows very clearly the folly of a privatised health service. Not one. Instead these boards are filled with endless shite about Coke and the Labour Party.

Get out a bit more lads.

by James Connolly Wed Jun 01, 2005 23:11

eeekkkk:
"The motion explicitly supports international boycott called for by sinaltrial"

Wrong (so wrong it could not be more wrong).

It may be said to 'implicitly' support the boycott - that is the best you will get. If the motion was "explicit" it would mention the boycott. It does not. The omission is significant. Read the motion again.

Since it was reported that a proposer said explicitly that this was not a vote in favour of the boycott, your case is further undermined (person with a funny name). Please pay attention.

by Dave Curran - UCDSU, Global Action, LY, etc Thu Jun 02, 2005 03:31

"Finally I'll deal with points you make about electoral support. It doesn't matter what the electoral support of a party is. Votes can go up and down. We all know that Fianna Fáil were traditionally the party with most working class votes. This means nothing. It's party programme and policy that matters. The Socialist Party stands in elections on a clear socialist programme and on a good fighting record......"

Electoral support doesn't matter? Oisin, this is a democracy -what the electorate want is extremely important. Why do you make a virtue out of not giving a crap what the public wants, while demonizing Labour because they occasionally try and adapt to popular viewpoints?

It is shameful how certain socialist party members on this thread have to demonize everyone who disagrees with them. Believe in social partnership? Then you're a sell-out. Support the EU? Then you're not a real left-winger. Believe in coalition? Sell out. Someone who supports the EU constitution hasn't just made an error of judgement. No -they are "on the side of the oppressors" (as one of your fellow travellers put it on indymedia recently).

Lets make this clear: Nobody has the right to decide who's left-wing and who's not, who's a socialist and who's not. Some people believe that the EU is a force for social justice, and a bastion against anglo-american capitalism. They are wrong. But you have no call to denounce them as "fake" or "not genuine" simply because of this. Would you act as intolerantly towards members of the public who had different views? (or of your constituency?) Would you brand ordinary people on the street as phonies and sell-outs if they had different opinions than you? Or do you save your abuse for other left activists?

The venom many people on this thread show toward people who have a different view than theirs -even other left-wingers- suggests an intolerance that is unfit for democratic politics.

Labour have faults -loads of them. But at least they make an effort at drawing up a programme that might actually be acceptable to the general public. At least they recognise the fact that managing a modern economy and governing a society of people with hugely diverse views requires more than just shouting slogans and arguing about the Russian Revolution.

Labour live in the real world, where -shock horror- there is not one easy solution to building a better, more equal and just society. Its actually quite tricky. Good intentions (which im sure SPers have in abundance) are not enough, and in the past many left-wing governments with too much ideals and not enough sense have fucked up quite spectacularly. Labour, at least dont ignore 400 years of economic history or ignore the mistakes of the past.

You go on about Labour's faults but what about your own? You show an intolerance toward alternate views and you label your opponents as traitors and sell-outs. You have no appreciation for pluralism and your jumping at the chance to expose your fellow activists as "fake lefts" is like 17th century pubescent girls in Salem denouncing their neighbours as witches.

Posturing and lecturing people about how much more left you are then them might make you feel good. But its not productive.

And actually... its quite sad.

by Oisin - SP (personal capacity) Thu Jun 02, 2005 13:48

First of all I have to make a reply to the lies that some have put up about the Socialist Party. Dave says we're not tolerant of a pluralist society! This is a disgrace and an insult. You know that we find racism, sexism, homophobia, and all discrimination disgusting. We think that all this discrimination is due to capitalism where there is no democratic control of wealth and there's class oppression. Dave also implies that we are undemocratic! The point I was making was that the ups-and-downs of electoral support doesn't mean a party is in the interests of working class people. I gave the example of how FF got more working class votes than Labour (and SP). This does not mean that they are a left-wing pro-worker party. I would ask Dave who are the real democrats given that Labour don't stand for democracy in the economy, the SP does. Enda again implies that the SP would not support him if jailed for political activity. This is wrong. The SP have a good record on calling for the release of political prisoners we don't fully agree with. We oppose any oppression of political rights.

On the point that we should all get along together. I think that in general we do work together where there are common aims. If there are left-wing initiatives in UCD next year we would not want to exclude Labour members if they were willing to be active. Similarly I'd presume Labour members would not exclude SP members because of party membership. In saying this we and anyone else is entitled to raise criticisms.

The Socialist Party do not claim to be the only socialists or lefts in this country. If/When a broad workers' party is launched in this country we would be opposed to excluding active members because of ex-party membership. Such a party may include former Labour members, former Sinn Fein members, former Green members, etc. We are fully entitled to put forward our view that the Labour party is an establishment party that will be putting forward sweeper candidates for right-wing Fine Gael in next election.

Enda makes the point that the SP would be an establishment party as we use the establishment to make gains. This is not the case. We use our Dail and council positions to mobilise the working class and to raise the level of activism as much as we can. The use of the Dail in the GAMA dispute was done to aid struggle of those workers. We don't see the State as a way to achieve our aims. The working class activism comes first not positions. For most of our existance we have had no elected postions in Dail or councils.

Enda also says that Labour have a range of progressive policies and he mentions some of them. It would be good for these changes to be made. However all your programme will be subject to the coalition deal with Fine Gael. The Labour Party accept the idea that your policy has to be "costed", i.e. you will use the 'inability to pay' argument at a time when the banks and private companies are making massive profits. Labour do not stand for a serious attack on the profits of big business, hence an establishment policy.

Reformism is dead. The ability and willingness of capitalism to give consessions is seriously reduced from the hayday of reformism in the post-WW2 boom. Profits are increasingly being made by exploiting labour more and more (expect more and more GAMAs, Ryanairs, Irish Ferries, etc.). The idea that Labour Party can somehow overcome this without nationalising and mobilising working class people is plain incorrect. Labour are an establishment party as they do not stand for workers' mobilisation against capitalism. Labour are happy to "cost" their policies and compromise with FG or FF.

Enda makes the point that he believes in "democratic socialism" and not revolution. What do you think revolution is? It's all about democracy. Under capitalism there is no true democracy in the State. The State is there to protect the class interests of capitalism. There are countless examples of where a government implemented the will of the people and was overthrown by capitists. For example Chile in the early 70s, Spain in the 30s, Venezeaula today. The world that the SP wants to see after a revolution is a world where the wealth of the world is under the democratic control of working class people. We want the billions and not the billionaires to control the wealth and assets of the planet. We don't accept for one moment that capitalism is "democratic" (say that to the GAMA workers!).

Finally Enda says that his ambition is to see Labour as the 2nd party in his lifetime. I would have thought that would be achievable at the next election given the historic mess that FG was in. I think that this is a defeatist attitude that allows policies such as coalition, pro-EU, pro-partnership ideas flourish (in saying that I accept it when Enda says he opposes these things).

by Jeff Thu Jun 02, 2005 13:58

"You know that we find racism, sexism, homophobia, and all discrimination disgusting. We think that all this discrimination is due to capitalism where there is no democratic control of wealth and there's class oppression."

Does that mean that any member of the SP who shows any of the above traits only does so because of capitalism?

by Oisin - SP (per. cap.) Thu Jun 02, 2005 14:07

Any homophobia, sexism, racism, etc. is not tolerated in the Socialist Party. To say so is either (a) a deliberate slur, or (b) trolling.

by Jeff Thu Jun 02, 2005 14:17

On what day does the purity test take place? Read my question again and perhaps answer it this time.

by Gaz - -(A)- Thu Jun 02, 2005 14:31

"We don't see the State as a way to achieve our aims."

