Anti-War Ireland is initiated and national conference planned

by John Sun Mar 28, 2004 19:15

Great to see Caoimhe Butterly back in Ireland and involved in this new antiwar movement. Its badly needed. Looks great and I'm already looking forward to the conference!

by Children dying - People for Peace (PfP)? Sun Mar 28, 2004 21:38

Congrats to all concerned for the progress at the Limerick meeting. The existing IAWM structures were too politicised, presumptive, and exclusive. Yet it is important that the new more inclusive structure should include the IAWM if they wish to participate. I am a bit concerned that the name being used by new grouping, although not yet fully approved (Anti-War Ireland) will be confused with the Irish Anti-War movement IAWM. One very good suggestion put forward as a name for the group was People for Peace (of PfP). It is far more positive, inclusive and meaningful.
Whatever the name, let there be peace.

by LL Sun Mar 28, 2004 22:03

Dunno what the last poster is on about. Anti-War Ireland could hardly be confused with Irish Anti-War Movement (a very conceited name btw). Do the SWP have a copyright over the term 'anti-war'?

Stuff about the name is stupid anyway. Its a good name and you'll grow to love it. 'People for Peace' is meaningless and, as it happens, the PfP injoke is completely unfunny (do we have to shadow the State so obviously?).

Great move. The IAWM is dead, long live Anti-War Ireland!!

by LL Sun Mar 28, 2004 22:06

'People for Peace' would immediately be confused with the 'Peace People' and, hey, that organisation has some mixed history.

by Greaseball Sun Mar 28, 2004 22:17

Another Communist SWP front I suppose. I bet it's the same old faces with the same old crap. In fairness, there aren't that many hacktivists to go around in Ireland, are there?

by Observer Sun Mar 28, 2004 22:41

I notice over on the IAWM website they have a petition to Brian Cowen that you can download pleading for him not to welcome GWB. A waste of time in my opinion but much more interesting is that the form asks for your phone number and email address as well as your home address.

Now, why would you want to give the government your phone number and email address? The answer is you wouldn't but the SWP want to be able to lift them off the petitions (signed under false pretenses) so that they can pester you for years to come.

More dishonesty from the IAWM front.

by Mary Sun Mar 28, 2004 22:46

Brilliant to see this happen. It would be good now if people would just forget about the IAWM and the SWP because a lot of that negativity just weakens the broader anti-war movement. Let's just get on with building for this conference in a positive way and then with working constructively with everybody else.

by Justin Morahan - Peace People Mon Mar 29, 2004 09:38

I am in support of the initiative and attended the meeting.
The comment of LL that the Peace People have "some mixed history" needs to be explained. I don't know what the comment is intended to convey but it looks like a quick mean swipe intended to damage.
In fairness you should explain yourself, LL

by Anonymous Mon Mar 29, 2004 16:14

Excellent initiative and hats off to all involved in setting it up. Let’s hope this time we have a bit more democracy, no one group to dominate it, where every single individual voice has a say and is listened to.

I agree though with one of the comments above. I think the name could get confused with the Irish Anti War Movement - And I would think this knew group should be made very distinguishable, for both the eyes of the public and the media. The importance of a name should never be underestimated.

People for Peace suggested above sounds very good.

I also heard a guy suggest DAWN - D??? Anti War Network, in a previous related thread. For the life of me can’t remember what the D was for. Though I think this name is to close to IAWM as well.

But one way or the other, superb move.

by tom Mon Mar 29, 2004 17:01

Shouldn't there have been a call made on indymedia for anti war activists to attend the Limerick meeting ?

by Mark Thomas Mon Mar 29, 2004 17:19

This is fantastic news. A genuine, open, militant anti-war movement. The IAWM is dead, long live the irish anti war movement.

P.S: Kieran Allen, we call it what we like.

by wanabeeGeek Mon Mar 29, 2004 18:14

What is the criteria for joining 'Geeks against the War'

by Shadow Mon Mar 29, 2004 18:14

Shouldn't there have been a call made on indymedia for anti war activists to attend the Limerick meeting ?



Well done Mark Thomas
"This is fantastic news. A genuine, open, militant anti-war movement"....which neglected to make a call on indymedia for anti war activists to attend the Limerick meeting????

