Stalinist Sinn Fein?

by Belfaster Tue Mar 02, 2004 11:25

If true there is no difference between this and the elitism, the censoring of debate and discussion, the dictorship from above, an athoritarian aproach to activists, the not allowing of an independant opinion or thought etc that 'republicans' always point and critise 'micro groups' of.

by Me Tue Mar 02, 2004 11:33

That was yesterday's news. Get with the programme.

by Belfaster Tue Mar 02, 2004 11:37

It is on the front page of todays Irish news [half page] with then a full two page inside. It may be yesterday's news to some but it is todays news for many more.

by observer Tue Mar 02, 2004 11:52

Not too many dictatorships have open conferences at which anything can be debated and freely voted upon. Besides that, all of the positions within the leadership were open to election by secret ballot. No-one prevented John Kelly saying what he thought. He resigned. He was not expelled.

by B Tue Mar 02, 2004 12:00

'No one prevented him from saying what he thought'.

Will that was one of the reasons he cited why he left and he provides examples of it. Many people may not agree with some of John Kelly's politics but he is and activist from long standing and his concerns will be listened to by many.

by Jonah Tue Mar 02, 2004 12:23

I am sure they will be, and as someone who met him on a number of occasions I have a genuine liking for the man and a belief in his sincerity.

That said, some of his comments in the interview need addressing.

First of all, whatever about local people, no-one in SF particularly cared whether he visited Dissident Republicans in prison, the problem as far as I know, arose when he attended meetings and rallies in the company of leading Dissident Republicans, some of whom were believed to be involved in targetting republicans at the time. There were problems with that. Sinn Fein supported the demands of Dissident Republican prisoners, but saw no need to get involved in a campaign run by people who spend their entire time accusing us of selling out and offering no alternative.

Secondly, generally speaking SF people do inform the Press Office if they are being interviewed in national media or on peace process stuff. It's standard practice. We do't have the money to monitor media in the way other parties do and this way we can keep track of media penetration.

Thirdly, his statement about unionist outreach is just plain wrong. I was at a meeting in Stormont that he also attended about two years ago and everyone was specifically encouraged to reach out to Unionists in informal settings and Council business.

Fourthly, not only are Sinn Féin policies voted on at Ard Fhéiseanna, but also debated in the pages of An Phoblacht where the party line can and has been criticised by people.

Lastly, John goes on to highlight the achievements of the current leadership at the end of the interview, something ignored by previous posters.

Personally, I think the need for debate within republicanism is welcome, but I don't see why John had to wait until he was outside the party to initiate it.

by news today Tue Mar 02, 2004 12:25

You are an innocent fool, perhaps a willing fool, if you think that its impossible to stage-manage an ard fheis despite it being public.

Kelly, in his criticisms of SF, also insists that the leadership denial of past involvement in the IRA is a step too far and smacks of the sticks denials in the 80's of their past.

If the story is yestrdays news, why was it overlooked in IndeMedia? Can belfaster honestly say that he approves of Kelly being censured for visiting dissidents in prison?

by Belfaster Tue Mar 02, 2004 13:27

Firstly thank you for continuing this discussion in a positive manner.

Jonah I am aware that with the state and all that goes with it, unionism and all else against an organisation, one needs of course to take this on board within the operation of a specific organisation and with that I can therefore take on board much of what you have said.

The problem though is that a long term activist in his opinion has felt that he could not express his opinions within the internal workings of the organisation. Therefore he has decided his only avenue is to do it outside. Whatever one thinks of his points raised, the problem though is that a long term dedicated activist felt he had no alternative or avenue to do this internally. These are fundemantally points in relation to the internally democray of any organisation.

While one can take his points of praise on board it is also important to address what he believes is wrong. It is when a long term dedicated activist feels such a need to do or say such that one really needs to look at the content of what he has stated and if needs be attempt to address such concerns so such need not arise again. The problem though is if an activist such as John felt he had to leave, where then, and by whom, will such problems be addressed?

by Bobby Vee Tue Mar 02, 2004 14:34

Sf at best have a stalinist 2 stages approach to the national question. first we get a united capitalist Ireland and then we can start the fight for socialism. This is not what Connolly stood for, he said the cause of Ireland is the cause of Labour, the struggle for socialism can't be seperated from solving thenational question

by Jonah Tue Mar 02, 2004 14:40

I suppose at one level, that's the nub of this. No matter what MY perception of the situation is, a well respected comrade had a different perception and felt there was no route open to him. Whether this perception is based on facts or not, its existence is obviously real.

I've often thought of Sinn Féin and its internal culture as midway between the SWP and FF.

