An open letter to the Socialist Party. (CWI)From John Throne.

national | miscellaneous | news report Monday April 14, 2003 11:03 by James Cannon - SP Left Opposition

What Kevin MacLoughlin Wanted To hide From You

Read the letter by John Throne which was suppressed by the SP Troika. Make your own mind up. "The older more experienced leaders of the SP know that if the Comrades were to take up these policies which I advocate they would come under attack from the CWI leadership. After 25 years in the CWI, 23 as a full timer I was slandered , fired without any compensation or pension, left with hospital bills the CWI refused to pay, expelled from the CWI and refused my right to appeal against my expulsion. Partly this was to discourage others from taking an independent position inside the CWI. As I say the Comrades would come under severe attack. But it is at times like these that we have to decide what our priorities are, where our loyalties are, what it means to be a revolutionary." John throne

"I am very worried about what I see as a drift toward seeing the Protestants as the ,"bunkered minority" as the document puts it and basing the position on the defense of the Protestant ,"minority" as they soon will be. The emphasis on the insecurity of the Protestants. The use of expressions in relation to the Protestant paramilitaries sectarian killings as ,"their sectarian counter terror campaign.". The Protestant paramilitaries were involved in a counter terror campaign? This shows a serious loss of grasp on reality. I am extremely worried by the attempt to claim that the Northern state is not longer sectarian." John Throne

An open letter to the Socialist Party. (CWI)From John Throne.

November 2002.

The independence of the working class, the advanced sections of the working class, and building the Socialist Party as a revolutionary organization.

Comrades, In the recent elections in Southern ireland the Socialist Party (SP) retained its seat in the Dail, came close to winning a second with Clare, and the other candidates of the party got a respectable vote.

These achievements are a result of the party's hard work on the ground fighting for working class people, the record of Joe H in the Dail, the policies of the SP overall, and the personal qualities and caliber of all the Comrades who stood and worked in this election. Of particular importance was the record of the party in fighting on the ground with direct action confrontational tactics such as in the battle against the water charges, the bin charges, etc.

The Comrades of the SP are to be congratulated on this achievement. However, we have to be careful that the reasonable election result does not hide more than it reveals. Success in revolutionary socialist politics cannot be measured by whether more votes are won at one election compared to another. What has to be considered is whether the independence and consciousness of the working class has been increased, whether the struggle to develop a conscious layer of activists in the working class has been taken forward, whether the revolutionary organization has been strengthened. When we consider all these factors then the election result comes to be seen as much more problematic.

In my opinion the most important development in the last election in relation to the SP and the independence and consciousness of the working class was the rise in support for Sinn Fein. (SF) One report in the Irish bourgeois press claimed that SF got more votes from first time voters than was received by all other parties combined. If this is correct it is a staggering achievement by SF. Another commentator wrote: "SF draws support from the sprawling housing estates for whom the Celtic Tiger is a sick joke; from young voters bored by the dull con sensual nature of orthodox Irish politics; and from those who sympathize with the old tradition of republican socialism".

Comrades it is these areas, along with trade union activists and the increased layers of women activists fighting against poverty and the special oppression of women, in which the SP should be establishing itself as the rising force. But instead it is SF that is doing so on a state wide basis.

It is instructive to read some of the comments in the bourgeois press about the situation that followed the last election. The decline of Fine Gael is seen as permanent. The move to the right of labor is seen as irreversible. The battle has begun to determine what new force will rise as an alternative and opposition, to Fianna Fail. It is sobering to see how little the SP is mentioned as having a chance of providing this opposition or even of being one element in this opposition. In fact I could not see one single mention of the SP in any of the bourgeois papers in relation to the possibility of the SP playing such a role. I do not think this can be put down only to the bias of the bourgeois press.

There are two conclusions that are hard to avoid when we look at the pastof five years or so. The first is that the independence and consciousness of the working class has been thrown back. I say this because there is no evidence of a movement of the working class or even a significant section of the working class moving to build its own independent organizations, moving to develop its own program to that of the bourgeois.
Nor is there any evidence of the development of a layer of more conscious and militant workers moving to organize themselves to take up the battle with the bourgeois and in doing so drawing into struggle along with them the broader layers of the working class.

The second conclusion is that the SP has not managed to make the breakthrough into becoming the rising force in the working class. There is no spontaneous movement of even small sections of the working class and the youth to the SP. The SP's has been created by hard work and self-sacrifice in each area that the Comrades targeted. But this is very different from the SP having put down serious roots in the working class and developing as a current to which the working class and youth are beginning to turn in a spontaneous fashion on a state wide basis. Even if Clare had been elected this would not have fundamentally altered the situation. The SP has not managed to place itself in the consciousness of even the advanced layers of workers and youth as their organization, or at the very least as a force to be turned to which could be built into their organization.

When I worked as a full timer in the organization in ireland we had many discussions about o whether our paper was a paper FOR the working class or whether we had managed to reach the stage where it had become a paper OF the working class. The same concept is helpful here. The SP is undoubtedly an organization FOR the working class, it stands for the interests of the working class. But it has not yet developed into an organization OF the working class. That is it is not a party that is seen by significant sections of the working class as their organization which can be built and shaped by their involvement and their struggles. In spite of the best efforts of the SP it has not been able to make the breakthrough into being an organization OF the working class.

My understanding of the strategy of the SP and the CWI leadership over the past period is that the SP would occupy the space on the left that was opened by the move of Labor to the right, the dissolution of Democratic Left into the Labor party and the decline of the Workers Party. That is that it would develop into at least a small mass party OF the working class. However what has to be honestly faced up to is that in spite of the hard work of the comrades this strategy has not worked. The space that was opened up by the move of the various left parties and the Labor party to the right is being increasingly filled by SF and the Greens or by disillusionment and cynicism.

