People before profit alliance: Time for a real alternative

by festy fester - badlyrunfront watch Fri Aug 25, 2006 15:28

according to some reports the PeopleforSWPProfit have expanded enormously. Lookin at the list theyve actually shrunk! Noone in Cork and Ballymun has disappeared?

by TrotWatch Fri Aug 25, 2006 15:45

"Dublin South East 086 1523542"

This also the number for:

IAWM Rialto
http://www.irishantiwar.org/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg.tc...i-War

Another Europe is Possible |Contact Rory Hearne at 086 1523542
http://www.freewebs.com/anothereuropeispossible/news.htm

Globalise ResistanceRory 086 1523542
http://www.activelink.ie/irish/organisation.php?id=484

Grinds in Geography, Sociology, & Politics Contact Details 086 1523542 Name: rory hearne
http://216.239.59.104/search?q=cache:MWPLdTKV10UJ:www.m...cd=11

swp.ie - On to Gleneagles: March to the G8Contact hearner@yahoo.co.uk or 086 1523542 for
http://www.swp.ie/html/G8_analysis.htm

by TrotWatch Fri Aug 25, 2006 15:54

"Galway 086 3366525"

Irish Anti-War Movement - What is behind Israeli/US wars in the ...Hosted by SWP Galway contact 086 3366525.
www.irishantiwar.org/calendar/item.tcl?calendar_id=1920

Public meeting concerning the Niger Delta For further information contact Maggie Heneghan 086 3366525.

[Swp-announce] George GallowayTicket reservations are available from Dette(091 596844), Mags(086 3366525)
brockman.nuigalway.ie/pipermail/swp-announce/2005-October/000027.html

"Mayo 087 9591474"

Latin America Week 2005 Calendar... Contact Maura Harrington 087 9591474 ...
www.lasc.ie/activities/law/law2006.html

SHELL TO SEA: The West's Awake!Info: Maura Harrington 087 9591474
www.corribsos.com/index.php?id=127&type=event

'Time for a people’s movement: The Davitt League' - swp.ie ...There is a lot of work and discussion necessary to further this project.” To get involved contact Maura Harrington at 087 9591474
www.swp.ie/socialistworker/2005/sw247/sw-247-11.htm

by Nostradamus Fri Aug 25, 2006 16:12

The following candidates are likely to be selected by SWP/PBPA:

Artane Richie Browne

Dublin South East Shay Ryan

Cork Joe Moore

Galway Maggie Heneghan

Mayo (Davitt League) Maura Harrington

by cool j Fri Aug 25, 2006 17:20

Best of luck folks!!!!!!!

by Irritated Fri Aug 25, 2006 19:19

It's inappropriate for Richard Boyd Barrett to be chair of the Irish Anti-War Movement while simultaneously campaigning as a Socialist Workers Party candidate. He should be asked to stand down as chair, since his candidacy calls into question the non-party political stance of the IAWM.

http://electionsireland.org/biographies.cfm?election=20...alpha

by Really Irritated Fri Aug 25, 2006 19:23

RBB is also chair of the ABTC in Dun Laoire and chair of save Dun Laoir Baths etc etc

by jim Fri Aug 25, 2006 19:29

an alternative name for the S.W.P

by More irritated Fri Aug 25, 2006 19:33

This entire thread and all its sniping and nastiness is really disheartening. It seems to me that it's a good thing that something like this alliance is bringing together all these various campaigns, because all these issues are linked by the fact that they show profit does come before people all the time in this horrible, capitalist world. As for the fact that the same people who are contacts for this alliance are also the contacts for all those other campaigns is surely a good thing. It shows that they are real activists and not just the kind of politicians that only do things for photo opportunities or only do things that are popular and safe.

I for one welcome this. I don't know if there is any need for people to stand down from being chair or whatever of a group because they are standing in elections. I know that people who work for RTE or the BBC have to, but I don't think it's normally required. Did Joe Costello have to stand down from the Prisoners Rights Organisation, for example, when he stood for election? I'm 99% sure he didn't. I think that as long as there is no contradiction in relation to the politics of the party they're standing for (e.g. someone who was chair of a Gay Rights group couldn't stay chair of that while standing for an anti-gay party etc) then it's ok.