We are more open to internal debate and discussion than the SWP, but at the same time wouldn't countenance end runs being made on policy as happens with FF backbenchers.

It is regrettable that this has taken place but the question must be asked as to whether John explored all the possibilities. Let me give an example. A few months ago, a branch of Ográ Shinn Féin published a letter in An Phoblacht criticising Ográ Shinn Féin and, although not named, blaming a certain easily identifiable individual. I've seen opinion pieces in An Phoblacht that described the party's 2002 manifesto as economically insufficient and poorly thought out.

Now, in all that time I can't remember John writing to the Phoblacht to raise his problems. If the Phoblacht has printed things critical of the leadership in the past, there was no reason for this not to happen then, and perhaps a more open debate could have begun. Certainly, far more people would have been aware of his problems than were when he resigned.

In response to a different post, regarding rigging Ard Fhéiseanna. It is of course possible in theory, but I can think of several instances where motions the Ard Comhairle felt extremely, vitriolically strong about were defeated. An amendment on the World Economic Forum this year, rejected. A proposal to change Ard Comhairle voting procedures the year before last. Rejected. Another proposal to change the voting procedures in another way, passed, over their objections.

Either the Ard Fhéiseanna are not rigged, or they're very poorly rigged. And at the risk of being cocky, we're good at what we do.

by Belfaster Tue Mar 02, 2004 16:23

Jonah some of what John says would of course boil down to differences in both tactics and strategy although he cites instances in relation to breaking with the 'physical force tradition'. And as previous, over the last years activists have left {although not in great numbers} over such issues including that of ' breaking' the principles and the ‘traditions’ of 'Republicanism'.

Yet the direction that SF is moving politically is open for all to see as John had risen on the issue of PFI for example {prior to the recent SF conference}. This both internally and externally in relation to their new political direction.

For oneself though the issue of internal debate and its openness may it be SF, SWP or FF is fundamental to the internal democratic workings of any organisation. With that Johns concerns go to the root of the issue and that of the real workings of tight centralist leaderships.

Yet John’s concerns lay not only in the way that debate, discussion and opinions were 'controlled' but he cites the lack of 'openness' to the grass roots. Of course this can be reflected in many other organisations but the question posed as I had risen above is how one addresses such problems 'perceived and real'. This especially given, if as a long term dedicated member one feels the need to leave as there is, they believe, no other internal avenue open to them as John has done.

This though can and has been reflected in various parties one just has to see how leading members have been expelled or had left as they to felt that there was no other internal avenue to go. We have seen this on discussion here on Indymedia in the past.

I say though given Johns long activity I am sure that he would be aware of all possibilities and avenues and I would be sure that he would have explored them if he thought it would make a difference.

The issue therefore is simple and it is not based solely on tactics, strategy, tradition or principle and their fine lines. It is on the denial as John believes {and others may not} of his fundamental right to express his opinions as a dedicated activist of fifty years or so. That is a line I to believe that should not be bricked up within 'ANY' organisation that cites internal democracy as a cornerstone to its politic.

Although there may be persons that may not agree with some {or any} of what John had said, given his history and activism many can find an opening for his concerns. Like any organisation I believe, that when such a person feels the need to speak of his concerns then I believe we should listen as we may all learn lessons in the long run.

by b storey - truth inc. Tue Mar 02, 2004 18:47

don't worry what kelly said. worry about what wexford sinn fein do. beat the crap out of its members for highlighting drug links within the party. payout 17,500 euro from these criminal proceeds and then announce that they been employing a child porn user in their offices. this in the same week that a belfast provo & ex pow goes on trial for sex offences against young boys.
if adams isn't in the RA, hes should join now.
all this makes steaknife look honest.

by Red and Black Shirt Tue Mar 02, 2004 22:11

I don't see how the word 'Stalinist' in the headline really explains or illuminates. It is just a nasty rhetorical flourish--to some!--I have an old time CP friend who saw the headline and thought SF was now on the road to progress!. Why not 'Hitlerian' ? I think their overall politics is closer to Hitler than to Stalin. So if they started down a authoritarian direction in terms of inner-party democracy they would be best described as Hitlerian.

How about "Trotskyist'? Trotsky dealt extemely harshly with those he perceived as enemies of the revolution. He just had the bad luck (or the incompetence) to have lost the power struggle.

