Message of Solidarity to Socialist Party from SWP

by Dan Wed Oct 22, 2003 13:18

There's always an agenda with the SWP. In this case its the demand for a joint slate of candidates in Dublin for the local elections. While it makes sense in some respect, it's the SWP's hectoring that is annoying. You must do it our way, blah, blah!

by Angry Socialist Wed Oct 22, 2003 14:02

Go and Shag off you opportunistic bandwagon jumping cretins!

by SPmember - SP Wed Oct 22, 2003 14:02

Of course this message of soliarity is most welcome and I'm sure I'm not alone in thanking the SWP for the gesture.
One criticism however is that the SWP don't seem to think it is possible to have an electoral alliance with non-marxist working class activists and still stand on your own clear socialist programme. The approach of our organisation has always been two pronged. We aim both to build up the class independance of the working class through broad combatitive working class campaigns while at the same time building our own revolutionary organisation with a clear socialist programme. It is unlikely that an electoral alliance between our two partes would further either of these two goals but I would suggest that SWP activists get involved building a broader movement at the same time as standing and campaigning on a clear socialist programme.

by @ Wed Oct 22, 2003 14:05

Why should the SP go into an alliance with the SWP? The SWP have not done any serious work on the ground, they have no base among working people, they represent nothing! In my opinion it would be far better for the SP to forge an alliance with community activists that are running for the elections.

The SWP have been arguing against blockades and for Labour and SF to get involved in Bin Tax camapign. You have consistently shown that you are soft, why do you want a 'socialist' bloc and rule out work with genuine communitiy activists?

by hs - sp Wed Oct 22, 2003 14:08

Thanks for the meassage of solidarity. Its very welcome, personally I have to be convinced that the Socialist Alliance would win more votes than the Socialist Party and Socialist Workers Party seperately. I think most people vote for work candidates have done rather than the party name.
I also am against the idea of an alliance appearing a few weeks before an election and going away again. Like what has happened in england, the SA there has no support and fair enough they don't do anything except contest elections. it barely exists between.
So far i'm not convinced.

by Co-operation Wed Oct 22, 2003 14:29

Work together in solidarity and mutual co-operation. Between you - you must defeat capitalism.

by Pablo - Rebel Alliance Wed Oct 22, 2003 15:23

Thank you obi wan kenobi

by An amused thatcherite - Fianna Fail Wed Oct 22, 2003 17:48 socialistsarescum at margaret dot com London 0044 1217754040

You poor lefties. You fight even when you agree with one another!!! It's like "I hate the bin tax MORE than you do" "Im a REAL socialist" "I've been to more anti war protests than you, na-na-na-na-na"

I'd call you nasty names, but it seems you already think each other are scumbags.

LONG LIVE GEORGE BUSH!!

by Johan Wed Oct 22, 2003 18:30

This isn't a "message of solidarity" at all.

This is a proposal for an electoral pact wrapped up in some seriously deep-tongue-action brown nosing.

by Whitepants Wed Oct 22, 2003 19:32

I notice that the letter doesn't bother with the usual padding in its request for an electoral alliance with the SP.

All the stuff about the Workers Party, or other left wing groups or even independent activists that appeared in earlier incarnations of the SWP's alliance request has been stripped away. They have all vanished.

We are down to what the SWP is really looking for, a deal with the SP.

The proposal also seems to be that the two parties should stand loads of paper candidates because there is no way that they could run real campaigns in "every area of Dublin".

by Stiofán Wed Oct 22, 2003 20:42

Haven't been near a radio all day. Just curious to know what happened with the activists from Dún Laoghaire/Rathdown who were in court today following the blockades last week in Sandyford? Any info out there?

by Socialist Workers Party Thu Oct 23, 2003 00:23

Following out call for an electoral alliance with the SP, we would not like to propose a merger of the two organisations.

To avoid a cumbersome, double-barrelled acronym, we would propose that both parties be allowed retain parts of their name.

Recognising the heroics of Joe and Claire in recent days, we are willing to allow the SP to keep two parts of their party name, while we will chose only one.

Therefore, the SP provide the words "socialist" and "party", and we will provide the word "workers".

