No politics please, we're anti-war

by Socialist Tue Aug 01, 2006 16:45

Support for Irish Ferries deal
Support return to Partnership Talks
'No politics' in StWC
Unconditional Support for Hebollah & Hamas
Israeli Working Class "part of problem"
Labour Party members writing in SW.

If you are in the Socialist Workers' Party leave them now unless you are not a socialist.

by Gearóid O Loingsigh Tue Aug 01, 2006 17:42

I am bit bemused by the above posting, given that in all the conflicts from Bosnia to Iraq and Afghanistan, almost the entire left argued against any politics in the anti war movement. It was considered sectarian to point out that the war in Afghanistan was to be one of many that would reposition US influence and control in the region. The left (SP and SWP) went along with this. When Iraq happened they continued. We could all agree, apparently, that we were opposed to war and there was no need for any deeper analysis or understanding.

On Kosovo, the SP excluded any mention of the war criminal Milosevic in order to keep the Workers Party on board. The Kosavars were no politically correct it seems.

This lack of politics is what has reduced the campaign to moralism and one off actions.

by Mark P - Socialist Party (personal capacity) Wed Aug 02, 2006 12:24

Gearoid, contrary to the constant tedious grumblings of the sectarian grouplet you belonged to in Ireland, the Socialist Party has constantly sought to move the politics of the anti-war movement away from liberal moralising and towards class based and socialist arguments. In attempting to so do, both here and in Britain, we have found the SWP to be a constant obstacle.

by SP Member Wed Aug 02, 2006 13:14

Just to add to Mark P points this is also one of the reasons why we left the IAWM.

by Amnesiac Wed Aug 02, 2006 14:05

"Just to add to Mark P points this is also one of the reasons why we left the IAWM."

Oh, I thought the reason why the SP left was because somebody nudged them on the way out to tell them there was nobody left in it. Don't remember them being very vocal on their way out?

by MichaelY - iawm Wed Aug 02, 2006 15:54

Have been following with interest this most recent debate in this thread re:politics and the anti-war movement. The main protagonists are SP people – some in per cap, others not. And the main objective? To criticise and castigate the SWP, including asking its members to leave it…and, in passing, dump the IAWM into the dustbin of what they perceive as ‘history’. And in that process they seem to get some support of the usual amnesiac anonymista Indymedia hangers-on.

A number of important issues arise from this debate:
(i) The starting point is an argument inside the anti-war movement in Britain re: a situation which recently arose in the Italian Parliament/Senate. There a number of RC Senators(4) along with four others including one from the Italian Green Party, were forced by their respective Party leaderships to support a motion to keep Italian troops as part of the NATO force in Afghanistan.
(ii) The identification of the IAWM with the SWP (cloning the DUP and the McD use of the term SF/IRA) and the relevant entries, actions and exits of the Socialist Party from the Movement a couple of years ago.
(iii)And the reality of the anti-war movement in Ireland today, of which the IAWM is only a part, confronted as it is by the wars in Afghanistan (now led by NATO), Iraq and now Gaza and Lebanon.

I will not dwell here on (i) and (ii). IThough they are important but will have to wait. It is the third element of this equation that concerns me, and very many anti-war activist in Ireland today. And to that concern I will direct my comments below.

For over 12 months now, from the Shannon demonstration last August to the most recent national tour of Joshua Casteel, still continuing as these lines are being written, and the demonstrations and vigils on the Middle East over the last while….. a whole number of us, members of the IAWM but not members of the SWP, in Dublin but also in Cork, Belfast, the Midlands and Galway, have been working extremely hard to revitalise and regenerate the anti-war movement in the country.
In this work we have worked hand in hand, and shoulder to shoulder with a number of SWP comrades but also with comrades of AWI, with anarchists, with Cosantoiri, members, the ISN and ex-members of the CPI, members of SF, PANA, the Greens and the Labour Party, the RAR, the Irish Palestine Solidarity Committee, the Catholic Workers/ Ploughshares and many many others who would consider themselves non-aligned.

