Campaign for a new party of working people

by Seán Ryan Tue Nov 29, 2005 02:12

Whilst I must applaud your recognition that the Ireland of today is not Irish anymore, and your resolution to do something about it, I'd like to make some suggestions.

Firstly, "military neutrality" has been with us all the time. There's never been a period since the second world war, when it hasn't been in effect.

This particular leftist minded individual, is opposed to the term, "military neutrality," it dilutes and makes ambiguous the term "neutral," and its actual meaning is very hard to come by. In fact, one can only understand the term when one looks back on the history of its usage. To sum up this history; we can do whatever we want and still refer to ourselves as "military neutral." Up until recently this historical summing up exercise would have yielded the result, that we can do whatever we want so long as we don't commit troops to a field of contention, in favour of either side. But then Shannon happened and our "government" and "president," committed troops to the field, to support American terrorism.

That you believe military neutrality to be missing can be a simple oversight, typo or whatever, but that you want it as a firmly established entity, scares me.

I believe the "democratic" vehicle that our country has leased from America and other rich capitalists, to be a broken, and badly reasoned out mode of travelling through time.

Democracy is supposed to be "power to the people," but it's not, it's, "power from the people."

Every citizen in this country has two widely recognised rights and one very implied right. You have the right to vote and you have the right to work your guts out or else. The average citizen is reduced to being a beast of burden for most of his or her time, and once every now and then is elevated into being an enabler for some self serving idiot, who may then take part in promoting and running this de-humanising and de-IRISHing exploitation, on the behalf of their American betters.

In what way will creating a whole new batch of politicians help obliterate the poverty gap?

This brings me to the third right in our top-heavy "democracy."

You have the right not to be an enabler of these simians, who repeatedly climb from the primordial slime of their excess, in the hopes of being elevated to that which they are beneath. I'm not suggesting that you are a simian here, but that you wish to join them.

I say to all leftist minded individuals, that society is broken and fundamentally ignores the precepts upon which it was founded. The fact that society is set up to serve the few shows this to be true. Society is co-operation. Remove your co-operation in a non-violent way. Break the vehicle so that none may use it, otherwise we will never get to fix it or upgrade.

Sláinte,
Seán Ryan

by Aine O'Neill Tue Nov 29, 2005 09:28 Sligo

We need a party or alliance bringing together all of the left. Will the Socialist Party and the SWP join this campaign for a united left? Have you approached them and what has been their response?

by Michael O'Hara Tue Nov 29, 2005 10:49

The IRSP are another such party that could become involved. Have you approached them?

by Mac Tue Nov 29, 2005 10:55

So the Judean Peoples Front have decided to go it alone from the People's Front of Judea. Is it possible you Marxists/Socialists can fracture any more into micro groups or is it just the last outworkings of a failed ideology that uses as its base the notion that human beings are just economic units, a bit like your alter ego Capitalism.

by pat c Tue Nov 29, 2005 11:07

Who exactly was invited to this meeting and what criteria was used to pick them?

by Grateful Tue Nov 29, 2005 11:13

Thank Christ.

Finally someone has had the courage to stand up and say it's time for a left wing party in Ireland.

If there was one thing the left in Ireland was crying out for it's another left-wing party to join Labour, Sinn Fein, Social Democratic and Labour Party, Greens, Socialist Party, Socialist Workers Party, Communist Party of Ireland, Irish Republican Socialist Party, Socialist Environmental Alliance.

Mark well this day.

by Kelly Tue Nov 29, 2005 12:23

1 No coalition with parties of the right, under any circumstances.

I garantee that in the event that right wing parties hold the balance of power the temptation for a faction of your party to split and form a coalition in order to obtain consessions as acting government partner will be too strong to resist.

2 Public ownership and democratic control of the country’s resources and services, so that they can be developed in the interests of working people and our environment. An end to the privatisation or commercialisation of public services.

This is too vague. What exactly do you mean by "the country's resources and services" - do you mean multinationals will loose their assets or that ordinary people must lose their small businesses, their homes and private property?
Do you mean that public services should not respond to customer demands and become a country club for beaucrats and time servers?

3 A comprehensive universal public health-care system. An end to all state subsidies for private health care.

Where is the tax money to pay for this going to come from if all commercial activity is ended after all the country's resources and services have been ceased by the state? Where are you going to recruit the doctors from if nobody has the wealth to afford the high cost of education in the medical profession? Would this be a quality service just because it is universal?

4 A free, secular education system, aimed at the full and equal development of each human being from pre-school to university. An end to all state subsidies for private education

Does that mean that people who want their children to have religious education are to be descriminated against? Will students with natural ability be poorly marked and their less successful peers given better marks so both are equally developed? What about parents who want to teach their children at home privately who need ?

5 The provision of housing as a basic right

Do you expect builders to construct quality modern homes below the market price out of the goodness of their hearts or that landowners will give their land away on the cheap or that landlords will be force to take in tenants who can't pay the rent?

6 A public transport system based on the needs of users, not profit, and the protection of the environment.

Do you mean that management and workers employed by the government to run the transport system will work efficiently if the company is not run for profit? Where does the money come for new infrastructure or even basic maintenance?

7 A progressive taxation system that will redistribute wealth, making the rich pay their fair share, and lifting the burden of stealth and double taxes from working people.

Most wealthy people are entrepeneurs who take financial risks for profit - that's the bottom line - progressive taxation means that the benefits from their financial risks will be eliminated - with the risk incentive no more private investment will plummet and although tax rates would be high the actual income to the state coffers would shrink. Without investment or profit jobs would be lost or wages would be cut and without jobs or less money in people's pockets there would be less consumerism - with less consumerism there will be less profts for the wealthy and less profits to be taxed by the government and the cycle will repeat itself - high taxes will lead to diminished returns and high unemployment, less goods available at inflated prices but nobody able to afford them. Your economic ideas would lead to a spiral into mass poverty.

8 No to so-called “social partnership”. We want trade unions run democratically by their members, and fighting for their interests. Repeal all restrictive legislation against union activity. Unite Irish and migrant workers by fighting for basic trade union rights and conditions for all workers.

There would be perpetual strikes and industrial action as wages and profits dry up and companies go to the wall neither benefitting Irish nor migrant trade union workers.

9 We believe in equality and solidarity between all working people—men and women, black and white, Travellers and settled people, Catholic and Protestant. We will offer 100 per cent opposition to all forms of racism, sexism and sectarianism.

The simple fact is that most Irish working people do not want to live next door to travellers, black and white people will only get along if they want to not because they are told to, Catholic and Protestants in Northern Ireland have been encouraged for years and years to get along - nothing has worked - because it is up to individuals themselves to make the choice to live together and it is their choice not to live together if they so wish - sadly they have made bad decisions. I am opposed 100 percent to all forms of racism sexism and sectarianism - I believe we can encourage and punish people but at the end of the day if people are to allowed to live in freedom they can choose to be racist sexist and sectarian. They have the freedom to associate and the freedom not to.

10 We are for an inclusive, multi-cultural society with equal rights for all; asylum seekers should have the right to work.; for an end to deportations.; full citizenship for all children born in Ireland; work permits to be issued to workers and not employers.

I absolutely agree with that. No problems there - on condition that asylum seekers who are prepared to work are not forced out of their jobs because of the selfish actions of unions.

11 A foreign policy based on opposition to imperialism, and solidarity with those fighting for democracy, justice and peace, the re establishment and maintenance of military neutrality, opposition to an EU dominated by big business and for a Europe of solidarity between working people.

