imageThe report below comes via this site’s  Dublin bureau and is an account of a new electoral initiative in Ireland. A few things strike me about it.

The first is that it is weak on the ecological aspect of the crisis. Tens of thousands of derelict properties may be a treasure trove to archaeologists yet unborn and bored teenagers but they have had a massive environmental impact and the 26 counties’ public transport infrastructure is pretty rubbish. A lot more could have been said about that.

The second is that while it’s good to be positive, asserting that a brand new formation has a strong chance of getting TDs elected is evidence of a too sunny disposition.

It is not hard enough on the abject, pitiful, treacherous failure of the union bureaucracy. They are a failed leadership and a working class resistance has to fight to replace them.

Finally, and a particular bugbear of mine, anything that has the name “Northern Ireland” in the title is explicitly accepting the imperialists’ division of the Irish working and is programmatically suspect. Still it’s new and these things can change.

At a meeting held in Dublin last Sunday, 24th October, involving the People Before Profit Alliance, the Socialist Party, the Tipperary Workers and Unemployed Group, and Cllr Declan Bree and his local group in Sligo, a historic decision was taken to establish a left alliance to contest the next general election and to take the first steps towards a new, left, anti capitalist formation to represent working people.

It is to be called the United Left Alliance. A strong, left wing, anti capitalist and anti coalition with right wing parties, programme has been agreed. This will be circulated as soon as a few small agreed amendments are made. The alliance will be open to anyone who accepts its basic programme and aims, but the aim is to attract as many workers and young people as possible.

A leaflet from the alliance will be circulated at the Claiming our Future event next Saturday. It will be officially launched at a major rally to be held in Dublin on the Friday evening of November 26th, preceded by press activity during that week. Rallies around the country and in the Dublin Constituencies will be held in the New Year.

It will initially have a register of supporters, a steering committee, a website, a media group, and will hold open monthly meetings in all the constituencies where it is fielding candidates for the general election. At this stage 12/13 candidates are agreed, covering Dublin, Cork, Limerick, Wexford, Tipperary South and Sligo, with a number of other areas and candidates to be considered.

The aim is to get people elected to the next Dail, which is entirely possible in a number of areas. It is hoped that a group of left TDs, working together, and being the real opposition, probably to a Fine Gael/Labour coalition, will be the focus for a campaigning alliance and lay the basis over time for a move to a more formal structure, in reality, a new party for working people, union, community, feminist and environmental activists, students and anyone who wants to affect real change. In the situation now facing the country, such a party could grow rapidly, supplanting Labour and Sinn Fein, and providing a real alternative to Fianna Fail and Fine Gael.

PBPA has been working towards this objective for a number of years and I’m sure all our supporters will warmly welcome this historic development. In the meantime, PBPA remains and we should redouble our efforts to build it. We will be fighting the election as part of this alliance, but we will be PBPA on the ballot paper, and everything we have has to concentrate on winning the two seats we have identified, Dunlaoghaire and Dublin South Central, notwithstanding our campaigns in the other areas we are contesting.

Firstly some points on the budget and the economic crisis.

The scale and severity of the crisis facing the Irish state cannot be underestimated. Since late 2008 this government has, through cuts and tax increases, the pension levy and so on, inflicted a € 14.5 billion austerity programme on working people and the poorest in society. They are now planning up to another € 15 billion over the next four years. This amounts to an austerity programme of 20% of GDP!

This is economic madness. The Dept of Finance estimates that for every €1 billion taken out of the economy, economic growth is lowered by a quarter to a half of one percent. Nobody believes that what the government is proposing to do is possible. The ERSI have now joined the majority of economists warning that this level of austerity will have a massive deflationary effect on the economy.  The more they cut, the more people end up on the dole, claiming welfare, less people are paying taxes, and the worse the situation becomes.

But there is an alternative, make the very wealthy who caused the crisis, pay for it. A 2% wealth tax on the estimated € 250 billion in property and shares still held by the top 5% could raise €5 billion a year.  The ending of tax loopholes which benefit the super rich could raise another €5 billion. These two measures alone would not only eliminate the deficit in the state finances, but would make it possible to reverse the cuts since 2008.

We say:

  • No to cuts and making working people and the poor pay.
  • No to corporate bail outs – take the banks into public ownership.
  • Make the 5% who own 40% of the wealth pay.
  • Pay cuts for bank and company directors, politicians, top civil servants and semi state managers.
  • Commence major state investment in sustainable energy production and useful public projects.
  • Jobs for the unemployed on public works to provide housing, schools, health centres, and community amenities and services.

Budget protests.

A meeting of ICTU is being held this Wednesday to discuss the budget. The union UNITE will be proposing a protest march for Saturday, 27th November.

It’s possible ICTU will organise some sort of token action. If not, PBPA are proposing to call, with others on the left, community organisations, hospital campaigns and so on, a demonstration in Dublin on that day. A meeting of left groups is scheduled for Thursday of this week to discuss the options.

The role of ICTU in derailing the opposition to what this government are doing is disgraceful. They are now claiming that Irish people are not like the French or the Greeks; we have no tradition of militant struggle. What about 1913, what about the tax marches, the biggest general strikes and mobilisations of working people as a percentage of the population anywhere, at any time. What about the demonstrations of 100,000 in Dublin in 2009 or the 250,000 strong public sector one day strike? What about the thousands taking part in anti health cut campaigns and protests around
the country? They know that even now, after all their treachery, if they called a serious protest, tens of thousands would come out, and demand more action.

That is precisely what they are afraid of, a French or Greek situation. In France the unions called protests in the hope of doing a deal on pension reform as they did in 1995, but a movement from below has spread throughout the whole country, involving public and private sector workers, school students and unemployed youth, putting them under pressure to escalate the struggle and to kick out the Sarkozy government.

The events in France are following on from the huge struggles in Greece. The EU itself is now in a serious crisis. The costs of the bail out of the banks, and the stimulus used to rescue capitalism are being passed on the working people and the poor. Europe is set for an explosion of social struggle, and here in Ireland, working people will find a way, sooner or later, to get round the rotten leadership of ICTU, and show they are as capable of militant action as anywhere else. 

While protests may only be in their thousands at this point, because of the refusal of the unions to lead, it is crucial that PBPA does not succumb to the idea that nothing can be done, and that we play a role, as best we can, in giving a lead and an expression to the anger we know is there.

Claiming our Future conference.

This takes place this Saturday at the RDS in Dublin, starting at 10.30am with registration from 9.am. It is fully booked out with 1,000 community, trade union and political activists taking part. We are asking all PBPA members taking part to meet at 9.30 outside the venue to briefly discuss our intervention and then to help with leafleting. Anyone who is not registered but free to help is very welcome.

PBPA National activists meeting.