From Cindy Sheehan’s visit before Xmas, to the Iraqi Vets tour, to the March 18 demonstration, to the meeting of the brother of an Abu-Ghraib hostage, to the very well-attended Iran debate, to the Venezuela meeting, to supporting the Afghani hunger strikers, to the demonstration against the British Warship, to Joshua Casteel and in the 5-6 Plenary meetings of the Anti-War Network…. we were there – we played a part – and as a result the IAWM has grown perceptibly as the anti-war movement has grown and reactivated itself nationally.

In the midst of this activity, hectic given our size, I have been aware of the occasional presence of 6-8 younger people of the Socialist Party Youth…with one exception – the very significant contribution they made to the support of the Afghani hunger strikers. They have been friendly and comradely towards us and this has been reciprocated. And, before I forget, we have also had the unstinting support of the Socialist Party TD, who was always ready to share our platforms and contribute to the debate from his angle.

My question therefore is a simple one:
As the Socialist Party considers itself the most serious and significant Party of the Left in Ireland, representing as it sees it, the vital interests of the Irish working class…would you guys think that your Party has contributed its fair share in the anti-war movement, mobilisation and activities over the last 18 months or so?

You left the IAWM you say for, possibly, good reasons…yet, unlike the AWI comrades, the Ploughshares, the Cosantoiri comrades, who also left the IAWM about the same time, unlike them who have been working very hard to end the collaboration of the Irish Government with the Empire through the use of Shannon as warport…alongside the IAWM…. you have not, in my opinion, contributed as much as your size, importance and penetration inside the class would warrant. This is not a rhetorical question….it comes from a person who knew young JH when he was in Militant, in and out of the Labour Party….so please, depersonalise this and humour me with an honest answer. I am sure many of us in the anti-war movement would benefit from your answer. Including, I suspect, some SWPers.

Whatever the ‘crimes’ of the SWP may or may not be…they cannot be blamed for your, what I consider, relative inactivity and stand-offishness. To be very honest, given your politics, your numbers, your support, you should be leading the anti-war movement in Ireland. The fact that you’re not, is puzzling…but that’s another message and another debate.

Looking forward to your response….with solidarity

Michael

by hs - sp (per cap) Wed Aug 02, 2006 16:42

Its a atter of time v resources, we have more support than most of the left because we are so deeply involved in community and local politics, but this does ironically enough mean we have less time for broadbased campaigns of the left. We are not as you pointed out, doing little on anti war issues because of the swp. But becasue we spend so much time on other issues. Although the youth in fairness to them do alot more on that kind of stuff. We had a half decent mobilisation on the lebonese march on Saturday. Although we have some influence are numbers are still extremely small especially when you look from branch to branch. I've tried on numerous occaions to become more involved on wider issues, but I always fall away through lack of time.
So its a contradiction, on the one hand I want to see a voice like Joes in the Dail and in the councils and see that position used to raise policical awarness, But that takes up alot of time. I also want our party involved in trade unions and in broad left campaigns. But theres only so much time. And we also have to organise outside the city centre and outside dublin. What I would really like to see is more members getting individually involved within broad campaigns, but thats up to them. There is a matter of priorities and which issues are more important and more resources can be put into. And thats a debate that could go on forever. But I would sincerely agree it's nothing to do with the swp or any other group.

by SP Member Wed Aug 02, 2006 16:52

Michael Y your question is insulting! Unlike yourself and many others you mentioned the SP is not a single issue party. Whereas you mention some meetings and demos that have been organised by anti-war activists, apart from being involved in campaigning against the wars in Iraq and the Lebanon all over Ireland (probably more than anyone else!) the SP has been involved in campaigning on dozens of issues.
Just one example of what we have been doing during the 18 month period you refer to: - we (alongside the workers) took on and defeated the multinational construction company GAMA.
And no we didn't organise any meetings with bleeding heart liberals speaking to the middle classes like the IAWM did - thank goodness!

by hs - sp (per cap) Wed Aug 02, 2006 16:58

...may have issues :-)

by observer Wed Aug 02, 2006 17:17

Michael,

Don't you think it's a bit rich for you to be banging on about people's record of work? The SP have done lots and lots of anti-war work since 2001. You, on the other hand, fell off the planet for a couple of decades and only appeared in the anti-war movement last year, or maybe even early this year. You're not really in a position to lecture people.