The SP has not been able to fill that space. There will be a temptation to say that while the strategy has not worked so far, at the next election Clare will get elected and everything will yet work out. This would be wishful thinking. While Clare's election would strengthen the SP's voice, it would not alter the overall situation which shows that there is not a movement, not a current, within the working class which sees the SP as their party or as an organization which can be built into their party and which is moving or beginning to move spontaneously to the SP.

The Greens got a boost out of the last election. Sinn Fein made a breakthrough. These parties will not be sitting on their hands. Sinn Fein with its resources, its image of being outside the corrupt political establishment, its focus on doing the work on the ground on the day to day problems of working class and middle class people, are not to be underestimated. I believe that the rise of the Greens, the rise of SF and the inability of the SP to make a breakthrough as a state wide force add up to a serious situation facing the working class and the SP.

Not only does the working class not have a rising mass party, not only is there no small or semi mass party to which the best of the left activists and working class and youth fighters are moving spontaneously, but the sections of the working class who are breaking from the old traditional parties and the sections of the youth looking for an alternative to these parties are increasingly giving support to petit bourgeois parties such as SF which has the aim of becoming the main bourgeois party in the South and the main Catholic bourgeois party in the North. It almost appears like a replay of the rise of Fianna Fail in the early decades of the state, when this bourgeois party was able to win so much of the working class vote and put down roots in the working class due to the mistaken policies of the Labor Party and the lefts such as the Communist Party and the Republican Congress at the time.
In spite of the hard work of the SP, the fact that the boom missed many sectors of the working class, the existence of significant numbers of experienced and conscious working class activists who have been formed by events over the past decades, in spite of a new layer of youth moving into struggle, the independence of the working class has not been strengthened over the recent years. Nor has there been the development of a layer of activists, of the more conscious workers and youth, coming together to organize and to fight on a class basis. The shift that has been taking place away from some of the established bourgeois parties and the Labor Party is not moving in the direction of an independent working class movement and party, but is in the main reflected in the rise of petit bourgeois parties and candidates, especially SF, or is turning away from struggle and political activity. The independence of the working class, the development of a new layer of the more advanced workers and youth into a cohesive force, neither of these essential tasks have been shown to have been taken forward in the past years.

What is particularly frustrating about the rise of SF is that this danger was seen by ourselves, the Irish section of the CWI, up to twenty years ago. The last time I spoke at a conference of the Irish Labor Party was in the early 1980's. It was also one of the most embarrassing for myself. (The Militant Group which went on to become the SP was still in the LP at this time). Before the conference in preparing our intervention I argued that it would be wrong to alienate the conference by speaking over our time so we should cut down the lengths of our contributions. Then I went into the conference and spoke over my time. I did so because I wanted to put on record that if Labor maintained its move to the right and involvement in coalitions with right wing parties, a vacuum would open up on the left that would be filled by other forces and the most likely force to do this would be SF.

It is not of much use to argue that SF is wrought through with contradictions, that its bourgeois program and its ambition to become a major bourgeois party is in conflict with its mainly working class and petit bourgeois vote. This of course is true. However Fianna Fail have lived with this contradiction for close to eighty years. This contradiction of itself will not prevent SF from gaining in support and membership. For this to happen there would have to be a clear and viable alternative rooted in the working class and capable of mobilizing the most consciousness and combative layers of the working class and youth and these layers in turn able to reach out and influence and organize the broader layers of the working class and youth. It is my belief that the SP is hiding behind this analysis of the contradictions in SF as a way of justifying its refusal to take steps that would begin to fill the vacuum on the left and as a way of reassuring the Comrades as the party fails to make the breakthrough.

I believe that the SP has to realistically appraise the present position of the working class, and the organizing of an advanced section of the working class. While recognizing its own achievements of the past years, and these have been considerable, the SP has to recognize that its strategy of building itself into a mass or even a small mass party which is a party OF the working class as compared to being FOR the working class has not been successful. And from this to review its strategy and tactics. I am sending this open letter to the SP Comrades in an attempt to facilitate this discussion and to be part of it.

An opportunity missed: Potential from 1997 on has not been realized. The Militant Group was expelled from the Labor Party and went on to establish itself as a principled combative force with its central role in the water charges campaign where it worked with activists from different political backgrounds and none. From this the basis was laid for the election campaign of 1997 when Joe was elected to the Dail. Militant had not only survived its expulsion but it had grown and prospered. It had played a central role in a national militant direct action campaign, built a base of contacts and activists throughout the country, proved itself to have a non sectarian approach and shown it was prepared to put itself on the line and challenge the law and the state in the interests of working class people. With Joe's election the organization then had a state wide platform from which to explain its policies. The SP's position was dramatically strengthened.

Comrades, at this time after the 1997 elections the SP was in a potentially powerful position. The timing was excellent as the vacuum on the left was opening up in a most dramatic fashion. Almost thirty years work had gone into building the organization to put it in this position from where it was possible to see it going forward to change working class politics and the class balance of forces in the country. 1997 was the most important year for the organization since it was founded as the Militant group in the early 1970's.

The special correspondent for Magill magazine, Niall Stanage, had this to say about the objective situation at the time. "Following the 1997 election, for example, the once radical Democratic Left was absorbed into the larger, more middle of the road Labor Party. In the process, considerable ground was freed up on the left and Sinn Fein wasted no time in cultivating this territory." This is correct. But the question is why the SP did not have more success in filling this space. It is at this time Comrades, after the 1997 elections, that I believe the SP made a serious mistake. It did so under the direction and pressure of the IS of the CWI which on the international arena was turning increasingly inwards. The IS bears the main responsibility for this serious mistake. If the SP is to play the role it can play, if it is to face up to the needs of the working class movement in this period, the decisions taken at the time, and the present policies of the party need to be revisited and discussed.