Maybe, Mark, it should have read:
"This is fantastic news. A sneaky, closed, anti-war movement"....which neglected to make a call on indymedia for anti war activists to attend the Limerick meeting?

by Prospective geek Mon Mar 29, 2004 18:26

""This is fantastic news. A sneaky, closed, anti-war movement"...."

No, that's already patented. For more details -contact Henrietta Street.

by patp Mon Mar 29, 2004 18:33

So this group is essentily the crusty/middle class crank wing of the anti war movement.

I really can't imagine these people would be capable of mobilising the 150,000 people we saw on Feb 15. They are not real people they are completely divorced from the real world. Please name one real campaign involving real people that any of these people organised??

by Anonymous Mon Mar 29, 2004 19:16

Any idea if orgnaizations like Comhamh are going to get involved?? There are hundreds of other potential organizations out there and thousands upon thousands of individuals.

What is the story with SP?? Dare I say it!!

by Joe Mon Mar 29, 2004 19:20

I see the SWP trolls have logged into indymedia. Firstly, the conference is completely open and as the posting above makes clear, THAT will mark the real beginning of Anti-War Ireland. And it's a great name. Why should the SWP be allowed to continue to pretend that they represent the anti-war movement?

What did any of these people organise before? Who? Fintan Lane, Tim Hourigan and Caoimhe Butterly? Amm, well Fintan Lane got 1000s of people on the streets of Cork against the war on Iraq and has been an activist for over 20 years and went to jail for 60 days for his actions at Shannon; Caoimhe Butterly is internationally known, was shot by the Israelis in Palestine (while protecting Palestinan children) and enjoys the respect of people throughout Ireland; while Tim Hourigan is the man who first brought the US abuse of Shannon airport to the attention of people in this country. Now, who are you, SWP troll?

Great initiative and it will be a conference worth attending! Well done everybody.

by Anon Mon Mar 29, 2004 19:25

Is this fool suggesting that the SWP was responsible for getting 150,000 to turn out in Dublin on Feb 15th? They own the people now.

Middle class? That's a laugh coming fromthe middle-class laden SWP! Ha, ha, ha!

by Anonymous Mon Mar 29, 2004 22:07

This post is responding to a comment which was hidden as it was an impersonator taking an SWP position to ridiculous extremes - presumably to discredit them. - 1 of IMC Editorial Group

Fair play to you for giving a public response E.
But do you realize there are a few problems:-

1. You are one of the only SWP members to make signed comments on this site. And it has taken a public catastrophe in the anti war movment for even you to come out and make a comment. I would guess the SWP try and pass this site off as nothing more than a slagger’s paradise which is just full of trolls. The fact of the matter is, is that Indymedia is probably the best web based (and now coming out of) independent media centre in the world. And a hugely important medium for, though not only, the left. The Irish site here is very widely read and commented upon, and not just by trolls. Regular contributions are made by such people as Dr. Fintan Lane, Eoin Dubsky, former Army Commandant Ed Horgan, Caoimhe Butterly, Ciaran O'Reilly, Eoin Rice, Tim Hourigan etc. etc. etc. Surely you respect these fine, dedicated and incredibly courageous people who are literally willing and have been on the very edge of sacrificing their own lives.

2. The SWP should have NOTHING to hide and should well be able to defend itself on this site, publish/comment on this site and become involved with this most important of sites on many different levels.

3. The lack of direct responses, ney any responses that I am aware of, to the resignations from the IAWM to all the many different groups I find to have been appalling.

4. The dominant, undemocratic stranglehold the SWP took on the IAWM was terrible and crazy.

That said, as you point out, the SWP have done some incredible and massive work for the left in Ireland. And I would agree with you that most of this hard behind the scenes work goes unacknowledged on this site. However, if you cut through the crap in the comments section and focus on the comments of serious minded respectful people there is much to be gained from this site and you will see that this work actually does go acknowledged. I hope you have read Dominic Carroll’s excellent, recent piece giving a critical appraisal of the anti war movement in Ireland. In this piece he totally recognizes the work the SWP has put in:-

http://www.indymedia.ie/newswire.php?story_id=63749&condense_comments=false#comment64619

I believe the work that the SWP put in is VITAL for the left to succeed in Ireland, and they must be worked with on some level.