What if a militarily neutral EU is attacked by terrorists (Al-Qeada) or foreign dictatorships (a nuclear Iran or extreme right-wing US) opposed to democracy justice and peace and solidarity between working people?
Our freedoms need to be protected and the best way is for a European wide common defence - it prevent wars within the EU and wars outside from destroying our society.

by Dan Tue Nov 29, 2005 13:00

Not surprised the principles above infuriate a little PD like you, Kelly. We wouldn't be doing our job right if they didn't ... this initiative will not be seeking the support of those who believe that it's immoral to tax wealthy people or interfere with the holy market or criticise US imperialism. So I suppose we'll just have to struggle on without your support.

by Mac Tue Nov 29, 2005 13:12

For spelling out the basic ABC's in regards to marxist thought. Central to the marxist train of thought is that an individual has no freedom, state is supreme. Such ideology can go nowhere, the good people of eastern Europe gave us the answer in 1989. Human beings yearn for freedom, it cannot be taken away from them by laws, or guns or gulags.

by Mac Tue Nov 29, 2005 13:13

don't take my word for it, try it for yourself:
http://www.cracow-tours.com/socialist_krakow.html

by helpful Tue Nov 29, 2005 13:28

Kelly raised some useful points which need to be addressed by any such proposed party unless of course there are no real answers to them.

by tom eile Tue Nov 29, 2005 14:09

Colm, you want to build an all-Ireland party - fair enough , but nowhere in your eleven points is there a call for a united Ireland and the end of British rule in the north. I'm sorry to have to point this out , but you really can't fudge the issue without falling into the very political opportunism that you rail against in your post .
The left in Ireland has tended to see the national question as something of an embarrassment - if it would only go away we would be able to get to the real nitty-gritty of class politics . That's the (essentially stalinist) line the sticks took in the seventies and which the provos adopted with modifications in the eighties .
We live in an imperialist epoch ;the Good Friday agreement was a settlement of the national question on terms favourable to British imperialism. Britain still holds - by force of arms -six counties of Ireland . What has the campaign for an independent left in Ireland to say about this?

by Roger Cole - Peace & Neutrality Alliance Tue Nov 29, 2005 14:17 pana at eircom dot net 17 Castle Street, Dalkey 01-2351512

The term "military neutrality" has no legal meaning. It is a term invented by Fianna Fail to allow them to let the US use Shannon Airport as a pit stop in their continuing imperialist war on Iraq.
In International Law, the duties of a neutral state include not allowing its territory to be used by other countries which are at war. Since nearly 300,000 US troops have used Shannon in 2005 alone, as far as PANA is concerned, Ireland is no longer a neutral state, but is in fact an active supporter of of imperialist war being fought to gain control of the oil of Iraq.
Any left wing party that is to be taken seriously cannot use the Fiann Fail term "military neutrality", and I hope the new grouping will consider deleting the word "military" from that section of its programme

by Aeraíocht Tue Nov 29, 2005 14:22

Roger Cole is in the Labour Party. And he thinks that February 15th 2001 was a big success because he personally called for people to go.

by Spartacus Tue Nov 29, 2005 14:23

Fudging on Neutrality (maybe just semantics), fudging on the National Question. The new party will have to sort these out.

Kelly does not speak for the people which the proposed party would seek its support from so therefore she does not deserve an answer. Kelly go and post that stuff on the PDs BB.

by Just guessing Tue Nov 29, 2005 14:29

Now maybe I'm naive but from what I can see from the original post is that this is the beginning of a campaign for a party of the Indepedent Left and the eleven points were the opening basis for that. I'm sure all those who quibble with the points can get involved and make their case for the inclusion of their viewpoints. I'm sure the meeting advertised will be a good opportunity to get involved. Some how I don't expect to see Kelly or Mac there.
Best of luck anyway - good luck with the campaign.

by pat c Tue Nov 29, 2005 14:38

Roger Cole is speaking for PANA in this instance. His membership of the LP is irrelevant. His contribution to the debate does not appear to be an attack on the new organisation, its a helpful suggestion imho.

by Cynic Tue Nov 29, 2005 14:48

The Socialist Alliance? It included the SWP and seems to be an Identikit of the New Party. It just vanished. Some of the same people are involved again. Its used goods lads. Didnt you learn the first time?

by Miriam Cotton Tue Nov 29, 2005 15:31

A properly independent party is a good idea. However, no mention of the following above:

rights for people with disability - probably the biggest lobby the country has and recently subjected to atrocious legislation

accountability is non existent in Irish life - either in the public or private sectors. Vested interestes - both left and right are as bullying and controlling as each other. The new party would need to make itself transparently accountable for everything it does in the first instance so as to show by example that it is genuine about true democracy. We wouldnt want to see repeated the likes of what has just been done to Declan Bree. Maybe he would join the new ILP?

There needs to a big emphasis on ennvironmental issues. Many people are beginning to realise at long last that the rape of our environment is central to social injustice and the commercial greed that drives it. Dan Boyle of the Greens expressed it something like this: environmental protection is about the equitable, sustainable distribution and use of precious resources for the benefit of everybody and of the environment.

I reject the idea that focusing on principles is axiomatically a marxist ideal. (What a cliched old taunt in any case.)

Why restrict the appeal to the interests of working people, why not appeal to the better nature of everyone. Its not just working people who are disillusioned, there are plenty who want the see a fairer and more just society and to contribute to that ideal in real terms.

Why not simply call this party the Independent Party given that the rest of them are so similar as to be indistinguishable.

Lastly, may I suggest that one of the most insidious aspects of our current political system is the party whip system which means that TDs must vote against their consciences on many social issues. The new party should allow a truly independent vote on every issue without fear of recrimination or reprisal for its elected representatives. This would be a great vote earner from people who want to be sure that the person they vote for is not going to have to go back on pre-election promises in any circumstances other than a genuine change of a conviction on a given issue.

by Colm Breathnach - ISN - personal capacity Tue Nov 29, 2005 16:52 breathc at hotmail dot com

Just to clarify things and reply to some of the above posts. These comments are, of course, my personal response and may not reflect the views of others involved in this project.

Firstly, A NEW PARTY HAS NOT BEEN FORMED. What has happened is that a number of groups have come together to start a campaign to build such a party. The various groups involved are not merging but have agreed to work together closely in a campaign to build a new party. What the form, detailed policies and membership of that party will be will emerge as the campaign progesses. This is just a start not the finished product.


I will try to answer the genuine queries from those who have posted under their real names:

In response to both Micheal and Pat C., those invited to the meeting were individuals and groups who have worked together closely over the last year or so and have built up a high level of trust and copperation. As I said this is just a start and it is now our intention to open up the debate about a new party in public. It is clearly stated that we will talk to all those on the left who wish to discuss this project with us. I can't predict which forces will eventually play a role if a new party emerges but it won't just be the groups who have started the ball rolling. I would suggest that those with a genuine interest in this project should come to the public meeting in Dublin next week and lets have an open and productive discussion.

I think Rogers point is one that needs further discussion. It is obvious from the rest of the points made that the new campaign is strongly opposed to imperialism and a European super state, but perhaps the exact terms used in relation to neutrality might be clarified.

I would like to respond to Tom eile, who raises an important point and Spartacus who is being knowingly dishonest etc. but Im not going to engage in debate with people who don't have the courage to use their own names in an open discussion. If you put the same points to me under your real name I will certainly engage with the points you raise. No name, no debate.

by Spartacus Tue Nov 29, 2005 16:58

I was not attacking the initiative I was just putting in my tuppence ha'pence. I think you should be clear on your position on the National Question.