Anyway, I meant for this to be just a short message saying that I'm glad to hear about this alliance and good luck to it!

by ? Fri Aug 25, 2006 19:36

Its obvious that the PBPA is nothing more than an SWP Front. They use the same phone numbers as contacts for the PBPA, SWP, IAWM and other SWP Fronts.

by Ibelieveinunitybut Fri Aug 25, 2006 21:09

When the whole thing goes badly wrong people will go away feeling disillusioned and drift away from activism. I have met my fair share of former swpers who want nothing more to do with the left becuase of the antics of their former comrades. Now I'm sure at some point all of us here have been on mailing lists for Globalise resistance or the IAWM etc. etc. The problem with these fronts is that they are fundamentally undemocratic. They are based around an SWP core who try to dominate and push the entire thing in the direction they want to go leaving all others feeling cheated and disillusioned. PBP have no clear or cohesive policy and are attempting to attract support by putting forward an idea they know people will like. A united left would be wonderful but this isn't the way to do it and for as long as people try these underhand methods it'll never happen. Furthermore it gives further ammunition to those who want to criticise the left or certain sections of it, for example the person calling themselves trotwatch who seems to think that classwar is about different classes of political organisation. The problem with the SWP isn't that they're Trotskyists (because they no longer are, even if they were at one point) it's that their policies are half baked, their organisation is undemocratic, they are dishonest about their intentions and they fail to educate their members.

by Jimbo Jones Sun Aug 27, 2006 20:15

In what way is the SWP undemocratic - have always heard this criticism but never the details! could someone clarify?

by Serge Sun Aug 27, 2006 22:54

Why is the SWP correctly seen as undemocratic? Simple: they never have democratic elections for their leadership bodies. The existing leadership recommends a 'slate' or panel at each annual conference (made up of themselves minus anyone deemed to be deficient in enthusiasm or showing signs of independent thought) and this is always unanimously 'elected' by the membership. In theory, a group of members could propose an alternative slate but this never happens. So, in effect, the leadership is self selecting. Its about as dictatorial as it gets.

Thats just for starters, then theres the lack of real internal debate, top-down decision making process, the dictation of policy from their HQ in London, the way in which dissidents are treated etc. etc. but that would take a book.

by On the SWP Tue Aug 29, 2006 13:26

Well,
Democracy is not just about having votes or having possible ways to register annoyance, it is about having informed discussions. From talking to SWP members and asking them political questions and also questions about swp history (like calling IRA a revolutionary army etc) it seems that even members who have been i the org for over a year are not aware of swps past positions or what other sections are doing (e.g. their german section arguing to allow neo-liberals within the 'New Left').

Also, generally their political level, and their understanding of socialism is low. Plus, and this is more of a swipe, but why the hell do they call themselves trotskyist when they dont agree with the main points of trotskyism? Permanent revolution, transitional method, degeneraget and deformed workers state analysis.

Anyway, on PB4P, it seems to me that this is another false start. A new genuinely anti-neoliberal org. is needed in Ireland, but it canot just be all the 'revolutionaries' coming together and putting their socialist/communist/anarchist ideas in cold storage. It must be built on mass moovements, on new layers of activists. Also, the thing with german/berlin wasg (read up people) shows the real danger of the SWP being in the leadership of this new group[. Obviously they will probb;ly play a role and even be elected to bodies of it, but their politics (in Germany, defending the Rightwing who want to allow berlin PDS, who have privatised etc and broken election promises,, whilst the swp attack the left wing) will have to be shown up.

Thank you all.

by pearson68 - swp-personal capacity Tue Aug 29, 2006 15:44

The Sparts are good 'orthodox' trotskyists. The Swp, or the Socalist Review Group, broke with this in the 1950's when they identified THE USSR as state-capitalist. Trotsky never reached this conclusion, true, and based on newer evidence, Tony Cliff did.That's why the Sparts call us 'Cliffites'. The point for me is that we stand in the tradition of Trotsky, not that we believe that the politics of the 1930's provides a template for today

These politics ensured that we didn't support EAST-European states when they attacked workers' demonstrations in 1989. Instead we recognised that these states were fundamentally rotten and not worth defending. I think we can be proud of our tradition here. Alot of other left-wing groups ended up supporting the 'wrong' side, if you like. But I'm not sure that this is the place to go into it. Many other left-wingers went to the right after 1989, just ask John Waters.

As regards the IRA, I don't know what you find so shocking about the IRA being a revolutionary army. Most left-wing groups, except the CWI, talked this way. You don't have to agree yourself though, however I would be interested in the reference as to where this was written. It seems to me that the IRA were a national liberation movement, which could go in either a revolutionary direction or a reformist one, history shows that they chose the latter.

