|
|
Blog Feeds
Anti-Empire
Human Rights in IrelandA Blog About Human Rights
Lockdown Skeptics
Voltaire NetworkVoltaire, international edition
|
Reply to the SWP Open Letter on Nice national |
miscellaneous |
news report
 Wednesday August 21, 2002 15:19 by Andrew - WSM - personal capacity
 One, four or many No's? Reply to the SWP Open Letter on Nice Issue 180 of Socialist Worker contained an 'open letter to the left' on the Nice treaty. It argues that there should be one united left No campaign rather then four separate ones. This is a personal reply to that text (which can be found at http://www.swp.ie/resources/Open%20letter%20to%20the%20left.htm ). I'm posting this reply to indymedia.ie as it obviously won't be published by Socialist Worker but the issues raised need to be discussed by activists. As it stands the Open Letter would appear reasonable to the casual reader from Mars who had no knowledge of the Irish left. It would seem obvious that a single united Nice campaign would have greater impact then the several No campaigns that are now coming into existence. But of course the letter doesn't argue for a single united campaign of all those calling for a No vote. Like everyone else on the left the SWP have no interest in unity with Justin Barrett, for all the right reasons. So although it does not explicitly state this, the letter itself acknowledges that sometimes principles need to come before unity. This will be discussed in more depth below. But there is something curious in this method of arguing for left unity; an Open Letter published in the paper of a single political party. With some thought it can be seen that this letter is not after all targeted at visitors from Mars but rather at people in Ireland concerned about Nice and wondering which campaign to involve themselves in. Not all of these people, rather just those who have so far had very little contact with the revolutionary left, and so very little experience of the reality behind SWP 'unity' calls. After all this seems like a very odd way to go about achieving unity. Surely the sensible approach would have been to first address those you wanted unity with, many of whom may not regularly read Socialist Workers. Surely the SWP should have asked the three other campaigns if they were willing to discuss grounds for uniting on and what these might be. I'm a co-ordinator for the libertarian/anarchist 'No to Nice' campaign that is forming. So far this will probably involve four anarchist groups and a lot of unaffiliated individuals. Yet we received no contact, formal or informal from the SWP in advance of their Open Letter enquiring if we were interested in discussing the setting up of such a united campaign. I'm also a maintainer of the No 2 Nice mailing list which was specifically set up to improve co-ordination between the various progressive anti-Nice campaigns. There are several SWP members lurking on the list. There are members of all the other left campaigns on the list as well as members of Sinn Fein and the Green Party. You might have thought this was the ideal place to raise any discussion of a united campaign but all the SWP have posted to it is their anti-Nice fact sheet. In fact they didn't even announce their 'need for a united campaign' public meeting there, not to mention the text of this 'Open Letter'. Equipped with these facts only a fool would take the 'Open Letter' at face value. Rather then seeking unity between the progressive forces campaigning against Nice the SWP is launching a cynical attack on them. Of course there is nothing new here. The experience of the last ten years has seen dozens of such SWP fronts, some of which never last beyond their founding event, others like the ANL which go through endless cycles of burial and resurrection according to the whims of the SWP political committee. Activists within these campaigns generally have no say in any of the major decisions that are made in terms of the direction of the campaign. Instead at meetings they are presented with finished leaflets to distribute or posters to give out. Campaign events are dominated by SWP speakers, SWP stalls and SWP banners. The bookstall at rallies will be provided by the SWP book service and will be dominated by SWP and other Leninist publications. Any attempt to raise discussion of this within the campaign is pushed aside by the need to 'do stuff'. Or it is promised that all this will be resolved at a national conference, an event that is either put off indefinitely (as in the case of the SWP front GR) or which is turned into yet another rally with a line up of SWP dominated meetings. So it is easy to see why no left, green or republican organisation in Ireland is currently willing to be part of such an SWP front group. Some of us have tried in the recent past (GR initially involved several other groups). But like the leopard the SWP cannot change its spots, even when it changes its rhetoric, and with that lesson learned all soon left. There is another possibility of course. That is rather then a 'united' campaign, which in reality is a front set up by the SWP, a broad alliance is set up that is based on a wide layer of groups and individuals and that defines its role at a founding meeting and as it goes along. As of the moment no organisation (including the SWP) is calling for such a campaign and it is worth considering why. Again the answer here is something that a recently arrived Martian would be unaware of. The answer is that the experience of such campaigns, which the SWP have been involved in, has almost been as bad as SWP front groups. Although there are ongoing examples of these problems I'm going to use two recent examples of campaigns that have been wound up as illustrations. 1. S26 Collective 2. Alliance for a No Vote This method was used to push through the organisation of a national demonstration just before the referendum. Many experienced activists argued that this was a waste of energy that could be better used in door to door leafleting, canvassing etc. In contrast the SWP argued that "thousands of women were ready to march" and that anyone who doubted this was simply "demoralised". They failed to get the march pushed through at the activist's conference so they packed the next organising meeting and got it through then. Just over a week before the march was due to take place they again turned up in force, this time to insist that a particular SWP member would be a speaker at the rally before the march. But they had not quite brought along enough SWP members this time and despite the fact that they dragged out the discussion for most of the meeting (with one SWP leader insisting on speaking no less then 7 times) they lost this vote. On the day of the march as the non-SWP members predicted only a few hundred people turned out. (see http://www.struggle.ws/wsm/news/2002/anvmarchFEB.html). More amazingly the SWP turned up with yet another 'Open letter' this time arguing that the ANV was being too cautious and that the referendum would be lost unless a more openly pro-choice position was taken. The amazing thing was that in the weeks beforehand they had not made this argument ONCE at any ANV meeting. In a touch of real comedy given their behaviour at the last meeting they also argued that too much time had been taken up in internal debates. Afterwards they dishonestly tried to present the argument at the meeting as being one about whether or not there would be a pro-choice speaker at the event. The lie to their claim is found at the link above, the DARG speaker (for an openly pro-choice organisation) finished her speech as follows "We will have to force the government to introduce free, safe legal abortion in an Irish hospital to any women that wants one." [There is a document in circulation written by an ANV activist which goes into these problems in a lot more detail then is possible here]. There were other more minor manipulations by the SWP in these campaigns and of course there are many others that I don't intend to go into here. The point is that the activists that the SWP fucked around in ANV and S26 Collective are in many cases the very same people that the SWP now demands 'unity' from. There is an old saying 'fool me once, shame on you, fool me twice, shame on me'. The reality is that such is the desire for real unity on behalf of many activists that they have