for lefties too stubborn to quit
Unite Left Alliance post-election Rally: Why We Need A New Left Alternative
Friday March 11, Gresham Hotel, O Connell Street, Dublin. 7.30pm
Speakers:
Joe Higgins TD
Joan Collins TD
Clare Daly TD
Richard Boyd Barrett TD
Seamus Healy TD
All welcome.
| irishelectionliterat… on Green Party blues? Not a bit o… | |
| Wes Ferry on Sunday and other stupid statem… | |
| banjoagbeanjoe on Green Party blues? Not a bit o… | |
| Fergal on Green Party blues? Not a bit o… | |
| Tomboktu on What you want to say – 17th Ap… | |
| sonofstan on Green Party blues? Not a bit o… | |
| Wes Ferry on Sunday and other stupid statem… | |
| WorldbyStorm on This Weekend I’ll Mostly… | |
| crocodileshoes on You know you’re getting older… | |
| sonofstan on This Weekend I’ll Mostly… | |
| banjoagbeanjoe on You know you’re getting older… | |
| roddy on You know you’re getting older… | |
| banjoagbeanjoe on Signs of Hope – A continuing… | |
| WorldbyStorm on Signs of Hope – A continuing… | |
| banjoagbeanjoe on Signs of Hope – A continuing… |
worldbystorm2014ATgmailDOTcom
The Cedar Lounge Revolution
Thanks for putting this up, WbS.
LikeLike
Glad to help. And even more pleased to see the letters TD after each name.
LikeLike
Nice to see that the real left representation is growing. None of this mealy mouthed cap-in-hand stuff of Rabbitte and Adams.
All we need now is a a few TD’s from the CPI to put more fear into them.
By the way, Great site!
LikeLike
The February 25 General Election changed something in Ireland
LikeLike
New Harry Browne Counterpunch Article “Ireland’s Impotent New Government” (March 10)
http://www.counterpunch.org/browne03102011.html
Great analysis, stimulating wishful thinking!
LikeLike
It’s a good article and he at least foregrounds the necessity for mass action outside the Dáil chamber, at least that was my reading of the last paragraph, though I have to say this equation of ULA w/ independents is really starting to annoy me. It’s slightly insulting to the people who put in so much time and effort building TWAG, PBPA and the SP respectively.
LikeLike
Reading Meehan’s stuff I was struck by the tone of wishful thinking rather than analysis. The media coverage of the ULA has been excellent and the impression that there is finally a genuine left alternative is only to be welcomed. It may become a pole of attraction for progressives who genuinely want to provide an alternative to the standard ‘we are powerless – nothing we can do about the IMF/EU bailout’. But let’s not exaggerate the situation. The ULA is simply the previous SWP inspired ‘left unity’ attempts with the important ingredient of the high profile Joe Higgins and the Socialist Party. For years the SWP and others such as the ISN, John Meehan & Co attempted to form a unified socialist movement but the SP always rejected their overtures. Obviously the SP saw the potential of the publicity generated by the ULA in the run up to the election and finally agreed to the marriage. It has worked out well for all involved. I believe all 5 ULA TD’s would have been elected without the ULA but it has certainly generated huge media interest. The fear that the untrustworthy SWP would fuck things up as usual has receded because they are more than happy to be benefitting from the Joe Higgins inspired media spotlight.
As one of the contributors to this site has already said, the work begins now. The ULA must become a genuine alliance of progressive forces. As I’ve said, the ULA is currently only made up of the SWP/PbP/Healy/Bree group which has been in discussions for years, and the all important new ingredient, the SP. The ULA must attract a wider layer of activists and members. A good starting point would be to begin actively approaching those established on the left who are not currently involved. This will open the ULA to a wider audience. Whatever the reasons for not including the Workers Party, the ISN, the CPI, eirigi and any other unaligned activists like Pringle, Perry, O’Sullivan etc… the onus is on the ULA to undo this mistake. There are also over 100 Independent Councillors countrywide, some of them must be left wing. A bit of work would find this out reasonably quickly. Has the left finally grown up? The next couple of months will certainly tell.
LikeLike
Jesus, this crap again.
LikeLike
‘There are also over 100 Independent Councillors countrywide, some of them must be left wing’
That’s some pretty intensive research you’ve done there.
Also, yet again, because some people, i.e Marxy Mark seem delighted to pronounce opinions on things they know nothing about.
1. ISN – Canvassed for ULA candidates. Have yet to affiliate though there are no objections to this on ULA’s part.
2. Workers Party were invited but declined to do so.
3. CPI – Have no interest in joining. Read their paper. Also since they didn’t run candidates in the election it’s hard to know how they could participate in an electoral alliance.
4. Eírigí – Also expressed no interest in joining. Also, yet again, didn’t run candidates in the election it’s hard to know how they could participate in an electoral alliance.
5. Pringle and O’Sullivan have shown no interest in being involved in a broader left formation.
As for that long, uninformed spiel that preceded that you appear to be plucking your information out of nowhere.
It’s annoying to have to explain this over and over again but some people do love to vomit this crap as if they have a clue what they’re talking about.
LikeLike
I think it’s fair enough what Mark P and Budapestkick say above. Other formations have kept their distance for their own reasons (though some weren’t invited but D_D and in fairness Mark P have both given solid explanations as to why that might be). And like anything these things start from somewhere.
I’m not sure I agree the analysis that all 5 would have been elected without the ULA. Three yes. Four probably. Five? RBB? I’m not so sure. I have the feeling that every piece of extra assistance was essential.
LikeLike
As well as the fact that the ULA launch generated quite a bit of media coverage that wouldn’t have been there were it just three seperate groupings running.
LikeLike
“Vomit this crap”?
LikeLike
An action taken by someone who usually talks out of their arse, I would guess.
LikeLike
MM I value your contributions and indeed your writing in general, and agree with a lot of it despite the mischiev-making and aloofness. It would be helpful for all if you stuck to the one pseudonym.
LikeLike
I place rather less value on his contributions than you do, or perhaps I’m just less patient than you, but I agree that it would be preferable if he would stick to one pseudonym.
The meeting last night was good. There was a big crowd, some lively discussion and an interesting report from an Egyptian socialist. Good to have a chat with Messr. O’Flatharta too.
The Socialist Party handed out a leaflet about building the ULA, which I’ll post the text of.
LikeLike
[…] UnitedLeft Alliance post-election Rally: Why We Need A New Left Alternative […]
LikeLike
Hi,
can you please send me copies of this report? . Report : United Left Alliance Post-Election Rally in the Gresham Hotel, March 11 2011 « Tomás Ó Flatharta – March 12, 2011
kindly,
caleb thondhlana
researcher: South African parliament.
email: cthondhlana@parliament.gov.za
LikeLike
So is the plan to launch a new workers party or just to expand the existing ULA electoral bloc?
And related to this will there by any space to discuss tactics, strategy & programme or is the ULA platform going to be presented as a fait accompli?
LikeLike
“So is the plan to launch a new workers party or just to expand the existing ULA electoral bloc?”