With regard to the IAWM, it hardly exists. If the SWP pulled out tomorrow, it would have no more than ten members nationally. It's an SWP front and remains so no matter how many times you jump up and down shouting that it ain't. Does good work but that doesn't change what it is.

by Mark P - Socialist Party (personal cap) Wed Aug 02, 2006 18:26

Michael, the first point to note is that there is almost no issue that we can do enough on. I mean that seriously. The socialist left in Ireland is small and peripheral. The fact that the Socialist Party, itself small and peripheral, is currently its most significant element is itself an indication of that. The tasks that our small left have to face however are huge. There are many issues, many responsibilities and very scarce resources. To give an example, only a few weeks ago an activist against deportations was bitterly complaining that the left wasn't doing enough on that issue on this same website and in fact was using anti-war campaigning as an example of the kind of thing we should prioritise less. Everyone thinks that their own campaign needs more resources, and on that at least everyone is right.

That said, you do a little dishonest accounting in the preamble to your question. You talk about the constant involvement of the Socialist Party TD in anti-war campaigning, as well as the actions of Socialist Youth and then, somehow, disappear these members and activities when it comes to talking about the supposed lack of involvement of the Socialist Party. Joe Higgins is the Socialist Party. Those Socialist Youth activists you talk about are the Socialist Party. It is certainly true that much of our anti-war campaigning is carried out by our younger members, who have less in the way of existing responsibilities to community or union struggles and by our public representatives. Why you would expect anything different, is beyond me.

The Socialist Party is not currently involved in a broad anti-war alliance in Ireland, because there is no broad alliance of that nature and, in our estimation, it would have been fruitless trying to build much of one over the last period of general retreat in the movement. In our view it has recently been a better use of our scarce resources to campaign against the war on a specifically socialist basis, under our own banner. That does not mean that we have withdrawn from campaigning against the war - it means we don't see organising occasional public meetings where platforms give liberal arguments to an audience of the converted is a useful focus for activity. While, as on every issue, I wish we could do more to oppose the war I absolutely and utterly refuse to acknowledge any truth in your allegation that we have been doing less than we reasonably could in all the circumstances.

On the original points made earlier in this thread, I stand entirely by me statement that the SWP in both Ireland and in Britain have made themselves an obstacle to the spreading of socialist arguments against the war in their eagerness to suck up to liberals and religious leaders. If you have some points to make in that regard which go beyond excusing the political content of their activity by pointing to the frantic pace at which they sometimes carry out that activity, I would be interested in hearing them.

by Gearóid O Loingsigh Wed Aug 02, 2006 19:38

The point (sp take note) is that you did argue against the idea of politics in the anti war campaigns. No mention was to be made of US Imperialist ambitions in the intervention in Afghanistan and then Iraq came and you still stuck to the idea that moral opposition to the war unites us and opposition to imperialism divides us. So it was that Milosevic escaped all criticism in the campaign around the war in Kosovo in order not to politicise it and to keep WP on board not the mention the Chetnik monarchists that turned up on the demos.