So the SP doesn't want to control the state?

On the FG/Labour coalition the ATGWU has a little booklet entitled "labour in its own right" which is available from the table through the entrance of the ATGWU building in Abbey Street. It goes into the detail of why FG/Labour coalitions are almost always detrimental to Labour (At least LY realised it)..its well worth a read.

At least LY are still active on the coke issue, what have most of the mud slingers done on it lately?

On a seperate point what do people think about the "fair society" slogan labour have adopted? seems a bit wishy-washy for me. ASBOs, no increase in the top rate of income tax, an EU constitution that will lead to the privatisation of public services....is that a fair society? Will LY members campaign for a party with these polices at the next election?

by Socialist Thu Jun 02, 2005 14:37

Malcolm X once said 'You can't have capitalism without racism'

While individuals may exhibit individual traits, on a society wide basis, racism etc can be attributed to the need for capitalism to divide and rule. Capitalism is based on discrimination and exploitation on the basis of class, race, sexual orientation etc.

by SP Member - SP/CWI Thu Jun 02, 2005 14:42

Gaz - -(A)- said

'So the SP doesn't want to control the state? '

No the SP does not want to control the state. The SP wants to see the working class gain control of their lives in political, economic and social terms. With the establishment of a democratic socialist society there will be no need for a 'state'.

by Jeff Thu Jun 02, 2005 14:43

There was no homophobia, sexism, racism, etc in the USSR? Seeing as how it wasn't capitalist in any way shape or form.

by Gaz - -(A)- Thu Jun 02, 2005 14:52

i know we have our different positions but could you clarify for me - isn't socialism a system based on state ownership of industry and capital (a pre-communism stage of development) which is controlled by the revolutionary "vanguard" party ?

"there will be no need for a 'state'."
But isn't the essence of socialism the strenghteneing of the state by controlling the means of production controlled by a minority vanguard. You'd still have a minority running everything (even if they claimed to be doing it in the interest or behalf of the working class). Under marxist analysis (minority control of the means of production neccesitating a revolution for equal control) wouldn't there have to be another revolution to go from socialism to communism rather than tthe state simply "withering away"?

by SP member - SP/CWI Thu Jun 02, 2005 15:10

Jeff

Oisin was answering a implied slur against the SP relating to this issue.

Yes discrimination did occur in the USSR. However, I have no interest in getting into a debate on the nature of the USSR, there is plenty of stuff out there, run a search.

Given your insight into SP logic you should be aware that scientific solialism is not based on logic but on dialectial materialism.


As for the comment by Gaz - -(A)-

You make the common misunderstanding of the Marxist attitude to the state.
'Marxist are big baddies interested in using the working class to get into power so the can usurp their position and form a dictatorship'.

You say 'isn't the essence of socialism the strenghteneing of the state by controlling the means of production controlled by a minority vanguard'

No it is not. The essence of socialism is the creation of a society owned and controlled by the working class. To suggest that the working class, the overwhelming majority of society, that would actively participate in the overthrow of capitalism, would then stand passively aside and allow a 'minority vanguard' to usurp their power, displays a clear lack of trust and confidence in the working class.

Again run a search, there are plenty of debates out there.

by Joe Thu Jun 02, 2005 15:24

"To suggest that the working class, the overwhelming majority of society, that would actively participate in the overthrow of capitalism, would then stand passively aside and allow a 'minority vanguard' to usurp their power, displays a clear lack of trust and confidence in the working class."

The phrase 'stand passively aside and allow' is a red herring as no one, anarchist or otherwise, argues this is what the danger is.

If we take out the words 'then stand passively aside and allow a' and replace with 'see' we would then have a crude summary of what the SP and other trots think happpened in the USSR. That is rule of the working class was replaced by the rule of Stalin. Anarchists would of course would substitute Lenin and Maoists might substitute Breznev.

But whichever you choose its quite clear you attempt to trivalise this danger that all recognise as showing a 'clear lack of trust and confidence in the working class' can be no more than an attempt to avoid a tricky issue.

by redjade Thu Jun 02, 2005 15:29

Q: was there discrimination before capitalism?
A: yes.

therefore... Capitalism is NOT the root cause of discrimination.

but it does thrive on it in many cases and in other situations requires that it be eliminated. Short answer, it all depends.

Q: Is there a simple answer to every question in the world?
A: no.

by Gaz -(A)- Thu Jun 02, 2005 15:29

"a clear lack of trust and confidence in the working class."

its not the working class I don't trust, it's their leninist vanguard

stalin didn't fall from the sky - http://flag.blackened.net/revolt/ws91/lenin33.html

by Chris Bond Thu Jun 02, 2005 16:18

''We use our Dail and council positions to mobilise the working class and to raise the level of activism''

The Problem is that working class isnt the only socio-economic class where the paradigm of left wing or socialist beliefs come, there are many people who are socialist who come from middle and even upperlcass backgrounds, and there are tens of thousands of working class people with right wing and conservative beliefs. Restricting oneslves activism to one class of society does not take into account the political diversity of irish society. Just because someone is from a middle class background doesn`t mean that they are right wing or conservative, likewise left wing and socialist beliefs aren`t exlcusive to the working class.

by Jeff Thu Jun 02, 2005 16:39

"Oisin was answering a implied slur against the SP relating to this issue."

No he wasn't - here's the original question that I asked again.

"Does that mean that any member of the SP who shows any of the above traits only does so because of capitalism?"

Oh I forgot, difficult philosophical questions are implied slurs on the SP. Silly me.

by Peter Murray Thu Jun 02, 2005 16:41

Hi Chris,

If you remember, you were to come back to me with some facts and figures.

Interesting comment above, far, far away from the issues of life and death in Colombia.

by Dan Thu Jun 02, 2005 16:45

Now we seem to have a three-cornered anarchist/leninist/reformist debate. I've seen these kind of arguments break out countless times before on Indymedia, even participated in a few, and I can't say I see the point of it all anymore. I doubt anyone has been won over to anyone else's point of view this way.

Anyway, as I said at the beginning, there's a time and a place for this sort of thing. If you want to discuss coalition with FG or any other subject, post an article on the subject and spark a debate about it. I don't think there's any place for it in a thread about the Coke motion at Labour's conference. The only debate that was needed on this was between the poster/s trying to deny that the motion had anything to do with the boycott, and the people who exposed this claim as false.

by Joe Thu Jun 02, 2005 16:47

Well we are well past comment 100 here - this is in danger of topping the great masking of Connolly controversy at this point. (I think that got to 140 or so).

by Mark P - Socialist Party (personal cap) Thu Jun 02, 2005 17:03

A Labour Party member above argued that:

"It is shameful how certain socialist party members on this thread have to demonize everyone who disagrees with them. Believe in social partnership? Then you're a sell-out. Support the EU? Then you're not a real left-winger. Believe in coalition? Sell out. Someone who supports the EU constitution hasn't just made an error of judgement. No -they are "on the side of the oppressors"."

Now let's think about this for a second. There are certainly different ways in which criticisms can be raised. That's a tactical question, sometimes it is more effective to criticise gently and sometimes a blunter approach is called for. But take a look at what our Labour Party friend is objecting to here and how.

Is somebody who claims to be left wing who supports social partnership supporting a sell out? Yes they are.

Is somebody who claims to be left wing but supports left wing parties propping up right wing coalitions supporting a sell out? Yes they are.

Is somebody who supports the EU constitution "taking the side of the oppressors"? Yes they are.