Immediately the latter, moving towards the former.
“And related to this will there by any space to discuss tactics, strategy & programme or is the ULA platform going to be presented as a fait accompli?”
The former.
Don’t worry, Alan, you’ll get your chance to come to a conference, to expound the full programme of the International Bolshevik Tendency and to denounce everyone as reformists.
LikeLike
And so on ad infinitum.
LikeLike
Bigger bugs have smaller bugs upon their backs to bite ’em.
LikeLike
Mark
Please do not issue invits. You were not in the SLP where people like Alan (the IWG) abused democratic norms with not just full scale proposals which were turned down but had them as amendments to every other proposal so that they could bore everyone to death and alienate people form the SLP as well.
ULA has to be democratic but having inveterate sectarians will drive away people.
The tendency wars in the LP benefited the WP who had a simple way of dealing with tendencies.
ULA needs to bring on board the independents and those who worked on the campaign.My pojnt of view is that the election was to a large degree a litmus test.
No to carpetbagging irreformable sectarians.
LikeLike
Jim – I have no idea who the “IWG” is, I was certainly never I member of it. It is true however that I did participate in the SLP and was a leading member of the opposition to Scargill’s bureacratic manouvers.
This included being the chair of one of the main oppositional branches (Vauxhall) and standing as a candidate for the vice president at the 1997 conference where I got just under 1/3 of the delegates votes.
So perhaps the SLP membership did not see me as quite the disruptive “carpetbagger” Jim would have people believe.
Of course what Jim is really concerned about is the danger of any revolutionary alternative to his cosy social democratic reformism even being allowed to be presented at all.
As a general point I would argue vibrant culture of political discussion and debate (especially for minority views) is essential for the working class to achieve its self-emancipation.
I would therefore hope that the new party does not adopt the kind of bureaucratic approach advocated by Jim. If it does then it will kill the project from the beginning.
LikeLike
Two different SLP’s. Jim is, I think, referring to the Irish SLP of the late 70s and very early 1980s.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socialist_Labour_Party_%28Ireland%29
Re the IWG http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Irish_Workers_Group
LikeLike
Apologies – acronym confusion…
That being said my political points still stand
LikeLike
I have never posted on this blog before but have been involved in th ULA and am very interested in what is going to happen now, as so many others are. Joe Higgins said in media interviews after the election that there would be a new party launched. There is an opportunity now that should not be lost.
Secondly this party must be democratic and have the full expression of views, even (and especially) those who you disagree with. Jim Monaghan’s bad experiences with Alan in the past have to be got over. Or are we going to have somebody on the door -like Scargill did – blocking the entry of ‘left wing sectarians?’ Only ‘ordinary’ non-confrontational people can apply? I don’t think so comrades.
Incidentally Scargill refused to allow the Socialist Party to join the SLP also.
So please lets not have anymore of calling people’s views ‘vomit’. Lets have some more tolerance openness and democracy – and a comradely exchange of views.
LikeLike
OK Anne you worked for the ULA. So in my opinion you are welcome. (Not that it is my say). So are Socialist Democracy who just steered the right side of sectarianism.
Alan stated in no uncertain terms that he saw the ULA as a diversion from class politics. At least that was my understanding.Have chosen to be a Daniel De Leon, he should stay with it.Whatever about you, that means that he has no right to turn up at an ULA conference to preach.
I want a vibrant internal democracy.I have disagreements about say the national struggle with some in ULA. I think it is important. But I will not have a debate where start a debate in the sectarian manner.
Friendly debate where ritual denunciations are not tolerated.
A party which draws in class conscious workers, which is seen as being in the vanguard of every attempt at a fightback. So far this is what the ULA has been.
I thank the charter members, SWP, P, Tipp, Bree group et al for making this possible.
I am mindful of the failures.
Who remembers the Socialist Labour Alliance, The SLP ( and there was a Scottish formation as well as Scargills operation).( and by the way Alan what did you gain from entry into Scargills operation, I don’t think you learned much) These experiences left Irish Trotskyism with a dismal legacy and a reputation of “angels on needles” hairsplitters, arguing the toss on obscurantist issues while other got on with the real fight.Alas, a not totally unfair reputation.
The IWG (affiliated to Workers Power) behaved as a true sect abusing democratic norms. Every serious worker was alienated and regarded marxist debate as a time wasting exercise by incurable sectarians.The IBT has a similar reputation.
I can imagine a sequel where workers form Ballymun and Southhill wanting to discuss the ements of a fightback being totally turned off by abstract debates and ritual denounciations of everyone else by thses sectarians.
The Sparts, the IBT and the IWG are irreformable. They would only take an interest in ULA as a raiding operation.After destroying it the beneficiaries would be a stalinist formation which has no internal democracy and because of histories like this many workers would alas see this as a good thing.
I did not refer to anything as vomit.
LikeLike
“Every serious worker was alienated and regarded marxist debate as a time wasting exercise by incurable sectarians.The IBT has a similar reputation.”
Well if partaking in marxist debate is the definition of sectarianism then I am only too happy to be called a sectarian 🙂
Of course this is not the real or useful definition of sectarian – which is a refusal to do any political work around immediate issues with those who you disagree over strategic persepctives.
A prime example of this is indeed the Sparts but is clearly not the case with the IBT. And indeed this real type of sectarianism is not limited to groups on the far left of the spectrum, certainly my experience in Britain was that groups much closer to social democracy were well capable of being sectarian in their approach to united activity in defence of our class.
And on a personal note I can’t help but take umbrage at Jim’s repeated assertions that I am somehow unable to participate in united front or party building activity in defence of our class without putting people off. I stand on my concrete record in this regard and challenge him to back his claims up with any evidence.
I know that Jim thinks it is impossible to be an open revolutionary who makes criticisms of his/her reformist bloc partners without that wrecking the basis for unity.
But I think it is actually not only possible, but absolutely necessary, to create a political culture in the workers movement where divergent views on strategy can be debated while at the same time uniting in action over the immediate demands we agree on.
Further more I think it is the height of real sectarianism to attempt to politically exclude political opponents to your left from the debate over the programme of the proposed new workers party as Jim seems to want to do.
To their credit I think the SP will reject Jim’s sectarianism if the good working relations I have established with their comrades in Cork, despite my open political criticisms of their programme, are anything to go by.
LikeLike
Jim says “Alan stated in no uncertain terms that he saw the ULA as a diversion from class politics.”
Seems he has missed my point, though perhaps understandably.
To be clear, I think that the ULA is clearly a manifestation of class politics my criticism is to do with the ULA platform being a diversion from REVOLUTIONARY class politics as per http://www.bolshevik.org/Leaflets/2011IrishElection.html
To some extent Jim is not part of my target audience for this critique as he is fairly clearly a committed reformist and so isn’t interested in the question of whether subjective revolutionaries, like many in the SP, should be presenting a reformist platform or not.
