ULA: Post-election Mass-Party Building

[unspecific]

First thread. To quote James Connolly... whoop it up!

http://www.unitedleftalliance.org/united-left-alliance-launches-membership-drive-throughout-the-country/

It seems the ULA is to make a start on the party building.

I deduce that the steering committee met yesterday(thanks cllr.Bree (https://twitter.com/#!/DeclanBree/status/52787438015356928)) to put the wheels in motion.

Good to see that it is calling for action on the ground now that elections are over with for the next 2 to 3 years at least. I think people have been sceptical that electioneering and marching people up the hill and back down again were its only ideas.

Anyone intending to get involved and help shape it? What will its challenges be? What could its strengths be? Will it avoid the mistakes of the NPA?

[C. Flower]

First thread. To quote James Connolly... whoop it up!

http://www.unitedleftalliance.org/united-left-alliance-launches-membership-drive-throughout-the-country/

It seems the ULA is to make a start on the party building.

I deduce that the steering committee met yesterday(thanks cllr.Bree (https://twitter.com/#%21/DeclanBree/status/52787438015356928)) to put the wheels in motion.

Good to see that it is calling for action on the ground now that elections are over with for the next 2 to 3 years at least. I think people have been sceptical that electioneering and marching people up the hill and back down again were its only ideas.

Anyone intending to get involved and help shape it? What will its challenges be? What could its strengths be? Will it avoid the mistakes of the NPA?

Thanks for bringing the news. What is the NPA ? Do you support this yourself ?

[antiestablishmentarian]

Thanks for bringing the news. What is the NPA ? Do you support this yourself ?

Look at my avatar Cactus ;) They're the new French party formed by representatives of far-left parties, notably the former LCR. It has had serious problems getting off the ground despite good roots and a popular leadership in Besancenot.

[C. Flower]

Look at my avatar Cactus ;) They're the new French party formed by representatives of far-left parties, notably the former LCR. It has had serious problems getting off the ground despite good roots and a popular leadership in Besancenot.

What does NPA stand for ?

[unspecific]

Thanks for bringing the news. What is the NPA ? Do you support this yourself ?

Well, I support any coming together of competing anti-capitalist groups with similar ideologies. I wouldn't have found myself comfortable in any of the constituent parts, but what is forged between them could suit me. I'll definitely go along to these meetings if there is one in my area and debate what I think is needed in a revolutionary movement. I want more than electoralism and dogma. And oppositional politics.

The NPA was a very similar development in France after the previous presidential election when the LCR Presidential candidate did surprisingly well. However, the timing is poetic as the NPA's honeymoon period is now definitely over.

The cantonal elections at the weekend saw a surge in support for Marine Le Pen's fascist party, which is a huge failure for the left. The NPA(Nouveau Parti Anti-capitaliste) reverted back to their position as also-rans, since successful breakthrough local elections only a few years ago and have been haemorrhaging activists. I've read many criticisms and explanations.

They apparently have pushed no proper unified program, which though I do appreciate the reasoning, left the NPA rattling on the same oppositional and negative analysis. Good for a protest vote, bad for movement building.

Another point was that they refused to distance themselves from the Parti Socialiste, France's New Labour. Again, my knowledge is not too deep on the matter, but I think they were ready to go into coalition on the councils and people formed the view "why bother, a vote for the NPA is a vote for PS".

And then there is the strange tradition of "trade union" independence in France. Parties refuse to pressure unions to act on the people behalf, it being seen as disrespectful and rude. For any revolutionary party, that is a huge chunk of a program missing.

[antiestablishmentarian]

Well, I support any coming together of competing anti-capitalist groups with similar ideologies. I wouldn't have found myself comfortable in any of the constituent parts, but what is forged between them could suit me. I'll definitely go along to these meetings if there is one in my area and debate what I think is needed in a revolutionary movement. I want more than electoralism and dogma. And oppositional politics.

The NPA was a very similar development in France after the previous presidential election when the LCR Presidential candidate did surprisingly well. However, the timing is poetic as the NPA's honeymoon period is now definitely over.

The cantonal elections at the weekend saw a surge in support for Marine Le Pen's fascist party, which is a huge failure for the left. The NPA(Nouveau Parti Anti-capitaliste) reverted back to their position as also-rans, since successful breakthrough local elections only a few years ago and have been haemorrhaging activists. I've read many criticisms and explanations.

They apparently have pushed no proper unified program, which though I do appreciate the reasoning, left the NPA rattling on the same oppositional and negative analysis. Good for a protest vote, bad for movement building.

Another point was that they refused to distance themselves from the Parti Socialiste, France's New Labour. Again, my knowledge is not too deep on the matter, but I think they were ready to go into coalition on the councils and people formed the view "why bother, a vote for the NPA is a vote for PS".

And then there is the strange tradition of "trade union" independence in France. Parties refuse to pressure unions to act on the people behalf, it being seen as disrespectful and rude. For any revolutionary party, that is a huge chunk of a program missing.

I was involved with the NPA for a period and took part in the debates on coalitionism towards the PS- essentially, it boiled down to a refusal of the central leadership to put forward a clear position and leaving it instead to the different départements to take a position on a fusion technique (transfer pact). This meant that you had the NPA in one département running candidates who would not do a deal with the PS while in the next their candidates did. Naturally, it made people cynical towards the NPA. There were serious debates going on within it over those points you raised, and alot of new activists who would have been unaligned with the LCR before hand left because they felt the party was unable to develop despite the favourable conditions (there were alot of struggles taking place at the time- la Poste privatisation, the educational reforms).

[antiestablishmentarian]

What does NPA stand for ?

Nouveau Parti Anticapitaliste- the New Anticapitalist Party

[unspecific]

I was involved with the NPA for a period and took part in the debates on coalitionism towards the PS- essentially, it boiled down to a refusal of the central leadership to put forward a clear position and leaving it instead to the different départements to take a position on a fusion technique (transfer pact). This meant that you had the NPA in one département running candidates who would not do a deal with the PS while in the next their candidates did. Naturally, it made people cynical towards the NPA. There were serious debates going on within it over those points you raised, and alot of new activists who would have been unaligned with the LCR before hand left because they felt the party was unable to develop despite the favourable conditions (there were alot of struggles taking place at the time- la Poste privatisation, the educational reforms).

Which faction was pro-coalition, just out of interest? You're not involved anymore?

[bolshevik]

The linked document is a contribution to the process of discussion and debate around the creation of a new workers' party that has begun with the announcement by the ULA that it will shortly be calling public meetings and setting up local branches to discuss how to go forward towards that goal.

It takes as its starting point the belief that the new party should have socialism as an open and explicit aim. Taking that as a premise it then outlines what I believe to be the key points that would need to be part of a programme to concretely bring about the socialist transformation of society.

This is obviously far from a finished programme so any comments and suggestions would be appreciated.

http://revolutionaryprogramme.wordpress.com/for-a-revolutionary-socialist-programme/

[bolshevik]

Regarding the failure of the NPA project the following may be of interest:

http://www.bolshevik.org/1917/no32/ibt_1917_32_03_NPA.html
http://www.bolshevik.org/1917/no33/ibt_1917_33_04_class_struggle_in_france.html

[unspecific]

Excellent post Bolshevik.

Open tendencies are indeed crucial. And I don't think many topics would be contentious. I think a good issue might be how to put meaning to things like a nominal endorsement of feminism and anti-war beyond "the party will fight for.." etc. I think ecology is a big enough issue to even be included the name. It's too important to be monopolized by the right.

The internet is basically a store of all knowledge and many, many tools for emancipation. How we get our news. How we communicate. How we educate ourselves. It is increasingly becoming a cultural core, in the west at least. Capitalism's mission to embed itself in culture makes the internet, increasingly, a crucial battleground. As an open and free institution it should be mentioned with the same reverence as the NHS is in the UK. The new collective should have a strong focus and expertise on the matter. Imagine the domain name incorporated in the official full party name..! "unitedecologyleftalliance.org"

Of course I'm just spitballing ideas here. The left needs to be creative and look 2 or 3 steps ahead because that is where Capitalism is.

I think it should be explicitly stated that the party will never enter into power with or support other parties, save for full on emergencies that would warrant co-operation like a nuclear holocaust. Or maybe only if the collective is the dominant participant.

It has to be the self-organized face of an uncommodifiable cultural movement. Grass roots. Bottom up. Not just a Marx adoration party. Not just an excuse to speak in Das Kapital terminology or wave a red flag. It needs our own words, experiences, symbols. Not in a nationalist sense, just to reference the present and the battles we go through. Parody the absurdity in alienation. Creative civil disorder. Recognize, investigate the revolutionary potential of things like hope, action, love, humour, sport, positivity, fun like Damien Dempsey, King Blues, Frank Turner. Won't get anywhere as a party of negation. I like to imagine a modern autonomist folk movement of a northern european culture as opposed to the worst excesses of hippydom.

[bolshevik]

Cork & Kilkenny ULA Membership Drive Public Meetings

The details for the ULA Kilkenny meeting are: Friday 15th April 7:30pm Clubhouse Hotel, Speakers: Joe Higgins Conor MacLiam and Joan Collins TD

The details for the Cork meeting are Monday 18th April 8pm Metropole Hotel. Speakers Clare Daly, Mick Barry, Kieran Allen

http://www.socialistparty.net/component/content/article/628-cork-a-kilkenny-ula-membership-drive-public-meetings

[Apjp]

Do people really believe that this country will vote the ula in even without detailed economic policies? Perhaps the answer is for students and otehr fragmented groups in the years ahead to start a new far left party. the trouble is ive tried things like this. everyone promises to show. noone ever does. what can be done?

[bolshevik]

Three more meetings as part of the ULA membership drive have been announced:

The details for the ULA Blanchardstown meeting are:

8pm Thursday 14 April, Clonsilla Inn. Speakers: Joe Higgins TD, Joan Collins TD, Chair: Cllr Matt Waine

The details for the ULA Balbriggan meeting are:

8pm Tuesday 12 April, Milestone Inn. Speakers: Clare Daly TD, Cllr Brid Smith, Chair: Cllr Terry Kelleher

The details for the ULA Tallaght meeting are:

8pm Monday 11 April, Plaza Hotel
Speakers: Clare Daly TD, Cllr Gino Kenny, Mick Murphy

[unspecific]

@Apjp

That is the point of these meetings. Gather up everyone unhappy with the status quo and then in June or so I believe there is to be a founding congress where anyone can speak and policies will be voted on. With regards elections, they're over with until possibly 2014. Now is the time for grassroots action. For activists to find other activists in their area and do what they can to prevent the FGLab/IMF vultures finishing off the Irish economic cadaver.

Thanks Bolshevik. So its underway then. Will you be going along to the Cork meeting?

[C. Flower]

Your welcome to put those dates in the calendar - reminders will then show up at the bottom of the main page.

[bolshevik]

Thanks Bolshevik. So its underway then. Will you be going along to the Cork meeting?

I will indeed. It will be interesting to see how the SP & SWP speakers present the thorny question of whether the new party should have socialism as a stated aim or not.

[bolshevik]

Your welcome to put those dates in the calendar - reminders will then show up at the bottom of the main page.

Done

[unspecific]

I will indeed. It will be interesting to see how the SP & SWP speakers present the thorny question of whether the new party should have socialism as a stated aim or not.

We'll be expecting a report on the evening..!

I might enquire if they would hold a branch establishing meeting where I live, half-expected they would. Maybe it is just yet to be announced. Good to see they're making an effort to work outside central Dublin. Does anyone else out there think they would have sufficient, interested numbers in their area to warrant such a meeting?

I wonder if the likes of, or people involved with the ISN, eirigi, the WP, ecologists, the Peoples Movement et al will step forward to speak and even get involved. I certainly think it could only be a positive development.

I think the PBPA position is that they feel comfortable that their aims are obviously what socialism is and that using the word is not necessary and can be counterproductive. The SP, I understand, are more interested in explicitly communicating to people they are revolutionary socialist so people go with them with their eyes wide open. Again I must be clear that I am not a member of either organisation and speak for neither.

Frankly, I think that describing themselves as anti-capitalist and having Joe Higgins on board will make the goal more than explicit enough. Action, struggle and the collective experience of it is far more important. Besides, I'm sure there will be a highly visible explicity socialist tendency organised within the party anyway. The PDs didn't call themselves the fascist neoliberal party, but then again, they didn't have to did they?

[bolshevik]

I agree that the terms we use to describe the aims of the new party are much less important than the political content of its programme and actions.

I personally think it is important that the programmatic content and actions point in the direction of a revolutionary road to socialism rather than a reformist road to socialism.

At core this is having a central strategy of promoting, and where possible beginning to implement, the building of militant class struggle organisations separate from, and in opposition to, the institutions of capitalism and its state.

This was unfortunately absent from the politics presented by the ULA in the election and needs to be changed if the new party will be able to play the positive role it potentially could, both in effectively fighting back against the current attacks and in the eventual socialist transformation of society.

[bolshevik]

Updated list of meetings:

Mon 11th April:

Tallaght

Clare Daly TD SP
Cllr Gino Kenny PBP
Mick Murphy SP

Plaza Hotel, Tallaght 8pm

Tues 12th April:

Balbriggan

Clare Daly TD SP
Cllr Brid Smith PBP
Cllr Terry Keleher SP

Milestone Inn, Balbriggan, 8pm

Thur 14th April:

Blanchardstown

Joe Higgins TD SP
Joan Collins TD PBP

Clonsilla Inn 8pm

Fri 15th April:

Kilkenny

Joe Higgins TD SP
Joan Collins TD PBP
Conor MacLiam SP

Clubhouse Hotel 7.30pm

Mon 18th April:

Cork

Clare Daly TD SP
Kieran Allen PBP
Cllr Mick Barry SP

Metropole Hotel 8pm

Newmarket

Joe Higgins TD SP
Cllr Brid Smith PBP
Anne Foley PBP

James O’Keefe memorial 8pm

Coolock

Cllr Matt Waine SP
Richard Boyd Barrett TD PBP
John Lyons PBP

Donnycarney Community Centre 8pm

Drimnagh

Kevin McLoughlin SP
Joan Collins TD PBP
Cllr Brid Smith PBP
Cllr Pat Dunne PBP

St John Bosco, Drimnagh 8pm

Thur 19th April:

Dun Laoghaire

Clare Daly TD SP
Richard Boyd Barrett TD

Kingston Hotel 8pm

Crumlin

Paul Murphy MEP SP
Joan Collins TD PBP
Cllr Brid Smith PBP
Cllr Pat Dunne PBP

Village Inn, Crumlin 8pm

Wed 20th April:

Carlow

Paul Murphy MEP SP
Cllr Brid Smith PBP
Conor Mac Liam SP

Venue tbc

Wed 27th April

Tullamore

Paul Murphy MEP SP
Cllr Brid Smith PBP
Ray Fitzpatrick SP

Hugh Lynch’s Kilbride St, 8pm

Thur 28th April:

Limerick

Paul Murphy MEP SP
Kieran Allen PBP
Cian Prendiville SP

Absolute Hotel, Sir Harry’s Mall, 8pm

Swords

Clare Daly TD SP
Eddie Conlon PBP
Cllr Eugene Coppinger SP

Carnegie Court Hotel, 8pm

Dublin South East

Michael O’Brien SP
Richard Boyd Barrett TD PBP
Annette Mooney PBP

Pearse Centre, Pearse Street 8pm

Thur 5th May

Sligo

Joe Higgins TD SP
Richard Boyd Barrett TD SP
Cllr Declan Bree SSA

Venue tbc

Mon 9th May

Dublin South

Cllr Ruth Coppinger SP
Richard Boyd Barrett TD PBP
Nicola Curry PBP

Balinteer St John’s GAA club 8pm

Rialto

Cllr Matt Waine SP
Joan Collins TD PBP
Cllr Brid Smith PBP
Cllr Pat Dunne PBP

St Andrews Community Centre 8pm

[C. Flower]

Feel free to put them into the Calendar (the link is in navbar)

[unspecific]

This is all very impressive and, happily, ambitious. Tullamore!

[antiestablishmentarian]

Interesting. They're going ahead with building the organisation without actually clarifying its programme. At the very least, a provisional programme should be drawn up while the recruitment drive is ongoing, and then presented to a specially convened congress of foundation for approval, amendment etc. I'm afraid this will be a little cart before horse.

[bolshevik]

The first meeting was last night in Dublin but I haven't seen any report so far - anyone heard anything?

As regards the lack of a programme I think they will get around that by taking the ULA election platform as the basis for now and saying something like "groups and individuals are free to argue for things beyond this in the run up to the national convention as long as it doesn't contradict this minimum basis."

[bolshevik]

The BIG problem they seem to have is that the two main initiating groups have quite different views on how radical/socialist the programme should be.

Anyway I'll know a lot more after the Cork meeting next Monday.

[Apjp]

@Apjp

That is the point of these meetings. Gather up everyone unhappy with the status quo and then in June or so I believe there is to be a founding congress where anyone can speak and policies will be voted on. With regards elections, they're over with until possibly 2014. Now is the time for grassroots action. For activists to find other activists in their area and do what they can to prevent the FGLab/IMF vultures finishing off the Irish economic cadaver.

Thanks Bolshevik. So its underway then. Will you be going along to the Cork meeting?

Ok. well theres a meeting in balbriggan 10 kms from me house tonight. Im not sure ill go yet. I wont be off class til 6 and cant get a bus til 7. Ive been encouraged by the sounds of the meetings but the lack of detail in anything of the ula's is frightening. Makes me want to just wish them well as I cant get involved with a movement like that. Ive spoken to members of it on this thing and elsewhere who left it due to the ula being too reactionary. Perhaps I will keep attending the referendum meetings but as for joining, no chance.

[bolshevik]

This has just been posted on Cedar Lounge:


ULA National Convention Saturday 25th June Liberty Hall

A National Convention of the United Left Alliance will take place at which a number of rallies and workshops will take place on a range of policy topics as well as dealing with the various arenas of campaign work our supporters are involved in. More information will be available soon.

I'm not sure that "rallies and workshops" are quite the right format for a conference to discuss (decide on?) the programme of the new party.

I'm a bit worried this is a bit more of the horse before the cart stuff...

[bolshevik]

Ajip - if you do go tonight let us have a report :-)

[unspecific]

Haha! Excellent! I emailed them enquiring about the possibility of a launch in my area and they replied that they had received such demands and put me in touch with other people who thought the same. Its in our hands now, depending how much we want it. I thought I was the only anticapitalist in the village!

Surely it is a good thing that they aren't just looking for people to parrot the programme they cook up behind closed doors? This way the grassroots will have a means of shaping it. And to be fair, I can't envisage the launch crowds being anybody who doesn't know the score anyway.

The convention in Liberty Hall could then propose, vote, amend and decide upon the initial policies/tactics/explicit revolutionary programme or not. Also do you have a link for that CedarLounge announcement Bolshevik? Can't find it myself :o

Do go if you can APJP, nothing to lose and a world to gain. Put up a summary and anything you feel wasn't explained satisfactorily, we can bring up at our own local meetings until we get an answer. Forum debating nonpartisan members could, in effect, even have their own tendency in the proto-party. I don't see this as belonging just to Joe and RBB, but every serf seeking emancipation.

[C. Flower]

Haha! Excellent! I emailed them enquiring about the possibility of a launch in my area and they replied that they had received such demands and put me in touch with other people who thought the same. Its in our hands now, depending how much we want it. I thought I was the only anticapitalist in the village!

Surely it is a good thing that they aren't just looking for people to parrot the programme they cook up behind closed doors? This way the grassroots will have a means of shaping it. And to be fair, I can't envisage the launch crowds being anybody who doesn't know the score anyway.

The convention in Liberty Hall could then propose, vote, amend and decide upon the initial policies/tactics/explicit revolutionary programme or not. Also do you have a link for that CedarLounge announcement Bolshevik? Can't find it myself :o

Do go if you can APJP, nothing to lose and a world to gain. Put up a summary and anything you feel wasn't explained satisfactorily, we can bring up at our own local meetings until we get an answer. Forum debating nonpartisan members could, in effect, even have their own tendency in the proto-party. I don't see this as belonging just to Joe and RBB, but every serf seeking emancipation.

I agree this seems to be an opportunity for people and groups to get involved with the ULA and debate the issues - find out if its for them - and possibly influence the way it developes. No point in sitting on the sidelines and then complainging about the way things develop afterwards.

[Apjp]

We'll be expecting a report on the evening..!

I might enquire if they would hold a branch establishing meeting where I live, half-expected they would. Maybe it is just yet to be announced. Good to see they're making an effort to work outside central Dublin. Does anyone else out there think they would have sufficient, interested numbers in their area to warrant such a meeting?

I wonder if the likes of, or people involved with the ISN, eirigi, the WP, ecologists, the Peoples Movement et al will step forward to speak and even get involved. I certainly think it could only be a positive development.

I think the PBPA position is that they feel comfortable that their aims are obviously what socialism is and that using the word is not necessary and can be counterproductive. The SP, I understand, are more interested in explicitly communicating to people they are revolutionary socialist so people go with them with their eyes wide open. Again I must be clear that I am not a member of either organisation and speak for neither.

Frankly, I think that describing themselves as anti-capitalist and having Joe Higgins on board will make the goal more than explicit enough. Action, struggle and the collective experience of it is far more important. Besides, I'm sure there will be a highly visible explicity socialist tendency organised within the party anyway. The PDs didn't call themselves the fascist neoliberal party, but then again, they didn't have to did they?

I agree with much of what you say. I wont be going to any meeting tonight though. My hope is that, if the party is serious about getting a real alternative programme on board they wont rush it but they wont take too long either. They should engage everyone at the meetings, be they members or lefties there in solidarity and not in any party atm. They are doing ok, but are too reactionary at present. The best hope for the ULA in my view is Joe Higgins. Joe is often accused of rhetoric but the reality is he's done more for Irish socialism than anyone since James Connolly. 5 left seats would have been a fantasy back in 2007. Clare Daly has happily proved me wrong and shown herself very capable in understanding the financial problems facing the country. I would appreciate if she could put something down on paper though as she has a financial and slight economic background from her DCU days and she should be driving economic policy, obv in conj. with as many members as possible. RBB shows lots of passion and is very dedicated and inspires people with his eccentric speaking but again the lack of detail in his defending of policy shows up the fact that the ula has none that can be coherently stated as policy. Joan has been very capable and I have no criticisms of her, save for the optics of giving your husband a parliamentary assisant's job. That was ill judged in my opinion. I have not really seen Seamus Healy of Tipp much around the dail or on tv. Cant comment on him.

Theres a lot of hope in the ULA. Personally I hope they keep proving me wrong, and if they really are holding a sort of grand left ard fheis in june to launch this new party and submit policies, and so on, I'll attend, whether its in cork or derry. However they have a lot to learn, some of which they are aware-like for example Joe's promise at a recent meeting and in interviews to 'begin engaging the entire movement on our economic alternative'. I hope he does that soon with the ULA. If he does I'll happily climb on board. They are very late with some suggestions-but in fairness only now have 5 tds to air them. I believe the capital controls thing was a very cute thing to put on the front of the socialist worker, not a paper renowned for front page solutions. I want to see invitations extended to all the left tds to see if they want to join. The party is finding a lot of common ground with wallace and ming these days, why not ask would they be members when this things kicks off? Of course thinking ahead, if I did join there is no organization in Drogheda atm I think and defo none in Meath. I am sure they would respond and say they need people to join for that to happen. DIT shamefully has no left parties beyond the Shinners.

On a seperate note im seeing that more and more of the Labour voters and members these days are of the middle classes, particularly in the case of students slagging off the far left for 'having their little protests' and defending the govt at all chances. They tend to be of the ilk that run the DITSU and Governing councils, hardly soft left at all. I think a lot of them will be surprised when they see the next budget.

[Apjp]

Updated list of meetings:

Mon 11th April:

Tallaght

Clare Daly TD SP
Cllr Gino Kenny PBP
Mick Murphy SP

Plaza Hotel, Tallaght 8pm

Tues 12th April:

Balbriggan

Clare Daly TD SP
Cllr Brid Smith PBP
Cllr Terry Keleher SP

Milestone Inn, Balbriggan, 8pm

Thur 14th April:

Blanchardstown

Joe Higgins TD SP
Joan Collins TD PBP

Clonsilla Inn 8pm

Fri 15th April:

Kilkenny

Joe Higgins TD SP
Joan Collins TD PBP
Conor MacLiam SP

Clubhouse Hotel 7.30pm

Mon 18th April:

Cork

Clare Daly TD SP
Kieran Allen PBP
Cllr Mick Barry SP

Metropole Hotel 8pm

Newmarket

Joe Higgins TD SP
Cllr Brid Smith PBP
Anne Foley PBP

James O’Keefe memorial 8pm

Coolock

Cllr Matt Waine SP
Richard Boyd Barrett TD PBP
John Lyons PBP

Donnycarney Community Centre 8pm

Drimnagh

Kevin McLoughlin SP
Joan Collins TD PBP
Cllr Brid Smith PBP
Cllr Pat Dunne PBP

St John Bosco, Drimnagh 8pm

Thur 19th April:

Dun Laoghaire

Clare Daly TD SP
Richard Boyd Barrett TD

Kingston Hotel 8pm

Crumlin

Paul Murphy MEP SP
Joan Collins TD PBP
Cllr Brid Smith PBP
Cllr Pat Dunne PBP

Village Inn, Crumlin 8pm

Wed 20th April:

Carlow

Paul Murphy MEP SP
Cllr Brid Smith PBP
Conor Mac Liam SP

Venue tbc

Wed 27th April

Tullamore

Paul Murphy MEP SP
Cllr Brid Smith PBP
Ray Fitzpatrick SP

Hugh Lynch’s Kilbride St, 8pm

Thur 28th April:

Limerick

Paul Murphy MEP SP
Kieran Allen PBP
Cian Prendiville SP

Absolute Hotel, Sir Harry’s Mall, 8pm

Swords

Clare Daly TD SP
Eddie Conlon PBP
Cllr Eugene Coppinger SP

Carnegie Court Hotel, 8pm

Dublin South East

Michael O’Brien SP
Richard Boyd Barrett TD PBP
Annette Mooney PBP

Pearse Centre, Pearse Street 8pm

Thur 5th May

Sligo

Joe Higgins TD SP
Richard Boyd Barrett TD SP
Cllr Declan Bree SSA

Venue tbc

Mon 9th May

Dublin South

Cllr Ruth Coppinger SP
Richard Boyd Barrett TD PBP
Nicola Curry PBP

Balinteer St John’s GAA club 8pm

Rialto

Cllr Matt Waine SP
Joan Collins TD PBP
Cllr Brid Smith PBP
Cllr Pat Dunne PBP

St Andrews Community Centre 8pm

The fact that Drogheda and Dundalk and Navan are still not being targeted9particularly the first two) is bad. I think the ULA will run double its td numbers next time round in every constituency it competed in this year. But i dont see why they dont start organizations in all major towns. I asked was there a drogheda movement and i think someone said there was but that its very small. Im guessing there isnt anymore if theres no meeting in drog. this week/in this list. im gonna get in touch again. If enough common ground can be found seeing what can be done at grassroots will do no harm.