HOWEVER, the SWP have succeeded in dividing this movement and have brought to fruition all the many so called "troll" accusations that have been levied on them since the inception of this site. As the saying goes, there is no smoke without fire, and I have seen doubters of these accusations been "converted" on this site.

I know it must be gutting for an SWP member & worker to see all the harsh attacks that the SWP endure on this site and now in the broader anti war movement - especially when you consider all the huge amount of work the SWP put in and the incredible successes they have helped to achieve such as F15.

But once again, HOWEVER, I believe you should turn this anger inwardly on the SWP. I believe the SWP needs, and is of paramount importance, to:-

- OPEN UP
- Become more DEMOCRATIC
- Become more DECENTRALIZED.
- EVERY member must have a voice and say in where it is headed. And EVERY outside voice must be listened to.

- And the next time the SWP becomes involved in an umbrella group. IT MUST TAKE A BACK SEAT. Though it may have put a lot of the work in setting the group up in the first place, it must leave others take charge. Or at most the SWP must just become ONE voice with ONE say among MANY, MANY voices.

I urge you to think about this. I urge you to talk to other SWP members. I urge you talk to other non SWP activists - for example some of the above people that I named out above. I urge you take this back to SWP HQ and follow it through.

The left/anti-war (etc.) movement in Ireland must NOT be about the SWP succeeding. It must be about the LEFT/ANTI-WAR (ETC.) movement in Ireland succeeding. To think otherwise is to think in FF parlance - i.e. for the country to succeed, WE must be in power - the end result - lies & corruption.

How can the SWP hope and help to achieve this success by, basically, pissing everyone else off??

While actively working to overthrow the system we must also actively prepare a system and structure that we want to replace it with. Surely the bedrock of this system and structure must be TOTALLY, democratic, open, trustworthy, respectful, decentralized and undominated. We must all try and work together to achieve this system and structure.
Remember, at the end of it we are ALL only human, and those on the right are no less human than us and we on the left are no more human than they. We are more than capable, as history has already amply and cruelly demonstrated, of repeating their same mistakes and atrocities. It is not all about Ends, the Means must become as important as the Ends.

With greatest respect to you.

by Not Martin O'Sullivan Mon Mar 29, 2004 22:15

Over at irishantiwar.org, Martin O'Sullivan (SWP/IAWM) has submitted several stories to the news section so as to push news of Anti-War Ireland off the front page. Pathetic.

by Rob Mon Mar 29, 2004 23:29

My only real interactions with the SWP have been when attending marches and once when I went to an IAWM meeting. I do know one member from UCD.

I generally take a lot of what's said about them on indymedia with a pinch of salt because much of it seems overwrought and obviously motivated by a general dislike for the organisation. I don't dislike the SWP in that way. However, their behavoiur in the anti-war movement has been incredible and the sort of stuff that Fianna Fail would get up to. Why do they treat well-respected anti-war activists with such public disrespect? Why can't they get on with people who share their perspective on war? It seems they just want control for controls sake and they have seriously damaged the anti-war movement because of this.

Anti-War Ireland seems like a positive development. Toes crossed.

by The Gospel According to Marx Tue Mar 30, 2004 00:18

I think that the core problem with the SWP is that it is primairly an ideological organisation - much like the American Republican party. Everything is seen through ideological eyes and all activities and goals must conform to the ideology.

So, from an SWP perspective, the 150,000 people marching against the war aren't just marching against the war, they're the beginnings of a proliatarian revolution against the governing classes, as is the development of the 'anti-globalisation movement'.

From an SWP idological perspective, the *only* solution to the serious social and environmental problems in the world is such a revolution.

They don't see people - they see 'classes'. And the 'working class' is always right while the 'ruling class' is always wrong.

I also see many similarities between idological marxism and religion - especially the Christian religion. Belief in the idology is fundamental to this perspective, the 'other' is always demonised, and the prophacy is that, after an apocolyptic revolution, the evil bosses' class will be overthrown and we'll all live happily in a 'workers paradise'

The beauty of such cult-like belief is that it comes first, so conflicting evidence can be ignored. Like those who predicted the end of the world that didn't happen, ideological marxists can rationalise and justify anything so that it conforms with the ideology. That's wh the experiences of the Soviet Union, China, etc. can all be dismissed as 'not real Marxism'

The power of ideological/religious belief is strong, and it allows the SWP to turn out the membership, pack meetings, etc. These aren't activists doing what they can to understand the world and make it a better place. Instead they are a select group who know the One True Way, as explained and predicted in the Gospel of Marx. The poor, misguided activists who don't understand this must be led and 'organised' for their own good and for the greater good of the cause.