These aren't minor disagreements between friends. These are essential, core issues for all socialists. What is really being objected to here isn't "demonisation" of people with which we disagree, it's criticism of the Labour Party for its repugnant stance on these central issues.

I am often irritated by the hectoring tone which some people I generally agree with take on this website. Simply pointing out that Labour (or Sinn Fein) is a capitalist party on any thread to do with Labour doesn't achieve anything except to make everyone look a bit silly. As Dan points out above the Labour people who post here will generally be the more well meaning sorts and we should be trying to persuade them. But just as being pointlessly confrontational doesn't help, neither does fudging disagreement or making concessions to their dreadful politics or allowing them to portay the Labour Party as a radical alternative.

If Labour Party members are going to interact with the socialist left they had better be prepared to deal with very serious criticisms of their decision to support a party which is committed to social partnership. They should be prepared to deal with very serious criticisms of Labour's past and future role in propping up right wing governments, supporting ASBOs, tax amnesties for the rich, the neo-liberal EU constitution and so on. These criticisms aren't "demonisation" and they aren't unfair and they aren't things that should just be let slide so that a few Labour Party members can work with the left a little more comfortably.

I advise a couple of Socialist Party supporters to think a bit more about the tone they are taking when they are discussing things on this site. At the same time I think that some of the Labour Party members on this thread should spend a little more time trying to explain why they are involved in a party that supports all these things and a little less time whining about how mean people are picking on them.

by Chris Bond Thu Jun 02, 2005 17:24

The Only section of the Labour party to take a position on ASBOs are Labour Youth, we are firmly against.

by Peter Murray Thu Jun 02, 2005 18:14

Dan,

I quite agree. Except, would you accept the following amendment to your final sentence?
The only debate that was needed on this was between the poster/s trying to assert that the motion explicitly mentioned the boycott, and the people who exposed this claim as false.
By the way, if you come across Chris, could you ask him to come back with the info I asked him to provide?

Peter

by Badman Thu Jun 02, 2005 18:37

QUOTE Peter: "My sources tell me that speakers in favour of the motion said that this was not a vote in favour of a Coca Cola boycott. "

You did not claim that the boycott was explicitly mentioned. You claimed, quite explicitly, that this was not a motion in favour of the boycott. It amazes me that you think that anybody could possibly miss that and your subsequent attempt to weasel out of it after you were proved to be quite wrong.

You also continue to claim that a speaker said that this was not support for the boycott despite the fact that this has been denied by those who spoke at the conference.

Why the lies, Peter? Why are you so keen to 'win' this debate that you are happy to lie repeatedly?

by Frida Thu Jun 02, 2005 18:44

"The working class does not want left unity on paper but in practice."
FACT

by Mark P - Socialist Party (personal cap) Thu Jun 02, 2005 18:59

Chris maybe you should pay a little bit more attention to the Labour Party press office. It's been putting out press releases quoting Pat Rabbitte as saying:

"we need new mechanisms to deal with this new type of crime, including some revised and adopted version of the UK system of anti-social behaviour orders".

http://www.labour.ie/press/listing/20050422133616.html

The same site includes the text of a "discussion paper" issued by Pat Rabbitte and Joe Costello, Labour Justice spokesperson entitled "Taking back the neighbourhood". In it they declare that:

"the introduction of ASBOs is an important element in an overall strategy to tackle anti-social behaviour"

"Labour believes that ASBOs should be part of the armoury available to Gardaí and the community in tackling anti-social behaviour, but that their use must be carefully and independently monitored"

http://www.labour.ie/download/pdf/take_back_neighbour.pdf

by Peter Murray Thu Jun 02, 2005 19:08

"this has been denied by those who spoke at the conference"

Really. Must have missed that. Point me in the right direction.

And, although you insist Mr Badman in insisting that I am intent on lying, I insist on my point of view.

A different point of view is not necessarily a lie. It may however be the first conclusion you jump to about people who think differently to you. I assure you, I do my best to be honest and truthful.

Any sign of Chris?

by David Curran - The Daver Party Thu Jun 02, 2005 19:24

Oisin, I think you misunderstood my post. I never said the Socialist party was undemocratic. I dont think that at all. I said the people on this thread (SP members) who label those who disagree with them as "sell outs" and "traitors" are showing an intolerance of political pluralism, which is what democracy is all about. So yes, that's undemocratic.

I ask again: would you be this intolerant of differing views if they were espoused by people you met in the street? Would you call them fakes and phonies? Or do you save your abuse for other left activists?


"I think that some of the Labour Party members on this thread should spend a little more time trying to explain why they are involved in a party that supports all these things and a little less time whining about how mean people are picking on them."

Well I'm in the Labour party because while i dont agree with labour on everything, i agree with the other parties less! No party is perfect. if I want a party that i agree with 100%, then I'd form one myself.

(Actually that'd be kinda cool. I could be the party leader, and go on Questions and Answers and stuff. "The Daver Party", yeah i think I'll do that. Then in a few years I could split with myself to become "New Daver" and expell my more militant tendencies...)

Anyway, as this Coke motion shows, it is very possible to advance progressive causes within Labour. And I honestly think that things like this boycott would have more of an impact if passed at a Labour conference than if passed by a more obscure left-wing party. That is not a slur on other groups -its just a fact that Labour are one of the main parties in the country, so it means that the issue gets highlighted more, with more resources behind it.

So basically I think its easier to make a difference by working within the Labour party, while of course also working outside it as well. Hope that answers your question, Mark.

by Badman Thu Jun 02, 2005 20:17

PETER: "It may however be the first conclusion you jump to about people who think differently to you."

No, it's not. I do, however, eventually arrive at the conclusion when faced with somebdoy who persists in arguing that black = white and who seems to be otherwise generally sane.

Furthermore, I think that this response, which seems to be your stock answer to questioning of your motives is nothing more than a cheap debating trick. Anybody who works on the premise that everybody is always honest and truthful is going to find this world a thoroughly mysterious place.

Anybody who routinely responds in such a way to genuine and highly plausible suggestions of dishonest motives, in a world where significant divergences between stated opinions and underlying motives are common, is highly likely to be a scoundrel too.

Could you let me know which Sinaltrainal campaign launched in July 2003 the labour party are supporting in your view, as opposed to the boycott campaign launched by Sinaltrainal in July 2003, which is, as far as I know, the only campaign launched by Sinaltrainal in July 2003?

It really seems to me that, if you cannot answer this question (and I don't think it is possible to) , it is impossible to arrive at a conclusion other than that you are being dishonest or that you are a complete idiot. I think the former is much more likely as you appear capable of stringing words together into sentences.

by Mark P Thu Jun 02, 2005 20:26

I'm not all intolerant of views I disagree with David, I just disagree with them. How exactly I phrase that disagreement depends very much on the context.

For instance I might be quite gentle in my criticisms of the ideas of a well meaning person who was just beginning to get politically involved. I would tend to be more robust when dealing with another relatively experienced political activist, particularly one whose main efforts were going into electing another right wing government. That's a matter of choosing style to fit context however, it's not a matter of changing the content of those disagreements.

I'm on personally friendly terms with members of Fine Gael, Fianna Fail and the Conservative Party. They are entitled to their opinions and I'm not gratuitously unpleasant about it but I don't make any political concessions to them. I regard members of the Labour Party in much the same light. There are a few more bewildered souls still knocking about the Labour Party who think of themselves as socialists but that's about the only difference. Fianna Fail used to have that too.