I defended you against attacks from the right. Many, even Indy editors choose to remain anonymous here.

by Roger Cole - Peace & Neutrality Alliance Tue Nov 29, 2005 17:05 pana at eircom dot net 17 Castle Street, Dalkey 01-2351512

I response to Aeraiocht I would like to make the following points.
The suggestion I made was meant as a constructive comment in an area PANA has been campaigning on for 9 years, and I would be confident that it will be regarded as such by those involved in this initiative.
In regard to the march on the 15th of February it seems to me rather obvious that it was a failure. Despite the fact that over 100,00 people took part in the march in Dublin and millions took part throughtout the world, the US, the UK , Ireland and many other states decided to invade, conquer and occupy Iraq because they wanted the oil and to consolidate US/Israeli military domination of the region. It was the first time sine the foundation of this 26 count state that it actively supported an imperialist war. That this war has the support of virtually the entire media is reflected in the fact that Indymedia is, in effect, largely the only media that even allows debate on the issue.
Despite the support for the war by the Irish Times, the Irish Independent etc the defeat of the Imperialists is absolutely inevitable. All PANA can do is to campaign against the war and work with other groups such as this new political formation so that their defeat happens sooner rather than later.

by Colm Breathnach Tue Nov 29, 2005 17:06

Sorry Miriam, I overlooked your contribution in my response.

I take your point that the people with disabilities were no included in the points of agreement, a serious oversight which needs to be rectified.

As for your ideas on other policies, I have to stress again that a new party has not been formed, its just a campaign to start the ball rolling. It would'nt be very democratic if we decided on detailed policies before we had a paryty where the membership could discuss and debate the issues. What we've listed are simply basic principles not detailed policies.

As for the question of appealing to everyone rather than working people/working class, this would invalidate the basis of the whole project: that working peoples material interests are opposed to those in the elite/capitalist class and that working people need a party of their own. Of course individuals from other classes may align themselves for moral reasons with such a party but we must be crystal clear that this campaign is about building a party of the working class which will be fully independent of the capitalist class.

As for the name, at the risk of being a dog with a bone, we cant name something that doesnt exist, that will happen at the end of the process, a process which will hopefully invole far more than those of us whoare currently involved.

by Miriam Cotton Tue Nov 29, 2005 18:06

I realised, Colm, that no new party had actually been formed. I was just asking for these other points to be taken into consideration while deliberations are ongoing.

Personally, I think the idea of bracketing people by 'class' is not great and intrinsically offensive to the group which the CIL is addressing. There are some who benefit more than others for sure but the pursuit of a collection of ideals should not be defined as exclusive to one group of people. In reality it is highly unlikely, of course, that people who make copious amounts of profit from commercial or professional activities will be interested in this movement if it gets off the ground - they'll go on voting for FF et al.

The right have had all political initiative by the neck for far too long - something radical like this is badly needed. The best of luck to the CIL.

by Áine O'Neill Tue Nov 29, 2005 19:13 Sligo

I was really interested to know if the SP and SWP had been approached about this. They both say they are for a united left. This is a chance to see if they mean it. This is a relatively urgent question for the left in the Sligo region given the situation with Declan Bree. Those of us who are looking around for an alternative left-wing vehicle are faced with several different groupings all claiming to want unity: the People Not Profit Alliance, which includes the SWP, but not the SP; the SP itself and now this new group. Personally, I am not willing to get involved in anything that is not open to all, so I have crossed the SP off my list of possibles. But is seems to me that this new grouping is very similar to the People Not Profit Alliance. Can the two not come under the same umbrella and if not, why not? Is it the SWP that is blocking it, or some other reason?

by Stick Tue Nov 29, 2005 19:17

Why did the organisers choose to exclude the WP? We are a 32 County Socialist Party who have elected Public Representatives. I feel a bit uneasy about this exclusion and I hope it was not because some of the organisers are former WP members.

by Mac Tue Nov 29, 2005 19:19

My God - this is painful. The Peoples Front of Judea, the Judean Peoples Front...yadda.yadda

by pat c Tue Nov 29, 2005 19:21

you could be serious. the new group is at least trying to get beyond the alphabet soup. be they right or wrong they want to bring people together rather than have factions which split into fractions.

by Mac Tue Nov 29, 2005 19:48

ya don't get it. The only way you all get to sing from the same hymnsheet is to inpose a dictatorship as yous did up to 1989. Any dissent is promptly sent to the gulag for political reeducation or One Behind the Ear. Until then its Judean Peoples Front time

by Colm Breathnach - ISN personal cpacity Tue Nov 29, 2005 19:48

In response to Aine, I can only repeat what Ive already said: This initiative has started with a number of groups and individuals that have worked together over a period of time and have built up a strong level of trust. This is only a start and we hope to work with others on the left to advance this idea of a new party. So just because an individual or party was not involved at this early stage does not mean those who started the campaign believe these parties /individuals don't have a role to play in forming a new party of the working class.

As for the SWP and SP, the camapign has agreed that we should certainly engage in discussions with these and other groups to discuss their views of the need for a new party. My understanding of the position of these parties is that the SP favour a new party but believe that the conditions are not right for launching such a party and the SWP favour a broad alliance on rather than a new party of the working class, but this should not prevent discussions with these parties.

As one of those former WP members, I will gladly respond to 'Stick's query if he/she has the bottle to use his/her real name instead of hiding behind cowardly anonimity.

by Mark H - SP Tue Nov 29, 2005 19:58

As an aside, you may or may not be aware that the SP in England and Wales has recently launched a campaign for a new workers party.
Check out the above link.

by pat c Tue Nov 29, 2005 20:07

why the tired refrain? it should be obviou to you that neither i nor any of the people behind this new group want to have any type of dictatorship.

by Ryan Tue Nov 29, 2005 20:33

The following is the division of Dail seats: Fianna Fail 81,
Fine Gael 31,
Labor Party 21,
Progressive Democrats 8,
Green Party 6,
Sinn Fein 5,
others 14

It is clear the majority of the electorate vote for right wing political parties - so the only prospect of government is coalition with right wing parties unless the electorate can be convinced otherwise.

The country has a 5.1% GDP, the inflation rate is only 2.2 %, the average GPD per capita is $31,900, only 10% of the population are below the poverty line and the unemployment rate is only 4.2%.
Revenues last year were $62.51 billion
Expenditures last year were $63.52 billion, including capital expenditures of $5.5 billion.

What I am simply pointing out to you is that the electorate are unlikely to vote for a hard left party advocating nationalisation and progressive taxation when the country is prosperous and the average household is well off.