Fantastic, now we have a united revolutionary working class party in Ireland entited the "SOCIALIST WORKERS PARTY"

by The Real Maggie T - Monter Raving Tory Party Thu Oct 23, 2003 11:14

I'd like to thank my agnt provocateur Seanin AKA Dairius McGann of Drogheda for spreading my word. People like Dairius are invaluble to me because (and you may find this hard to believe) I can only be in one place at a time!

by seyton Thu Oct 23, 2003 11:58

"He attacked anarchists and the grassroots gathering on the radio and on the Irish Times."

I ain;t no fan of Ricky Boyd Barrett but I have to say that he did not attack the anarchists in the corporate media. If ye wanna go down that road, I think that Gregor Kerr has a few questions to answer over his interview with the corporate media over the bin tax. At a time when the anti-bin tax camapign is under attack from the capitalist press, in true anarchist fashion, Gregor attacks the 'trots' with his friends in the capitalist press.

by Degenerate Thu Oct 23, 2003 12:07

Where, when and how did Gregor do that?

by City Boy Thu Oct 23, 2003 12:29

Tongue-in-cheek
Extract from IT (pay per view)
Mr Richard Boyd Barrett said pickets would not be resuming at Dún Laoghaire-Rathdown depots as the policy of non-collection had been suspended there. However, he accused that council and the other Dublin local authorities of being wrong in their estimate of the numbers who had paid their charges. He also criticised sections of the "national media" which he said had accepted these figures without checking.

by M'Lord Thu Oct 23, 2003 12:59

What is Richard saying! Just because he got his knuckles rapped by a Judge yesterday he goes back to the SWP's old (now new again) possition of 'no blockades'. The SWP don't seem to realise that the Campaign needs to be fought on a Dublin wide basis. We dont block trucks in DLR because they are not implementing non collection in DLR, what next? We don't block trucks in my estate because they are not implementing non collection in my estate!

The SWP are aiding the Council's in their job of dividing the campaigns. I thought last Tuesday and Wednesday were excellant days of action. We cannot rule out blockades in DLR before they start non collection.

This is a clear example of SWP's softness and their inability to have the correct tactics and to gauge the mood of activists. The SWP have not been active on the bin tax in DLR and elsewhere for months on end throughout the last 4 or 5 years, now they think they have the right to talk to the media and say what the camapign will and won't do!

by Degenerate Thu Oct 23, 2003 13:21

Unlike the court cases dealing with Fingal and the City there doesn't seem to be as much detailed information on what happened in the DL/R injuction, either here or in the gutter press.

So what happened and was RBB one of those up in court yesterday?

by Andrew Thu Oct 23, 2003 13:21

I'd guess Seyton is referring to the Sunday Independent piece last Sunday. If he'd read it a bit more carefully he'd have realised that the Sindo did not interview Gregor but is quoting from an article published in Workers Solidarity No 63 that Gregor wrote in 2001! The Sindo admits this, they head the quote by referring to "The two year old document Bin charges a Strategy to Win detailed the same tactics used during the last three weeks" That article is at http://struggle.ws/ws/2001/63/strategy.html

by Degenerate Thu Oct 23, 2003 13:22

Also what happened in the case of the Ballymount 2 and their public order hearing.

by pasionaria Thu Oct 23, 2003 15:11

IMC .. JUST ABOVE, YOU HAVE MADE SOME ALLEGATIONS. CAN U PLEASE PROVIDE QUOTES AND FACTS. INSTEAD OF RAMBLING BULLSHIT.

""The SWP attacked, slandered and sabotaged, in true CIA fashion, all individuals and organisations who engaged in direct action and organised independently from them against the war.""
DO YOU REALLY BELIEVE THAT WHEN ONE GROUP HAS A DIFFERENCE OF OPINION ON TACTICS, THAT IT IS AN "ATTACK"??


""Rich Boy Barrett (tell us about your offshore bank accounts) attacked anti-war activists on the corporate media repeatedly.""

REALLY!! NEVER SAW RICHARDS NAME MENTIONED IN THE REPORTS AS AN OFFSHORE INVESTOR. PLEASE PROVIDE A LINK TO BACK UP THIS ALLEGATION.


