New unity on Irish Left

by Merger Mon Mar 22, 2004 02:53

It's not the only "regroupment of the left" in 25 years. Very recently the Anarchist Fed and the Anarcho-Syndicalist Fed fused to form Organise!.

That was an example of two organisations with more letters in their names than activists joining together to form one organisation with more activists than letters in its name. An admirable step in other words.

This is an example of two organisations with more letters in their name than activists joining together to form one organisation with more letters in its name than activists. Little change in other words.

I checked out the website and it tells us that the new organisation sees part of its future activist base being recruited from the existing left groups. That sets certain alarm bells ringing round here - is the word "Sparts" familiar to any of you?

Anyway, I hope I'm wrong and the six of you do some day lead the world revolution.

by Ted Maul Mon Mar 22, 2004 04:52

All you need to know about "the left" is in the Monthy Python classic, 'Life Of Brian'.

by pat c Mon Mar 22, 2004 11:20

Does the new group see North Korea as a Deformed Workers State or a State Capitalist State?

by Interested Socialist Mon Mar 22, 2004 11:29

Is this new common organisation still affiliated to USFI?

Is it only a Northern organisation or are there members in the south?

by anarchopedant Mon Mar 22, 2004 12:40

Oh goody, the old debate about whether North Korea is a Deformed Workers State or State Capitalist, not forgetting Degenerated Workers State, Progressive Bureaucratic State and so on. tee hee

by taximan Mon Mar 22, 2004 12:44

So what! Lets face it this new group still wont be able to fill a taxi. They represent nothing among the working class.

by pat c Mon Mar 22, 2004 12:44

i was only kidding. didnt want to spread the silly debate. but these were 2 trot groups who had conflicting views on the nature of the stalinist states. just wondering how they squared the circle.

by taximan Mon Mar 22, 2004 12:48

Yeah you're dead right Pat. It would seem that this is a completely unprincipled alliance. Just goes to show how bankrupt the USFI are now at this stage.

by Chris Mon Mar 22, 2004 16:26 derryfield at yahoo dot com

With the demise of the Soviet Union and just about every Stalinist regime the debate on the nature of those states is totally academic.
It is not something that should be an issue on whether two groups can unite (or divide).

by Chris Mon Mar 22, 2004 16:31 derryfield at yahoo dot com

Would be if the left (both reformist, Trotsktist, et al) could agree on a common electoral programme of bottom up democratization of both states of Ireland.
That would be worth celebrating, not the merger of two tabloids posing as movements.

by red square Mon Mar 22, 2004 16:42

It is an issue. The collapse of the USSR was a significant event in world history that we are still seeing the consequences of. Your opinion on it will effect how you view the world today.

For example how can these two groups come to a common analysis of Russia today or the strength of the workers movement in the ex USSR? What about China? Cuba?

by Anonymous Mon Mar 22, 2004 18:40

Unity beginning on the left - Coalition against racism - 2 features one after another - bloody hell, are people starting to get their shit togther! - Great work to all involved and long may it last.

by Rubbish alert Wed Mar 24, 2004 11:59

This is yet another ridiculous thread. Let us take one example:

'For example how can these two groups come to a common analysis of Russia today or the strength of the workers movement in the ex USSR? What about China? Cuba?'

It is simply assumed here that for socialists to work together then they should or even must have a common analysis of these issues. No attempt is made to explain why.
And yet the very nature of any mass movement is that there will be differences of opinion on many issues, and even on very major issues at that. Complete agreeement NEVER has occurred and never will. To insist on it is to insist that every socialist should, in logic, have his or her own organisation - or, at best, a micro sect. And this is the position of the Irish left - a warring proliferation of micro sects. The fusion of two them, no doubt in preparation for five more to emerge the day after tomorrow from the inevitable split, solves nothing, because nothing has been reappraised, nothing throught throught and no new direction established. It is just sectarian posturing, ignored by the outside world and of interest only to conniseurs of the absurd.

