I've already answered the point about Stalin. Our opinion is that there is no need to have a party line on Stalin. At this point in time, clearly there is no party that can lay claim to be the vanguard party in Ireland. Like other parties, The WP would hope to build one.Originally Posted by SevenStars
Uh...Dont the SP trace their roots to Trotsky? And what has been the history of Trotskyism accept shameless opportunism, ultra-leftist sniping and than condemnation of actual revolutionary struggle from a "centrist" positition. Even in the first world Trotskyism has remained marginal and within the labour aristocracy.
Can you give some actual examples of any of those allegations?
Where is Trotskyism "within the labour aristocracy"?
The SP I would view was a left-reformist party, but I would concede they are part of the discussion on what Trotskyism is, or isn't.
Last edited by cactusflower; 4th October 2009 at 01:12 PM.
Not only that. They were inside every Republican and left organisation.
Sectarianism is their main card.
I think its the Socialist Party should be apologising for supporting it.
In this "GFA 10 years on" article by the SP, its stated that the GFA has led to deepening sectarianism. It omits mention of the SP support for the GFA.
The Socialist (April 2008) - North: Good Friday Agreement – ten years on
In an earlier different article the SP wrote
If that doesn't suggest that the GGA would weaken sectarianism and provide peace, what is it supposed to mean?We explained all this at the time. Nonetheless we argued for a "yes" vote in the referendum that quickly followed. We did so, not to sow illusions in the Agreement, but because a "no" vote would have strengthened the camp of sectarian reaction and would have put the peace process in jeopardy. The key was not support for the arguments of either side but was to build an alternative to right wing and sectarian politics.
The difference between an unworkable agreement but a continuation of the peace process and no agreement and the possibility of an immediate return to conflict may only have been a matter of timing. In both cases the end would be breakdown and conflict but in one case this would come later, possibly much later, than the other.
Towards Division not peace – SP pamphlet, Good Friday Agreement
The GFA was the child of UK and US Imperialism nursemaided in by their long-term friends in the Provisionals. The Socialist Party claim that it lead a working class drive for peace. The working class was in the main sick and tired of the individual terror and rioting tactics of the Provisionals. That was no reason to sign over the north of Ireland permanently to Britain. It was a reason to continue combatting Provisional politics and tactics.
The Socialist Party decided to contest the elections to the Assembly on the basis thatIt was this hope that the agreement might lead to some 'normalisation' of the political scene which also appeared to be the primary factor behind the Socialist Party's call for a 'yes' vote in the referendum. In an article in the May 1998 edition of the SP's newspaper "Voice", Joe Higgins the party's TD (Teachta Dala - member of the Irish Parliament) wrote
"Tragically, but inevitably, the terms drawn up are a reflection of the stunted politics that have dominated Northern Ireland for generations, the work of politicians and political parties, most of which are hopelessly sectarian-based or right wing or both....É.It appears inconceivable to those who have framed this agreement, that the ordinary people of Northern Ireland might want to elect individuals or parties which are not sectarian based but which represent working class people equally from Protestant and Catholic backgrounds, and who would have a vision utterly different to the narrow sectarian politics that have dominated Northern Ireland for decades with disastrous consequences."
According to Higgins' article, the choice was a stark one. Rejection of the deal would be seen as a victory by the most reactionary elements -
"Bitter sectarian polarisation in the communities would be the background to paramilitary outrages and open warfare on issues such as parades." If the deal was accepted "This may at least see the main political parties carry on their strategies within the framework agreed even though they will stumble from one political crisis to the next. It would allow the continuation of the peace process and could provide a space for working class politics to emerge which could challenge the grip of the sectarian based parties."
The "Good Friday Agreement" & the Irish Left"It is likely that small parties will make a breakthrough by winning seats in the Assembly. All of this can open up an opportunity for building a socialist alternative to the sectarian based partiesÉÉIf a window of opportunity opens up for class based politics, we are determined to go through it."
I have no interest in distorting the SP position on the GFA: I have put it up for examination and discussion. It seems to me to be profoundly wrong and to completely leave out the reality that the GFA consigned the North to British rule. "Devolution" has of course crawled along and been reneged on at every opportunity. The GFA created a pigs trough for compromised politicians. The whole think stank. The acid test should have been is this good or bad for British imperialism.
Last edited by cactusflower; 4th October 2009 at 01:43 PM.
Yet that is what you have consistantly done -
Even with the quotes you give above you are putting your own distorted interpretaion on them rather than actually taking on board what has been written. Just because you disagree with our position on the North does not give you the right to try and re-write what that position is. You purposely claimed that the Socialist Party called for a yes vote for the GFA on the basis "that it was going to bring permanent peace and an end to sectarianism" when you knew full well that we had consistantly pointed out that the GFA would re-inforce sectarianism and would not lead to any long-term peace and were told this in a comment by me on another thread.
Debate and discuss the reality of the Socialist Party's position on the North - your methods are dishonest and I will not engage in a discussion with you if you intend to lie (and that is what you are doing in this instance) about our position.