The SP's policy at the time was to move under its own banner to try and fill the vacuum on the left. The discussions with the unemployed group in Tipperary not with standing. The SP was feeling out this group to see if it could be recruited to the SP or if this failed, to have a working agreement. The SP decided that the vacuum on the left was to be filled by the SP recruiting new members in ones and twos, building its branches in the neighborhoods through ones and twos, winning respect and support through its hard work and principled interventions in struggles. Of course there is no substitute for such work. Over this period and given the small resources of the SP and the objective situation there was no other way for the party to build and to grow. Such work had to be carried out. The revolutionary organization, the SP had to be built. However, this is not the whole picture.

Building the revolutionary organization is vital work that has to be carried out at all times. Any tendency to step back from this task or to put it off to the future is to betray the interests of the working class and the struggle against capitalism. But how this is done, where it is done, what tactic is used, entryism, the open banner of the party of revolutionary socialism, building a new mass party with other forces in a principled manner while simultaneously building the revolutionary forces, there are many tactics that are justifiable at different times. The SP above all other groups knows this because the base from which the SP developed was built by carrying out entryism in the Labor Party. So what should the SP have done at that time? To answer that we have to look at the objective situation and also the past theoretical position and analysis of the SP.

In doing so we have to also see that building the revolutionary party is not an answer that can be given in isolation to all situations. The needs of the working class at any point in time cannot be reduced to the slogan and tactic of building the revolutionary party. We all know left organizations which tried to reduce the struggle to this in the past and we know what happened to them. We have to look at the needs of the working class in the immediate concrete situation, at the consciousness of the working class and its advanced sections, and to what extent the revolutionary organization, in this case the SP, could have and can today respond to these needs and realities.

"Fight to win"
Direct action policies needed to defeat capitalism's global offensive and rebuild the connection between the revolutionaries and the working class and youth activists.

The dominant feature in the world situation over the past period has been capitalism's global offensive against the working class. Flowing from this the central task of the working class in the past years has been to organize, confront, and throw back this offensive of capitalism. To do this the working class needs to develop its programmatic and organizational independence, to organize as a fighting force its most combative and advanced sections and for these layers to link with and mobilize the broader layers of the working class. Confronting the capitalist offensive using such an approach and tactics would make possible the defeat of this offensive as opposed to the policies of the present working class leadership who organize token protests and lead struggles to defeat.

Of course the objective situation, in particular the growth of the economy and the rise of the Celtic Tiger has to be taken into amount. The rise in wages and living standards for a section of the working class along with the fall in unemployment meant that sections of the working class were living better than before. This gave a certain base to the bureaucratic trade union leadership and their policies. However large sections of the working class were being by-passed. At the same time there was the increased inequality.

And there were the other issues, corruption, discrimination against women, the rise of anti-immigrant sentiment, the rise of opposition amongst sections of the youth to the global capitalist offensive. It is not accurate to say that the only problem with the SP not developing into a small mass party has been the objective situation. To do so is to try and hide behind the objective situation. The rise of SF and the rise of the Greens, the vote for
Joe and Clare show that there has been the demand for an alternative out there. We have to return again to the policies of the SP to see why it or some other left workers party has not been successful in filling the vacuum on the left.

The correct analysis of the SP and the CWI in the early 1990's explained that the Irish LP and the social democracy internationally had become bourgeois parties in all ways. That is that they had lost the roots that they previously had in the working class. These parties had gone over totally to the bourgeois and where they were in power they were openly carrying out the capitalist offensive. The prospect of the working class moving into struggle and looking to these parties for a way forward was no longer on the cards. In ireland the Democratic Left had subsumed itself in the LP. The Workers Party was in severe decline. The LP of course had become one of the parties of the bourgeois and of bourgeois government. The trade union leaders with a few individual honorable exceptions, were traveling after the leaders of the social democracy in carrying out the capitalist offensive against working class living standards and rights.

What the working class has needed more than anything else in this period are organizations that would organize the working class to take on and confront the bourgeois offensive which it has been experiencing in the direct wage and social wage, in the workplace, the neighborhoods, etc. The key task for revolutionaries at that time and still today, the key task for the SP, was to answer this central need of the working class, that is to develop a program, strategy and tactics to confront this bourgeois offensive and to build organizations of the working class able to successfully take on this offensive.

I believe that on one level, that of direct action confrontational tactics, the SP, more than most other organizations on the left was trying to face up to this task. The tactics it used in the water charges were a model for confronting the global capitalist offensive and taking the struggle forward on the ground. The introduction of water charges was part of the global capitalist offensive. It was part of the offensive of capitalism known as globalization, the aim of which is to take back all the gains won by the working class in the past century and to increase the share of production going to the bourgeois.

In the aftermath of the collapse of Stalinism, and with the world economic crisis of over capacity and profitability, and given the open capitulation of the mass organizations of reformism, the capitalist class stepped up its offensive against the working class internationally. It could see no serious organized force that was going to stand in its way. Cutting wages, jobs and conditions, cutting social services, cutting working peoples rights, throwing workers internationally into competition over who could work hardest and longest and cheapest and in the most polluted environment, these are all part of the global capitalist offensive.

In this offensive the US capitalist class has been taking the lead. The Wall Street Journal headed its editorial in the aftermath of the collapse of Stalinism ,"We Won".. US capitalism has been on the offensive to consolidate and extend this victory ever since. The Gulf War, the Balkans War, the Afghanistan War, the ,"war against terrorism", the move towards war against Iraq, these are all part of the offensive of global capitalism and part of the attempt by US capitalism within this offensive to increasingly dominate all its rivals and to rule the world. The new rules governing the movement and regulation of capital are part of this offensive. In this area also the US capitalist class are trying to more thoroughly dominate its rivals and the imperialist countries more thoroughly dominate the former colonial countries. The traditional organizations of the working class, the trade unions, the mass reformist parties, all have capitulated in the face of this offensive. And the left organizations including the revolutionary left have been thrown into disarray and decline. This remains the case in spite of the rise in the support for left candidates recently in Latin America.