allowed the SWP to 'fool them' time and time again. Now it appears they have had enough. It is important to realise that these manipulations are not just annoying for those they are practised on. They are also quite damaging to the campaigns involved. The arguments they generate are often demoralising and confusing those on the fringes of the campaigns and sorting out the mess they create wastes time that could be more usefully spent. Finally let us return to the other reality that all, including the SWP recognise. This is that there can not and should not be a single united No campaign because it is essential that the likes of Barret are publicly opposed. This one political fault line running through the No side, but there are others. Another is the whole issue of 'national sovereignty' concept anarchist's reject. In this referendum we also believe that the sort of Europe we argue for is just as important as the Europe we are arguing against (in calling for a No vote on Nice). In that context we have little in common with either the SWP or the Socialist Party. Both of these organisations describe the one party dictatorship of Lenin and Trotsky which saw the abolition of workers self management, the closure of soviets at gun point and the jailing and execution of trade unionists and revolutionaries as the closest we have come to a revolutionary society. While this sharp divergence can be hidden for a while behind slogans like 'people before profit' or 'another world is possible' we feel that the circumstances of the Nice referendum mean this is not a time to do so. In another context where there was the possibility of a real left campaign that was not a front for one or the other Leninist outfit then the question might be worth returning to. In reality there is no such possibility this time around, the independent socialist campaign being set up is perhaps closest in terms of principles but too weak in terms of numbers. That said there is still room for co-operation with whatever campaigns are set up, at least at the level of avoiding calling meetings at the same time or leafleting the same estates on the same evening. So it seems four or more left 'No to Nice' campaigns are unavoidable. In the short term we need to deal with this by ensuring co-operation between them where this is possible. The mailing list No2Nice has been set up to help this happen, join it by emailing No2Nice-subscribe@yahoogroups.com In the longer term there are many lessons here for all who wish to see revolutionary change in Ireland. In this I include rank and file SWP members who have no real control over the manipulations their leadership choose to order in their name. As long as they continue to accept their lack of control then that vast majority of activists will not welcome working with them. It may well be the case that there will always be a layer of new and inexperienced people to be sucked into the party for a few months but in the long run the disillusionment that goes with this revolving door is extremely harmful to the revolutionary project. There is however also a responsibility for those of us outside the SWP and SP. For too long many activists have refused to face the necessary commitment that would ensure the existence or real, healthy campaigns outside of these organisations. But where small number of activists have made this commitment real advances have been made, the X case march being perhaps the best example to date. To misquote the old bearded guy 'the point is not to criticise SWP fronts but to create alternatives to them". Andrew Flood Recommended further reading, which goes some way to explain why Leninist organisations act in the way that they do can be found at http://anarchism.ws/left.html |
printable version
Digg this
del.icio.us
Furl
Reddit
Technorati
Facebook
Gab
Twitter
|
View Comments Titles Only
save preference
Comments (39 of 39)
Jump To Comment: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39expect the usual bullshit rethoric , playground insults , and calls for unity and strength from our comrades
Andrew,
Shame you didn't read the article or the earlier comment on the newswire this is in fact a comment to.
It was a call for socialists to talk to each other about a joint campaign over Nice.
If you think about it at all, this doesn't cut across, all or any other progressive forces or campaigns. It doesn’t preclude much of anything.
Simply it is an argument that socialists could get together discuss the prospect of combing their resources against Nice. The reason the anarchist campaign wasn't asked to discuss the forming a socialist campaign, is, unless I have been radically misinformed, is that anarchists don't consider themselves socialists.
Portraying the repeated call in Socialist Worker for socialists to get together to discuss common area of work in general and over the Nice treaty in general as an attempt to hijack a national progressive campaign is a bit odd.
For whatever you views of the SWP, I wasn't aware that there was a broad progressive campaign.
Now you can argue there should be one, you could argue that PANA is where it is at, you could argue the anarchist campaign provides the basis for it. Heh, the NotoNice mailing list could be it. You could even argue that there should be one set up.
But to argue that the SWP are trying to take over something that doesn't exist when we call for socialists to talk to each other seems paranoid in the extreme.
So to repeat, what is a simple proposition:
I believe the state of socialist ideas and the left in Ireland would be improved if socialists looked to where they can cooperate. So far that has proved difficult. However the Nice treaty referendum offers both a danger and an opportunity. The socialist groups in Ireland look likely to ignore both.
Andrew, you can think socialists getting together is pointless, but taking offence at it is a bit rich and surely as an opponent of socialism the fact that the socialists don’t want to work together would please you.
I didn't expect an honest reply and I didn't get one. Lets start with the obvious
1. I am a socialist. As Simon is well aware anarchism arose as part of the early socialist movement. So his claim that I am an "an opponent of socialism" is simply a rather stupid lie. Actually in this case I would have expected better, I guess promotion in the SWP requires a greater willingness to such crassness!
2. No where do I claim there exists a "a broad progressive campaign". In fact the whole reply is an attempt to move beyond rhetorical calls for one to looking at why one is unlikely to exist.
3. Nowhere do I say I refuse to read Socialist Worker. I sometimes buy it despite the fact that I don't find it very useful or accurate. But I don't get the opportunity to buy it every forthnight nor do a lot of other people that the 'Open Letter' is presumably addressed to.
4. Nowhere do I say that the SWP are "trying to take over something", again the reply aims to explain why activists are reluctant to involve themselves in SWP initated campaigns and why SWP involvment is often problematic in broad campaigns.
5. Part of the point of my reply was to discuss what sort of co-operation is possible despite the problems that exist. It certainly does not reject any co-operation.
Your reply doesn't actually address a single thing I wrote, rather it follows the familar SWP method of throwing out a load of red herrings. In general the point of publishing an Open Letter is to start a debate, your reply seems intended to try and divert this debate before it has even got going. This is really odd if one were to take the 'Open Letter' at face value.
Simon,
To most people with left-wing views in this country, it appears that the SWP only wants to co-operate when such co-operation is on their terms.
I - and most left-wing anti-Nice groups - have much the same views as you guys when it comes to capitalism, militarism, the EU, etc, but do you really think we're going to surrender our values so we can be told what to do by the Socialist Workers Party?
If the SWP showed even the slightest attempt to compromise with others, rather than trying to dictate its own agenda, then real co-operation might be possible.
I was in Genoa with the 'loose' alliance of Irish people and groups opposing the G8. I went with full trust, respect and courtesy for all people and tactics.
