The Socialist Party and a broad left.

by Curious Sat Nov 19, 2005 15:38

they should have invited a few more people instead of the usual clique who will ask no awkward questions.

by Tumbleweed Sat Nov 19, 2005 15:36

Maybe there is nothing worth reporting....

by Never in Militant so feeling left out Sat Nov 19, 2005 15:21

It's been a week now ladies and gentlemen. Surely one of you must have had a few minutes to scribble a report?

by Colm Breathnach - ISN personal capacity Sun Nov 13, 2005 22:19

As soon as I get a chance, I will post a full report of Saturday's conference which brought together a number of groups and individuals to start the Campaign for an Independent Left. Apologies for the delay, no conspiracy involved, just a question of logisitics and time. Others who attended may beat me to it!

by Never in Militant so feeling left out Sun Nov 13, 2005 20:32

Fair enough Dermot, it sounded like I was moaning at you which I didn't intend. But really I wasn't asking to be spoonfed, I was just surprised at the secretiveness or lack of openness or whatever you want to call it.

I mean you posted up something about a meeting being held to launch a campaign but you didn't say where or at what time, which is fair enough for a private discussion but doesn't seem like a very good way to organise a campaign launch! Maybe I'm misreading something though and it was actually some kind of private discussion?

I gather from your signature above that a campaign of some kind does actually exist now? If so what does it stand for? How do you join (and who is welcome)? What does the campaign intend to do? Is there going to be a public statement explaining all of this?

I don't mean to pick on you in particular here Dermot. The whole left is the same on stuff like this, its as if we dont want our message to be as widely publicised as possible for fear that our enemies (who exactly?) will find out juicy details.

by dermot connolly - campaign for an independent left Sun Nov 13, 2005 20:12 dermotjoan at utvinternet dot com 087 7675691

We can't do everything for you. contact the email address or if you like phone. number spplied above

by Never in Militant so feeling left out Sun Nov 13, 2005 15:59

I was talking about the meeting yesterday that Dermot mentioned in his post:

"Next Saturday a meeting will take place in Dublin to launch a campaign ( not a party) for a new, left party. (Anyone who is genuinely interested in this initiative can make contact through email adress supplied with this comment.)"

I left it too late though and never made it along. I would still be interested in hearing what happened though. Was a campaign launched? Who had joined up? Has a statement or press release been issued? How many were there? What ideas were discussed?

Sometimes you would swear that Irish leftists don't want their doings to reach a broader audience. Getting even basic information about anything out of them is like pulling teeth.

by SP Australia (rank and file) Sun Nov 13, 2005 09:02

SP in Australia also calls for a new mass workers party and is participating in some inititaves to broaden the discussion.

Obviously different countries have different circumstances and both the subjective and objective situation needs to be taken into account.
A blanket can not be thrown over England , Wales Soctland, Ireland north or south let alone Australia.

In Melbourne the Electrical Trades Union have taken the initiative of organising a great debate in immediately after the mass rally on November 15th on the theme of 'Who represents workers? - ALP? Greens? Independents? A New workers Party?'.

Speakers will be from the ETU; Stephen Jolly Socialist Party Councillor (Yarra); Joan Doyle, the State Secretary of the posties division of the Communication Workers Union; and Lyn Dixon, the Chairperson of the residents association at the largest public housing estate in Victoria, the North Richmond estate.

The meeting will be held at the Comrades Bar in Carlton South on the afternoon of Tuesday, 15th November, that is immediately after the mass workers rally on that day.

The Socialist Party's call for a new workers party is well known. We believe this meeting will be a very useful tool in generating more debate over the issue. The ETU is advertising the event amongst its 17,000 members and SP will be handing out many more thousands of leaflets on the day.

check out the SP website in the coming days for reports.

by Buck Sun Nov 13, 2005 05:19

Wasnt he talking about England?

by Never in Militant so feeling left out Sat Nov 12, 2005 13:49

Where is the launch meeting today and at what time? I would be interested in going but I don't see any notices for it anywhere?

Does anyone know?

by Buck Sat Nov 12, 2005 04:04

"You'd think that Joe Higgins and Clare Daly were rank and file members of the SP, ignorant of the actions of the leadership, the way JT is 'appealing' to them, when they are actually on the leading bodies of the SP."

Yea, Clare Daly and the other members of the "leading bodies" are so popular arent they?

1)Will this new party be anti-capitalist?

Then they will get fcuk all extra support.

2) Will they mention their secluraism in their manifesto?

Then they wont attract any church goers.

The SP is a 'Dubs 'r' us' party. It will probably never get another elected rep. (on top of the other...1) that it has outside Dublin.

Lisa Maher is the only chance they have of another councillor in Dublin, and even she probably won't get it.

Clare Daly will probably never get into the Dáil either.

The SP should wake up and become another party, maybe calling themselves "The Joe Higgins Party". Then they would probably get more support.

Many of their members are an embarassment to the good folk in West Kerry where Joe Higgins comes from.

Ah, bless.

by seedot Thu Nov 10, 2005 21:47

Do you believe that “the very small left in the labour party and those outside it” or even people interested in “... the national question in Ireland.” are less important than the socialist party members?

Surely any meaningfull new formation will have to be looking at those who have either never heard of, dislike or have been alienated by the socialist party as this makes up 95%+ of the population. Most people couldn't tell you the difference between the socialist party and the socialist workers party let alone discuss the merits and dangers in an electoral pact between the two.

Maybe the thread started as a look at the British or Spewish Socialist Party analysis of the opportunity for some type of wide formation on the left. The question was asked of the Irish socialist party, but guess what, even here the question is just that bit wider for most people reading. And no matter how much some spuppie shouts that this is a socialist thread for our type of socialists, the topic brings up important questions.

How will any broad left formation deal with the national question? Its a good time to think about republicanism as the fifth since the revolution is shaken by the angry precariat in France. Hiding from this question makes you irrelevant in any country – not just Ireland.

What has been learnt in terms of forms of organisation? As those who rally around the flag and try to overcome the ex-wounds from ex-battles over ex-causes there doesn't seem to be an open discussion if maybe the organisational form caused all that infighting and impotence.

Maybe the ex-militants should stop trying to shout down the very people that they are going to have to appeal to if this is to be anymore than another attempt to relive the glory days of the 70's and 80's by some ex-comrades.

I am interested in kowing how iskra is planning on approaching the election – will there be joint strategy meetings with the blueshirts? Would he have joint strategy meetings with others who opposed a Fine Gael government?

What type of platform would work that could see groups from the north realistically affiliating?

Will the ex-comrades be able to communicate through the new media – or do they just turn up to have their private discussions?

(BTW – thanks for the snippets from the SPEW document, interesting. So who's the Irish candidate for “a well known labour movement figure or organisation” if the Sp decide they are too precious? Maybe it's the third socialist.)

by ex militant eile Thu Nov 10, 2005 20:04

this discussion is not about the relationship betwen the very small left in the labour party and those outside it, or the national question in Ireland. these are important issues but this thread started in relation to the call for a campaogn for a new left party in england and Wales by the SP there and posed the question, what is the position of the Sp in Ireland on this issue here. put simply, would the Sp either support or initiate a campaign for a new left party in Ireland? So far the Sp line is, the forces, level of struggle,etc don’t exist for the launching of a new party, end of discussion. this is a cop out on the real issue. Do the forces exist for the launch of a pre party campaign, which woud take steps to try and put the issue of a new party on the agenda as a discussion among working class and left activists.
I wou;d like to put into the discussion here some points from the SP discussion in EnglandWales. “ the fact that this ( SP call for a new workers party) has not yet been taken up and steps taken to implement it by a well known labour movement figure or organisation are the main reasons why the demand has not taken on any flesh.”
“ the main reasons why britain has not experienced a similiar phenonoma as the formation of the new left party in germany, is partly because the economic crisis is not as acute... and also the reluctance of figures like Bob Crowe, who calls for a new mass workers party but has not acted on it, to take the first steps.:”
“ ...if this ( RMI conference in january to discuss workers political representation) proves to be another example of verbal radicalism masking prevarication then our party should consider taking an initiative... because the conditions are now maturing for the creation of a new party.”
“ In fact, there is extreme frustration amongst a significant layer of active workers as well as those not involved inthe labour movament, that there is no visible alternative which they can support, vote for, and build as an alternastive...”
“ .. in the light of all this we as a patty must do what we can to help history along a little bit...”
“” the conditions not only exist but, in a sense, are overmature for the beginning of a new party. ...if anything, we tend to underestimate...our potential... to initiate movements of this chatacter.”
“ what we are suggesting is not so much the setting up immediately of a party. but a pre-party movement, which will give greater focus, more organised and concrete expression of our demand. it involves testing out the waters for this proposal..”
“ this initiative.. has to be linked to the question of the elections in May. We have to try and forge an alliance... that is prepared to fight on basis class struggle policy against cuts, anti union laws, for a free publically funded NHS, against the war, for socialism etc”

these quotes are taken from a SP dicussion document on this issue in Englad/Wales. the real questions for the Sp in Ireland are obvious. Are you in favour of this analysis in england and Wales? are the conditions there not only ripe, but “overmature”. If the answer is yes in england and Wales, what is so differant about the situation in Ireland/

by Frances Grennell Thu Nov 10, 2005 03:35

Hebe says: "Any new Mass Workers Party must emerge from the campaigns and workers struggle. But it wont drop out of thin air. As a first step an electoral United Front could be built."