One result of the collapse of Stalinism, the capitulation of the mass reformist organizations, the disarray and decline of the left, has been the development of a very deep skepticism amongst the working class and the youth about all organizations that claim to be socialist or Marxist in fact about any organization that claims to be able to provide a way forward. The rise of support of a small section of the youth for anarchism is part of this process. But much more fundamental is the skepticism amongst the working class and the youth overall about any organization that claims to offer an alternative. In fact it seems to be the case that left organizations and left alternatives has never faced greater skepticism than at the present time. This reality has to be faced up to. It is no use ignoring this and proceeding as in former times. The approach and the tactics of the left organizations have to take into account this increased disconnect with the working class, quite probably the biggest disconnect between the left and the working class in close to a century.

As with all other forces on the left the SP has therefore been working in a difficult objective situation. As in all other countries the working class has been on the defensive and the layer of advanced workers which had existed around the traditional organizations of the working class have been disorientated and in most cases can no longer be said to exist as any kind of a cohesive force. In many countries it is no longer possible to speak of the existence of an advanced layer within the working class at all, if we are meaning this in the sense of a cohesive combative force.

In this situation both in ireland and internationally revolutionaries, in an effort to overcome this disconnect have increasingly been faced with the need to prove IN ACTION, NOT JUST IN WORDS, that they have an alternative to offer. What this means is that revolutionaries have to take up and involve themselves centrally in the struggles on the ground, have to take responsibility for organizing and developing these struggles to a much greater extent than ever before. "Patiently explaining" the alternative program to that of capitalism and reformism no longer cuts much ice. And revolutionaries have to take up these struggles in such a way as to actually challenge and throw back and defeat the attacks that are being made by capitalism. This means the use of direct and militant and in many cases illegal action. The revolutionaries have to be able to show that they are prepared to take action that makes the capitalists pay a price for their attacks, that actually throws back and defeats the affects of these attacks on the ground. Token protests no matter how cleverly organized, marches no matter how big and vocal, strikes which confine themselves to stopping work for an hour or two or a day or two while having no strategy for victory, these tend to add to the skepticism that already exists.

The SP Comrades gave an example of the type of struggle needed when they organized in the water charges campaign to keep the water supply flowing to those who had not paid when capitalism and the state tried to turn it off. Struggles against the capitalist offensive today have to be organized in a similar type of ,"fight to win" basis, have to be organized to make the capitalists pay for their offensive, have to be organized in direct confrontation with the capitalist class and their state, as was the case with the water charges. For example when workers are fired the tactic has to be to try and mobilize to occupy and hold the plants and to halt production and distribution of the goods from other sources. This means direct action to halt the movement of goods and capital by stopping transportation and communication and energy supplies etc.

When workers are evicted the approach has to be to help them organize to go back into their homes and hold these against attack. There are other examples that comrades are aware off. But the basic idea is simple, token protests and explaining what the socialist alternative are not sufficient in this time of the capitalist offensive and the deep skepticism that exists amongst the working class in relation to organizations that seek to offer an alternative. Revolutionaries have to take on themselves the responsibility of organizing effective struggle on the ground, struggles that aim to "fight to win."

One of the reasons for the rise of anarchism has been the catastrophic experience of Stalinism, and the role of the Stalinist parties internationally. Another has been the absolute capitulation and betrayal of social democracy in the face of the global capitalist offensive. The non-Stalinist revolutionary socialist left have been seen by sections of the youth as being connected with these historic failures. Another reason for the rise of anarchist ideas has been the militant direct action tactics of some of these forces from Seattle, to Prague, to Quebec, to Genoa. There are many criticisms that can be made of such actions, lack of a clear alternative, no orientation to the working class, etc. But when compared with the betrayal of the mass reformist forces, both Stalinist and social democratic, and the inaction of much of the revolutionary left at least the anarchist forces have been seen to be ,"doing something".. In one classic example of this at a meeting of youth activists in Chicago recently one young woman exclaimed after an hour or two of discussion on orientation and tactics that she was not much interested in this she "just wanted to do s..."

In this period revolutionary socialism cannot rebuild its base in the working class, and build a base amongst the youth without engaging in direct action, "fight to win" tactics against the capitalist offensive, such as the SP carried out in the water charges campaign. I was back on holiday in ireland recently and attended the march for higher redundancy payments . Speaker after speaker denounced the unfairness of the present situation, compared working peoples lives to that of the greedy capitalists and corrupt capitalist politicians who run the country. But the march offered nothing by way of an effective strategy to confront the capitalist offensive. It was basically complaining about the attacks while proposing no effective action to halt them. To confront and throw back this offensive of global capitalism will take the most militant and direct and in many cases illegal actions such as mass occupations, the turning off of electricity, water, communication, transportation, etc., throughout the economy and internationally and the willingness to bring hundreds of thousands onto the streets to if necessary take on in direct battle the forces of the state. Token protests, marches which are not part of mass direct militant action will either be brushed aside or ignored by the capitalist offensive which is sweeping the world at this time. Capitalism led by US capitalism sees its victory over Stalinism as an unprecedented opportunity in history. It will not be convinced to give up its offensive to more thoroughly dominate the world and the worlds working classes by marches or speeches.