Moreover, what this all reflects is a complete refusal to think through the nature of the left's sectarianism over many decades. It has never been weaker! Could it be (heretical thought) that the mind patterns revealed on this thread and unthinkingly trotted out across Indymedia everyday have something to do with it? I am just gobsmacked at the low level of analysis this all shows... Folks, with these mindsets most of you will remain in a well deserved obscurity.....

by SD supporter Wed Mar 24, 2004 18:41

For Pat, this is what the statement says on Stalinism:

"We agreed that the historic question of Stalinism, which our traditions have analysed differently, should not by itself be a barrier to unity. Obviously the analysis of the bureaucratic dictatorship previously existing in Russia, and the current Chinese and Cuban regimes, raise important theoretical questions. Any differences are not, however, of immediate programmatic relevance. We are agreed that these regimes are not socialist and do not in any sense offer a way forward. Our concept of unity is not that it is based on theoretical agreement, but that it is based on acceptance of a common programme. "

For the SP members who have nothing better to do than bang on about the USFI:

"In pursuit of this goal we will retain Socialist Democracy’s existing status as a sympathising section of the Fourth International. This organisation offers a sphere in which to organise to advance the struggle for a revolutionary socialist international. We are Fourth Internationalists in the sense that we recognise the need for a World Party of Socialist Revolution, and that Trotskyism, as the only significant Marxist current to survive the treachery of Social Democracy and Stalinism, will necessarily be at the core of building a new International.

That does not mean, however, that the new International will emerge from only one of the existing organised currents. The International will be created by the future struggles of the working class, and by the intervention of Marxists into those struggles, creating real parties. That does not mean we are content to sit back and wait for a mass International to fall from the sky. The main task for socialist groups today on the international level is to seek out and develop elements of a common programme and methods of communication, debate and joint activity. Open discussion can help us clarify our ideas.

Today the socialist movement internationally is divided into various currents, many of which are retreating from Marxist politics. We stand firmly alongside those who are trying to defend the basic principles of Marxism and of revolutionary politics."

The complete text is at the link below, under "Statements".

by amused Wed Mar 24, 2004 20:00

You could not make this up. Thus we read:

'Today the socialist movement internationally is divided into various currents, many of which are retreating from Marxist politics. We stand firmly alongside those who are trying to defend the basic principles of Marxism and of revolutionary politics'

Translation: we ae jopelessly divided into micro sects. We propose to unite people by - restating our sectarian shibboleths, and demanding absolute agreement with the most contentious aspects of leninist theory (precisely those issues on which most peopel are divided).

I read today that they are resissuing the Life of Brian. Those involved in this regroupment might want to watch it.....

by Chris Wed Mar 24, 2004 23:51 derryfield at yahoo dot com

The only left groups that MUST have an agreed analysis of China, Cuba, Russia, or the former Soviet Republics are those who are organizing (or who would if they could) within those states.
What is essential for any left group organizing in Ireland, the US, Britain etc is to have an agreed analysis of their own respective countries.

by righteous pragmatist Thu Mar 25, 2004 19:11

What space time continum do do you live in?
Does your mamy let you out at night?
you think you will become world leaders when you need your mothers to wash your socks!

by Ois Thu Mar 25, 2004 23:36

How can anyone say that China isn't relevant? One billion people live there, one sixth of the worlds population. That's like someone in Africa saying that the political system in Europe isn't relevant.

I mean sure if you're consistent and say that you don't support the dictatorship of a politcal party then you've dealt with China and you don't really need to develop on your objection much further. But Trots like these advocate a one party dictaorship. Which is what they have in China. So it's relevant to them. Stupid as it/they may seem. They can't just advocate a one party dictatorship and then smirk and say "Ah yeah but or one party dictatorship wouldn't be like the one in china. Sure snowball, i mean trotsky, i mean trotskyites (the real revolutionary vanguard) would be in power in our dictatorship, so everything would be okay."

Trots can't shrug off the oppression of a billion people.

by Groucho Fri Mar 26, 2004 17:46

Could I just ask, perhaps it is irrelevant and rude, but what is this 'regroupment' actually planning to do?

by jack white Fri Mar 26, 2004 17:52

"Today the socialist movement internationally is divided into various currents, many of which are retreating from Marxist politics"

Maybe that should read 'today the revolutionary movements ... are abandoning and even fighting Marxist politics" Face it, that authoritarian shit just doesn't have a future.

After all the lessons of the past just who do you think is going to fight to have a new, more vicious boss class rule over them?

social democracy, stalinism, leninism, trotskyism ... just so many names for oppression.

by WS Fri Mar 26, 2004 18:00

Marx wasn't an authoritarian.