Besides the economic performance of this country has improved so dramatically over the past ten years as a direct result of the liberalisation of the economy by the right wing political parties. The electorate are going to choose between a Fianna Fail/PD led coalition or a Fianna Gael/Labour led coalition with the rest of the seats fought over between Sinn Fein and others. Sinn Fein seems to be the only hard left wing party who may gain ground but if it holds the balance of power after the next election this may merely drive Fianna Fail and Labour and/or/plus Fianna Gael to swallow their pride and join in coalition

by Colm Breathnach - ISN personal capacity Tue Nov 29, 2005 20:53

Ive read the reports re the SP in England and Wales launch of a campaign for a new workers party and I certainly welcome this development. While it is clear that conditions in Ireland and England are different, I believe that conditions are right to begin preliminary moves to build a new party in Ireland and I hope the Socialist Party in Ireland will engage in discussions with the Campaign for an Independent Left to discuss this issue. On a personal level I welcome the fact that the SP has not taken an adverse view of our initiative and hope we can have productive discussions in the near future.

by John Tue Nov 29, 2005 21:01

I hate to put a damper on such adolescent enthusiasm, but may I point out that all this has been tried before. Remember Matt Merrigan's Socialist Labour Party back in the 80s? It got nowhere and soon disappeared. If such a party couldn't succeed in the 80s when Ireland was poor, unemployment was 20 per cent and emigration was 50,000 per annum, what possible chance is there that it will succeed today when Ireland is rich, there is full employment and immigration of 50,000 per annum? As Ryan pointed out, the Irish electorate have no interest whatever in socialism. At this rate, Ireland will soon be the first country in the world to have more socialist parties than socialist voters.

by Question Tue Nov 29, 2005 23:08

Colm Breathnach said that he was glad the SP hasn't an adverse view of his initiative. How do you know this, have they told you that they think it is positive?

by Jack Tue Nov 29, 2005 23:42 pirate at 02imail dot ie

I am all for the formation of a committee to develop a new left wing coalition that can incorporate the existing parties where possible.

Colm, I appreciate the fact that this is still in progress and not yet open directly to public debate regarding policies, but from a left/far left wing perspective, could you or any other posters possibly give the gist of the kind of policy that would help solve the epidemic of gang warfare in Dublin, Limerick and elsewhere, and the violence within the poorer economic areas of these cities..

I am not asking for the Independent Left's position on this, but the general left wing stance. Much leftist literature talks about the public ownership of resources, proportionate taxing and legitimate unions, but I have found it very hard to find resources on the position of violence and specifically gang warfare.

Thanks
Jack

by BCB Wed Nov 30, 2005 01:22

How many of these people involved in this ARE actually working class and from working class areas and not your typical socialist party trendy leftys?

by seedot - 1 of Independent Multitude of Commenteers Wed Nov 30, 2005 01:33

Colm may not be willing to debate with those of us who just present opinions rather than identities, but I'll thank him anyway for posting this up. I've attended meetings related to this initiative and I think it is good to now widen the debate and get other views, official or otherwise. Kelly and mac don't raise anything that is worth discussing at this point, but ryan gets to one of the key issues:

• The following is the division of Dail seats:
• Fianna Fail 81,
• Fine Gael 31,
• Labor Party 21,
• Progressive Democrats 8,
• Green Party 6,
• Sinn Fein 5,
• others 14

I think this initiative comes from a range of people on the left who believe in the potential within electoralism and the opportunity in the current set up. This can be seen from the presence of three vote getters as speakers.

In my humble opinion, the last general election saw the electorate rejected the opposition. If you look at the numbers posted above, it is hard to see the opposition recovering from that beating to the extent where they can form a government. Assuming Fianna Fail lose a few seats just from pure carelessness after so many years the permutations mean that, in the next election, there will be no real opposition. We voted them out and, in part because of the machinations of the P.R.I.C.K., no new opposition has formed to take its place.

The most important thing in the set of bullet points Colm posted is the first one – no coalition. If you can envisage becoming part of the managerial consensus that oversees the descent into jungle capitalism then it is not possible to be a real opposition. All the other bullet points are principles not policy proposals because of this first point – when you are not proposing to be a part of a government you have a set of slogans – not clearly worked out policy proposals. The other side is that before this initiative could even hope to formulate a clear disability policy, campaigners such as Miriam and those who write on disability issues would have to see it as a valid expression of the movement they feel part of.

It is good the campaign will set out its stall and invite people to discuss the timing of the call, the process that should be adopted and the policies that will be needed. I would like to talk about the republic at meetings about this initiative and to discuss neutrality and state violence and use of force. I don't know if I would carry a membership card – but then I'm not sure if I would carry any card and what this one would signify I belong to. Some of the language strikes me as a bit statist and prescriptive though I think, in real terms, it will have to be a party of and from working people to be any different to those we have already. Unless this is built into the core of it, it will produce another path for those who want to reap the rewards of priming the jungle society which has eastern european immigrants losing limbs as they freeze on our streets and we price them out of their home property markets.

But as someone who has gone to the meetings and will probably go next Tuesday as well, this is partly because I look at those numbers up above and see the potential, for the first time in 15 years, of an alternative vision to the market being presented in Irish politics. As Dan McLoughlin goes on Q&A looking like some kind of Dark Lord of Economics saying there is no way to stop €3.50 per hour wages, as farmers from Mayo and residents from Dublin are put in jail for opposing the creeping jungle of privatisation and appropriation I really can't see the list up above suddenly producing an opposition – but I think the Irish people could. Whether they will use this campaign as their vehicle ??? (am going off to read about the SLP)

(By the way, Jack. Don't know the solution to gang culture etc. but blanch4life is worth reading)

by John O'Neill - Irish Socialist Network (Personal view) Wed Nov 30, 2005 10:46

This initiative might fail or might suceed. To all of the above who think its a waste of time, well please allow us to waste our time without your unhelpfull comments. I think in the current economic and political climate it is our duty to try and develop this new Party. Some of the people have in the past been involved in various broad left initiatives. Their input to planning the new party initiative is welcome as they have learned some of the pitfalls of their previous attempts.

As for the SP/SWP participation - I personally am hesitant. The SWP have embarked on their People before Profit Campaign/Group. I think it has been doing some good work in Ballymun and other local areas. I didn't get involved because I felt that the reps of PBP had been chosen before anyone joined. I don't like the SWP way of operating and many of the people who are in this initiative agree that our organisation must be bulit on democratic principles.

The SP have been telling all the left that they have no interest in any such initiative as "the blah blah conditions blah" and so on. The real reason is probably more to do with their electorial success, they feel that they are the alternative. They are intitled to as they have had some very good campaigns and Joe Higgins is an honourable representative of the working class in the cesspit. Good luck to them and the PBP.

by . Wed Nov 30, 2005 12:29

John you are hesitant about allowing SP/SWP into the campaign other comments have noted that WP and IRSP are not involved. It would appear that this is a fairly exclusive group.

Would you allow members of these parties in to the new working class party when the campaign has formed it??

by Serge Wed Nov 30, 2005 12:34

BCB asks how many of these people are working class and the answer is most of them and I can prove it:

The CWAG is based in Crumlin, Walkinstown and Greenhills and its councillor Joan Collins is a postal worker. The ISN is mainly based in Finglas and West Belfast and its local election candidate John O Neill, is a community worker. The TWAG is based in the towns of south Tipperary, ie Clonmel etc. and is made up almost entirely of local community and trade union activists. All these groups have significant electoral support in their respective areas, almost exclusively based on working class communities. If you dont believe me check the 2004 local election results.


Sort of bursts your bubble BCB eh?

by Just Guessing Wed Nov 30, 2005 13:15

"John you are hesitant about allowing SP/SWP into the campaign other comments have noted that WP and IRSP are not involved. It would appear that this is a fairly exclusive group."

Just guessing I would say that the WP has probably denounced this initiative as being organised by ultra-left trotskyise anarcho rabid nationalists and the IRSP would probably be too busy doing doors over the busy Christmas period to attend. Unless of course the initiative decided to call a meeting in the good ol' US of A were their main membership base is.

by John O'Neill - ISN Personal view Wed Nov 30, 2005 13:30

I don't know about the work of either the WP or the IRSP. The don't seem to be very active in Dublin, certainly not in my area.