LikeLike
Sorry I did not realise that it was a different SLP but I still think my main points still stand in terms of the attitude we should have. Hi Jim meet Alan! He like many of the rest of us on the left can be annoying and difficult but hey we all have our views!
LikeLike
Joe Higgins said in media interviews after the election that there would be a new party launched
So did the ULA election leaflet I got.
LikeLike
Just to clarify this:
Joe Higgins said in the media that the ULA would move towards setting up a new party. He also said that it would not happen tomorrow morning.
The situation was further outlined at the meeting. The next steps are to have a series of local meetings, a national activist meeting, attempt to set up local groups and build for a national convention to discuss structure, policies, etc. The longer term plan is to move towards the launch of a full blown party.
LikeLike
Hi ULA, meet the International Bolshevik Tendency, the ‘Weekly Worker’, Socialist Democracy and Shay Guevara Marx. 🙂
LikeLike
Talk of “vomiting crap” as a reply to an opinion you disagree with is up there with the worst kind of stalinist vitriol. (It also shows a very worrying fixation with bodily wastes, but I’ll leave that to the experts.) It’s not an original observation by any means, but some trotskyists have over the years taken on many characteristics of their stalinist opponents.
Another one of these is “the amalgam”. Everyone who is opposed to or critical of something is amalgamated as if they were the same. Trotsky disagrees with Stalin, Hitler disagrees with Stalin, therefore Trotsky and Hitler are the same – that kind of thing. Throwing me in with the International Bolshevik Tendency (which I’ve never heard of) the Weekly Worker (which I’ve avoided reading) and Socialist Democracy is an example of the amalgam trick.
So I think talk of comradely debate rather than idiotic name calling cuts both ways.
On another point, is Jim seriously saying that the ULA should only be open to people who joined it before the election? I’m sure they could get along just fine without a wretch like myself, but what about the rest of the population?
LikeLike
Actually Shay, I referred to Marxy Mark as ‘vomiting crap’ in relation primarily to the fact that, much like yourself, he clearly didn’t have a clue what he’s talking about.
He claimed, among other things, that ‘There are also over 100 Independent Councillors countrywide, some of them must be left wing.’ These are the words of a moron.
He asked why the Workers Party had not been invited to join the ULA. They have and declined. He asked why the CPI, who regard the ULA as ultra-leftist and who don’t contest elections weren’t invited etc. All this has been pointed out multiple times here yet, in that same endless repetition of ‘Why won’t you let every left group in the country, regardless of their size or whether there is any basis for political unity with them, or whether they actually have any interest in joining, sign up?’ MM repeats this nonsense over and over again. He is a moron. His words are crap. He vomits them though his mouth and into the world. You can claim it’s ‘stalinist’ to call a spade a spade if you want but the fact remains he is talking shite as well as using multiple identities to broadcast his crap here.
As for ‘comradely debate’ Shay, your record shows that you are not really interested in any such thing. Your first post here was to claim that the election strategy in Dublin Mid West, of running two candidates in order to boost their profiles for the local elections, was evidence of the ULA falling apart. It was moronic and showed you have little to no experience of elections and also that your idea of debate is limited to snide insinutations and accusing people of Stalinism when they point out that moronic contributions are moronic. Jim isn’t saying that the ULA should only be open to people who joined before, merely that he is opposed to sectarian ultra-left groups joining and turning people off. Unlike you Shay, Jim has a great deal of experience in activism and left-wing politics in this country and certainly anyone who was around for the train-wreck of the SLP would agree with him. Once again, you clearly didn’t bother reading what he had to say before typing out your ill-informed spiel. You have nothing positive to contribute. You are simply talking crap. Pointing this isn’t stalinism, just calling a spade a spade.
LikeLike
Perhaps people can continue to disagree politically or as regards to details along exactly the same lines but with a different tone?
LikeLike
It should be open to those who are serious about building a real fighting org. Obviously there are people similar to the activists who canvassed and orgs. (eg Eirigi) who I think could and should be attrated and coaxed into it. But died in the wool sectarians who denounced the project are in my opinion just out to raid and waste the promise of ULA.I regard teh elction as basically a litmus test. In real life this is not an absolute and there would be people who should have been in but for various reasons were not.As well as that as struggles break out ULA will reach out to those who want to fight and should/will welcome them in. I would think that having an in from the first day sort of criterion would be a touch elitist.
I aggre in general about amalgams. But the IBT/Sparts/IWG are just a nuisance. The only ones worse in the Trotskyist tradition are the various Healyite groupings.
LikeLike
Sorry Shay Guevara, it was me who made you into an alamgam. I did not intend to associate you with the others or they with each other except in this way – that you will all be critical and very critical of the ULA and may take up some time with that criticism. I was being lighthearted about the amalgamated fun you will all bring to ULA conferences if you come. I did not mean to insult anybody.
As I said before I agree with quite a lot of what Shay G says and with his critique and interrogation of the practice of the left. At this particular time it might be better for critics not to kick at the faultlines of the left too much and let sleeping dogs lie (and whatever similar simile you’re having yourself).
LikeLike
I believe this line that the WP were invited and declined is disingenuous. The WP discussed the ULA project with it’s founders after it was launched, they were, to my knowledge, offered to hitch their wagon to the train but no geniune input into the organisation. The WP are the closest thing to direct desendents to the indigenious radical tradition we have is this country and as such would be in my view an essential component to the building of any mass radical working class movement.
LikeLike
“The WP are the closest thing to direct desendents to the indigenious radical tradition ”
I would disagree. They are still stained by their anti-republicanism and stalinism in my humble opinion.
Saying that I would not have a problem with a United Front with them in say the locals.
LikeLike
‘The WP discussed the ULA project with it’s founders after it was launched, they were, to my knowledge, offered to hitch their wagon to the train but no geniune input into the organisation’
A strange reading of events. The WP were invited to join after the initial talks and the drawing up of the minimum programme had already occurred. Since the minimum programme had already been agreed to as the basis for joining the ULA, it wasn’t going to be changed before the election. However to claim that they were ‘offered to hitch their wagon to the train but have no genuine input into the organisation’ is, frankly, not true, and more than a bit annoying to read. The WP would have had the same rights as any other constituent organisation to discuss and decide strategy, programme etc. after the election (the WP were discussing affiliation around January / February, so there weren’t going to be any programmatic changes before the election). From my understanding of it, the Workers Party were annoyed at not being involved in the original talks, but in my opinion this shouldn’t have prevented them coming on board and contributing afterwards. I know for instance that their Cork branches were in favour of joining the ULA.
‘The WP are the closest thing to direct desendents to the indigenious radical tradition we have is this country and as such would be in my view an essential component to the building of any mass radical working class movement.’