You are a member of a party which has championed tax amnesties for the rich, which supports the EU constitution, which supports social partnership, which supports ASBOs. The major debate within your party in recent times has been over whether a Fianna Fail led coalition or a Fine Gael led coalition would be a better right wing government to be involved in. Of course I'm going to challenge you if you dare to portray Labour as a "left wing" party or a "socialist" party or as an alternative for working class people! The core goal of your party, a slightly nicer more liberal version of free market capitalism, is absolutely repugnant to me.

I will work with members of Labour or anybody else on issues where there is enough agreement. But that doesn't remove my right to disagree with you and to criticise the right wing politics of your party. I think that breaking the link between the right wing Labour Party and the fast declining working class elements of its support is an important task for socialists just as eroding Fianna Fail's support amongst workers is.

by Chris Bond - Labour Thu Jun 02, 2005 20:45

You`re throwing around the term ''right wing'' far too lightly, if right wing in your terms means not as left wing as you then we may render the political compass irrelveant and use politics in relative terms. Is a party that wants to bring about eduacational equality, to intervene in the housing market to make homes more affordable and withdraw use of shannon airport for the US army, boycott israeli goods, increase overseas developement aid to 0.7%, provide the same quality healthcare to every irish citizen regardless of income a party of ''right wing politics''

Every person in Ireland has benefited from the Labour party being in power whether they like to admit it or not. It was us that introduced PRSI, widows pensions, lone parents allowenes and Child benefit, it was us that decriminalised homosexual acts, and legalised contraceptives as part of our programme for government. It was us that abolished 3rd level fees and set precedents in increases in spending on facilities for special needs people, we also reduced waiting lists the last time we were in government and reduced council waiting lists to a record low.

When your party has the same track record of doing things for the people of ireland that is anything like ours, you can come back to me. Our support is far greater than your`s even in the working class areas that you claim to be the champions of defending.

by Not Labour Thu Jun 02, 2005 22:38

Other achievements of the Labour Party in Power:

Closing Hospitals
Introducing Water Charges
Granting Tax amnesties to the Rich
Privatising Eircom and other state companies
Sacking thousands of public servants
Reducing corporation tax
Breaking strikes
Gerrymandering election Boundaries
Introducing anti-trade union legislation
Supporting various EU treaties

The list goes on

by Chris Bond Thu Jun 02, 2005 23:23

''Privatising Eircom and other state companies''

A blatant Lie, the Labour party opposed the breakup of Telecom and Aer Rianta, and are opposed to the sale of Aer Lingus. So get your facts right in future.

by Chris Bond Thu Jun 02, 2005 23:27

All of Acheivements that are have mentioned were implemented by LABOUR ministers, the majority of things that ''not labour'' listed were not done by Labour but by ministers from OTHER PARTIES when Labour where in power with them.

by sper Fri Jun 03, 2005 04:31

i'd like to say thanks from a constantly embarrassed member of the party. Couldn't have put it better myself. The vast vast vast majority of us don't think or behave like some of these trolls, just some (probably youth) members who read the material while missing the point. i'd also remind the excited comrade, half of us used to be in labour once! (exclamation mark)

by Starstruck - DGN Australia Branch Fri Jun 03, 2005 04:39

Wow well that took quite some time and several dollars to read!
Good to see UCD politics still making regular appearances on the IMC.
As regards the whole LY and Labour "supporting" FG and the E.U Constitution I think its been made fairly clear that the policies of the youth wing are disparate from those of the main party.
I would not profess to be the biggest proponent by any means of the current Labour party,its strategies and suggested slow drift to the right but what i do know for sure is that many of the LY members are commited wholeheartedly to issues that concern those withy more "radical ' politics.
However Labour supporting the Coke boycott openly by passing a motion does not really do all that much for those who are REALLY affected,the Sinaltrainal workers and thus is a fairly symbolic act until furthered upon by attempts to extend the boycott on the ground.

by sper Fri Jun 03, 2005 04:54

talking about party members that have made good reasoned out argumnets like mark, just the ones that shout from the rooftops going off topic and alienate us. (ie socialist) In my experience the ones that cry like this the loudest and parrot party lines like robots don't last, (remember shane?). Labour have terrible policies and we should do everything to convince their members of this, we won't do this by insulting their intelligence. Most likely left wing labour members will leave when and if labour become part of a right wing government (thats what usually happens) but in the meantime try not to have them hate us as well!

by The Golden Circle Fri Jun 03, 2005 10:21

"Every person in Ireland has benefited from the Labour party being in power whether they like to admit it or not."

Thanks Labour we particularly liked the tax amnesty.

by Joe - WSM per cap Fri Jun 03, 2005 13:06

It might be a suggestion to the various SP members here that you adopt consistent pseudonyms and stick with them (as Mark P and Nigel Irritable have done). In particular if you could encourage the couple of more 'emotional' SP posters to do so this would enable the rest of us to more clearly distinguish between an SP position/approach and the postion/approach of a particular SP member(s).

---

Now a couple of on topic comments

1. I actually agree that the LY members posting here try and wiggle out of responsibility for the actions of their party including those actions that occur when it has been in coalition. You can't just take the (limited) positive side. That said the consistent trolling carried out by some every time someone from Labour posts is pointless and boring. But a real debate on the perceived advantages of being part of a party which is very much part of the capitalist establishment would be quite interesting.

2. I'm not convinced that this motion is all that meaningful - in particular as it was obviously delibretely gutted (to remove explicit references to the boycott). I suspect this was to allow people like Peter to present the sort of arguments that he does here while allowing the yoof to think they had achieved something (all political parties pull that trick). The motion doesn't actually commit the party to do anything external - not even make a public statement. So the value of the motion is purely in the internal LP debate and the debate it has raised here.

by cian Fri Jun 03, 2005 13:15

Funny thing is that many of us In Labour were members of a party that opppossed the tax amnesty vigourously. This includes the current leader of the Labour party, and the deputy leader and our MEP and our two T.D.s in Cork and Eamon Gilmore. So don't expect us to defend it or answer for it - we did more to opposse it than most of those levelling criticism here.

In fact the vast majority of the membership of the Labour Party didn't support it at the time and it is generally accepted even by Fergus Finlay in his book that it was a mistake. It is a classic example of what goes wrong when the leadership becomes aloof from the membership - one of the many reasons why internal democracy is so important in an organisation.

by Dan Fri Jun 03, 2005 14:34

It would be very useful to have a genuine debate about Labour. I think there are big holes in the arguments put forward by many Labour members here. But we're not going to have a real debate unless people chill out and stop denouncing each other (I'm not just talking about SP members here - telling people to the left of Labour that they don't leave in the real world is just as childish and insulting as anything people have said about Labour members - most of us have our feet firmly anchored in the real world, care about real people not just dogma, and if we have a different political strategy to yours, that's because we regard it as more realistic and pragmatic in the long run. You can disagree with that if you like, but don't tell us we're living in cloud-cuckoo land).

In my experience, the more antagonistic you are to people, the more staunchly they defend their own organisations; the more tolerant you are, the more willing they are to offer their own criticisms (not just Labour, SF and SP too). I wouldn't say I've always been innocent in this regard myself, I've had a few exchanges of insults with people on this site, mostly from the SWP; I can't really say it achieved very much, apart from letting off steam.

by Chris - Labouryouth Fri Jun 03, 2005 16:03

''I think there are big holes in the arguments put forward by many Labour members here''

There are even bigger holes in the arguments put forward by opponents of Labour.

by Jane - Labour Youth UCD Fri Jun 03, 2005 16:44

"(Jane, I will come back to you later.)"