However the SWP (who I have no problem with - nor their beliefs) DID hijack my trust and ideals - and individuals tried to railroad me into specific actions, ways of thinking and generally disrespecting my own views and opinions.
If I am not going to be respected by these people, I want nothing to do with them. They sometimes remind me of Christian group telling people of the 'one true way'.
My advice to them is to start some serious internal debate - I mean bloody serious - about your values, intentions and relationships with other groups. Stop trying to recruit me and others. I know what you are about and don't have major problems with it. However, I have my own well thought out and researched belief system. RESECT IT! You cannot save me!
The SWP will become like the Catholic church - dying a justified death - if it doesn't wake up and realise that there are real concerns about their behaviour - and not just inter-activist or political concerns - these are basic human issues.
BE BRAVE AND DEBATE WITH YOURSELF, YOUR PARTY AND YOUR 'LEADERS'
I agree with Andrew when he says that this 'open letter' is not directed towards the left,but rather SW readers.
Andrew also gave good examples of SWP antics in the ANV and S26. I'm sure any person on the left could give their own examples of SWP attempting to dominate andtake over a campaign in their typical crude manner.
I think that if there is a left anti-nice campaign it should not include SWP. I think that an agreed program coulld be agreed among Greens, SocialistParty, SF, and genuine activists & community based groups. At the end of the day the SWP represent nothing. Just look at their election results!
'I'm a co-ordinator for the libertarian/anarchist 'No to Nice' campaign that is forming. So far this will probably involve four anarchist groups and a lot of unaffiliated individuals. Yet we received no contact, formal or informal from the SWP in advance of their Open Letter enquiring if we were interested in discussing the setting up of such a united campaign.'
ok... while you are welcome to voice your opinion on Nice, in the end your voice means little - since you are an anarchist and presumably do not vote, the rest of us can be sure that you opinion will not mean much when the ballots are counted, right?
therefore, this whole rant is moot.
worse yet, by not voting you empower those who you oppose.
apathy disguised as something revolutionary
shame.
1)the swp publish an open letter calling for a left wing anv in their "paper"(later at stage 4,when the anarchists see this as a swp "join our campaign piece",swp says it was an innocent well intentioned genuine left glue effort)
2)anarchists say they havent heard anything of the sort
3)no self respecting person reads the worker ,so noone replies.
4)swp rantyroo on indymedia-were the only ones running a campaign , those others (anarchists ,millies etc)need to see the light shining out of vi s arsehole.anarchists read the "open letter" on swpdotie
5)others reply with documented versions of takeovers by unkle joe and co,give lots of reasonable reasons why not to join in the swp front as they see it
6)swp call anarchists "not socialist" , tell them their non voting ways are wrong (aside from the fact that the swp claims to be a revolutionary party)-and generally that they dont NEED their help
Anarchists do vote in referendums, we just feel that electing people to take decisions on our behalf is an act of disempowerment. On the other hand in a referendum you have actually got the power to express your opinion on a specific question, albeit one that you have no opinion over the framing, still it is an infitesimal amount of democracy and does not tend towards disempowerment like parliamentary elections.
If you had taken the smallest amount of time to investigate this matter you wouldn't be posting such uninformed comments here. If you had even taken the time to read the article to which you are replying, you would realise that anarchists were very active in the Alliance for a No Vote campaign which defeated the recent Abortion referendum.
For a fuller explanation of the rationale behind the anarchist position see the link below.
Maybe not stupid, but certainly ignorant!
'Anarchists do vote in referendums'
this is the first time Ive ever heard of anarchists endorsing voting.
anarchists agree to the will of the majority overpowering the minority?
this is quite fascinating.
what is next? anarchist police? oh, never mind - thats what the black bloc are all about, i forgot.
suggestion: stick to your principles and don't vote. No one needs your 12 or so votes in all of Ireland to defeat Nice anyway.
"There is however also a responsibility for those of us outside the SWP and SP. For too long many activists have refused to face the necessary commitment that would ensure the existence or real, healthy campaigns outside of these organisations. "
Why is the socialist party included in this. We stand under our own banner we do not set up fronts. The only non SP banner we stand under is socialist youth which is openly the youth section of the party as it says on all material. Where the SP has been involved in broader campaigns (ie the successful campaign of the water charges) it was no front and involved literally thousands of people. The wsm took part in this campaign to so I don't see how they forget. This taring us with the same brush is a cheap trick.
"this is the first time Ive ever heard of anarchists endorsing voting"
hold on, have you had your head in the sand, anarchists played a large part in the defeat of the nice treaty last year, doing much work on the streets in their local area. so if you never heard of anarchists voting then you obviously played no part in last years campaign, im sure you would have bumped into a few anarchists if you had who were intending to vote no!
"anarchists agree to the will of the majority overpowering the minority?"
your sarcasm obviously shows you understand that not to be the case so this is really mindless, but anyway, anarchists see voting in a referendum as close as we will get to choosing something which directly effects our lives, so we vote in it. while we dont vote in elections because it disempowers us by handing power into the hands of a ruling elite. of course in an anarchist society we wouldnt be voting on such crap as the nice treaty, we'd be enjoying the good weather we're having!
"what is next? anarchist police? oh, never mind - thats what the black bloc are all about, i forgot."
yes the black bloc are the official army of the anarchist, booo!!! run we're gonna get yah! the black bloc is a tactic used by political activists ranging from anarchists to leninists to maoists, im an anarchist (i presumed you got that already, because you're not stupid) and i dont believe the actions of the black bloc are productive yet i dont see them as counter-productive for anarchism.
of course im sure this will get some sort of very intelligent response full of petty sarcasm and what not so maybe just spare yourself the wasting of those brain cells and think about whats been said to you!
Ah c'mon red yer being a bit conservative on the old front biz. Lets have a look at those broad based independent groups advertised on yer web site...
YRE
ISR
MIJAG
and on the British SP site..
CADV
YSA
SFE
and they're just the 'em successful ones.
6 well known campaigning fronts for SP's - not bad
"Why is the socialist party included in this. We stand under our own banner we do not set up fronts"
You set up organisations that you party controls that campaign on certain issues and aim to involve non party members. Youth Against Racism in Europe (YRE) is one recent example. This is what a 'front' means although unlike the SWP you don't go to great lengths to deny the fact that they are party controlled. In any case my original point "For too long many activists have refused to face the necessary commitment that would ensure the existence or real, healthy campaigns outside of these organisations. " still stands.