This will take place in Dublin on Saturday 6th November from 1pm to 5pm.  The venue is the same as last time, in the An Oige offices at 51, Mountjoy  Street. To get there go by the teachers Club up to the Black Church, you can’t miss it, it is in the middle of the road, then turn right and the venue is on your left. This is an important meeting given recent developments and the run up to the budget, elections and what have you, so please get as many from your area to attend as possible.  There will be a house social in Dermot and Joan’s, 30 Ring street, Inchicore that evening. Food provided, fiver in and bring your own booze.

Northern Ireland PBPA meeting.

A meeting of PBPA members in the North is taking place in Toomevara on Sunday 7th November. The purpose of the meeting is to bring together PBPA groups and potential groups in the North, and to put PBPA on a more solid and organised functioning, elect a co-ordinating committee, etc.  Anyone from the south interested in attending should contact Dermot Connolly or Brid Smith.  There was a good PBPA intervention, with banner, placards and a leaflet on the demo against the Con/Dem coalition cuts last Saturday.

78 responses to “United Left Alliance formed in Ireland”

  1. Liam,

    This is not a document from a new left alliance. It is a document from the People Before Profit Alliance, a group which is to be one component of a new alliance.

    The PBPA is an electorally focused grouping consisting of the SWP and a small number of independents (most of the latter grouped around Cllr Joan Collins). The new alliance has been the subject of negotiations between the Socialist Party, the PBPA, the Workers and Unemployed Action Group and the group around Cllr Declan Bree.

    The document is a PBPA circular, not a document of the new alliance and as far as I can tell only the first part deals with the prospective new alliance. The stuff about Northern Ireland, the brief political points about the crisis, etc are specifically PBPA things rather than details of the new alliance’s structures or programme. In fact, as the document actually says, the new alliance is still making some amendments to its programme.

    Unfortunately the PBPA have made something of a habit of announcing things prematurely.

    By the way, it isn’t overly “sunny” to say that a new alliance would be aiming to get seats in the Dail. There are no less than seven constituencies where a seat is conceivable and at least two of them are pretty likely.

    Like

  2. If it has been agreed: “but we will be PBPA on the ballot paper, and everything we have has to concentrate on winning the two seats we have identified, Dunlaoghaire and Dublin South Central, notwithstanding our campaigns in the other areas we are contesting” what has happened to the Socialist Party In Dublin West and Dublin North abd have they ceded Dublin South Central to the SWP or what? And will they really not run as the Socialist Party? They are listed as part of the United Left Alliance so what is the story?

    Like

  3. Gerry:

    This is a People Before Profit document. The priority seats they mention are the priorities for the PBPA, not the priorities for a broader alliance.

    The PBPA document also makes it clear that individual components will probably appear on the actual ballot paper in their own names.

    Like

  4. “The second is that while it’s good to be positive, asserting that a brand new formation has a strong chance of getting TDs elected is evidence of a too sunny disposition.”

    That’s a strange comment. Two of the candidates who will be running for the alliance were TDs before the last election. Several will have topped the poll in the local elections. Are you really suggesting that its unrealistic for Joe Higgins, Seamus Healy, Richard Boyd Barrett or Clare Daly to be elected. I think most people, of all politics, would be mildly surprised if none of them were.

    Like

  5. Well, its a strange start for an alliance to opt for one component’s priority, a bit like the TUSC, with everyone pulling in different directions.

    Like

  6. Gerry:

    Once again, this is not a document from a proposed new alliance. It is a circular from one component of that alliance, and outlines that component’s take and priorities.

    Like

  7. I am amused, but not surprised, by the willingness of people who do not have enough detailed knowledge to jump into negative interpretations – the poster above who says “Two of the candidates who will be running for the alliance were TDs before the last election. Several will have topped the poll in the local elections. Are you really suggesting that its unrealistic for Joe Higgins, Seamus Healy, Richard Boyd Barrett or Clare Daly to be elected. I think most people, of all politics, would be mildly surprised if none of them were.” is spot on.

    Check the last Local and European Election Results in the formally independent bit of Ireland – Joe Higgins of the Socialist Party took one of three Dublin Euro-Seats, in the process defeating two sitting MEP’s from Sinn Féin and Fianna Fáil. A similar swing to the left took place in the local elections -it was evident that broadly the same voters who elected SP, PBP, and other left independents to the local councils went for Higgins in the Euro-Poll.

    Details Here :

    http://www.electionsireland.org/

    I agree with most of Mark P’s comments above.

    Like

  8. looks like another electoralist dead end … in my perception, it looks like that extra-parliamentary initiatives like http://onepercentnetwork.org/ look far more promising than the combination of paper sales and electoral campaigning

    Like

  9. “A combination of paper sales and electoral campaigning…”

    It seems that you know little about the practice of the Irish far left. By the way, the One Percent Network held a very nice walking tour and, well, that’s about it.

    Like

  10. Were the ISN, WP, CPI, éirígí or the IRSP invited to be part of this alliance?

    Like

  11. Paul,

    This alliance is a starting point. It involves all of the six or seven candidates from the socialist left who might hope to do well, and most of the organised activists on the far left. But it is only a beginning.

    Other organisations may well get involved, although when it comes to the IRSP and Eirigi I’m not sure why they’d want to be involved in an alliance with groups which they disagree with fundamentally. I would guess that the likes of the ISN or the WP will consider their options.

    Like

  12. What are those fundamental disagreements Mark?

    Like

  13. The IRSP and Eirigi are left-republicans. Which means that they have a very different view of the world to that of the socialist left.

    Like

  14. Some might say that an abstentionist poosition on the national question IS a form of popular frontism – let us get on with fighting the cuts and forget about who is running, or occupying the country lest we alienate their bagmen in the TU bureaucracy. A few left republicans might give the struggle a bit more of an anti-imperialist and therefore anti-capirtalist outlook. But some of the groups are very bad on just this quesion one even doing two editions of their paper lest they offend Loyalist ‘public opinion’ showing their anti-capitalism amounts to pro-imperialism.

    Like

  15. Some might say just about anything Gerry.

    Although as none of the organisations involved in this new alliance take an “abstentionist” position on the national question, and indeed this new alliance is yet to release even an official announcement let alone a political programme, what relevance “some saying” has is quite beyond me.

    By the way, as I know such trivia matters to you, the usual denunciation used for people who are insufficiently nationalist is that they are “ultra-left” rather than “popular frontist”, as in the cases of Luxemburg, the Anarchists, the Council Communists and the Left Communists.

    And finally, having two editions of a paper is an act of appeasement but good sense in an environment where a front page dealing with a domestic political issue on either side of the border is all but unsellable on the other side of that border. There’s nothing morally superior about insisting on not speaking to your audience.

    Like

  16. How does the left get a accepted amalgamation of unity,outside of a palastinian christian walking on water,it is a none runner.

    Like

  17. By the way, as I know such trivia matters to you, the usual denunciation used for people who are insufficiently nationalist is that they are “ultra-left” rather than “popular frontist”, as in the cases of Luxemburg, the Anarchists, the Council Communists and the Left Communists.”