It really makes me smile to read this two day old comment of yours in response to one of my last posts, which asked you direct questions and challenged your argument about what the Labour motion meant. Then, I return this afternoon to see you self-righteously clamouring for a response from Chris to YOUR earlier demand for information...but still no response to my own post...What's that they say about people in glass houses?

Thanks to Badman for trying to press Peter into a response while I wasn't able to check this site, but I think his deliberate and undisguised avoidance of our questions now speak for themselves in terms of the strength of his argument..

by hs - sp Fri Jun 03, 2005 17:13

I can understand your point completely, but then you have to also see the point that you have to take some responsibility for your party. Its fine to go, well that's nothing to do with me I opposed it. But it could also be a bit of a cop out. At the end of the day unless you organise some sort of opposition to the leadership it's not going to make much difference. In the same way sp members have to take responsibility for our positions (on left unity for example) labour members have to take some responsibility for theirs.

Shannon and coalition

On the point of the labour fine gael coalition, fine gael are the most openly militaristic party in this state. They have for a long time (openly) campaigned for us to join nato, so I can't see them agreeing to de militarise shannon.

Labour members may see the fg labour coalition as a centre left one, but I strongly suspect it will be alot more centre than left, and probably veer a little over to the right.

As for the original article, I can't see any harm at all in it and it is a small victory at least for labour youth which has to be welcomed. But other than that and spreading a little publicity amongst labour members thats it. But would welcome it all the same. For the motion on shannon I'd refer to the coalition point.

As for people's behavior on indymedia, we've been through all this before and can only hope as people use it more they will realise acting like sparts will get them nowhere.
But people should also be ready to take critisim, from every parrty.

by Dan Fri Jun 03, 2005 18:34

"There are even bigger holes in the arguments put forward by opponents of Labour."

I'm trying to be nice here, Chris. The Labour Party is a very easy target. Labour members should not go round picking fights with other people on the left - there's a helluva lot of mud to sling in their direction.

by Dave Curran - The Daver Party Fri Jun 03, 2005 18:41

Fine, i withdraw that comment, it wasn't meant as an attack on anyone.

(For the record I think we have to keep a balance between living in the real world and imagining a better one to work towards.)

by Oisin - SP (per. cap.) Fri Jun 03, 2005 19:20

I want to make a few points on the working class. Chris says that it's wrong to restrict activity to the working class. The fact is that the working class are the only class capable of overthrowing capitalism due to their role in the economy (ie they make, distribute, and sell goods and services). It's on the basis of working class action can there be a democratic ownership and control of the economy. We don't think that the working class are a homogenous group. Within the working class there are poorer and richer workers, skilled and unskilled, education and less education, different sexual orientations, different ethnic groups, etc. Where there is a left-wing person from outside the working class we would argue that they should orientate their activity to the working class. The SP don't exclude people because of their bank balance, we think that it's all about orientation of political activity.

Gaz says that Marxists want there to be party controlled state in which there will be a minority vangaurd controlling everything. I know many people in UCD that have come to these conclusions without ever asking SP members about our views! We want to see the working class NOT the Socialist Party take control of the wealth and resources of the world. We do not stand for rule by a minority, that's what we're trying to end! How more clearly do we have to say that? The revolutionary party is needed in our opinion to put forward revolutionary ideas NOT to control people. We aim to have the power of persuasion and NOT to be an undemocratic minority.

Dave asks if I would label people I meet on the street as 'sell-outs' etc. Obviously I wouldn't. I don't think I've done that here. I have serious criticisms of Labour. I have tried to put them forward in a friendly yet firm manner. A big problem with IMC is that you cannot get the tone of how a person puts forward an argument. So everyone should chill out a bit!

by Darragh Ó Bradáin - Labour Youth UCD Fri Jun 03, 2005 19:52

Oisín, for the sake of argument, consider this: The Socialist Party win the majority of Dáil seats in the next general election. What then? I'd be very interested to hear what you have to say.

by easy Fri Jun 03, 2005 20:26

In short it would see the nationalisation of the key industries and a dissolution of the state (courts, police etc) and the switching all power to the organisations of the working class

by Chris Bond - Labour youth. Fri Jun 03, 2005 20:34

I guess that the people who were making blatantly false accusations about Labour ''supporting ASBOs'' can go eat humble pie.

by curious Fri Jun 03, 2005 20:51

"In short it would see the nationalisation of the key industries and a dissolution of the state (courts, police etc) and the switching all power to the organisations of the working class"

Could you be a bit more specific please?

What would replace the police? And what about non-working class people such as middle classes etc? Would they get a say? What kind of macro economic policies? What levels of tax? Where would the socialist state get most of its revenue? What if there was a lack of capital due to companies leaving the country? What would the trade policies be? Would there be massive tariffs raised?

What if people started protesting against all this? (which is inevitable as there are many right wing people in this country) What if there were campaigns of civil disobediance against it? Campaigns of non-payment of tax by D4 people?

And nationalisation of the key industries? What would happen to the rest of the economy? Would there still be markets for goods and services or would the state attempt to control every aspect of the economy?

Would pornography still be allowed?


I'm genuinely interested. (the last question was just a joke)

by SP Member - SP/CWI Fri Jun 03, 2005 22:49

From

Hypothetical Question
by Darragh Ó Bradáin - Labour Youth UCD

"Oisín, for the sake of argument, consider this: The Socialist Party win the majority of Dáil seats in the next general election. What then? I'd be very interested to hear what you have to say."


The posing of the question show the difference between parliamentary reformism and revolutionary socialism.

Taking into account the fact that the SP is a revolutionary party (despite what some may claim here) The question you pose has to be looked at in a different context than you outline.

The SP is not attempting to win a majority in the Dail as this in itself will achieve little. Parliamentary democracy (as distinct from real drmocracy) is an instrument of capitalism. In order for revolutionary socialism to become a mass force within society, class struggle would need to develop to a significantly greater degree than exists today. This does not happen overnight but has happened in the past in Ireland (the most striking example being the social upheavals in the 1918-1920 period). In the event of this heightening of class struggle new democratic organisations of the working class would come into existance (workplace committees, community committees and workers councils, revoultionary bodies not the hack groups that exist today). In this situation the power and influence of Parliament would be very much decreased and as such the impact of having Dail seats would also be reduced. For the SP influence in the real democratic organisation of the working class would be far more important and significant.

The only likelihood of the SP achieving a majority in the Dail would be linked to a revolutionary upsurge in the class struggle and a growing influence and impact of the ideas expressed by the SP within the working class and its democratic organisations. In the event of the working class achieving power by overthrowing capitalism and its institutions, it would be the working class and not the SP that would be implementing policy and that policy would be the placing of the political, social and economic structures of society under democratic workers control.

Revoultion will happen in this country. When? I don't know. How? impossible to predict. Who will lead it? revolutionary socialists, be they members of the SP or not. Will it be successful? I certainly hope so, revolution will occur, but its success will depend on the balance of class forces at the time.

It can be difficult for Labour reformists to understand these ideas given the parliamentary tinted glass that society is viewed through.

by Dave Curran Fri Jun 03, 2005 23:03

"The SP is not attempting to win a majority in the Dail as this in itself will achieve little."

If you have no interest in winning an election how will you know if a majority of people support what you want to do? I presume you wouldn't want to lead a revolution that was opposed by more people than supported it.

by SP Member - SP/CWI Sat Jun 04, 2005 10:56

Maybe you will understand it this time.

by Dave Curran Sat Jun 04, 2005 14:53

"In the event of this heightening of class struggle new democratic organisations of the working class would come into existance (workplace committees, community committees and workers councils, revoultionary bodies not the hack groups that exist today)."