I'm not saying SP practise = SWP practise. I find it much easier to work with the SP in those broad campaigns like the bin charges and water charges you choose to get involved in. Again this isn't so much due to any political difference (your base Leninist politics being identical) as due to the fact that the SP has a more sensable strategy that recognises that fucking people over for short term (recruitment) gains is bad for the party in the long term.
that phrase its a bit bitter Andrew. Must be nice to get it off your chest. And makes a change from demanding a change of name for the IAWM eh?
Mal,
I don't get what your saying above if your saying anything at all. I think 'fucking people over' is a fair enough description of the sort of behaviour I outlined in my original post. Never having been a member of the SWP I'm not really in a position to be as bitter as a lot of their ex-members who post here but I belive in calling things as I see them.
As for you reference to the IAWM, this I presume is in reference to a rather casual point I made over three weeks ago that an organisation that is run on the basis of Dublin committee meetings should probably have a name that reflects this. A lot of good work is being done by organisations outside of Dublin, in particular around Shannon (see http://struggle.ws/wsm/news/2002/shannonAUG.html ) rather obviously the current decision making process of the IAWM excludes them.
Still I'm glad to see you have been giving some thought to this over the last few weeks even though my original comment was somewhat tounge in cheek. Any idea on solutions? It is actually a pretty difficult problem in my opinion.
Andrew i don't think the point you made is casual rather it was a calculated step to bring the anarchist idea of organisation into the realm of debate over the structure of the IAWM. You find it too centralised maybe too hierarchical. So the suggestion is not at all innocent.
How to get shannon involved in the decision making of the IAWM? Hope they come along to the teachers club next saturday as well as galway, derry and cork. Seems quite simple to me.
As for the 'fuck people over' comment i find it nasty. I worked with the Rathmines group against the war. Quite happily. Yes i was asked to join. in a way it was nice showed they took me seriously. I won't. What i'm trying to say is that your experiences are not the same as everybody elses and no where on this site have i seen the hoardes of ex members expressing their anger. Yes their maybe anger but the source of most of it comes from already commited people,and predicatably other left groups
Since posting this yesterday I've heard that the Socialist Party appear to be trying to get together a broad Nice coalition the sensible way. That is by contacting progressive organisations and individuals intending to campaign on the treaty and asking them to a meeting. I don't know much beyond that, contact them for futher details ...
We are not getting anywhere with the issue of IWAM structure so I'll let that drop. You are of course right that as an anarchist I would prefer to see organisations like the IWAM organised from the bottom up and in a way that allows non Dublin groups to be equally represented. Mind you I see this wish as innocent enough!
On the 'fucked over' comment you find so offensive. This was actually in reference to the behaviour I outlined in the original reply to the 'Open Letter' not as any attempt to guess what your experience has been. I don't think I have met you so I'm not sure why you think I would be making such guesses.
I stopped at two examples, I could easily provide more as I'm sure other people reading this thread could. The SWP rely on there being no collective memory of this sort of behaviour so that they can deal with the reaction to each new occurance with a sort of wounded innocence. Of course this works with people like yourself who have yet to encounter these methods for the first or second time. But it does explain why people with a longer exposure to them are less inclined to take their pleas for 'unity' at face value.
And yes the vast majority of bitter anti-SWP comments on indymedia seem to come from ex-members (although you are right that in many cases they have now joined another group or formed their own). There are a lot of reasons for this, some good, some bad but most are simply unavoidable in the current context.
.
The Independent Socialist Forum Against
Nice has been set up by independent
socialists to campaign for a No vote in
this year’s referendum. We intend to put
forward a socialist case against Nice and
take part in the broad movement against
the treaty. The Forum is open to all non-
aligned socialists: if you would like to
get involved, get in touch with us.
INDEPENDENT SOCIALIST FORUM AGAINST NICE
c/o 19 Fairways Grove, Finglas East, Dublin
11
I support the above and am willing to work with everyone on the Left.I am also involved with PANA which stresses the anti militarist alliance aspects of the Nice and other "deepening" of the bourgeois EU project.
I am also jaundiced with the SWP. My experience in the Socialist Alliance makes me distrust the SWP. They were given a oppertunities to play fair but did not.
But whether we like it or not they have a cardre of fairly decent people.And sectarisnism is fairly rife on the left.
The problem is the narrow approach to party building and a catastrphic view of political developments "The revolution is nigh or if you want to panic poeple the right wing coup is nigh". This is used to create an athmosphere of continous burnout as the poor recruits endeavour to create a Bolshevik party in less than 6 months.In this they share a heritage with other ultralefts such as the Healyites across the water.
The ANV did show how to do things and maintain a friendly approach and manner. I am fed up of exaggeration and deceit.
I find the WSF an honest and non sectarian group in spite of my Trotskyism and sometimes regard them as unconscious Trotskyists who reject the Leninist baby with the sectarian bathwater.The SP are not as bad as the SWP but the Higgins victory gave them a touch of arrogance, that they were so far ahead of their rivals that they could do wothout them.
The bigger forces alas have leaderships who await the call to junior ministerial jobs and the consequent mercs.
The left independents have yet to show a national vision. This is a plus with Higgins who looks to the large picture.
I am pessimistic about the referendum. This time the opposition are ready and have no problems with playing dirty. Coughlan/barret have stolen a march on the progressive forces. It is time to move and hopefully the SP unity initiative gets off the ground
Jim Monaghan
"I find the WSF an honest and non sectarian group in spite of my Trotskyism and sometimes regard them as unconscious Trotskyists who reject the Leninist baby with the sectarian bathwater"
I assume that you are refering to the WSM. I find this to be extremely patronising to say the least. We have a clear and definitely conscious opposition to Trotskyism and the Marxist tradition in general, especially Leninism. We have written much about it and are rooted squarely in the anarchist tradition.
I'd suggest that the problem is that when you see an anarchist organisation that goes against your prejeduces about the anarchist tradition, you are failing to question your prejeduces and instead are assuming that it's not real anarchism. Don't doubt that we have a very good understanding of why we are anarchists and not trots. I could go on and on about the various theoretical and practical reasons why we are situated squarely in the anarchist tradition and not Marxism, but our writings on this are so voluminous that I would hardly know where to start.
Andrew is correct. The Socialist Party is in the process of attempting to bring together various groups and individuals to launch a campaign against the Nice Treaty. We have written inviting those interested to attend a meeting to discuss the possibility of establishing such a campaign and on what basis it should be formed. I don't know the exact details but I am sure they will be posted here inthe near future.
In relation to the comments by "Irony is Dead" on SP fronts. Yes the Socialist Party has set up various campaigns in the past. However let's look at the campaigns he mentions.