The revolutionary movement and the working class will have to put itself on the line if this offensive is to be halted. Workers and youth have seen the defeats over the past decades. They have seen how union leaders call workers out onto strike to have them stand on the picket lines loosing money and time and ending up defeated. They have seen the promises of the reformist organizations forgotten when they come into government and replaced with the policies of the capitalist offensive. They have seen the catastrophic disaster that was Stalinism which took place behind the rhetoric of ,"Marxism".. In this period revolutionary organizations to gain a base, to gain an ear, have to take up struggles in a way that is effective and be prepared to put themselves on the line to confront the capitalist offensive. Only in this way will the thick layer of skepticism begin to be penetrated and a base built. The SP in ireland has understood this to on one level. The water charges, the bin charges, etc. the SP has approached these struggles in this militant fashion. They have organized and fought not to make a token protest but to "fight to win". This is one of the SP's strengths. These actions have gained an ear for the party's policies, without them the platform in the Dail would not have been won nor would the party have developed to the extent it has.

However one detail that I would raise in this regard is that while the SP have been taking up struggles in a ,"fight to win" manner and correctly seeing them through to the end, this serious responsible approach may have resulted in the missing of opportunities that have arisen on a day to day basis where militant direct action "fight to win" tactics could be used to great affect. When I was in ireland the Ray Burke scandal broke. There was talk about him been given a house as a bribe. Was there not a case to be made for the occupation of this house, explaining that it was actually the property of working people as they were the ones who paid the cost in higher rents, house prices, mortgages etc. for Burke's corruption. Perhaps helping a homeless family move in and protecting them and calling on all activists and workers and youth to come and take part in this action. I am sure there are other issues that come up on a day by day basis which would give the opportunity for the SP to organize direct action "fight to win" struggles that would bring real results. The correct approach of the SP in taking up a specific struggle and seeing it through to the end should not result in any inflexibility, any tendency, to prevent the SP from reacting to opportunities that arise on a day to day basis.

In the economic collapse in USA 1929 the workers movement as reflected by the unions was stunned and halved in membership, strikes were all but non existent up until 1933/34 and the union leadership were the right wing pro-capitalist types in the AFL. Yet the CP and other left organizations built a base for themselves in this period by taking up the struggles locally and through direct action. When working class families were evicted from their homes the local unemployed committees that were led by these left organizations put these working class families back in their homes and defended them. On a local basis and through similar actions all the different forms of attack on the working class were met with similar direct action confrontational tactics. In this way the working class while in retreat was developing some points of resistance and the left organizations were putting down roots in the working class. By 1934 this approach led to a strengthened left with deeper roots in the working class and allowed the left to lead the major general strikes of Minneapolis, Toledo, San Francisco, where in pitched street battles, occupations, mass organizing and enforcement of the workers decisions major victories were won and the offensive against the working class suffered three major defeats . This opened up the way for the mass offensive movement of the working class around the CIO and the rise of the left into organizations which represented major currents in the working class. A similar approach by the revolutionary left to that of the US left in 1929-33 is necessary today. Building local united fronts of activists around tactics that can win and on an anti capitalist program: Linking these together on a country wide basis: Rebuilding a cohesive advanced section of the working class.

Comrades I have nothing but praise for the role the SP has played in the campaigns such as the water charges , the bin charges etc,. However I do believe that the full potential both for the working class and the SP itself has not been realized out of these struggles. I believe that throughout these struggles and in general the SP should have continuously and simultaneously been conducting a propaganda and action campaign, conferences etc., to consolidate on a permanent basis, the activists who had come together in the battle against the water charges and the bin charges. Basing itself on the strong position that its role in these struggles had placed it the SP should have been attempting to consolidate on a permanent basis local action committees and link these together throughout the country, and doing so around a set of clear demands on wages, conditions, housing, education, health, etc., on an explicitly anti capitalist basis and with militant direct action ,"fight to win" tactics to take on the capitalist offensive. If there was one particular issue that was dominant at any time then it might have been best to turn these committees into action committees on this issue for a time, perhaps for example health care.

However it is my opinion that from the struggles in which it was playing such a central role the SP should have been conducting a major campaign to identify to the activists and the working class the global offensive of capitalism that was affecting all their lives and the need to organize to halt and throw back this offensive. And from this to identify, explain and take up the central task of consolidating the groups of activists, many of whom the SP was in contact with through the water charges and other campaigns, into permanent activist bodies committed to confronting and throwing back the bourgeois offensive against the working class and explicitly anti-capitalist.

What is involved here is the SP demonstrating in action that the capitalist offensive can be taken on, and simultaneously rebuilding a layer of advanced combative workers and youth within the working class as a whole. What is involved is facing up to the damage that has been done to the advanced section of the working class and attempting to work in such a way as to help rebuild this layer to fight against the global capitalist offensive with militant "fight to win" policies . Of course it will take big events to actually make this a reality in the full sense. But the SP can be at the center of this process and can give this process an important push forward.

Out of all their struggles the SP and all left activists should be attempting to address this issue, the need to confront the capitalist offensive and the need to rebuild the advanced combative layer in the working class. I know that this work would have been affected by the economic boom. I think that these efforts I suggest for the SP would have met with limited success over the past few years for this reason. It is likely it would not have been possible to keep such committees of activists in existence on a thoroughly widespread scale because of this. But in my opinion making propaganda for this idea, organizing towards this objective, challenging all activists and activist groups on this issue was a central task for the SP. To do this would have been to put in front of the working class or at least in front of a significant layer of the working class activists, and to put in front of all the left activists in the country the key task facing the working class, that of organizing to confront and throw back the international offensive of capitalism. And to carry out this task the need for the working class to have its own independent organizations based in the workplaces and the neighborhoods and the schools and colleges and linked together throughout the state. And as part of this process the need to rebuild a combative advanced section of the working class and youth. To take up this work in this way would have been a significant gain for the working class and for the SP.