"" There is mounting evidence that the SWP, as activists in the UK have been denouncing for years, has very strange connections with very high powers... ""

PLEASE PRESENT THIS MOUNTING EVIDENCE, IF THERE IS SUCH MOUNTING EVEIDENCE I AM SURE THAT YOU WILL HAVE NO PROBELM POSTING IT, UN LESS YOU ARE A MEMBER OF SCOTLAND YARD ETC.

IMC, GROW UP. DO SOMETHING USEFUL, CONCENTRATE ON WHY THE WORLD IS FUCKED UP. THE SWP ARE NOT CAPITALISTS, NOR HAVE THEY EVER DEFENDED STALINISM....

by Ray Thu Oct 23, 2003 15:16

When Richie appeared on Morning Ireland he described the Grassroots protesters as 'small and disorganised'. You can find the exact quotes, and probably a transcript of his appearance, if you look back through the archives. If someone made similar comments about the IAWM, GR, or SWP, I'm sure they'd be interpreted as an attack. Don't you agree?

by Joe Thu Oct 23, 2003 15:24

Pasionaria why have you named yourself after a stalinist? One who provided cover for the execution of trots and anarchists alike? Is this the same socialism lite that sees the SWP using Che as a recruiting icon?

Seyton I've just looked at the Sunday Indo. article and there is NO WAY you could have missed the TWO statements in it that the quotes are from a two year old article. The second one "And even two years ago" actually heads the quote you are probably objecting to.

Now I'm also unaware of ANY case in Ireland of anarchists having a go at trots in an interview with the corporate media. I can list two recent examples of trots doing just this.

1. RBB's attacks on Morning Ireland on the GNAW March 1st action at Shannon.

2. Some SP muppet in the Irish Times having a go at the Black Bloc on return from Evian.

So isn't this method that you say is typical of anarchists actually typical of trots? And haven't you either lied or been lied to in relation to the source of the Sunday Indo article.

by path in residence - been quiet for a while... Thu Oct 23, 2003 15:28

If anyone's interested.

http://www.indymedia.ie/newswire.php?story_id=31327

by The Torquemada - Spanish inquisition Thu Oct 23, 2003 16:03

Oh would this be the SP Muppet who was recently up in court for blockading bin trucks? What a Troll.

by Joe Thu Oct 23, 2003 16:21

I can't remember his name so I don't know. If so I'm not sure what that is meant to prove except that someone can be a muppet on one occasion and end up in the High Court for doing the right thing on another.

Perhaps you have the High Court mixed up with the confessional booth for its ability to grant absolution for past sins? Anyway its all pretty irrelevant to the point under discussion.

by Black - Red Thu Oct 23, 2003 16:34

I think it is well known that the SP and especially its grassroots are opposed to the black block, its tactics etc, why shouldn't they critize them. After all you wouldn't complain if the critized stalinists or the swp. The truth is the black block are just the stereotype the right wing want. And in truth their effectiveness so far in Ireland hasn't been up to much. One attempted squat (great idea, but no one thought the owners might turn up!!!!) and then they called the police!! Next they "blockaded" a petrol station for an hour till they got bored and started to "drift Away" as one of their numbers said, as we've no leaders etc. In other words no unity and one once got bored it was all over. No political statements or press releases nothing at all, might as well never have happened. If this can't be critized what can?
One of the strangest reports has been a block blocker saying that how great it was when their direct action slowed down traffic on the way there (A march to the rest of us). Sorry lads but you need to be critized. I am an anarchist lets see actual democracy and discussion, lets see action inside the workplaces and communities, the WSM are doing really good things. The black block is a distraction from this. The community work the wsm and others are involved in is much more important.

by Joe Thu Oct 23, 2003 16:44

Black - Red I suggest you re-read the thread, the context of the discussion is whether attacking other left groups in the CORPORATE press in on not whether or it is all right to criticise other left groups. One is not the same as the other.