I remember, before I joined in 1992, an SWP pamphlet talking about 'critical but unconditional support'* for the IRA this was in reference to them deciding in the course of their own struggle that they had a right to bear arms against the British state. This applies today when we talk about support for Hizbollah or our support for the 1916 rising here in Ireland; off course these national liberation movements can contain all sorts of reactionaries and fundamentalists (see De-Valera and Pearse). However, a revolutionary who expects perfectly formed revolutionaries with all the right ideas, to join together in the fight against capital and imperialism, will never see a revolution in their own lifetime. The point is that you fight for you politics within the struggle. You don't publically condemn those who want to fight back, you condemn the system they are fighting against.

The point is that we recognise and support their right to fight back and resist. After all we are not pacifists. A good film to see on this subject is the BATTLE for Algiers, which shows the brutality on both sides in a national liberation struggle, the point is that revolutionaries don't sit on the sidelines but at least take a principled stand in line with their politics. It doesn't mean that we want to have such wars or that they need to be glorified,that would be Militarism not Socialism.Wars are after all a product capitalism, and a means to sustain itself. Another world is possible.

*I delayed joining the SWM at the time becase I neither agreed with nor fundamentally understood this position.

by Old Style Leftie Tue Aug 29, 2006 17:27

"These politics ensured that we didn't support EAST-European states when they attacked workers' demonstrations in 1989. Instead we recognised that these states were fundamentally rotten and not worth defending. I think we can be proud of our tradition here. Alot of other left-wing groups ended up supporting the 'wrong' side, if you like. But I'm not sure that this is the place to go into it."

Care to explain the soft line on Iran then. Don't there workers count? Not much consistency there, so. Same old bunch of opportunists.

by Tony Tue Aug 29, 2006 18:02

It's simple "old style lefty". The overwhelming majority of THE LEFT had illusions in the various Stalinist regimes, and the non-stalinist left was minuscule, therefore the priority had to be to target the left illusions. However in the case of Iran NONE of the left has ilusions in the regime, and the priority can therefore be to concentrate on the imperialists.
A limiting case is, of course, the vicious stalinist regime in Cuba. As Cuba is not really a viable illusion for the left, the priority is again the imperialist threat.
I should, I suppose, point out that the sloppy sentimentality of the Castrophiles is a long way from being an important diversion for the left, at least in the so-called "west"

by Nitpicker Tue Aug 29, 2006 18:03

"This applies today when we talk about support for Hizbollah or our support for the 1916 rising here in Ireland; off course these national liberation movements can contain all sorts of reactionaries and fundamentalists (see De-Valera and Pearse). However, a revolutionary who expects perfectly formed revolutionaries with all the right ideas, to join together in the fight against capital and imperialism, will never see a revolution in their own lifetime"-

mmm, now to me that sounds a bit stagist.

Also not quite sure how support can be critical but unconditional. BUt if such a thing exists couldn't it have been applied to the DEFORMED WORKER'S STATES behind the iron curtain.

Oh and one more point the State Capitalism idea was actually formulated by Ted Grant before he realised such a thing didn't exist and moved on to develop the theory of the Deformed Worker's State. I guess Cliff can't be accused of stealing the theory if nobody else had any use for it though.

ps. you present an unusually coherent (if fundamentally flawed) argument for an swp member.

by Badman Tue Aug 29, 2006 18:26

Oh and one more point the State Capitalism idea was actually formulated by Ted Grant before he realised such a thing didn't exist and moved on to develop the theory of the Deformed Worker's State.

Nope. You should read more widely outside your own sect. The "state capitalism" term was in common use to describe the USSR from 1918 among anarchists and left capitalists (not that I agree with its usefulness, but it's a hell of a lot less stupid than the "deformed workers state" idiocy).

From wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/State_capitalism#Use_by_Le...nists

The earliest critique of the USSR as state-capitalist was formulated by various groups adhering to Left-communism. One major tendency of the 1918 communist left criticised the re-employment of authoritarian capitalist relations and methods within production.

by swimmer Wed Aug 30, 2006 19:36

Of course it is damaging to the Irish Anti-War Movement to have as its chairperson a candidate for a political party.

People who are members or supporters of other parties will pull back from activities likely to garner publicity and support for the SWP candidate to the detriement of their own prefferred candidate.

The media will no dooubt confuse SWP positions on other issues with IAWM positions on the war.

The IAWM message will become diluted.

The candidate will have far too much to do to be effective as chair of the IAWM. The IAWM will suffer because the chair will be too busy running for election.

Richard Boyd Barrett should stand down.