    Well thanks for that lesson in political correctness but we fear the educator needs educating. A popular front is an alliance between workers organisations and capitalist organisatioons that prevents the revolutionary struggle for the overthrow of capitalism ever appearing on the agenda. All serious class struggles in Ireland must raise the qestion of the occupation of the 6 north eastern counties by British Imperialism. If you have decided that the class struggle will never tackle this question, and that is what two editions of a socialist paper means, then you have forged a popular front with sothern pro-imperialist capitalists and their defenderd in thw TU bureaucracy and also with the northern loyalists and theit TU defenders.A 32county socialist Ireland would go down so bad with northern nationalists but what price Trotsky’s Permanent Revolution when you cannot identify a common programme for southern and northern workers without capitulating to loyalist pro-imperialist pressures? The ‘left communists’ were wrong, infantile, to oppose a workers united front but today popular frontism, which ideologically encompass the capitalist class, are everywhere. Pickets of tax-avoiding businessess are great if linked to the struggle to overthrow capitalism by transitional demands which. Mobilise workers into strike action and occupations and propagandises the overthrow of capitalism. Otherwise the are merely reformist stunts which propose that the crisis is not real at all, merelt a conspiracy of capitalists against workers. BTW Mark, you missed out ‘not’in your post but I won’t accuse you of a freudian slip to the left.

    Like

  18. Mark, the IRSP and éirígí are socialist republicans, something others like Bree and Healy and other also claim to be. What is the fundamental differences or different view of the world that these organisations have compared to Bree or Seamus Healy or the SP or the SWP that means these groups, as well as the WP, CPI, ISN etc, were not invited?

    Like

  19. Gerry,

    Having already had an argument with one Walter Mitty sectarian this week on this blog, I’ll let your waffling pass on this occasion with nothing but a wry smile.

    Paul,

    The organisations which have come together to discuss this alliance chose each other as initial partners for two fairly simple reasons:

    1) They see their current political approaches as broadly speaking compatible.

    2) These were the organisations likely to include the overwhelming majority of left candidates in the forthcoming elections, and an even more overwhelming majority of the serious left candidates.

    Getting agreement between these groups was a first step, and given the divisions on the Irish left a not particularly easy first step. This does not mean that no other groups will be able to be involved. It’s a starting point rather than a finished product.

    Personally, and remember that my opinion carries no weight beyond being a personal opinion, I would welcome the involvement of groups like the ISN and Workers Party, assuming that those groups want to get involved and would agree to the minimum political programme and whatever organisational requirements there are.

    I’m not sure why Eirigi or the IRSP, a party which has never stood an election candidate and a party which hasn’t done so in many years, would want to get involved in an alliance aimed towards an election in the first place. And again, as a personal opinion, I don’t see that either have enough politically in common with the groups already involved for an alliance to make any kind of sense.

    Like

  20. But you still havent said what these fundamental differences are between the likes of IRSP and éirígí compared to say Seamus Healy or Declan Bree or indeed the SWP or SP. What are these fundamental differences that link all those involved in this alliance but exclude those other groups?

    Like

  21. Was the other walter mitty on about world revolution and uniting Ireland too? When will these silly buggers forget all that nonsense and get down to the serious business of getting TDs, MPs and councillors elected and climbing the greasy pole of the bureaucracy a la Jimmy Kelly and locking up troublesome Belfast Airport strikers all in the name of the class struggle which is going nowhere anyway as victory is a fool’s illusion.

    Like

  22. Gerry,

    Are you aware of the role the Socialist Party actually played in the Belfast Airport Workers struggle? They were the primary supporters of the workers from the beginning right through.

    Paul,

    Well for starters all of those other people stand in elections, which is a fairly basic issue when it comes to forming an alliance aimed towards an election. Eirigi have never stood in an election and the IRSP have not done so for many years.

    Secondly there is the issue of their left republicanism. Why would the Socialist Party or SWP want to form an alliance with organisations which (a) are organised primarily around the national question and crucially (b) take an entirely incompatible approach to that question?

    Like

  23. éirígí havent stood in elections yet because they are relatively new but have made clear they will do so and the IRSP have stood in elections and are more than likely to be doing so again. IRSP and éirígí are nor organised primarily around the national question, though they do not ignore the British occupation, just as Seamus Healy and Declan Bree in faiRness to them.

    In terms o fthe national question, what is this ‘incompatible approach’?

    So what difference is there betwen Bree and Healy and eirigi and IRSP?

    Like

  24. Bree and Healy are not primarily nationalists.

    Bree’s views on the national question probably are fairly similar enough to those of various other left republicans, but his views on the national question are of fairly marginal importance to his activism in Sligo. As for Healy, so outspoken is he on the issue that I genuinely don’t have a clue what he thinks on the subject.

    The IRSP and Eirigi are defined centrally by their nationalism.

    Like

  25. Indeed I do know the political allegiance of that victimised worker and Jimmy Kelly’s too at the time. Some contradictions there as in the reuctant support of the SWP (Jimmy again) and the opposition of the SP here and there and the support of many of the ranks ofthede groups for Jerry Hicks – that greasy pole again. And you must have worked out how bad the SP is on the national question and how far you are from Trotskyism on that. Paul is putting probing quetions to you which is revealing a pro-brit imperialist line. But maybe the heroic Airport man (sorry forgot his name) would not have joined if you had that united Ireland stuff. As for support for him it was very low key in the UK and I thought the ISM were better than you on Ireland in attacking the T&G bureaucracy (and Jimmy)

    Like

  26. Gerry,

    It’s hardly very probing or revealing to suggest that the Socialist Party are not left-nationalists. And that the SWP aren’t either these days.

    As for the views of the kind of lad who sets up his own miniature sect-as-historical-reenactment society on what is or isn’t “Trotskyism”, it’s difficult to express in words how little they concern me.

    Like

  27. “having two editions of a paper is an act of appeasement but good sense in an environment where a front page dealing with a domestic political issue on either side of the border is all but unsellable on the other side of that border”.

    Why not go the whole hog and have nothing about Europe, Africa, Asia or Latin America? No point troubling people with well intentioned but tedious articles about places of which they neither know nor care.

    Drawing attention to the fact that one part of the island is controlled by an imperialist power and that the bourgeoisie in the other part is perfectly happy with that arrangement is more a statement of fact than anything else. Now, given that all the bourgeois parties have a clear programmatic attitude to that issue, it does seem a bit remiss of an emerging group which has ambitions to represent the working class to duck the matter.

    In the north re-inventing the Norn Iron Labour Party, which seems to be the trajectory, is not likely to be anymore successful the second time round. Simple economism offered no answers then and it won’t now.