As to ‘direct descendents to the indigenous radical tradition’, I don’t really know where to begin. As interesting as the WP ideology of descent from Tone through Lalor to the present day is, it’s really quite meaningless in any concrete sense. It’s also full of holes when subjected to any serious scrutiny, like Fine Gael’s ‘descent’ from Collins or Fianna Fáil’s ‘descent’ from Liam Lynch. But regardless, you claim that being inheritors to a vaguely defined indigenous radical tradition is the reason that they are an essential component to the building of any mass radical working-class movement. I would regard the WP as an important component (though not essential) in any such movement due to the quality and experience of their activists. Frankly, being the ‘heirs of an indigenous radical tradition’ doesn’t really cut much mustard when it comes to the day to day struggles of working-class people.
My personal feeling is that the WP will eventually join the ULA, simply because there isn’t really anywhere else for them to go. Their election results https://cedarlounge.wordpress.com/2011/02/28/the-left-vote-totals-and-a-few-other-stats/ and my own experience with them suggests to me an ageing organisation that is struggling to grow either in terms of support or membership. I say all this in a fraternal manner, I would like to see the WP involved for the reasons I outlined above, but again this is based on the quality of their activists not the lineage they claim.
LikeLike
The left cooperation electoral initiative I’m most interested in at this point of time is the question of what can be done to bolster the left presence in political life in Northern Ireland for the Assembly and local elections in May. At the minimum, vote transfer agreements; and with luck, some more organised form of cooperation, whether that is agreeing to support the candidates of another party where you are not standing or a formal alliance or whatever.
So I’m not really interested in getting into a discussion of events regarding the ULA and WP before the last southern election, especially when they were discussed at the time. However, just to note that what I think what is going on in, say, PSF or the SP or PBP or what any of us thinks is going on inside another organisation and motivating its decisions (whether we suspect it’s pique, or opportunism, or personalities or whatever) isn’t necessarily the case.
LikeLike
Don’t think that is correct concerning Cork branches. As for the Stalinist and anti-secterian murder gang stuff, please build a bridge and get over E Harris works for the Sindo now.
LikeLike
It may be unfortunate and even unfair that the WP were asked to join after the ULA was launched but the offer was made, calmly considered and refused without rancour. As far as I am aware.
The PBPA met Thomas Pringle in May and during a very cordial discussion with this admirable activist he stated firmly that he had given his supporters an undertaking that he would not join any organisation or party.
I see no reason why both the WP and Thomas Pringle (TD!!!), and others on the left too, cannot maintain good relations with the ULA and draw closer over time.
LikeLike
D_D, such trivialities as the facts of the issue are unlikely to deter some of the ULA’s more determined critics.
People who go to the bother of entering these discussions under a succession of different pseudonyms are particularly unlikely to be convinced by any amount of explanation or reasoned argument, for instance.
LikeLike
Mark P, sorry if I was repeating arguments previously discussed on this site. I’m not a very regular viewer of the site and missed the previous debate. Knowing the left I would be afraid that they would be happy with a closed shop to keep control. Your later comments appear to indicate that the ULA are going to look to the various leftists and individuals for support and more importantly, the general public. Budapestkick, Point taken on the ISN and WP. I was not aware that discussions with some of the groups I had mentioned had taken place. I do disagree with your view that others must “show interest” in the ULA before you will talk to them. I think the ULA should be proactive on this. In the case of Pringle and O’Sullivan, I think both their political backgrounds would make them attractive targets. Anyway, best of luck with the ULA.
D_D, I think you are assuming I am someone else. I contributed to another debate on this site quite a while ago using another pseudonym which I cannot remember! I was a regular reader but due to only having access to the internet in work have not been able to continue.
LikeLike
Yes, I thought Shay Guevara and Marxy Marx were the same person. Sorry if this is not the case. So many similar voices. Maybe we could all form a tendency and I could be your moderating wing and propose the slogan ‘give peace a chance’.
LikeLike
http://www.wsws.org/articles/2010/dec2010/rabi-d02.shtml Have you read any of his stuff?
More I am afraid I have to use the term vomit here.
Jim M
LikeLike
Rabinowitz, in my opinion, is probably one of the best scholars of the Russian Revolution. ‘The Bolsheviks comes to Power’ and its sequel are brilliantly written, comprehensively researched and utterly destroy the ‘continuity thesis’ of Robert Service and co. If anyone asks me what books to read on the Russian revolution, alongside the classics (Trotsky’s first hand history of the russian revolution, Carr’s trilogy, Deutscher, John Reed etc.) I always recommend them Rabinowicz as well as Kevin Murphy’s account of the revolution and counter-revolution as seen from one important factory: http://www.amazon.co.uk/Revolution-Counterrevolution-Struggle-Moscow-Factory/dp/1931859507/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1300035666&sr=8-1
He’s far from being a Marxist or a revolutionary but he is, unlike Conquest or Service, a competent historian.
LikeLike
I can only echo Budapestkick’s recommendation of Rabinowitz’s research on the Russian Revolution.
The fact that this presentation by Rabinowitz makes Jim feel like vomitting perhaps tells us more about Jim’s political appetites than it does about the accuracy of Rabinowitz’s research.
LikeLike
What about Voline’s “The Unknown Revolution”,passionate,polemical and partisan?
LikeLike
Haven’t read it Fergal though it’s definetely going on my ‘to read’ list. I also forgot to include Victor Serge’s ‘Year One of the Russian Revolution’
LikeLike
Jim,
I think that perhaps you are taking too generic a view of the problem Spartoid groups present. A group like the Irish Workers Group could be very disruptive in the Socialist Labour Party because it had a certain size and organisational strength and because it had a project of raiding the SLP for recruits.
There are certainly people with similarly Spartoid politics in Ireland today, but they (a) tend to be individuals rather than real groups and (b) tend to be surprisingly reasonable on a personal basis. The IBT and the successor “group” to the Irish Workers Group, for instance, each consist of one quite personable man. And both of them do actually do some work for the campaigns they get involved in as well as doing the predictable denouncing.
The World Socialist Website people you link to above would certainly prove more of a pain in the balls but they aren’t actually in Ireland (they pay an occasional visit from London for big demonstrations, just one of the many joys of cheap air travel).
Basically, what I’m saying is that the situation is quite different to that of the old SLP in this regard and you shouldn’t get too fond of the old bans and proscriptions when they don’t serve a useful purpose. Better to have one loose cannon making an occasional boilerplate intervention than to set up barriers to involvement.
LikeLike
“Better to have one loose cannon making an occasional boilerplate intervention than to set up barriers to involvement.”
I can’t help but point out that virtually everyone else involved in this process will be making interventions that are just as much “boilerplate” as mine (in fact my years of experience will generally mean that mine will tend to be less like that than that of some of the newer supporters of other political persuasions) – the actual difference is over the political content of the “boilerplate” being used.
LikeLike
Loose cannons I can cope with. On a footnote the IWG had 3 people. The SWP which was far bigger was their target. There was an awful meeting of the SWT (the SWP as was in the SLP) which the IWG insisted on attending on the pretext that they agreed with their document. They disrupted the SWP, no doubt to the delight of those who hated the SWT.
An awful sect.
the problem is how to have an open, democratic, fighting organisation that does not attract every nutcase and sectarian.Some can be coped with.
I have a fear of the first ULA conference.