The specifics of the particular slanders used by the SP in that Irish Times interview have been discussed to exhaustion on indymedia already, I don't intend to revisit them. As for your Irish examples above some of the criticisms do have a pinch of truth to them but others are confusing apples with oranges while still others are missing the oaks growing from acorns that you thought had failed.

by red - black Thu Oct 23, 2003 17:30

"the context of the discussion is whether attacking other left groups in the CORPORATE press in on not whether or it is all right to criticise other left groups"

Is it to be done in secret then? If I critize another individual party or group shouldn't I at least have the balls to do it in public? And anyway anyone from any corporate paper can read indymedia. I don't think the sp went to the corporate press, they asked them what they think of BB. and they answered. And i agree with some of their analysis, the BB will be used to destroy the anarchist cause. Watch and see.

by red - bland Thu Oct 23, 2003 17:33

"the context of the discussion is whether attacking other left groups in the CORPORATE press in on not whether or it is all right to criticise other left groups"

the context of the thread is a leaflet handed out by the SWP at an SP meeting!!!! And the fact that the WSM as usual were ignored

by Joe Thu Oct 23, 2003 17:49

So if on the next bin tax blockade I'm on some Irish Times reporter asks me what I think of Joe Higgins I should reply

"I think, whether he knows it or not, he's out to set up a state capitalist dictatorship in which workers will be executed for failing to toe the party line and any left opposition will be suppressed."

That after all is what I think Socialist Party politics would lead to if they ever got power. However if asked that question I'd actually reply something like

"Joe Higgins is one person in a campaign of 10's of thousands. The state may have been able to jail Joe and 14 others but if thousands of people took part in blockades they would not be able to defeat us"

I've steered clear of saying anything about the SP's role in the campaign precisly because anything said at this point may turn up in the Sindo. But maybe you also think it would be wise to give Joe Duffy a ring to have a chat on air about some of problems of internal democracy in the campaign? Or maybe like me you'd prefer to see these raised at some later point?

by J.V Stalin - Communist Party of Ireland Thu Oct 23, 2003 21:36

You Trots & Anarchists are soo pathetic. Pathetic

by yowly Fri Oct 24, 2003 11:42

Well why the hell has Gregor Kerr given an interview to a right wing sindo journalist in which he attacks the SP and the campiang for being 'undemocratic' and 'electoralist' etc. It is an absolute disgrace that Gregor, when the campaing is under attack that he teams up with the right wing media in order to have a cheap jibe at the SP.

I don't agree with Gregor about the undemocratic nature of the campaign or the motivations of the SP, but while the campaing is under attack he should keep this discussion within the Anti Bin Tax campaign.

All this leads to is a deep distrust of Anarchists within the campaign

by Ray Fri Oct 24, 2003 11:53

Gregor didn't give an interview to a Sindo journalist (AFAIK he's not even in the country at the moment). One of them read a two year old article in Workers Solidarity. Do try to keep up.

by yowerly Fri Oct 24, 2003 13:17

Well he said he didn't do an interview. Can you trust an Anarchist?

by Ray Fri Oct 24, 2003 13:20

1. Gregor isn't in the country to give an interview.
2. The Sindo article clearly says that its quoting from a two year old article.
3. All this information is contained in the comments above. RTFC.

by Damien Carton Fri Oct 24, 2003 13:25 Dublin

This was obviously based on an article published two years ago, not a recent interview, so cop on.

As for trusting an anarchist, Gregor is up front about his politics. I think I would be inclined to trust him a lot more than I trust you (whoever you are)

by IMC reader Fri Oct 24, 2003 13:29

DO YOU REALLY BELIEVE THAT WHEN ONE GROUP HAS A DIFFERENCE OF OPINION ON TACTICS, THAT IT IS AN "ATTACK"??

It's one thing to have a different opinion on tactics, quite another to run to the corpoarte media and launch an all out attack on another section of the anti-war movement. Why RBB & co organised a march aimed at sabotaging direct action at Shannon? Why did they undermined and systematically censored the Grassroots Gathering and other independent groups? Why did they fail to support direct action (CW5, Mary kelly, etc) when it was clear that it was achieving something (US companies started to pull out of Shannon)? Why RBB is now dividing the anti-bin tax campaign? This is the kind of "evidence" I was referring to.