    All the signs are that a consequence of the recession is going to be large scale youth employment. At the same time some of the dissident groups are getting stronger and likely to lead significant numbers of working class youth down a post Provie cul de sac. The national question may be tiresome for people who want “normal” politics but the imperialism problem just won’t go away and a solution which does not aim to break the Protestant working class from loyalism is NILP 2.0.

    Credit where it’s due, Sammy Wilson is making a good contribution to that process.

    Like

  28. Mark, neither the IRSP or eirigi are primarily defined by their ‘nationalism’. They are both full blooded socialist organisations and totally anti-imperialist and internationalist in outlook. Still see nothing in what you say that shoudl exclude either eirigi or the IRSP or indeed the CPI, ISN or WP

    Like

  29. Paul,

    While I suppose it’s interesting that you see no barriers to the Socialist Party and the SWP forming an alliance with the likes of the IRSP, I rather suspect that the Socialist Party and SWP will see that differently. And their opinion on the subject is probably going to count more than yours.

    Liam,

    There is at least two and sometimes as many as four pages of “Northern” content in the Southern edition of the Socialist and vice versa. The international news is the same too. The things that differ are (a) the front page and back page lead stories and (b) very detailed coverage of local community issues and local trade union issues.

    The issue isn’t whether or not to include news from across the border but whether to lead on it, and most of the time it is counterproductive to do that. To use your international comparison, we don’t often lead on the international news either, unless there is something very big dominating the headlines. Like it or not, the nine decade long existence of the border has a very real effect on consciousness and it would simply be stupid to be trying to sell a paper leading with Assembly cuts in Fingal, or Cork council housing in Belfast.

    Like

  30. Mark, I absolutely agree that it is up to the SP and SWP to decide who they make an alliance with. It just would be more honest to be truthful as to why certain groups have been exccluded such as the WP, ISN, CPI as well as the IRSP and eirigi. From the outside it looks like fear of some of those organisations having a say or influence in the direction of the new alliance rather than specific ‘fundamental’ differences as you put it. So what you have is a “Left Alliance” not a “united left alliance”. Large sections of the radical left in Ireland have been excluded right from the start

    Like

  31. Paul,

    As has already been explained to you, the initial groups involved in the alliance intend to see the alliance expand. The groups which initiated the alliance were primarily concerned with reaching agreement with each other as a starting point for perfectly sensible political and practical reasons. That does not mean that no other groups will be welcome.

    There are two caveats to that however.

    Firstly, it is by no means clear that most or any of the groups you mention would be interested in this sort of alliance.

    Secondly, it will probably be considerably easier for groups closer to the centre of political gravity of this alliance to get involved than it would be for groups that are clearly drastically at odds with the politics of the participants.

    To be more specific: Should the Irish Socialist Network want to get involved, it’s hard to see how or why anyone would object. Should the IRSP want to get involved that would probably get a very different sort of response. Although it’s worth pointing out that even Eirigi have a very well founded reluctance to stand too close to the IRSP, and those two groups really are near-identical in terms of formal politics.

    I genuinely think it’s bizarre that you don’t think that there are fundamental politlcal differences between the Socialist Party and SWP on one hand and Eirigi and IRSP on the other.

    Like

  32. What I think is bizarre is that you cant identify those supposed fundamental differences, apart from not being trotskyist that is. Or what the fundamental differnces are between Healy and Bree on one hand and the irsp and eirigi on the other

    As for other groups joining in, that is now going to be more unlikely as those groups were not given a chance to have input from the start.

    If eirigi or IRSP looked to join (and I accept that many of the groups may not have been interested in the first place) would you personally object to them or thin people had valid reasons to object to them?

    Would you personally object or think people have valid reasons to to object to the CPI and workers party being involved?

    Like

  33. Paul,

    I’ve repeatedly mentioned the central area of disagreement between the IRSP and Eirigi on the one hand and the Socialist Party and SWP on the other – that the former pair are left nationalists and the latter are not. I don’t think that this is a minor difference.

    On your other points:

    1) Not being involved from the start may indeed put off a group which otherwise would be amenable. Presumably if that’s the case they’ll say so and we can discuss the issue then.

    2) Yes I would personally object to the alliance including Eirigi or the IRSP and would argue strongly against it.

    3) No I would not personally object to the Workers Party joining this alliance, assuming that they are willing to agree to the various political and organisational elements of the alliance.

    4) It is so unlikely that the CPI would want to join such an alliance that I really have no opinion on the subject.

    Like

  34. No real problems with Stalinists then but those left republicans might ask you to support republican prisoners being beaten and tortured for wearing Easter lillies by Prison Officer Association members and Brian Caton would have to defend his members against such ‘slanders’ and the ‘workers in uniform’ could not be opposed and their right to wear their poppy defended, in the northern edition at least

    Like

  35. What you are saying is their fundamental difference between them is not based on fact. Neither eirigi or the IRSP are as you left nationalists or defined by their nationalism. They are socialist, anti-imperialist and internationalist in the same way that Bree would be and Healy to possibly slightly lesser degree.

    Ah well, so much for a “united left alliance”. It appears that sectarianism among the left in Ireland is sadly still alive and well

    Like

  36. Gerry,

    As you would know if you’d ever seen some of the arguments involving Workers Party members on Irish left blogs, I’m very far from having “no real problems with Stalinists”.

    I oppose prisoners, republican or otherwise, being tortured, which doesn’t mean that I give the slightest hint of political support to the maniacs running around shooting pizza delivery men.

    And by the way, the Socialist Party does not use the term “workers in uniform”.

    Like

  37. Mark, so would you consider someone that is a Stalinist as incompatible with this “left alliance”? Would that come into your fundamental differences category?

    Like

  38. It depends on how their Stalinism incarnates itself, Paul.

    Like

  39. How would their stalinism have to incarnate itself for you to believe it a problem?

    Like

  40. Well, if they were to go around murdering their political opponents that would be a problem.

    Or more generally, if their Stalinism led them to pursue a political strategy in Ireland which was significantly at odds with the strategy of the groups in the alliance. It’s a very wide question, Paul.

    Like

  41. I have to say I think this was a wasted opportunity to try to create genuine, if minimal, unity among the left in Ireland. The fact that long term groups such as the Workers Party and the CPI in particular, as well as the likes of eirigi and the IRSP were deliberately excluded from the start, makes it look like just another typical trotskyist controlled broad front, with a few other infdividuals thrown in to give it the impression that it is somehow ‘broad’.

    Many of the groups may not have wanted to become part of any alliance, as is their right, but even in those instances it still could form closer links between parties on the left and the campaigns they are involved in even if they didnt take part in a formal alliance.

    Indeed, going on the completely ignorant an dill informed remarks some people have made on this thread, it would have been an opportunity for people in different groups to get a real handle on where everybody is politically directly from source, rather than reading it somewhere or assuming stuff about others based on ill informed prejudices.

    They are some excellent people involved in this, including many SWP and SP people who I have great admiration for, but I think this attempt to control everything before opening it up to others will ultimately lead too its failure once again to develop into any credible united left alliance.