Like all ideological and religious groups they prey on people who need to believe and who need a simple view of the world. Ideology provides a simple, already thought-up perspective of the complexitis of the modern age. However its a credit to activists and to people in Ireland and elsewhere that the SWP have been such spectcular failures at the ballot box.

by Sean Tue Mar 30, 2004 00:43

I agree that that the SWP have disgraced themselves in the antiwar movement but the antileft antisocialist stuff is completely beside the point.

I'm a socialist and believe that the problem with the SWP is much more fundamental. They operate more like a cult than an open political party and they have no respect for people that don't FULLY agree with their positions and tactics. It's an attitude problem not an ideogical one. There are plenty of socialists who can get on well with non-socialist antiwar activists and don't try to operate an undemocratic stranglehold.

I hope this initiative means the end of the IAWM because frankly I'm sick of that organisation being refered to as if it represents the wider antiwar movement. The SWP do not represent me or the many antiwar activists that I know.

by Captain Moonlight Tue Mar 30, 2004 14:18

Not surprisingly, the SWP has stayed out of this discussion, not just because its role in the IAWM is indefensible, but also because the leadership is busy cultivating an air of detached self-importance, answerable to no-one but itself. As only party leaders are permitted to engage in debate on Indymedia, rank-and-file members with an urge to hurl insults must do so under the cover of psedonyms. On this thread, the comment entitled "New group for Crusties and Cranks" is very obviously the considered analysis of a strayed SWP member. It's interesting (when you've finished laughing) to examine this remark in detail, as it seems to perfectly encapsulate the attitude of the SWP. In essence, it amounts to the following:

1. Ati-war and left-wing activists who decline to join the SWP are middle-class, crusty or cranks ("crusties and cranks … "not real people"). The party, though top heavy with middle-class professionals (and students), must be considered in different terms: firstly, though many party members enjoy large salaries, own homes, have professional occupations (university lecturers, council architects, tax inspectors, etc.), and in sociological terms would be categorised as middle class, in Marxist terms (as recently delineated by Kieran Allen in his groundbreaking work on class composition), there are really only three classes: boss class, working class, contradictory class (foremen, policemen, etc.). Our members, then, are solidly working class. Even in sociological/cultural terms, our members never behave in a superior way when meeting people with lowly occupations or none, and neither do we talk down to them. Middle-class is really no more than a term of abuse, but still a useful one for those who insist on operating beyond our control. And even though the party abhors stereotyping and prejudice, crusties are not really welcome in our ranks because of their anti-authoritarian demeanor and because the working class can't relate to them (despises them, in fact).

2. Non-membership of the party deprives said anti-war/left-wing activists of the Trotskyist doctrine, leaving them susceptible to all manner of non-class perspectives and hopelessly out of touch with the workers ("the crank wing of the anti war movement"). In marked contrast to the nomads of the left, the party is steeped in a century of working-class struggle and tradition, has learned from its active involvement in the struggles of workers against the boss class and has gained the trust and respect of working people. In the communities, the party is leading the way - witness the party's critical role in the "Bintifada" (party members Mary and Brid Smith are virtual superstars in some really working-class districts of Dublin). It's no accident that the party was "capable of mobilising the 150,000 people we saw on Feb 15." Sectarians, of course, will claim that the party is actually steeped in a century of dogmatic Marxism, and given its rapid turn-over of membership and its obvious failure to attract more than a handful of industrial/manual workers, cannot be said to be steeped in anything except self-delusion. Our involvement in the "Bintifada" has also been derided by the sectarians, as has our proud claim of having mobilised 150,000 on the streets of Dublin; the sectarians claim that actually only around 60,000 marched (what rubbish - it was at least 100,000!!!), and that they were going to march anyway, most of them having never heard of the SWP or, for that matter, the IAWM; a monkey, it's claimed, could have announced a march for that date and it would have drawn an equal number. Why, then, did the working class respond so magnificently to our recent clarion call? Who do these sectarians think mobilised the 3,000 people on March 20th this year? It was us!