Yeah i read this, and democratic organisations of the working class such as those you describe would be fantastic, but what of other people in society who don't consider themselves working class? You haven't indicated that everybody else would be included in the decision making as well. What about professionals, small business people, managers etc? Would they be included in "democratic organisations of the working class"?

by Mark P Sat Jun 04, 2005 18:20

I think your question is more complex than it seems, particularly as it includes a large number of assumptions which socialists wouldn't share.

For instance take the issue of whether or not people "consider themselves working class". Currently there are many people who to a socialist are working class who consider themselves to be "middle class". These include a lot of white collar wage workers particularly better paid ones. The kind of social ferment we are talking about presupposes a much higher level of what Marxists term "class consciousness", one aspect of which would include the wiping away of such illusions.

A related point is that many professions have been absorbed into the working class as a result of the relentless economic processes of capitalism. Take as an example university lecturers. Something similar has happened and continues to happen to other groups who could be considered middle strata in society. Once upon a time the cobbler was an important small businessman. Now the shoemaker works on an assembly line.

Another point you seem to have missed is that a socialist transformation of society has as part of its aim the abolition of the current social roles of the manager and the business person! In a socialist society, run through workers councils, there would be nobody in the position of business person and management would be determined democratically. The aim is the abolition of distinct social classes.

by Dave Curran Sat Jun 04, 2005 19:38

Thanks mark P, you are right in what you say, I am familiar with the issues you raised, but what i want to know is:

Would trotskyist parties want to make sure that a majority of people in ireland want a revolution before they bring one about?

For example it would be possible for a well organised minority to bring about a revolution while the "silent majority", so to speak are opposed to it.

On the other hand of course, the majority could well support the revolution yet this might not be reflected in the media, which would be hostile to it.

So it seems to me that the only way to make sure that the majority of people want the revolution is through trying to win a majority in the election, or if not, then through some other mass plebiscite or something.

The reason i bring up the issue of non-working class people is because this is a pluralist society and doctors, lawyers, college lecturers and even capitalists have a right to a say in the direction the country takes as well.

The previous post by "SP member" mentioned "new democratic organisations of the working class", which seems to suggest that some social groups would not be included in the democratic organisations which would ideally give legitimacy to the revolution.

If this is what he means, then i believe it is unacceptable. If, on the other hand he does believe that capitalists, doctors, managers etc should have a say in voting on whether to proceed with the revolution (i presume there would be some sort of vote, or many votes at some stage-otherwise how would the revolution have any legitimacy?) then where would they get to vote? Would they be able to participate in the "new democratic organisations of the working class", or would these organisations just be for the working class?

by Mark P Sat Jun 04, 2005 19:57

I'm off to watch the match so I don't really have time to respond to your wider points in detail but the issue about majority support is quite straightforward. The kind of transformation of society we want to see is a genuinely socialist one, where the vast majority takes control of society and the economy away from the tiny minority who currently rule. That simply isn't possible without majority support.

by Darragh Ó Bradáin - Labour Youth UCD Sat Jun 04, 2005 20:00

If you have no interest in Parliaments, why do you have a T.D. who regularly attends the Dáil? Surely this indicates you are a parliamentary reformist party. I will remind you that Oisín (if that in fact is you) stated that the SP were hoping to win 3 or 4 seats next time. What then? Would the SP be hoping for 10 or 11 seats the next time round. Then maybe 20 after that....?

But I'll ask again: If the SP won the majority of Dáil seats, what would they do? Remember, it's a HYPOTHETICAL question. Give me a HYPOTHETICAL answer.

by ? Sun Jun 05, 2005 19:56

Darragh can you not understadn that because you stand in elections and and use the positions won in those elections does not mean that you have an allegiance to that body or have an illusion that winning seats will fundamentally change society. Being a former SFer I would have thought you'd understand that.

As for your hypothetical scenario, it has been answered previously.

by Darragh Ó Bradáin - Labour Youth UCD Sun Jun 05, 2005 21:43

I asked again because I wanted to see what Oisín had to say about it, Mr./Ms. Anonymous Question Mark, who is/was most likely a UCD student.

And as for my former party membership, it is a burden that I unfortunately must bear, even though I was only a SFer for just under 2 months. And just because I WAS in Ógra Shinn Féin, it does not mean that I understand them or the Sinn Féin party itself.

So, I await Oisín's response.

by Mark P Sun Jun 05, 2005 23:01

If you are interested in the view of the Socialist Party on these issues Darragh, it's pretty easy to find out without demanding to hear it from Oisin. If you want Oisin's personal view then fair enough.

The Socialist Party contests elections because both the campaigns themselves and any seats we win give us a platform which we can use to argue for socialist ideas. We also use any positions won to strengthen all of our campaigning work. I think a very good example is the use Joe Higgins made of his Dail platform to further the struggle of the GAMA workers. That doesn't mean that we think that a socialist transformation of society will come through the Dail.

To use a related example, I'm sure you would recognise that local Councils have almost no power to do anything these days. Yet you would hardly suggest that the Labour Party cease contesting Council elections or that their councillors should cease attending.

by Oisín - SP (personal capacity) Sun Jun 05, 2005 23:20

I have not looked at this thread for about 2 days, hence not being able to answer a few points made by Darragh and others. I'll make a few points about parliament and what we see as a revolution. Hopefully that will answer questions.

We don't think that capitalist parliament is democratic. Yes, there is a universal sufferage in Ireland. These things have been won by fighting for them. For most of the time capitalism has been in Ireland there was not universal sufferage. Only in 1918 could Irish and British women vote (and then only over 30!). Only in early 70s in NI was there universal sufferage in local government. Even today the Oireachtas is undemocratic. Look at the way we cannot re-call our TDs. I don't want part-timer Liz O'Donnell 'representing' me as my local TD, yet we cannot get a re-call vote. We've to wait 5 years. Look at the Senate where Senators are elected on basis of a 2-3 year old local government election result. Graduates choose 6 and one man chooses 11! The Presidency, Judiciary, Council of State, County Managers, etc. are other undemocratic aspects of the Irish State.

The Socialist Party do participate in elections to local government, the Dail, the European Parliament, etc. This does not make us reformist. We fight elections not just to win the positions but to spread our ideas. We use elections to tell people about what we have to say on the key local, national and international issues. We put forward socialist solutions and we stress the need for working class political activity. Where we do win positions we use them to do the same (1 TD or over 20 TDs we'll stick to this and not do coalition deals). This does not make us reformist as at no time do we say that capitalist government and positions in the state will win major consessions. We never say people should vote for us to 'sort things out'. We say that we will do all we can to assist and facilitate campaigns and activity. For example Joe Higgins was able to assist the GAMA strikers with our Dail position, but the workers' strike action was most important.

If the SP won a majority of seats in the Dail we would try to implement socialism! But we don't think that we would be allowed! There are many examples of revolutionaries winning elections and being removed by capitalists (Spain, Chile, etc.). If there was to be an election and it looked like the SP would win a majority I'd say the State will postpone/suspend elections, intimidate voters, and other dodgy tricks. If elected as a majority I'd say that the state would do all in it's power to frustrate that Dail, ie using Senate, President, Courts, or plain old arrests, intimidation and Coups. Point is that if we won a majority we think that we'd get nowhere without active working class support.