"From the campaigns": what SWP/Davitt League /People Before Profit Alliance are now saying.

"As a first step an electoral United Front could be built" : what the Healy-Connolly initiative (maybe) and the Socialist Party are saying?

Both ends (1) are too polarised. A new left will be made through struggle from below and electoral stands. The former is primary. Or else we decend into 'Yes, Mr. Murphy, I'll arrange that grant/clean-up/lampost repair for you' parliamentary cretinism.

And (2) miss an essential centre: any new Mass Workers Party - and all the itermediate steps on the way - must involve a unification and a regroupment of many presently (and previously) active socialists (some/many in the Partys, some small groups, independents) who have moved on from isolation and/or sectarianism. This regroupment, or its first forms, is perhaps THE first step. Things certainly won't drop out of thin air.

by Hebe Wed Nov 09, 2005 18:40

You are right, the HQ of any new party is a diversion. I was just reacting to the arrogance of Dungannon.

Any new Mass Workers Party must emerge from the campaigns and workers struggle. But it wont drop out of thin air. As a first step an electoral United Front could be built. This would involve some existing left independent TDs, councillors,the SP and SWP. After that has been tried, the possibility of a new party could be looked at.

The National Question need not intrude into the manifesto of such an alliance. It would concentrate around Economic, Environmental, Health and Workers Rights.

But any new party would have to take a position on the National Question and how the dynamics of British Imperialism affect this island.. You can try and avoid the national question but it wont avoid you.

by all laughed out - none Wed Nov 09, 2005 18:38

It really is pathetic to see so many unrepresentative individuals plead so desperately with the SP to launch a broad party so they can find a political home.

You'd think that Joe Higgins and Clare Daly were rank and file members of the SP, ignorant of the actions of the leadership, the way JT is 'appealing' to them, when they are actually on the leading bodies of the SP.

by john throne - labors militant voice Wed Nov 09, 2005 18:00 loughfinn at aol dot com

This thread is being diverted. The issue here is not one of a united ireland or a divided Ireland or the SP position on this. The issue is one of left sectarianism. The SP refuses to campaign for a mass workers party in the South of Ireland because it wants to put off this development as long as it can without it being discredited. The idea being in the meantime to get as many SP representatives elected. This is left sectarianism and damages the working class movement. In the North the SP has no chance of getting people elected so it helps its credibility to campaign for a workers party.

I would like to appeal to Joe Higgins and Clare Daly, the trade union activists in the SP and all the rank and file members of the SP. Joe and Clare and the trade union activists in particular, you have resources and authority inside and outside the SP. Use these. Move resolutions to your branches. Make sure these are circulated and discussed in the party. Take these into the party for debate. Do not be intimidated by the manoeuvres of the leadership of the SP and the CWI. Raise your voice and campaign for a mass workers party and struggle for the SP to move towards a united front with others who have the same policy. This is your responsibility to the working class. If you do not take these steps then you are as guilty as the party leadership who pursue their left sectarian policies and who do damage to the working class movement. John Throne

by Spartacus Wed Nov 09, 2005 16:37

Ah, I certainly remember the old days and the Socialist Party of the Roman Empire. They condemned the Gauls and the Slaves for attacking the workers in uniform in the Roman Legions. I remember their slogans well:

For a Socialist Federation of Rome, Gaul and the British Isles!

Socialism in one Empire is impossible!

SPQR!

by Tony Sauvignon Wed Nov 09, 2005 16:35

This discussion about hq being in either belfast or dublin is a decoy. SP hq is in London. They haven't decided what way dublin/belfast will turn yet. Watch this space though.

by Hebe Wed Nov 09, 2005 16:30

Whats sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander. The SP always want things both ways. If you can argue that protestants wouldnt join a new workers party whose hq is in Dublin then I can make the equally valid arguement that catholics wouldnt join a new workers party whose hq is in Belfast.

by Dungannon Wed Nov 09, 2005 16:18

Yes why not? They have elected MLA's from Sinn Fein and the SDLP to an Assembly based in Belfast without any hesistation, in fact with some enthusiasm, so why would they not join a party that was based in the north? Not only that but they have also elected MPs from Sinn Fein and the SDLP to the British parliament, so can't see your point at all.

by Hebe Wed Nov 09, 2005 15:44

"I can really see northern protestants rushing out to join a party with its HQ in Dublin! Get real!"

But you expect Northern Catholics to join a party with its HQ in Belfast? Get real!

by Dungannon Wed Nov 09, 2005 15:38

Correction: Sorry Spartacus, you died 2,076 years ago (not 2,000) and just so you are not confused our country was then called Hibernia by your Roman imperial masters.


What did the Romans/British (delete as appropriate) ever do for us?

by Dungannon Wed Nov 09, 2005 14:06

Dear Spartacus,
I know that you will be unfarmiliar with the world in the 21st Century seeing that you have been dead for about 2,000 years, but since your time Ireland was partitioned and we now have the Republic of Ireland which consists of 26 counties with a parliament called the Dail that sits in it's capital city Dublin. The remaining 6 counties are known as Northern Ireland and are government by the United Kingdom government from Westminister in London. These are what we called FACTS.
As Iskra states the SP stands for a unitary socialist state in Ireland.

by Iskra Wed Nov 09, 2005 11:27

As far as I am aware the SP do stand for a 32 County Socialist Ireland. The SP itself is a 32 County party.

From the SP site:
"- For a socialist Ireland as part of a free and voluntary socialist federation of England and Wales, Scotland and Ireland."

Nothing here about 2 States in Ireland.

by Spartacus Wed Nov 09, 2005 11:03

I'm not a Spart, I just use the name of the leader of the Slave Revolt. But then he didnt think of the feelings of ordinary Romans and he killed workers in uniform in the Roman Legions. So maybe it was a sectarian revolt.

Its interesting that you refer to there being 2 States in Ireland. At last an SPer who is honest about the SPs Two Nationist and Partitionist politics.

by Dungannon Wed Nov 09, 2005 00:42

The Socialist Party does not believe it is possible to set up new workers parties in the north or the south at this time.

by Ex-Militant Tue Nov 08, 2005 22:35

Fine, Dungannon, thats a fair point, but lets develop this discussion in a reasonable way. Are you saying that the SP DOES favour the setting up of a broad workers party in the North now but not in the South? Lets have clarity so we can proceed with the discussion.

Im not asking this to catch you out , only to be clear. Mark P has made it clear that the SP definitely does not think the time is right for a new party or an intermediary formation in the South. So would it be fair to say that the SP believe that the time is right to set up some sort of campaign or intermediary formation in the North? If so what are the objective conditions in the North, different from the South, that make it right to proceed with setting up such a formation?

by Dungannon Tue Nov 08, 2005 21:26

To the Spart and the rest above - why wouldn't the Socialist Party support the idea of setting up a campaign in the 6 counties to discuss the launching of a new workers party and not do the same thing in the south? The north and the south are two seperate states with different governments and different politics and what is appropriate in the north may not be in the south and vice a versa. The idea of setting up a 32 county political alliance or party would be an idiotic step, a fiasco. I can really see northern protestants rushing out to join a party with its HQ in Dublin! Get real!

by Spartacus Tue Nov 08, 2005 16:50

The meeting was alluded to on this thread. The SP could help by telling us what the title of the meeting was and if they believe there is a need for a new party in the North. If there is a need for one in the North then why not in the South? Or perhaps Peter Hadden has made an Unilateral Declaration of Indepence from the SP Southern Troika.

by john throne - labors militant voice Tue Nov 08, 2005 16:43 loughfinn at aol dot com

I believe that this thread is not being very constructive. I think this is so because it starts from the position of the various left groups and not from the position of what is in the interest of the working class. It is not in the interest of the working class to have the various left groups and the many left and activist individuals acting seperately. This weakens the working class in its struggles. This has to be the starting point in my opinion. Any group which does not state this and seek to act to overcome this is acting against the interests of the working class. What does this mean concretely.

I do not believe that the many left groups in Ireland can unite at this time into one revolutionary group. There are too many differences and too much history. However I do believe that positive steps can be taken in this direction if we recognize the past mistakes. All revolutionary socialist groups in the past 50 plus years were influenced by stalinism and their fight against this reactionary force. The result was that they became over centralized and their internal lives became top down and less than democratic to one degree or another. At the same time these organizations were isolated from the mass working class movement and this also led to their internal lives becoming over centralized and less than democratic. Along with this an entirely incorrect view of the revolutionary organizations in the past developed. Different views were allowed to be expressed publicly in the revolutionary organizations such as the Bolsheviks. Different views were published and distributed and debated even outside the party. In Petrograd in 1917 there were three different Bolshevik papers and all had to some degree different positions and all were distributed publicly and debated. Such party life is seen as totally unacceptable in the left organizations today.