MIJAG was established by a member of the Socialist Party and while it has the active participation of members of the SP and the support of the Party as a whole, it was not establish by the Socialist Party.
ISR (International Socialist Resistance) is an international socialist Youth Organisation that Socialist Youth is affiliated to. We have never once suggested that it was anything other than this. Indeed there is a link to ISR from the CWI website.
YRE (Youth Against Racism in Europe) is an international youth campaign against racism established with the support of affiliated groups of the CWI which has proved to be one of the most successful internaional Anti- Racism youth groups in Europe (eg 40,000 strong demo in Brussels in 1992) In reality it very much has a life of its own rather than being a vehicle for the Socialist Party and we are delighted that this is the case.
In Relation to the British Sites.
Campaign Against Domestic Violence was established in Britain out of the campaigning work of Socialist Party members around the issue of Domestic Violence in the early 1990's. Again this campaign has had a significant impact in raising awareness about domestic violence and campaigning for changes in the law.
Save Free Education was an initiative taken by the Socialist Party to build support for a campaign of non-payment of fees in Britain. At the time it was necessary for such a campaign to try and solidify and co-ordinate such a campaign as it was not happening.
Socialist Organisations often set up campaign groups around various issues. The question is not who set up the campaign but why and how does the group develop. Some run their course until the issue is resolved one way or the other while others take on a life of their own like YRE or CADV. The Socialist Party does not set up front groups as a recruitment exercise or seek total control over the groups. We are far more interested in getting people involved and giving new people their head and letting them get involved in the running. We have confidence in peoples ability to do this and we hope that by working with us they will see the benefits of becoming actively involved in the Party and the work we do.
The question is, can the same be said about other front organisations?
The point is you have to explain what all these 'fronts' are - thats how succesful rebranding the SP is. A life of their own is a lovely euphamism for the YRE (and CADV, SFE), perhaps the death of their own would have been more adapt. The point of ISR is what exactly? What's it upto in Ireland?
ISR is an international youth umbrealla group linked to the cwi. Socialist Youth is the Irish affiliate. Anything to do with ISR here would be under the name os socialist youth. It is directly linked to the party as is well advertised. In different countries it has different names, ISR is the umbrealla. What have they done here, everything SY have done.
On the others MIJAG isn't controlled by the SP its a single issue campaign on car insurance. Most people involved aren't so interested in SP politics. MIJAG ran its own candidate in the last election who isn't a party member.
YSA is like Socialist Youth the youth section of the SP there, as it says everywhere in all the material. Its not a front it is the SP.
Save Free education is also clearly linked to the SP.
CADV I don't know.
As for MIJAG being a front the only irish one you came up with you might as well say the water charges campaign was a front too. You haven't why????
Andrew what more do you want from us? We set up campaigns that are totally honest and upfront. Maybe they are fronts to you but to me they are campaigns. Should we refuse to work with anyone who isn't in our party or stop campaigning alltogether and stick to intellectual arguments in pubs?
For all this talk I haven't heard any complaints from activists that have worked with us, whether idelogical polititicians, community activists or people on single issue campaigns. What excatly do you want? (thats for all the anarchists, and we won't dissappear by the way)
A quick aside on the Campaign Against Domestic Violence (CADV): It was inititiated by the Socialist Party in Britain, but it quickly drew the involvement of a much broader group of women's rights activists and had a serious impact in terms of bringing more attention to the issue. It was never a Socialist Party front, though we are certainly proud to have helped set it up.
I am amused in a slightly horrified way to have an SWP supporter, "Irony is Dead" bring up the CADV to attack the Socialist Party. Given that the response of the British SWP to the CADV was to criticise campaigning on domestic violence as "divisive" I would have thought that a tactful and embarrassed silence would be the best approach for him/her to take.
Anarchists don't want the SWP and SP to stop campaigning. We want you to work in open and democratic campaigns instead of front groups. To their credit, the SP has done some of each, but you'll rarely find the SWP anywhere near something they don't control completely.
An open and democratic campaign is one that is run by the people who are involved in the campaign, and where everyone has an equal say in the decisions that are made. The most democratic campaigns I can remember have been around abortion rights, but the anti-bin charges campaign in the Corpo area and the anti-water charges campaign in Dublin South are/were pretty good too. There are/were regular meetings of representatives of all the local groups, elected officers, and regular conferences. The activist meetings and conferences are/were real opportunities for debate, where people could set the direction of the campaign - not 'rallies', where people were given leaflets and posters and got to listen to speeches from the leadership.
Contrast this with the Anti Nazi League, a prime example of a front group. This group is restarted every year or so for a public meeting, a march, and maybe some leafletting somewhere, and every time people are invited to join the ANL. In the last ten years, as far as I'm aware, there has _never_ been a conference of the ANL. The membership has _never_ had a chance to set policy, or decide on actions, and has _never_ had a chance to elect a steering committee. That doesn't mean there isn't such a committee of course - instead of being elected, the committee is appointed by the SWP central committee. The ANL committee isn't made up completely of SWP members - that would be far too obvious. No, it just has an inbuilt majority from the SWP, with a couple of extra people who'll look good on the literature, but can be relied on not to make a fuss at the meetings (if they attend any).
The ANL is a wholely owned subsidiary of the SWP. It holds marches when the SWP decides it should, holds meetings when the SWP thinks they'd be a good idea and, naturally, the membership lists of the ANL are open to the SWP, so that people who join the ANL can be invited to join the SWP. (The same was also true of YRE, though I can't remember the last time they did anything)
The point is not 'refusing to work with anyone who isn't in the party', which is the straw man alternative that usually gets thrown in here. The point is to allow the people involved in a campaign to run that campaign - even when they make decisions that you disagree with. It means holding activists meetings that have some decision making powers, and are not just somewhere for people to go to collect leaflets and be told the latest line. It means refusing the temptation to pack those meetings, even if it means you may lose a couple of votes.
Red,
you are being overly defensive here in relation to the SP fronts. As I said the SP tend not to hide their character (ie that they are party controlled) so I don't have the same problem with then that I have with the SWP equivalents. My original point was that activists who did not want to be involved in fronts (open or otherwise) need the take the responsability to form independent organisations. This stands regardlesss of whether the work the SP fronts do is good, bad or indifferent or indeed whether we choose to call them 'fronts', 'campaigns' or 'ice cream'.