I think that both these organisations have undemocratic internal structures, I know this of the WP (I was a member) not sure of the IRSP but assume they operate under some version of (un)democratic centralism. This would be a concern for me personally, but luckily enough, I dont represent the views of the initiative or even the ISN, just myself.

by Larry Wed Nov 30, 2005 13:59

John, you really display an ignorant attitude to political ideas when you basically accuse the SP of lying about their position on a new workers party. We all know the SP has repeatedly come out in favour of the formation of a new workers party, they have even described how they would play a role in any such party, through articles in their paper and journal. You accuse the SP of believing they are the new party (a sectarian position), when this is clearly not the case.

Even though you critically accuse the SP for thinking they are the new party, you then continue to say that they are ENTITLED to 'as they have had some very good campaigns and Joe Higgins is an honourable representative of the working class in the cesspit.' If you believe the SP is being sectarian by thinking they are the new party, you should not defend their actions by saying they are entitled to.

You should also point out to us where the SP believe they are the new party.

by john killen Wed Nov 30, 2005 14:09

You wrote "The SWP have embarked on their (sic )People before Profit Campaign/Group. I think it has been doing some good work in Ballymun "
check your facts John . Ballymun People Before Profits is not part of the SWP campaign .

by Martin Wed Nov 30, 2005 14:10

You do believe in opinions don't you. You are allowed have them in your party, aren't you. From what I can see John has expressed an opinion. Nowhere does he mention that the SP are 'new'. He states an opinion that many on the left think - that being that the SP talk incessently about the need for a new party but go around acting like they are THAT party. You might not like that opinion but there you go it's out there.
Please read before you rant. That said the SPEW idea is interesting, any thoughts on it and whether it might mean any change in Ireland?

by Curious Wed Nov 30, 2005 14:16

"Ballymun People Before Profits is not part of the SWP campaign ."

Since when? Who's the acting secretary? Who called the meeting?

by Mark H - SP Wed Nov 30, 2005 14:17

On the statistics trotted out about who people vote for, something is missing. Yes, the people who didn't vote. Many of these are people who recognise that establishment parties are all the same. Then there are people who have voted for Labour, the Greens and Sinn Fein because they percieve them as being a bit better than the others. A mass workers party would offer them an alternative.
It should be noted that the purpose of a new mass workers party should not just be electoral but to encourage workers to become politically active. The difference is that any new party should be one that the most politically advanced layer of the working class should be able to claim ownership of.
On the conditions for a new workers party, the period that is opening up before us with the attacks on workers rights involved in Irish Ferries and Borkestein along with the general attacks on ordinary people like stealth taxes and the corrib gas field controversy will in my personal opinion open up the opportunity to build such a party. However this struggle should not be separated from the struggle to reclaim the unions by the rank and file.
Finally, John, the SP does not think that the conditions for a new workers party are postponed because of our electoral success. The conditions for building such a party depend on wheter we believe it can be a success vis a vis some of the criteria i mentioned above.

by Democratic Centralist Wed Nov 30, 2005 15:20

John implied in a posting that he would not be in support of the IRSP being involved in his new group because they are democratic centralists. The SP and SWP are also democratic centralists, so your new group is going to be very small if you exclude all them. Is your new party an alliance, a coalition or a strict party? If the SWP or SP got involved would they have to give up their own party structures, their newspapers, their own seperate identity in favour of this new party?
Why does the campaign for a new left not say it is socialist, or say it stands for socialism in its programme? Why do you say it is a campaign for a party for working people, and not the working class? Did you deliberately decide not to use socialism or working class so that you would have a softer image? Have you agreed already that the IRSP cannot join?

by John O'Neill Wed Nov 30, 2005 15:54

For clarity sake I have to respond to some of the posts.

I gave my opinions, not what was agreed by any committee or group organising this campaign and for the record I am against the new initiative adopting democratic centralist structures because they are not democratic.

If I believe this I should be automatically cautious about any group/organisation that wish to participate and who believe that DC is the appropriate structure is to build a mass left alternative, as for all your other questions about the new initiative all that is listed above is what has been agreed, nothing more or less.

If people want to ask the Irish Socialist Network their position they can contact them on their email address, you can get it at

http://irishsocialist.net/

I will debate my reasons for not endorsing DC and for actually actively opposing it as a model of organisation with anyone on email

passltd@eircom.net

by Cynic Wed Nov 30, 2005 16:17

Your new organisation contains Trots of various hues. All of them agree with DemCen. Have Joan and DErmot given up on leninism? You are on a hiding to nothing.

by Curious Wed Nov 30, 2005 16:24

And your organisation practices what ala Francie Molloy? Democratic Adamism?

by . Wed Nov 30, 2005 16:37

This is someting else! You intend setting up a new workers party and the first thing you list is who should be excluded!

by Danton Wed Nov 30, 2005 16:47

The TWAG has lost two councillers and a lot of members to Labour recently, TWAG is falling apart. Phil Prendergast will put up a good fight for Labour against Healy in the next election. Bye bye independent TD. The only reason Healy is getting involved with this lot is because hes in dire straits.

by frank - and open debate Wed Nov 30, 2005 16:50

If you want to be in a democratic centralist party you should set one up.Or, hang on join the SWP,SP,CPI,WP, IRSP,SD, SF (for an Ireland of equals unless your a member) the list is endless.

Their collective lack of success in building a party of the working class is monumental

by Dublin Activist - None Wed Nov 30, 2005 17:16

Can anybody explain why the TWAG has split and those people have gone over to Labour?

by SP Member - Socialist Party/CWI Wed Nov 30, 2005 17:19

Th SP is not and would not be in favour of the establishment of a broad left party along democratic centralist lines. Any such party, by its very nature would be broad and need some sort of federal structure that would allow for the maximum participation of all groups and individuals. The failure of the Socialist Alliance in England to adopt such a necessarily broad and democratic structure was the very reason for the SP reluctantly withdrawing from the SA.

To further clarify the SP's attitude to any new party. The SP does not and could not consider itself as the basis for such a party. The SP is a revolutionary organisation and recognises the fact that the vast majority of working class people who will move into political activity at a time of struggle will not immediately draw revolutionary conclusions and would not directly join the SP. For this reason the SP recognises the need for the building of a mass broad left party to provide a vehicle for such activists. The SP will actively participate in the establishment of such a party. The SP will also maintain its own revolutionary organisation, structures and programme while participating (Scotland, Germany and Brazil are examples that come to mind).

The question of the timing of such an initiative is important. A premature attempt to establish such a party can actually delay the process, particularly if the party is dominant by an existing political formation (again the SA in England) and create a situation of demoralising a section of activists. The SP regularly considers this situation and without doubt the current situation within Irish Ferries will add to the discussions within the SP.

by Robespierre Wed Nov 30, 2005 18:13

Typical misplaced gloating from a Labour hack. Hardly surprising that one of Labour's target seats in the next election is one held by a real socialist. Rabbitte and his minions would much rather take that seat off Healy than win one off FF or FG, they have far more in common with the right-wing parties than they have with the principled left. Thanks for reminding us why we need a new party so badly...

by Danton Wed Nov 30, 2005 18:17

You wont get me this time! I am not in Labour. Merely observing events. I would like to see both of them get seats but there is only one Left seat there. You might want to deal with the reality that TWAG has lost a lot of its members to the LP. Now were these people all revolutionaries as long as they were in TWAG?

by Shinner Wed Nov 30, 2005 18:20

As a Shinner I support this move totally, not because I'm wavering or because I think we need more socialist parties, but because any development of socialist activism, through whatever framework, must be welcomed.