    Unfortunately, what you may now see is socialist candidates running against socialist candidates in many constituencies. Even with those groups who chose not to take part ion a formal alliance, an agreement of sorts could have been reached with them to not oppose left alliance candidates and vice versa.

    Any chance of that has been blown out of the water by the deliberately exclusionary manner in which this was created

    Like

  42. On top of Paul’s remarks is the Labour Party on 33% to 24 for both FF and FG with a big increase in membership and most trade unionists looking to it to defend them in parliament. If it had any sense, or rather working class feelings, it would refuse coalition with FG and force a FF/FG coalition. But for left unity an alliance with the Grantites in there would make sense, that is if you wanted more from left unity than electoralism. But then you would have to go further than stage army huffing and puffing and propose a way forward. Which would have to include those pesky left republicans. Gets complicated when you try to develop revolutionary perspectives. Maybe best to stick to getting the vote out for now and something like the Irish road to socialism might show up.

    Like

  43. Gerry:

    Your proposals for an alliance with the “Grantites in” the Irish Labour Party would be somewhat less mental if there were more than 2 Grantites in the Irish Labour Party. There is no Labour Left in Ireland, and the 2 Grantites are former members of their groups in other countries.

    Paul

    There was never an opportunity to unite groups with opposed political perspectices, so the the fact that this alliance hasn’t united them is not a lost opportunity.

    And as you’ve been told repeatedly, there is no inbuilt intention to exclude groups like the Irish Socialist Network or the Workers Party, if such groups are seriously interested. This alliance comes from a number of groups which have compatible political outlooks seeking to work together. This is a much more sensible approach to take than seeking to unite those who cannot be united.

    Like

  44. Gordon McNeill is the name of the victimised shop steward whose name escaped me. Is he still in poltics? And no one seems interested in the eco-socialist credentials of the struggle, Liam. Maybe they think that would be a diversion or a popular front too far, the Greens are just reactionary caopitalist politicians at the end of the day. The workers flag is still red, it seems, not red, greeen and purple.

    Like

  45. Gerry, time and again many Greens have shown themselves to be reactionary capitalist politicians. At the moment though Caroline Lucas is talking and behaving like a pretty left social democrat, one of the few in mainstream British politics. Her role in the anti-cuts campaigning has been spot on.

    I half rememeber reading someone saying something about a concrete analysis of a concrete situation.

    Like

  46. In reply to Marks comment “There was never an opportunity to unite groups with opposed political perspectices, so the the fact that this alliance hasn’t united them is not a lost opportunity.”

    It was a lost opportunity mark. i dint suggest the aliance comprise groups with completely opposing political views, but socialist groups who would broadly have a similar mindset. Within teh current alliance, you have opposing political perspectives, from Trots to stalinists to socialist republicans.

    However, there is more to unite those groups and individuals than divide them. The same applies to the WP, CPI, ISN, Eirigi, IRSP.

    I know you are not speaking for your party or for this ‘left alliance’ here, but if your views are representative of your partys views and the views of the Alliance, then it is clear that this is not a genuine attempt to create a genuine broad left alliance in Ireland, and has more to do with trying to win seats

    Does the anti-coalition strategy exclude coalition with Labour and SF?

    Like

  47. Paul,

    Once more you are deliberately attempting to muddy the water by including in a list a bunch of groups that would propably be welcomed with open arms by the new alliance, along with a couple of groups with little in common with the new alliance.

    Repeating over and over that these are all “socialist groups”, as if that was meaningful or as if there couldn’t be fundamentally opposed political perspectives between different groups is either foolish or dishonest.

    The IRSP, for example, barely exists in the South, has a bloodsoaked and idiotic history that it can never conceivably move past and where it does exist, ie in the North, it operates a strategy entirely incompatible with the working class unity approach of the Socialist Party and the SWP. There is no basis at all for an alliance with that outfit – and that should be obvious to you whether you prefer the approach of the Socialist Party or SWP or that of the IRSP.

    This alliance is not an attempt to unite everyone who calls themselves left wing, but an attempt to unite those parts of the left which have broadly compatible strategies and outlooks, on an agreed minimum programme. As it happens, that part of the left includes the largest elements of the socialist left and it includes pretty much all of the parts of the left which might conceivably do well in an election in the nearish future, but it does not include the left nationalists.

    Like

  48. No-one suggested left nationalists Mark, but you have deliberately excluded other communist, socialist and socialist republican parties, some of whom would be as socialist and maybe more socialist than some of those within the alliance.

    Your reason to exclude the IRSP seems to be based on their past. Is that the case? If they are left nationalists (or indeed eirigi), then so too are Healy and Bree.

    You still havent told us under what circumstances the SP would support the use of force.

    And you still havent told us whether the alliance anti-coalition stance includes opposing coalition with SF or Labour.

    Like

  49. Paul:

    1) There are many circumstances under which the Socialist Party would support the use of force. There are no circumstances under which the Socialist Party would support a campaign of terrorism. I’m hoping that at some point you will grasp the distinction.

    2) The political programme of the alliance hasn’t been released yet, so none of us know precisely what has been agreed as far as coalitions with Labour or SF. For what it’s worth, I’d be opposed to any such coalition but frankly the question is like asking about our views on the colonisation of the moon. There is zero prospect of Labour and SF forming a coalition and needing and wanting left votes to form a government.

    3) i have precisely been discussing left nationalists – Eirigi and the IRSP are left nationalists.

    4) The IRSP’s murderous history is one of the multiple reasons I’ve given for not being in favour of an alliance with them. They will never escape that past – Darkley and bloody feuds will always be the main things that workers associate with them. However there are other reasons, including in particular (a) their incompatible politics and orientation and (b) the fact that they don’t take part in elections in the first place. That you keep ignoring these objections doesn’t mean that they cease to exist.

    5) As I’ve repeatedly told you, this alliance is not an attempt to unite every self-described socialist, regardless of their politics and practice. It’s an attempt to unite significant sections of the left with a broadly compatible orientation.

    Like

  50. […] having much (or any) on-the-ground knowledge to contribute. A discussion on it can be read on the Mac Uaid blog though if interested (where I spotted this story). That being said I havn’t een able to […]

    Like

  51. (1) Mark you still havent said what any of those circumstances are where the sp would support the use of force. Can you enlighten us with some examples?

    (2) If you consider the IRSP and Eirigi as left nationalists, and thats a reason for their exclusion, why are Healy and Bree included, considering their position is closer to that of the irsp and Eirigi than that of the swp or sp. In fact Eirigi and irsp would be further left than Bree or Healy

    (3) The IRSP do take part in elections, because they may not have taken part in recent ones, does not change that. Also, while not stabnding candidates themselves they have campaigned in recent elections, supporting Peggy O Hara and the SWP/Pbfa Eamonn McCann in various elections. If IRSP were involved again in canvassing and electioneering for the swp/pbfa and by extension the Elite Left Alliance, would the SP be happy with that and continue to work with them?