3. The party, having established its credentials with the Irish working class, is taking the lead in its struggles. In the unions, party members have gained the trust of workers due to clarity, consistency and selfless combativity. In the working-class communities, ordinary people are looking to us for a lead. The party has not shrunk from its responsibility - witness the myriad campaigns we have initiated in recent years ("Please name one real campaign involving real people that any of these people organised??"). The sectarians, of course, deride these campaigns as nothing more than fronts whose primary purpose is to increase party profile and create recruitment opportunities ("a sea to swim in", as Mao put it). But the sectarians know nothing of the united-front tactic, and those that do erroneously denounce our campaigns as ham-fisted, half-arsed popular fronts, a claim that simply demonstrates a rigid, dogmatic approach to joint work on the part of said sectarians.

So there you have it: the party - the fount of all knowledge, the residue of all experience, the face that launched a thousand fronts - can hardly be expected to take seriously this new anti-war movement simply because it's the work of experienced and committed anti-war activists. Unless it grows. Then we'll be in like a shot.

by Mr.Pseudonym Tue Mar 30, 2004 14:40

"SWP on AWI
by Captain Moonlight Tuesday, Mar 30 2004, 1:18pm
...only party leaders are permitted to engage in debate on Indymedia, rank-and-file members with an urge to hurl insults must do so under the cover of psedonyms"
Don't understand?
Mr/Miss Captain Moonlight, you speak of pseudonyms, I presume Captain Moonlight is your real name as you'd never stoop that low and use an pseudonym?

by Captain Moonlight Tue Mar 30, 2004 15:17

Yes, my name IS Captain Moonlight – Captain Abe Moonlight, master of the Bermudan-registered, gaff-rigged schooner “Kieran’s Poodle”. But you’ve missed the point, my whining Trotskyist friend: I’m not a member of the party so I can choose to reveal my seafaring identity or write under a pseudonym as and when I see fit. You, alas, have no free will in this regard; Kieran, Marnie, Kevin, Richard, Paul and Willie have you on a short leash and will adminster a severe spanking should you choose to come clean on your identity. You can prove me wrong, of course, by responding here under YOUR own name, but I won’t hold my breath. Good sailing, shipmate.

by Angry Loaner with an irrational grudge against back-packers - The Working Worker Worker's Party Tue Mar 30, 2004 17:50

At last a laxative for the idealogical protest movement constipation causing virus that is the SWP.

by eeekkk Tue Mar 30, 2004 18:07

.

by Moll Tue Mar 30, 2004 20:41

Luv the graphic and luv the move! Think Anti-War Ireland is a good name too.

by Boston Manner Tue Mar 30, 2004 21:40

A new start, a new beginning and the bickering has started already. I blame that Richard Boy Barrett - he's a Communist y'know.

by Badman Tue Mar 30, 2004 22:30

The only people who have ever raised any issues about red-baiting in the anti-war movement were the SWP. Why did the SP/ISN/WSM never get red-baited? Now piss off and stop trying to start fights you shit. If you can stand up for yourself, do so. If you can just heap shite, keep it to yourself.

by Justin Morahan - Peace Peolpe Tue Mar 30, 2004 22:31

"Btw
by LL Sunday, Mar 28 2004, 9:06pm


'People for Peace' would immediately be confused with the 'Peace People' and, hey, that organisation has some mixed history."

I repeat my request to LL to explain this comment please.

by Hebe Wed Mar 31, 2004 12:29

I cannot speak for LL but my own criticisms of the PP would include their refusal to condemn State Violence originally. They seemed to be an exclusively anti IRA organisation. I fully accept that things have changed and the original glory hunters have departed.