Sinn Féin's work in respect of the peace process has caused the 'republicanisation' of other parties. FF, FG and Labour - parties that formerly expressed abhorrence for republicanism, are now at pains to stress their desire for national unity. If cynical, this is also progressive, as it has highlighted the republican cause and pressurised those opposed to it to rethink.

Equally, further radical socialist activism will put pressure on all the parties (SF included) to shift to the left, empowering those socialists within to have their voices heard.

Those who criticise your efforts have no vision.

by Hebert Wed Nov 30, 2005 18:23

A lot of people defect from groups. There are many ex members of the SP and the SWP in the Labour Party. There are even ex members of the Sparts in the Labour party. It doesn't necessarily prove anything. If you're really not a Labourite, why are you gloating at the thought of the TWAG collapsing? Either you are deceitful, or else you are a neurotic Trot sectarian who takes pleasure in seeing "fake' socialists (ie not members of your sect) go down to defeat. Either way, it's not very impressive

by Danton Wed Nov 30, 2005 18:26

I am not gloating I am stating facts. Facts that some choose to ignore. Why have TWAG split? Perhaps those who are building the new party could tell us.

by Robespierre Wed Nov 30, 2005 18:46

Hmmm, I smell a certain "SP member" anxious to sniff out heresy ... we've seen you round these parts before

Maybe the TWAG would answer your questions, if you had the guts to sign your real name. And while you're at it, you can explain why several SP members have left to join Labour. What does this say about your organisation?

by sp Wed Nov 30, 2005 19:34

SP would not like to see Seamus lose his seat nor the TWAG fall apart. So run off home troll.

by John O'Neill - Irish Socialist Network (personal view) Wed Nov 30, 2005 19:45

I just got off the phone with Mick Burke from Ballymun People Before Profit. He has assured me this group is an independent group and has existed for some time now. The group isn't associated formally with People before profit/Davitt League and works independently in Ballymun.

I was under the impression it was. Aplogies to anyone in the BPBP group and keep up the good work.

by Ciarán Ó Brolcháin - Judean People's Something or Other Wed Nov 30, 2005 19:54

I'm still interested in hearing what the position of those people behind this initiative is in regards to the national question, partition, the fact that there are still more British troops in Ireland than in Iraq, etc. etc.

The only response to this so far was one person sidestepping the issue by complaining about the use of handles. (I take it this individual is perhaps a newbie to the internet. I dare say his first visit to a message board will be something of a shock.)

by Anorak Wed Nov 30, 2005 20:07

You would get a different impression reading this article. Or maybe there are two different groups.

These contact names don't look very indepedent of the SWP:

To contact Ballymun People Before Profit phone Kevin Wingfield (Acting Secretary) on 086-3074060
To contact Dun Laoghaire People Before Profit phone Richard Boyd Barrett on 087-6329511

by mick burke Thu Dec 01, 2005 15:12

Kevin Wingfield is a member of BPBP . There was an opportunistic attempt to bring our group into the SWP alliance last month . It was unsuccsessful. We called our group Ballymun People Before Profits before we had even heard about the SWP's alliance. It was after we had formed under that name that we heard a group called Dun Laoighre People Before Profits had ,either been formed , or was in the process of being formed. And then , all of a sudden , there was the People Before Profits /Michael Davitt League Alliance. This was all planned without any consultation with anyone in the Ballymun group other than Kevin Wingfield .
If we had known that there was a new alliance being organized by the SWP with the name People Before Profits involved ,we would have called our group something else , because we didn't ( and don't) want our organization to be seen as a front for any other group. We are independent. We're stuck with the name now ,but BPBP is going from strength to strength anyway : people have no choice but to fight the land-grab going on out in Ballymun . Like the Irish Ferry workers ,our backs are against the wall ; a militant , grassroots challenge is underway .The SWP or anybody else can get involved with the resistance (they have helped out with printing ) but they won't be allowed to get up to their tricks . We're keeping a very close eye on them .
I tried to have Kevin Wingfield put off the steering committee of BPBP at last month's general meeting . People thought that was over the top , but , having witnessed the SWP up close during the anti-war campaign , I felt compelled to take a drastic course to preserve the independence and intergrity of our group and to and stop it being turned into a vehicle for any future electioneering strategies of the SWP. If we had tied ourselves to the fortunes of an SWP alliance ,where would that have left the people of Ballymun when that alliance went the same way as other SWP fronts?
If anybody wants to read about what's happening in Ballymun , read the new community paper Ireland From Below .
(Apologies to Colm for side-tracking this important thread)

by tony Fri Dec 02, 2005 01:00

Mark,
Best of luck with BPBP, you sound like a genuine guy. Don't trust the swp but don't waste valuable energy on them either. They haven't got the stamina or the ability to organise anything genuine themselves. The problem with the rest of the Dublin left is that they give a damn about what the swp are doing. Keep your focus on your goal and if the swp can be of assistance (I doubt it) that’s fine and if they’re not let them sod off. Whatever you do don’t let wingfield be the contact person, he’s an absolute clown, he’ll lose you genuine people. I’m speaking from experience.

by d'other Fri Dec 02, 2005 01:58

From what I'd read on Indymedia, I'd assumed that BMPBP was just another name for the local SWP types to push politics on people and roar at them about the anti-capitalist movement. But Mick's post there seems to suggest that it has a life very much of its own. What sort of struff have ye been up to with it and how have you been engaging with people? Genuinely interested to hear what ye are about, be sure to keep Indymedia updated with your news and events.

by Kevin Wingfield - Ballymun SWP Fri Dec 02, 2005 13:12 SWPBallymun at eircom dot net 086-3074060