So while the unity of all the left groups is not possible at this time if there was a proper examination of the past of revolutionary groups and if the existing revolutionary groups would move to honestly discuss this history and make changes then progress could be made along these lines. That is there could be a movement towards increased unity of the left. This would especially be the case if two initiatives were taken. One, if this discussion were taken by some or even one of the larger left organizations into its own working class rank and file and make the changes there, and two, taken from there into the workplaces and ask for debate and advise. For example the SP and the SWP both have serious working class activists. But the internal manoeuvres of the leaderships of these parties are not taken up by these activists and not taken by these activists into the workplaces where they have a base. The challenge for anybody seeking to combat left sectarianism includes challenging the left sectarianism of the SP and the SWP. One way to do this is to explain how this left sectarianism is not in the interests of the working class and to go to the working class members of these organizations and engage them in debate and discussion in a struggle to get them to take up the issues inside their organization. If any significant group of activists formed themselves into an anti left sectarian front and at the same time took up the day day day struggle of workers then this would begin to have an affect on these left organizations. At the same time the working class activists in the SP and the SWP have a very big responsibility on their shoulders. They can either sit and say nothing or they can act and drag their leaderships away from their left sectarianism at least to the extent that could create some openings for the development of a new revolutionary organization that was not based on the model which came out of the influence of stalinism and its decades of isolation from the mass working class movement.

Of course no matter what steps are taken towards bringing together revolutionary forces in a healthy organization in Ireland there will still be the task of building the mass working class party within which the working class as a whole can move and struggle and express itself. This is what is being debated now as far as I can see. The SP in England and Wales has come out for steps to be taken in this direction while in Southern Ireland it has not. They say the mood is not developed enough. In the North where the mood is even worse the SP does campaign for the idea of a workers party. Its arguments are hard to follow unless you see the cynicism and dishonesty of this jumble of positions. The SP in Southern Ireland with Joe H, and with Clare D think they can have these two in the Dail after the next election and maybe even one or two more. That is their total focus. This was what dominated their left sectarian thinking in the election debates around the bin tax etc. Any move toward united electoral slates, any move towards action for a workers party, any such moves the SP leadership saw and see as damaging their prospects for more SP Dail seats. Of course they will be forced into the campaign for a mass workers party at some stage as the movement develops but they think the longer they can put it off the better, as this will give them an increased edge over their rivals the other left groups.

This is pure left sectarianism. This is putting off for as long as possible a real wider movement of the working class in the interests of their own group. Putting the interests of their own small group above the interests of the working class. Pure left sectarianism. I remember when Joe H got out of prison. I happened to be in Ireland at the time. Instead of having a welcome for him organized by the entire anti bin tax movement and strengthening the anti bin tax movement and the struggle against left sectarianism the SP organized an SP event in the Gresham. This is an example of what I am talking about. Putting the SP's narrow interests above those of the working class. The ridiculous thing about it is if the SP had an open and honest discussion in their organization which they published openly and allowed others to participate in and which they took to the workplaces they would emerge as the example to be followed and would make far far more gains than they do by their narrow left sectarian methods. And of course what is far more important the working class would make far more gains.

But here is the problem. To do this a few details would have to be confronted. The leaders of the of the SP would have to openly face up to their mistakes and manoeuvres of the past, the rank and file of the SP would have to do likewise. But the main thing would be the leadership would have to admit to their methods. The Haddens, the McLaughlin's, the Higgins, might have to admit that people like me were not wrong all the time. But these Comrades should take heart, even if they had to admit to having made a mistake or too and I know this would be hard for them not having done so before they would have the great compensation of knowing that they were acting in the interest of the working class. They have the responsibility to take these steps. If they do not do so they betraying the interests of the working class. And the rank and file of the SP have the responsibility to see that they take these steps.

All these general points that I have made here apply also to the SWP. I make them mainly in regard to the SP because of my own history with that group and also because it is the new position of the SP in England and Wales that sparked this discussion. But the rank and file of the SWP have the responsibility just as do the SP to see that the left sectarian manoeuvres of their leadership is also ended. Just like the left sectarianism of the SP leadership the left sectarianism of the SWP leadership damages the working class movement.

Please see my Open Letter to the Socialist party. November 2002. Go to John Throne at Google.com

John Throne.

by socialist - socialist Tue Nov 08, 2005 16:33

Where has the SP stated they are in favour of two seperate new parties based on the North & South?

Were you at the meeting in Queens? What was the title of the meeting?

by Spartacus Tue Nov 08, 2005 14:55

So the SP are calling for a New Party in the North but not in the South. This looks rather patitionist to me. Surely the thing to do is to call for a 32 County Mass Socialist Party (that need not be the name).

by Ex-Militant Tue Nov 08, 2005 14:20

No one is 'censoring' your views Iskra or even saying that the points you raise are incorrect. Its just that this is a different thread and the topic under discussion was not the relationship between Left-wingers in Labour and the rest of the left but the prospects of the rest of the left getting their act together and the role of the SP in that process.

You have raised a number of valid points, not all of which I agree/disagree with but whether you mean to or not you are derailing this thread. Again I urge you to start a thread on the relationship between Labour and the rest of the left so that we can discuss the points you raise.

To get back to the real topic under discussion. I have noticed that the 'new partry' articles from the SP of E/W are given prominence on the SP website for the North and an earlier poster claimed that the SP held a public meeting on the need for a new party in QUB. It would be interesting to hear the views of genuine SP members on this angle. Is the SP saying that the time is right for a broad party in the North but not in the South? This is the only reading I can put on it since they are hardly calling for the English initiative to be extended to the North. Im putting this question, not to 'catch out' the SP but to try and understand where they are coming from. Mark P may be right and I may be overestimating my former comrades but I still hold to the view that any initiative by the SP, would have a galvanising effect on the process of left unity in Ireland.

by Iskra Tue Nov 08, 2005 14:19

I will come public when you dot and all the other Whiskras etc reveal their identities. I dont believe that the LP should go into coalition with FG. That is a view shared by many other LP members.

by . Tue Nov 08, 2005 14:09

And publicly call for Labour to avoid any pre-election pact with Fine Gael and explore pacts ONLY with other progressive parties?

PLus, didn't the illustrious leader refer to him as a 'pavilion member'.

by Iskra Tue Nov 08, 2005 13:57

Are you excluding Mick O'Reilly from this initiative? After all he is also an LP member.

by Iskra Tue Nov 08, 2005 13:56

The article at head of this is titled "The Socialist Party and a broad left. ". Nowhere in the opening article is the possibility of working with Labour Leftwingers excluded.

by zip Tue Nov 08, 2005 13:42

What nonsense, why would any genuine socialist enter into the a "transfer pact" with the Labour Party for the next election when a vote for the labour party is a vote for fine gael?(thanks to labour's decision to go into co-alition with the blueshirts). Again, if you want to open up a discussion with socialists, go and initiate a thread on prospects for "the left" within the labour party on challenging the Fine Labour pact. The fact that you are unwilling to do this leads me to suspect that your real intention is just to derail this thread and nothing else. well you've succeeded.

by Iskra Tue Nov 08, 2005 13:30

Sadly Ex Militant doesnt want to engage with Labour Left or even consider the need for transfer pacts. But ExM it is your opinion that I am off topic. I dont agree. The Indy editors will be the arbiters of whats not on topic.

Why are you so afraid of awkward questions and challenging debate? If you are not prepared to tolerate disagreement at this early stage then what kind of an Authoritarian Party would you form?

by Iskra Tue Nov 08, 2005 13:26

The real trolls are those who dont want debate. I have not gone off topic. I think you should be open to engaging with the Left of the LP. On Indymedia self appointed censors dont decide who is allowed to express an opinion. If the Indy editors think I am making inappropriate comments then they will deal with it. In the meantime you will just have to put up with my comments.

I put forward the idea of transfer pacts, obviously such a thing would have to be agreed to at a local level. There is such bad blood between Stagg and Murphy that I dont think a pact would be possible.

But some here are not even prepared to entertain the idea.

I would really like to get the opinions of Ex Militant and Dermot Connolly.

by Ex-Militant Tue Nov 08, 2005 13:23

Zip is absolutely correct. This thread has been (deliberately?) derailed into an irrelevant discussion about the Labour Party's relationship to something to the left of it. This thread was about the prospects of that 'something' emerging and the SP's role in it.

So please, Iskra, Whiskra etc. post a piece on that issue and continue your debate there. Its an interesting and important topic but its NOT the topic under discussion here.

by Troll watch Tue Nov 08, 2005 13:06

I look forward to seeing the talks begin on the election pacts between Catherine Murphy/Emmett Stagg and Seamus Healy/Phil Prendergast (the funnier ones) to name but two examples or any other candidate who wants to be a mudguard for Fine Gael.
The ridiculousness of this postion leads me to thing that Iskra is a SP troll, trying deviously to keep this thread off topic.

by seedot Tue Nov 08, 2005 13:04

Of course the left of the labour party should be included in a debate on future left moves - not to speak of those voters who voted labour as a left wing vote.

But any discussion I have seen on this issue starts from a basis of opposing coalition. Labour had the potential to push for a fundamental realignment in Irish politics by finally breaking out of the civil war divide, but the greed of the PRICK ruled this out.

So how do you propose a transfer pact with labour activists when any left wing formation will rally around non-coalition?