    Like

  52. That’s a good point there Paul. The IRSP in the recent past not only were the leading force behind Peggy O’Hara’s election campaign, but also supported Eamonn McCann in his recent election bid. The IRSP having worked with Eamonn in the ‘Community Against the Cuts’ campaign. There was no problem with a level of unity in that regard.

    You are also right to say that Mark’s reasoning for excluding the IRSP and éirigi is fundamentally flawed. They are not in the main organised around the national question, but see the ending of partition as a vital component in the breaking down of sectarianism in the North and the establishment of working class unity. They see the class and national struggle as inseparable, questions that can only be solved through a mass workers movement. I’d love to hear what Mark has to say on his differences with the IRSP on its approach to working class unity in the North. The removal of imperialist troops, opposition to a sectarian and political police force, and the respecting of a nation’s right to self-determination is not left nationalism. The IRSP are internationalists, and much like opposing the US invasion of Iraq or Israeli appropriation of Palestinian land doesn’t make one an Iraqi or Palestinian nationalist, opposing the occupation of Ireland doesn’t make one necessarily a nationalist either. The IRSP and from what I see, éirigi too, stand in the tradition of James Connolly, as does Bree and Healy.

    On the unity initiative itself, I think it is a progressive move. Left sectarianism is all too prevalent in the Irish political scene. I hope this can be developed further to include other groups. It is disappointing to see socialist republicans misrepresented as nationalists here, but I hope after initial discussion within this group, it can be expanded. Overall, a good move.

    Like

  53. Mark P,

    You show very little understanding of the politics of the IRSP. You also underestimate our capacity as an organisation and the support we have across the island. Maybe that’s our fault. We reject Nationalism as an ideology but imperialism more so. This project you have going is worthwhile and I hope it gains momentum. The parties involved may have their reasons for not wishing the IRSP to be involved but please try and make those reasons more informed.

    Like

  54. Mark,

    You say:

    “2) The political programme of the alliance hasn’t been released yet, so none of us know precisely what has been agreed as far as coalitions with Labour or SF. For what it’s worth, I’d be opposed to any such coalition but frankly the question is like asking about our views on the colonisation of the moon. There is zero prospect of Labour and SF forming a coalition and needing and wanting left votes to form a government.”

    Of course it is true that there is very little prospect of “Labour and SF forming a coalition and needing and wanting left votes to form a government”. However that isn’t really the point.

    If the ULA was to be even moderately successful in mobilising support then it could be expected that there would be a decent chance that SF (or a new bourgeois populist formation) would seek to engage with it, up to and including becoming a formal part of it – thereby turning the ULA into a classical popular front.

    In such a situation what would be the position of the SP?

    I suspect that this would not be a problem given that you are happy to be part of a popular frontist electoral bloc at the European Union level…

    Like

  55. No such ambiguity in relation to eirigi amd the IRSP however. Such a block might indicate a less than total commitment to the constitutional arrangements that guarantee ‘stability’ nmorth and south whioch keep British imperialsmn the southerrn bourgeoisie and the northern statelet. Two papers, two faces and trade union rights for screws and pigs. Popular frontism is in their genes.

    Like

  56. Gerry, I might describe it slightly differently in that it is reformist opportunism that is in their political genes and the other divergences from revolutionary Marxism are symptoms of that underlying malaise. But point taken regarding the links between them.

    Like

  57. See for instance the discussion I’ve just got into with an SPer over Sinn Fein’s political nature (working class party or not) on Cedar Lounge – http://cedarlounge.wordpress.com/2010/10/27/united-left-alliance-formed/#comment-81688

    Like

  58. In such a situation what would be the position of the SP? “

    Alan, as you surely know, the position of the Socialist Party would be to absolutely oppose such a development.

    I’m actually a bit surprised that you’ve chosen “soft on Sinn Fein” as the main grounds for your criticism of the Socialist Party. I thought you’d a bit more of a grasp of political reality than that. The Socialist Party has no interest at all in any kind of alliance with SF.

    You are also wrong about the GUE/NGL, by the way. Joining it entails absolutely zero in the way of political agreement or committment. That’s why the Pirate Party joined it recently, despite having essentially nothing in common with any of the other political forces inside it.

    Like

  59. Mark – are you seriously saying that the ULA proposal is nothing like the GUE/NGL?

    Won’t they both be electoral/parliamentary blocs standing on a joint platform with common policy papers and publications but with constituent parties free to raise other issues?

    I am glad to hear that you think the SP would oppose repeating this on Irish soil and I look forward to seeing you stand against the SP leadership if/when that happens.

    But you will have to forgive me if I retain some doubts about that given the SP’s willingness to participate in something very similar in the context of the European parliament and your willingness to defend that participation.

    As an aside you know that I have other criticisms of the SP’s reformist opportunism (IMHO), not least on the question of the state, but the context of this discussion is one about the question of participation in the ULA so that is why I have been discussing that. Unlike the Sparts I see little point in raising other questions just for the sake of it.

    Like

  60. Clarification of my previous comment that “I am glad to hear that you think the SP would oppose repeating this on Irish soil”.

    It was in regard to participation in a political bloc with SF, or other non-working class forces, not to participation in electoral blocs per se.

    Like

  61. The GUE/NGL has no common programme, not even a minimum one which members have to sign up to. It is a technical group, which is precisely why the Pirate Party joined it – not because they have politically converged with most of the Euro Left.

    As for me “standing against the SP leadership”, the Socialist Party are marginally more likely to affiliate to the IBT than they are to push for a political alliance with Sinn Fein. Really, Alan, you are letting your imagination run away with you.

    Like

  62. Mark, you say that membership of the GUE/NGL means nothing politically but then by what process did the large array of policy papers and joint publications come into being?

    Does the SP, as a member of the GUE/NGL, take any political responsibility for the content of those policy papers and joint publications?

    SP posters for the European elections and the Lisbon referendum included a reference to membership of the GUE/NGL. Anyone visiting the GUE/NGL web site or seeing a hard copy of one of those documents would reasonably assume that there was therefore some link between the SP and the content of those documents.

    Anyone reading the “Welcome” page on the “About” link of the GUE/NGL web site would reasonably assume that the SP was part of the “we” who share the reformist “vision” of the GUE/NGL.

    The reality is that the GUE/NGL is a political bloc that presents a common programme for social change – I fail to see how anyone visiting the GUE/NGL web site could possibly think otherwise.

    Sinn Fein are a part of this political bloc that presents a common programme along with the SP. It is a simple irrefutable fact that the SP are standing to together with SF in a political bloc on a common programme – are both part of a “we” who apparently share a common vision for changing society.

    The political message this sends to any militant worker who views this material can only be that political unity between workers parties and petty-bourgeois parties is ok. That “we” can share a common vision on how to change society.

