Sweden's upcoming elections

by Finghin - SP Fri Aug 23, 2002 16:32

The fact is that we had limited resources. We did not have enough people to canvass every house in Dublin South and we were under great strain in Dublin West and Dublin North. We simply did not have enough people to canvass other areas.

We do want to get elected you know, we have limited resources and we use them most effectivly. If we were to gain seats it would give a further platform for our ideas, I see no problem with concentrating in areas where we might get seats.

Building the socialist Party is not contradictory to building support for socialist and revolutionary ideas. In fact I would argue that the development of the SP in Ireland will lead to a growth of support for revolutionary ideas.

by Ray Fri Aug 23, 2002 09:07

I'm not saying that you should have stood in South Central. I'm pointing out that, if your door-to-door work was about 'spreading ideas', there's no reason why you should have done more work in South than in South Central. The reason for the difference is that your canvassing is not about 'spreading ideas', its about winning support for the party.

Leninists frequently fail to understand the difference between 'socialism' and 'The Party'. Can you see what I'm getting at?

by OK - SP-Dublin South Tue Aug 20, 2002 17:15

The fact is that the SP (like any other organisation) has limits in terms of resources. If we were to stand in South-Central it would mean diverting resources from other area, it would mean that our forces would be spread more thinly.

We (DubS branch) spent the entire election campaign in Dublin South. That is where we work all year round, not just election time. We (the Party) also do work in Dublin South Central, community work etc. but we did not decide to stand in election there.

We want spread our ideas in an election campaign. To do that effectively we have to start somewhere. We are not a party of thousands of members at this stage and we are unable to stand everywhere. We concentrated on 5 constituencies for the election. That does not mean we are not active outside those areas.

by Ray Mon Aug 19, 2002 16:21

I know you don't have a problem with parliamentary elections, that's kind of obvious. But when you say 'spreading our ideas' it seems to translate into 'building support for the party'. So, a simple question.

In the last election there was an SP candidate in Dublin South, but none in Dublin South Central. How much time did you spend 'winning support for your ideas' in Dublin South, and how much in South Central?

by Finghin - Socialist Youth Mon Aug 19, 2002 16:16

We use elections as an oppurtunity to get our message out to people. We also use it not just to build our own forces but also to build the movement for a socialist transformation of society. I see nothing wrong with standing in elections and getting elected, the Bolsheviks participated in the Tsarist Duma. I canvassed in the last election for Lisa Maher and CLare Daly of the SP and I will be going to Sweden next week to help in the campaigns of Rattsvisepartiet Socialisterna (Swedish CWI). We (Socialist Party/CWI) do not see parliament as a vehical for change, change can only come through mass movements of ordinary people. If you look at the example of Chile in 1972 you will see the limitations of parliamentry democracy. But because parliament can't be used to change society does not mean that parliament can'tbe used as a platform to popularise your ideas.

by Ray Mon Aug 19, 2002 15:06

You say that your goal is getting your ideas out there, but what are the targets you set? Recruits and votes. That's because your measurement of your success is the growth of the party. (Compare the amount of door-to-door canvassing you do in onstituencies where you have a candidate as opposed to other constituencies, and then tell me its all about 'spreading the ideas')

Anarchism is different. The point is not for one organisation to gain members, because an anarchist society will not be created by one organisation. What is important, and what is covered in (for example) the leaflets the WSM produced at the last election, is self-activity. The idea the leaflet promnoted was that you went out and organised yourself to solve your problems, instead of looking for the SP or WSM to do it for you. That's because an anarchist society (the only type of socialism worth mentioning) is based on self-activity. Not following the party, but making your own decisions.

Sure, a lot of people still thinking voting in elections is important. A lot of people also think that capitalism is the only workable society, that there should be limits on immigration, that there is a god, and that Bertie is a nice guy. Its not as if voting is the deal-breaker here, is it? Anarchists have a lot of convincing to do, but so does everyone else.

by OK - SP Mon Aug 19, 2002 14:54

Yes we do look for votes and new members. But this is only as a result of arguing our politics and our ideas. In the past election I canvassed hundreds of doors and discussed with hundreds. We put forward our ideas and the people that support us will vote for us, and those that support us strongly may join us. But the key thing is getting our ideas out there.

It seems to me that Anarchists just sit back and act cynically in the eyes of many ordinary people. In my opinion the 'Vote Pie' campaign isolated anarchists from most people, like it or not many do see Parliament as a political vehicle.

by Ray Fri Aug 16, 2002 16:19

Anarchists use an election to argue for self-organisation and direct action.
You use an election to look for votes and new members.

Can you see the difference yet?

by OK - SP Fri Aug 16, 2002 16:12

The Socialist Party (Irish section of CWI) enter the elections to popularise our ideas, not just to get votes. For example in Sweden we have a target of recuiting a certain number of new members in the course of our election campaign. We also have the target of retaining our local authority seats and possibly getting more.

I do not see any problem with taking seats. The Socialist Party public representatives are not politicians, we see ourselves as organisers of ordinary people in their fight against capitalism. As a TD Joe Higgins is able to raise issues to a broader audience. Similarly as a councillor Clare Daly is able to raise local issues more easily. Public office is viewed as a platform for our ideas.

by Ray Thu Aug 15, 2002 16:52

That's a pretty fundamental difference, don't you think?
Anarchists use the occassion of an election to argue against parliamentary democracy, and say that people should take direct action instead of voting.
The CWI uses the occassion of an election to get people to vote for their candidates.

One of these kids is doing their own thing,
one of these kids is kind of the same...

by OK - SP-CWI Thu Aug 15, 2002 16:16

I'm glad to say that the Socialist Party (the Irish section of a Committee for a Workers' Internationl- CWI) will be sending over a number of comrades to Sweden to help in the election campaign of our Swedish Sister Organisation Rattvissepartiet Socialisterna (the Socialist Justice Party)

The CWI, as marxists, contest elections to raise the profile of our ideas and to popularise our ideas.

In my opinion the anarchists are doing the same. The difference is that they are not putting up candidates!

by IRISHPRIDE Thu Aug 15, 2002 13:19

I am glad this was posted!! I gives me an idea of the onward march of the right wing facists into every major government in EU - for EU, read "OUR GOVERNMENT"

Solidarity to our Swedish friends and No this the NICE of madness and bullshit democracy.... NO MEANS NO!

by Ray Thu Aug 15, 2002 08:37

Though I agree with the content, this is hardly the place to post a leaflet about the swedish elections, is it?