Do you honestly expect people to follow Labour down that particular dead end?

by zip Tue Nov 08, 2005 12:57

If you want to open up a thread on what relationship the Labour Party should have to socialists then go ahead. Socialists would be happy to debate and interested to hear what if anything the genuine lefts you claim still remain in the labour party are doing to challenge the right-wing leadership. If you're genuinely interested in discussing these issues , why not open a thread on the question of whether the labour party can be reclaimed for the left or if a leftward split (as happened from the German SPD recently) is viable? However, this thread is NOT about that but about the prospects for socialists in Ireland and in Europe to come toghether in NEW FORMATIONS (or even pre-new formations) to fill the gap that has been left by the rightward lurch of the ex-social democratic parties. I notice that "ex-militant" who initiatied this thread has now abandoned it, probably because it has gotten sidetracked and derailed, so there's not much point in continuing.

by Iskra Tue Nov 08, 2005 12:38

Magneto never made a positive contribution to any debate on Indymedia. He appeared to have the loathing for the SP (especially) and the SWP that could only come from an Ex-Trot. I am not making that sort of intervention.

Now, are you totally ruling out any debate with the Left of the LP?

by Iskra Tue Nov 08, 2005 12:35

Why are you afraid of open debate? Do you want to have a cosy little corner where nobody asks awkward questions and everybody "agrees" with each other?

I have tried to add to this debate by suggesting that Leftwing members of the LP should not be excluded. I have suggested transfer pacts.

I have also challenged some of the assumptions being made by the posters above. You should not be afraid of questions or even a little criticism.

by Whiskra Tue Nov 08, 2005 12:34

Another visitation from our friend "Magneto" I suspect...

by zip Tue Nov 08, 2005 12:26

Obviously, the question of left unity is a very important one that socialists need to discuss. It's a discussion that is taking place all over Europe with attacks on the working class by the former social democratic parties and the emergence of new formations like the Left Party in Germany and the SSP in Scotland in response to the crisis in political representation. The planned RMT Conference in London is another interesting development. Unfortunately, indymedia is not the place to have this discussion as the degeneration of this thread into comments about Fine Labour's electoral prospects shows.

by Iskra Tue Nov 08, 2005 12:19

At a local level it should be possible to work out the most advantageous arrangement. Without a transfer pact between Healy and Prendergast there is a danger of the seat going to FF or FG. Even Rabbitte can see that, he wants to get an LP TD in the constituency. This cannot be acheived without a Healy/Prendergast pact; which might well end up keeping Healy in the Dail. Rabbitte can live with that and hope to gain the seat at the following election.

by Dumbfounded Tue Nov 08, 2005 12:11

But won't PP have an election pact in place with FG?

by Iskra Tue Nov 08, 2005 12:01

You are acting exactly like those who attacked me earlier. When it was written that the "SP had 5 serious candidates" I took this to mean that the SP expected to gain 5 seats. I accept that this is not what was meant. It is clear however from the comments of SP Member that the SP DO expect to make gains in the next Dail election.

I query this. I also wonder about how well some of the Independent Lefts will do. I think Seamus Healy will be facing a serious challenge from the Left Labour candidate Phil Prendergast. To ensure that the seat is not lost to FF or FG, a vote transfer pact is needed in this constituency. The same would be desirable in other constituencies where both Left Labour and SP/Independent Left candiates are running.

by A LP M Tue Nov 08, 2005 11:51

"If you really are an LP member then you should also be encouraging openness in debate."

I am and I am. Your problem is that in a 'puppy' like way you are afraid to admit that you were wrong. Now I would suggest that you would at least try to stick to the topic.

by Iskra Tue Nov 08, 2005 11:41

I wonder if you are? There is a quibble between 5 serious candidates (that was written above)which I (not unreasonably) took to mean 5 gains by the SP. If you are a serious candidate then surely you expect to be in the running for a seat? It doesnt take away from the fact that gains by the SP are being discussed. SP Member expects the SP to do very well in the next election. I pointed out that the SP expected to make major gains in Fingal in the 2004 elections; this did not happen.

If you really are an LP member then you should also be encouraging openness in debate.

by Another LP member Tue Nov 08, 2005 11:32

"I'm not going to go away, I have every right to participate in this debate. You wont be able to shout me dow here as you would probably do at a public meeting. You can use as many different names as you want but I will respond to each of your comments individually."

If you're not going to go away and indeed recognising your right to participate, is there any possibility that you might do it with a bit of intelligence? You are giving our party a bad name by not even being able to read what was written and understanding what you are quoting. You are opening yourself up to the accusation of derailing the thread.

by Iskra Tue Nov 08, 2005 11:14

'Now shouldn't you be busy somewhere trying to build support for a Blueshirt government?'

No. I have no desire to see FG in government. I am not derailing the thread, I am merely asking questions and challenging some of your assumptions. Why do you see questions as a threat? The only person who has replied to me in a reasonable manner is SP Member.

I'm not going to go away, I have every right to participate in this debate. You wont be able to shout me dow here as you would probably do at a public meeting. You can use as many different names as you want but I will respond to each of your comments individually.

The very fact that you want to exclude a Leftwing member of the LP from this discussion says a lot about your committment to openness. There are plenty of genuine Socialists in the LP. It would be worth your while to try and engage with them.

by The obvious questioner Mon Nov 07, 2005 20:18

Iskra, your derailing of the thread would be irritating if it wasn't based so obviously on a misunderstanding. Go back up and read the thread again, a bit more carefully this time.

Nowhere will you find anyone talking about the Socialist Party taking 5 seats at the next election. They quite obviously will not. What you will find are people (me for the most part) talking about how many serious candidates the far left will be able to muster. Serious candidate is not being used to mean "in with a shout of getting a seat". It means will get a respectable vote unlike the joke candidates for which sections of the far left have been rightly infamous.

Now shouldn't you be busy somewhere trying to build support for a Blueshirt government?

by Iskra Mon Nov 07, 2005 18:47

So the debate here is only open to the SP and their cronies? I think not. Indymedia is a forum which encourages open debate. This is probably an alien concept to you.

For the record I support Declan Bree against Rabbitte. I think Declan is wrong though not to run for the Dail. This will leave the constituency without a Left candidate.

by Iskra Mon Nov 07, 2005 18:29

I will certainly be surprised if the SP do as well as you expect in the next election. In 2004 the SP were crowing about how you were going to make massive gains across Dublin. It didnt happen. SF made gains in the Dublin Area but so did the LP. The LP have 15 seats on Dublin City Council, the SP have none. ( You could have had one seat if you hadnt purged Joan Collins.)

by Iskra Mon Nov 07, 2005 18:25

"The obvious question?
by The obvious questioner Sunday, Nov 6 2005, 4:31pm


Dermot - There's Joan Collins and an absolute maximum of 5 SP candidates who you could consider serious"

Thats who. All you have to do is scroll up and read the previous comments. That too much for you?

by SP Member - Socialist Party / CWI Mon Nov 07, 2005 18:23

ISKRA

If you read the post properly it talks about 5 SP candidates not SP seats. However I think you will be surprised at how well the SP will do in the next election. As has been said electoral success will be on the back of grassroots campaigning, something the LP has long forgotten how to do.

I don't know how many candidates the SP will run at the next election, it will be at least 5. One thing that is clear is that there is now a significant anti-establishment section in the electorate. SF will undoubtedly pick up a large slice of this vote but many others will also. As for the LP, it is a long time since they were able to capitalise on this type of vote. In the next General Election their role will be primarily to sweep up vote for FG (as Declan Bree suggests is the strategy in Sligo).

by Whiskra Mon Nov 07, 2005 18:22

I'm not an SP member, and I don't have any fantasies about "sweeping into power" (nor do they). But I resent seeing a discussion about how the radical left can make progress being sidetracked by someone who would obviously prefer to see votes being hoovered up by Enda Kenny's mudguards so they can form a glorious Blueshirt/blairite alliance and screw their supporters over. Go back to Rabbitteland and leave us in peace

by Curious Mon Nov 07, 2005 18:21

"I'm dealing in facts."

Who ,mentions 5 but you

by Iskra Mon Nov 07, 2005 18:17

I'm dealing in facts. You deal in fantasies that you will be swept into power. I thought the results in Fingal in the 2004 elections would be a wake up call for you, apparently not. Both Ruth Coppinger and Clare Dalys running mates got derisory votes. Nowhere else in Fingal did the SP come anywhere close to winning a Council seat.

I am not sidetracking anything , several posters above have referred to the likely number of Dail gains by the SP.

by Whiskra Mon Nov 07, 2005 18:12

Not surprising that a Labour party member would want to sidetrack the discussion into tiresome talk about electoral prospects. That's all fine for "the week in politics" but it's neither here nor there here. Any new party will get its strength from grassroots campaigning; any electoral success will be on the back of this

by Iskra - LP Mon Nov 07, 2005 16:42

I cant see where the 5 SP gains would come from. Clare Daly is a possibility but even in her own Ward, Labour took 2 seats to the SP 1. Indeed the SP made no gains in their Fingal homeland in the 2004 Local Elections.

They won new seats in Cork and Dublin South, but these candidates had both been trying for a long time. No rational person would suggest that either Mick Barry or Mick Murphy have a hope of being elected to the Dail.