It is a nonsense to suggest that the GFA "has consigned the North to British rule.". The North has been consigned to British rule for a hell of a lot longer than since the GFA - the GFA did nothing to strengthen or weaken British rule. British rule was not being altered by the campaign of republican paramilitaries and the reality is that the GFA removed a campaign by both republican and loyalist paramilitaries - for a period - that offered the potential for the development of class politics - something that could be firmly on the agenda in the coming period with the significant cuts that the British Government and the Northern Assembly will be forced to introduce (and something that also has to potential to increase the prospect of a re-emergence of open sectarian violence if the left do not succeed in building a class movement).
No - the acid test should have been (and from the Socialist Party's point of view was) is the GFA good or bad for the working class of the North?
Disingenous. Read your own material. It said thatYou can't have it both ways.a "no" vote would have strengthened the camp of sectarian reaction
You are selectively quoting me yourself and you haven't replied in any way to the core the matters at hand. The GFA was twinned with change to the Constituion of the Republic that handed the North over. It aimed to cement the north as a semi-devolved UK region, with central control reinstated any time it suits the British.
If the GFA was good for British Imperialism, do you think there is any chance that its good for the Irish and English working class ?
I will leave the SP argument of "buying time to build the left alternative" to others to reply to. It seems to me to be complete self-serving twaddle - SP looking for seats in the Assembly?
There had been a cease fire for four years before the GFA. Where did the threat of sectarian mayhem come from? How was that threat used politically ?
Have another look at the new articles 2 and 3. They still define Ireland as ultimately the entire island, but state simply that unification can only happen when the majority in the north wants it. Which had been the policy of every government of the state since it was founded.
And just to get the timing clear. It's often forgotten that the provo ceasefire was ended in 1996 for about 18 months, a period which saw more killings. The years immediately prior to 1994 had been extremely vicious and saw escalating sectarian killings. There was real fear that things could spiral back towards the worst days of the 70s. The loyalist reaction to the killing of Billy Wright demonstrated the extent to which there was a danger of a swift return to violence, and at a higher scale. Add to that the dangers unleashed annually by Drumcree. There was a real chance that the failure of the political process would have seen very large number of workers dying for no reason.
Anyone who lives in the north can recognise that the GFA has provided a much better environment for all than what preceeded it.
disengenous is claiming the Socialist Party said one thing when in fact we said something completely different. It comes directly out of the Stalinist school of falseification.
A No vote would have immediately deepened sectarian reaction and opened the immediate prospect of a return to paramilitary activity - A Yes vote removed the prospect of such a situation fro a period. The GFA has deepened the sectarian divide and eventually will collapse.
There is also a difference between 'sectarian reaction' (which is open sectarian conflict) and deepening the sectarian divide (which doesn't at this point involve open sectarian conflict).
Bullsh*t - to start with the irish constitution is a reactionary document - a construct of capitalism and nationalism. The Socialist party wants to see it scrapped. The removal of articles 2+3 made absolutely no difference to the political position ont he ground in the North. Secondly, the North is already cemented to British Imperialism - the GFA did nothing to alter the its relationship with Imperialism. What the GFA did do - and this was the objective of the establishment - was to remove paramilitary violence from the political stage. They would hope that this will continue indefinitely - unfortunately for the working class it will not last.
From a socialist perspective whether it was good for British Imperialism is irrelevent (and the reality is that it did not strengthen Imperialism). The only important issue is whether it was good for the working class. Your approach to this issue is mechanical (as you also approach other issues). You view that because the removal of articles 2+3 and because there was devolution that british rule was strengthened - but you ignore the potential benefits to the working class.
Now are you suggesting the it would have been better for the working class that workers were not being killed in paramilitary violence - or - that the GFA was defeated and the potential for violence and deaths resutling from sectarian reaction was greatly increased?
The Socialist Party runs candidates in Council, Dail and European elections - running candidates in Assembly or Westminister elections are no different. From your comments you seem to have some notional nonsense that the elections in the North are illigitimate and should not be contested.
Again you are using words that the Socialist Party did not - we never claimed their would have been 'sectarian mayham' - but the potential for open sectarian reaction - for sectarian violence around issues that were already contentious and leading to conflict between the two communities. Again you need to address what we have said - not what you want us to say to back up your mistaken position.
Last edited by JollyRedGiant; 4th October 2009 at 04:15 PM.
The socio-economnic make up of Trotskyite groups is mainly drawn from the Labour aristocracy (the mostly Unionized higher paid workers) and Trotskyism has with the expection of Sri Lanka been more or less confined to the First World Imperialist nations and had very little influence outside of them.
The obvious examples would the attitude of Trotskyites to the nearly sucessful revolutionary struggle in Peru in the 80s and 90s (which was frankly hysterical in the case of the USAan SWP) and their attitude to the people's war been waged today in India. Also examine Trotskyite "entryism" of thoroughly Imperialist Social Democratic parties in the First World, their love of Front groups, the populist approach of People Before Profit who hardly if ever mention things like socialism no mind the dictatorship of the proletariat, etc.
Last edited by SevenStars; 4th October 2009 at 05:29 PM.
LinkBack URL
About LinkBacks
Reply With Quote