REALLY!! NEVER SAW RICHARDS NAME MENTIONED IN THE REPORTS AS AN OFFSHORE INVESTOR. PLEASE PROVIDE A LINK TO BACK UP THIS ALLEGATION.

Well, I haven't seen Bush's name mentioned among war criminals. That doesn't mean he is innocent. Do you believe that people can become rich in a honest way under capitalism? That's an interesting idea for a socialist!

by Joe Fri Oct 24, 2003 13:35

This is rather interesting. The Sindo is very clear on the origins of the quotations. I've just looked at it again and in fact it says THREE times and not just TWICE that they are from 2001.

Paragraph 2 starts "As far back as March 2001, Gregor Kerr, the formed secretary of the Federation of Dublin Anti-Water Charge Campaigns ... published .."

Paragraph 3 starts "The two year old document Bin Charges - a strategy to win detailed the same tactics used during the last two weeks"

Paragraph 5 starts "And even two years ago, Gregor Kerr ..."

Now anyone who had actually read the article would have to be an idiot to conclude that the quotes it contains were made last week. Yet we have had two such 'idiots' posting to this thread already. The second 'idiots' post AFTER it has already been pointed out TWICE that the article itself gives the source as two years back.

Both 'idiots' use their misrepresentation of the article to attack anarchism in general. Both clearly come from a political postion close to if not in the Socialist Party. They are anonymous but their other comments make this obvious.

I put 'idiot' in inverted commas because there are two possibilities here beyond stupidity.

1. That one or both of our idiots has not actually read the article in question but is merely repreated what they have been told by a party member in a pub or at a meeting. In that case they have been lied to.

2. That one or both of the idiots has read the article and is simplying lying about the contents. This would be idiotic.

It's hard to avoid the conclusion that what we are seeing here is a rather nasty bit of political spin doctoring. The harder question is WHY is it happening.

by Mickey - SP (personal capacity) Fri Oct 24, 2003 18:05

Look, for fucks sake, Gregor didn't give an interview to the Sunday Independent.

Instead the rag took quotes from a two year old article and turned it into a "story". What Gregor was arguing was in my view complete nonsense, but he wasn't trying to get it into the Sunday Independent.

This is a very bitter battle and we have to expect all kinds of crap from the right wing press.

Now shouldn't we all have something more important to do?

by pasionaria Sat Oct 25, 2003 17:28

for joes benefit i am going to justify my user name.

la pasionaria (aka dolores ibarruri) of course believed in the "greatness" of russia and blindly so.

however she was a great speaker and made great analysis of the exploitation of the basque miners by the bosses.

and reading her book ("they shall not pass") woke me up when i was in school.
so if it is ok with joe, i use her name, and i also say to you. i am not a stalinist.

for IMC.

very mature, facts are there that bush is a war criminal.
as far as i know RBB works full time with the SWP... do you claim that people receiving social welfare are "rich"??/

from your earlier contribution... why have u not answered and expanded on this so called "evidence"

"" There is mounting evidence that the SWP, as activists in the UK have been denouncing for years, has very strange connections with very high powers... ""

by Redskin Sun Oct 26, 2003 00:30

RBB is not Tony O'Reilly. He has absolutly no control over the corporate media. As an SWP member im fairly sure he is suspicious of and opposed to them. That is why the SWP publish Socialist Worker as an alternative to the corporate press. But occasionaly the hard left must use the corporate media, when possible on their own terms.

Could he have been misquoted, his comments manipulated etc.? The Sindo regularly stiches up the left, Eoghan Harris writes for them for fucks sake. He as their class ene,y and they will try to make him look foolish and divide us at every opportunity.

IMC is alledging very specific things about RBB. If he cannot back them up, his postings should be removed.

by pasionaria Sun Oct 26, 2003 12:48

i agree redskin.

what imc has posted is defamation of character.

and such slander should be removed.

by Ray Tue Oct 28, 2003 11:00

He was interviewed on a live radio programme. He wasn't misquoted, and his comments weren't manipulated, nor were they taken out of context. Follow the link.