I am not advocating here any kind of dual unionism. I am not advocating that the SP and the left should have been trying to set up alternatives to the trades councils and the union locals. Rather that the SP would have attempted to draw together the best activists into fighting activist committees, would have attempted to build workplace and neighborhood committees to take up the fight for working people against the bosses offensive and also against the policies of the union leaders and explicitly ani-capitalist. I am advocating that the battle would have continued in the trade unions and trade councils while at the same time the activists committees would have been conducting the struggles in the neighborhoods and the shopfloor bringing together a layer of advanced fighting workers and youth. In fact I believe that success in building such activist committees, in conducting such militant "fight to win" struggles would have been the best way to organize activist opposition groups within the unions and the trades councils.

Those of us who come from a revolutionary socialist tradition correctly stress the reactionary role of the leadership of the working class in controlling the mass organizations of the working class and in preventing these mass organizations from taking on capitalism. We explain that the main obstacle in the face of the working class moving into struggle are the policies and tactics of the leaders of these mass organizations and that these tactics and policies flow from their belief that the working class cannot build an alternative to capitalism. From this and their privileged position within society they then go on to support capitalism and its demands. However while continuing to explain this it would be a major mistake to ignore the role of the left activists and the left and revolutionary organizations including the SP. It would be a major mistake not to understand and to point out the responsibility that also rests on the shoulders of the left and revolutionary activists and organizations.

Take the case of Dublin as an example. There are many hundreds of left activists who are still active in their respective organizations and causes in the city. On top of this there are thousands of left and militant workers and youth who would like to fight but who cannot see any effective way in which to do so. And there is a deep discontent and rising anger in the broader layers of the working class and the youth. Yes the responsibility that lies with the leaders of the trades unions has to be pointed out. But , comrades what responsibility lies with the hundreds of left activists and the various left organizations? What is our responsibility? In my opinion it is to ensure that old ways of working, that sectarianism especially, that putting the interests of the left organization above the needs of the working class does not stand in the way of the working class fighting back. Why is it that the left organizations and individual activists cannot come together in struggle around a direct action ,"fight to win" campaign against the capitalist offensive. This is what the working class needs at this time. This is what the activists should be seeking to provide at this time. This is the main task facing activists.I believe that the SP should be making propaganda for this idea, for this organizational step, for such a fighting united front it should be carrying out this work on the ground where it has resources.

The SP's role in the water charges and the bin charges give it an authority on this issue. It has worked together with activists from all traditions in these struggles. But in my opinion the SP has not drawn the full political and organizational conclusions from its work and as a result has not realized the full potential from its work both for the working class and the SP itself. In my opinion through its day to day work on the water charges, the bin charges etc., in its publications and through its public voices such as Joe and Clare, through organizing conferences etc., it should be challenging the left activists, the activists in general, the thinking workers who see what is happening but cannot see a way to fight back, to face up to this task. It should be challenging the various left and activist organizations, the unemployed groups in Tipperary etc., and if the leadership of such groups seek to prevent the exchange of such ideas on these issues, then the SP should not allow itself to be stopped from direct discussion with the membership of such groups.

I know that on specific issues the SP has been taking initiatives to bring together such united front type organizations. The water charges, the bin charges, the Nice treaty. But what I am arguing here is the need to identify the global capitalist offensive and the need to confront this and the need to establish on a permanent ongoing basis such united front bodies and struggles. What I am advocating is a strong offensive by the SP for these ideas and these organizations.

I have no doubt that one way the leadership of the SP will oppose these ideas will be to say that the other left organizations and activists would not agree to such an approach. This is a dishonest argument. If the SP or any other sizable group of activists in an area or areas took up such struggles, began to have some success, at the same time appealing to other activists organized and unorganized, then this would begin to put this issue on the agenda of all the left and all activists. If the SP approached this in a genuine non-sectarian manner while at the same time setting up the activist committees in the neighborhoods and workplaces with other activists then it would undoubtedly begin to win support for this approach. This in turn would make it more and more difficult for organizations who might oppose this approach for their own sectarian reasons, or for their own opportunist reasons such as SF, to keep this issue out of the day to day activity and discussion of the members of their organizations. These suggestions I put forward correspond to the needs of the working class and the possibilities given the resources of the activist layer that presently exists. For these reasons they would get an echo and get support. For these reasons they would become part of the debate amongst all activists and this in turn would make it impossible for leaders of organizations with a base amongst the working class to ignore them.

In the US and Canada at the moment efforts are being made to take this approach. Groups of activists from different backgrounds and traditions have set up local activist committees. They have developed the term direct action casework. They set up street stalls with banners and literature and loud hailers and discuss the attacks on working class people. Through this they meet workers who are threatened with eviction, deportation, imprisonment or who have not been paid their full wages or are paid low wages, or their rent has been put up, or young people who have been expelled from school. Whatever struggles that they hear about they select from these and take up issues where the people directly involved are prepared to fight along with them.

They use direct action tactics to make the capitalists pay for their offensive. They occupy the landlords businesses, picket their homes, they occupy the restaurants, the offices, the banks, the distribution centers of the capitalists involved. They take direct action and show that victories can be won. The area in which this work has been most developed is in Ontario, Canada, by the Ontario Coalition Against Poverty. Major movements which take over empty buildings for the homeless have been built, as well as ongoing militant fight to win actions to solve the day to day problems. This approach has built a base in the working class in the neighborhoods and has managed to have the issues raised in a concrete manner in the trade unions, where opposition groups to participate in these direct action struggles have developed. At the same time these militant and in many cases successful actions have helped the many left activists and organizations to try and face up to their responsibility to the working class and to confront their sectarianism. In the face of such militant struggles which have been winning small victories it is hard to continue to hold a sectarian approach.