We think that a revolution can only happen if it has the support of the majority of the working class, otherwise it would not be a revolution! There is a need for an active working class where their democratic organisations could take over from the capitalist state's organisations (eg Dail) as we think that capitalism will not respect their own institutions when they get the wrong result. The way we would see it would be where all working class people will get a say over how to run the economic and political affairs. For example in workplaces there will be democratic running of the business. Managers will be delegated to organise work and not be there to find a way to exploit people more and will have their positions rotated and subject to re-call. We do not have a blueprint for the revolution that we'll use at the time! How the level of tax is set (if there will be income tax at all?) or how the surpluses will distributed will be up to debate at the time, only condition is that it's done in a through democratic manner with all having a say. There will be no dictatorship of a party.

On the issue of 'who will get a say'. We don't have a 'cloth cap' view of the working class. The working class includes many different types of people. People that work in offices are working class. Even today many of the traditional middle class jobs have been 'prolitarianised' and many view themselves as working class. For example the Lawyer today is very likely to be working for a law firm with hundreds of employees. The accountant the same. Teachers and university lecturers are increasingly seeing themselves as 'ordinary people'. When we say working class control we mean the control by the vast majority of society. Managers will be subject to democratic control by the workers. Capitalists won't exist as we'd nationalise their firms (as individuals they'd be entitled to jobs like anyone else!). There would be full democratic rights such as right to form parties, stand in elections, vote, etc. If pro-capitalist party is formed they can do so, so long as they are not fascist or plan on coups. To be honest I don't think such a party would get much popular support (I don't see many pro-feudalism parties today!).

Hope this answers questions. Sorry for long reply.

by Darragh Ó Bradáin Mon Jun 06, 2005 00:10

Thank you for your detailed reply, Oisín.

However, something you said grabbed my attention:

"If the SP won a majority of seats in the Dail we would try to implement socialism! But we don't think that we would be allowed! There are many examples of revolutionaries winning elections and being removed by capitalists (Spain, Chile, etc.). If there was to be an election and it looked like the SP would win a majority I'd say the State will postpone/suspend elections, intimidate voters, and other dodgy tricks. If elected as a majority I'd say that the state would do all in it's power to frustrate that Dail, ie using Senate, President, Courts, or plain old arrests, intimidation and Coups. Point is that if we won a majority we think that we'd get nowhere without active working class support."

Isn't that a little bit paranoid? How would the state intimidate voters? And what do you mean by "dodgy tricks"?
And if the SP did win a majority, then wouldn't you then HAVE the support of the working class? So you WOULD get somewhere.

by . Mon Jun 06, 2005 00:18

he said 'active support'

by Mark P Mon Jun 06, 2005 00:32

I don't think that it is at all paranoid to suggest that the capitalist class would refuse to shrug their collective shoulders, say "it's a fair cop guv", and accept the expropriation of their enormous wealth just because an elected government decides on it.

The example of Chile mentioned earlier is an almost archetypal one - moves away from capitalism were met with a bloody coup and the slaughter of workers leaders, socialists and trade unionists.

What has been happening in Venezuala at the moment is a somewhat murkier case in point. Chavez has not as of yet decisively broken with capitalism but has introduced significant social changes. Even without an attempt to introduce a socialist society and expropriate the wealth of the tiny elite, these reforms have been met by lock outs, a strike of capital and an attempted coup. That coup was defeated not by parliamentary vote but by the power of millions of people taking to the streets. The process of change in Venenzuala is not over but you can take it for granted that the local capitalist class and their imperialist allies aren't going to give up.

The question that should be asked here isn't if revolutionary socialists are paranoid. It's if anyone who believes that capitalism can be reformed out of existence is naive beyond belief. I would say "if Labour Party members are naive beyond belief", but of course nobody in the Labour Party these days wants to get rid of capitalism by any method.

by Darragh Ó Bradáin Mon Jun 06, 2005 00:35

"but of course nobody in the Labour Party these days wants to get rid of capitalism by any method."

Could you back that up please?

by Dave Curran Mon Jun 06, 2005 01:55

Well I'm glad that this thread has evolved into a discussion rather than a name-calling session. And I can't really say i disagree with much of what you said, Oisin.

But it still has not been made clear by anybody whether or not every person in Ireland would have a say on issues regarding the revolutionary process. Its not enough to say that the working class would democratically decide. What about the non-working class?

Would "capitalists" be excluded? And who exactly are the capitalists in the Irish case? Roughly what number of them are there in the country? And if they do control the government, how exactly do their interests influence government policy? Because Its not enough to just say I'm not being snide her, I just want to hear what you guys think.

Furthermore, i have to point out that the marxist idea of there being 2 main classes has been seriously disputed. For example Michael Albert writes of a third "coordinator class" of managers, professionals etc and I think that seems more plausible. It seems stretching it to suggest that doctors have the same interests as McDonalds workers.

http://www.zmag.org/calllinicosalbertdebate.htm

I think that maybe the leninist / trotskyist view regarding class is flawed.

Another issue that i have with trotskyist groups is to do with economics. I don't get the impression that trotskyist groups pay enough attention to economics.

Would the SP, if in power still rely on markets for allocation of goods and services? Would there be Keynesian style demand management policies? It may seem like nit-picking, but its important stuff. I remember reading an account by a journalist in Chile during the time of the Allende government in which he asked some pro-Allende activists about the economic situation, and they replied "oh we dont care about economics -we're interested in power".

I don't think we can ignore issues of power OR economics, so i would be interested in finding out what kind of economic policies would their be? I know workers would own firms -I've been in favor of this for years- but what about after that? No need for super-huge details, just roughly what kind of economic model? Central Planning? "Market Socialism" like in the former Yugoslavia? Participatory Economics? (see: http://www.zmag.org/parecon/indexnew.htm )


Mark P:
You're totally right about Chile, Venezuela, and the same could be said for dozens of other cases. But its not enough to base your analysis of Ireland -a rich, industrialized country- on similar events in developing (or less developed, or underdeveloped or whatever) countries. The countries of Latin America are structurally very different that those of western Europe. For example the "balance of class forces" is very different. There may be similarities, but the differences are so significant that you cant apply a "one size fits all" analysis. Thus, to suggest that capitalists would stage a coup d'etat in Ireland just because other capitalists did so in Guatemala or Brazil is hardly very convincing.

So if capitalists control the Irish government and state, who exactly are these capitalists? Are we talking about a transnational capitalist class, or an Irish one? And exactly how do their interests get transmitted into government policy in the Irish case? Lobbying? The education system? You It's not enough to just assert that capitalists control the government. Can it be proven empirically? Rather than just by a very selectively chosen set of examples, particularly if those examples are from another country, and a very different one like venezuela.

I'm not trying to be argumentative here -just hoping to see where you're coming from and then maybe we can forge some sort of meeting of minds.

by Dave Curran Mon Jun 06, 2005 02:05

In the 3rd paragraph ignore the words

"Because Its not enough to just say"

-dunno how they got in there. They dont make any sense.

by Mark P Mon Jun 06, 2005 02:13

Oh I quite accept that there are still a few members of the Labour Party who think of themselves as socialists in one way or another. But not only is the party itself committed to the maintenance of the capitalist free market there is no oppositional current which disagrees. A few isolated individuals holding contrary opinions in the privacy of their own heads means nothing.

We've just seen a Labour conference where the percentage of delegates opposed to the neo-liberal EU constitution was in single figures. The central debate was around whether Fianna Fail or Fine Gael would be a better senior partner in yet another right wing coalition government. Not only was there nobody arguing for socialist change there wasn't even a noticeable body of opinion which opposed coalition full stop.