Autumn 2011.
Attendance Sat morning 190 delegates from across Ireland.
Many resolutions.
Sectarians speak as is their right to every resolution including their own and have amendments to every resolution.
Every attempt to restrict or control their abuse of procedures is denounced.
Lunch Sat.
Conference reconvenes.
Attendance now a 100.
Interminable debates. Charter organisations denounced as sell outs.
By 5-00 pm conference down to 75.
Reconvene Sunday morning
attendance 40
You can see where I am going.
I am against bans and proscriptions but an organisation has a right to protect itself and have a minimum loyalty test for members.(At least that they sign up to some minimum).
The SP and SWP are tighter with tighter rules than would be the case with ULA but some rules are needed.And these sectarians who would expel from their own ranks for scintilla of difference, will cry Stalinism and authoritarianism at the slightest effort to defend the rights of the vast majority.
Have no doubt the raiders see ULA as prey. They will see gaining 2/3 or more from its wreckage as worth it.
LikeLike
Jim, I just think that your fear doesn’t really take into account the actual nature of the fringe of the far left fringe in Ireland these days. Alan and his opposite number in whatever the IWG is currently called aren’t going to behave like that because it would be counterproductive to be tossed out for acting the maggot.
I’ve been to meetings with both of them. They’ve never been disruptive or attempted to domineer in the manner of the actual Sparts or the old IWG. If they speak they do so once, say their bit and sit down. The opinions expressed may be a bit on the exotic side, but certainly less so than some of the opinions expressed by politically unaffiliated nutcases who turn up at public meetings.
If this was Ireland in the 1970s or London right now, I might well share your concern. But in Ireland right now the closest thing we have to an actual hardened Spartoid group is Socialist Democracy, and while I’m less than fond of them, I can’t see them trying to run the kind of cynical raiding operation you describe. Particularly as they only seem to have two people in the South anyway.
I agree that organisations have a right to protect themselves against deliberately disruptive elements, but I don’t think that there’s too much reason to be paranoid on the front. And in fact I think that too much paranoia on the front would be counterproductive. Something as basic as a rule allowing each branch, affiliate, or small ad hoc group of members a limited number of motions/amendments, or for that matter a competent standing orders committee which rules out duplicate motions/amendments, would remove most of the potential difficulty you describe.
I would actually suggest that there are much more likely sources of serious disruption. The entrance of an organisation determined to turn every discussion into a debate on the national question for example. Or one of the founding organisations having a sudden political lurch.
LikeLike
Can we avoid the word vomit. It’s colourful, but it doesn’t add anything to a discussion or the tone of it. Accurate, inaccurate, offensive, whatever, those are all terms that are better I think.
And this is a good discussion with a lot of interesting contributions from a variety of positions.
Actually I’ll amend that to interesting contributions from everyone involved and from a variety of positions.
LikeLike
Jim you need to relax about it. I have seen plenty of unity projects – too many – fail but it has never been because of the ‘sectarian lefts’ but because of bans and proscriptions by the leadership or sectarianism on their part i.e. when the SWP in Britain prioritised its own organisation in the anti-war movement and effectively ran down the Socialist Alliance.
I obviously think that Alan was wrong not to join the ULA and have made it clear to him continuously just how ridiculous to was to wait and see how a project develops rather than get involved in it from the beginning. But it seems he has learned his lesson and that he on the left will now join – along with others who were never involved in politics before. The debates we had in Cork meetings showed that there was an appetite for ideas among the working class. That does mean debating out what we are for and not just going for the lowest common denominator and long speeches from the platform. Nothing is so boring.
If the movement is real it will have all sorts of differences in it. Many of my fiercest arguments are with friends who are not at the moment members of any organisation. If the ULA gets started and they join – and I am encouraging them to come to the meeting in Cork on Wednesday – I doubt that they will keep their mouths shut. If the working class is to become the future ruling class it will have to deal democratically with all sorts of different ideas and awkward individuals – as well as many other problems including deal with the ruling class.
We will destroy that project if we impose bans and proscriptions.
Anne
LikeLike
Anne,
I think that there is a balance to be reached on this issue.
Jim is correct that an organisation does have a right to protect itself from cynical, disruptive, raiding expeditions by hardened groups of Spartoids. However, I think he’s wrong to believe that there are likely to be such problems in the context of the Irish left at the moment and wrong to assume that every ultra-left is going to behave like a destructive maniac. Some of them have the brains to play a longer game.
The British Socialist Labour Party is an example of a project which quite literally was destroyed by madly enthusiastic bans and proscriptions, with the leadership expelling everyone else bit by bit, until there was only the leadership left. At which stage they started expelling each other.
The Irish Socialist Labour Party is an example of a project which was in many ways a sectarian free for all, with wild eyed sectarians dominating much of the internal life, waging eternal war against each other, squabbling, denouncing everyone and boring everyone by turns until there was almost nobody else left. It’s a party which could have done with a few bans and proscriptions.
LikeLike
Agreed. I really can’t see Alan causing the ULA to implode.
LikeLike
Agree with all three of you Anne, Mark P, Budapestkick. It’s interesting to reflect on how the tenor of the interactions has improved significantly over the past few years. D_D had some ideas, but anyone else have any thoughts on that phenomenon and how and why it has come about?
LikeLike
Actually my aim isn’t to make the ULA implode but rather to participate in the process of discussion and debate towards the creation of a new workers’ party so that it takes on a revolutionary programme – without which it will remain at best a very blunt instrument for the working class in the battle to transform society.
Of course if you perceive of the ULA as never going beyond being a reformist project then perhaps it is fair to say that I would like it to “implode” – through that reformism being consigned to political insignificance by the revolutionary politics our class needs becoming the dominant tendency within the workers’ movement.
But surely the “revolutionary socialists” of the SP also share that desire to see the reformist platform of the ULA also “implode” and be replaced by revolutionary politics…
LikeLike
I am not for bans and proscriptions. In most cases these just give grist to the mill. But I think it is legitimate to question the involvement of people at conferences who have not supported the founding event of the project and who do not hide their contempt for the organisations who did the initial groundwork.
The ISN worked for ULA so as far as I can see are welcome. But their statement on the elections left a lot to be desired.
Perhaps those who want to participate should say they were wrong not to canvas.I am not worried about those who because of the many false starts stood aside and now see that this has real possibilities but those for whom attending is just to preach a sectarian message.A minimum ( and this is impossible to judge with clever sectarians) would be to recognise that the project is a genuine revolutionary socialist project and not just a reformist scam set up to delude the workers and steer them away from whatever sect who regard themselves as the apostolic succession of Marx, Englels (pick your favourites here).
maybe I am too jaundiced, but do I see the bold Mervyn lurking in the sidelines.Modern day Oehlers and De Leons
I see ULA as quite fragile, the Labour Party would love to see it implode. Minor disagreements that could be sorted by dialogue will be magnified esp. by the hostile press.Opportunists will try their luck. Look at the operation the Labour Party did to deprive Seamus Healy of his seat last time out.