[Apjp]

Interesting. They're going ahead with building the organisation without actually clarifying its programme. At the very least, a provisional programme should be drawn up while the recruitment drive is ongoing, and then presented to a specially convened congress of foundation for approval, amendment etc. I'm afraid this will be a little cart before horse.

thats the fear! wheres the detail? The reality is they could well end up with 15-25 odd tds next time round even without a programme as we saw in the election theres a left trend building. One wonders how many seats they could win WITH detail in their aims.

[Apjp]

The first meeting was last night in Dublin but I haven't seen any report so far - anyone heard anything?

As regards the lack of a programme I think they will get around that by taking the ULA election platform as the basis for now and saying something like "groups and individuals are free to argue for things beyond this in the run up to the national convention as long as it doesn't contradict this minimum basis."

the national conventions in june sometime right??

[Apjp]

Haha! Excellent! I emailed them enquiring about the possibility of a launch in my area and they replied that they had received such demands and put me in touch with other people who thought the same. Its in our hands now, depending how much we want it. I thought I was the only anticapitalist in the village!

Surely it is a good thing that they aren't just looking for people to parrot the programme they cook up behind closed doors? This way the grassroots will have a means of shaping it. And to be fair, I can't envisage the launch crowds being anybody who doesn't know the score anyway.

The convention in Liberty Hall could then propose, vote, amend and decide upon the initial policies/tactics/explicit revolutionary programme or not. Also do you have a link for that CedarLounge announcement Bolshevik? Can't find it myself :o

Do go if you can APJP, nothing to lose and a world to gain. Put up a summary and anything you feel wasn't explained satisfactorily, we can bring up at our own local meetings until we get an answer. Forum debating nonpartisan members could, in effect, even have their own tendency in the proto-party. I don't see this as belonging just to Joe and RBB, but every serf seeking emancipation.

Ok ill go the next one as that ship has sailed. just gonna head home at 8 as cant make meeting in balbriggan 2nite

[unspecific]

@APJP the founding congress will be June 25th in Liberty Hall. Fitting venue :cool: And yeah, hopefully all those Labour fans will see the mask slip as soon as possible. Things can't really wait. Also, where that list of dates is originally posted, there is more than is copied and pasted here if its any use.

"Further meetings are being planned for Wexford and Gorey later this month and in mid to late May in Drogheda, Waterford, Tralee, Dundalk, Celbridge, Nenagh and Letterkenny

If you live rural & would like a meeting in your area that's not on the list, just contact the Socialist Party."

@C.Flower Yeah it really has to be that way. Has to be something new and involve new people, ideas. Otherwise, if they were so right, any new people would already have joined PBP or SP etc. Last time I checked this was still a country with an overwhelming rightwing majority in control supervised by IMF and no revolution. Patching both together and effectively being "The Enlarged SP" or "The Enlarged PBP" obviously won't move us on to the next level. Lots and lots of good, nutritious popular deliberation. That's what puts meat on the bone. For years I've heard them both repeat over and over "the need to build a new, mass workers party". Well lets do it.

Its also important that the alliance can exist with internal debates, rows, tendencies and differences of opinions. I don't need to agree with or feel pressure to leave if 90percent have a differing view on the national liberation of samiland. I just need to know that the other 90percent will be out fighting cuts, civil disobedience and organizing their neighbourhoods. When the question of X is relevant lets discuss it. I'm fairly sure we all have a similar picture in our minds of what society we want to live in, we can navigate each turn when we get there not before.

[C. Flower]

@APJP the founding congress will be June 25th in Liberty Hall. Fitting venue :cool: And yeah, hopefully all those Labour fans will see the mask slip as soon as possible. Things can't really wait. Also, where that list of dates is originally posted, there is more than is copied and pasted here if its any use.

"Further meetings are being planned for Wexford and Gorey later this month and in mid to late May in Drogheda, Waterford, Tralee, Dundalk, Celbridge, Nenagh and Letterkenny

If you live rural & would like a meeting in your area that's not on the list, just contact the Socialist Party."

@C.Flower Yeah it really has to be that way. Has to be something new and involve new people, ideas. Otherwise, if they were so right, any new people would already have joined PBP or SP etc. Last time I checked this was still a country with an overwhelming rightwing majority in control supervised by IMF and no revolution. Patching both together and effectively being "The Enlarged SP" or "The Enlarged PBP" obviously won't move us on to the next level. Lots and lots of good, nutritious popular deliberation. That's what puts meat on the bone. For years I've heard them both repeat over and over "the need to build a new, mass workers party". Well lets do it.

Its also important that the alliance can exist with internal debates, rows, tendencies and differences of opinions. I don't need to agree with or feel pressure to leave if 90percent have a differing view on the national liberation of samiland. I just need to know that the other 90percent will be out fighting cuts, civil disobedience and organizing their neighbourhoods. When the question of X is relevant lets discuss it. I'm fairly sure we all have a similar picture in our minds of what society we want to live in, we can navigate each turn when we get there not before.

The Unspecific Road to Socialism :) ?

[unspecific]

The Unspecific Road to Socialism :) ?

Haha! Yes! Tell the people!

Would it be appropriate to open a new thread on what, specificly, needs to have been decided upon come the otherside of the founding congress?

[Apjp]

@APJP the founding congress will be June 25th in Liberty Hall. Fitting venue :cool: And yeah, hopefully all those Labour fans will see the mask slip as soon as possible. Things can't really wait. Also, where that list of dates is originally posted, there is more than is copied and pasted here if its any use.

"Further meetings are being planned for Wexford and Gorey later this month and in mid to late May in Drogheda, Waterford, Tralee, Dundalk, Celbridge, Nenagh and Letterkenny

If you live rural & would like a meeting in your area that's not on the list, just contact the Socialist Party."

@C.Flower Yeah it really has to be that way. Has to be something new and involve new people, ideas. Otherwise, if they were so right, any new people would already have joined PBP or SP etc. Last time I checked this was still a country with an overwhelming rightwing majority in control supervised by IMF and no revolution. Patching both together and effectively being "The Enlarged SP" or "The Enlarged PBP" obviously won't move us on to the next level. Lots and lots of good, nutritious popular deliberation. That's what puts meat on the bone. For years I've heard them both repeat over and over "the need to build a new, mass workers party". Well lets do it.

Its also important that the alliance can exist with internal debates, rows, tendencies and differences of opinions. I don't need to agree with or feel pressure to leave if 90percent have a differing view on the national liberation of samiland. I just need to know that the other 90percent will be out fighting cuts, civil disobedience and organizing their neighbourhoods. When the question of X is relevant lets discuss it. I'm fairly sure we all have a similar picture in our minds of what society we want to live in, we can navigate each turn when we get there not before.

I agree with yer post by and large, cheers. Im deliberating meself, whether to join the new autonomy ireland movement which was recently founded by an economist and election candidate in me area, or to join the ula. I'll happily keep deliberating til am sure. rushed into the wp and that got me nowhere.

[unspecific]

I agree with yer post by and large, cheers. Im deliberating meself, whether to join the new autonomy ireland movement which was recently founded by an economist and election candidate in me area, or to join the ula. I'll happily keep deliberating til am sure. rushed into the wp and that got me nowhere.

That guy was actually one of the lads speaking from the crowd at the IMF referendum campaign meeting. You sure he is an economist? I'm pretty sure he uttered something along the lines of "now I dont pretend to understand the economics of it... " Good on ye man for getting involved one way or the other. Go and talk to everyone youre interested in and decide after.

Has anyone heard reports of or been to any of the 2 meetings so far? Tallaght and Balbriggan this week. Blanch/Clonsilla later this evening.

[Apjp]

That guy was actually one of the lads speaking from the crowd at the IMF referendum campaign meeting. You sure he is an economist? I'm pretty sure he uttered something along the lines of "now I dont pretend to understand the economics of it... " Good on ye man for getting involved one way or the other. Go and talk to everyone youre interested in and decide after.

Has anyone heard reports of or been to any of the 2 meetings so far? Tallaght and Balbriggan this week. Blanch/Clonsilla later this evening.

That wasnt him. He was the guy saying 'all i have to ask is how close are we to an industrial strike'? and then he sat down. Yes he's an economist, though he seems slightly more soft left than hard left so that may be a sticking point. If we disagree on enough things, I wont join, but theres no sign of tht yet. Hes having a meeting in a few weeks and ill post the details up on one of these threads as i cant start threads, when that happens.

BTW as regards reports, as a writer, I really dont like reporting on these things in me spare time. I know thats lazy but there ye go. I guess im more interested in the nitty gritty of the economics when i do write. I was meaning to blog here a few times in the last few weeks. Ive a few days off now so hopefully i can finally find time and the right specific issues to do so.

EDIT: the guy concerned has a degree in International economics so he's well aware of how each economic system works and it's complexities. He is in fact a business manager with an economic background. I was wrong, he is not an economist, although he has a degree in the subject.

[C. Flower]

Haha! Yes! Tell the people!

Would it be appropriate to open a new thread on what, specificly, needs to have been decided upon come the otherside of the founding congress?

What is happening at the moment is meetings around the country.

I heard the meeting in Kilkenny was lively enough but small and mainly old hands.

The Programme is on the ULA website.

http://www.unitedleftalliance.org/about-us/

There are no mentions of socialism, marxism or social revolution in the programme, which is a radical, but reformist programme.

There is no mention of any country outside Europe.

If people want a different kind of party, will they argue for it at the convention?
A lot of members of both the SWP and SP would have thought of themselves as socialists, marxists and as pro-revolution.

[Apjp]

What is happening at the moment is meetings around the country.

I heard the meeting in Kilkenny was lively enough but small and mainly old hands.

The Programme is on the ULA website.

http://www.unitedleftalliance.org/about-us/

There are no mentions of socialism, marxism or social revolution in the programme, which is a radical, but reformist programme.

There is no mention of any country outside Europe.

If people want a different kind of party, will they argue for it at the convention?
A lot of members of both the SWP and SP would have thought of themselves as socialists, marxists and as pro-revolution.

Ireland needs a communist party. Socialism wont be enough long term. Only a communist party could revolutionize society. The problem is dont ever hold a meeting on it as no one will show.

[unspecific]

I heard the meeting in Kilkenny was lively enough but small and mainly old hands.

I don't intend to be facetious here, but by that do you mean the usual suspects or aul fellas? Rough attendance estimate? I didn't know the SP or PBPA had a foothold in Kilkenny.


Ireland needs a communist party. Socialism wont be enough long term. Only a communist party could revolutionize society. The problem is dont ever hold a meeting on it as no one will show.

Marxism decrees that a communist society will require a transitionary period -socialism,(not to be confused with social-democracy (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_democracy)) where the worst damage inflicted upon current society by capitalism will be reversed. I believe that we don't necessarily have to use the word "communism" or wave around a hammer & sickle or even instantly resort to using labels of any kind to broadcast ourselves. Ultimately, it is simply democracy applied to all instances.

I am liking how each scheduled meeting is a mix of representatives from the different constituents of the ULA. A conscious effort that will probably go un-noticed. A grand tour of the country by such mixes would have been unthinkable not so long ago.

Give 'em hell later, Bolshevik! :p

[bolshevik]

http://revolutionaryprogramme.wordpress.com/2011/04/19/report-on-18-april-ula-public-meeting-in-cork-city/ for my report on the ULA public meeting in Cork last night

[unspecific]

http://revolutionaryprogramme.wordpress.com/2011/04/19/report-on-18-april-ula-public-meeting-in-cork-city/ for my report on the ULA public meeting in Cork last night

Fair play to you sir, particularly for passing around your own programme. The report is much appreciated.

So the starting point is that the ULA will be a balls-out Trotskyist party?

I agree that monthly meetings is a bad idea. Its too long between seeing others, particularly if someone isn't involved in a tendency. I assume it is set that way in the SP/PBP's favour who have weekly meetings.

[bolshevik]

So the starting point is that the ULA will be a balls-out Trotskyist party?

Well a good proportion of those in attendence last night would call themselves "Trotskyist" but it is a pretty generic term which covers a lot. Certainly it seems, on the basis of last night's meeting at least, that it will be explicitly socialist - though that can also be filled in with a variety of content.


I agree that monthly meetings is a bad idea. Its too long between seeing others, particularly if someone isn't involved in a tendency. I assume it is set that way in the SP/PBP's favour who have weekly meetings.

Well there might be some truth to that but I couldn't say not being a member of either group - it certainly wasn't presented in that way. I'll be trying to get it changed at the first branch meeting and it probably depends on how many independents turn up as to whether there is a reality to making that change.

[unspecific]

Missed this last week;

http://url.ie/arqt

The SWP give their 2 cents.


United Left Alliance - What kind of party?

13/04/2011

Within weeks of joining Fine Gael in government, the Labour Party has turned its back on the aspirations of its supporters.
Instead of ‘burning bondholders’, it now says the IMF-EU deal must be implemented.
Instead of defending public sector workers, Labour Minister, Pat Rabbitte, has threatened them with more pay cuts.
We need a new party that stands up for working people and the United Left Alliance lays the basis for that party.
All over Europe, there is a ‘crisis of representation’ in working class politics. Stalinist parties, which once commanded the allegiance of millions of workers in Italy and France, are in disarray. Social democratic parties are incapable of delivering any significant reforms because they operate within the parameters the system.
A new political space has opened up for radical left parties – and Ireland is no exception.
What kind of Party?

Radical left parties differ from both traditional social democratic parties and revolutionary parties.
Unlike traditional Labour Parties, they are formed on a principled basis and should not prop up governments that attack working people.
But they also differ from revolutionary parties in that they create a space for people who want to fight – but who have not yet been convinced of the overthrow of capitalism.
They are, therefore, transitionary formations that reflect the reality of working class politics today. By their very nature, they will be plural – reflecting different experiences and to some extent different outlooks. This is not particularly a virtue – but more a necessity.
Over a period, it is our hope that the ULA will evolve into a revolutionary party but that will arise from the experience of mass struggle and debate. In the meantime, there a number of key principles a new party should be founded on.

Keep it broad and non-sectarian.

The United Left Alliance should be open to all those principled activists and fighters who want an alternative. It should reach out to any left wing politician who commits themselves to oppose ‘the consensus for cuts’.
It should develop a new culture that puts an end to sectarian squabbles within the left – as opposed to genuine debate and discussion on tactics.
But the ULA should also be a non-sectarian party in a deeper sense. We should work with others with whom we do not agree in order to maximise mobilisations. Where sections of Labour start to break with their party leaders, for example, they should be welcomed onto platforms if it will widen the base of support for campaign and struggles. But they should also be told to break with the Labour Party leadership and embrace radical tactics such as non-payment on water charges.

Grassroots Democracy
The ULA should not be run by elected representative – no matter how principled our TDs and councillors are. Rather the TDS and councillors must be the voice of the many hundreds of party activists who mandate them.
In the Labour Party, the parliamentary party rules and that leaves the party open to electoral pressures generated by the right wing press.
In the ULA, elected representatives should be answerable to monthly meetings of party activists.
FOR A 32 COUNTY PARTY
Today Sinn Fein pretends to be left wing in the South – while being part of the ‘coalition for cuts’ in the North. This double talk is currently being challenged by Eamonn McCann who is standing for the Northern Assembly on a People Before Profit Alliance ticket.
The ULA needs to link up with such socialists and move beyond the confines of partition as quickly as possible.

A party of struggle
Above all, the ULA must provide a political home for those who want to initiate and develop struggle against the system. Instead of seeing the Dail as the focus for all its activities, we should view it as a platform to promote struggle outside.
The mobilisation of a few hundred people outside the Dail at short notice to demand a referendum on an IMF –EU deal is one small example. But there needs to be many more.
Local ULA meetings should focus on community and workplace struggles. They should be a space where the most active fighters gather.
They should be guided by a vision that real change does not come from a handful of TDs- but from that mass mobilisation of working people.
If we organise along the lines of these elementary principles, the ULA can make big gains.

[antiestablishmentarian]

Interesting. What kind of a response have there been at these meetings? Has there been an inclination towards more activity by those who aren't members of the component organisations? There was some enthusiasm at a few meetings I went to for a new party, but little appetite among many of those who were there for getting involved.

[tomasocarthaigh]

We have a meeting in Tullamore on the 27th of this month, in Hugh Lynches Bar on Kilbride Street at 8pm.

[bolshevik]

Interesting. What kind of a response have there been at these meetings? Has there been an inclination towards more activity by those who aren't members of the component organisations? There was some enthusiasm at a few meetings I went to for a new party, but little appetite among many of those who were there for getting involved.

At the Cork meeting there seemed to be some genuine interest from non-SP/SWP members but that won't be really be tested until the first proper branch meetings are held.

[bolshevik]

Missed this last week;

http://url.ie/arqt

The SWP give their 2 cents.

Highlights
Organize ULA on 32 county basis
Build up to a revolutionary programme

This is the leaflet they were handing out at the Cork meeting. Pretty much formed the content of the speech by Kieran Allen except that he called for an explicitly socialist party rather than the "radical left party" outlined in the leaflet.

[unspecific]

This is the leaflet they were handing out at the Cork meeting. Pretty much formed the content of the speech by Kieran Allen except that he called for an explicitly socialist party rather than the "radical left party" outlined in the leaflet.

Was Clare Daly(or other speakers) proposing anything different/any differences in her vision?

[bolshevik]

Was Clare Daly(or other speakers) proposing anything different/any differences in her vision?

Claire and Kieran presented pretty much the same vision in this meeting.

In general I would say there was a large degree of agreement at the meeting, other a couple of people in the discussion from the floor who were concerned about "archaic" language and looking too much to examples in the past.

Of course it is unclear how deep this agreement goes and no doubt differences over the programme for getting to a socialist society will arise as the process proceeds but I thought it was a very good basis on which to get started.

[C. Flower]

Interesting. What kind of a response have there been at these meetings? Has there been an inclination towards more activity by those who aren't members of the component organisations? There was some enthusiasm at a few meetings I went to for a new party, but little appetite among many of those who were there for getting involved.

I think that a good few signed up for "more info" or to go to the next meeting at the one I went to. No idea how many were newly involved.

I can't see the ULA thriving alongside a growing SP or SWP. The situation is too confusing.

[bolshevik]

I think that a good few signed up for "more info" or to go to the next meeting at the one I went to. No idea how many were newly involved.

I can't see the ULA thriving alongside a growing SP or SWP. The situation is too confusing.

I agree - the process towards a new workers' party has to become real and that will mean the SP & SWP starting to give up their separate existence. Whether or not they are really prepared to do that - we will see.

An initial indication will be the upcoming May Day demonstrations - to what degree they mobilise as the ULA or as their separate organisatons will be interesting.

Its also a question of political struggle inside the ULA - have you signed up?

[unspecific]

I think that a good few signed up for "more info" or to go to the next meeting at the one I went to. No idea how many were newly involved.

I can't see the ULA thriving alongside a growing SP or SWP. The situation is too confusing.

Certainly where I live there has been no mention of the ULA. In fact joining the ULA or even having ULA meetings we were told was an impossibility. Even when a ULA speaker was giving a talk they were trying to recruit to their own tendency. It is proving frustrating.

Does anybody know if I could phone the ULA and join today or do I have to wait a few months until after the national convention?

[C. Flower]

I agree - the process towards a new workers' party has to become real and that will mean the SP & SWP starting to give up their separate existence. Whether or not they are really prepared to do that - we will see.

An initial indication will be the upcoming May Day demonstrations - to what degree they mobilise as the ULA or as their separate organisatons will be interesting.

Its also a question of political struggle inside the ULA <Mod CF>

I'm far from certain that dissolving two parties that to some degree aspire to be Trotskyist revolutionary parties to form a new Party without a clear perspective is a step forward. I do agree that the character of the ULA will be fought out, but it certainly is not being set up as a Marxist organisation.

Attention needs to be given urgently to building new Trade Union leadership. Legislation will it seems be brought before the Dail that will attempt to outlaw Union members voting for their organisation to financially back a political party - this is an attack on the normal mechanism through which mass workers parties have historically been built. It wasn't mentioned at the ULA meeting I attended.

Neither speaker brought up the campaign for a Referendum on the banks. Do they not have the staying power to maintain anything longer than a wet week ? If the ULA is going to adopt the issue-hopping approach of the SWP it is banjaxed before it starts.

The ULA may fill the vacuum left by the rightward shift of Labour into the FG / Lab coalition. Without a clear political perspective, it will follow it into the parliamentary mire.

[Baron von Biffo]

Certainly where I live there has been no mention of the ULA. In fact joining the ULA or even having ULA meetings we were told was an impossibility. Even when a ULA speaker was giving a talk they were trying to recruit to their own tendency. It is proving frustrating.

You've put your finger on the fatal flaw in the ULA - the 'U' is at best optimistic. Its various elements are all competing for the same segment of the political market and that will ultimately lead to irreconcilable tensions that will tear it apart.

The situation isn't helped by the fact that, for all they may be very principled, the leading lights of the ULA are nearly all people who have problems getting on with others politically. It's not a recipe for long term success.

[bolshevik]

I can understand the doubts about the potential longevity of the ULA project or even its short-term capacity to work in a unitary fashion and recognise that those doubts are not without some foundation.

However the idea of the project is a crucial one for the working class - we desperately need a party that can fight back against the massive assault on our living standards by the bosses and present a realistic vision of how to get to a socialist alternative.

This context of the economic crisis might concentrate the minds of those involved so I think we should give them the benefit of the doubt and take their words at face value. Which isn't to say that to some extent I share those doubts and concerns and I am definitely joining this process with my eyes wide open. But this is too big an opportunity not to try so I would urge you to reconsider.

[antiestablishmentarian]

Certainly where I live there has been no mention of the ULA. In fact joining the ULA or even having ULA meetings we were told was an impossibility. Even when a ULA speaker was giving a talk they were trying to recruit to their own tendency. It is proving frustrating.

Does anybody know if I could phone the ULA and join today or do I have to wait a few months until after the national convention?

Afaik, the ULA doesn't exist independently yet of the 3 groups, so more than likely the contact for the ULA in a particular area will be a member of the organisation which is set up there or which is stronger.

[bolshevik]

Afaik, the ULA doesn't exist independently yet of the 3 groups, so more than likely the contact for the ULA in a particular area will be a member of the organisation which is set up there or which is stronger.

That is the case at the moment but will be changing shortly as the branches of the new "alliance consciously working towards a new party" organisation is set up. Our first branch meeting in Cork is in a couple of weeks after which there will be a clearer structure for individual recruitment.

[unspecific]

Which isn't to say that to some extent I share those doubts and concerns and I am definitely joining this process with my eyes wide open. But this is too big an opportunity not to try so I would urge you to reconsider.

Oh I'm definitely getting involved, my only issue is a lack of patience I guess. At this rate it'll be mid-summer before my local branch begins to establish itself. As it stands I can't get involved in any local work with the ULA itself and there are some immediate issues that need campaigning. And I'm just eager in general to get stuck in.

Having said that, its important its done right rather than fast. A new government needs to be given time to make an *rse of itself in the public eye. And the financial assault isn't going anywhere. I think its understated how much of a leap of faith this actually is for constituent parties. I'm still taken aback by the SP and PBPA people touring the country together.


Afaik, the ULA doesn't exist independently yet of the 3 groups, so more than likely the contact for the ULA in a particular area will be a member of the organisation which is set up there or which is stronger.

Do you think I could join as a member in the mean time? Or technically must I wait until some time after the national convention?

[bolshevik]

Do you think I could join as a member in the mean time? Or technically must I wait until some time after the national convention?

I think you should be able to join - email contact @ unitedleftalliance.org and ask them.

[bolshevik]

Oh I'm definitely getting involved, my only issue is a lack of patience I guess. At this rate it'll be mid-summer before my local branch begins to establish itself. As it stands I can't get involved in any local work with the ULA itself and there are some immediate issues that need campaigning. And I'm just eager in general to get stuck in.

Having said that, its important its done right rather than fast. A new government needs to be given time to make an *rse of itself in the public eye. And the financial assault isn't going anywhere. I think its understated how much of a leap of faith this actually is for constituent parties. I'm still taken aback by the SP and PBPA people touring the country together.

I look forward to working with you :)

[unspecific]

And the SP give their 2 cents.

http://socialistparty.net/comment/642-build-the-ula-build-the-fight-back-


Build the ULA, build the fight back! PDF Print E-mail
Written by Kevin McLoughlin
Wednesday, 27 April 2011 08:00
Share/Save/Bookmark

It’s just two months into this new Dail and the character of the new government is clear. Its the same as the old one, kneels before the ditaks of the EU/IMF, with the Labour Party in particular, arrogantly lecturing working class people to accept austerity cuts. As someone on the radio said, "Same circus, just different clowns!"

It is only a matter of time before Fine Gael and Labour's defence that they have inherited an economic disaster will cut no ice and people will fight their attacks.

In the months ahead it is very important that the ULA cuts itself out as the left alternative to the crisis and builds its active support. That is essential preparation for the successful launching of a new party, hopefully in the near future.

So far, between them, the five ULA TDs have spoken more than 120 times in the Dail. But added to this the ULA needs a clear campaigning and fighting profile outside the Dail on the key issues of unemployment and jobs, the attacks on pay and the housing and mortgage crisis.

April saw the start of a series of public meetings to formally launch the ULA in local areas, particularly were candidates stood in the general election. These meetings will continue well into May.