Lisa Maher made a good showing but didnt come close to Labour and wasnt elected. Again its difficult to see how she could be rated as a potential TD.

Who is the 5th potential SP gain?

by James Mon Nov 07, 2005 16:32

Sorry James but you began by saying that the PBP initiative as: "less than promising start of the SWP's new broad initiative".
Then you expand with actually:

"I don't have time to go into this in detail right now as I'm about to go to the pub."
Best way to dodge the truth. Then we find ot that your ananlysis is based on what?? Yes on the following:

" what I meant is that even their own super-optimistic reports of their People Before Profit meetings indicate that the meetings haven't been particularly large. I could be wrong, but I don't think that it's likely to take off".
You use the word think there in the last line. It looks as if you did very little thinking about this at all.
Stick to the pub!

by Fair City Sun Nov 06, 2005 20:02

"I believe, and hope I am right, that it is inconcievable that there will not now be a serious discussion on this issue in the SP in Ireland. The SP has a responsibility not just just to develop its own forces, and push on to hopefully gain a 2nd TD through Clare Daly, but also to advance the general cause of working people in whatever way it can." - said Dermot Connolly above.
You can hope all you want but it is not going to happen. This is Ireland and not Britain.

by The obvious questioner Sun Nov 06, 2005 19:00

Tony Gregory is a decent enough skin but the fact that he was around the erps for ten minutes a few decades ago doesn't mean that he has the slightest interest in anything outside his parish pump constituency work. Catherine Murphy looks similar enough to that, except her misspent youth was with the sticks. In either case I'm hoping that Dermot's numbers aren't based on the forlorn hope that the existing independent TDs other than perhaps Healy are going to sign up to anything. Assuming he wasn't just pulling numbers out of his arse to begin with, I really am confused about this. Where are these seven extra serious candidates to come from?

by indie-soc Sun Nov 06, 2005 18:46

Tony Gregory and Catherine Murphy? Possibly some of the more lefty-type independents?

by The obvious questioner Sun Nov 06, 2005 17:31

Dermot - There's Joan Collins and an absolute maximum of 5 SP candidates who you could consider serious. The SWP at a push could come up with 3, but 2 of those would be in constituencies with sitting socialist councillors so we are really only talking about 1. Then there's Seamas Healy. All this gets us to 8 candidates, just over half your figure. How are you getting to 15 potential serious candidates?

I've been thinking about it and I just don't see where you are getting your numbers from.

by Dermot Connolly - Communitty and Workers Action Group Sun Nov 06, 2005 17:00 dermotjoan at utvinternet dot ie

I don't know who ex militant is, but it's not me, I don't have any problem with puttung my name to my political beliefs.
Firstly in regard to the "hiatus" since April when a number of groups and individuals issued a press statement in the name of Seamus HealyTD and Cllr Joan Collins. this statement was issued in relation to the Labour Party conference and their unsuprising decision to form a coalition with Fine Gael if possible after the next general election.
The statement was not the announcement of a new party but said the the groups and individuals involved were opening up a discussion on the possibility of bringing together groups and individuals who saw the need to build a new party of the left to represent working people in ireland and to consider launching a campaign around this issue.
Ineveitably some saw this as the announcement of a new party and then went on to say where is it? another "initiative" ending in failure. We can't help that. It's a pity if people who were genuinely interested didn't actually contact us and become involved in the discussion.
Our discussions have continued over the summer months. Next Saturday a meeting will take place in Dublin to launch a campaign ( not a party) for a new, left party. (Anyone who is genuinely interested in this initiative can make contact through email adress supplied with this comment.)
The discussion at this stage is not about whether the conditions exist for a new party, and certainly not a mass party. The question is, do the conditions exist whereby those in favour of a new party can come together to discuss things like what are the conditions which would allow for a new party, what programme should it have, what structure and so on and what practical steps can be taken now to advance the idea?
it seems that the SP (England and Wales) share our view and we really welcome this development. One of the arguments put forward by them is that the lack of an authoritve figure on the left campaigning on this issue in a serious way has held back its development have held back its development in Britain over the last decade. Well one of the differances between Ireland and Britain is that such an authoritive figure does exist here in ireland, namely Joe Higgins TD. I think it is a shame that Joe Higgins hasn't used the authority he has gained among working people to seriously raise this question instead of trotting out the line that conditions for a new party don't exist, the time is not right , etc. A change in this stance would be a major step forward.
I believe, and hope I am right, that it is inconcievable that there will not now be a serious discussion on this issue in the SP in Ireland. The SP has a responsibility not just just to develop its own forces, and push on to hopefully gain a 2nd TD through Clare Daly, but also to advance the general cause of working people in whatever way it can.
Through Joe Higgins it can have a major impact by positively advocating the need for and possibility of building a new party in the next few years. Within the next 18 months a general election will take place. At a time of unprecendented attacks on working peoples' rights, jobs, wages, alongside unprecended wealth and inequality, collapse of the health service etc. what will be on offer for working peole? Either a FF/PD government or a FG/LAB coalition, or to vote for SF who are making it increasingly clear thast they would enter government with FF.
The SP will only stand in 6 or 7 areas. Yes they might win 2 seats or 3 at a push. A great gain but what about the other 35 constituencies. the Sp cou;d play a leading role in putting together a list of up to 15 or so serious candidates, with 3 or 4 with a real chance of being elected. this would be a huge step forward in putting the idea of building a real and broad opposition in the shape of a new party on the agenda.
On other issues wouldn't the combined forces of the SP, SWP, People before Profit, and other groups working together in a non sectarian fashion be far more effective on issues like Gamma, Irish Ferries, Shell to Sea, bin charges, challenging social partnership, ect.
The discussion should not be sidetracked into childish sectatianism. The final point I would like to make is in relation to Northern Ireland. The situation in the North is extremely serious. The so called Peace Process is nothing of the sort. there is an excelerating process towards sectarian civil war unless it is cut across by a united class movement. Any and all talk of changing irish society without taking account of this, and taking real action to address it, is a joke. Real and serious campaigns to raise the need for, and take practical steps in both Britain and ireland to create new, broad, political parties of working people, can over time, create the conditions for a movement based on workers unity to emerge. It is time to begin a real discussion and to teke real steps.

by Mark P - Socialist Party (personal capacity) Sun Nov 06, 2005 14:34

That's a well written and occasionally amusing diatribe, but it's also rather too long to respond to thoroughly. So I'll just take up a few of the points which caught my attention - if that means that I'm missing some point which you think is vital let me know. No doubt I will manage to be even more long-winded than the person I'm responding to...

1) You ask a series of questions which in some ways mirror a point I made myself a little earlier in the thread. Some of the Socialist Party's critics and friends alike seem to have an inflated view of our current significance. Neither the Socialist Party nor Joe Higgins is realistically in a position to just call a conference or form a campaign which would magic large numbers of new activists out of thin air. Our actions take place in a context and our organisation is just one small piece of a wider picture.

That said, your questions themselves "bend the stick" (to borrow an SWPism) too far in the other direction in their implications. It is a fact that the Socialist Party is currently by some distance the most influential organisation on the Irish left. That isn't saying much of course. We are all small. But the SP has a record of leading actual struggles and a small degree of popular support, things which the rest of the far left for the most part lack. You also later yourself make an important point which partially answers your own questions when you point out that in comparison to the SWP, "the SP would be (with some justification, I have to say) TRUSTED A LOT MORE by ‘the rest of the left’."

2) This is a brief point, but your references to a Socialist Party "turn" being "directed by the Mothership" in England are both inaccurate and needlessly insulting. I've already pointed out in some detail that the attitude of the Irish Socialist Party towards what is possible or desirable in terms of broad left formations has been quite different from that of the English and Welsh SP for nearly a decade. The English and Welsh SP haven't changed their view and we haven't changed ours. When we do change ours - as we inevitably will as levels of struggle rise in Irish society - it will be a response to a change in the circumstances as we perceive them. See my first post on this thread for details.

3) On RESPECT you make a whole series of points, most of which I disagree with. Firstly a small factual detail: The RMT motion you mention actually originated with members of the Workers Power group rather than with any member of RESPECT "leading" or otherwise. This goes mostly to show that given a few decades or so practically any grouping will accomplish at least one useful thing in its lifetime. It's the political equivalent of infinite monkeys with infinite typewriters. Workers Power you will note are vehemently hostile to RESPECT.

More importantly, my earlier point that the Socialist Party tried to get involved in the discussions around the formation of RESPECT but was excluded was unfortunately entirely correct. There was no open process of discussion, no attempt to involve wider sections of the workers movement. Galloway, the SWP and a very small number of Muslim "community leaders" cooked the whole thing up behind closed doors and in fact refused to even meet with the Socialist Party until just before the founding conference. That founding conference was, as you would expect, an insult to the word democracy and the second conference was if anything worse.

You ask, not unreasonably, if that should stop the Socialist Party from joining it but I think that your attitude shows a perhaps surprising naivity. The SP could join it, but what would that accomplish? There are no real structures in RESPECT, everything is made up by the SWP as they go along. There is no significant layer of activists to influence within it and no structure to fight within. I'm not quite sure why but some people outside of England have a remarkably inflated idea of how many people are actually involved in RESPECT. It's essentially a top committee, some SWP apparatchiks and a localised communal electoral base. There is no real rank and file to it. Joining it as it currently stands would be an exercise in banging heads against a wall.