Steady as she goes.
LikeLike
Of course my decision not to support the reformist ULA electoral platform will be questioned, as at first glance it would seem in contradiction with participating in the process towards a new workers’ party initiated by the constituents of that self-same electoral bloc.
I think I can answer those questions in a principled and coherent way based on a consistent commitment to the furthering of a revolutionary programme (as I understand it).
I assessed the electoral platform of the ULA on its own merits and my opinion was that supporting it would not point in the direction required for the Irish workers’ movement, either in the short-term response to the immediate attacks or in the longer-term project towards socialism.
As I understand it the process for coming up with the programme of the new workers’ party is not going to simply be a presentation of that reformist platform as a bureaucratic fait accompli but will be a real democratic process of discussion and debate.
That discussion and debate will no doubt include a range of views across the revolutionary to reformist spectrum. I defend my right to put forward my views on what the programme for a workers’ party that really fights for the interests of working people should be – just as I would defend Jim’s right to do so.
Jim actually might well find that his own view that the ULA’s reformist electoral platform was part of “a genuine revolutionary socialist project” is viewed with some horror by those involved in the new workers’ party project who are genuinely committed supporters of reformist socialism.
LikeLike
This is turning out to be awful exclusive altogether. It seems Jim wants to (possibly) exclude:
1. Those who weren’t at the ULA founding event (a week or two after the ULA was announced out of the blue)
2. Those who have profound criticisms of the SP and PBPA
3. Those who don’t stand up and publicly denounce their non-involvement in canvassing
That’s a helluva lot of hoops to jump through. For example, while ISN members may have canvassed for ULA candidates, as an organisation they didn’t support the ULA, and definitely have major problems with the groups that set it up. How will they pass this test of purity? You might well want to keep someone like me out, but I think you would want them in.
I think Jim has a point about groups on raiding missions. I was in the Socialist Alliance in England, and they were a pain, although they could just be safely ignored when the thing was functioning properly. A bigger problem was internal raiding missions, when members of a certain party in the Alliance turned up to pack a meeting and then disappeared again. That kind of behaviour encourages “contempt” for them, and the ULA will have to guard against it.
LikeLike
“1. Those who weren’t at the ULA founding event (a week or two after the ULA was announced out of the blue)
2. Those who have profound criticisms of the SP and PBPA
3. Those who don’t stand up and publicly denounce their non-involvement in canvassing”
1 is irrelevant in my view
2 Not a problem in my view. I have disagreements with teh SWP and SP. They have with each other.
3. Don’t see need for maoist type mea culpas. But if you have not reconsidered abstention from the campaign and see no need too, then I must question why you are interested in ULA. Alan regards it as a reformist “it would not point in the direction required for the Irish workers’ movement, either in the short-term response to the immediate attacks or in the longer-term project towards socialism.”
so an engagement by him would be in an organisation which is useless at best or a diversion at worst. He has not reconsidered so I quite frankly regard it as dishonest to come to an ULA gathering. I see his only purpose as denouncing it and whatever.
I regard ULA as not being in a finished thing. But a necessary first step in creating the beginnings of a fighting organisation.Life does not permit the creation of perfect organisations with perfect programmes out of thin air.
At this election, ULA warts and all, was where it was at. I have no problem with others coming on board (not my say anyway) but surely honesty and far dealing demands that people say whether they agree that it was a good thing and that it should be developed. Ig you are like Alan and still hold to what I have quoted then you are attending not to help build the project.
LikeLike
Jim – I am actually being completely honest and consistent.
I did not attend any ULA gatherings during the election as I did not want to support a programme I considered to be completely deficient for the tasks confronting the working class.
However we now have something new being proposed which is quite different from an electoral pact – the creation of a new workers party.
If the new party project was going to require support for the ULA’s reformist election platform as a precondition then I would not be interested in participating as it would indeed be disingenuous. But by all accounts that is not the case if Mark P’s comments on this blog are accurate.
Our difference is really over what “the project” is about. You seem to think that it is continuing the ULA on the political basis of the reformist electoral pact. I think it is a process of discussion and debate about the programme of a new party able to really fight for the interests of the working class.
LikeLike
This is me – just been playing around on wordpress and forgot to log out
LikeLike
“The ISN worked for ULA so as far as I can see are welcome. But their statement on the elections left a lot to be desired.”
Jim, the ISN didn’t issue any agreed statement on the elections. Members went and canvassed for the radical-left candidates nearest to where they lived (Joan Collins and Cieran Perry). Usually the only people who pay attention to the statements issued by small left-wing groups on elections are other small left-wing groups so there’s something a bit ridiculous about such statements. So again, it would be impossible for the ISN statement to leave anything to be desired because there was no statement.
LikeLike
Sorry, WBS or any of the other editors, could you delete the last comment by me, it’s inaccurate – I hadn’t actually seen that there was a statement put up on CLR giving the ISN position (too busy canvassing!).
LikeLike
Mark P you said before that there is an SP leaflet with the position set out as regards what should happen with the ULA. Can you post the leaflet here? And is there a national meeting to discuss the future of the UlA?
LikeLike
It’s a long leaflet Anne.
I’ll see if it’s going to appear on the Socialist Party website over the next day or two before typing it out! Remember also, that it’s a Socialist Party leaflet, not a United Left Alliance one and so reflects the views of the SP rather than any official decisions of the ULA.
At the meeting, it was stated from the platform that short term plans involve a meeting between the constituent organisations, a round of local meetings and a national activists meeting. I’m not sure if the activist meeting or the round of local meetings is scheduled to come first. The intention is to build for a national convention after that.
LikeLike
The text of the leaflet is up on the Socialist Party site:
http://www.socialistparty.net/comment/612-ula-historic-breakthrough-now-build-a-socialist-opposition
LikeLike
“The ISN worked for ULA so as far as I can see are welcome. But their statement on the elections left a lot to be desired.”
Maybe if you were in the ISN it would have been different.
LikeLike
John
I am referring to the statement. I like some of what the ISN do (actually a lot).
I only see myself as at most a footsoldier in ULA. Anything narrower I feel is in appropriate in the current circumstances. The model adopted by too many groups is the over centralised myth of Bolshevism, more the practice of Stalin than what Lenin actually had.Aside from some of the program of the SWP and SP and SD, I would think that they are far too one voice orgs. A friend of mine thinks that the expelled would be the biggest group.This would include one of the few intellectuals around the place who writes in Irish.
For what it is worth I think the ISN is a serious group of people. Well worth engaging with, I don’t think the same of the real sects.
LikeLike
Your friend has a vivid imagination, Jim.
The Socialist Party has an almost pathological aversion to expelling people. It certainly hasn’t expelled anyone in the last two decades and as far as I know didn’t do so before then either. Despite the fact that on more than one occasion it probably should have done.
LikeLike
A newly recruited member was booted out of the Militant in the early 1980’s somewhere in the North for scabbing on a strike.
Jack O’Connor would have been kicked out if he hadn’t left of his own accord.