The Socialist Party proposed that a ULA membership should now be established. A ULA membership card has been produced and a recruitment leaflet will be available soon so activists can engage in an organised recruitment drive.

The attendance at the meetings so far is down on the attendance at the meetings just before the election. That doesn’t surprise us and is in line with the dip in mood amongst the working class at this point. There is huge submerged anger but people are also down and fearful.

The Socialist Workers Party seems to favour launching a new party immediately, dismissing the problems that the current mood of the working class poses and warning against delays and conservatism. However, that has more to do with inappropriate impatience than a serious approach to building a new party.

Others are nervous about whether the working class will fight back and become part of a new party and therefore are desperate for a move forward now. That’s understandable, but it is impossible to conjure up a new party without a willingness of a significant layer of people to get involved. Given the material conditions that are developing, struggle and further radicalisation are inevitable and all in the ULA should be fully confident that that, and a new party will happen.

The immediate task is to flesh out the ULA as much as is possible and prepare the ground for the launching of a new party when there has been a clear shift against this government, Labour in particular, and an active opposition to the austerity. Seizing the opportunity when it opens up will guarantee that the launch of a new party will be a big success and engender the momentum we all desire, potentially bringing thousands of working class people into political activity.

As indicated there are some differences regarding the timing and best circumstances in which to launch a new party. However, there is full agreement amongst all the component groups in the ULA that we are taking essential steps towards establishing a new party and that is very positive and welcome.

There is general agreement on the ULA programme that rejects the capitalist market and calls for democratic public ownership of the key wealth and resources in society. The Socialist Party thinks these policies need to be pushed more consistently by representatives of the ULA.

We disagree with important aspects of the approach of the other groups in the ULA to taxation. Corporation tax rate must be increased. To argue to maintain the 12.5% rate gives credence to the false idea that private or foreign investment is a way to tackle unemployment.

We also think to pose that the crisis can be tackled primarily by taxing the rich but staying silent on the need for democratic public ownership of the key wealth and resources is mistaken. If that isn’t argued for the ULA will be incapable of convincing people that it represents a real alternative. These issues should be debated at the ULA conference on June 25th.

Essential for the building of the ULA and a new party is to attract the most fighting and politically aware workers and young people to get involved.

However, in the leaflet for the ULA public meetings, the SWP say, “It (the ULA) should reach out to any left wing politician who commits themselves to oppose “the consensus for cuts”. A bit later it adds, “Where sections of Labour start to break with their party leaders, for example, they should be welcomed onto platforms…But they should also be told to break with the Labour Party leadership…”

For the ULA to orientate to current Labour politicians and members would be a significant mistake and would inevitably undermine the potential to attract the best workers and young people.

Ordinary members of Labour breaking away and genuinely coming over to the ULA is fair enough, but the SWP is open to Labour TDs speaking on ULA platforms while they are still part of a government that is imposing the worst austerity in the history of the state. This has nothing to do with helping to fight austerity or building a new left, but rather it would disgust workers and young people whose lives are being destroyed by the cuts.

These are important political issues and relate to how the ULA should be built and they should form part of the debate at June’s convention. Hopefully there will be a big audience of ordinary working class people at the convention who will fully participate in these debates and to push the ULA forward.

It was mentioned on Cedarlounge also; the comments there always flesh out the story

http://cedarlounge.wordpress.com/2011/04/28/building-the-ula/

Highlights
-Recognizes the party building will be a slow boil towards the next budget(s)/addresses my childish impatience :p
-Time to move beyond "tax the rich" position
-Stay far away from Labour

[C. Flower]

And the SP give their 2 cents.

http://socialistparty.net/comment/642-build-the-ula-build-the-fight-back-

It was mentioned on Cedarlounge also; the comments there always flesh out the story

http://cedarlounge.wordpress.com/2011/04/28/building-the-ula/

Highlights
-Recognizes the party building will be a slow boil towards the next budget(s)/addresses my childish impatience :p
-Time to move beyond "tax the rich" position
-Stay far away from Labour

Thanks. Do you happen to know if eírígí has taken a position on the ULA ?

[unspecific]

Thanks. Do you happen to know if eírígí has taken a position on the ULA ?

I had a quick google for their position when I was making that other "___ Should be in the ULA thread". All I could gather was as part of a general comment on the election they welcomed the election of 5 far left TDs but that resistance goes beyond electoralism.

Anything else I gathered were off-the-record comments in forums and comment sections that it would be irresponsible to post as official or fact.

I think they are running 2 candidates up north, but at least 1 of them are running in the same constituency as a ULA-affiliatedish candidate. Again though that could work like the recent election here where a WP and an SP ran in the same constituency but the candidate eliminated first resulted in nearly all his votes transfering to the remaining candidate.

What brings up eirigi?

[C. Flower]

I had a quick google for their position when I was making that other "___ Should be in the ULA thread". All I could gather was as part of a general comment on the election they welcomed the election of 5 far left TDs but that resistance goes beyond electoralism.

Anything else I gathered were off-the-record comments in forums and comment sections that it would be irresponsible to post as official or fact.

I think they are running 2 candidates up north, but at least 1 of them are running in the same constituency as a ULA-affiliatedish candidate. Again though that could work like the recent election here where a WP and an SP ran in the same constituency but the candidate eliminated first resulted in nearly all his votes transfering to the remaining candidate.

What brings up eirigi?

eirigi is a young party that aspires to be a mass socialist republican party. Its aim is a socialist state here in Ireland. I've been to an eírígí event and a ULA event in the last couple of weeks. eírígí is specific that it's a socialist party and revolutionary, whereas this is unclear about the ULA, who talked more about fighting back against the cuts.

It would seem that there should at least be a debate between the two to see if they are heading in the same direction. If the SP and SWP are to remain as separate parties, then in effect, the ULA is a united front organisation, rather than a political party. In which case, I don't see why eírígí members should not join it.

This seems in some way a replay of the Republican Congress events.

It defies all sense that a person should be a member of two parties at the same time, so the only way this would work is for the SP and SWP to merge into the ULA, but there seems to be no talk of this.

I predict that it will end in tears, unless they quickly sort these basics out.

[unspecific]

eirigi is a young party that aspires to be a mass socialist republican party. Its aim is a socialist state here in Ireland. I've been to an eírígí event and a ULA event in the last couple of weeks. eírígí is specific that it's a socialist party and revolutionary, whereas this is unclear about the ULA, who talked more about fighting back against the cuts.

It would seem that there should at least be a debate between the two to see if they are heading in the same direction. If the SP and SWP are to remain as separate parties, then in effect, the ULA is a united front organisation, rather than a political party. In which case, I don't see why eírígí members should not join it.

This seems in some way a replay of the Republican Congress events.

It defies all sense that a person should be a member of two parties at the same time, so the only way this would work is for the SP and SWP to merge into the ULA, but there seems to be no talk of this.

I predict that it will end in tears, unless they quickly sort these basics out.

In my opinion the ULA is right to take a slow-boil approach. The time of real action will be September onwards. I assume the congress on June 25th will establish the nationwide network of ULA branches. The summer can be given to inter-party dialogue with a unifying Ard Fheis type meeting in early September. The momentum of opposition to the budget will draw people towards it and allow a hardening of policies for early 2012 with a full blown anti-capitalist movement in bloom ahead of the default. If the ULA blew its beans and announced itself as a full-on revolutionary party tomorrow, what would happen? There is nothing to gain by moving now, but all to gain by moving when there is momentum.

With regards eirigi.

I like eirigi. I respect their gently-gently approach to getting involved with elections. That has given them a strong and respected activist/direct action dimension that the SP and SWP are lacking.

However, I have issue with socialist republicanism. For one, I've never seen a socialist monarchy(bah dum tish..!). What point is there draping all their marxist talk in oirish nationalist silliness? It surely can't be aimed at winning over the loyalist working classes.

[C. Flower]

In my opinion the ULA is right to take a slow-boil approach. The time of real action will be September onwards. I assume the congress on June 25th will establish the nationwide network of ULA branches. The summer can be given to inter-party dialogue with a unifying Ard Fheis type meeting in early September. The momentum of opposition to the budget will draw people towards it and allow a hardening of policies for early 2012 with a full blown anti-capitalist movement in bloom ahead of the default. If the ULA blew its beans and announced itself as a full-on revolutionary party tomorrow, what would happen? There is nothing to gain by moving now, but all to gain by moving when there is momentum.

With regards eirigi.

I like eirigi. I respect their gently-gently approach to getting involved with elections. That has given them a strong and respected activist/direct action dimension that the SP and SWP are lacking.

However, I have issue with socialist republicanism. For one, I've never seen a socialist monarchy(bah dum tish..!). What point is there draping all their marxist talk in oirish nationalist silliness? It surely can't be aimed at winning over the loyalist working classes.

The protestant working class will not imo be won over by parties that defer to attachment to monarchism and imperialism.

If the Irish working class is to be united, it will be on the basis of a joint struggle against the colonial occupation of part of the country and also against the economic diktat of the EU/IMF.

I agree that there can be differences in interest between the more class concious working class and those who are drawn into socialist politics through national liberation politics, but there is no chance of success imo, if these forces are not brought together, and in Ireland their interests do to some very considerable extent overlap.

[Sam Lord]

eirigi is a young party that aspires to be a mass socialist republican party. Its aim is a socialist state here in Ireland. I've been to an eírígí event and a ULA event in the last couple of weeks. eírígí is specific that it's a socialist party and revolutionary, whereas this is unclear about the ULA, who talked more about fighting back against the cuts.

It would seem that there should at least be a debate between the two to see if they are heading in the same direction. If the SP and SWP are to remain as separate parties, then in effect, the ULA is a united front organisation, rather than a political party. In which case, I don't see why eírígí members should not join it.



Does the mean that the ULA has a position on the national question that republicans would be comfortable with? If so what is it?

[C. Flower]

Does the mean that the ULA has a position on the national question that republicans would be comfortable with? If so what is it?

The ULA doesn't have fixed positions on anything as yet. The question needs to be raised in the discussions and meetings that are taking place.

[Sam Lord]

However, I have issue with socialist republicanism. For one, I've never seen a socialist monarchy(bah dum tish..!). What point is there draping all their marxist talk in oirish nationalist silliness? It surely can't be aimed at winning over the loyalist working classes.

I presume that you are being silly for you must surely know that Irish republicanism entails more that opposition to monarchies.

It is not a question of draping marxist talk in irish nationalism for as James Connolly pointed out "the cause of Ireland is the cause of labour and the cause of labour is the cause if Ireland." Or to put it another way to you .. one cannot be a socialist without being an anti-imperialist for you live in the age of imperialism, the highest stage of capitalism. It is shocking to see people on the "left" entirely ignore the particular historical circumstances of the country they live in.

I would also point out to you that the reunification of the country remains a significant political issue for many Irish people ... not least of all the hundreds of thousands of nationalists trapped inside the six county entity. It is not an issue that any political person can afford to ignore. It is always amusing to see those on the "left" pontificate on what may or may not appeal to the unionist working class while always entirely ignoring the concerns of the nationalist working class.

Anyway, if your attitude is in any way reflective of those being drawn to the ULA then I predict a particularly unfruitful future for it. Whatever about socialism in one country, socialism in three quarters of a country is a definite non runner.

[unspecific]

The protestant working class will not imo be won over by parties that defer to attachment to monarchism and imperialism.

If the Irish working class is to be united, it will be on the basis of a joint struggle against the colonial occupation of part of the country and also against the economic diktat of the EU/IMF.

I agree that there can be differences in interest between the more class concious working class and those who are drawn into socialist politics through national liberation politics, but there is no chance of success imo, if these forces are not brought together, and in Ireland their interests do to some very considerable extent overlap.

How are the catholic and protestant working classes to be brought together by a party masquerading as Leprechauns? Notions of an insular independence, shamrock waving and the odd cupla focail are the divisive tools of Irish capitalists, not of progressive class politics.

What kind of penetration do eirigi have in the Shankhill, Antrim?

[antiestablishmentarian]

How are the catholic and protestant working classes to be brought together by a party masquerading as Leprechauns? Notions of an insular independence, shamrock waving and the odd cupla focail are the divisive tools of Irish capitalists, not of progressive class politics.

What kind of penetration do eirigi have in the Shankhill, Antrim?

How is Irish divisive? It's a language, although the capitalists may wrap themselves in the green flag, their gombeen state in the South has done more than anyone else to try and finally kill it off.

Also, the position of the SP is that there should be a socialist state (within a free & voluntary socialist federation with England Wales and Scotland)achieved by the union of the protestant and catholic working classes fighting on issues of common concern. That is why they emphasise what seem like economist goals as they hope that will prove the best means of uniting the classes into a movement free of the sectarian parties on both sides. To the best of my knowledge, the ULA have been in talks about launching in the North, but given the erratic nature of PBPA's/SWP's position on the national question I doubt they'll come to an agreement on it. Which of course would fatally undermine it there from the start.

[unspecific]

I presume that you are being silly for you must surely know that Irish republicanism entails more that opposition to monarchies.

It is not a question of draping marxist talk in irish nationalism for as James Connolly pointed out "the cause of Ireland is the cause of labour and the cause of labour is the cause if Ireland." Or to put it another way to you .. one cannot be a socialist without being an anti-imperialist for you live in the age of imperialism, the highest stage of capitalism. It is shocking to see people on the "left" entirely ignore the particular historical circumstances of the country they live in.

I would also point out to you that the reunification of the country remains a significant political issue for many Irish people ... not least of all the hundreds of thousands of nationalists trapped inside the six county entity. It is not an issue that any political person can afford to ignore. It is always amusing to see those on the "left" pontificate on what may or may not appeal to the unionist working class while always entirely ignoring the concerns of the nationalist working class.

Anyway, if your attitude is in any way reflective of those being drawn to the ULA then I predict a particularly unfruitful future for it. Whatever about socialism in one country, socialism in three quarters of a country is a definite non runner.

I like to side with the Eamon McCanns of this world. Tribalism achieves nothing. It matters not to me if the person lording it over me does it with a British flag or an Irish flag or an EU flag or an IMF flag. A person is a person, an exploiter is an exploiter.

Now for sure, people of the working class face oppression more acutely in the North but the underlying antagonism is not Catholic/Protestant, it is capitalist/banker versus the people.

[C. Flower]

How are the catholic and protestant working classes to be brought together by a party masquerading as Leprechauns? Notions of an insular independence, shamrock waving and the odd cupla focail are the divisive tools of Irish capitalists, not of progressive class politics.

What kind of penetration do eirigi have in the Shankhill, Antrim?

There is a long history of catholics and protestants working together for both socialism and to end British rule in Ireland. I have no idea how many protestants are members of eírígí. In any case I'm in favour of politics based on scientific socialism and atheism, not religion. This is the 21st century....

You're opposed to a united Ireland, governed from Ireland ? Do you oppose other anti-Colonial movements ?

I do think that eírígí are at the moment overreliant on theatrical propoganda protests - although Mary Harney and Anglo Irish were good targets, I don't think that Queen Elizabeth's visit is worth more than one demonstration. But where do you disagree with the content of what they say ?

I missed eírígí's Leprechaun/shamrock event. When and where did it take place?

[Sam Lord]

I like to side with the Eamon McCanns of this world. Tribalism achieves nothing. It matters not to me if the person lording it over me does it with a British flag or an Irish flag or an EU flag or an IMF flag. A person is a person, an exploiter is an exploiter.


I'm reminded of the position of the Trotskyites in the occupied countries during the second world war. To shoot at German soldiers was wrong because they were really fellow workers and that fighting to drive the occupiers out was wrong because you would still be left with your own bourgeoisie with whom the main contradiction lay, and that liberation would only be achieved through the working class organising for socialist revolution.

Thank Allah there were a few real communists around to lead the resistance.



Now for sure, people of the working class face oppression more acutely in the North but the underlying antagonism is not Catholic/Protestant, it is capitalist/banker versus the people.

You're being silly again, surely. Who on God's earth holds a view that the underlying antagonism is between catholic and protestant?

[antiestablishmentarian]

http://books.google.ie/books?id=_eUtQjseKaIC&pg=PA375&lpg=PA375&dq=trotskyists+world+war+two+resistance&source=bl&ots=AeMPQV7OOC&sig=K30ioZ0-UsPwEmfXrqpZVF2vNKg&hl=en&ei=18K5TdeEMdSbhQeflqmHCw&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=5&ved=0CCcQ6AEwBA#v=onepage&q=trotskyists%20world%20war%20two%20resistance&f=false

I don't know what WW2 history you've been reading but the Trotskyist factions in occupied Europe did fight in the Resistance, even if they had political disagreements with them.

[unspecific]

There is a long history of catholics and protestants working together for both socialism and to end British rule in Ireland. I have no idea how many protestants are members of eírígí. In any case I'm in favour of politics based on scientific socialism and atheism, not religion. This is the 21st century....

You're opposed to a united Ireland, governed from Ireland ? Do you oppose other anti-Colonial movements ?

I do think that eírígí are at the moment overreliant on theatrical propoganda protests - although Mary Harney and Anglo Irish were good targets, I don't think that Queen Elizabeth's visit is worth more than one demonstration. But where do you disagree with the content of what they say ?

I missed eírígí's Leprechaun/shamrock event. When and where did it take place?

Do I reject a United Ireland? For an even larger gombeen state? Do you reject a United Britain? Or a United Europe? Or a United World? Why doesn't everyone just grab their own state? Who put these distractions and detours on the way to emancipation? Oh yes, romanticism. The enemy isn't the dirt-poor protestant living the otherside of the peacewall, it is the nation-less exploiters in Stormont or head of the company you wage-slave for.

What is colonial about Northern Ireland that isn't colonial about the working class population of every state paying for the bailouts of every ruling class, regardless of geographic origins? Do you support the Lega Nord?

I have read that (southern)Irish people are the second largest nationality of executives in the UK after Brits themselves. What I'd like to see is class-based movements in every state (or statelet) grow from a grassroots movement into mighty oak-trees that can cast the yoke of capitalism to the side.

The highest form of capitalism as we are very clearly seeing is not imperialism in the traditional border expansion sense, but global corporatization and financialization.

Lets not try solve Northern Ireland in this thread... or any thread ;)

[Sam Lord]

I don't know what WW2 history you've been reading but the Trotskyist factions in occupied Europe did fight in the Resistance, even if they had political disagreements with them.

Where was that antie?

[Sam Lord]

Lets not try solve Northern Ireland in this thread... or any thread ;)

So much for the uniting the left. Seems like it's more about uniting trotskyites. Keep talking about leprechuans and see where it gets you. I was willing to keep an open mind on the ULA project (despite its being clearly a push in the direction of social democracy) but I'm beginning to think that sooner it is undermined the better.

[antiestablishmentarian]

Where was that antie?

France. Quite a number were killed and deported. Afaik, they also played a role in the Polish resistance- I've read a document they released which stated their solidarity with the Soviets post-Barbarossa and calling for resistance and help for the USSR. I'll try to find it. It's difficult to find material on them as they were so small in those days compared to the Stalinist organisations.

[Kildare North]

So much for the uniting the left. Seems like it's more about uniting trotskyites. Keep talking about leprechuans and see where it gets you. I was willing to keep an open mind on the ULA project (despite its being clearly a push in the direection of social democracy) but I'm beginning to think that sooner it is undermined the better.

To dismiss the whole project because one person offended your sensitivities is a bit much. It is a directly democratic organisation, it's position is that of its members composite position. If you want a more direct position on the north, join it and shape that position with others on the left who feel that is the correct stance.

It is unlikely that the issue would be of any real practical importance in the immediate future, falling out over it is just looking for reasons to split rather than looking to unite. Let's tackle the immediate issue, the immenent demise of the western capitalist system. If it falls and we are fragmented and divided along theoretical lines, and capitalism manages to revive itself due to the inactivity caused by our fragmentation. United we stand divided we fall, as always has been and always will be.

When capitalism falls, its borders will fall with it!

[Sam Lord]

To dismiss the whole project because one person offended your sensitivities is a bit much.


Well it wasn't so much that it was one person. It was the predictability of it ...




It is a directly democratic organisation, it's position is that of its members composite position. If you want a more direct position on the north, join it and shape that position with others on the left who feel that is the correct stance.


As CF asked ... is it a party or a front?



It is unlikely that the issue would be of any real practical importance in the immediate future.

Only if you are organising on a 26 county basis ... which I would not agree with. Is it an all Ireland organisation?

[Kildare North]

As CF asked ... is it a party or a front?

Front for what? I don't really understand the Q. Im getting involved, and Im not a member of a party or a tendency. I would describe myself as an independent Marxist who has helped out in the past with groups vearying from Anarchists and Trade Unions to Republican Socialists..... So i hope its not a "front".


Only if you are organising on a 26 county basis ... which I would not agree with. Is it an all Ireland organisation?[/QUOTE]

PBP and SP are organised up north. The organisation still isn't propperly organised really. AFAIK They are working with establishing unity with the united left in Portugal, Italy, France etc. so I don't see why we wouldn't aim to unite with a united left in the other capitalist run puppet state on this island.

[unspecific]

PBP and SP are organised up north. The organisation still isn't propperly organised really. AFAIK They are working with establishing unity with the united left in Portugal, Italy, France etc. so I don't see why we wouldn't aim to unite with a united left in the other capitalist run puppet state on this island.

I hear the Left Bloc in Portugal mentioned a lot with regards the ULA. What do you know of them?

Parties of the Left seem to be uniting across Europe, which is good to see.

[Sam Lord]

I don't know what WW2 history you've been reading but the Trotskyist factions in occupied Europe did fight in the Resistance, even if they had political disagreements with them.

This is one description of the fight of the French Trotskyites ... it might be wrong but it is from a Trotskyite.

"... i think the weaknesses of the film are best brought out by considering the remarkable fight of the Trotskyists in wartime France. Only they fought for a perspective that did not tie the French working class and peasants to the national bourgeoisie. The Trotskyists rejected a purely military opposition to the Occupation, which could only be nationalist, and therefore played into the hands of de Gaulle’s drive to ensure that the “Libération” would keep the state intact and the workers, peasants and colonial peoples in their place. The Trotskyists insisted that outside the perspective of the proletarian revolution, there was only class collaboration. They fought for the defeat of their national bourgeoisie and fraternised with the soldiers of the occupying army, advocating a perspective of socialist revolution coming from the collapse of the Nazi regime and that of the collaborators. Though hunted down and murdered by the Gestapo, the Stalinists and the French national police, the Trotskyists built cells and led struggles in the factories and among the German soldiers. As well as producing high quality publications in French, they collaborated in the production and distribution of German language papers that were circulated amongst the troops.

They worked to expose the National Council of the Resistance, set up on May 15, 1943, and made up of Stalinists, socialist democrats, Gaullists and extreme right-wingers, which they denounced for having as its aim the reconstruction of the bourgeois state and the preservation of the private ownership of big business."

http://www.wsws.org/articles/2001/nov2001/fran-n01.shtml

[Sam Lord]

Front for what?


For whatever it's aims are ....

WIll there still be a SP and a SWP as well as a ULA. Or will there just be a ULA?

[Kildare North]

For whatever it's aims are ....


..arnt all organisations "fronts" for their members aims???
At the moment its an alliance, think it's aiming to become a party in the future, so at the moment those groups still exist. Not sure about what will happen in the future to be honest with ye, maybe someone else might be more insightful on this particular detail.

[C. Flower]

I'm reminded of the position of the Trotskyites in the occupied countries during the second world war. To shoot at German soldiers was wrong because they were really fellow workers and that fighting to drive the occupiers out was wrong because you would still be left with your own bourgeoisie with whom the main contradiction lay, and that liberation would only be achieved through the working class organising for socialist revolution.

Thank Allah there were a few real communists around to lead the resistance.



You're being silly again, surely. Who on God's earth holds a view that the underlying antagonism is between catholic and protestant?

Trotsky's position was that workers' organisations should encourage people to join up en masse, as members of workers defence organisations, on the basis of defence of the Workers State/Russia.

Trotsky's followers were divided on this. I've read that some British Trotskyists hid out in Ireland to avoid conscription, while others fought. It seems to me that some groups that call themselves Trotskyists have very little to do with Trotsky.

[C. Flower]

For whatever it's aims are ....

WIll there still be a SP and a SWP as well as a ULA. Or will there just be a ULA?

People Before Profit is also an alliance, although most members would be SWP.

It would make absolutely no sense to me for PBP to continue alongside the ULA, if the SWP takes part in the ULA.

[Kildare North]

I hear the Left Bloc in Portugal mentioned a lot with regards the ULA. What do you know of them?

Parties of the Left seem to be uniting across Europe, which is good to see.

To be honest I havnt had time to investigate their politics too deeply. But I am aware that similar processes of left unification are underway in most countries and I think it could be the beginning of a new "international", to use 18th century-speak. They are polling about 7% for the upcoming elections.

The left would be infinitely stronger if its strikes and direct actions were co-ordinated from Donegal to Istanbul. In the news this week was a report that the EU is seeking a europe-wide list for 25 MEP seats for the next parliamentary election. This could see the establishment of the first truly europe-wide united left party.

A good start could be 30 June general strikes and actions in every country don't you think?

[unspecific]

For whatever it's aims are ....

WIll there still be a SP and a SWP as well as a ULA. Or will there just be a ULA?


..arnt all organisations "fronts" for their members aims???
At the moment its an alliance, think it's aiming to become a party in the future, so at the moment those groups still exist. Not sure about what will happen in the future to be honest with ye, maybe someone else might be more insightful on this particular detail.

I think the objective is for it to eventually become a united party, hopefully no later than after the summer. But it would still allow tendencies within, like Die Linke or the NPA(as I understand). The SWP and SP existed as tendencies and movements long before they were parties, I hope it won't arise as an issue.

[antiestablishmentarian]

The problem is, outside of Dublin it seems to be dominated by one group or another in the different areas and there is the danger they may regard it as a pool of possible contacts for their own organisation. It will be interesting to see how they solve this, I know the NPA allowed tendencies but in practice it was dominated by the old LCR membership and I've heard stories to the effect that they made life difficult for the smaller groups.

[scrawledincrayon]

This is one description of the fight of the French Trotskyites ... it might be wrong but it is from a Trotskyite.

The passage is from a fairly bizarre offshoot of Trotskyism, but more importantly you are misunderstanding the passage.