Despite all of the above the Socialist Party has taken a remarkably open minded and non-sectarian attitude towards RESPECT. It tried to get involved in the discussions and has normally supported its candidates. It has raised its criticisms in a fraternal way but those criticisms are vitally important. The first is that RESPECT has made quite unnecessary concessions on its policies and programme - it isn't as left wing or as working class focused as it could and should be. Secondly, while work amongst oppressed minority groups is extremely important equally important is the basis on which that work is carried out. RESPECT's method of seeking support amongst Muslims is to go through existing "community leaders" and to look for a vote on explicitly religious grounds. Thirdly, as I said above, RESPECT is utterly lacking in even the most rudimentary internal democracy. Those aren't minor issues which can just be glossed over in the name of unity.

4) I don't think we should stop saying "mass" when we are talking about what kind of new organisation we are looking for. We may be a long way from having a mass working class party but things can change very rapidly if significant sections of the working class move into struggle. Equally, dropping the word would obscure the important distinction between a broad party which essentially rearranges the deck chairs of the existing left and a party which is a political expression of the workers movement. It's the mass party I'm interested in, other formations are of interest only in so far as they help move us towards that goal.

5) Your point about the People Before Profit meetings being "MORE than it promised to be in the eyes of independent observers" makes sense but only if the reader appreciates that "independent observers" would have expectations so low that they were buried away with the underground gas pipes and sewers and Bertie's imaginary Metro line. 70 or 80 people to be blunt doesn't signify a great deal - didn't the abortive Irish Socialist Alliance (as you point out the great unmentionable in all of this) get at least as many to its launch meetings? And what has come out of the launch? An SWP controlled committee and a plan for SWP branches to launch the new local branch of... well, you get the picture.

6) I've no doubt that the Collins etc initiativee will make some kind of reappearance but I think it's telling that it's initial launch got so little response. That's not a criticism of the record of the activists involved - it's a point about the lack of significant layers wider than the existing long term left activists who are currently looking to get involved in something like this.

Which brings me to a more general point. Your view of the significance of the grouplets and "independent" long term activists seems to me to be inflated generally. We are talking about the same people - mostly good activists it has to be said - who have been around the block for years. I'm not being dismissive when I say that I can't see a new formation of real significance emerging from this milieu (I realise that any response this post receives from random anonymistas is now quite likely to consist of whining about this statement). At a guess, I suspect that much of the energy of this bunch is going to be focused around a Dail run for Joan Collins. Maybe I'm wrong, but again I'd be surprised.

Finally, circumstances may well oblige you to use a pseudonym, Frances, but they are rather less likely to oblige you to fail to mention what political angle you are coming from! Would I be right in guessing that you tend towards the Red Banner / ISN / Dermot Connolly end of things?

by Ex-Militant Sun Nov 06, 2005 13:09

Ha Ha, someone thought I was Dermot Connolly. Thats a good one. Ive traveled a long road since I drifted out of the Militant but when I was still inside Dermot was the heart of the beast! Still none of us can afford to be smug, even the Head Inquisitor can become a Heretic!

Seriously, I had presumed that the Healy/Connolly initiative had died before seeing the light of day, but if theres life in it still , all the better, it might be just the thing to get that 'intermediary formation' up and running.

by Frances Grennell Sun Nov 06, 2005 00:28

Circumstances oblige me to come into this important discussion through a pseudonym. Apologies. (By the bye, Ratcatcher, wrong spy! I too thought Ex-Militant just might be Dermot Connolly. But until this afternoon he had no idea that this thread existed.)

The prospect of another “open turn” by the Socialist Party is only to be welcomed. What irritates me about this generally positive discussion is the self satisfied assumption of the ex-Socialist Party and Socialist Party posters, including the original poster, Ex-Militant, about the SP’s special qualifications – should they choose to do so – to lead a new broad initiative towards a new workers party. The assumption that what the Socialist Party, IN THEMSELVES, will do would have “such a profound effect on left politics in Ireland” and “galvanise the left in this country”.

Why should a new “open turn” directed from London be SUBSTANTIALLY better for the hitherto “stand-offish” and “isolationist and dogmatic” Socialist Party (Ex-Militant’s descriptions) than the (now long standing) “open turn”, also directed from London, for the once equally “stand-offish” and “isolationist and dogmatic” Socialist Workers Party?

A ‘broad party’ initiative (a THIRD one following Healy-Connolly and SWP/Davitt League/People Before Profit Alliance) from the SP would be very welcome. But why would a development with the SP at its centre be necessarily more desirable than a development with the SWP at its centre? And why would it be “decisive” (Ex-Militant) to the development of the Irish left?

The ‘rest of the left’ have (so far) stayed outside the SWP’s Davitt league/People Before Profit Alliance. Why should we trust the “retrenched” and “isolationist and dogmatic” (Ex-Militant’s descriptions) Socialist Party anymore than the “open” SWP? Or let me rephrase that more positively, because as well as intending to prick the smug SP notion that they are somehow non-sectarian, particularly rooted in the working class and the most important element on the (non-coalitionist) Irish left, it is my intention to be critically positive about this prospective SP turn. Why should the ‘rest of the left’ and particularly the Healy-Connolly current trust the SWP any LESS than the SP?

Sure, chapter and verse will be supplied on the dastardly deeds of the SWP. All true. (I’ll go witness as a former member of that tendency, as Ex-Militant is, well, ex-Militant). BUT if (and you tell me) the “isolationist and dogmatic” Socialist Party can change through a change of message from the mothership, why can’t the SWP? Well, why not?

Sure the SWP have a litany of dirty deeds. In the present discussion the case of the brief (Irish) Socialist Alliance is a pertinent one. A forgotten episode, just four years past. The SWP will certainly not be reminding us of it. Nor will the SP if they make another “open turn” (if they can now without the Connollys, the Collinses and the Muldowneys). The SP also has a litany (e.g. producing a whole PAMPHLET against Dermot Connolly!!), though a shorter and softer one. But, though one swallow does not a summer make, the SWP is working well (in so far as anyone is working) in the Trade Union Activists Forum while – despite the initiative coming from SP members! – the Socialist Party does not support it and leading SP members have badmouthed it within the Party.

The dog that didn’t bark in Ex-Militant’s report about the Socialist Party in England and Wales (SPEW) is ‘RESPECT’. SPEW has stayed away from ‘Respect’, a broad enterprise already well on the road. ‘Respect’ is far from satisfactory but, again, why should an SP-associated, unsatisfactory but broad, initiative be particularly more attractive than an SWP-associated, unsatisfactory but broad, initiative (‘Respect’). And while the SP have the TD here, ‘Respect’ have the MP there. (Sorry, Joe, I don’t mean to compare you exactly with George, but you know what I mean.) Are there no trade union heavies in ‘Respect’? (Incidentally, the Motion from the Bristol RMT Branch that led to the decision that Ex-Militant reports above, was put forward two years running and seconded in both years by a leading [non-SWP] activist of ‘Respect’)

Anyway, should the world New Left/Regroupment wave (whew!) beat upon the shore of the Irish SP, as it has upon the coast of the Irish SWP, it will be no harm at all. More, a broad initiative from the Socialist Party would be tres, tres bienvenue for at least five reasons. It would be good in itself for the SP and for socialist politics here. It would balance the SWP’s initiative (DL/PBPA) and open up the possibility of a broad development in which the SWP would not dominate alone. Thirdly, the SP would be (with some justification, I have to say) TRUSTED A LOT MORE by ‘the rest of the left’. (I’m omitting the libertarians, though they never should be disregared, from all this – that’s a consideration for another day). The Socialist Party having d’oul TD would probably lead to a QUICK LINK WITH SEAMUS HEALY and a base at the (media opening) parliamentary level. Finally, if there were three broad initiatives (Healy-Connolly, SWP/DL/PBPA and the SP’s) even the most “isolationist and dogmatic” would have to question such an absurdity and begin to think of a coalescence and the ‘greater-than-the-sum-of-its-parts’ that that would immediately create.

The new ‘broad party of the working class’ (lets stop saying mass for a decade or so) is – to begin with – not more than 50% a matter of the objective conditions. Right now it is crucially a matter of the SUBJECTIVE conditions right across the non-coalitionist Irish left. An Irish left, incidentally, that now has an independent spectrum (of grouplets and individuals) sizable enough to actually be THE crucial catalyst, if THEY could get their act together. Here is the news: the BIG TWO (SP and SWP) need no longer be the “decisive” factor(s). Who knows? We shall see. Events will bring most of us together anyway.

A general point, of course, is that a mass party of the Irish working class, when it comes, will respond to the interests of the class and the demands of its members, not to discussions in London with delegations from either Henrietta or Thomas Streets.

Incidentally, the CWI in Scotland has been in the Scottish Socialist Party for ages. The SWP too. The (Irish) Socialist Party never say anything positive about the SSP and the Irish SWP have dropped mentioning it at all!