Interestingly, Ray refers to the ANL as being a "wholly-owned subsidiary of the SWP". I'm told that Globalise Resistance is a simimlar setup (although I wouldn't claim to know a great deal about either). Does anyone know if this is the case? Also, the ANL originated in the UK, did it not? We don't really have any party here with the represenation of, say, the BNP, and it does seem that the ANL did quite a lot of excellent work harassing BNP members and the website is interesting. Given the fact that they have been recently trying to shed their nazi image in order to win some of the middle ground (even going so far as to consider running in Irish elections) the associations made, often quite vocally, by groups like the ANL do serve to keep the BNP on the fringes.
To get to the point, perhaps those who run the ANL might consider a more vocal campaign in Ireland following recent racist attacks and certain TDs and parties anti-immigrant policies, and given the BNPs (severely hypocritical) attempts to gain a foothold here.
I'm not a member, nor in any way involved with the SWP. I do think that groups like the Anti-Nazi League and Globalise Resistance are *much* more pallatable to your typical irishman/woman than a far-left political party. Undoubtedly they are well aware of this fact, hence the need for "fronts".
Globalise Resistance is a similar setup, though not quite the same. When it started, over a year ago, there were other groups involved, like the WSM and Gluaiseacht, as well as individual members of other groups, like SF. As time went on, it became clear that, whatever was discussed at meetings, it was generally the SWP's ideas that were actually carried out, that while everyone else had trouble finding out what GR was doing, the SWP people has access to all of the information, and that while everyone agreed that there should be a conference to discuss the structures and aims of GR, that conference was always be organised _next_ month, and so GR would just have to continue as it was for another while - oddly enough, the SWP were about the only people who weren't unhappy with the existing structures.
(I think I saw an announcement about a GR conference elsewhere on the newswire - only a year late, well after all of the other organisations have left)
GR is 'independent' of the SWP, in that not everyone in GR is a member of the SWP, and it has policies that do not agree with SWP policies. But even if the membership of GR is mixed, you can be sure that (a majority of) the leadership is SWP, and that GR policies and actions only go ahead with the approval of the SWP.
As for the ANL, well I'm sure someone from AFA will be along in a minute, and they can tell you that, since the ANL was reformed about ten years ago, it has pretty much avoided confrontation with the BNP. Sure, there are ANL protests, but all these protests do is wave their lollipop sticks and complain that the police and the government haven't locked up those nasty fascists yet. (You could argue that the ANL are counter-productive in some cases, because their glib sloganeering and pointless posturing alienate the people they should be convincing, driving them towards the fascists as the only 'real alternative')
Anyway, you're missing the point in these criticisms of the ANL, GR, and other front groups. Broad campaigns, that draw in a number of people to work on an issue - people that wouldn't go near a revolutionary group but are happy to campaign against racism, for abortion rights, or against multinational capitalism - are a GOOD idea. The BAD thing is that these campaigns aren't controlled by their membership, but by the party that set them up.
Reply to Ray
I agree with everything you wrote in the last post. I would argue where we have set up mass campaigns they have been like this, ie bin charges water charges etc. And we always want them to be like this. We will happily support any community organised campaign and always have.
Sometimes we may organise a campaign which never takes off, a campaign must have people in it so it can be as you described. If people don't join it won't. And theres no point in describing a campaign soley made up of SP members anything else. That would be dishonest and any idiot can see through this (note to swp)
We have also supported community based election candidates which are not in our party, if we believe they are genuine.
On the ANL and SWP I can't answer for them. But from my own personal experience the main difference between us and them on this subject was with their housing action campaign. I thought this would be a swp campaign and was happy to go along with it as I have a particular problem with landlords. I was told not at all it was "our campaign". I don't need to go into details about fake meberships and delegates etc we've all been there.
In this campaign the activists were constantly harrrassed by the swp members. And I mean harrassed with a capital H. I tried to get them to stop but their attitude (and I'm talking rank and file here not just leadership) was that unless you were in a revolutionary party you were a reformist and basically useless. They say nothing good at all in people being activists on single issues etc, and prefered to ignore campaigners once it was discovered (finally) that they would not join. This shocked me alot, and I spent quite a lot of time with them. But this is the difference, we in the SP along with anyone else who is serious and has an once of common sense wants people active whether with us or not, whether "reformist" or not.
Either way whether we start a mass campaign (water charges) a party campaign or a youth section of our party we do not have this attitude.
I haven't heard any complaints about democracy in our campaigns, on the WSM website there is alot on the water charges campaign, they obviously have differences in the tactics that were used (which worked btw) but I didn't read any problems in democracy. And the water charges campaign grew much bigger than the hard left combined.
To Andrew
Fair enough, if anyone sets up any independent campaigns we will support them. But as this isn't happening now we will continue to organise them as much as possible. We have no problem about controlling a campaign or movement, once we are allowed to put our own views and ideas and tactics accross and argue them democratically. We do actually think our ideas are good and we can convince people.
But as far as I'm aware now if you look at any campaign or movement you always see the far left as instigators.
PS the fact that our comrades in the SWP are afraid of open debate on ideas in tactics doen't say much for their memberships trust in them, or even knowledge,
Let us keep in mind the public perception of the Nice Treaty referendum debate.
The No to Nice Campaign has managed to dominate public discussion of the anti Treaty position.
The recent No to Nice Campaign meeting in Dublin was very big. At it Coughlan and Barrett and their Youth Defence stewards organised people to sign up to be active in each constituency to campaign on the door knockers with their literature—complete with all the racist nonsense about “floods” of immigrants “undercutting” conditions for people in Ireland, etc.
This has allowed the government and establishment politicians to present themselves as the guardians of tolerant values, etc. (At the same time as they are hunting down “illegals” to deport!)
Many who are unclear on the issues and do not want to be associated with racism may well be tempted to vote Yes therefore.
For others that distrust the military and big business agenda of Europe, racist ideas of scapegoating refugees and migrants are likely to be made more respectable.
This is a very serious situation.
In this context the question of the *scale* of the response is crucial. What is needed is for *all* progressive forces to unite in a single campaign, based on opposition to militarisation and the big business agenda, etc, welcoming migrants while making our implacable opposition to the racism of the No to Nice Campaign abundantly clear.
Small group politics are worse than useless in this situation.
A united campaign could grab some media attention, build a large public meeting to organise serious numbers of people in the constituencies using a diversity of material from the various groups and parties involved.
Only something on this scale could be commensurate to the task.
Only a died-in-the-wool sectarian would place factional manoeuvring over a unified progressive campaign in these circumstances.