When it mentions "fraternising" with German soldiers, what they are talking about is distributing leaflets and newspaper to German conscripts, in German, calling on them variously to desert, to shoot their officers, to refuse to obey orders and to carry out a full scale mutiny. There are copies of some of the papers distributed online. This of course was extremely dangerous work. Remember that the majority of German conscripts were working class and the majority of the German working class had never supported the Nazis. There were a number of circles of German soldiers, particularly in France, who collaborated with resistance forces, particularly the Trotskyists, and produced their own materials trying to undercut pro-war sentiment amongst their fellow soldiers. Quite a number of soldiers were executed for this by the German army and the Gestapo.

The Trotskyists in France also engaged in armed attacks on German forces and in sabotage. As for their critical attitude towards the French resistance leadership:

They argued that the national cross-class politics of the resistance leadership would help De Gaulle to power and that the result would be the restoration of French capitalism and French Imperialism in the colonies. And they were correct. They were also correct that the Stalinists had been quiescent in the period between the German invasion of France and the German invasion of Russia, only switching their line back to opposition to the Nazis after Russia was invaded.

This is probably not the thread in which to have this discussion, but I thought it necessary to point out that you have been woefully misinformed.

[scrawledincrayon]

It would make absolutely no sense to me for PBP to continue alongside the ULA, if the SWP takes part in the ULA.

You are correct.

Once the United Left Alliance is firmly established as an alliance with individual membership, functioning branches etc, the PBPA is likely to dissolve. The SWP will not dissolve however. I don't know if the independents involved in the PBPA will bother to form their own platform or organisations within the ULA.

[antiestablishmentarian]

This is one description of the fight of the French Trotskyites ... it might be wrong but it is from a Trotskyite.

"... i think the weaknesses of the film are best brought out by considering the remarkable fight of the Trotskyists in wartime France. Only they fought for a perspective that did not tie the French working class and peasants to the national bourgeoisie. The Trotskyists rejected a purely military opposition to the Occupation, which could only be nationalist, and therefore played into the hands of de Gaulle’s drive to ensure that the “Libération” would keep the state intact and the workers, peasants and colonial peoples in their place. The Trotskyists insisted that outside the perspective of the proletarian revolution, there was only class collaboration. They fought for the defeat of their national bourgeoisie and fraternised with the soldiers of the occupying army, advocating a perspective of socialist revolution coming from the collapse of the Nazi regime and that of the collaborators. Though hunted down and murdered by the Gestapo, the Stalinists and the French national police, the Trotskyists built cells and led struggles in the factories and among the German soldiers. As well as producing high quality publications in French, they collaborated in the production and distribution of German language papers that were circulated amongst the troops.

They worked to expose the National Council of the Resistance, set up on May 15, 1943, and made up of Stalinists, socialist democrats, Gaullists and extreme right-wingers, which they denounced for having as its aim the reconstruction of the bourgeois state and the preservation of the private ownership of big business."

http://www.wsws.org/articles/2001/nov2001/fran-n01.shtml

Read the page I posted in my link- it gives a bodycount for those who were killed by the nazis and interned. They seemingly tried to spread their propaganda among the conscripts of both armies by distributing bi-lingual German-English leaflets, but they did this in conjunction with their activities in the Resistance. The criticisms they made of the NCR were valid too by the way, and the PCF were played very well by de Gaulle and others on the right who blocked them and ran rings around them post-war at a time when they could have taken power with a proper strategy.

[unspecific]

People Before Profit is also an alliance, although most members would be SWP.

It would make absolutely no sense to me for PBP to continue alongside the ULA, if the SWP takes part in the ULA.


You are correct.

Once the United Left Alliance is firmly established as an alliance with individual membership, functioning branches etc, the PBPA is likely to dissolve. The SWP will not dissolve however. I don't know if the independents involved in the PBPA will bother to form their own platform or organisations within the ULA.

It might be a good idea for the likes of Joan Collins, Healy to maintain the People Before Profit entity as a tendency for new independents joining.

[Sam Lord]

The Trotskyists in France also engaged in armed attacks on German forces and in sabotage.

I'd be very surprised. How can you fraternise with someone one minute and shoot them the next. I don't think even Trostkyites would be capable of that.

[Sam Lord]

I don't know what WW2 history you've been reading but the Trotskyist factions in occupied Europe did fight in the Resistance, even if they had political disagreements with them.

The position of the Trotskyites in occupied Holland:

"To them the struggle against Fascism and Nazism was a continuation of what they had been doing already during the ‘thirties. In the struggle against Nazism they refused to take the side of the Allies. The revolutionary Socialists did not consider the Second World War a conflict between democracy and dictatorship, but an imperialist war between ‘hungry and well-fed robbers’. As long as capitalism existed there would be world wars and only the international Socialist revolution could end the permanent threat of war. The revolutionary Socialists hoped and expected that, because of the Second World War, a revolutionary wave would sweep over the world, such as had been the case, to some extent, at the end of the First World War. They tried to promote the independent resistance of the workers, and to that end their main activity was to make propaganda in illegal publications. The revolutionary Socialists in the Netherlands did not carry out any armed or violent activities during the occupation."

http://www.marxists.org/history/etol/document/holland/dutch01.htm

[scrawledincrayon]

I'd be very surprised. How can you fraternise with someone one minute and shoot them the next. I don't think even Trostkyites would be capable of that.

Different groups in different places.

Where they had contacts with rebellious German soldiers they tried to encourage mutiny. This frightened the Germans into quite widespread executions of their own soldiers - more than 50 that I'm aware of.

Where they did not have such contacts they were sometimes involved in armed activities and sabotage, often as part of the wider Resistance, alongside their more significant emphasis on attempts everywhere to foment strike action amongst the French workers under occupation.

The Stalinists refused to fight the Nazis up until the invasion of Russia and collaborated with the De Gaulle afterwards, helping restore French capitalism and helping French imperialism back into power in the colonies. In fact, not only did they support restoring French imperialism during the Second World War, they continued to support French imperialism in the colonies right through the Indochina and Algerian wars. ie Up until the 1960s the French Communist Party were supporters of the French Empire.

The Trotskyists, by contrast were consistently anti-Nazi, anti-Capitalist, anti-De Gaulle and anti-French Imperialism throughout the entire period. Their forces were small, but their record was admirable. Unlike the PCF which put its enormous forces at the service of De Gaulle and French Imperialism.

And really, shouldn't this be split away into another thread?

[unspecific]

Ahoy scrawledincrayon!

What would be your perspective on the formation of this new mass workers party? Participant or interested in helping shape it? Neither?

Is it strategically optimal to be open to former members of left-reformist groups and hope throughout the struggle they radicalize as the party does, or do you believe it should be an elite vanguard of hardcore flag-waving Leninists? Or something else..?

[C. Flower]

Different groups in different places.

Where they had contacts with rebellious German soldiers they tried to encourage mutiny. This frightened the Germans into quite widespread executions of their own soldiers - more than 50 that I'm aware of.

Where they did not have such contacts they were sometimes involved in armed activities and sabotage, often as part of the wider Resistance, alongside their more significant emphasis on attempts everywhere to foment strike action amongst the French workers under occupation.

The Stalinists refused to fight the Nazis up until the invasion of Russia and collaborated with the De Gaulle afterwards, helping restore French capitalism and helping French imperialism back into power in the colonies. In fact, not only did they support restoring French imperialism during the Second World War, they continued to support French imperialism in the colonies right through the Indochina and Algerian wars. ie Up until the 1960s the French Communist Party were supporters of the French Empire.

The Trotskyists, by contrast were consistently anti-Nazi, anti-Capitalist, anti-De Gaulle and anti-French Imperialism throughout the entire period. Their forces were small, but their record was admirable. Unlike the PCF which put its enormous forces at the service of De Gaulle and French Imperialism.

And really, shouldn't this be split away into another thread?

I'm reluctant to split it at the moment as starting a new thread might drag the main discussion asunder. The ULA is after all almost entirely formed of Trotskyists, so it is not entirely off topic.
It's a subject that has come up before (Trotskyism and WW2). I suggest that we continue the ULA discussion, and that if someone wants to start a thread on Trotskyism and war they can pm me and I'll copy the relevant posts across to it.

[unspecific]

I'd like to take the moment to give a shout-out to Look Left (http://www.lookleftonline.org/) who, despite being a WP publication, have played an exemplary role in left-unification and the inevitable defeat of left-sectarianism!

Their twitter is particularly insightful

http://twitter.com/LookLeftMag

[LeftAtTheCross]

New issue of LookLeft is out today. Should be availabe at the May Day march in Dublin on Sunday.

[C. Flower]

New issue of LookLeft is out today. Should be availabe at the May Day march in Dublin on Sunday.
I've been meaning to start a thread on the May Day march - it seems to me to have been very poorly publicised by ICTU.

Do feel free to post a review thread of LookLeft, if you would like to.:)

[LeftAtTheCross]

I've been meaning to start a thread on the May Day march - it seems to me to have been very poorly publicised by ICTU.

Do feel free to post a review thread of LookLeft, if you would like to.:)

I haven't read the latest LookLeft issue yet, it's just been printed today I believe.

ICTU have information on various events for May Day here http://www.ictu.ie/download/pdf/may_day_brochure_x.pdf


The May Day march organised by the Dublin Council of Trade Unions will take place this year on Sunday 1st May, assembling at 11.30 am at the Garden of Remembrance, Parnell Square, Dublin, and proceeding to Beresford Place (Liberty Hall). The theme is ‘Resist Austerity’: the need to organise against and resist the cuts to living standards and services being imposed to pay for the bail out of the banks and the speculators. Your organisation is invited to participate with its banner etc.

For anyone living Meathwards there's the annual Jim Connell commemoration event being hosted in Kells and Crossakiel over the May Day weekend. Jim Connell wrote "the Red Flag".

Details at http://jimconnellfestival2009.weebly.com/events-2011.html

[bolshevik]

For anyone in Cork there is a May Day march called by the Independent Worker's Union which will take place Sunday 1st May, starting at 1pm from Connolly Hall, before proceeding up Parnell Place, along Merchant's Quay, down Patrick Street to congregate in Daunt Square.

The theme of this year's march is "Repudiate The Debt"

Following this there are political discussions and a shared meal hosted by the WSM in Solidarity Books

[bolshevik]

For anyone in Cork there is a May Day march called by the Independent Worker's Union which will take place Sunday 1st May, starting at 1pm from Connolly Hall, before proceeding up Parnell Place, along Merchant's Quay, down Patrick Street to congregate in Daunt Square.

The theme of this year's march is "Repudiate The Debt"

Following this there are political discussions and a shared meal hosted by the WSM in Solidarity Books

And to bring it back to the topic of this thread, the ULA in Cork will be having our first public outing as a contingent on the May Day march. Anyone know if similar is happening in Dublin?

[C. Flower]

The Socialist Party criticise the SWP for being too hasty about moving the ULA into existence as a Party.

http://socialistparty.net/comment/642-build-the-ula-build-the-fight-back-

[Baron von Biffo]

The Socialist Party criticise the SWP for being too hasty about moving the ULA into existence as a Party.

http://socialistparty.net/comment/642-build-the-ula-build-the-fight-back-

The (first) split.

[C. Flower]

The (first) split.

The name does seem to me to be misleading. It is primarily a merger between two Trotskyist parties. ULA to me suggests a broad left united front.

If these two parties [SWP and SP] are to merge, it seems to me that they need to hammer out their political positions thoroughly before they do so, and put together a programme that they can jointly stand over. Perhaps that has been done, but I haven't seen it.

I get the feeling somehow that what is envisaged is to fill the[political vacuum left by the Labour entry into an FG Government, while retaining the SWP and SP as distinct tendencies within the ULA. The fact that the SWP is talking about inviting Labour TDs onto the ULA platform would tend to confirm that.

I can't see it working somehow, as for many Trotskyists, Labour politics are anathema.

[antiestablishmentarian]

I have a very bad feeling about this after reading that article. Perhaps I'm being cynical but I'm afraid the ULA is going to end up being little more than a recruiting pool of potential contacts for the SP and the PBPA/SWP.

[Sam Lord]

I don't understand the SP position that the party cannot be launched until the working class moves into action against the government.

Could someone explain?

[antiestablishmentarian]

I don't understand the SP position that the party cannot be launched until the working class moves into action against the government.

Could someone explain?

The idea being that this party will be nothing more than a combination of the existing parties which will not be a step forward, and that a new force can only be created in the context of radicalisation and increasing class-consciousness.

[C. Flower]

I have a very bad feeling about this after reading that article. Perhaps I'm being cynical but I'm afraid the ULA is going to end up being little more than a recruiting pool of potential contacts for the SP and the PBPA/SWP.

I have a worse feeling, that it will be a liquidation of both into parliamentary politics.

[C. Flower]

The idea being that this party will be nothing more than a combination of the existing parties which will not be a step forward, and that a new force can only be created in the context of radicalisation and increasing class-consciousness.

It seems to leave out the role of the party in raising consciousness.

[antiestablishmentarian]

I have a worse feeling, that it will be a liquidation of both into parliamentary politics.

Time will tell- but I have a feeling that this new party will not capitalise on the anger that's out there and won't carve out a position as a new mass party of the working-class. The fact that many of them seem to be focusing on the next election as their chance to grow the party ties in a bit to your point too.

[unspecific]

The idea being that this party will be nothing more than a combination of the existing parties which will not be a step forward, and that a new force can only be created in the context of radicalisation and increasing class-consciousness.

Exactly. The new government still enjoy strong support in the public.

Frankly it would be amateurish for both parties to announce the completion of a merger tomorrow, full programme and everything. It would be a massive waste of opportunity and completely out of step with the working class and the momentum of the struggle.

[C. Flower]

Exactly. The new government still enjoy strong support in the public.

Frankly it would be amateurish for both parties to announce the completion of a merger tomorrow, full programme and everything. It would be a massive waste of opportunity and completely out of step with the working class and the momentum of the struggle.

Do you think that the momentum of the struggle is going to unfold neatly to coincide with the time that it will take to develop a shared analysis and programme ?

It took eírígí five years of party development and internal discussion before publishing their first main position paper last year.

The momentum of the struggle can be that everyone comes out, overnight.


YouTube - Egypt Revolution 2011: Day 17, Doctors & Nurses in Cairo march to Tahrir Square

[unspecific]

Do you think that the momentum of the struggle is going to unfold neatly to coincide with the time that it will take to develop a shared analysis and programme ?

It took eírígí five years of party development and internal discussion before publishing their first main position paper last year.

The momentum of the struggle can be that everyone comes out, overnight.

Sorry I didn't mean to sound quite as bellicose and rash as I did.

eirigi are certainly well ahead in their own development and I commend them for how well they have built themselves. I think they are the perfect example. They took their time, not for patience's sake, but because they waited until the time was right -when a public were most receptive to alternatives.

My point is simply that the public at the minute is still in post-election honeymoon mode and less politicized and receptive than they were even a few months ago. Even broad-front Anti-IMF protests outside the Dail seriously struggle for numbers. I wish it was different, but we play the cards we are dealt. Inevitably that will change in the run up to Budget 2012.

The struggle can develop rapidly within the space of an evening of course, but I think people know enough about what the ULA is for it to be able to capitalize and lead and develop rapidly within such a turbulent period.


The fact that the SWP is talking about inviting Labour TDs onto the ULA platform would tend to confirm that.

I can't see it working somehow, as for many Trotskyists, Labour politics are anathema.

Also with regards the SP claiming the SWP will welcome Labour politicians, can anyone source where the SWP put this forward?

[bolshevik]

Also with regards the SP claiming the SWP will welcome Labour politicians, can anyone source where the SWP put this forward?

The SP article (http://socialistparty.net/comment/642-build-the-ula-build-the-fight-back-) argues (quoting from the SWP article/leaflet http://www.swp.ie/reviews/united-left-alliance-what-kind-party/4331):

However, in the leaflet for the ULA public meetings, the SWP say, “It (the ULA) should reach out to any left wing politician who commits themselves to oppose “the consensus for cuts”. A bit later it adds, “Where sections of Labour start to break with their party leaders, for example, they should be welcomed onto platforms…But they should also be told to break with the Labour Party leadership…”

For the ULA to orientate to current Labour politicians and members would be a significant mistake and would inevitably undermine the potential to attract the best workers and young people.

Ordinary members of Labour breaking away and genuinely coming over to the ULA is fair enough, but the SWP is open to Labour TDs speaking on ULA platforms while they are still part of a government that is imposing the worst austerity in the history of the state. This has nothing to do with helping to fight austerity or building a new left, but rather it would disgust workers and young people whose lives are being destroyed by the cuts.

[unspecific]

The SP article (http://socialistparty.net/comment/642-build-the-ula-build-the-fight-back-) argues (quoting from the SWP article/leaflet http://www.swp.ie/reviews/united-left-alliance-what-kind-party/4331):

However, in the leaflet for the ULA public meetings, the SWP say, “It (the ULA) should reach out to any left wing politician who commits themselves to oppose “the consensus for cuts”. A bit later it adds, “Where sections of Labour start to break with their party leaders, for example, they should be welcomed onto platforms…But they should also be told to break with the Labour Party leadership…”

For the ULA to orientate to current Labour politicians and members would be a significant mistake and would inevitably undermine the potential to attract the best workers and young people.

Ordinary members of Labour breaking away and genuinely coming over to the ULA is fair enough, but the SWP is open to Labour TDs speaking on ULA platforms while they are still part of a government that is imposing the worst austerity in the history of the state. This has nothing to do with helping to fight austerity or building a new left, but rather it would disgust workers and young people whose lives are being destroyed by the cuts.

Thanks Bolshevik, I don't know how I didn't pick that bit up.

I am a bit confused by it alright. It is a very idiosyncratic move and is surely an idea in the minority within the ULA as a whole -and surely will be voted down unless a clear and convincing example of its benefit will be produced by the SWP. For that reason there is little to fear about this opinion.

Realistically there are no elections for a good few years and not even Labour rats will have a need to jump ship any time soon. The only elected politicians in Labour to speak of rejecting Fine Gael on principle were "old Labourites" Tommy Broughan TD, and councillors Cian O'Callaghan, Pat McNulty and Dermot Looney. And Labour Youth. I can't see a clear tactic emerging with this. Can anybody?

What do you think was the SWP's reasoning behind this suggestion?

[bolshevik]

What do you think was the SWP's reasoning behind this suggestion?

It is a result of their "broadness" approach of seeking to allie themselves with anyone who expresses any degree of opposition at all to the austerity - even something as minimal as a LP politician speaking a little bit out of the left of their mouth.

I presume the logic being that any crack in the establishment is a good thing and will give confidence to our side. There is of course some truth to that, however this strategy comes at a major political cost of having to completely tone down the programme, even more than the electoral pact, so as not to scare away these potential allies. Which completely invalidates it in my mind.

It is also completely in contradiction to Kieran Allen's forthright advocacy of the need for the new party to be explicitly socialist which I heard him outliine at the Cork membership drive meeting.

There is a rumour that this is the result of an internal change in their line but it may just as easily have been him speaking left to the audience which was tilted towards the SP and other leftists.

[C. Flower]

[QUOTE=unspecific715;142866]Sorry I didn't mean to sound quite as bellicose and rash as I did.

On the contrary, there was nothing bellicose about it. I've nothing against a bit of bellicosity anyway, when war is being waged against peoples living standards.


eirigi are certainly well ahead in their own development and I commend them for how well they have built themselves. I think they are the perfect example. They took their time, not for patience's sake, but because they waited until the time was right -when a public were most receptive to alternatives.
This is the opposite of the point I was making. I have no evidence that eírígí has in any way delayed building their party in order to tail end the current conciousness of the working class. My point is that even though they have pushed on with their party building work, it has taken them five years to reach a members' consensus on programme, because that is the length of time it took to do the necessary work. They were still unready to stand candidates in the GE.

I can see absolutely no justification for the ULA delaying this work until there is a spontaneous mass movement out on the streets. The fact that this is what the SP suggests makes it very clear that the proposed party is not intended to be a Marxist party, but is some kind of election-oriented group that would opportunistically benefit from public anger against destruction of living standards.


My point is simply that the public at the minute is still in post-election honeymoon mode and less politicized and receptive than they were even a few months ago. Even broad-front Anti-IMF protests outside the Dail seriously struggle for numbers. I wish it was different, but we play the cards we are dealt. Inevitably that will change in the run up to Budget 2012.

If people involved in mass protest at a spontaneous level had the answers, why bother to go to the trouble of building a party at all ? Should a party not be involved in convincing people of the need to defend their living standards and rights, and in organisation of defence ?


The struggle can develop rapidly within the space of an evening of course, but I think people know enough about what the ULA is for it to be able to capitalize and lead and develop rapidly within such a turbulent period.

The ULA could organise itself overnight ? I don't think so, unless its only aspiration is to tag along with a mass movement if and when that occurs. How does this tally with your praise for eírígí's long process of party building ?


Also with regards the SP claiming the SWP will welcome Labour politicians, can anyone source where the SWP put this forward?

That information was in the linked SP source that I posted.

[bolshevik]

[quote]I can see absolutely no justification for the ULA delaying this work until there is a spontaneous mass movement out on the streets. The fact that this is what the SP suggests makes it very clear that the proposed party is not intended to be a Marxist party, but is some kind of election-oriented group that would opportunistically benefit from public anger against destruction of living standards.

It would seem this is more-or-less the position of the SP leadership but it is not necessarily a foregone conclusion that the new organisation will be limited to that.

I am aware from informal conversations with SP members and supporters that some of them have really bought into the idea of a new workers' party that is both a militant campaigning organistion and an open advocate of socialism. The SP formally oppose a parliamentary road and the work of their TDs is supposed to be merely as a support for the real struggle outside - I would say that virtually all of their members and supporters believe this to be true, despite the evidence ultra-left sectarians like myself might point to that indicate something different. To the extent the ULA has any social reality to it as a separate organisation with its own internal life then this contradiction between the SP leadership's cautious approach and the expectations of their members and supporters may prove difficult for them to contain.

I therefore think there is an opportunity to build something real out of this process despite what appears to be the much more limited perspective of the SP leadership - hence my document http://revolutionaryprogramme.wordpress.com/for-a-revolutionary-socialist-programme-2/.

Even to the extent that the SP members and supporters who believe in the new workers' party project reject some, or even all, of the persective I outline if they are serious they will have to present an alternative revolutionary socialist programme. And that will feed back into the process by which the new organisation moves in the direction of a real fighting orgnisation of the working class rather than remaining primarily an electoral front.

Of course I would also argue that the more independent voices putting forward their understanding of a revolutionary socialist programme that are involved in the process then the greater chance there is of a positive outcome.

[unspecific]

I can see absolutely no justification for the ULA delaying this work until there is a spontaneous mass movement out on the streets. The fact that this is what the SP suggests makes it very clear that the proposed party is not intended to be a Marxist party, but is some kind of election-oriented group that would opportunistically benefit from public anger against destruction of living standards.

But there is already a Marxist socialist party with a revolutionary programme. There are quite a few actually. And they have existed since the 70s through dire times and had many prometheusian programmes. Some of them are well-known to the public. The ULA is not potentially the first of them nor would its programme be. Also the ULA is not exactly inactive, it and its constituents hold talks and marches and speeches and rallies every bloomin' week. I've never heard any of them speak without mentioning we must organize in our communities and places of work and to reclaim the unions.

The key is that a programme is nothing without a movement to enact it or the movement's input to it. The frame of the new *mass* workers party will be in place shortly, once these branches are established. It will be actions not words that draw the flow of the movement into these branches. Once a critical mass exists we can talk about the existence of class-consciousness and being receptive to revolutionary programmes.


I am aware from informal conversations with SP members and supporters that some of them have really bought into the idea of a new workers' party that is both a militant campaigning organistion and an open advocate of socialism.

What is a militant campaigning organisation? March against water fees, then while at the march prescribe socialism as the only solution?

[bolshevik]

But there is already a Marxist socialist party with a revolutionary programme. There are quite a few actually.

So who are these parties in Ireland that have got a revolutionary programme? I am not aware of any.

What we have is a number of parties who have socialism as their aim and who would sometimes be willing to describe themselves as revolutionary socialists. But that is quite a differnt thing from having a revolutionary programme. Despite their pretensions to revolutionary socialism these parties consistently present a radical reformist road to socialism as the way forward - which makes them, at best, centrists.

[bolshevik]

What is a militant campaigning organisation? March against water fees, then while at the march prescribe socialism as the only solution?

For myself the key thing is the conscious building of organs of working class democracy in the general model of workers' councils including self-defence organs in opposition to the framework of bourgeois democracy and the capitalist state apparatus.

This both allows for the most effective campaigns against the immediate attacks and lays the basis for working class power post-revolution.

And of course I am not talking here just about socialism as an abstract aim but that the key elements of working class independence, internationalism etc are built in to our perspectives from day one.

[C. Flower]

So who are these parties in Ireland that have got a revolutionary programme? I am not aware of any.

What we have is a number of parties who have socialism as their aim and who would sometimes be willing to describe themselves as revolutionary socialists. But that is quite a differnt thing from having a revolutionary programme. Despite their pretensions to revolutionary socialism these parties consistently present a radical reformist road to socialism as the way forward - which makes them, at best, centrists.

What's your view of eírígí's Position Paper/Programme, bolshevik ?

[bolshevik]

What's your view of eírígí's Position Paper/Programme, bolshevik ?

I think it (http://www.eirigi.org/pdfs/socialism.pdf) describes the reality of capitalism and the socialist alternative very well. I have to report that this is the first time I've read this document and I have to concede that, despite some secondary reservations about a few of the formulations, it does represent a revolutionary persepctive. I will have to find out more about them.

I have so far had very little contact with eírígí as they have a very small presence in Cork. The most substantive contact, such as it was, being an informal discussion on the street in Dublin with one of their members about a 1% Network's leaflet he was handing out which ended with a call for the rich to pay their "fair share" http://irishelectionliterature.wordpress.com/2010/10/06/1-network-posterleaflet-advertising-a-political-walking-tour-through-d2-and-d4-on-saturday-9th-october/

During this discussion he presented what I understood to be a fairly standard radical reformist rather than revolutionary approach. I also raised this "fairer share" issue with the WSM in Cork and they presented it as a concession to the politics of eírígí to make the 1% Network bloc work.