A word or two on the contribution of the always reasonable, always interesting and usually clued-in Mark P. He says of the SP in England and Wales, “They tried to get involved in the negotiations around the establishment of the Respect Coalition but were excluded from those discussions”. That doesn’t ring true, but if it were true no Party seriously interested in responding to broad initiatives would then simply walk away. Is Mark inferring that the Socialist Party in England could not join ‘Respect’ tomorrow morning if they wanted to?

Mark says to Ex-Militant, “I think that you are overestimating both the current social weight of the Socialist Party and the number of people who would be interested in such a conference or campaign at the moment. The fact that the campaign for a workers party announced by Seamus Healy, Joan Collins and others some time ago hasn't been heard of again and the less than promising start of the SWP's new broad initiative I think act as useful markers on this”.

If they are useful markers Mark should know that any reliable report I have heard of the SWP’s broad initiative meeting on 21st October was that, relatively speaking, it was MORE than it promised to be in the eyes of independent observers there. The hype in the report in ‘Socialist Worker’ is irresponsible and misleading (and a measure of how far some people have yet to go) – the Irish Ferries people may have been at the meeting, for example, but there’s no way they are part of the People Before Profit Alliance. SW’s statement that, “The meeting voted unanimously to form the People Before Profit/Davitt League alliance” (‘Socialist Worker’, 26th October) is either a lie or the result of not taking account of abstentions or non-voting observers. This kind of dishonesty has to stop or the only “united forum” that will result will be in Coventry. Nevertheless reliable people put the attendance at 70 to 100, with some genuine grassroots campaigners present and participating in the Alliance.

True the Seamus Healy-Dermot Connolly-Joan Collins campaign has not been heard of since the announcement last May, a curious hiatus. This long intermission will last for exactly one more week.

by Mark P Sat Nov 05, 2005 20:05

I don't have time to go into this in detail right now as I'm about to go to the pub. A load of pints might help me expand around the waist I suppose.

Briefly, what I meant is that even their own super-optimistic reports of their People Before Profit meetings indicate that the meetings haven't been particularly large. I could be wrong, but I don't think that it's likely to take off and I don't think it has shown any early signs of proving me wrong.

by James Sat Nov 05, 2005 19:56

Could you explain more about the "less than promising start of the SWP's new broad initiative". I have heard various reports of their meeting and the outcome sounded quite good. What have you heard?

by yvgrvny Sat Nov 05, 2005 17:32

repeating the same thing over and over...

No disrespect intended to any wellmeaning individuals here.. but... how much longer will people continue to repeat history by being led down the path of the Party sham? The institutions of representative 'democracy' (parliamentary rule) are past their use-by date and should be overthrown. They either get co-opted by their capitalist bosses, or if elected create their own new elite bureaucracy. Kick out the party aparatchiks. These pseudo-socialists have always been and still are leeches, opportunists, co-opters of dissent and always lag behind popular struggle/movements. Pannekoek said it best; "The belief in parties is the main reason for the impotence of the working class."

RECOMMENDED PROTOCOLS FOR NEW OR ASPIRING PARTIES.
http://www.geocities.com/penguinpiglet/party.html

the latest example of 'socialist' sell-out;
http://www.anarkismo.net/newswire.php?story_id=1645

by Mark P - SP / pers. cap. Sat Nov 05, 2005 17:07

Hi ex-Militant, I can see where you are coming from and the points you are making are reasonable. We recognise that there will in all likelihood be all kinds of intermediary formations between now and the creation of a new party. A mass party probably won't drop fully formed from the sky.

However I think that you are overestimating both the current social weight of the Socialist Party and the number of people who would be interested in such a conference or campaign at the moment. The fact that the campaign for a workers party announced by Seamas Healy, Joan Collins and others some time ago hasn't been heard of again and the less than promising start of the SWP's new broad initiative I think act as useful markers on this - with the best will in the world not many people seem to be listening. And while obviously the Socialist Party has more credibility than the likes of the SWP I honestly don't think that a call coming from us would get a vastly better response at the moment.

As I've said before, this is something I'd like to be wrong about but I don't think I am. However I do think that circumstances will change because the trade union bureaucracy won't be able to hold back a rise in real struggle forever and that will put concrete steps towards a new party on the agenda.

by Ex-Militant Sat Nov 05, 2005 15:33

Thanks Mark for an honest, if disappointing, response. For what its worth, I dont think its good enough to wait around for the right conditions, some steps can be taken in the interim. You correctly say that the SP is "also of the opinion that we should be a part of such a party and that we should support any useful intermediary formations that spring up on the way there". This is the crucial point, that there are steps that can be taken before the conditions are ripe for the launch of a new party. If the SP took the initiative and organised a conference to start discussions amongst the widest layer possible of trade unionists, lefts, youth and community activists, it would have a huge impact. The SP would have the credibility then to influence the pace and nature of the process, so that there was'nt a premature declaration of a new party. The setting up of an intermediary formation would not lead to overnight success but it would galvanise the left in Ireland. Of course there would be problems: the one that springs to mind most readily is how to deal with the SWP and their antics, the inclusion of left reformist's such as the independent TDs McGrath, Healy, Gregory etc, the wrecking potential of ultra-lefts and so on, but none of these would be insurmountable problems.

So I agree that it would be premature to try to set up a new party but that should not stop the SP from taking the initiative. All I can add is that I accept that the situation in Ireland and England is very different but I hope that this initiative will cause a debate in the SP which results in some intiiative suitable to the Irish situation.

by Mark P Sat Nov 05, 2005 14:54

I'm not sure how seriously to take any of the questions on this thread given the number of posters with throw-away, once-off pseudonyms and the number of mildly offensive and abusive points made. But just in case some of the people above are genuine in their questions and points:

Many of the postings on this thread, both those hostile to and those more favourable to the Socialist Party are based on a number of interlinked but false assumptions. These wrong premises lead in turn to flawed conclusions.

One basic misunderstanding concerns the attitude of the English and Welsh Socialist Party to the setting up of broad left formations. They have been in favour of it continuously for a decade. Over that period they tried to join the Socialist Labour Party, which was perhaps the most promising of all of these initiatives, but Scargill wasn't willing to have any organised groups within his new party. They set up the Socialist Alliances, leaving them only after the SWP executed a complete takeover. After that takeover they still approached the Socialist Alliance and other groups in an attempt to set up a new broader alliance. They were the motivating force in a Merseyside-based initiative involving some of the former Liverpool dockers. They tried to get involved in the negotiations around the establishment of the Respect Coalition but were excluded from those discussion. They took part in the creation of the Socialist Green Unity Coalition in the wake of the Respect fiasco. At the moment their efforts are concentrated around a conference to discuss working class political representation called by the RMT union, and they have made it clear that if nothing useful comes from that process that they will move themselves to call a conference and create some kind of campaign for a new party.

The particular formation they have been involved in or interested in creating has changed at various times depending on circumstances, but they have been consistently of the opinion that some kind of broader formation in the here and now could play a role in the creation of a new mass party. These latest articles represent a new departure only in the form that view takes - ie what kind of broader movement they are talking about, a campaign rather than a left alliance.

The Irish Socialist Party shares the basic view of our sister organisation in England and Wales that there is an objective need for a new mass working class party. We share their view that our own small revolutionary organisation will not grow by itself into such a mass party. We are also of the opinion that we should be a part of such a party and that we should support any useful intermediary formations that spring up on the way there.

Where we differ from them is in our assessment of what exactly is possible and useful in our current circumstances. Because of course our circumstances here in Ireland differ from their circumstances in Britain. We don't think that a broader left formation here in Ireland would currently get any kind of real echo in the working class. We don't think it would attract any more than the same currently existing left activists and we don't think that such a reorganisation would have any particular merits.

The above is a difference of assessment rather than of underlying principle and it's a difference of assessment which has existed more or less continuously since the days of the Taxation Justice Alliance here in 1997. It is important to note though that assessments change as conditions change. Levels of working class struggle in Ireland have been exceptionally low in recent years but that is not something that can or will last forever. The Irish Socialist Party has continuously argued that a rise in levels of struggle in Irish society will result in a rise in the potential for a new working class party. When circumstances change our views on what is possible or useful will also change.

by Curious Sat Nov 05, 2005 14:33

Are you seriously suggesting that Stephen Bpyd didnt know what was going on re Collins and Connolly?

by Proletcult Sat Nov 05, 2005 13:02

Ex-Militant should face facts: There can be no detailed response from the SP to this question because the leadership havent worked out how to respond to the change in Britain and have'nt received a clear line from the centre/Taffe. Once they have a line we'll get the usual full-on rants from the SY attack puppys. Funny how they are so silent on this one at the moment!

At a guess, I'd say the line will be that although the objective conditions for a new party are right in England (and Scotland, Germany, etc etc) the objective conditions are not right in Ireland, oops I mean the south of Ireland. So sorry to dissappoint but no change.

by C Ó Brolcháin Fri Nov 04, 2005 22:18

The Socialist (Party) Society in Queen's University recently organised a meeting to bring up the issue of a new left party. Maybe if any of their members post here they can give a report of what happened.

by another sp member Fri Nov 04, 2005 21:59

just because some members of the sp denied problems on indymedia does not mean they didn't exist. Probably some of the members posting didn't know or didn't want to discuss the problems on a public forum (i think some of the posters genuinely didn't know, which as many of the posters are newer members, or members of sy so it isn't suprising) . On the other hand there's always been supporters of the party who want to see more unification on the left, mainly made up of ex members or strong supporters, but not members, and maybe even a few card carrying millies, but there's definitely room for a change in direction. to be honest for alot of the party the problem hasn't been unification with the left, just one section of it.

by SP Member - Socialist Party / CWI Fri Nov 04, 2005 19:59

Firstly, in relation to the comments about the CWI and the relationship of the Irish section to it. If the CWI were intent on dictating that the SP follow the line from London then surely we would have been arguing for the establishment of a Broad Left Party for the past 10 years as has been done in England.