As my name has been bandied about in connection with this thread I feel I ought to put the record straight. I have been heavily involved in the campaigns as an activist in Ballymun. I am also a member of the SWP. This is of course no secret.
I and a number of others from diverse political backgrounds, who had worked together on local issues, circulated a letter in the summer inviting local activists to come together to pool their resources, energies, ideas, etc.(By the way, I was the only SWP signatory of this letter). A well attended meeting followed. A steering committee was elected of which I was and am a part.
The group works on a number of fronts:- Monitoring of local building sites for safety; campaigning on the swimming pool and local bus services; employment opportunities for local people on the massive regeneration works; seeking to prise information on planning and other issues from Ballymun Regeneration and Dublin City Council, support for those seeking adequate re-housing, etc.
The steering committee meets weekly to which any resident of Ballymun who is a supporter of the group is welcome.
Larger publicly advertised meetings (by delivering thousands of leaflets to virtually all addresses in the area) are held approximately monthly---the last one (last Tuesday was standing room only).
At one of the meetings it was decided to name the group Ballymun People Before Profit. BPBP has quite a name and has forced BRL to respond with advertising and a propaganda campaign. BPBP has won concessions from building firms on safety and forced a rethink by BRL on an unwelcome pub development.
This represents an important focus for the dissatisfaction of the people of Ballymun.
It is of course not a front for any political party or group but a non-sectarian alliance of activists. Anyone is welcome to raise any initiative or make any proposal to be decided by vote if disagreement exists.
I was elected Secretary and as such I brought to the attention of the BPBP committee correspondence received. This included an invite to a meeting to launch a community-based newspaper (with which I have no involvement) and an invite to the Davitt League/People Before Profit meeting held in town in October (an initiative that I personally and my party support). I suggested if anyone was interested and free they might like to get along to either event. A number of the central activists expressed an interest in one or both of these events. Three BPBP activists went to the Davitt League/ People Before Profit meeting and two (I believe) to the community newspaper meeting. In both cases they went as individuals.
Any secretary that did not bring such correspondence to the attention of the committee would not be doing their job.
Unfortunately Mick Burke’s old sectarianism then got the better of him. He (alone) on the committee denounced my bringing of the Davit League/People Before Profit meeting to the attention of the committee.
At a well attended General Meeting the following week that I and others had spent days delivering leaflets and newsletters to build for, Mick let loose a denunciation of me and the SWP and demanded I be expelled from the committee. He had brought with him a couple of people who had played no part in the work of BPBP but because of their political alignment could be expected to gang up against me. (One of these has been out of Ballymun for a long time and was last heard of as a taxi driver in the west of Ireland. This man delivered an anti SWP tirade.)
The tragedy was that dozens of local people has come to the meeting and had spent the previous part of the meeting discussing and organising on key issues of concern to them. Naturally they had not come to waste their time with the sectarian bile Mick and his friends had served up. At least half the meeting walked out in disgust.
The other members of the committee spoke up on my behalf. When the vote was taken Mick could muster just one vote.
Mick has taken himself from the committee since. Mick keeps using the pronoun “we” as though he is speaking for BPBP. He is not but simply taking his personal sectarianism for an outing. He may be suspicious of SWP, He may be watching us, etc, etc but he is not entitled to leave the impression that he is speaking for other activists in Ballymun People Before Profit. Indeed Mick Burke’s attempt to have me excluded from the BPBP committee was roundly criticised by pretty-well all the central activists in BPBP including a member of the ISN.
But as the vote at the general meeting indicates, the other activists delivered a verdict that I had no case to answer.
Mick Burke comments that theSWP did some of printing---- a jibe which is a snide slur. SWP activists in the area regularly take responsibility for delivering to about a third of the area, postering, etc. Our people have been central to building, and on, all the pickets and demonstrations in the area. Our people ran around organising emergency food and other support for the Gama strikers and played their full part in building the benefit gig for the strikers.
I had hoped, like everyone else in BPBP, that we had put this disgraceful episode which Mick Burke had organised behind us. It seems he now wants to air it on Indymedia. It is this which prompts me to respond.
BPBP continues to do excellent work and I am proud to be centrally involved with others in a spirit of co-operation and mutual respect within it. We have organised a protest demonstration for next Wednesday at 2pm over the swimming pool issue. Last week we organised a support meeting for Irish Ferries and we are holding a fund raising social in the Penthouse on Friday evening.
There is no question, and never has been any question, that BPBP maintains its autonomy, whatever links it may choose to make with activists and community groups etc elsewhere.
Local campaigns like ours do need to look to the broader agenda in my opinion. Of course the Davitt League/People Before Profit initiative seems to me to based on the same method of mutual co-operation and respect which I (and others) have tried to implement in BPBP.
Numbers of activists in BPBP are interested in and keenly follow developments in Davitt League/People Before Profit.
Hope this helps
Kevin Wingfield

by Eanna - none Fri Dec 02, 2005 13:36

Thats a fair enough response from Kevin. However given many peoples past experience with the SWP, its not surprising that some people will be suspicious of their activities. I accept that Ballymun PBP seems to be a broad oufit doing very good work but I have my doubts about the national PBP/Davitt League. As far as I can see no political group other than the SWP is involved and no matter how many individuals and activists join up that means it will be dominated and controled by the SWP. Perhaps Kevin could clarify if this is the case.

I am not involved in any of these alliances but the campaign which this thread is about seems to be genuinely pluralist, since from what Ive read it involves a few different organisations and independents and they seem to be genuinely interested in building something broad. Time will tell whether this is a turning point for the left or just one more failure.

by Donal Fri Dec 02, 2005 13:45

First things first. Funny that somebody (if not him - his party) who denouced other activists at May Day as being 'Thatchers Children' should be so riled about sectarianism.
The main PBP/Davitt League have given the impression that the Ballymun group en bloc were part of the national initiative (not certain individuals as Kevin states here). In fact a simple perusal at the article in the SWP paper also gives the impression that it is part of the national initiative.
But then would you expect any different.

by mick burke Fri Dec 02, 2005 14:58

I hope Kevin's post (welcome to Indymedia Kevin) has made it clear . Ballymun People before Profits is not a part of the SWP's front organization. BPBP has never affiliated itself to or ever endorsed the People Before Profits/Michael Davitt League Alliance . BPBP is an idependent group.
I'll try to keep Indymedia readers up to date on the Ballymun situation in the future , but not on this thread. If anyone is around for tonight's fundraiser at the Penthouse they'll be more than welcome .

by Conor - ISN - Personal capacity Fri Dec 02, 2005 17:46

Details of the public meeting now available:

Campaign for an Independent Left - Building a new party of working people

Public meeting : It’s time for a real alternative. Speakers: Colm Breathnach (ISN),Seamus Healy TD (TWAG) and Councillor Joan Collins (CWAG).

Teachers Club, Parnell Square, Dublin - Tuesday Dec 6th, 8.00pm.

by Brendan Fri Dec 02, 2005 17:48

Fair play to Kevin for taking up the argument. Isnt time the left started to work together . It seems to me that despite the swp's past antics, that there seems to be some effort to make amends. Surely its more constructive to make efforts to overcome sectarianism. There is far greater things at stake- the rossport five, the ferries, racism, etc. to be squabbling.
Unity is key.

by Peter Fri Dec 02, 2005 18:17

"Fair play to Kevin for taking up the argument. Isnt time the left started to work together."

No taking sides there, eh?

by derek Fri Dec 02, 2005 18:30

Sound like these policies will greatly increase the tax burden on working people (i.e. public ownership of everything).

And would also greatly increase unemployment so that many would no longer be working people - this in turn increasing the tax burden on the remaining working people.

by Pablo Montana - A Socialist Sun Dec 04, 2005 01:58

Man you are hopelessly lost within the house of mirrors they call political economy. Smash it man. It aint bad luck.
What I saying is your hypothesis only holds true under the general laws of capitalism. Socialism has its own laws. Its not public ownership like the great nationalised monoliths of the past yeno. Its Democratic public ownership. All the wealth of society taken off the chupacabra capitalist bloodsuckers who let it rot in banks and used to run society for the benefit of everyone. No increase in tax burden on working people. Redistribution ofde wealth.

by John Meehan Sun Dec 04, 2005 21:24

Campaign for an Independent Left



Press release – immediate release



Launch of campaign for a new party of working people



Tue December 6, 8.00 pm

Teachers Club, Parnell Sq, Dublin.



The Campaign for an Independent Left will hold its first public event in Dublin next Tuesday. The group plans to campaign for the creation of a new, independent party of working people. Involved in the campaign are the Tipperary Workers Action Group, the Community and Workers Action Group (Dublin), the Irish Socialist Network and individuals linked to Red Banner magazine – as well as activists from Dublin, Tipperary, Galway and Belfast.



Speaking at Tuesdays meeting will be Séamus Healy TD of the Tipperary Workers Action Group, Dublin City Councillor Joan Collins of the Community and Workers Action Group and Colm Breathnach of the ISN – with Des Derwin in the chair (Vice President of Dublin Council of Trade Unions - personal capacity).



In arguing for support for this Campaign, Séamus Healy says

“Irish Ferries shows the need for a new party that will consistently take the side of working people. It is unacceptable to go into coalition with parties that go along with actions like that being taken by Irish Ferries, or to go into partnership with people whose aim is to squeeze the maximum profit from workers. We call for immediate legislation to outlaw what Irish Ferries is doing. But this dispute shows that strategic public services, like public transport and shipping, need to be in public ownership. We will be campaigning for solidarity amongst workers and against the divisive competition being imposed by employers, the government and the EU.”