LikeLike
Public Meeting this Wed 730pm Metropole Hotel, Cork
‘How to build a Socialist Opposition’
Speakers: Joe Higgins TD and Clare Daly TD
LikeLike
saw the posters for that around Cork over the last few days. No mention of ULA anywhere.
LikeLike
It’s a Socialist Party meeting, not a ULA meeting.
LikeLike
“He claimed, among other things, that ‘There are also over 100 Independent Councillors countrywide, some of them must be left wing.’ These are the words of a moron”
“He is a moron. His words are crap. He vomits them though his mouth and into the world.”
Budapestkick, you really are a EDITED. Looks like I got the measure of the ULA spot on. A closed leftie shop to keep control. The point I was making about the independent councillors was that there was a group countrywide which could be targeted. If the ULA were serious about expanding they would be looking at this. As I said earlier “The ULA is simply the previous SWP inspired ‘left unity’ attempts with the important ingredient of the high profile Joe Higgins and the Socialist Party”. There is potential with the ULA but they will have to offload the bitter EDITED like Budapestkick. It’s almost enjoyable to watch the nutcases on the outside demanding the rejection of the reformist sellout anti worker pro imperialist ULA and to have some inside the ULA demanding that others be banned from joining or sign a pledge of faith in blood. I might even join (if Jim lets me) just to see the look on the faces of the ordinary members when all this leftie shite starts. In spite of EDITED I really do wish the ULA well.
PEOPLE HAD ALREADY BEEN ASKED TO KEEP THEIR TONE WITHIN THE RULES OF THE SITE, AND SO THE UNUSUAL STEP OF EDITING THIS COMMENT HAS BEEN TAKEN. HOPEFULLY THERE WILL BE NO NEED FOR ANY FURTHER EDITING OR WHATEVER ON THIS THREAD. GARIBALDY
LikeLike
No Marxy, under neither this identity nor any of your others do you wish the ULA well.
Budapestkick is normally one of the more measured commenters on this site (something few people would accuse me of), but your persistent trolling would try the patience of a saint.
Your remark about there being 100 independent councillors, “some of them must be left wing”, was particularly silly. Did you really think that nobody had ever thought of that before and that there’s some hidden treasure chest of secret socialist councillors buried under some rock?
The People Before Profit Alliance trawled the country for a period of years looking for left wing independent councillors. They found a small number of ones with varying degrees of left politics. The only one who was seriously interested in any kind of radical left alliance or party was Declan Bree, who is of course already involved in the United Left Alliance. The other three possibilities they were found were Chris Leary (joined Sinn Fein), Catherine Connolly (not interested) and Thomas Pringle (not interested). Perhaps more radical than any of these three is Cieran Perry, who I’d certainly like to see join the ULA, but who hasn’t given the slightest indication that he would consider doing so.
There is no “group countrywide who could be targeted”. There are a little over 20 council positions held by leftists in the state. 19 of them are held by people already involved in the ULA.
LikeLike
Marxy, do you really think your helping your case with a comment like that one?
LikeLike
Also as I once remarked:
EDITED EDITED EDITED EDITED EDITED EDITED EDITED EDITED EDITED EDITED EDITED EDITED EDITED EDITED EDITED EDITED EDITED four gsllons of strawberry milk EDITED EDITED EDITED EDITED EDITED EDITED EDITED EDITED EDITED and that’s why I’m banned from the funeral home.
LikeLike
All I ask for is commitment to the ULA as a criterion. I don’t want raiders or inveterate sectarians, just people who want to fightback and work fraternally on a program and who genuinely leave cynicism and backbiting behind.I definitely don’t want those who believe they are the chosen successors of Marx etc. and who live in a delusion of greatness.
LikeLike
I know at this stage I’m probably wasting my time but I feel obliged to make my point. The abuse I got for simply asking a couple of questions regarding the formation of the ULA would cause me to question why is the ULA (or those on this site representing it) so defensive about it’s formation if there is nothing to hide?
MarkP, I don’t know who you think I am but your wrong. Your also wrong about my views on the ULA. I do wish them well. I don’t have much time for the main constituent elements, the SWP and the SP. Like most on the left I’ve seen too much of the SWP in action, putting themselves before the campaigns and as an ex-shinner I disagree with the pro loyalist views of the SP. The reason I wish the ULA well is that they may offer a pole of attraction for people looking for a genuine radical alternative. If the ULA manages to expand from it’s tiny trot base it could become a significant force in the future. This is a big if. This was the point I was making in the post which offended you and your clown friend.
As an observer of the left for years I fear that the trot base will sacrifice expansion for central control. I sincerely hope not. The original points I made about the closed shop formation of the ULA appear to be true. Leaving aside the likes of Pringle, O’Sullivan and Perry, the fact that the ISN, Eirigi and the Workers Party were not invited to become involved raises serious questions for the future. All three organizations have a proven record of non sectarianism when it comes to working with other groups. The ISN in particular have always pushed left unity but for some reason were not asked to join the initial ULA. Why were none of these organizations asked to join in the beginning?
If the ULA don’t provide the radical alternative Sinn Fein will become the pole of attraction for those wanting change in society. As we can see from their actions in the 6 counties SF are not radical and will eventually disillusion those wanting change. This can only embolden those who claim that there is no alternative to the austerity measures agreed by all the major parties.
LikeLike
There is something uniquely pointless about trying to have a discussion with someone who both insists on using multiple names and, more importantly, insists on asking the same questions over and over again as if they hadn’t been repeatedly answered in some detail.
It has been explained to you repeatedly that the process which led to the formation of the ULA came after a prolonged, failed, attempt along the lines of the one you apparently advocate. Groups and grouplets assembled together, regardless of how compatible their views are and regardless of what they represent, talking endlessly at each other about the glories of unity. The key difference between that approach and the approach taken towards founding the ULA – where three groups with broadly compatible outlooks, representing the overwhelming majority of candidates on the socialist left got together for much more focused discussions – is that the ULA approach actually got somewhere.
This has been explained to you, over and over again and yet you keep returning to the same idiotic question.
There is nothing to stop any other group from seeking to get involved in the ULA, if it thinks that it can work with the others already involved, if it will accept the minimum programme, and if it actually wants to. There is no indication that the Workers Party (who were in fact asked to join, after the initial launch) wants to get involved. The Irish Socialist Network canvassed for the ULA (and Cieran Perry).
There is also no indication that Eirigi want to be involved, or that they see the ULA’s approach as compatible with their politics or strategy in the first place. If for instance they share your cretinously stupid opinion that the Socialist Party is “pro-Loyalist”, then it would be hard to see why they would want to be in a political alliance with us.
Show some principle, Marxy. Why would you want anything to do with us “pro-Loyalists” (the SP) and incorrigable sectarians (the SWP) in the first place? You should stop wasting your time obsessing about us on the internet, and instead feel free to go start your own better political movement or alliance. No doubt everyone will soon see the superiority of your politics and approach in action.