However on the basis of the eírígí programmatic document this would seem inaccurate and I have been wrongly characterising them as just another nationalist/reformist outfit.

eírígí are planning a public meeting in Cork about the Queen's visit and I am even more interested in attending than I already was.

Thanks for bringing this to my attention and helping correct my misconceptions about their programme.

[C. Flower]

I think it (http://www.eirigi.org/pdfs/socialism.pdf) describes the reality of capitalism and the socialist alternative very well. I have to report that this is the first time I've read this document and I have to concede that, despite some secondary reservations about a few of the formulations, it does represent a revolutionary persepctive. I will have to find out more about them.

I have so far had very little contact with eírígí as they have a very small presence in Cork. The most substantive contact, such as it was, being an informal discussion on the street in Dublin with one of their members about a 1% Network's leaflet he was handing out which ended with a call for the rich to pay their "fair share" http://irishelectionliterature.wordpress.com/2010/10/06/1-network-posterleaflet-advertising-a-political-walking-tour-through-d2-and-d4-on-saturday-9th-october/

During this discussion he presented what I understood to be a fairly standard radical reformist rather than revolutionary approach. I also raised this "fairer share" issue with the WSM in Cork and they presented it as a concession to the politics of eírígí to make the 1% Network bloc work.

However on the basis of the eírígí programmatic document this would seem inaccurate and I have been wrongly characterising them as just another nationalist/reformist outfit.

eírígí are planning a public meeting in Cork about the Queen's visit and I am even more interested in attending than I already was.

Thanks for bringing this to my attention and helping correct my misconceptions about their programme.

I was also disturbed by this "fair share" angle. The pernicious influence of TASC at work :) ? It would be a moderate policy even in the Labour Party, to worry only about 1% of the population paying more tax. For such a small party to get drawn into putting resources into a "front" also seemed to me to be a mistake.

I also found eírígí's orientation to the WSM and apparent lack of debate/engagements with the ULA components odd. But it is a very small party who must work hard to make the amount of impact that they do, and who seem to be based in the working class.

As you say about the ULA, eírígí is developing, and imo the more that people on the left engage and debate with them, the better.

[bolshevik]

I was also disturbed by this "fair share" angle. The pernicious influence of TASC at work :) ? It would be a moderate policy even in the Labour Party, to worry only about 1% of the population paying more tax. For such a small party to get drawn into putting resources into a "front" also seemed to me to be a mistake.

I also found eírígí's orientation to the WSM and apparent lack of debate/engagements with the ULA components odd. But it is a very small party who must work hard to make the amount of impact that they do, and who seem to be based in the working class.

As you say about the ULA, eírígí is developing, and imo the more that people on the left engage and debate with them, the better.

I think the main problem eírígí have had with the engaging with the ULA so far is the positions taken on the North by the major components. And the ULA has looked at eírígí as something of an anarchoid stunt-based group not serious about working in the wider workers' movement. While there is an element of truth in both these conceptions it is a shame that this has resulted in the more-or-less complete lack of engagement with each other.

If a strong argument for the new party to take an unconditional Brits Out position as part of the overall programme was being seen to be put forward in the process of discussions - as I think it must - then perhaps this would begin to change. Certainly I think it would be good if the politics outlined in this eírígí document were able to be presented as part of the discussion towards the programme of the new workers' party.

[antiestablishmentarian]

I think the main problem eírígí have had with the engaging with the ULA so far is the positions taken on the North by the major components. And the ULA has looked at eírígí as something of an anarchoid stunt-based group not serious about working in the wider workers' movement. While there is an element of truth in both these conceptions it is a shame that this has resulted in the more-or-less complete lack of engagement with each other.

If a strong argument for the new party to take an unconditional Brits Out position as part of the overall programme was being seen to be put forward in the process of discussions - as I think it must - then perhaps this would begin to change. Certainly I think it would be good if the politics outlined in this eírígí document were able to be presented as part of the discussion towards the programme of the new workers' party.

That would be an understatement to say the least, although I think the shared activity in organising joint platforms, as at the ICTU march and in the European day of action last June, should point the way towards increased co-operation between the groups. I think the extent of co-operation from other groups on the left who might orientate towards the ULA will be determined to some degree by the position it takes on the national question, but the ULA doesn't seem to be in a hurry to formulate a position on that question, which is more important in the current climate than it has been for the last decade.

[C. Flower]

I think the main problem eírígí have had with the engaging with the ULA so far is the positions taken on the North by the major components. And the ULA has looked at eírígí as something of an anarchoid stunt-based group not serious about working in the wider workers' movement. While there is an element of truth in both these conceptions it is a shame that this has resulted in the more-or-less complete lack of engagement with each other.

If a strong argument for the new party to take an unconditional Brits Out position as part of the overall programme was being seen to be put forward in the process of discussions - as I think it must - then perhaps this would begin to change. Certainly I think it would be good if the politics outlined in this eírígí document were able to be presented as part of the discussion towards the programme of the new workers' party.

An opportunity for some discussion here, perhaps -

http://cedarlounge.wordpress.com/2011/05/02/saor-eire-a-gathering-for-socialists-and-republicans/

[bolshevik]

An opportunity for some discussion here, perhaps -

http://cedarlounge.wordpress.com/2011/05/02/saor-eire-a-gathering-for-socialists-and-republicans/

Looks very interesting but I can't afford two trips up to Dublin in the same month and am already committed to the Anarchist Book Fair the following weekend.

Hopefully there will be reports on this meeting posted here and elsewhere.

[unspecific]

It appears that the folk associated with ZNet are initiating a process to build a pan-left party. I wonder if our separate processes have anything to learn from eachother?

http://www.zcommunications.org/znet_top_page.htm

[unspecific]

A Cedarlounge report on a recent ULA Launch meeting in Inchicore

http://cedarlounge.wordpress.com/2011/05/12/short-report-from-a-ula-launch-meeting/



There is already a lengthy and informative thread on Building The ULA , rather than reply to that post I’ll do a brief outline of a ULA Launch meeting I attended recently, Indeed I missed Rovers game with Pats for the pleasure.

The speakers were Nicola Curry , Richard Boyd Barrett and Ruth Coppinger. About 30 people were present, many of which seemed to be known to the chair.
I was greeted at the door by a lady handing out éirígí leaflet about their ‘Camp’ in the Garden of Remembrance against the Queens Visit.
Was then greeted with leaflet from SWP, IAWM and ‘Enough is Enough’. There was no ULA material on offer (which I gather is being remedied).

Nicola Curry gave a brief speech concerning her recent election campaign and the future and how The ULA was going to campaign from the Bottom Up.
Richard Boyd Barrett then spoke and came across well although the ‘Ordinary Working People’ line popped out occasionally (Its a bugbear of mine as this current crisis is impacting almost everyone be they working or not). The Austerity measures, Bank Bailout , IMF, Greed, Bankers, developers and so on got plenty of mentions. The policies of the current government were described as “Continuity Fianna Fail”. He had also bought along a copy of the Sunday Times Rich List which indicted that there was wealth in this country which could be taxed.
Ruth Coppinger then spoke, she spoke of her experience as a Secondary teacher and how the cuts in education have impacted staff and pupils. It sounded all too familiar. She mentioned that Fas Work Experience teachers had already started in her school. The lack of leadership shown by the Unions and salaries of the Union Leadership got an airing as did the formation of “ASTI for Action” (I may have got the name wrong) at the recent conference.
Between the questions from the floor answers from the top table and the speeches a number of points were made.
The non profitable banks are being Nationalised whilst the profit making sectors such as Coillte etc are to be sold off. Our fantastic Wind and Wave energy potential had Speculators waiting to exploit it like our Oil and Gas reserves.

Richard Boyd Barrett talked of future opportunities for Community Action, Bus Services being reduced being one and mentioned that he was Looking forward to the Anti Water Charges campaign. It was felt that this will provide a huge opportunity for action by the ULA and an opportunity for the ULA to lead the way in the campaign.

Ruth Coppinger mentioned that she had come from a meeting of Fingal County Council where they were almost congratulating themselves that they had cut the workforce by 253 (out of 1500 workers) since 2008.

The possible role of the Unions was also a discussion point, it was felt that the Unions had mobilised large numbers of people to protest last year but had not followed up their actions in any way. They should be showing better leadership in opposing the current fiscal policies.

The European Dimension was covered in questions and also the need to unite with groups in Greece, Portugal and other countries.

All in all an interesting evening and we’ll see where it goes from here ….. elsewhere in Inchicore a dull nil all draw was played out in The Stadium of Light.

[unspecific]

Demand for United Left Alliance branches nationwide seems to be outstripping supply. A new tranche of meetings around the country have been announced on the organisation's website.

We asked for one ourselves where I live(and are getting it), so we know there will be another round after these if anyone else out there feels their locality would welcome one.



11 May
Ballyfermot
Joan Collins TD
Cllr Brid Smith
Paul Murphy MEP
Civic Centre, Ballyfermot, 8pm

17 May
Drogheda
Cllr Frank Gallagher
Joe Higgins TD
Eddie Conlon
Westcourt Hotel, Drogheda 8pm

19 May
Portlaoise
Ray Fitzpatrick
Clare Daly TD
Eddie Conlon
Parish Hall, Portlaoise, 8pm

19 May
Gorey
Richard Boyd Barrett TD PP
Cllr Matt Waine
Seamus O’Brien
Gorey Little Theatre 8.30pm

24 May
Dublin North East
Brian Greene
Clare Daly TD
Cllr Hugh Lewis
Venue tbc

25 May
Dublin North West
Andy Keegan
Paul Murphy MEP
Cllr Brid Smith
Axis Centre, Ballymun 8pm

26 May
Dublin South East
Cllr Brid Smith
Annette Mooney
Paul Murphy MEP
Travelodge Hotel, Rathmines 8pm

26 May
Wexford
Seamus O’Brien
Richard Boyd Barrett TD
Michael O’Brien
Jack Bailey’s Bar Upstairs 8pm

30 May
Dublin North City
Paul Murphy MEP
Joan Collins TD
Colm Stephens
Teachers Club Parnell Sq 8pm

4 June
Killarney

Joe Higgins TD
Kieran Allen
Venue tbc

4 June
Tralee
Joe Higgins TD
Kieran Allen
Grand Hotel, Tralee 4pm

9 June
Waterford
Richard Boyd Barrett TD
Joe Higgins TD
Granville Hotel, Waterford 8pm

9 June
Bray
Cllr Brid Smith
Cllr Matt Waine
Venue tbc

http://www.unitedleftalliance.org/more-united-left-alliance-local-public-meetings/

[Apjp]

Demand for United Left Alliance branches nationwide seems to be outstripping supply. A new tranche of meetings around the country have been announced on the organisation's website.

We asked for one ourselves where I live(and are getting it), so we know there will be another round after these if anyone else out there feels their locality would welcome one.




http://www.unitedleftalliance.org/more-united-left-alliance-local-public-meetings/

When and wheres the national convention again.its worth going along4discussion when possible but all these are during me exams

Sent from my GT-I5500 using Tapatalk

[bolshevik]

When and wheres the national convention again.its worth going along4discussion when possible but all these are during me exams

Saturday June 25th at Liberty Hall in Dublin

[antiestablishmentarian]

When are the details being circulated?

[bolshevik]

Don't know - the Cork branch meeting is on 24 May. I am assuming we will get an agenda for the convention then.

[unspecific]

A couple more ULA documents for folks.

Brendan Young had an article for the Scottish Left Review commissioned basically explaining the ULA for the Scottish audience.

http://www.irishleftreview.org/2011/05/20/hope-ireland/

also appears on:

http://tomasoflatharta.com/2011/05/20/united-left-alliance-a-work-in-progress-steps-towards-a-new-party/

And the Socialist Party have an article using the example of the Left Bloc in Portugal as another example of the dangers of new United Left parties not being distinct enough/too open to the right.

http://www.socialistparty.net/component/content/article/48-international/662-building-new-workers-parties-the-example-of-portugal


Building New Workers' Parties: The example of Portugal PDF Print E-mail
Written by Danny Byrne (CWI) and Goncalo Romeiro, Socialismo Revolucionario (CWI in Portugal)
Friday, 20 May 2011 10:00
Share/Save/Bookmark

Portugal, just like Ireland, is facing a colossal failure of capitalism, IMF rule and a unbearable state debt resulting from bailing out of the bankers and speculators. Just like here, this failure of right wing policies is providing huge opportunies, but also huge challenges, for the left. Very important debates are taking place within the Portugese left, which socialists and working class activists in Ireland should pay attention to.

Here we post a report of Socialism Revolucionmario (our sister group in Portugal, part of the CWI) from the recent conference on the "Left Block" ( Bloco de Esquerda, BE) which looks at some of these issues.

In light of the important steps the United Left Alliance (including the Socialist Party) is taking towards building a new mass left party of workers and young people, the points raised in this article about the need for a clear socialist programme for the left are particularly important. In Portugal, as in other countries, attempts to water down the left alternative to be more 'acceptable' to the media, or cosying up to the old Labour and 'left' parties which have completely sold out, are undermining the ability of the left to differentiate itself from the sell-outs of the past, and attract the most combatitive and energetic workers and young people. These dangers, discussed in the article do and will increasing face the United Left Alliance in Ireland, making it all the more important that we discuss, debate and study these examples
Portuguese Left Bloc dragged to the right at convention

The recently agreed EU/IMF aid, and its plan of austerity over the next years -which will be inevitably added to- lays out quite clearly what workers and youth can expect from capitalism. It was in this context that the Bloco de Esquerda (BE, Left Bloc), a left-wing formation with an impressive level of electoral support - 16 national MPs and 3 MEPs - met in Lisbon for a national convention, with well over 500 delegates and visitors present. Elections will take place on 5 June which will see the policies and programme of the Portuguese Communist Party (PCP) and the BE tested before working people.

A good vote for the PCP and the BE in the elections will be wholly positive for the working class and the CWI. It will show a substantial section of society in conscious opposition to the austerity policies of the main parties and the diktats of the markets, rejecting the EU/IMF intervention and in favour of an alternative left response. But for the CWI, the question is one of what type of strategy, programme and party is necessary to carry through the completion of the aims of the heroic left and communist workers of Portugal – the socialist transformation of society.
Debt: “renegotiation” or no payment?

Unfortunately, the convention of the Left Bloc did not represent a step forward in this sense. On the contrary, while Portuguese workers and youth have engaged in very militant actions in the recent period, the BE convention saw the leadership drag the party further to the right. Much of the convention seemed like more of a public electoral rally than a genuinely open and democratic decision-making event. However, the positions put forward and proposed by the leading members of the BE during the convention itself reflected the political approach they have adopted to the key questions of the day.

First among these is the question, which forms the basis for the nightmare situation of the Portuguese economy and the intervention of the Troika, of the national debt. The neo-liberal policies of successive governments, as well as the multi-billion bank bailouts, guaranteeing the gambling losses of the speculators, are wholly responsible for this debt. Leading figures in the BE have effectively exposed this, explaining the link between the orgy of privatisation, de-industrialisation, and tax breaks for the rich, and the ballooning national debt. Tax evasion by the rich is at phenomenal levels. In the island of Madeira, a well known tax haven on the Atlantic Ocean alone, annual tax evasion is more or less equal to the state’s entire education budget for 1 year!

So why should working people suffer to pay the debt off? They benefited nothing from the racking up of the debt. Therefore, to accept the premise that the debt should be paid out of public money, and the resulting austerity, is an erroneous position for the left to take. Any government operating within the framework of paying the debt (i.e the frame work of the dictatorship of the markets) will be a government of attacks on public spending and living standards. Including the interest on the agreed package, the troika “loan” alone will cost every Portuguese citizen an average year’s salary! This is an unbearable burden which must be rejected. “No to the payment of their debts”, must be the slogan of the hour for the left.

But the “Motion A” policy document submitted to the convention and supported by the entirety of the BE’s public leadership made no such call. While acknowledging that “the debt is the key political question”, they called merely for a “renegotiation” of the “unbearable” debt to lower the interest rates. But the debt is unbearable, even without the interest rates! In accepting implicitly the debt, the left feeds the arguments of the right wing, to the effect that there is “no alternative” to cuts, to pay the debt off. Supporters of an alternative document, “Motion C”, correctly argued against this position, however not on the basis of a clear call for non-payment, but for “suspension” of payment, followed by a democratically controlled audit. Nonetheless, the adoption of motion C by the convention (not only on the question of the debt) would have represented a left turn towards a socialist and fundamentally alternative position to the right. In the end, despite numerous harsh polemical attacks on this motion by leading figures throughout the convention, it won over 70 votes from delegates, around 15%, with Motion A winning a heavy majority. Other motions, “B” and “D”, which emphasised the need for greater internal democracy, also received a handful of votes from delegates.
What is a left government? What attitude to the PS?

“Socialism” in Portugal can be equated with many things. Many speak of it, but few explain what they mean. The “socialism” of the “Socialist Party” is that of attacks on the poor to save capitalism. Therefore, an explanation from the genuine left as to what real socialism is is doubly important. “Socialist policies” was a regular refrain at the BE’s convention, but from leading figures there was little content to accompany the phrase. In his keynote address, BE’s main public figure, Fransisco Louçã (who, along with many other BE leaders, is part of the “Fourth International” / USFI) confined his description of socialism to “intervention to protect the people” and “a fairer tax system”. Under what type of economy or government such measures could be achieved was left in the air.

After all, how can higher taxes be imposed on the rich, or their assets be confiscated, without the banks and the financial sector being democratically controlled and managed by working people, through their nationalisation, and without the introduction of capital controls and State monopoly on foreign trade, in order to prevent capital flights? Some delegates, again in support of the alternative C motion at the convention, correctly raised the need for the Left Bloc’s “socialism” to be brought to life through genuine revolutionary socialist proposals to transform society.

A widespread sentiment among left leaders of this type is a hesitancy or unwillingness to raise the question of socialism as a fundamental alternative to capitalism, based on a fear that such a stand will “lose votes”. The CWI fundamentally disagrees with both this sentiment and its supposed justifications. In fact, the history of such an approach being adopted by left parties around Europe tells a different story. Louçã’s co-thinkers in the French NPA leadership have presided over an extremely unfortunate decline in the party’s poll support and profile using a similar method. The reality is that a clear and well-explained alternative to capitalism, taking proposals and individual economic policies to their logical conclusion – a break with the dictatorship of the markets and its replacement by democratic socialism – can win the left votes, by giving its programme a new consistency and viability.

Such is the type of programme that would make a prospective “left government” a real and viable alternative. The new slogans of for ‘left governments’ put forward by both the the PCP and the BE are definite steps in the right direction. But neither party explains what such a government would do, or who would make it up. Socialismo Revolucionario also demands a left government, but on clear terms. We demand that the PCP and the BE form a united left front on the basis of democratic socialist policies as outlined above as an alternative to market / Troika rule, linked to a mass struggle by workers and young people.

Louçã and other leaders were repeatedly asked at the convention to clarify their proposal for a left government. Why were they not explicitly mentioning the PCP and campaigning to make a government of these two significant forces a reality? Louçã answered these questions with some clarity later, but not before the convention. In an interview with the press and TV stations on the night of the convention’s first day, he told the press that there was “no left without the PS”! The workers who have mounted massive battles against the current PS government will be surprised at the insinuation that they were fighting a left party in government. Louçã went on to condition his remarks by saying that no government led by the current PS leader and Prime Minister, Socrates, could be really left. But whether this implies that a PS government led by another one of their leaders or MPs would be “left” was not made clear. However, this position seems to represent a continuation of the approach of the BE’s leadership over the last period, after its support for Manuel Alegre, the candidate supported by the ruling PS in the Presidential elections last year, justified by the need for “unity” against the PSD and PP.

Such a position can serve to counteract any hopes among Left Bloc supporters and voters that the party represents a real alternative to the main parties and will fight for a government based on different policies. Tail-ending the PS in its playing-up of “lesser evilism” to fight against the conservative PSD will not serve to attract disgruntled PS voters towards the Left Bloc, but on the contrary could aid a shift in support and votes in the opposite direction! Clearly there is a need to win over those workers still supporting the PS, but if a vote for the Left Bloc could bring the PS back to power, why not just vote for the PS? The near-identical approach and policies of the capitalist parties, and the increasingly probable prospect of a grand coalition government between both (or all three) of them presents the left with an opportunity to fight for an alternative bloc, in opposition to the troika and austerity of the “bloco central” (name given to the consensus between the 3 main capitalist parties). This could bring about a fundamental re-alignment in Portuguese politics, with a strong anti-capitalist left struggling for power against a unified right-wing government.

The current positions being taken up by the BE raise a worrying spectrum. Following on from the support of the Alegre candidacy, the BE’s parliamentary group’s support for the Troika “bailout” of Greece and their MEPs’ votes in favour of the imperialist military intervention into Libya. Such a mistaken and inconsistent approach does not augur well for the elections. Opinion poll figures seem to confirm this. From around 10% two years ago, they are now on as low as 4% in recent polls. Moreover, these were 2 years of intense capitalist crisis and class struggle. The way forward for the BE can only be charted by basing itself on the impressive struggles of workers and youth, putting forward a clear political programme for the movement to take up. We understand there can be no “straight line” development from capitalist crisis and struggle to a mass understanding of the need for socialism. But at the very least the discrediting of capitalism opens a huge opportunity for the left to make big gains and popularise the demands and ideas of socialism.

In the current situation in Portugal, in which the future seems so bleak and uncertain to the majority, the position taken by political forces is of the utmost importance. The questions of austerity, of the debt and above all of what government is possible or desirable have become questions of “life and death”, of bankruptcy and poverty, or of an alternative. But these questions, and how they are responded to, also mean life or death for the left! A profound debate is necessary, both within and outside the ranks of the BE, but also in the Communist Party and trade unions about what approach and programme is necessary. Socialismo Revolucionario fights to organise workers and young people around a fighting and revolutionary socialist programme for the left and workers’ movement.

[bolshevik]

My notes on the Cork branch meeting last night are available at http://revolutionaryprogramme.wordpress.com/2011/05/25/report-on-cork-ula-branch-meeting-on-24-may/

[unspecific]

Thanks Bolshevik.


2. Presentation by Spanish participant in the demonstration in Cork last Saturday in solidarity with the “True Democracy” events in Spain.

Discussion on how this might be broadened out to be about Ireland and not just solidarity with the events in Spain.

There is another solidarity demonstration in Cork this coming Saturday @ 2pm – all ULA members encouraged to attend.

These Real Democracia Ya! camps. Do they not prohibit party political flags?

[C. Flower]

Thanks Bolshevik.

These Real Democracia Ya! camps. Do they not prohibit party political flags?

That is a matter for consensus. They have had meetings at which these issues have been discussed.

If the organisers ask for participation without banners, imo that should be observed. I think they have good reason to ask them to be left at home at this stage.

ULA members if they disagree should go along to the meetings and make their case.

[unspecific]

The SP have another article out on the ULA.

I'd just like to point out that their last one criticized the Left Bloc in Portugal's tactic of being close to Labour/not having a unique enough identity.. and yesterday the Left Bloc lost half of their seats(down to 8) in the elections. While the Red-Green Communist Party list held all of theirs and added one(up to 16). I admit I don't know anything about political happenings in Portugal, but there you go.

Have at it.

http://socialistparty.net/comment/677-build-the-ula-fight-the-cuts


The United Left Alliance has the potential to be at the heart of the active resistance to the fresh round of attacks coming from the government in the months ahead. In order to achieve this potential there are important tasks the ULA has to focus on in the immediate future.

The ULA needs to initiates and lead struggles under its own banner and within broader campaigns. The reclaim the unions’ initiative which will be formally launched in the autumn and the pre-existing No Water Tax campaign are examples of two vital arenas of work for ULA members.

In addition to this engaging in campaign work on defending REA/ERO conditions that are due to come under attack in July, pushing for an active response from the unions and going into workplaces with leaflets putting forward a fighting strategy to workers who will be affected.

On 3 July we will also see the convening of a major public event on the issue of negative equity from which the ULA working with householders and others who want to genuinely fight on this issue should aspire to build a real campaign of people power to resolve the mortgage crisis. Engaging in all this campaigning activity is vital if the ULA is to maintain and develop its profile in workplaces and communities and likewise to make joining newly formed local ULA branches seem purposeful to working people, the unemployed and youth.

The ULA contested the general election on a limited programme that was seen as a response to the crisis.Now that we have a platform with five TDs who have plenty of speaking opportunities and can periodically bring motions or bills to the Dáil the ULA is correctly seen as a factor in the political scene and the national debate on all the big issues.

The development of research and policy that needs to take place is not because we have illusions that the establishment parties will accept our alternatives and those radical reforms will be achieved through the Dáil by our TDs’ powers of persuasion. Instead the aim should be to use the platform and resources of the Dáil positions to contribute to developing the ideas and arguments for the struggles out there in society.

Breaking the cutback consensus of the establishment and the right wing trade union leaders will assist in the development of a fightback which is inevitable given the scale of attacks planned by the government. The workshops and plenaries at the ULA Forum on 25 June should be, among other objectives, a practical input into this development of radical left alternative ideas.

The Forum and proposals initiated by the Socialist Party to further democratise the interim steering committee by facilitating the election onto it of people who do not belong to the affiliated organisations should be seen as practical steps in the development of the ULA.

A series of ULA meetings have taken place all over the country. Most have been modest in size but with more than enough people participating to allow for ULA branches to be launched. It will only be a matter of weeks and months before we will feel the impact of Fine Gael/Labour's austerity attacks. The ULA and the Socialist Party are engaged in important preparatory work to ensure that there will be a political force capable of responding to these attacks in every city and town.

[bolshevik]

The SP have another article out on the ULA.

...

Have at it.

http://socialistparty.net/comment/677-build-the-ula-fight-the-cuts


"It will only be a matter of weeks and months before we will feel the impact of Fine Gael/Labour's austerity attacks."

I could have sworn we were already well into feeling the impact of the austerity attacks. I guess the point here is actually that it will become clearer in the coming weeks and months that the FG/LP coalition are just continuing the austerity attacks.


"The ULA and the Socialist Party are engaged in important preparatory work to ensure that there will be a political force capable of responding to these attacks in every city and town."