In every working class neighborhood in Dublin, Cork, Galway, Derry, Belfast, the global capitalist offensive is attacking working people. In any working class neighborhood there are left and other activists who if they came together and on a weekly basis went on the streets offering the alternative I suggest they would very soon be inundated with problems to deal with. If they then took up at least some of these issues in a direct action fight to win manner they would begin to put down roots and they would begin to develop an experience of working together as a united front against the global capitalist offensive. Out of this approach, which could be led by the SP in many areas, which could be led by one or two left activists in other areas, new roots could be put down, victories over the capitalist offensive could be demonstrated, and the idea of developing united front activist committees linked together throughout the country would be strengthened. With this increasing base in the working class neighborhoods and workplaces it would be possible to conduct national and international actions which would have some affect. It would be possible to prepare the forces for victories such as those in the US in 1934 which opened the road to a new working class offensive. This would also begin to develop again a cohesive combative layer of advanced workers.

The leadership of the CWI to which the SP belongs will attack these ideas that I suggest above in many ways. They will make the accusation that my suggestions would take the focus away from building the revolutionary organization the SP. The word liquidationism will no doubt be waved about like a cross in the face of a rumored sighting of the devil. Nothing could be further from the truth. Not only is the struggle to draw together the activists into combative ,"fight to win" united front committees what the working class needs at this time, but it is also the case that the struggle to build these fighting organizations would also be the most effective way to strengthen and build the SP. Acting in such a way would allow the SP to show that it was taking up the main task that is necessary if the working class is to move forward and doing so in a non-sectarian manner. It would allow the SP to show it is not just interested in running its own campaign and recruiting to the SP but that it is seeking to respond to the needs of the working class and to realize the full potential in the situation.

One of the classic approaches of sectarianism is to run only those campaigns, and to run them only in such a way, that would allow the organization involved to best to recruit new members, as opposed to organizing those campaigns and in such as way that is in the interests of the working class. Part of the skepticism amongst the working class activists and youth in relation to the revolutionary left is that it has a record of acting in a sectarian manner, worried more about its own apparatus and identity than what is in the interests of the working class. If the SP on the other hand takes the lead in the campaign for fighting united fronts, explicitly anti-capitalist, with fight to win policies to take on the capitalist offensive then it will be in a much stronger position from which to recruit and to build. In my opinion acting in this non sectarian manner, carrying forward these policies that are in the interest of the working class, rather than being a diversion from building the SP, would in fact be the best possible way in which to build the membership and influence of the SP. Strengthening the independence of the working class , building a cohesive activist layer of workers and youth, and the electoral and party policies of the SP.

As part of the approach explained above the SP should also move to adopt different policies on the party political and electoral front. The SP policy has been to build the SP and that is it, to offer the working class only one alternative, that of joining the SP. To see the mistaken character of this approach we have to not only consider the immediate situation and the empirical evidence, that is the inability of the SP to make a breakthrough into being a small mass party and fill the vacuum on the left, , but we have to consider also the theoretical analysis that the CWI has had over the decades. In doing so we have to keep in mind that the consciousness of the working class at this time is to an overwhelming extent an objective factor as far as the SP is concerned. By this I mean that the SP at this time does not to any practical extent determine the consciousness of the working class or even an important section of the working class.

The CWI has always argued that as the working class moves into action it will not move as a unified class to revolutionary policies and organizations. While sections of the working class, the most advanced sections, can directly take the revolutionary path where a sizable revolutionary alternative exists, the mass of the working class will take the road of least resistance. That is take the road of some kind of reformist or centrist program and organization. In the past the analysis was that this would result in a movement of the working class, at least the broader layers, to the Labor Party, to social democracy. And that the advanced sections of the working class and the revolutionary organization would have to take this into account and adopt policies and an orientation which would be able to engage with the broader layers of the working class and win them from reformism to revolution.

The analysis concerning the Labor party is no longer relevant as I have noted earlier. But now as far as can be seen the SP has abandoned any attempt to clarify the movement of the working class and all its different layers in the new situation. It has set aside any attempt to look at the situation concerning the more advanced layers or whether this term is even relevant at the present time, it has set aside any attempt to analyze the situation of the broader layers and where they are likely to move as they move into struggle. And from this how the SP should orient to build in the advanced sections and how it should orient these advanced sections to link with and give leadership to the broader layers.

Instead all the SP presently offers the Irish working class is to join the SP which sees itself as a revolutionary party. Build the revolutionary party, the SP. Longer term Comrades will remember how we would criticize this approach when it was put forward by various left groups in the past. Now it is the SP which is doing this. The sole alternative that we offer the working class in all its diversity and complexity is to build the SP, the revolutionary party, and a very small revolutionary party at that. So small that in most parts of the country it does not exist. This is not a serious approach to mobilizing the working class to overthrow capitalism, it is not a serious approach to building the revolutionary party with a mass base amongst the working class capable of leading the struggle to overthrow capitalism.

The situation today is of course very complicated. It is not clear through what political organizations the broader layers of the working class will move when at some stage they are driven into action by the bourgeois offensive and the crisis of the system. The move of the LP to the right has meant that the former traditional roots of this party in the working class no longer exist to any meaningful degree. Therefore a move of the working class or any significant section of the working class into this party seems to be excluded. The complete capitulation of the union leaders to the international capitalist offensive makes any perspective of the union leaders building a new mass workers party totally unrealistic at this time or for the foreseeable future. This therefore complicates the situation facing the SP in terms of its demands and orientation. However this in no way justifies the SP's "simple solution" to this problem, that is to just call for building of the SP, the revolutionary party, and nothing else. It does not answer the needs of the working class, does not realize the full potential in the situation.

As the Irish working class moves into struggle it will not, as a class, move spontaneously to join the revolutionary party. The present analysis of the SP if it were to be judged from the fact that it calls for the working class in all its complexity to join the SP, is that the working class will move as a class to join the SP which considers itself to be the revolutionary party with its revolutionary program and its Marxist theory and policies. This is not correct. Where the working class will move, what organizations it will throw up I am not sure. I do not think it is possible to be clear on this at this time. But for the SP to ignore this issue as so many left groups did in the past and only offer the working class the alternative of joining the revolutionary party is to prepare the SP for a crisis in the future as its policies bring it up against the reality of the situation. In fact this mistaken policy has already led the SP into somewhat of a dead end as it has been unable to make the breakthrough into becoming a small mass party on a state wide basis or to have sustained growth in membership. (In 1983 when I left ireland the organization North and South had between 450 and 500 members).