As for grouplet, don't make me laugh tuppence looking down on the ha'penny. All the groups in Ireland are grouplets including yourselves (despite having a TD elected on a non revolutionary programme). You only have to look at the size of the contingents on marches to realise that the entire left is made up of grouplets, some bigger than others but none amounting to much and certainly none of them are mass organisations or anywhere near it (SF are not on the left os they don't count)

by MichaelY - iawm Wed Aug 02, 2006 19:43

Let me at the outset repeat one more time that my comments to yourselves, and the SP, are motivated by the utmost respect for the work your Party has been doing – your politics and success in working with the GAMA workers is a great example of what the Left can do in a key area…additionally your work on the bins issue was very noteworthy. So my comments to you were, I hope, comradely and in the spirit of debate within the Left. I agree with you that our numbers may be small and our influence limited – but the situation in our country right now offers a number of possibilities. And it is in that context I want to continue this discussion. I speak here in a strictly personal capacity.

While attempting to summarise the three positions outlined above is always an arduous task, and not wanting to fall into the trap of ‘lecturing’, as my observer friend points out, three important elements jump out:
· Time v resources
· Priorities
· Class profile of anti-war work

I cannot agree with you more that the decision of where and how to invest time and resources, in a political context where the issues are many and multiform and resources scarce, is a key element in the process of working within a revolutionary organisation. Your honest comments about your decisions in that respect are rational and clear. I also take the point that activists involved in single-issue campaigns tend at times to see exclusively their world as the o n l y world! Some of the debate that happened after the Cathedral with the RAR and others, as you correctly state, turned around that theme.
Having accepted the above, however, moves us straight to the issue of the political analysis that determines and creates the choice of an organisation re:priorities. And in that respect, I feel, and stand corrected, that your analysis of the anti-war movement, and its perspectives, internationally and in Ireland, was unduly influenced by the up and the deep down that followed after the initial invasion of Iraq took hold…things did not look very rosy, people got discouraged, other political work took its toll. Why would I expect any different, says Mark P. My only answer is that those of us in the Left who really believe in what we’re doing and hopefully act accordingly, have to expect and fight for the impossible in order to achieve the possible.
And at this very specific point, as international developments hug the headlines, as the Empire talks of creating “a new Middle East”, which probably involves squaring up with Syria and Iran…I am questioning whether your collective estimate of priorities could be looked at again. Whether the establishment of a large anti-war alliance, with the active and full participation of all the progressive forces in the country can be seen as something do-able…there are very optimistic signs to that end and, of course, a number of obstacles – among them deep personal wounds among a number of leading activists. Can they be overcome? Let us debate that point and the conditions that would get us there.
The last item coming from your responses is the class profile of anti-war activity. Comments about ‘bleeding heart liberals’ and ‘sucking up liberals’ are, whether instigated by the SWP or others, in my opinion rather misplaced. They miss the target. It is my estimate that it would be absolutely fantastic if a really united anti-war activity could also embrace workers at work, whether in Unions or not, working class people in communities, north and south, as well as upper working class and lower middle class people. That is an objective that was, in my experience, partially achieved on four occasions in the past….the Tax Campaigns, the anti-nuclear campaign against Carnsore, the mobilisations in support of the hunger strikers and, momentarily in the recent Irish Ferries mobilisation. We’ve done it before – we can do it again comrades. I hope you agree.

by SP Member Wed Aug 02, 2006 20:27

Gearóid O Loingsigh I don't know who you are or what organisation you belong to but I do know that your accusation that the Socialist Party argued against the anti-war movement being political is not only not true it is a malicious lie.

by anon Thu Aug 03, 2006 04:51

If you have some points to make in that regard which go beyond excusing the political content of their activity by pointing to the frantic pace at which they sometimes carry out that activity, I would be interested in hearing them.

Nicely Said.

The high amount of speaking tours happen only because the Name happens to be around on tour with Interntional SWP anyway, half the work is done for you already, Its still more top table stuff, and again STWC posters for Sept 23rd says 'troops home' yet doesn't list Afghanistan?

by Tubal Cain Thu Aug 03, 2006 11:37

War is a hate crime.
War is a politcal statement
by the ignorant against the
innocent.
Those who do not understand
this should buy a good Oxford
Dictionary and go to bed reading it.
Tubal Cain