Hmmm - I find that a bit hard to reconcile with the SP's slowly-slowly approach to builidng the ULA, at least as manifest in the Cork branch. Maybe this represents a change in line and I'll be pleasantly surprised at the next branch meeting in Cork.

[scrawledincrayon]

[
Hmmm - I find that a bit hard to reconcile with the SP's slowly-slowly approach to builidng the ULA, at least as manifest in the Cork branch. Maybe this represents a change in line and I'll be pleasantly surprised at the next branch meeting in Cork.

Why would you assume a link between the importance of work and the speed at which it is carried out? It is often better to take your time and build solid foundations.

[bolshevik]

Why would you assume a link between the importance of work and the speed at which it is carried out? It is often better to take your time and build solid foundations.

Fair enough point in general terms I guess. However I am not the only one saying they think there is some urgency involved. Take for instance the first 4 paragraphs of the SP article you posted:



The United Left Alliance has the potential to be at the heart of the active resistance to the fresh round of attacks coming from the government in the months ahead. In order to achieve this potential there are important tasks the ULA has to focus on in the immediate future.

The ULA needs to initiates and lead struggles under its own banner and within broader campaigns. The reclaim the unions’ initiative which will be formally launched in the autumn and the pre-existing No Water Tax campaign are examples of two vital arenas of work for ULA members.

In addition to this engaging in campaign work on defending REA/ERO conditions that are due to come under attack in July, pushing for an active response from the unions and going into workplaces with leaflets putting forward a fighting strategy to workers who will be affected.

On 3 July we will also see the convening of a major public event on the issue of negative equity from which the ULA working with householders and others who want to genuinely fight on this issue should aspire to build a real campaign of people power to resolve the mortgage crisis. Engaging in all this campaigning activity is vital if the ULA is to maintain and develop its profile in workplaces and communities and likewise to make joining newly formed local ULA branches seem purposeful to working people, the unemployed and youth.

If I'm not mistaken July is only a few weeks away...

[Jolly Red Giant]

If I'm not mistaken July is only a few weeks away...
Are you suggesting that the ULA should be established as a fully fledged party by 3 July?

[Sam Lord]

"On 3 July we will also see the convening of a major public event on the issue of negative equity from which the ULA working with householders and others who want to genuinely fight on this issue should aspire to build a real campaign of people power to resolve the mortgage crisis."

A major public event on negative equity for people who want to fight on the issue?

Someone will have to explain this one to me.

What will the central demand be? Reflate the property bubble?

[bolshevik]

Are you suggesting that the ULA should be established as a fully fledged party by 3 July?

No I am not, that would not be feasible or sensible.

However I am suggesting that ULA branches should meet more often than monthly. I am suggesting that it should have a real internal political life with email lists and regular political discussions. I am suggesting that during the period of a so-called "membership drive" we might expect to see the ULA having some kind of public face as a group rather than it seeming that it is just the two main constituent groups who are on a membership drive.

[Sam Lord]

No I am not, that would not be feasible or sensible.

However I am suggesting that ULA branches should meet more often than monthly. I am suggesting that it should have a real internal political life with email lists and regular political discussions. I am suggesting that during the period of a so-called "membership drive" we might expect to see the ULA having some kind of public face as a group rather than it seeming that it is just the two main constituent groups who are on a membership drive.

Bolshevik, can you explain the negative equity thing to me? I just can't picture someone holding a placard saying "Down with negative equity!".

I must be missing something here.

[bolshevik]

"On 3 July we will also see the convening of a major public event on the issue of negative equity from which the ULA working with householders and others who want to genuinely fight on this issue should aspire to build a real campaign of people power to resolve the mortgage crisis."

A major public event on negative equity for people who want to fight on the issue?

Someone will have to explain this one to me.

What will the central demand be? Reflate the property bubble?

I'm afraid that as an ordinary member of the ULA I can't tell you as it hasn't been discussed inside the ULA. I presume that it is some kind of initiative that the constituent groups agree on and we will be told in due course.

[C. Flower]

How does the ULA see itself in relation to the mass protest movements across Europe, Africa and the Middle East ?

There are events going to be going on all summer. Will the ULA mobilise to support them ? I understand that at least one of the Irish groups is very wary of being "hi-jacked" by political parties. I would argue that there is a modus operandi that could be agreed that would allow political groups to identify themselves without swamping proceedings. But they may want to insist on a "no banners" policy. Will the SP and SWP support participation on these terms ?



Why wait until the Autumn to start the Trade Union campaign ?

[bolshevik]

How does the ULA see itself in relation to the mass protest movements across Europe, Africa and the Middle East ?

There are events going to be going on all summer. Will the ULA mobilise to support them ? I understand that at least one of the Irish groups is very wary of being "hi-jacked" by political parties. I would argue that there is a modus operandi that could be agreed that would allow political groups to identify themselves without swamping proceedings. But they may want to insist on a "no banners" policy. Will the SP and SWP support participation on these terms ?

Why wait until the Autumn to start the Trade Union campaign ?

All good questions but the ULA currently has no internal structures to discuss such things and the main constituent groups don't seem in any hurry to move towards such things while at the same time wanting us to "be at the heart of the active resistance to the fresh round of attacks coming from the government in the months ahead" as the SP article puts it.

I am looking forward to the next Cork branch meeting on 14 June to see what proposals the SP/SWP steering committee put forward in opposition to Anne and my proposals which were deferred from the previous meeting:


1. That the branch has fortnightly meetings
2. That the branch sets up a discussion email list for all members
3. That all branch meetings begin with a political introduction and discussion and the second part is given over to plans for practical activity and administration matters
4. That a new branch steering committee be set up with the election of the committee to be held at the next branch meeting [which would now be this meeting on 14 June]

[Sam Lord]

I am looking forward to the next Cork branch meeting on 14 June to see what proposals the SP/SWP steering committee put forward in opposition to Anne and my proposals which were deferred from the previous meeting:


I hope they do not propose that you close the door behind you on the way out.:D

[Uncorruptable]

"
A major public event on negative equity for people who want to fight on the issue?

Someone will have to explain this one to me.

What will the central demand be? Reflate the property bubble?

Well i cannot say definitivley but i would imagine the direction is to be a write off of the negative equity with the banks.

The amount owed to the bank should now only be in realtion to value of the property, this is what should happen & the fúckers at the other end that fuelled the 'property bubble' take the hit, the justification for this is,

The majjority of ordinary home owners had no notion of how the system was being rigged to inflates prices & in turn huge mortgages being churned out when it was at the peak, they were looking to put a roof over their familys head.

The drivers & bankrollers of the mortgages knew full well where it was heading but wannted to lock as many people into huge mortgages so as to earn as much as possible off them once the crash came (that they instigated).

A personal home owners default on the negative equity of the mortgage giving them a property that is now worth what it is on the property market.

[C. Flower]

Well i cannot say definitivley but i would imagine the direction is to be a write off of the negative equity with the banks.

The amount owed to the bank should now only be in realtion to value of the property, this is what should happen & the fúckers at the other end that fuelled the 'property bubble' take the hit, the justification for this is,

The majjority of ordinary home owners had no notion of how the system was being rigged to inflates prices & in turn huge mortgages being churned out when it was at the peak, they were looking to put a roof over their familys head.

The drivers & bankrollers of the mortgages knew full well where it was heading but wannted to lock as many people into huge mortgages so as to earn as much as possible off them once the crash came (that they instigated).

A personal home owners default on the negative equity of the mortgage giving them a property that is now worth what it is on the property market.

As the banks are guaranteed and owned by the state the cost of the write off would be passed straight back to us.

Negative equity is only a problem if someone loses their job or has to move house.
There are 25,000 + households at default point with their mortgages and threatened with homelessness.

Would that not be the issue to tackle ? Also the lack of new social housing, leading to overcrowding and homelessness ?

[Uncorruptable]

As the banks are guaranteed and owned by the state the cost of the write off would be passed straight back to us.

Negative equity is only a problem if someone loses their job or has to move house.
There are 25,000 + households at default point with their mortgages and threatened with homelessness.

Would that not be the issue to tackle ? Also the lack of new social housing, leading to overcrowding and homelessness ?

I am amazed actually that you pose this question & the idea that if there was personal default we would pick up the tab.

The default cost should end squarley with the bankrollers who funded the mortgages in the first place, i.e. the bondholders of each bank.

Even if they wrote off the negative equity, the return on the initial outlay over the term of the mortgage would still surpass the initial sum, so in effect we should be asking just how much profit should we allow on mortgages given the state we are in worldwide.

Also the abundance of housing around the country now belonging to the state is idle, what are we to do with it? Leave it empty for 10 years plus in the hope NAMA can make a return on it?

It should be occupied & used for social purposes right now.

[Sam Lord]

Well i cannot say definitivley but i would imagine the direction is to be a write off of the negative equity with the banks.

The amount owed to the bank should now only be in realtion to value of the property, this is what should happen & the fúckers at the other end that fuelled the 'property bubble' take the hit, the justification for this is,

The majjority of ordinary home owners had no notion of how the system was being rigged to inflates prices & in turn huge mortgages being churned out when it was at the peak, they were looking to put a roof over their familys head.

The drivers & bankrollers of the mortgages knew full well where it was heading but wannted to lock as many people into huge mortgages so as to earn as much as possible off them once the crash came (that they instigated).

A personal home owners default on the negative equity of the mortgage giving them a property that is now worth what it is on the property market.

Will the negative equity campaign include people who borrowed money to buy properties other than a family home? Say the likes of Gardai who would have borrowed from their Credit Union to purchase rental properties?

I can envisage a whole range of problems associated with such a campaign. Is it designed to appeal to the middle strata in society?

[C. Flower]

Moreso, the whole drive to private ownership was a lynch pin of right wing strategy in Ireland: working class communities were destroyed by the FG Lab grants-to-buy to Council tenants in the 1980s.

Private ownership of housing was a gift to the construction industry paymasters of the Irish political parties and an ideological weapon against socialism. Everyone was told that they were "property owners" if they had a mortgage debt and that they owned an "asset" that would increase in value.

Even in a positive market in fact houses lose value over their lifetime as they require more and more expensive repairs.

Housing campaigns from the left should be aimed at making this clear, and encouraging a completely different approach to housing, based in the main on public ownership and the right of everyone to good housing suited to their needs.

[C. Flower]

Meeting in the Red Cow about people losing homes: July 3rd.

Someone who borrowed 350,000 euro for a house and lost his job now owes €500,000 approx. including legal fees - Start Mortgages were the "business" in question.

He says he is going to camp outside the house, which is likely to be sold for 190,000.

Hard to see where he spent €350,000.

Put 130,000 into the house and bought a car.

(Joe Duffy)

[Sam Lord]

Well i cannot say definitivley but i would imagine the direction is to be a write off of the negative equity with the banks.

The amount owed to the bank should now only be in realtion to value of the property, this is what should happen & the fúckers at the other end that fuelled the 'property bubble' take the hit, the justification for this is,

The majjority of ordinary home owners had no notion of how the system was being rigged to inflates prices & in turn huge mortgages being churned out when it was at the peak, they were looking to put a roof over their familys head.

The drivers & bankrollers of the mortgages knew full well where it was heading but wannted to lock as many people into huge mortgages so as to earn as much as possible off them once the crash came (that they instigated).

A personal home owners default on the negative equity of the mortgage giving them a property that is now worth what it is on the property market.

A couple of other things have come to my mind:

Who is going to be valuing the houses and what point in time will be used. When the market finally hits bottom?

What about homeowners who profited from the boom and traded up? i.e. near the height of the boom they sold a property they had purchased pre boom for an absolute killing. This profit they then invested in a much more valuable property. Will the fact that they made a lot of money out of the boom be taken into account when writing off the negative equity on their current property?

[scrawledincrayon]

There are 25,000 + households at default point with their mortgages and threatened with homelessness.

Would that not be the issue to tackle ?

That is the issue which will be tackled. There's nothing particularly complex about it.

[Uncorruptable]

Moreso, the whole drive to private ownership was a lynch pin of right wing strategy in Ireland: working class communities were destroyed by the FG Lab grants-to-buy to Council tenants in the 1980s.

Private ownership of housing was a gift to the construction industry paymasters of the Irish political parties and an ideological weapon against socialism. Everyone was told that they were "property owners" if they had a mortgage debt and that they owned an "asset" that would increase in value.

Even in a positive market in fact houses lose value over their lifetime as they require more and more expensive repairs.

Housing campaigns from the left should be aimed at making this clear, and encouraging a completely different approach to housing, based in the main on public ownership and the right of everyone to good housing suited to their needs.

Well i was answering you in the current context of where we are, i 100% agree with you that the perception of ownership is false in a capitalist model, One of the very core pillars of capitalism is the ownership of private property, now people get fearful when you are proposing a system that takes away this ownership from the system, but the fears are misguided.

Majority of people that take out a mortgage, do so for the term of their natural life in most cases, this means that you do not in fact actually own the property, it is yours to reside in as long as you pay the bank, so the bank are looking over your shoulder all the time waiting for a repossession of the home.

If we lived in a system where a home was enshrined in the law to all to suit your needs that would be better, you cannot be evicted as you are entitled to it by law, now if you desired something bigger then you would pay the state a fee for whatever the percentage is worked out at, now the initial reaction to this is negative but in reality all you are doing is substituting a private mortagage company with the state if you choose to live in anything larger than your requirments & in turn then the state benfits all round with more money for public services & upkeep of the housing system.

In such a system you would not have house prices open to speculation & fluctuation, a property would be a set price depending on its size/area & extra money being paid by the occupier if that property exceded their needs, meaning a couple with one child living in a six bedroom house will pay extra fees to the state for a property over their needs.

Fixed house pricing, entitlement to a home to suit your needs no matter what your circumstances, no fluctuation in mortgages linked to interest rates as the house price is based on size & necessity.

Sounds like a far more stable & secure system of home ownership to me.


Meeting in the Red Cow about people losing homes: July 3rd.



Who is running/chairing this meeting? Is there any literature/flyers online for it?
I would like to get some & spread them around a bit if you can point me in the right direction.



What about homeowners who profited from the boom and traded up? i.e. near the height of the boom they sold a property they had purchased pre boom for an absolute killing. This profit they then invested in a much more valuable property. Will the fact that they made a lot of money out of the boom be taken into account when writing off the negative equity on their current property?

Within your post you just made a very relevant point, the 'profit' made from one property simply in most cases was reinvested in another, which then subsequently lost its value, the party which profits from this is the other home owner selling, who in majority of cases invest up again and so on, who is the main beneficiary of this chain when it reaches the end?

The very wealthy property dealers.

[Sam Lord]

That is the issue which will be tackled. There's nothing particularly complex about it.

But why through a general campaign to reduce negative equity?

There are many people in Ireland in difficulty with their mortgages. There are also those who still have good incomes and are well able to pay the mortgage they undertook. Why put them all together in a campaign? If the idea is to help those in difficulty then focus on those in difficulty and if the idea is to damage the financial system through default then advocate that people should default entirely. The negative equity approach is making little sense to me so far. And you asserting that there is nothing complex does not really shed any light.

[Uncorruptable]

But why through a general campaign to reduce negative equity?

There are many people in Ireland in difficulty with their mortgages. There are also those who still have good incomes and are well able to pay the mortgage they undertook. Why put them all together in a campaign? If the idea is to help those in difficulty then focus on those in difficulty and if the idea is to damage the financial system through default then advocate that people should default entirely. The negative equity approach is making little sense to me so far. And you asserting that there is nothing complex does not really shed any light.

Well i for one would include anyone who is still able to pay there mortgage, the system was & is enginneered to reap as much as possible from the masses from something which is not & never was worth the price it was driven up to & subsequently loans given at inflated price.

Even if you can still pay, you cannot move as you would then be in massive debt, the negative equity needs to be removed to alleviate this pressure that is hanging over the majority of the country, as i have pointed out, the bank would still profit from the remaining mortgage over the term of the 30 - 40 years so it is only right.

[scrawledincrayon]

But why through a general campaign to reduce negative equity?

You are jumping to conclusions about a campaign which hasn't been launched and hasn't announced one single thing about its aims and objectives, other than its support for a man facing eviction, based only on "evidence" originating in your fertile imagination.

When some people here do that, I assume foolishness. When you do it, it's more likely malice.

[Sam Lord]

Within your post you just made a very relevant point, the 'profit' made from one property simply in most cases was reinvested in another, which then subsequently lost its value, the party which profits from this is the other home owner selling, who in majority of cases invest up again and so on, who is the main beneficiary of this chain when it reaches the end?



Perhaps you could clarify the proposal through a concrete example:

Say I bought a small terraced house in the inner city pre boom for 60,000 euros (it would probably have been the punts equivalent but lets stick to one currency) and I sell this a couple of years off the height of the boom for 260,000 euros. I have made 200,000 out of the bubble. I then invest this 200,000 in a house selling for 400,000 euros. So my mortgage is 200,000. By the height of the boom the house I have bought is worth 500,000 euros.

Today the house might fetch 250,000 on the open market. So I am in negative equity to the tune of 250,000.

What exactly is the ULA saying? Should I have to keep paying my mortgage because it is less than the value of my home today? Or does the amount of negative equity get written of against the mortgage meaning that I owe the bank nothing?

[Sam Lord]

You are jumping to conclusions about a campaign which hasn't been launched and hasn't announced one single thing about its aims and objectives, other than its support for a man facing eviction, based only on "evidence" originating in your fertile imagination.

When some people here do that, I assume foolishness. When you do it, it's more likely malice.



"On 3 July we will also see the convening of a major public event on the issue of negative equity from which the ULA working with householders and others who want to genuinely fight on this issue should aspire to build a real campaign of people power to resolve the mortgage crisis."


I am actually responding to this. And I have not jumped to any conclusions really ... just simply posed some questions about a campaign around negative equity.

I think I have been helpful to you so far and I'm not sure why you are so sensitive. When your convention (now Forum) was first announced there was no mention of the national question and I raised this and a workshop was added. This was good but the workshop was called "the Left and the North" . I expressed concerns about this and I noticed recently that it had been changed to "The left in the north" ... still not great but an improvement. So I think it has been a good thing for you to take on board concerns posed about your positions and you should continue to do so.

[Sam Lord]

Well i for one would include anyone who is still able to pay there mortgage, the system was & is enginneered to reap as much as possible from the masses from something which is not & never was worth the price it was driven up to & subsequently loans given at inflated price.



Why not advocate a general default by mortgage holders? i.e. that no one pay any part of their mortgage?

[Sam Lord]

On 3 July we will also see the convening of a major public event on the issue of negative equity from which the ULA working with householders and others who want to genuinely fight on this issue should aspire to build a real campaign of people power to resolve the mortgage crisis.


I'm also interested in the mechanics of this "real campaign" around negative equity.

Will it be directed at the government - i.e. will it be advocated that the government compensate the banks for reducing principal (if so how can this be afforded) or will it be advocated that the government somehow decrees that the banks do this (and if so does it actually have this power)?

Or Will it be directed at the banks - i.e. a campaign that they reduce the principal on the mortgages they hold (and if so what tactics are envisioned that have even the remotest chance of achieving this)?

or will it be something like giving bankruptcy courts the power to reduce principal owed on mortgages (I believe something like that was done in the USA)?

I think if people are announcing a "major public event" to launch "a real campaign" they should be in a position to answer a few basic questions.

[scrawledincrayon]

I think I have been helpful to you so far and I'm not sure why you are so sensitive. When your convention (now Forum) was first announced there was no mention of the national question and I raised this and a workshop was added. This was good but the workshop was called "the Left and the North" . I expressed concerns about this and I noticed recently that it had been changed to "The left in the north" ... still not great but an improvement.

The notion that you are interested in helping the United Left Alliance in any way shape or form is a lie.

The notion that the United Left Alliance has taken any action at all as a result of your sniping is a self-deluding fantasy.

I hope that's clear enough for you.

[Sam Lord]

The notion that you are interested in helping the United Left Alliance in any way shape or form is a lie.

The notion that the United Left Alliance has taken any action at all as a result of your sniping is a self-deluding fantasy.



:D:D

Any clarification on the "real" campaign around negative equity?

[C. Flower]

[QUOTE=Uncorruptable;154703]Well i was answering you in the current context of where we are, i 100% agree with you that the perception of ownership is false in a capitalist model, One of the very core pillars of capitalism is the ownership of private property, now people get fearful when you are proposing a system that takes away this ownership from the system, but the fears are misguided.

Yes, but we are also seeing a spectacular failure of the capitalist market in housing. There are thousands of empty homes and thousands of people homeless or in overcrowded homes. There is also an escalating number of households in unrepayable or crippling debt, trying to pay off mortgages. Rents haven't fallen on average, because NAMA and the banks are trying to artificially prop up property prices.

This is a prime opportunity to explain to people that the whole "home ownership" dream is a nightmare designed to make profits for the banks.

The really rich rent. Much more flexible and convenient.


Majority of people that take out a mortgage, do so for the term of their natural life in most cases, this means that you do not in fact actually own the property, it is yours to reside in as long as you pay the bank, so the bank are looking over your shoulder all the time waiting for a repossession of the home.

Agree very much. Also the house is getting older and less sound.


If we lived in a system where a home was enshrined in the law to all to suit your needs that would be better, you cannot be evicted as you are entitled to it by law, now if you desired something bigger then you would pay the state a fee for whatever the percentage is worked out at, now the initial reaction to this is negative but in reality all you are doing is substituting a private mortagage company with the state if you choose to live in anything larger than your requirments & in turn then the state benfits all round with more money for public services & upkeep of the housing system.

We have a great housing stock at the moment. We just need to redistribute it to those in need to make sure everyone is well housed. But I'm in favour of it being publicly owned, with security of tenure. There also needs to be a well developed system for transfers / house moves for tenants in public housing. New kinds of housing need to be developed, like one-bed studio flats for young people with shared laundry and social spaces, more houses with "granny flats" etc. We have far too many three bedroom semis because its the safest thing to sell in for the housing market, not because they're needed.


In such a system you would not have house prices open to speculation & fluctuation, a property would be a set price depending on its size/area & extra money being paid by the occupier if that property exceded their needs, meaning a couple with one child living in a six bedroom house will pay extra fees to the state for a property over their needs.

Pretty much as social housing is now.


Fixed house pricing, entitlement to a home to suit your needs no matter what your circumstances, no fluctuation in mortgages linked to interest rates as the house price is based on size & necessity.

Again, just like social housing is now.


Sounds like a far more stable & secure system of home ownership to me.

But surely most people don't need to own a house ? These days, people move around a lot. Renting is more convenient.


Who is running/chairing this meeting? Is there any literature/flyers online for it?
I would like to get some & spread them around a bit if you can point me in the right direction.

It was mentioned on the Joe Duffy Show today. It wasn't said who was running it. New Beginnings was mentioned.
It might be worth googling it.
Someone who had lost his house mentioned the ULA favourably on Liveline :)


Within your post you just made a very relevant point, the 'profit' made from one property simply in most cases was reinvested in another, which then subsequently lost its value, the party which profits from this is the other home owner selling, who in majority of cases invest up again and so on, who is the main beneficiary of this chain when it reaches the end?
The very wealthy property dealers.

FF used property ownership as a means to try to make people feel that they were no longer working class and that they had an asset. To fight against that means not only tackling the troubles and distress people are having over housing, but also showing that it comes out of the madness of the market system and that there are completely different solutions possible if building land and construction industry were primarily owned and controlled by the public.

[C. Flower]

The notion that you are interested in helping the United Left Alliance in any way shape or form is a lie.

The notion that the United Left Alliance has taken any action at all as a result of your sniping is a self-deluding fantasy.

I hope that's clear enough for you.

Robust debate is a very good way of clarifying and developing ideas and programme. That is one of the reasons why this forum is here.

I'm bemused however as to why you think it's the case that Sam Lord has told a lie that he is interested in helping the ULA. He has very clearly expressed opposition to it.

[Sam Lord]

The Socialist Party stands for the balances on all mortgages on domestic homes to be reduced to current house prices.


Ok. So I found the SP position on negative equity.

It is a position that covers everyone in the country - even very wealthy people - who are in negative equity.

It is a position that is based on current house prices. It is not clear what the position is if prices fall further.

It covers mortgages on all domestic homes - so it will apply to your home even if you have borrowed money against it to become a slum landlord or buy an apartment in Budapest or whatever.

There is, of course, no mention of any nuts and bolts of this proposal. How it is to be effected.

This does not strike me as a "real" campaign and seems to have very little to do with socialism. I really think it is some fanciful position they are spinning to attract middle class votes at the next election.

[bolshevik]

My notes on Tuesday night's Cork ULA branch meeting revolutionaryprogramme.wordpress.com/2011/06/16/%E2%80%9Cthe-ula-is-not-an-organisation%E2%80%9D-says-sp-leader/ (http://revolutionaryprogramme.wordpress.com/2011/06/16/%E2%80%9Cthe-ula-is-not-an-organisation%E2%80%9D-says-sp-leader/)

Its not particularly good news...

[Sam Lord]

My notes on Tuesday night's Cork ULA branch meeting revolutionaryprogramme.wordpress.com/2011/06/16/%E2%80%9Cthe-ula-is-not-an-organisation%E2%80%9D-says-sp-leader/ (http://revolutionaryprogramme.wordpress.com/2011/06/16/%E2%80%9Cthe-ula-is-not-an-organisation%E2%80%9D-says-sp-leader/)

Its not particularly good news...

It supports my long held, and often contradicted by ULA supporters, that this was only ever an electoral alliance over Dail seats. The stuff about waiting till conditions are right in the workers movement is simply so much hogwash they are spinning to people.

[unspecific]

My notes on Tuesday night's Cork ULA branch meeting revolutionaryprogramme.wordpress.com/2011/06/16/%E2%80%9Cthe-ula-is-not-an-organisation%E2%80%9D-says-sp-leader/ (http://revolutionaryprogramme.wordpress.com/2011/06/16/%E2%80%9Cthe-ula-is-not-an-organisation%E2%80%9D-says-sp-leader/)

Its not particularly good news...

Thanks for the report Bolshevik!

The decision to withdraw the proposal of a 6 man committee with 2 unaligned was probably withdrawn because the SPs request for 2 unaligned on the central committee was rejected. It only makes sense. They can't exactly go having a branch move faster than the whole organisation. They are correct about the seasonal aspect. I say just roll with it until the end of summer when I'm sure that process of unification will speed up.