I see that in its recent document on this issue the SP tries to cover itself. It speaks of it being "unlikely that there will be a move in the direction of establishing a new mass party of the working class. We are in favor of such a development as it can be a weapon for the politicization of whole new sections of the working class". But the SP then goes on to ascribe to itself a totally passive role in this process other than mentioning it in its propaganda. It will "monitor developments" in this regard it says. By the way this seems to be different from the position on this issue in the North where the recent document says: "As with the fight to end the right wing control of the unions the subjective factor in the form of the SP can play an important role in making sure, as far as our resources allow that every avenue that opens towards the building of a political party of the working class is taken". This is a bit different from "monitoring developments" which is the position in the South. It would be good to hear how the SP explains the basis for passivity on this issue in the South and its position in the North.

I believe that the first duty of the SP is to re think its present approach and to clarify within its own ranks and the working class layers with whom it is in contact the complicated process through which the working class moves to struggle. From this to then consider the situation concerning the more combative and advanced layers, or the formation of these layers, to consider the likely perspective for the movement of the broader layers into struggle, and the need for the revolutionary party to build its base amongst the more combative and advanced layers and in doing so to prepare these layers to engage in political struggle with broader reformist layers and organizations in order to win these workers to the revolutionary alternative and the revolutionary organization. It is my understanding that no systematic discussion of such ideas takes place at present in the SP, the issue is not being put in front of the party. As far as I know all emphasis is on building the SP with the idea that the SP in some sort of straight line can become the mass revolutionary party of the Irish working class.

It seems clear that it would be meaningless at this time to put forward specific demands on the union leaders to build a new mass workers' party. The degeneration of these layers has gone too far for this to be a realistic possibility. The role of the union leaders and the position they occupy in the consciousness of the working class has changed dramatically. Therefore I think that this issue of where the broader layers will move will have to be clarified by events in the years ahead. I do not think that it is possible to predict this at this time. It will take time and big events to clarify the situation. However this does not mean that the only alternative to be offered to the working class should be to join the SP. This amounts to a capitulation in front of the complex situation and a capitulation which contains a sectarian approach.

Only a very small fraction of the working class and even of the advanced workers and activists will join the SP at this stage. This has already been proven to be the case. There are many many more activists and advanced workers who see the need for organized activity on a class basis than are prepared to join the SP. By only building the SP at this time the SP is ensuring that the majority of the advanced workers and youth and those who see the need to organize on a class basis remain unorganized or begin to loss confidence in their class outlook and look towards SF or the Greens or become demoralized. This is not to mention the fact that the SP remains so over centralized and its view of the party so much out of line with that of Bolshevism that it will not even consider the majority of left activists for membership.

The policy of the SP is damaging the struggle to strengthen the independence of the working class and to build a cohesive fighting political force out of the advanced layers of workers and youth. The SP has the responsibility to seriously discuss and consider its present policies and face up to the fact that these are preventing the working class from realizing its full potential at this time.

To reconsider its policies the SP needs to look at the attitudes and consciousness of the working class in all its variation. Take for example the more politically conscious workers, those who would consider themselves to be on the left. Many of these have come through the ranks of, or have been around, the left of the LP, the Workers Party, and other left groups in the late 1960's 1970's 1980's. Many have been through the ranks of the Militant group/SP itself. Many others have had as their main experience the 1990's with its collapse of Stalinism, the total capitulation of the traditional social democratic organizations, and the decline and disarray of the revolutionary left. Many of these workers see the need to organize to take on the bosses and capitalism. The SP should be building from these layers as well as from the layer of activist youth. However the overwhelming majority of these workers and youth have either had experience of organizations which have failed them in the past or on the basis of their observations they are skeptical about left organizations and what they can achieve. To these activists, that is the very few it is prepared to approach, all that the SP offers is to join the SP. This is totally unrealistic, it is based more on the internal policies and needs of the leadership of the CWI than on the mood and consciousness and influence of the SP. These policies of the SP ensure that most of these activists remain unorganized. SP Comrades must face up to the fact that this is the inevitable result of its present approach.

It is precisely those activists who are most aware and politically consciousness who understand that the SP is basically the former Militant Group with its clearly defined theoretical base, political analysis, internal structure and culture. In fact in the past we would not have considered an organization such as the SP to be a party rather considered it to be a cadre organization. While there will be scores of exceptions, it is the most conscious activists who are very reluctant to take, in fact I would say that it has already been proven that in the vast majority of cases these activists are not prepared at this stage or in the immediate or medium term future, to take the step of joining the SP. They see it as too narrow, they see it as the former Militant group with its very centralized internal life and culture, only under a different name.

There are then the many workers and youth whom the SP meets in its campaigning work. These would include many of the type of activists I describe above. But they would also include what we used to call the new fresh layers moving into struggle. Yes it must surely be possible for the SP to recruit ones and twos of these to its ranks. However many of these would be involved only for the specific campaign itself and would not be likely to stay in political activity after the campaign was over given the nature of the SP and the difficult political climate of the time. But even those few who would be recruited would find it hard to integrate into the SP with its sharply defined political line and also because they would instinctively feel that the SP was not integrated in any kind of organic way with the other activist forces and the broader layers of the working class.

The post Stalinist consciousness, the non-Bolshevik internal life and culture of the CWI, and how this damages the growth of the SP and the interests of the working class.

The catastrophe of Stalinism and the skepticism that this has created not just about socialism but about any organizat