The way the Nobel Prize money was pocketef by the 2 individuals also left a nasty taste.

by Orion Wed Mar 31, 2004 13:51

Further evidence of the conflation of the Socialist Workers Party with the Irish Anti-War Movement is provided in the latest issue of Socialist Worker, in an article describing the “5,000+” march in Dublin:

“The most lively contingent on the march with drums and flags contained Socialist Workers supports, Irish Anti War Movement groups.”

by Orion Wed Mar 31, 2004 13:54

The word "supporters" was incorrectly typed as "supports" in the previous post. The corrected quote from Socialist Worker is as follows:

“The most lively contingent on the march with drums and flags contained Socialist Workers supporters, Irish Anti War Movement groups.”

by Kevin Foley Wed Mar 31, 2004 14:02

Whenever an anti-establishment movement splits it can usually , in time, be traced to agent provocateurs.
Do you really think that Bush's visit - and the way it plays to 40 million irish-american voters is being left to chance. Put your ego away for a minute and ask who really benefits from this infighting.

by Dave O Wed Mar 31, 2004 15:02

These anti-establishment movements wrecked by agent provacateurs, Kevin ... details please.

by Joe Wed Mar 31, 2004 15:14

The traditional response of the SWP leadership in times like this is to tell the rank and file that their 'opponents' are agents, cops and red baiters. In recent years this has happened in relation to globalisation campaigns, anti-racist campaigns and now the anti-war campaign. We have seen some of this response reported from IAWM meetings. I'd suggest some of the comments posted here are simply people repeating what they have been told.

It's a piss poor excuse at the best of times but seeing as a number of those involved in building the new movement are people who have been active on the left for decades it is a little unconvincing here. But sure what other 'response' can the leadership come up with; 'fair cop gov - we done wrong'?

That said there may well also be cops involved in either side trying to make things more bitter. And there is no better method of doing this than by circulating rumors that 'so and so is a cop'. The secret police have been doing this since before the Russian revolution so the SWP leadership should know better. Basically don't play this game, don't accuse people of being cops unless you are able to offer clear evidence and have already challenged them with such evidence. (Some times what seems like definite proof can turn out to have an innocent explanation).

by Maratist - Galway Grassroots Wed Mar 31, 2004 15:35

I note the people who pack meetings and police demonstrations are NOT the ones accused of infighting but the people who have had enough of that. As for agent provocateurs Fairview against war, Cork anti-war, Tralee, Clonakilty, Galway Grassroots, Global Women's Strike, PANA, MAMA, Glu and Kilkenny against war hmmm.....the entire movement must comprise of police!!!

Personally I tend not to bitch about the IAWM, it's like complaining about the police or the weather, my only problem was the so many good people wasted some much time and energy trying to reform that grouping - THANK GOD THAT IS OVER!!!!! Fair play to the organisers of the anti-war ireland iniative.

by Anonymous Wed Mar 31, 2004 15:52

I used to think in somewhat similar lines to yourself Kevin. Unfortunately the Swp in this instance have more than clearly demonstrated that they are extremely difficult to work with on a partnership basis.

The proponents of the new Anti-War Ireland group feel that they can achieve more by working together themselves rather than been dictated to by an undemocratic, dominant Swp.

However, Anti-War Ireland, from everything that I know, will continue to work with the IAWM and the Swp to achieve common goals. Many very mature and professional people were involved in making this decision. There is no hatred between the two groups. Rather this is a tactical decision. Those organizations who choose to leave the IAWM feel that they can achieve much more this way, in the short, but more importantly, in the longer term.

That said, there will always be more immature individual members who prefer having a go off one another rather than focusing on achieving peace. Those who prefer to be "at war" with one another than looking for peace and stability. But don't confuse this with the more mature individuals and organizations who are behind setting Anti War Ireland up.

Best regards,

by Cork activist Wed Mar 31, 2004 21:02

There's nothing to be gained from a 'feud' between Anti-War Ireland & the rump IAWM, and nobody (well, almost nobody) connected to Anti-War Ireland has that frame of mind. Fintan and others have been quite firm about the SWP's misbehaviour but not in a sectarian way. Anytime he has spoken of this he has stressed the need for people to work together, albeit on a democratic and resfectful basis. Problem is that the SWP dominated IAWM has shown nobody any respect. Quite the opposite.

Cheers.

by John Wed Mar 31, 2004 22:29

if people can just move beyond the SWP and get them out of your heads. This conference could be an important new beginning.

Maybe the SWP might come on board and affiliate the IAWM to this new umbrella Anti-War Ireland? Why not?