Much earlier in the summer we wrote to the Socialist Party; the Workers Party and the Independent Socialist Network, suggesting we discuss a unified socialist campaign. The response remained disappointing. We are not for secret diplomacy so we published an appeal in Socialist Worker and it has been repeated at public meetings.
Joe Higgins’ letter proposing a meeting in September to discuss a project on these lines which arrived late last week is good news which we warmly welcome and will participate in. We urge others to do likewise.
Contributor to this thread has raised the Socialist Alliance and criticised in unspecified ways the SWP’s role in it.
Let’s be clear. We enthusiastically supported the formation of an alliance of socialist groups and parties to fight the election on a broad socialist basis with a national sweep (and still do). We hoped the Socialist Alliance could become that alliance. But as anyone remotely aware of the Irish Left is aware a credible alliance needed the participation of the two socialist organisations with serious numbers of members – the SWP and the SP. Seeing those two parties getting together would encourage many more people into the project. The SP eventually declined to participate and the venture was stillborn. Tragically, an opportunity was lost in our view, but we hope wiser counsels will prevail and permit the creation of a socialist bloc in the near future.
The gist of Andrew Flood’s original post, beyond the ritual denunciations of SWP “manipulation” is that his 12 strong WSM is going to set up a competing campaign on purely anarchist lines. Splitters! Let it be known that beneath your skin deep radicalism is just sectarian manoeuvring.
They won’t be part of a joint campaign on the lines discussed above because they disagree with the Leninists of the SWP and SP. The supporting argument is a variation of the old anarchist refrain that all organisation is hierarchical and authoritarian.
This sounds very radical but is really an extremely gloomy and pessimistic verdict on the capacity of working class people to create organisations they control.
Hence rather than address the serious problem posed today of racism and the Nice referendum they retreat to play-acting with a nickel and dime campaign of their own.
(As an aside: Andrew Flood of the anarchist WSM, attacks our role in the Alliance for No Vote. Our members were central to building opposition to that proposal to further curtail abortion rights. We have openly campaigned for a woman’s right to choose over two decades. Our paper and pamphlets and countless leaflets have taken up the argument. And yes, we believe in promoting marches on the streets and other protests where mass participation can be encouraged – and we argue for it. For a public demonstration and rally it was proposed that one of our women comrades who had been in the forefront of the fight on these issues be one of the speakers. The alternative was Nora Owen, Fine Gael ex-minister and bourgeois liberal, who would run a mile from any liberation that involved the mass of women. Andrew Flood seems pleased that Owen was chosen to speak over our member. Certainly the anarchist at the meeting which decided this declined to vote!)
To return to the main theme: It must be obvious to all socialists that posing a socialist alternative to establishment politics, particularly at a time of rising racism, government cuts and anger among large numbers of working class people, is an project that will require co-operation between socialists. It is because we recognise that fact that we will continue to call for a bloc of socialist organisations, starting with a unified progressive anti Nice campaign.
Kevin Wingfield
Socialist Workers Party
"The gist of Andrew Flood’s original post, beyond the ritual denunciations of SWP “manipulation” is that his 12 strong WSM is going to set up a competing campaign on purely anarchist lines. Splitters! Let it be known that beneath your skin deep radicalism is just sectarian manoeuvring."
This is just bizarre. The fact that the anarchist campaign against Nice involves (as was mentioned in the earlier announcements) not just the WSM, but other anarchist organisations, and many non-aligned libertarians, is evidence enough that this isn't just another front group.
Kevin's post is much stranger than that though. Ask any neutral observer of the Irish left over the last ten years and they will all, without exception, tell you the same thing. The WSM has been constantly involved in broad and open campaigns, on everything from union work, to racism, to abortion, to strike support, to the bin and water charge campaigns. The SWP's history over the same period is of setting up cynical front groups in some cases, and attempting to undermine broad campaigns in others. All in the name of building the party, naturally.
Either Kevin is so out of touch that he believes people will take him seriously when he accuses other groups of sectarian manoeuvring, or he's so out of touch that the outside world is no longer important to him - these responses are not delivered for the sake of convincing anyone, but because these are the responses which must be made. Its desperately sad, and yet deeply funny.
"Andrew Flood of the anarchist WSM, attacks our role in the Alliance for No Vote. Our members were central to building opposition to that proposal to further curtail abortion rights."
Notice the way that the second sentence subtly avoids responding to the first sentence while appearing to do the opposite. Of course you can't deny the charges that Andrew laid against you, you simply ignore them and make the separate point about your members centrality to the opposition to the proposal. It is a fact that the SWP did everything it could to undermine the ANV. Even before they published the deeply dishonest 'open letter to activists' they were working behind the scenes to pull the movement apart. For example, in Stoneybatter where I live, the SWP organised a public meeting on abortion in the name of the ANV on the SAME NIGHT when the ANV had organised a door to door leafleting in the area. We only found out about the meeting when we encountered the posters as we were going door to door.
"The supporting argument is a variation of the old anarchist refrain that all organisation is hierarchical and authoritarian."
This is an obvious lie and an extraordinarily stupid charge to make against an anarchist ORGANISATION. So I suppose that we have formed an ORGANISATION to oppose all organisation? A 3 year old could spot the logical fallacy in this argument. The SWP organisation, on the other hand, is hierarchical and authoritarian, as are the campaigns that it deigns to involve itself in.
"The alternative was Nora Owen, Fine Gael ex-minister and bourgeois liberal, who would run a mile from any liberation that involved the mass of women. Andrew Flood seems pleased that Owen was chosen to speak over our member. Certainly the anarchist at the meeting which decided this declined to vote!)"
Again we have a logical fallacy, so Andrew was pleased that Nora Owen was chosen to speak, yet we abstained in the vote! The anarchist present didn't vote because he thought it was a pointless argument. Andrew used the example of this argument as evidence of how deeply unpopular the SWP were with everybody else in the ANV. In fact the WSM member present was the only person AFAIK who did not vote against a SWP member as a speaker.
In fact it is hard to find a single clause in your post that is not dishonest. The main thrust of your argument is that we obviously need a united left campaign given the magnitude of the task that faces us. Andrew's post did not dispute it, instead it attempted to ask the much more difficult question of why such a campaign is unlikely to emerge. His answer, that due to the profound and well justified lack of trust that virtually the entire activist population has in the SWP, and due to the SWP's proven inability to get involved in democratic campaigns without wrecking them, we should at least have some sort of coordination between different left groups, is IMHO an intelligent and reasonable position. You on the other hand keep on beating the simplistic and stupid WE NEED UNITY drum without attempting to look beyond the slogan and ask questions as to why this has proved difficult.