Joan Collins adds

“Working people need a real alternative, not more of the same policies from different parties. Dubliners know from the experience of the bin tax with Dublin City Council, that a Fine Gael – Labour coalition will push through the same privatisation agenda as Ahern and Harney. Their neo-liberal policies and divisive race to the bottom, being implemented by Irish Ferries, must be stopped. Migrant workers must be paid the rate for the job, not just the minimum wage, and get the same social protection across all countries in Europe. We need a party that will campaign for different politics to the mainstream parties, both for Ireland and the rest of Europe.”

by Labour Socialist Mon Dec 05, 2005 02:18

Fair play to those in this new group, a lot more unites us than divides us, in fact I don't see much I disagree with in your initial post apart from the analysis that this is needed outside the Labour Party.

I'm not surprised though that you need to define yourselves in the context of the Labour Party rather than anything outside the traditional raison d'etre of the many breakaways and splits of the Irish non-Labour left; however, as long as this group remains fair, principled and non-dogmatic, as most of its members already are, I am sure that there is much scope for serious left-wing campaigns with others without resort to sectarianism.

Good luck, for what it's worth

by alan Mon Dec 05, 2005 12:14

The reason that this has to be outside the labour party isd the labour party is a coalition party. It wants government and intends to have it with FG the capitalist, anti traveller, party.

by D'other Mon Dec 05, 2005 18:27

Healy is on Newstalk now talking to George Hook about the need for a left alternative.

by Bronstein Mon Dec 12, 2005 16:29

So how are the objective conditions going these days, comrades? Yep, just as I thought, our friends in the SP are in a bit of a pickle: massive Irish Ferries demo's turnout a sure sign that workers need new mass party and that there would be a positive response but SP can't be seen to make a u-turn in case members start asking hard questions. Heres my guess: they'll keep parroting the line about conditions not being right for a new party until the London 'Centre' orders the change from on high. Expect some nauseating lectures from them once they've made the u-turn, about how they always were in favour of a new party and how conditions have suddenly changed etc. etc.

P.S. A meeting of the International Secretariat of the CWI is coming up shortly. Thats where all the major decisions are made, so its just possible we'll see the Irish Comrades being sent back to eat humble pie, though its more likely that they will be given a little breathing space to concoct some semi-plausible porky why they suddenly changed tack to fall in line with England.

by Tom Joad Mon Dec 12, 2005 17:07

We are in favour of a new mass party of the working class. we have so since the mid 90s. I can post it again if that makes it any clearer for u, I will even write it out a hundred times - maybe that might begin to seep into ur head. But i wont hold my breath

by Jack London Mon Dec 12, 2005 17:13

Your wrath is misplaced here and will wither on the vine. There is little point in saying you are in support of building a mass party if you do nothing to achieve that aim. For years the SP have studiously ignored any initiatives which were geared towards building a New Workers Party.

by Plain speaker Mon Dec 12, 2005 17:16

"We are in favour of a new mass party of the working class."

Really this won't do. Making statements like this is premature and could hold back the working class movement by years.

by Mark P - Socialist Party (personal capacity) Mon Dec 12, 2005 18:34

(I'm reluctant to get into the issue of a new working class party on this thread because, unlike the issue of partnership, it clearly has little to do with the Irish Ferries issue. And it has the potential to completely derail an important news thread. To avoid people moaning about unanswered questions I'll answer here for the moment, but perhaps one of the editorial team would consider moving this post along with those of Bronstein, Plain Speaker, Jack London, Tom Joad and Comedian to one of the very recent threads about new parties rather than letting this discussion sprawl across the newswire. Here are two better homes for it:
http://www.indymedia.ie/newswire.php?story_id=73215
http://www.indymedia.ie/newswire.php?story_id=73208 )

Some people above have commented on the Socialist Party's attitude towards the possible development of a new party of the working class above. Although most of the comments are rather foolish taunting rather than serious political points, they do reflect a real issue that is worth dealing with. In particular Bronstein's post, mean spirited, inaccurate and cynical though it is, has the merit of at least putting the discussion in the context of events in the wider world (ie the Irish Ferries dispute).

The Socialist Party has been saying for years now that it favours a new mass party of the working class. The Irish Ferries dispute shows fairly clearly just why we want to see such a party. The reaction of the Labour Party has been to try and cynically use the issue to shore up social partnership, and while organisations like our own do good work we are too small and lack the requisite social weight to have more of an impact. A real working class party, operating on a mass scale rather than as a small group, would transform the situation. It could offer real political leadership and organisation and help encourage a fighting response from the trade union movement. But seeing a need for a new party, wanting to see a new party come into being, is not the same as thinking it is on the immediate agenda.

One swallow doesn't make a Summer, as the old proverb goes. And neither does one important struggle by itself shake off the effects of decades of rust within the trade union movement. Partnership has done incalculable harm to the labour movement, so too has the shift to the right by the Labour Party and the general capitalist ideological offensive in the wake of the collapse of the Stalinist countries, brutal dictatorships though they were - pushing the view that no alternative is possible to the current system and its race to the bottom.

The Socialist Party in Ireland has seen the creation of a new party as something of a medium term perspective rather than a focus for immediate agitation. It is central to our understanding of how the labour movement in this country will develop, seeking new forms of working class representation. It is also by the way an important part of our view that the Socialist Party, a small revolutionary socialist group, will not by itself grow into a mass party. We are entirely serious about that and really, there is little point in arguing about it with anyone who thinks that it is all some kind of public relations front and that, secretly, in our collective heart of hearts we think something completely different.

Our view has been for some time though that such a new party is not immediately on the agenda and that it will take a significant rise in working class struggle to put it on the agenda. We think that the extremely low levels of struggle which Irish society has seen in recent years is not a permanent condition but something which will inevitably change. Things could change slowly or they could change extremely rapidly as a particular issue detonates wider struggle. I think, and hope, that events like those surrounding GAMA and now Irish Ferries will act as early markers of such a change. And as our assessment of the current state of Irish society changes so to will our assessment of what is and isn't on the agenda. No doubt of course when things do change, and with it our attitude, we will have the same cynics talking about u-turns or influence from our sister organisation in England or the like.

For the moment though I think that reports of the launch meeting of the Campaign for an Independent Left give a pretty good early indication of whose assessment of the current situation is closer to the mark. As I understand it there was barely a single person there who hasn't been around the left for donkey's years. Many people with fine activist records to be sure, but no new forces at all despite having a high profile TD and councillor on the platform, despite a year of discussions, and despite getting on national radio to promote it. This though is an issue I would love to be proved wrong on. I would love the Campaign for an Independent Left to get a real echo in the working class. I would love to be shown that I had too pessimistic a view (as the SWP would no doubt claim) of where we are at the moment, but I don't think that's likely to happen.

by Bob the builder Tue Dec 13, 2005 00:29

“massive Irish Ferries demo's turnout a sure sign that workers need new mass party”

I knew there would be a downside to the massive turnout on the Irish Ferries demo – the enviable wet dream of the sad lefties, in the nineties it was called the ‘upturn’!!
Don’t forget, the massive anti war march achieved nothing – the yanks are still using our airspace to murder and torture.
Irish Ferries have just upped the ante today and you and I know that the unions don’t have the bottle for taking them on.
What we really need is a proper campaign within the unions to force the leadership to protect their members or if people feel that is not possible, the likes of the IWU should be used to provide an alternative.
What we don’t need is yet another ‘mass workers party’ with no organic roots within working class communities or within the unions.