Ex-Militant makes the assumption that this issue is never discussed within the SP. This is a false assumption. This issue is regularly discussed within the SP both within the elected bodies and among the rank and file. Discussion took place on the issue at the last conference of the SP.

Let's be absolutely clear about this: The Socialist Party acknowledges the necessity of establishing a new mass left party. The SP will actively participate in the building of this party. The SP also argues that a premature attempt to establish such a party will inevitably make the task more difficult as the lessons of Scargill's SLP and the SWP destruction of the Socialist Alliance in England shows. The timing of the efforts to launch such a party is a subjective matter. Many on the left believe that it should happen now, the SP believes this would be premature and a mistake. Among other things we are not willing to call for the establish such a party that will be unable to muster enough forces to counter-act the negative antics of the SWP.

Who is right about this will only be dictated by events. But we will continue to consider this matter with the due deliberation that we always have.

by Curious Fri Nov 04, 2005 19:47

I just find it difficult to trust them. Take the case of Dermot Connolly and Joan Collins. The SP denied that there was any problem with Connolly or that Collins had been deselected. Then suddenly they were both outside of the SP. The first thing many of the SP members knew abou it was when their former leader Dermot Connolly was being attacked in the party paper.

by Ex-Militant Fri Nov 04, 2005 19:22

The Irish SP has been adamant in the last few years that the time is not right to take any initiative to form a mass party of the working class, because the objective conditions are not right and at best it would only attract the existing left but no 'new layers'. I accept that it would be impossible for the Irish SP to make a sudden change on this crucial issue and, regardless of the real nature of the relationship with the English section, I don't think they would be expected to change course so drastically. I happen to believe that this question is so important for the left in Ireland that the SP should be given space to discuss this and to, hopefully, change course, without having a host of other leftists crowing from the sidelines. If we really believe that a new party is important for the Irish working class then we should do all in our power to encourage a positive reaction from the SP.

by Curious Fri Nov 04, 2005 19:12

'BTW, I dont believe that the Irish SP will just change its line because of a diktat from Britain'

Why not? They have always done so in the past.

by Ex-Militant Fri Nov 04, 2005 19:00

Ignore the trolls stick to the serious debate. In response to SP member I believe that if Joe Higgins and the SP called such a conference in Ireland now, there would be an immediate and wide-ranging response that would go far beyond not only the SP but beyond the whole far-left. The subjective actions of socialists are important as well as the objective conditions. What is needed is a bit of risk taking, a less cautious approach. Surely, at the very least, the SP members should be discussing this option.

BTW, I dont believe that the Irish SP will just change its line because of a diktat from Britain

by SP Member - Socialist Party / CWI Fri Nov 04, 2005 18:54

Sorry. Slip of the tongue

by Ex-whatever Fri Nov 04, 2005 18:50

Ah no, don't be mean. Leave the lads a bit of time to digest things

by Jupiter Fri Nov 04, 2005 18:48

A little bird told me that them there objective conditions might be changing a bit faster than you think SP Member, courtesy of a direction from the International Centre.

by Annoyed Fri Nov 04, 2005 18:45

'In relation to Britain.... '

Surely you mean England, Scotland and Wales? I thought you had given up on The Socialist Federation of the British Isles.

by SP Member - Socialist Party / CWI Fri Nov 04, 2005 18:43

Please refer to article titled

'Towards a new workers’ party'

by Ex-whatever Fri Nov 04, 2005 18:41

Hurrah! Now let's hope them objective conditions sort themselves out...

by SP Member - Socialist Party/ CWI Fri Nov 04, 2005 18:39

There is no change in the objective situation in Ireland at the moment that would lead to a change in position of the SP. However, given the possibility of struggle within Irish Ferries and An Post and the likelyhood that there will be no new partnership agreement the situation could alter in the not too distant future.

by Ex-Militant Fri Nov 04, 2005 18:37

Theres nothing wrong with debating a party's internal culture or past but please dont turn this into another endless and sterile 'Oh yes you are...Oh no we're not' tit for tat. As Observer points out that debate has been had a number of times before on indymedia and theres really nothing more to add.

To move things on maybe someone from the SP could give their opinion on whats happening in England and their view on its relevance to the Irish party. That would make this discussion worthwhile and positive.

by Observer Fri Nov 04, 2005 18:25

I don't particlulary went to get into to this debate because be honest there isn't one yet. I think ex-militant come across as wanting to see where that current debate in the CWI is going but he won't be helped by the likes of ex. I can only presume he/she is a troll wanting to divert the debate.
ex use the archives there are many threads on the subject you want to pursue.
I'll even help you put mulholland or tourish into the search engine and away and play.

by ex Fri Nov 04, 2005 18:20

So these issues of concern by once leading cadre have no relevance? 'I'm afraid you are wrong. Same party, same debate.

by Ex-Militant Fri Nov 04, 2005 18:14

Yes, Ive read it all before, Marc Mulholland, Denis Tourish etc. etc. All very interesting, some of it true, some exagerated, but none relevent to this issue. Discussing the ins and outs of the SP/CWI internal political culture may be interesting but I did not post to have a pop at the SP and get into that endless and fruitless 'CWI is a cult' debate. So, no, Im not going to go down the road of, 'I was alright until the evil millies got their hands on me' because I genuinely want to see a new democratic socialist force emerging in Irish politics and I believe the SP could play a decisive role in bringing that about.

by ex Fri Nov 04, 2005 18:06

hear hear analyst

by Analyst Fri Nov 04, 2005 18:03

It is interesting to look at different views of the SPEW, its origin, its 'values', and how it conducts itself - much of which is relevant to explaining how come the far left is hopelessly mired in sectarian fragmentation, splits and irrelevance. One contribution is from the Grant organisation about the time they were expelled/ split from Taaffe - it lacks reflection on how these people also created such a bizarre culture, but nevertheless illuminates that culture quite well. I would suggest that until that culture is confronted and, more importantly, abandoned all talk of SPEW's involvement in new left formations is likely to lead nowhere.

http://www.marxist.com/against-bureaucratic-centralism.htm

by millie Fri Nov 04, 2005 18:00

The Socialist Party (England and Wales)
recently welcomed an announcement by the RMT union (which has disaffiliated from The Labour Party) that it would call a conference on the question of political representation for the working class.

A date for the RMT conference - 26th January -(in London) has now been set. As reported on the Alliance for Workers Liberty Website:

"The RMT rail union has now set a date for the conference on working-class political representation which it was mandated to call by RMT Annual General Meetings in 2004 and 2005.

"It is not a conference to set up a new party (big stress on this from RMT HQ), but to discuss the crisis in working-class political representation.

"It will have a major focus on the campaign for a Trade Union Freedom Bill. There will be no resolutions. All RMT branches and regional councils have been invited to send delegations.

"Other trade unions will be invited at national level it looks as if the conference will not admit delegations from branches of other unions unless agreed by their head offices.

"It is still a major event. Branches and committees of other unions do of course have the option of electing delegates and then writing to their union head office to ask the union to sponsor those delegates."

For more information on The Socialist Party (England and Wales) thinking on the need for a new party of the working class, please see Peter Taaffe's interesting article at:

http://www.socialistparty.org.uk/2005/413/index.html?id=mp6.htm

by Ex Fri Nov 04, 2005 17:52

For a start read this from a once CC member of militant on the Northern Ireland SP

by Ex-Militant Fri Nov 04, 2005 17:50

Thats a no to which question? No to a similar intitiative in Ireland? No to the idea of a broad party?

Surely a serious and non-sectarian piece such as that which I posted deserves a more considered response than just 'no'. For all my crticisms of my ex-comrades, I would expect much more from them. The SP, unlike many others on the left, always responded in a serious way to debate and discussion. I doubt whether any SP member would repond in that manner, which makes me suspect that Still Militant is not a militant at all but a troll!

by Still Militant Fri Nov 04, 2005 17:36

... No!

by Ex-Militant Fri Nov 04, 2005 17:33

Yes they did help set up the SA in England, and the SSA in Scotland, but that was before the 'retrenchment'. 'Arguing for' is one thing, doing something is another. Supporting or organising a conference is definitely significant. Lets not get caught up in semantics, if you don't like 'significant shift', I'll settle for 'significant development'.

But this thread is not about the English development but its possible (and positive) impact in Ireland, so please no diverting just to avoid a discussion about the Irish SP.

by indie-soc Fri Nov 04, 2005 17:18

Hasn't the SPEW (unfortunate acronym there) been arguing for a new workers party in the uk for, oh, about 8 years now?

Didn't they set up the Socialist Alliances?