LikeLike
“This has been explained to you, over and over again and yet you keep returning to the same idiotic question.”
I have no time for the abuse Marky Mark has resorted to, or anyone else. But it is also annoying to read sentences like the above.
This is meant to be a discussion not a question and answer session. It’s as if certain people want their answers to just be accepted as definitive and not questioned further or disagreed with – I have explained your error to you, now go forth and sin no more! I think it’s an unhelpful attitude to say the least.
LikeLike
To be asked the same question over and over again is irritating, Jeremy Paxman and Vincent Browne use that method for a reason you know although generally it’s because the interviewer refuses to give a straight answer.
In the case or Mr Mark it’s quite clear he has an idée fixe that the manner of the ULA formation was actually a stitch up to allow the evil SP and SWP bureaucracies to exercise central control. Quite how this squares with the fact that the ULA has no central leadership, where decisions are reached by consensus of the various groups, where each group is free to put forward its own material and ideas in campaigns I don’t know. No amount of reasonable rebuttal is going to change his view. In effect what we have here is a troll of a very particular type http://www.politicsforum.org/images/flame_warriors/flame_62.php
LikeLike
Shay,
It is not a discussion if someone asks a question and then when it is answered simply repeats the question as if no answer has been proffered. That’s entirely dishonest – almost as dishonest as the habit certain people have of posting to these discussions under multiple names.
You are under no obligation to accept the validity of an answer given in the course of a discussion. You can dispute, argue against it, engage with it. But to simply ignore the fact that your question has been repeated answered and post it again and again as if it was a new question is either deeply dishonest or deeply stupid.
LikeLike
Shay Guevara says “I have no time for the abuse Marky Mark has resorted to” – we can all agree on that, as most of us trust the editors’judgement and did not have to read the content!
LikeLike
Have people seen Daniel Finn in the last-but-one London Review of Books?
LikeLike
No. Does he say anything of interest?
(The LRB site is paywalled).
LikeLike
http://newleftreview.org/?page=article&view=2876
LikeLike
Not the same article, I don’t think, but interesting anyway.
LikeLike
How weird.
I can see the whole article, but I’m not logged in to the site.
Mind you, there’s a little note at the top of the screen saying “Your access is being provided by College of the North Atlantic – Qatar”.
But I’m in a primary school in Santander.
LikeLike
I signed up to their 24 hour free access thing, although this means that they’re going to start spamming me. It’s a good piece, and has some witty and accurate things to say about the Irish political parties (Fine Gael in particular).
On a very slightly related note, in so far as we’re talking about surveys of Ireland, I see that, sadly, Peter Lennon, who made the amazing documentary The Rocky Road to Dublin has just died.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/film/filmblog/2011/mar/21/peter-lennon-rocky-road-dublin?CMP=twt_fd
LikeLike
I haven’t read the London Review of Books essay yet but I thought the New Left Review piece was excellent. He’s not saying anything that hasn’t been said before but it’s clear, articulate, sharp and concise, though I think he’s overly pessimistic in relation to NI.
Also, that quote from Lemass re: Labour really hits the nail on the head. ‘As harmless a body of men as ever graced parliament’
LikeLike
This may be of interest:
http://www.paulmurphymep.eu/
Paul Murphy has been selected to replace Joe Higgins as Socialist Party (and United Left Alliance) MEP for Dublin.
In addition, I understand that most of the council vacancies created by the election of ULA councillors to the Dail have also been filled.
Eugene Coppinger, an activist in the Swords branch of the Socialist Party, has been coopted onto Fingal County Council in place of Clare Daly.
Melisa Halpin, a long standing SWP activist, has been coopted to Dun Laoghaire Rathdown County Council in place of Richard Boyd Barrett.
Pat Dunne, an activist in the Campaign for an Independent Left and People Before Profit, has been coopted to Dublin City Council in place of Joan Collins.
As far as I can gather, the vacancies on South Tipperary Council and Clonmel Town Council created by the election of Seamus Healy to the Dail have not yet been filled.
LikeLike
MarkP, it may come as a surprise to you (I suspect not) but a lot of people on the left see the SP as being pro loyalist and the SWP as constantly using campaigns as simply a recruiting tool. I’m sure this was also your view of the SWP before your latest marriage made in heaven. I have to admit it is really funny to hear the SP defending the SWP.
Simply repeating the mantra that the formation of the ULA was an open process doesn’t equal “answering the questions in some detail “. Actually, your evasive replies raises even more suspicions.
If you are really truthful you would admit that the reason the previous “prolonged, failed, attempt” at left unity failed was because the SP refused to support it. If I remember correctly the SP released a statement on the process. “Groups and grouplets assembled together, regardless of how compatible their views are and regardless of what they represent, talking endlessly at each other about the glories of unity.” Who are you referring to? How many groups were involved who aren’t involved in the ULA.
I know that the ISN canvassed for the ULA and that the Workers Party were asked to join later but the question remains why were neither of these groups asked to join the original ULA? Are either of these the “groups or grouplets” you refer to?
I believe the answer to that question will be an indication of the future of the ULA. If there is an acknowledgement, even privately, that the exclusive nature of the formation of the ULA was a mistake, there is potential in the future. If this mistake isn’t recognised then there will be problems.
Hopefully my comments meet your approval and are not too cretinously stupid.
LikeLike
Marxy,
As you are no doubt aware, the process I was referring to was the one convened by the Irish Socialist Network and which involved representatives of just about every group or grouplet you can think of. It failed, not because of the Socialist Party’s attitude but because that entire approach was a waste of everybody’s time. Everyone talked on and on about unity in the abstract and no progress of any kind was made towards real unity of any kind. There was no focus, no common understanding of what a desirable outcome would be and in some cases not a lot in common in terms of political strategy.
I do not believe that the decision to base the initial steps towards the ULA on more detailed, focused and constructive discussions between the three main electoral forces on the socialist left was a mistake in the slightest. And I think that the modest success of the ULA – not least the fact that it actually exists – supports that assessment. If my failure to agree with your tediously repeated and entirely incorrect opinion serves to alienate you from the ULA, and therefore keeps your poisonous, snide, dishonest, sectarianism of anti-sectarians at a greater distance, then I can only say so much the better.
LikeLike
Oh, I must have hit a pretty raw nerve for you to be so abusive. To ask a reasonable question is considered by the SP to be “poisonous, snide, dishonest, sectarian”. Wow, imagine I had asked difficult question. Should make the ULA really attractive to the ordinary punter.
In spite of the attitude of the likes of MarkP I attended the ULA meeting with the Icelandic MP last Tuesday and was impressed by the turnout.
LikeLike
Marxy, I’m a little baffled by your intervention, because you never say why you think the way the ULA formed was a “mistake”.
LikeLike
Actually that wasn’t an ULA meeting but a separate initiative organised by RBB.
LikeLike
See http://revolutionaryprogramme.wordpress.com/2011/04/19/report-on-18-april-ula-public-meeting-in-cork-city/ for my short report on the Cork meeting last night
LikeLike