In a weird way its almost a good sign that the SP and the SWP seem to have voted the same way in those votes, even if they were for slowing the progress then at least it was a consensual decision.

Would you have any interest in some sort of "non-aligned" newsletter or email that I mention in the other thread? How many of the 36 attending/branch as a whole are unaligned? People not otherwise in a component party are disadvantaged in the short-term information wise. It would just seek to resolve that and maybe be the basis of a united party culture that drives forward the progress.

[bolshevik]

They are correct about the seasonal aspect. I say just roll with it until the end of summer when I'm sure that process of unification will speed up.

Well I don't have much choice other than walking away and I'm not about to do that.

Regarding the seasonal aspect. If indeed this is true then why has the branch decided on so much activity? If making two 2 1/2 hour meetings in a month is really too much for people how can weekly stalls be achievable?

If there really is this slow period why are we prioritisng activity over the political discussions which are necessary for moving towards becoming a political party? If the wider workers movement really is going to be even less interested in politics over the next couple of months then why are we, the ones who for whatever reason have chosen to be more active, not using the time more sensibly on political discussion?

What we have is the creation of a political culture of a prioritisation of activity for activity's sake over political discussion. And that sets a very bad precedent in my opinion.

And as far as I know it is not like the constituent groups will be stopping their own weekly schedules during this so-called slow period.


In a weird way its almost a good sign that the SP and the SWP seem to have voted the same way in those votes, even if they were for slowing the progress then at least it was a consensual decision.

Well I tend to think that is a outweighed by the negative aspects, as I see them.


Would you have any interest in some sort of "non-aligned" newsletter or email that I mention in the other thread? How many of the 36 attending/branch as a whole are unaligned? People not otherwise in a component party are disadvantaged in the short-term information wise. It would just seek to resolve that and maybe be the basis of a united party culture that drives forward the progress.

I would be. You will be at the forum next week? If so we should arrange to meet in the real world to discuss this.

[bolshevik]

It supports my long held, and often contradicted by ULA supporters, that this was only ever an electoral alliance over Dail seats. The stuff about waiting till conditions are right in the workers movement is simply so much hogwash they are spinning to people.

Unfortunately there is more evidence for this, such as this SWP report of the setting up of the Kerry branch which has sees its task in very electoralist terms - www.swp.ie/news/successful-launch-ula-kerry/4563 (http://www.swp.ie/news/successful-launch-ula-kerry/4563)

[Uncorruptable]

So my mortgage is 200,000.................Today the house might fetch 250,000 on the open market. ?

If you sell the house you dont owe the bank anything, although the value has reduced on the property you are not in a position of negative equity,

"Negative equity occurs when the value of an asset used to secure a loan is less than the outstanding balance on the loan."

Your house is still more valuable than the reaminder of the loan.




Yes, but we are also seeing a spectacular failure of the capitalist market in housing. There are thousands of empty homes and thousands of people homeless or in overcrowded homes. There is also an escalating number of households in unrepayable or crippling debt, trying to pay off mortgages. Rents haven't fallen on average, because NAMA and the banks are trying to artificially prop up property prices.

This is a prime opportunity to explain to people that the whole "home ownership" dream is a nightmare designed to make profits for the banks.

The really rich rent. Much more flexible and convenient.



Agree very much. Also the house is getting older and less sound.



We have a great housing stock at the moment. We just need to redistribute it to those in need to make sure everyone is well housed. But I'm in favour of it being publicly owned, with security of tenure. There also needs to be a well developed system for transfers / house moves for tenants in public housing. New kinds of housing need to be developed, like one-bed studio flats for young people with shared laundry and social spaces, more houses with "granny flats" etc. We have far too many three bedroom semis because its the safest thing to sell in for the housing market, not because they're needed.



Pretty much as social housing is now.



Again, just like social housing is now.



But surely most people don't need to own a house ? These days, people move around a lot. Renting is more convenient.



It was mentioned on the Joe Duffy Show today. It wasn't said who was running it. New Beginnings was mentioned.
It might be worth googling it.
Someone who had lost his house mentioned the ULA favourably on Liveline :)



FF used property ownership as a means to try to make people feel that they were no longer working class and that they had an asset. To fight against that means not only tackling the troubles and distress people are having over housing, but also showing that it comes out of the madness of the market system and that there are completely different solutions possible if building land and construction industry were primarily owned and controlled by the public.

We are on the asme page then.


My notes on Tuesday night's Cork ULA branch meeting revolutionaryprogramme.wordpress.com/2011/06/16/%E2%80%9Cthe-ula-is-not-an-organisation%E2%80%9D-says-sp-leader/ (http://revolutionaryprogramme.wordpress.com/2011/06/16/%E2%80%9Cthe-ula-is-not-an-organisation%E2%80%9D-says-sp-leader/)

Its not particularly good news...

Very interesting, i have been told that i am a 'free spirit' & very 'Dynamic' with my approach to activism here in Laois/Offaly as part of the ULA, i would take the very same position if i was 'told' you cannot have fortnightly meetings & or an e-mail list for the purpose of building, stick with it chief & challenge it as you see fit along the way, this is normal within most parties with people looking to assert their idea of where it should go & how, like i said to Aj a while back, the convention would need to have some concrete content by the end of it & not just a talking shop or i will have concerns about how fractious it is.

[bolshevik]

My notes on Tuesday night's Cork ULA branch meeting revolutionaryprogramme.wordpress.com/2011/06/16/%E2%80%9Cthe-ula-is-not-an-organisation%E2%80%9D-says-sp-leader/ (http://revolutionaryprogramme.wordpress.com/2011/06/16/%E2%80%9Cthe-ula-is-not-an-organisation%E2%80%9D-says-sp-leader/)

Its not particularly good news...

Very interesting, i have been told that i am a 'free spirit' & very 'Dynamic' with my approach to activism here in Laois/Offaly as part of the ULA, i would take the very same position if i was 'told' you cannot have fortnightly meetings & or an e-mail list for the purpose of building, stick with it chief & challenge it as you see fit along the way, this is normal within most parties with people looking to assert their idea of where it should go & how, like i said to Aj a while back, the convention would need to have some concrete content by the end of it & not just a talking shop or i will have concerns about how fractious it is.

Well I'm not going to be walking away, even though I suspect that the powers-that-be in Cork ULA would like it if I did...

I think you need to be aware that the meeting next weekend is not a "convention" in any way. Stephen Boyd made this perfectly clear at the meeting claiming that it had never been the idea to have any decisions taken at it and the original description of it as a convention had been a misnomer.

Which is not to say that we might well get some pronouncements from the top table in the plenary sessions...

Maybe I'll see you next weekend - I'll be the bald Kiwi handing out copies of my "For a revolutionary socialist programme" (revolutionaryprogramme.wordpress.com/for-a-revolutionary-socialist-programme-2 (http://revolutionaryprogramme.wordpress.com/for-a-revolutionary-socialist-programme-2)) document ;)

[Uncorruptable]

Well I'm not going to be walking away, even though I suspect that the powers-that-be in Cork ULA would like it if I did...

I think you need to be aware that the meeting next weekend is not a "convention" in any way. Stephen Boyd made this perfectly clear at the meeting claiming that it had never been the idea to have any decisions taken at it and the original description of it as a convention had been a misnomer.

Which is not to say that we might well get some pronouncements from the top table in the plenary sessions...

Maybe I'll see you next weekend - I'll be the bald Kiwi handing out copies of my "For a revolutionary socialist programme" (revolutionaryprogramme.wordpress.com/for-a-revolutionary-socialist-programme-2 (http://revolutionaryprogramme.wordpress.com/for-a-revolutionary-socialist-programme-2)) document ;)

I'll keep an eye out for you, i kind of got that from another SP member at a meeting we had a while back here, what i do expect is some much clearer direction of where & over what expected time frame it is going, if the entire meeting is vague still at this point it speaks for itself.

The clock is ticking (http://nationaldebtclocks.com/ireland.htm)

[C. Flower]

[quote=C. Flower;154771]

We are on the asme page then.



I should have been clearer in my last sentence that this also means challenging the whole notion that house ownership by individuals is a good economic and social norm.

In practical terms of campaigning on the housing crisis, this would mean focusing on the right of all to decent housing, not the financial problems of individuals with mortgages. There is a tradition in Ireland of opposing evictions and even of rehousing evicted or homeless people, through the Land League, by direct action. That's where I think things should start. A campaign focused on mortgages also leaves out people like Rachel Peavoy who are in appalling conditions in public housing, and people in dire situations in the rental sector.

[Uncorruptable]

I should have been clearer in my last sentence that this also means challenging the whole notion that house ownership by individuals is a good economic and social norm.

In practical terms of campaigning on the housing crisis, this would mean focusing on the right of all to decent housing, not the financial problems of individuals with mortgages. There is a tradition in Ireland of opposing evictions and even of rehousing evicted or homeless people, through the Land League, by direct action. That's where I think things should start. A campaign focused on mortgages also leaves out people like Rachel Peavoy who are in appalling conditions in public housing, and people in dire situations in the rental sector.

Agreed on all, this should be all be included in a comprehensive housing strategy & why not at this meeting in the red cow?

cant find any refernce to this meeting, would like some literature etc if possible to distribute & contact to forward ideas for the agenda on to, was it mentioned by Joe duffy or a caller?

[Uncorruptable]

There could well be some benefit to look at the strategies used by the DHAC back in the 60's,

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dublin_Housing_Action_Committee

I know i have some literature somewhere at home.

[Sam Lord]

In practical terms of campaigning on the housing crisis, this would mean focusing on the right of all to decent housing, not the financial problems of individuals with mortgages. There is a tradition in Ireland of opposing evictions and even of rehousing evicted or homeless people, through the Land League, by direct action. That's where I think things should start. A campaign focused on mortgages also leaves out people like Rachel Peavoy who are in appalling conditions in public housing, and people in dire situations in the rental sector.

I think you are correct Cactus. A campaign to keep working people in their homes if they are in danger of losing them is what is required. Everyone in difficulty signs up and if there is a threat of repossession anywhere there are several hundred people at the doorstep to stop it taking place. It is a much better approach than some nebulous campaign around "Negative equity". Even better if it is the context of a broader Housing Action campaign

A direct action campaign would have the benefit of developing a consciousness of people taking matters into their own hands and actively defending themselves and each other instead of simply appealing to the government or banks to do something. It would defend those in need rather than encompassing every millionaire and slum landlord in the country who might be in "negative equity".

[Uncorruptable]

I think you are correct Cactus. A campaign to keep working people in their homes if they are in danger of losing them is what is required. Everyone in difficulty signs up and if there is a threat of repossession anywhere there are several hundred people at the doorstep to stop it taking place. It is a much better approach than some nebulous campaign around "Negative equity". Even better if it is the context of a broader Housing Action campaign

A direct action campaign would have the benefit of developing a consciousness of people taking matters into their own hands and actively defending themselves and each other instead of simply appealing to the government or banks to do something. It would defend those in need rather than encompassing every millionaire and slum landlord in the country who might be in "negative equity".

Then lets use this meeting to begin some formation of a housing action committee, take whats good from it & build from there.

[Sam Lord]

Then lets use this meeting to begin some formation of a housing action committee, take whats good from it & build from there.

I'm not really in a position to do anything but offer good advice. :)

[antiestablishmentarian]

My notes on Tuesday night's Cork ULA branch meeting revolutionaryprogramme.wordpress.com/2011/06/16/%E2%80%9Cthe-ula-is-not-an-organisation%E2%80%9D-says-sp-leader/ (http://revolutionaryprogramme.wordpress.com/2011/06/16/%E2%80%9Cthe-ula-is-not-an-organisation%E2%80%9D-says-sp-leader/)

Its not particularly good news...

Uh-oh. That's an interesting post bolshevik, did the SP members there clarify what kind of an organisation they wanted to be a part of?

[bolshevik]

Uh-oh. That's an interesting post bolshevik, did the SP members there clarify what kind of an organisation they wanted to be a part of?

Well I can only speculate as its not completely clear to me - perhaps one of the SPers on this web board can clarify?

My understanding is they have an abstract aspiration for a "socialist party" sometime in the future. But for now it is very much just an alliance. It is unclear to me exactly what they see the difference being - one obvious one would be that the common platform of an alliance is at a much lower, or perhaps better to say, more generalised, level than the programme of a party.

There is also a separate, though related, question of the the balance between being "inward" or "outward" looking. Or as it concretely manifest itself in the Cork branch the balance between political discussion among the members and public activity. The alliance model that the Cork branch has adopted is one where that balance is severely tilted towards public activity and those wanting to tilt it a bit back the other way are branded as trouble makers.

What is completely unclear to me is what they see as the appropriate balance between discussion and activity for a party. Is the massive tilt towards activity and devaluing of membership discussion just part of being an alliance or is it generic to their approach and would apply to the new party they want as well?

Unless an SPer wants to enlighten us I would guess that we will have to rely on getting some clues about this in the relevant sessions next weekend.

I will be taking part in the stalls this coming weekend in Cork and will try to discuss these issues. But I suspect that they will use the "that was decided at the meeting, lets just get on with the activity" excuse not to respond and there isn't much point in hectoring them about it so I'm not sure I'll get any clarity.

[antiestablishmentarian]

I would hazard a guess that the SP perspective is that there haven't been enough new members (as in genuine independents) for the ULA to be deemed a new workers party and the ULA will continue as a loose alliance until such a time as workers join up in greater numbers to make it a genuine independent force. In fairness, the position put by some of their members in the meeting you described makes logical sense when viewed from that perspective.

For summer work and quietness etc, I think the ULA should concentrate on youth work in the summer time as there are alot of young people around, free and relatively politicised by the crisis in that they know what's going on and that their aspirations are blocked.

[bolshevik]

I would hazard a guess that the SP perspective is that there haven't been enough new members (as in genuine independents) for the ULA to be deemed a new workers party and the ULA will continue as a loose alliance until such a time as workers join up in greater numbers. In fairness, the position put by some of their members in the meeting you described makes logical sense when viewed from that perspective.

Except that it views the process of forming a party in the completely static terms of formal bourgeois logic, as something that can be turned on and off like a light switch. Today we are an alliance where there is a political culture of virtually no political discussion among the membership and tomorrow we will be magically transformed into party building mode.

The organisational/political culture of political formations is not something that can be simply switched on and off like that.

To be an organisation that will be receptive to working class militants if/when this upsurge occurs we have to start creating the right kind of organisational/political culture now - the experience in Greece and Spain would seem to indicate that the thirst for political discussion and openness will be significant.


For summer work and quietness etc, I think the ULA should concentrate on youth work in the summer time as there are alot of young people around, free and relatively politicised by the crisis in that they know what's going on and that their aspirations are blocked.

That was not presented as a perspective at the branch meeting.

[antiestablishmentarian]

[QUOTE]Except that it views the process of forming a party in the completely static terms of formal bourgeois logic, as something that can be turned on and off like a light switch. Today we are an alliance where there is a political culture of virtually no political discussion among the membership and tomorrow we will be magically transformed into party building mode.

The organisational/political culture of political formations is not something that can be simply switched on and off like that.

To be an organisation that will be receptive to working class militants if/when this upsurge occurs we have to start creating the right kind of organisational/political culture now - the experience in Greece and Spain would seem to indicate that the thirst for political discussion and openness will be significant.

That's true, and I agree with you on the points about there needing to be a proper structure in place before a proper organisation can be built.


That was not presented as a perspective at the branch meeting.
I saw that, it was just my two cents on how the ULA can make the best use of the summer months to grow. Consider it a friendly suggestion :).

[C. Flower]

Well I can only speculate as its not completely clear to me - perhaps one of the SPers on this web board can clarify?

My understanding is they have an abstract aspiration for a "socialist party" sometime in the future. But for now it is very much just an alliance. It is unclear to me exactly what they see the difference being - one obvious one would be that the common platform of an alliance is at a much lower, or perhaps better to say, more generalised, level than the programme of a party.

There is also a separate, though related, question of the the balance between being "inward" or "outward" looking. Or as it concretely manifest itself in the Cork branch the balance between political discussion among the members and public activity. The alliance model that the Cork branch has adopted is one where that balance is severely tilted towards public activity and those wanting to tilt it a bit back the other way are branded as trouble makers.

What is completely unclear to me is what they see as the appropriate balance between discussion and activity for a party. Is the massive tilt towards activity and devaluing of membership discussion just part of being an alliance or is it generic to their approach and would apply to the new party they want as well?

Unless an SPer wants to enlighten us I would guess that we will have to rely on getting some clues about this in the relevant sessions next weekend.

I will be taking part in the stalls this coming weekend in Cork and will try to discuss these issues. But I suspect that they will use the "that was decided at the meeting, lets just get on with the activity" excuse not to respond and there isn't much point in hectoring them about it so I'm not sure I'll get any clarity.

There appears to be a tendency among some members to want to start from the level of thinking that is current in non-political peoples' minds at present, and to accommodate to that. Where's the "unity in conflict" in that ?

When people operate like that, they nearly always find themselves pretty quickly lagging behind even "man in the street" awareness.

[bolshevik]

Came across this thread on politics.ie that seems to indicate that the differences between the SP & SWP are increasing – thus making the future of the ULA look even more precarious – LINK removed at request of moderator

[antiestablishmentarian]

I'd imagine the issue of the presidency is a strawman for both those organisations of little significance for the future of the ULA. I think the development of the ULA as an organisation depends more on struggles, independent recruitment and their perspectives for its growth than disagreement on the presidency.

[bolshevik]

I'd imagine the issue of the presidency is a strawman for both those organisations of little significance for the future of the ULA. I think the development of the ULA as an organisation depends more on struggles, independent recruitment and their perspectives for its growth than disagreement on the presidency.

I'd agree on the specific issue of the presidency but the more substantive issues you refer to seem to be raising their ugly head as the speaking as reps of their respective parties rather than of the ULA (assuming the report of that is true) would seem to indicate a backward step away from moving towards a party and back towards the electoral pact

[Uncorruptable]

It will be interesting to see how the meeting unfolds on the 25th, even if it is being maintained at an alliance, better to have two committed Socialist parties fighting against the criminal activities of the right, no?

The only thing that will stop the ULA from expanding & becoming anything further than it already is would be intransigence & non action on issues effecting people the most.

I think we know they are both determined to fight at every turn.

[Jolly Red Giant]

Bolshie - the only 'increasing differences' that are occurring are in your head (probably because you didn't get your own way at the meeting in Cork) - and yourself and our resident Hoxhaist are clearing operating a tag-team effort in an attempt to pump up differences between the Socialist Party and the SWP. Of course neither of you actually want to see the ULA grow (albeit for different reasons) - and I would suggest that there was a clear demonstration of unity between the SP and the SWP in Cork when they combined (along with most of the rest of those in attendance) to reject your proposal.

[bolshevik]

It will be interesting to see how the meeting unfolds on the 25th, even if it is being maintained at an alliance, better to have two committed Socialist parties fighting against the criminal activities of the right, no?

The only thing that will stop the ULA from expanding & becoming anything further than it already is would be intransigence & non action on issues effecting people the most.

I think we know they are both determined to fight at every turn.


It will be interesting to see how the meeting unfolds on the 25th, even if it is being maintained at an alliance, better to have two committed Socialist parties fighting against the criminal activities of the right, no?

The only thing that will stop the ULA from expanding & becoming anything further than it already is would be intransigence & non action on issues effecting people the most.

I think we know they are both determined to fight at every turn.

It is clear that both the SP & SWP will be involved in the coming battles our class faces, along with the rest of the left and, hopefully, increasingly significant forces from the wider workers' movement.

But that is nothing new from either before the ULA or during its initial electoral pact phase. I guess there is potential for more collaboration within the context of the ULA but given the experience so far it not clear whether that level of collaboration will really be much greater than pre-ULA.

Assuming that we do see significant forces from the wider workers' movement entering the arena of class struggle then it is likely that there will be numerically growth for both the SP & SWP as well as more independents joining the ULA which would mean the ULA had expanded.

However there are different types of "expansion" - it can be either quantitative or qualitative.

The ULA could grow numerically while continuing politially as an umbrella grouping of similar, but separate and distinct, political forces participating in campaigns in defence of working people against the attacks of the bosses and their government. More-or-less following the broad outlines of the "Socialist Alliance" model the two organisations were part of in Britain a few years ago.

Or the ULA could begin the process of transforming itself into a political party that could move beyond being part of the movement to simply defend ourselves from the attacks to having a programme that posed the possibility of ending this rotten system forever.

The key question is over the issue of programme. A campaigning umbrella group only requires a fairly general degree of programmatic coherence while a party needs a far greater degree of programmatic coherence. Or put more simply - an alliance does not need answers to the big questions but a party does.

From this flows issues of organisational structure and political culture in terms of being a membership-led democratic organisation with a committment to the political struggle for clarity on tactics and strategy through comradely discussion and debate. And this is something that has to be built into the structures and culture of the organistion from the beginning otherwise it will not be attractive to militant workers looking to actively participate in the process of coming up with the answers to those big questions.

The schema of the two groups, as manifest in the Cork branch meeting earlier this week, seems to be that numerically growth of the ULA in its current alliance form will at some point simply transfrom the alliance into party. Thus they don't see the need to take any steps towards creating the structures and political culture that will be necessary for that process of transformation to occur. Continuing down the path of this rigid schema means that the ULA will be still-born in terms of playing a part in the creation of the revolutionary socialist party our class so desperately needs.

[bolshevik]

Bolshie - the only 'increasing differences' that are occurring are in your head (probably because you didn't get your own way at the meeting in Cork) - and yourself and our resident Hoxhaist are clearing operating a tag-team effort in an attempt to pump up differences between the Socialist Party and the SWP. Of course neither of you actually want to see the ULA grow (albeit for different reasons) - and I would suggest that there was a clear demonstration of unity between the SP and the SWP in Cork when they combined (along with most of the rest of those in attendance) to reject your proposal.

On what do you base your accusation that I don't want the ULA to grow?

In what way do you think the proposals that Anne and I put forward at the Cork branch meeting were designed to stop the ULA from growing?

I think you will actually find that I will be far more actively involved in building the ULA in Cork over the next few weeks than many, perhaps even most, of the people mobilised by the SP & SWP to stack the meeting.

[C. Flower]

Came across this thread on politics.ie that seems to indicate that the differences between the SP & SWP are increasing – thus making the future of the ULA look even more precarious – LINK removed at request of moderator

Just to clarify - I can't moderate P.ie links, as I'm IP banned from the site, but have no problem if people want to quote content. But in general, if you want to discuss a thread elsewhere, be it Boards, P.ie or wherever, you should go to that site to do it.

[Uncorruptable]

Just to clarify - I can't moderate P.ie links, as I'm IP banned from the site, .

What for?

[C. Flower]

My notes on Tuesday night's Cork ULA branch meeting revolutionaryprogramme.wordpress.com/2011/06/16/%E2%80%9Cthe-ula-is-not-an-organisation%E2%80%9D-says-sp-leader/ (http://revolutionaryprogramme.wordpress.com/2011/06/16/%E2%80%9Cthe-ula-is-not-an-organisation%E2%80%9D-says-sp-leader/)

Its not particularly good news...

Just a single organisational point, bolshevik, but if I have understood that you would like a list of email addresses of branch members to be circulated to all members, I have to say I would strongly disagree with that for organisational, privacy and security reasons. There are all kinds of ways such a list could be misused.

Technically, it may be contrary to the Data protection Act.

[Sam Lord]

What for?

:D:D

[bolshevik]

Just a single organisational point, bolshevik, but if I have understood that you would like a list of email addresses of branch members to be circulated to all members, I have to say I would strongly disagree with that for organisational, privacy and security reasons. There are all kinds of ways such a list could be misused.

Technically, it may be contrary to the Data protection Act.

That is not the form I would envisage such a list taking. Lists using cc: are very inefficient and prone to errors as well as posing the data protection problem you refer to.

Rather there would be a list server (plenty of free alternatives) which some responsible person(s) in the branch was responsible for administering to add and remove email addresses of members as required. The emails would get sent to the group email address and it is only the administrator who has access to seeing the individual addresses the emails are actually delivered to.

This allows people to "opt in" or "opt out" of the list so there are no data protection issues to be concerned about.

This is how virtually all the email lists of the campaigning groups I'm involved in operate.

[C. Flower]

What for?

No idea: you could ask the boss over there :)

It may relate to something to do with Rivada, or Libertas, or whatever...

[Sam Lord]

Bolshie - the only 'increasing differences' that are occurring are in your head (probably because you didn't get your own way at the meeting in Cork) - and yourself and our resident Hoxhaist are clearing operating a tag-team effort in an attempt to pump up differences between the Socialist Party and the SWP.



Fairly vicious I have to say. I pity your poor unaffiliated members who may not agree with every directive coming from the two parties. :(

[Jolly Red Giant]

Fairly vicious I have to say.
You should know - Stalinists are famous for their viciousness. :p

[C. Flower]

Bolshie - the only 'increasing differences' that are occurring are in your head (probably because you didn't get your own way at the meeting in Cork) - and yourself and our resident Hoxhaist are clearing operating a tag-team effort in an attempt to pump up differences between the Socialist Party and the SWP. Of course neither of you actually want to see the ULA grow (albeit for different reasons) - and I would suggest that there was a clear demonstration of unity between the SP and the SWP in Cork when they combined (along with most of the rest of those in attendance) to reject your proposal.

I was initially surprised that the ULA was talked of as a new Party, precisely because I had understood that the political differences between the SP and SWP were deep going. I enquired if these differences had in any way been explored or resolved as part of the process of coming together to form the ULA. My understanding from SP members at the time was that this had not happened. Which leaves me wondering if these differences had in fact dissolved over time, and what the new position/s of the parties actually were, or that they were being ignored, in which case they would probably emerge at some stage causing serious difficulties.

Either way, I would not be worried about outside parties stirring up difficulties between the SP and SWP - if there is a sound relationship there based on political compatibility, surely that would not be a bother ?