But again, Trotsky is too left--Hitler is the best for SF.

by old timer Tue Mar 02, 2004 22:28

Adolf was the boyo ... a great nationalist hero for the Germany of his day .... suffered from a lot of bad press since losing the war though ... ah dem were the days ...

by observer Wed Mar 03, 2004 09:56

Why not employ this term? I assume by calling yourself "Red and Black shirt" that you think you are an anarchist. So why not employ the above as a term of abuse? Bakunin the megalomaniac psyhcopath would have been every bit as bad as any of the others referred to had he ever gotten power. Anarchists get too easy a ride I reckon. Not often that they are in a position to do harm but when they are - Barcelona 1930s for example - they have proven themselves just as capable of being nasty and brutal as anyone else.

by news filer Wed Mar 03, 2004 11:21

Mr Kelly has been denounced by SF intodays Irish News. According to Conor Murphy mr Kellys disillusion with Sinn Fein is because he didn't recieve a nomination to run for the Party in his locality.

This is typical of what you can expect if you devote your life to an organisation. I'm tired hearing how so-and-so was a bollox, a ultra leftist, a trot, a social democrat, an agent etc etc. All organisations tend to model themselves on a democratic centralist internal structure (even unions) because its the easiest way to control the organisations membership. The outcome of this is when someone gets shafted the reason can never be the fault of the organisation it always is some "deviation" in the individual. The fact that the deviant has been a member a trusted loyal worker for many years is overlooked.

Another annoying trait of our radical parties is to make dissenters within their organisations as welcome as a nazi at a bar mitzvha. Untill the deviant realises she/he is waisting their time and would be better off not bothering and leaves.

I recall Jim Monaghan (correct me if I am mistaken) referring to SF as using stalinist style of leadership to control dissent. I think that O Bradiagh referred to Adams's men as dictating policy like a stalinist steamroller.

Political organisations to be healthy need dissent. They need outstanding individuals who are soo dedicated to the organisation that they are willing to challenge the leadership view for the greater good. Orgs need Anthony McIntyre's, John Throne's, John Kelly's, Dermot Connolly's otherwise they end up being driven by yes men committed to nothing more than consensus.

Celebrate your dissenters. They may give you a headache, but they are the lifeblood of a democratic organisation, they keep the leadership on their toes.

by Uncle Joe Wed Mar 03, 2004 11:53

The only place that you get consensus is the graveyard,.
I placed the USSR into the 20th Century and through my leadership smashed the Nazi hordes and unlike most"dictators" I died peacefully in my sleep. O.k so million's died in the process, but wasn't the USA founded on 20 million dead black slaves and 12 million native Americans and look at it now, the Land of the Free.
But as I loved to say ..one death is a tragedy a million is just a statistic.

by Hebe Wed Mar 03, 2004 12:10

Uncle Joe ended up killing far more people than Hitler did. Really very little difference between the two.

Reminds me of an old ILP song:

(To the air of Auld Langs Ayne.)

"In Moscow, In the Kremlin,
In the Fall of 39.
Sat a Russian and a Prussian,
Working out the Party Line."

(Forget a lot of the rest but...)

Chorus:

"Should Old Bolsheviks be forgot and never brought to mind;
Cos they're down a mineshaft in Siberia with ball & chain behind.
With ball & chain behind my dear,
With ball & chain behind
Cos Stalin butchered the lot of them for the sake of the Party Line."

Its downright dumb to compare SF to Stalin or Hitler. If you are looking for those who massacred millions and carried out genocide and Ethnic Cleansing on a grand scale then you need look no further than the Brits. (The Sun never set on their empire y'know.) Now bring on the numbskulls who will deny the reality of British Imperialism and the havoc its left in its wake across the globe.

Yea! Lets stop being sectarian! Lets tug the forelock and become part of a federation with our Imperialist betters.

by Comrade! Fri Mar 05, 2004 16:34

Sinn Fein is not the enemy, capitalism is
Why is Indymedia consitantly being abused by petty-minded sectarian rants!
I'm not a member of Sinn Fein or strictly speaking a supporter (I am a member of another party) but I do think that Sinn Fein have played a progressive role in the peace process and the struggle for human rights in the north.
It is fair to say that the word 'stalinist' is only a term of abuse. Its a catch all term used to discribed undemocratic and dogmatic practice on the left.
Sinn Fein for all its faults (and it has many), is a very broad organisation but why should its leadership not feel strongly about the wreckers of the peace process .
As for the rubbish about 'Stages Theory' and stalinism, Sinn Fein is not a Marxist group and does not claim to be. Only the Workers Party used that slogan.
For the record, according to orthodox Marxist think, the struggle for national liberation is party of the same dialectical strand as the struggle for socialism its self.
Unlike the claim above James Connolly saw that independance was crucial and in fact if you read Connolly's writing or if you have understanding of dialectics he didn't beleive that socialism could be acheived in one swoop.