    This is the core of the problem with class collaboration and this is true irrespective of whether the GUE/NGL has any internal discipline that can force members to vote a particular way or argue for any particular position.

    Like

  63. Well Alan, it’s difficult to argue with someone so determined to invent a relationship which does not exist, and so insistent on repeating false claims.

    The GUE/NGL does not require member organisations to agree any programme, nor does it have a whip in European Parliament votes. These are facts, not opinions, and they are what underly the involvement of extremely varied political parties in the coalition. It does not involve any political endorsement of the views of any of the other participant organisations on any particular issues. And it hardly could, given that in a number of countries there are different organisations involved which have a rather frosty relationship with each other and severe political disagreements.

    The GUE/NGL grouping allows different parties to avail of the various facilities available only to European Parliament groups of a certain size and with members in a number of different countries. It does not represent a political convergence between all of the groupings involved.

    And to bring this conversation back to Earth for a moment, the idea that the Socialist Party and Sinn Fein are going to launch a political alliance or sign up to a common programme is absolutely other-worldly. You are starting from an incorrect understanding of the GUE/NGL and heading from that point entirely off into the realms of fantasy.

    Like

  64. Mark,

    If the GUE/NGL is the type of technical grouping that you describe then why does it produce all those policy papers and joint programmatic publications?

    How were they produced if there was no discussion, and subsequent agreement, on their content?

    What would anyone going to the GUE/NGL web site think?

    The reality is that all these joint policy papers and programmatic publications clearly amount to a political bloc and would be understood as such by any worker viewing the GUE/NGL web site.

    It is your repeated denial of this fairly straight-forward fact that is in the realms of fantasy…

    Like

  65. And by the way there is nothing false in any of the claims I have made.

    We do have a difference of opinion over what the GUE/NGL bloc represents.

    I say it is a political bloc, you say it is a technical bloc.

    I present evidence to back up my opinion – the political content of the GUE/NGL web site.

    You repeat an assertion and refuse to even attempt to give an explanation of why all the joint policy papers and programmatic publications does not indicate that it is a political bloc.

    Like

  66. Or at least you seem to argue that the lack of any discipline within the GUE/NGL supposedly makes all that common programmatic material unimportant.

    Perhaps that is the core of our different understanding.

    You say it is a purely technical bloc because of this lack of organisational discipline.

    I say it is a political bloc because it produces common political material.

    Of course the lack of organisational discipline makes the GUE/NGL a WEAK political bloc but it doesn’t make it a non-political bloc.

    A purely technical bloc would not produce all this joint programmatic material. It would not talk about a “we” having a common vision.

    Like

  67. Alan,

    The simple answer as to why a load of bland, vacuous, platitudes appear on the GUE/NGL website is that the groups bureaucracy has to justify its own existence somehow. None of it consists of anything that components have to sign up to.

    The closest thing that there is to an actual common “programmatic” statement starts by saying that all components retain their own identity and political programmes. And then adds a couple of paragraphs of inconsequential fluff about being in favour of a “different type” of European integration, the only concrete policy which is mentioned is disapproval of NATO.

    The GUE/NGL is a facility sharing arrangement. Its components stand in elections against each other, explicitly do not subscribe to a common programme, do not vote together in the European Parliament and in quite a few cases openly loathe each other (KKE and SYRIZA most obviously). The issue isn’t that they have no way of “forcing” components to vote together, but that the group has no intention of voting together in the first place.

    The Socialist Party is 100% clear, publically and privately, that Sinn Fein is not a part of the workers movement, is not a party of the left and is not a party that we would be interested in forming a political alliance with under any circumstances. I hope that clarifies any concerns you may have.

    Like

  68. Mark – have you actually looked at the wide range of policy papers, publications and common resolutions to the European Parliament all produced under the name of the GUE/NGL and directly implying a common political perspective behind them?

    You seem to think of this as just being a clever trick that allows Joe to make speeches, comes with no political overhead, and it is not an indication of any kind of political bloc with SF – but facts are stubborn things…

    Have a look at this – http://www.indymedia.ie/article/96999#comment270810

    Protest today
    author by Paul – Socialist Party
    publication date Sat Jun 26, 2010 00:55

    “Just to answer the question re whether SF and Labour were invited to participate. SF was invited as they are a member of the European United Left parliamentary group in the European Parliament.”

    “But as the initiators of the protest, we chose to invite members of the European United Left (as the week of protest is initiated by MEPs from that group – so therefore we invited SF) and all we felt to be on the Left in a broad sense, as well as trade union, community and campaigning organisations.”

    How exactly do you square that explicit comment that SF were invited to the June 26th demo because of their membership of the GUE/NGL bloc with your statement that:

    “The Socialist Party is 100% clear, publically and privately, that Sinn Fein is not a part of the workers movement, is not a party of the left and is not a party that we would be interested in forming a political alliance with under any circumstances.”

    Like

  69. How do I square inviting SF to a protest on a single issue with not wanting to form a political alliance with them?

    Fairly easily, as the two are different things.

    Like

  70. Nice dodge…

    However my point is not the invitation itself but the REASON given for making the invitation.

    You say that membership of the GUE/NGL has no political ramifications for the SP.

    However it is clear that SF were invited to the June 26th demo BECAUSE they were members of the GUE/NGL.

    It seems you don’t want to use the phrase “political alliance” to describe this relationship. Ok, but then we are going to have to come up with another phrase to describe this political relationship which exists purely as a result of both organisations being in the GUE/NGL.

    But that would just be playing with semantics. The reality is that there are important aspects of “political alliance” in the GUE/NGL bloc – there is no other explanation for SF being invited to the demo merely BECAUSE of their membership in the GUE/NGL.

    Now I have no reason to doubt your subjective commitment to opposition to making “political alliances” with organisations outside the workers movement like SF.

    But it is pretty clear from the June 26th example that the GUE/NGL involves something more than just a technical arrangement to get speaking time for Joe in the European parliament and access to office space etc.

    If we combine this invite to the demo with all the common propaganda produced by the GUE/NGL then we have something that would seem to fit very closely with the phrase “political alliance”.

    You seem to think you can disappear this by playing games with words but the political content is clear.

    If you really want to stand by your statement that “Sinn Fein is not a part of the workers movement, is not a party of the left and is not a party that we would be interested in forming a political alliance with under any circumstances.” and make it concrete in the real world then I would suggest that you have to revisit the framework of the GUE/NGL, otherwise these are just words with no relationship to the actual practice of the SP.

    Like

  71. United Left Alliance to challenge at general election

    The newly established United Left Alliance, which will be publicly launched at a rally in the Ashling Hotel , Dublin on Friday 26 November, involves the Socialist Party, the People Before Profit Alliance, the South Tipperary Workers and Unemployed Action Group and the Independent Socialist group of Declan Bree in Sligo.