There isn't a socialist current in the Labour Party which is currently a minority but which is striving to change that. There aren't even motions with minority support arguing a case for socialist policies and a case for ending capitalism. There are no organised left bodies. There's nothing at all of that nature.

It's important to remember that this is a change. It wasn't always this way. A couple of decades ago Labour had a revolutionary socialist component, mostly around the "Militant". It also had a very substantial body of members who were committed to the socialist transformation of society by reformist means. Both are now gone.

I would welcome evidence to the contrary, Darragh, but I won't hold my breath.

by Mark P Mon Jun 06, 2005 02:54

Dave you are raising a whole range of very big issues in that last post. I'm not at all sure that it is possible to do them all justice on a thread like this. I'll give some of the issues you raise a go, but please bear in mind that these answers are only outlines:

1. The Socialist Party supports a society and political economy organised and planned through delegate councils. That is we favour democracy in economic decisions just as we do in other political decisions. The key point to note here is that democracy is the lifeblood of economic planning. Even aside from the obvious emancipatory arguments for democracy, without it there is no feedback mechanism in a planned economy and you would get something approaching the bureaucratic nightmare of Stalinism. I include Yugoslavia in that category by the way, as despite some minor differences its economy was for the most part controlled in a similar manner to that of the other Stalinist dictatorships.

2. I actually agree with you that socialists (all socialists) often don't pay enough attention to thinking about the details of the running of a socialist economy. That's not quite the same as saying not enough attention is paid to economics however. A huge amount of time and attention has been paid to analysing the capitalist mode of production. The socialist critique of capitalism can sometimes seem better developed than our understanding of socialism.

3. The Marxist understanding of class is a huge subject and it can't really be boiled down into soundbites without losing much of its coherence. This is one I hope to come back to but being able to do so depends on me having both the time and the energy.

4. I used Chile and Venezuala as examples because one is very famous and the other is current. In fact there are an enormous number of examples pointing to one thing - no capitalist class has ever just ceded control of their wealth without a fight. Not one in history. Not one anywhere. Now most of these examples are from some time ago - like the Spanish Civil War or the crushing of the Paris commune - or from the Third world, where the coups against left inclined governments are almost to many to list. The reason for this bias in the evidence is itself an interesting subject - it hasn't been necessary for a capitalist class in a Western nation in recent decades to take that drastic a step. There is no reason at all to believe that the capitalists active in Ireland, both local and international, would be any more inclined to pull the "its a fair cop guv" routine just because they lost a vote.

5. This brings me onto a related point, that of how exactly the capitalist class exert control of society.

Much of it is direct control - the companies and wealthy people who make the decision to invest, to not invest or whatever. Much of it is indirect control - who owns the media, who backs the political parties, who runs this or that quango and so on. But there is much more to it than that. Marxism is not a conspiracy theory. There are not a dozen men in black hoods sitting around a table in Geneva deciding how the world will be run.

An important theme in Marxist thought was expressed by Marx in the following terms - the dominant ideas of each epoch are the ideas of its ruling class. The ideas of capitalism, of helping business, holding down wages, even that private ownership of the means of production is acceptable are the dominant ideas in society under capitalism. These ideas are reproduced in countless ways throughout society. The capitalist doesn't have to tell the government to implement policies which suit him, those policies are already understood to be right and proper and in the national interest.

Antonio Gramsci has many flaws as a political thinker but he wrote some fascinating material expanding on this insight through his concept of hegemony. He pointed out that there are two elements to class rule, broadly speaking compulsion and persuasion. Except in extreme circumstances the former is dominant in a parliamentary democracy.

by Darragh Ó Bradáin Mon Jun 06, 2005 14:14

I was originally referring to when you said:

"but of course nobody in the Labour Party these days wants to get rid of capitalism by any method."

and in a later response you said:

"Oh I quite accept that there are still a few members of the Labour Party who think of themselves as socialists in one way or another."

Two contradicting views. You can start breathing again, Mark P. Holding your breath for an excessive period of time isn't a good idea.

by Dave Curran Mon Jun 06, 2005 14:31

Mark, thanks for your response. I know my questions were detailed, and I don’t expect anyone to give a perfect textbook answer. I’m trying to stimulate thought as much as find out what your positions are.

But my questions still have not been answered. Would everybody get to vote on whether to proceed with the revolution, or would people labelled capitalists be excluded?

Would there still be a market economy in the socialist society the SP want to create? Democratic planning may be good for some things, but surely there would not be hundreds of councils deciding exactly how much to produce all of the thousands of goods and services each of us go through in a year. Only markets can determine how much to produce, how to produce them and who gets them. This is not for a second to argue that markets should decide everything –some things are obviously too important (such as health care and infrastructure), nor is it to suggest that markets don’t fail –they do. But broadly speaking, I cant see how democratic planning would be efficient for the overwhelming majority of goods and services we use.

Saying this is perfectly consistent with the idea of worker self-management: its reasonable to imagine a scenario of lots of democratically-run worker cooperatives competing with one another for customers in a more or less free market, with stringent rules and regulations concerning the environment and externalities, as well as there being local councils where people could exert more democratic control over political and macro-economic matters.

Another point: where exactly are the capitalist class in the Irish case? How many are they in number? I’m not suggesting you’re wrong in your analysis of them, but I’ve only heard them spoken of in a very abstract way. The American “power elite” has been studied extensively –its existence has been empirically shown, as have the means by which it influences US government policy. But has the Irish capitalist class’s dominant influence over the Irish government been shown empirically? Or has a Marxist analysis simply been inserted into the Irish case?

by Oisín - SP (personal capacity) Mon Jun 06, 2005 15:20

"Would everybody get to vote on whether to proceed with the revolution, or would people labelled capitalists be excluded?"

All people will have a vote. Ex-capitalists will too but are in a tiny tiny minority.

I said in a previous post that we don't see the working class as a simple grouping. There are many different orientations, viewpoints and experiences. You refered to the middle layer in society, the managers, professionals etc. They will of course still have a vote under socialism. Difference is that managers will be subject to democratic control. Managers may even have their roles rotated or elected. Professionals such as university lecturers, accountants, lawyers, etc. will still exist under socialism. Society need people with such skills. We think that many professionals will not be hostile to socialism. We think that many will support the working class demands for economic planning, etc.

You asked about the market. If there is socialism tomorrow there will not be the abolition of smaller firms. The large firms will be nationalised and put under democratic control. Your small fish and chip shop will not, however it will have to implement rules on wage levels and working conditions and would have to allow a very high workers influence in the form of a co-operative. (It must be remembered that today small companies are controlled greatly by the banks).

The market will be abolished in that the major decisions will be made by economic planning. There will be democratic decisions made by 'delegate councils' as Mark said. There will be use of surveys, polls, and other economic data too. This does not mean that the local fish and chip shop will not put prices up and down according to demand!

Dave asked about who are the Irish capitalist class. The capitalist class are those that own capital, ie they are the people that take profits from companies. In Ireland, as everywhere else, there is a capitalist class and they are a tiny minority. I don't personally know any capitalists and I'd say you don't either. Of course the Irish capitalist class is a very weak and unconfident class compared to their counterparts in Western Europe and America. The South has a high level of investment from foreign capitalists (mainly USA & UK).

by john o'd Sat Jun 11, 2005 12:52

How did the Lasc table quiz go on wednesday? Couldn't make it myself unfortunately

by moomin Wed Jun 15, 2005 12:35

Just because your paranoid, darragh, doesn't mean their not out to get you!!

by Darragh Wed Jun 15, 2005 19:04

A Mhoomin, a chara, bí i do thost.