To finish with a few choice quotes:
"that his 12 strong WSM is going to set up a competing campaign on purely anarchist lines. Splitters! "
Life of Brian anyone?
"Only a died-in-the-wool sectarian would place factional manoeuvring over a unified progressive campaign in these circumstances."
That's what you are and that's what you're doing!
Just two points in a very bitter exchange which does no credit to the Left.
1: “Chekov” tells us anarchists thought it was a pointless argument whether a revolutionary socialist with a record of fighting for women’s liberation spoke at the Alliance for No Vote rally in the abortion referendum or an establishment politician like Nora Owen. He and his friends were neutral and reading the tone of his and Andrew Flood’s posting were rather pleased that SWP member was not allowed speak.
For the record, any SWP member would have no hesitation voting for *any* left winger rather than a right wing politician to speak from a protest platform like this. We would *not* remain neutral. This would be regardless of any differences or sleights endured (real or imaginary). To do otherwise, as youse did, is simple sectarianism – putting factional advantage above the needs of the movement.
Andrew tells us that a united, progressive campaign against Nice is not possible. Perhaps this is the outcome he and his friends desire. Certainly the creation of hysterical hate campaign in these threads would seemed designed to create an atmosphere where socialists *wouldn’t* co-operate.
For example just one of these pieces of hyperbole Andrew and “Chekov” have posted here they claim that we tried to wreck the Alliance for No Vote. I have no idea if a public meeting mentioned clashed with leafleting, after all events which clash with one another happen every day of the week.
To ascribe to such an event motives of “setting out to wreck the campaign” which our members had put their energy into is worthy of Stalin. In any event they claim anarchists cannot block with parties like the SWP and SP on this issue. Well that’s their privilege.
But on the question of united anti Nice campaign, if necessary without their participation, I am very hopeful.
The seriousness of the situation appears to have precipitated some movement. Consider: following our letters and open call, Joe Higgins is calling a meeting to discuss the formation of such a campaign. As I said before, the SWP enthusiastically welcomes this. And we will be there. Perhaps the unity train is about the leave the station and some will be left behind?
The serious point is where the SWP open letter began: to argue that a campaign (or series of campaigns) narrowly based on this or that group or party is unlikely to measure up to the task of effectively fighting the militarisation and neo-liberal agenda of Nice while providing an *serious* alternative to the racism of Coughlan and Barrett.
To mobilise the forces necessary for that a broad based campaign is necessary. And the SWP not only calls for it, we will do what we can to make it come about.
Kevin Wingfield
Socialist Workers Party
"For the record, any SWP member would have no hesitation voting for *any* left winger rather than a right wing politician to speak from a protest platform like this."
But is Andrew's point (which you refuse to answer) be that the SWP would try and dominate such a platform for its own use (building the party, etc), therefore anyone with a differend opinion than the SWP party line wouldn't even be allowed near the platform (and as we all know this has happened) so any left winger therefore would only be another member of the SWP politburo.
"We would *not* remain neutral."
No, instead you would engage in typical SWP bully tactics cutting short ANYONE who does not adhere to SWP party line.
"This would be regardless of any differences or sleights endured (real or imaginary). To do otherwise, as youse did, is simple sectarianism - putting factional advantage above the needs of the movement."
Which movement would this be now, lets remember the SWP has destroyed (i wont back down on that statement because thats putting it like it is) every attempt at creating some sort of unified movement, remember how the SWP haunted every other organisation out of GR. Of course GR isn't an SWP front is it Mr. Wingfield, if this is your viewpoint explain to me why the SWP are the only one's involved in GR's activities as well as a few individuals? Dont try and deny that.
"Andrew tells us that a united, progressive campaign against Nice is not possible."Perhaps this is the outcome he and his friends desire. Certainly the creation of hysterical hate campaign in these threads would seemed designed to create an atmosphere where socialists *wouldn’t* co-operate."
Certainly not the sort that the SWP wants. What Andrew and all anarchists would like to see is some sort of campaign that wouldnt't be dominated or attacked by the SWP in order to achieve more recruits for the party.
"For example just one of these pieces of hyperbole Andrew and “Chekov” have posted here they claim that we tried to wreck the Alliance for No Vote. I have no idea if a public meeting mentioned clashed with leafleting, after all events which clash with one another happen every day of the week."
This is a serious error Mr.Wingfield, any campaign democratically run by the people involved would not organise to events at the same time. This would be stupid. But it happened and it shows that some participants in the campaign may not have wanted to wreck the campaign but certainly subvert it for its own personal gain like building the party for example.
"To ascribe to such an event motives of “setting out to wreck the campaign” which our members had put their energy into is worthy of Stalin. In any event they claim anarchists cannot block with parties like the SWP and SP on this issue. Well that’s their privilege."
Should the first line not read "To ascribe to such an event motives of "setting out to wreck the campaign" which our members put their energy into subverting is worthy of Stalin". That would be more to the truth, i dont think the SWP wanted to wreck a campaign but i believe the SWP wanted to take it over and use it as a tool of the party in order to put out SWP ideas only, sell the party line and of course the party paper. Perhaps the SWP is happy not to join in a campaign with anarchists because it fears the democracy and openess they may demand.
"The seriousness of the situation appears to have precipitated some movement. Consider: following our letters and open call, Joe Higgins is calling a meeting to discuss the formation of such a campaign. As I said before, the SWP enthusiastically welcomes this. And we will be there. Perhaps the unity train is about the leave the station and some will be left behind?
The serious point is where the SWP open letter began: to argue that a campaign (or series of campaigns) narrowly based on this or that group or party is unlikely to measure up to the task of effectively fighting the militarisation and neo-liberal agenda of Nice while providing an *serious* alternative to the racism of Coughlan and Barrett."
And Andrews point was the SWP cannot be worked with due to their activities in past campaigns and activities (rts anyone), the SWP have shown they cannot be trusted. In this whole debate the SWP cannot even answer up the questions that are being asked of it. Its really that simple.
Brian,
Anarchist Federation Ireland (personal capacity)
Dougbt anyone will read this comment as its posted a good week after the last post ... but anyway.
Kevin Wingfields presentation of the ANV vote is a inaccurate. The choice was NOT between their speaker and a FG one and at no time was it suggested it was.
Rather the question was whether or not the SWP speaker should be invited on her own merits. I started off sympatheic to the SWP but because they insisted on wrecking the meeting in order to try and blackmail her onto the platform I ended up abstaining. Another example of how their own behaviour makes enemies for them I guess!