    The ULA is a joint slate or alliance of candidates that will put forward a real left alternative in the general election and challenge the austerity and capitalist consensus amongst all the parties in the Dail, Fianna Fail, Fine Gael, the Greens but also clearly including Labour and Sinn Fein.

    The ULA flows from a process of discussions initiated some time ago by the Socialist Party. It is a necessary and principled attempt at serious co-operation between left groups and while we will have to see how it goes over the next months, the Socialist Party hopes that the ULA will be an important first step in the formation of a new mass party for working class people, based on socialist policies.

    The ULA could possibly stand up to 20 candidates in the general election. This will include many who will seriously challenge to win TD positions, most obviously Seamus Healy in South Tipperary, Cllr Joan Collins in Dublin South Central, Richard Boyd Barrett in Dun Laoghaire, and clearly the Socialist Party will be going all out to try to get Joe Higgins MEP and Councillors Clare Daly and Mick Barry elected in Dublin North and Cork North Central respectively.

    As of now ULA candidates will stand in five cities, with Declan Bree also standing in Sligo, Seamus O’Brien (PBPA/SWP) standing in Wexford and Cian Prendiville of the Socialist Party standing in Limerick.

    In pushing for the establishment for a slate/alliance, the Socialist Party argued that it was very important to try to get a fraction of genuinely left TDs elected at the next opportunity. Given that this crisis will continue to wreck devastation for the foreseeable future and the likelihood that Labour will be in power putting the boot into working class people while ICTU sit idly by, three or four left TDs could become a very important focal point for organising struggle against austerity and for the launching of a new party of the working class to fill the political vacuum.

    The outstanding role that Joe Higgins played in national politics when it was difficult for the left during the boom years is on the one hand a model, but on the other also shows the massive potential that will exist in this unprecedented crisis to use the Dail as platform.

    The ULA was primarily established on the basis of agreement on a political programme, agreement on specific candidates that were credible as well as how other potential candidates could be agreed. There was an agreement on a democratic and consensual approach to decision making and establishing structures of the ULA.

    In the initial discussions which only involved the Socialist Party and the PBPA, there was debate and disagreement between us, particularly with the SWP, on the issue of whether an alliance should explicitly advocate socialist policies and socialism as the solution to the crisis. The Socialist Party did not agree with the SWP’s view that socialist policies would put people off from voting for candidates or from getting involved in a left alliance.

    We felt it was very unfortunate that this argument was being put forward at precisely the time when there is emerging, a new interest and need for socialist policies because this is a crisis of the capitalist system itself. We demonstrated that Joe Higgins got more than 50,000 votes while being one of the most identifiable socialists in the country with radical and socialist policies. Socialism was advocated in his leaflets that went into every home in Dublin.

    This debate should continue on the left in a fraternal atmosphere as it is of crucial importance. We are partly in favour of building a new left party because the likes of Labour have sold-out. But why have parties like Labour sold-out?

    The diminishing and ultimate collapse of any socialist outlook and perspective meant that Labour just succumbed to the pressure of the establishment. If a new left movement isn’t rooted in a socialist outlook that wants to break definitively with capitalism, it too will ultimately fail, regardless of whether it has TDs or councillors.

    If the left believes that policies like taking over the wealth of society and using it in a planned and productive way are necessary to create jobs, then it makes sense to advocate them and try to win people to these ideas rather than obscure the solution.

    We agree that the left must present its ideas skilfully but we also have a duty to tell people the truth and advocate socialist policies, regardless of the criticism from the establishment. This is because objectively they are the only policies that address and can overcome the reasons for the crisis. The fact that the majority of people don’t yet agree with that doesn’t mean we should obscure this necessity, quite the opposite. It shows the need to skilfully advocate why socialist policies are necessary. We hope that through fraternal discussion that the ULA becomes very confident that working class people and the young people now growing up in this crisis will see through spin and grasp the necessity to advocate an explicitly socialist alternative to the capitalist parties.

    Even though there wasn’t agreement on the need for an explicitly socialist programme, the Socialist Party felt we should continue to try to establish an alliance as that would be a step forward for working class people. We fully support the programme that the ULA has agreed and it can be read on the Socialist Party’s website. But the Socialist Party, while advocating the ULA programme will also exercise its right to also put forward our own socialist programme in our own election material etc.

    The Socialist Party also pushed that the ULA should be something that isn’t just geared towards existing groups. If it is to become something more, it needs to be open for any individual to get involved in it and to have a say. People can register to become a supporter and activist in the ULA, and hopefully the supporters register may be a step towards a membership if there is an interest in the challenge that the ULA is mounting in the months ahead. We would encourage anyone who wants to get involved to get in touch, or better still to come along to the ULA Launch Rally in the Ashling Hotel, Dublin on 26 November!

    http://socialistparty.net/elections/537-united-left-alliance-to-challenge-at-general-election

    Like

  72. “We fully support the programme that the ULA has agreed and it can be read on the Socialist Party’s website.”

    Can’t find it. What section is it in?

    Like

  73. It’s not up yet Gerry. It should be up in the very near future. I’ll post a link here when it is.

    It’s pretty minimal, consisting of entirely supportable reforms. Unfortunately those reforms aren’t put into an explicitly socialist framework, as some of the affiliates (chiefly the SWP) wouldn’t agree to that. However there’s nothing in it which those who do use a socialist framework would oppose.

    As the article makes clear, the Socialist Party will continue to put forward its own socialist programme, while arguing for the wider alliance to adopt one.

    Like

  74. Mark P: when you post the link to this program can you also post a link to the distinct program that the Socialist Party will be putting forward?

    Like

  75. Were the ISN, WP, CPI, éirígí or the IRSP invited to be part of this alliance?

    This alliance is the outworking of talks that go back two or three years, which initially involved the ISN, éirígí, the WP and I think Working Class Action too, as well as the SWP, SP and TWUAG. These talks foundered because of an SP-SWP pissing contest, though they’ve apparently gotten over that in creating this new electoral alliance.

    Like

  76. The United Left Alliance now has a website : http://www.unitedleftalliance.org/

    An Irish Times Report of yesterday’s press launch is here :

    http://www.irishtimes.com/newspape public r/ireland/2010/1126/1224284182687.html

    A public launch meeting happens next Monday, November 29, in the Gresham Hotel.

    Initial Donegal South-West by-election tallies suggest opinion poll predictions were broadly right : Pearse Doherty of Sinn Féin to take the seat from Fianna Fáil, the governing party’s vote has collapsed from 51% to around 20%, and Fine Gael has also polled badly.

    Like

  77. This Saturday’s mass demonstration against the cuts slaughter and bail out in cris ridden Ireland could help serve to unite Ireland in a way like no other and expose the forces of imperialism on both sides of the partitioned divide. It is to be and shall be determined by the people

    Like

  78. Readers may be interested in this discussion on the ULA, the SF Donegal By-Election victory, and related matters :

    Donegal byelection redux

    Like

Leave a comment

Trending