[Sam Lord]

I was initially surprised that the ULA was talked of as a new Party, precisely because I had understood that the political differences between the SP and SWP were deep going. I enquired if these differences had in any way been explored or resolved as part of the process of coming together to form the ULA. My understanding from SP members at the time was that this had not happened. Which leaves me wondering if these differences had in fact dissolved over time, and what the new position/s of the parties actually were, or that they were being ignored, in which case they would probably emerge at some stage causing serious difficulties.

Either way, I would not be worried about outside parties stirring up difficulties between the SP and SWP - if there is a sound relationship there based on political compatibility, surely that would not be a bother ?

Cactus, It was an electoral pact based on some very minimum program. It was done to divide up the constituencies and get out of each others way to help secure Dail seats, at the same time creating the impression that something big and significant was taking place in order to get interest and votes. It will be parked now until the next election. The may have duped some people that there was some other agenda but it is all really transparent really. These people are only interested in elections.

[bolshevik]

Fairly vicious I have to say. I pity your poor unaffiliated members who may not agree with every directive coming from the two parties. :(

Apparently it is just being "politically sharp" - at least that is how Mick Barry introduced his personal attack on me at the branch meeting...

[bolshevik]

Bolshie - the only 'increasing differences' that are occurring are in your head

So what is your explanation for the change to speaking as reps of the individual parties rather than as reps of the ULA that was reported on politics.ie?

[C. Flower]

I have to tell you that there is no such thing as Stalinism. Such an ideology does not exist. Therefore there are no such things as Stalinists.There are Marxist-Leninists and there are Trotskyites, there are Maoists and there are Anarchists and so forth... but no Stalinists. If you find someone describing themself in this manner please let me know for interests sake but I do not think you will be successful.

In terms of my own outlook I would have to say that I am not really in accord with any of the above (freethinker :)) but I can understand that without putting labels onto stuff and placing things into pigeonholes you are at a bit of a loss.

Trotskyists consider themselves Marxist-Leninists just as much as Stalinists do - and presumably Maoists. It is not in itself a way of distinguishing between tendencies.
Anarchists, on the other hand, would be opposed to Marx and Lenin. Not part of the same ideological family.

I dislike the terms as they over emphasise the role of individual leaders, but at this stage we are pretty well historically stuck with the them.

[Sam Lord]

Trotskyists consider themselves Marxist-Leninists ....

Hmmmm ...

And there are people in the Labour Party who consider themselves socialists. :)

[C. Flower]

Hmmmm ...

And there are people in the Labour Party who consider themselves socialists. :)

But there are none who consider themselves Marxist Leninists.

[C. Flower]

Would anyone like this sub-discussion split for this thread ? It might get lost here.

[Sam Lord]

[quote=unspecific715;137953]
@C.Flower Yeah it really has to be that way. Has to be something new and involve new people, ideas. Otherwise, if they were so right, any new people would already have joined PBP or SP etc. Last time I checked this was still a country with an overwhelming rightwing majority in control supervised by IMF and no revolution. Patching both together and effectively being "The Enlarged SP" or "The Enlarged PBP" obviously won't move us on to the next level. Lots and lots of good, nutritious popular deliberation. That's what puts meat on the bone. For years I've heard them both repeat over and over "the need to build a new, mass workers party". Well lets do it.


Are you a bit disappointed at the news?

Sorry, this news from scrawledincrayin:



From the point of view of the Socialist Party, the ULA is an alliance. It is becoming a more firmly structured alliance. There is no intention to commence a process of transforming it into a party at the moment. And there never was.

[C. Flower]

[quote]


Are you a bit disappointed at the news?

Sorry, this news from scrawledincrayin:



From the point of view of the Socialist Party, the ULA is an alliance. It is becoming a more firmly structured alliance. There is no intention to commence a process of transforming it into a party at the moment. And there never was.


Don't despair -
From the ULA website -


POSTED BY ADMIN ON JUNE - 13 - 2011

Fianna Fail and their cronies in big business have wrecked the country. However, Fine Gael and Labour have shown that they represent more of the same. As much as they try to blame the old government for the crisis, they are responsible for continuing the disastrous bailouts and have promised further unfair taxes, privatisations and cuts in jobs and public services.
The United Left Alliance, which was launched last November, made a significant breakthrough with five TDs elected in February. The attacks of this government and the role of Labour in particular poses more starkly than ever the need for real political representation for ordinary people.
The groups and individuals who came together to launch the ULA are confident that it can grow significantly by both fighting the attacks alongside people in the communities and the workplaces, but also by having policies that respond to the crisis and not at our expense!

The ULA National Forum will discuss developing those ideas and policies but also the next steps in turning the ULA into a new mass working class party

[unspecific]

Ahoy hoy.

New post from Joe on the matter

http://www.joehiggins.ie/2011/06/the-historic-tasks-of-the-united-left-alliance/?utm_source=twitterfeed&utm_medium=facebook


THE HISTORIC TASK OF THE UNITED LEFT ALLIANCE

The National Forum of the United Left Alliance will offer an opportunity to put the launch of the Alliance into perspective and to discuss its further development.

All over Europe, there is a huge vacuum in political life, more particularly on the Left. That vacuum has been left by the inexorable move to the right and into the camp of market capitalism of all the Social Democratic and Labour parties. While the leadership of those parties had for a whole historical period seen themselves as just another arm of the establishment and played such a role in the many governments in which they participated, there was often a strong Left within, which fought for a Left programme and to develop those parties into real fighting organisations of the working class. That day is gone however.

With the collapse of the Stalinist regimes around twenty years ago and the worldwide triumphalist propaganda that accompanied this in the capitalist media, these parties have moved fully into the camp of the capitalist class and dropped all pretence of any allegiance to socialism. The active workers and young people who genuinely fought for a socialist programme in these parties in previous periods are no longer there.

The evolution of the British Labour Party to the point where it was as right-wing in economic policy as Margaret Thatcher and could launch the criminal invasion of Iraq is only one among many striking examples. Others are the Greek, Spanish and Portuguese Socialist Parties which are currently inflicting savage austerity on working people, the unemployed, the youth and the poor at the behest of the EU / IMF as dictated by the financial markets representing Europe’s main banks and powerful speculators.

The huge vacuum on the Left as a result of these developments poses a major task for the socialists of the present day. New mass parties of the working class committed to a socialist programme have to be built. And it is to meet this critical responsibility that the United Left Alliance has been launched.

The ULA has already taken important steps. The agreement of a principled Left programme on which the General Election was fought was crucial. The programme states that there is no sustainable solution to the economic and social problems of society on the basis of capitalism and that is a key foundation on which to build. The gains made in the election fighting on this programme and on the campaigning record of the activists of the organisations and individuals making up the Alliance, are a firm foundation on which to build.

It is inevitable that there has been somewhat of a pause in the political momentum since the election. There is a certain wait and see approach by ordinary people in regard to the Fine Gael / Labour government.

Although there were no great illusions in these parties, there has been, nevertheless, a certain hope that the new government could only be better than the Fianna Fail / Green disaster and that things might change. Any such hopes are being dispelled by the day.

The shape of the struggles to come is taking outline. The attack on the lowest paid workers will lead to resistance. The imposition of new stealth taxes next year such as water charges, a home tax or household utility charge will evoke not just opposition but active campaign of resistance through Boycott / Non Payment campaign.

The United Left Alliance can come into its own through being central in launching these campaigns. The public representatives of the Alliance can use their public platforms to assist build the campaigns and to wage powerful media campaigns to take the fight into the heart of the establishment. They and the other activists must be central to constructing powerful, active campaigns of worker and people power to halt the austerity juggernaut while all the time arguing for a socialist alternative. It is through these struggles that the Alliance will be strengthened and a basis laid for further gains, all of which is part of the process of building a new powerful party of the Left.

The National Forum of the United Left Alliance will take place this Saturday, June 25 at 10am in Liberty Hall, Dublin 1

[C. Flower]

These posts are interesting and off topic. I'll be splitting them to form a new thread, as the T vs S debate keeps coming up and derailing other topics.

[unspecific]

I'm slow to find these bad-boys. Just a reminder I'm trying to use this thread to keep all pieces on the United Left Alliance posted in one place and chronologically. That'll hopefully make it easier for the uninitiated to follow the progress. If its possible, would it be right if a mod split off all irrelevant posts in the thread?

This is a good one by Des Derwin, I think of People Before Profit, who has previously written great pieces on the alliance. It looks like it bears some relation to ragbags.



ULA: What kind of party do we need? 2

A guest post

It matters less what word is used to describe the ULA than that it is allowed become an organisation in its own right. There is no point falling out over whether to designate the organisation a ‘party’, an organisation, a network, a league, a bloc, an alliance, as long as it has sufficient political coherence and presence, pooled resources and coordinated activity.

Language does have its effect though, or its expressive power. For example to stay with the term ‘alliance’ could underpin a notion of the ULA as a coalition of existing organisations rather than a complete and transcendent force embodying a new politics, a new left, which people who have not been, or would not be, members of the founding organisations can identify with, work within and feel ownership and control of. It’s too soon after Bloomsday to lose our imaginative way with words. Or we could emulate broad formations elsewhere by avoiding organisational handles altogether and adopting general names like ‘Respect’ or simply ‘Die Linke’ (The Left).

The fin de siècle protest and anti-capitalist movements threw up new christening styles: Social Forums, Grassroot Gatherings, Real Democracy, The Indignant, Reclaiming Our Future. Even trade unions fused as ‘Unite’ or, a lamer name, ‘SIPTU’. One of the best generic, non jargonistic, signatures is ‘People Before Profit’. Can I in passing ask for consideration for a modest proposal? That even though ‘People Before Profit’ is identified with one particular current, that its great brand and message-bearing value not be lost, that it be incorporated in some way into a new name for the new organisation, maybe as a subheading, or slogan, beneath the main masthead, like ‘XXX: for people before profit’.

Besides terminology, if significant sections of the ULA are reticent about an immediate move up to a party it is not necessary to adopt the whole kit and caboodle of a political party. Some definite structural steps would suffice for the time being. The ULA should become, as widely promised, a membership organisation. That way each activist, especially those not in one of the founding organisations, can feel part of the new formation. That way the organisation receives a signal of commitment from each individual participant, all members are of equal stature and a certain structure and democratic order is established in which the rights and obligations of members and sections and the decision-making process is clear and predictable.

At the first regular meeting of the new Dublin Central group of the ULA it was a bit surreal to hear from members of political organisations quite sustained resistance to alacrity in getting even the people already around to take out membership. The argument was for openness and welcome for all. I do not see a contradiction between those virtues towards the novice and registered membership, and a definite register of members, for the many who are turning up to the ULA because they know full well and like what the ULA is. Some of these are re-activating old political hands. It can only raise a bemused eyebrow to hear folks who jump on prospective recruits ‘on the first date’ to offer membership, and a membership card, of their organisation plead for easy-going informality when it comes to the ULA. The ULA is a political organisation and not a campaign where large, loose activist gatherings of all possible supporters are only to encouraged. Actually even in a trade union the first act of organisation is often, and these days mainly, an urging to join the organisation; besides which if you want to get active in it you will not get as far as a general meeting without having membership. Maybe ‘The Tyranny of Structurelessness’ by Jo Freeman, first published in 1970 and reprinted by our very own WSM in 2000 (http://struggle.ws/pdfs/tyranny.pdf ) should be added to our bibliography.

What goes for individuals goes for the basic units of the ULA be they called branches or groups. If not on Saturday then let’s hope the ULA decides soon that the groups that came out of the largely successful local public meetings establish themselves as branches. Members should belong to a branch if they are nearby. These branches should be both centres of activity and political development and of accountability and representation. The members should know how and where the action is and where it’s decided. Branches should be registered as such. The proliferation of ULA candidates in the election produced mixed results (and no one has bothered to really discuss the overall outcome of the ‘utterly butterly’ policy of spreading ourselves around) and may have been justified in some cases, but an accidental and disorientating effect accompanied it. Some PBPA candidates materialised where there had been no PBPA branches. It was a mystery where these pop-up PBPA branches came from or who picked the candidate and after a while you just accepted that anything could happen. If the ULA is to keep its recruits they will have to feel they have a handle on what is happening and a regular local structure through which they can influence other members. Two last things about branches; take minutes of meetings and circulate them to everyone; fix on a regular time and place for meetings.

Continuation of all decision making by a small steering group is not an option. It was, and may remain for a while, necessary given the need to reach consensus among the sometimes delicately related organisations in a pure alliance of parties but it cannot become the norm as, unfortunately, it was in the People Before Profit Alliance. As far as I am aware the PBPA has never held a national decision making conference since its foundation. The demotion of the projected post-election ULA Convention to a rallies and workshops Forum is disappointing though I have every confidence it will still move things along and that it’s a prelude to a full national conference.

It is not easy to fashion a structure which accommodates both affiliated organisations and individual non-aligned members. The acceptance that the ULA is really, or should really be, a party, even if by another name, would allow a membership of equal individuals who can organise themselves into platforms, factions, currents, tendencies or, again, whatever terminology is appropriate. That is working from a common base from the bottom up. But the ULA has not originated like that. It is an alliance of long established organisations and some of these will want to enter the new formation organisationally undiminished. The glory of the ULA is its diversity in unity, its support for those who differ to be allowed organise and criticise. But because of the strength of the founding organisations the weakness will be, by a strange twist, in the overarching structure, in the induction of new non-aligned activists and the erection of a new, visible, unitary and viable left alternative presence on the political stage, a presence which is the precise reason for initiation of the ULA.

The ULA has to develop a life of its own. A clear face to the outside world and an internal political life. A political identity and a political identification of its members with it. Which is not to start another perpetual structure which cannot be superseded when the times come. But that time is some time away and the need now is for a new left which will be – already is beginning to be – bigger than the sum of its parts.

A subsiding of the ULA’s initial impact has many causes besides organisational ones. Ireland is the one among the PIIGS that hasn’t barked (and that has to be the worst mixed metaphor you will see this month). No big protests and, on the contrary, there are indications the establishment are winning the arguments – and what energy ‘Morning Ireland’ and the ‘Irish Times’ are putting into it – to date. Better not put too much store in one opinion poll but Fine Gael going up by six points to 42%, while ‘independents and others’ drop four to 13% is not something we expected at this stage. It’s not just one poll either. A Red C poll at the end of May indicated that nearly two thirds of voters would support the two Government parties in an election. In it ‘independents and others’ also dropped to 13%. I did hear one comment at the Dublin Central ULA meeting that people were asking ‘where is the ULA?’. The ULA, or at least its TDs, have been very active indeed. But maybe too much of this activity has gone to highlight other entities besides the ULA as such. The separate groups have every right to their own activities but the investment of boundless energy in a campaign based on fairly generalised and mobilising politics (now anti IMF, now defending the JLCs) not unlike the ULA’s politics, at a tangent to the ULA and just when the ULA should be building a similar campaign in the aftermath of the election, does nothing for the profile and presence of the ULA. Enough already. Will there be voices raised on Saturday to plead that all this effort be brought into the ULA or an initiative more closely associated with the ULA itself.

The related question of a publication for the ULA is best left for another day.

A case of the productivity of combination over rivalry, and of politics preceding grassroots necessity , was the success of the trade union forum in Dublin on 7th May, now dubbed the Trade Union Activists Network and aiming for a major conference in October. This gathering was given impetus by the political gathering which was the ULA and was greatly helped by being a joint initiative by new allies. So it wasn’t seen, like many a predecessor, as leaning on one leg or another of the left and therefore spurned by the rest.

The weakness at the ‘centre’ of the ULA rather than in the caucuses gives rise to a hard saying as difficult as that for the rich young man called to give up all things and follow Jesus: the founding organisations will have to self-limit themselves. We have to learn to disagree without falling out, to lose votes and still stay on, to be content to be in a minority, not to use a majority as force majeure, to train ourselves out of rivalry, one-upmanship, jostling and denunciation; learn to not always present a pre-cooked phalanx at meetings and to allow wide scope for free public speech even in the platforms and tendencies. And, indeed, if according to the Bolshevik principle (there goes Eddie Conlon’s bell again) marxists should maintain their political independence, is there a need for more than one independent platform or tendency of marxists in a combined formation of the ‘revolutionary’ and radical left?

Des Derwin

http://tomasoflatharta.com/2011/06/22/ula-what-kind-of-party-do-we-need-2/ via tomasoflatharta blog which is an excellent resource.

[unspecific]

My opinion on it would be

Is this the first piece seeking to raise a debate on the name? So much time had passed and the blue-yellow-red-white-black branding, which I think is excellent, seems to be settled upon. But I never liked the name United Left Alliance. If you asked me the trigger behind whats going on up north, i'd jokingly respond that it could be that the loyalists want their initials back. I love the "People Before Profit" as a "brand" name. Though I would imagine it isn't explicitly socialist enough for the SP. D_D's suggestion for it to be a masthead is probably the best compromise. Anyone have any good name ideas?

His next point about the establishment of a structure and acknowledgement of the need for a more influential membership is welcome. My opinion would be that a branch structure emerge from this forum. The branches could mingle and tentatively deliberate the native ULA policies. Come early September, after a few months of the initial mixing between the constituent parties we can adopt some of the grassroots-originating policies as the ULA's first few policies. Again, only at the pace that is acceptable for all involved. We can't rush into this, we have to do it right. I just picture the whole process as longing looks between RBB and the Jiggins in a cheesey 80s loveballad with a reticent Jiggins(joe higgins) warning "I've been hurt before..".

At launch meetings it does get muddled asking people to join an organisation which is still an alliance. Chicken and egg scenario. Difficult to communicate in a non confusing manner for people who might not know what a tendency even is or who the parties are or why they arent united. My opinion is that the individual tendencies shouldn't even be mentioned at such meetings that they are something to be joined or not upon further involvement/investigation. The conversation always moves from what the organisation should be and what it could achieve to "now I know it looks like the left is fragmented and arguing with eachother, and its true we do have disagreements..", which every speaker has to reiterate, well it just becomes a "dont think about pink elephants" thing. Another layer of confusion and dissuasion pointlessly. I'll go and read tyranny of stucturelessness this afternoon.

Is taking minutes and sharing them actually a big issue in other branches/parties?

Lessons have to be learned of the internal failings of the PBPA. People involved in that experience like Derwin need to be listened to. That can't be stressed enough. I agree the interim steering committee has a neccessary time period(probably until the summers end), but when that period exhausts itself we must make sure the transition to a more stable democratic structure takes place.


But that time is some time away and the need now is for a new left which will be – already is beginning to be – bigger than the sum of its parts.

Never true'er words spoken. A new unique identity that isn't a bigger SP, a bigger SWP, a bigger PBP or any grouping. Not even a frankenstein conglomeration, but an organic transcending culture that will hopefully one day emerge.

I agree that Enough has been a giant mess that needs to clearly define its jurisdiction and be kept to without crossing ULA territory.

I understnd the idea of a publiction is contraversial but I have no idea why. Could anyone put both sides of the argument to me?

Excellent point about how we need to learn to disagree better and maturely.

A very radical proposal for one revolutionary marxist tendency. Most explosive idea of the entire piece is dropped at the end tepidly. Is that even imaginable?

[bolshevik]

Des has another contribution to the discussion about the ULA - http://tomasoflatharta.com/2011/06/23/ula-what-kind-of-party-do-we-need-3/ - this time looking at the balance between discussion and activity.

[unspecific]

Oh thanks Bolshevik. Fantastic. Look like its only out a matter of minutes/hours. I'll just paste in the text, it'd be a shame to lose all these to dead links some day.


ULA: What kind of party do we need? 3

Head, heart, hand and footwear.

A guest post

It would be a pity if people were less than enthusiastic about political discussion, education and development inside the ULA. Am I picking up such lukewarmth, fired with a little impatience for activity and against talk, from some of the party-members at ULA meetings? That would be an irony from comrades who organise public meetings on ‘Marx and the crisis’ and weekends on topics as diverse as Ancient Slavery and William Morris. But no more ironic than restless recruiters talking down formal membership or newspaper publishers opposing outright a publication for the ULA.

A disdain for political discussion and analysis in local ULA branches of large questions like ‘what caused the financial crash?’ or ‘should NATO be bombing Libya?’, which you might get alongside a tolerance for education and discussion as an enhancement of ‘activity’, on topics such as ‘what are people’s legal rights on non-payment of water charges?’, could reflect a certain view of the ULA. Such as: the ULA for placards, housing conditions and candidates and the revolutionary organisations for politics.

If this is a widely held assumption it is not held by those who look to the ULA as something on the way to a collective as political, as rounded, as engaged and as real as any of the long standing groups that predate the ULA and will perpetuate themselves within and without the ULA.

There is room for both kinds of discussion in ULA branches, for the theory on Monday of the shoe leather worn out on Thursday and also for the theory behind the worldview that draws people into left politics in the first place. For, if you like, staff work about the battle and for grand strategy, and even philosophy, about the war. Both.

The culture of this or that political party on the socialist left should not exercise us here and let us just say that deeds are what count, action is at a premium and activity is to be saluted and the hard worker honoured. Contrast with the expected duties of rank and file Labour Party members, vote and canvas, is only to the advantage of the active former. But it is not because the ULA is or should be some kind of ‘old Labour’ hybrid (which is not the same thing as a combined formation of marxists, radical socialists and left social democrats) that a level of hyperactivity should not be expected of all or even most ULA supporters. Any party that aims to have significant numbers must base itself on, well, the working class (employed and unemployed), including those who work at home or have other duties in daily life. Most people will have time for at most one or two evenings or activities a week for a political organisation. A party that hopes for the adherence of the mother with young children, the worker who needs to work overtime, the parent who drives the kids around on a Saturday morning, the teacher who has to return to 30 darlings in the morning, the activist already active in local youth work or as a shop steward, will keep its pace of activity at a rate to suit all. And without allowing a hierarchy of presenteeism to sort the ‘better’ members.

A digression that is not a digression at all. The Irish left is fortunate, if that fortune is employed, in recently receiving into its ranks one of the foremost marxist intellectuals and popularisers in the English speaking world, John Molyneux. In his time he has had the honour of being assailed in a book review by Raya Dunayevskaya. Furthermore, he has been, in my view, as far out on the critical edge of the organised far left as it is possible to be while staying an organisational loyalist. Some of his stuff will certainly be included in my promised little bibliography around the subject of what kind of party we need. Every time I attend a protest these days John Molyneux hands me a leaflet. Admiration and nothing but should go to someone who combines great knowledge, experience and prestige with the footslogging of the infantry. But I hope John brings his balance and educational capacities into the ULA on the range of issues – besides Egypt :) – he has so much to offer on. When he speaks on ‘What is Socialism’ at the ULA Forum workshop on Saturday afternoon he will be painting – another of his interests :) – broad strokes of what socialism really is and not just promoting a particular product. Mick Barry will be worth hearing too. But I can’t resist ‘New Workers Parties – Lessons of Europe’ at the same time, and I expect Mark P at that one too.

Des Derwin

[C. Flower]

This guy has his finger on the pulse:


It would be a pity if people were less than enthusiastic about political discussion, education and development inside the ULA. Am I picking up such lukewarmth, fired with a little impatience for activity and against talk, from some of the party-members at ULA meetings? That would be an irony from comrades who organise public meetings on ‘Marx and the crisis’ and weekends on topics as diverse as Ancient Slavery and William Morris. But no more ironic than restless recruiters talking down formal membership or newspaper publishers opposing outright a publication for the ULA.

A disdain for political discussion and analysis in local ULA branches of large questions like ‘what caused the financial crash?’ or ‘should NATO be bombing Libya?’, which you might get alongside a tolerance for education and discussion as an enhancement of ‘activity’, on topics such as ‘what are people’s legal rights on non-payment of water charges?’, could reflect a certain view of the ULA. Such as: the ULA for placards, housing conditions and candidates and the revolutionary organisations for politics.

[unspecific]

Good lord, how I didn't see those 2 links were part 2 and 3 of the week. I thought part 1 was his article a few months back.

Any way, here it is. A very substantial piece, beyond pasting here. Get stuck in.

http://tomasoflatharta.com/2011/06/20/ula-what-kind-of-party-do-we-need/

(also, moderator, could you place this in after comment #230 in this thread for better chronological ordering)

[unspecific]

Part 4 Des Derwin

http://tomasoflatharta.com/2011/06/24/ula-what-kind-of-party-do-we-need-4/


ULA: What kind of party do we need? 4

Guest post

1. Publish and be damned.

At a People Before Profit Alliance Activists Meeting in May Kieran Allen of the SWP responded to Brendan Young’s call for a ULA publication – not a PBPA publication – by firmly ruling it out. His argument was that to have a publication you need to have agreement on what to say in it and the ULA was a diverse formation and therefore was not in a position to produce a publication. If that were the only obstacle it would be easily overcome by acknowledging that the publication should, in any case, carry debate within the overall context of the agreed message.

On this site Mark P of the Socialist Party took issue with Brendan in response to his article ‘United Left Alliance “A Work in Progress” -Steps Towards a New Party’:
http://tomasoflatharta.com/2011/05/20/united-left-alliance-a-work-in-progress-steps-towards-a-new-party/#more-404

Brendan had asserted that “the production of an independent publication for the ULA – to give expression to our views and an independent identity to the organisation – remains an argument to be won”. Mark P did not agree and commented:

“The fixation on a ULA publication, and the assumption that this would play some important role in overcoming federalism seems a little strange to me. What sort of publication is Brendan suggesting, and what purpose is it to serve?

Is this just being proposed out of a kind of habit – “proper” left groups have papers – or is it really a good use of resources? Who is this publication to be aimed at? What resources are to be put in it? What politics should it argue?

I’m not necessarily opposed to there being a ULA publication, but I’ve yet to hear any convincing arguments on the subject. Just talking about ‘a publication’ is much too vague – different publications serve different purposes and require different resources.”

If your materialism leaned towards the reductionist you might be tempted to accuse those with goods to sell themselves of blocking a new competitor in the marketplace. Let’s be neither vulgar nor rude. But there is a sweeping ‘common sense’ response that does seem sensible enough without the need for the detail justifications which Mark P demands for a publication. If the gander needs a publication then so does the goose. Why, a publication would serve the same purpose for the ULA as any one of the several publications sold by the Socialist Party serves for the Socialist Party; and the same applies to the SWP! Is it really necessary to rehearse the positive arguments for a publication – leaving aside for the present the form of that publication – for people who themselves place such store in an old-technology, albeit brightened, regular newspaper. To rehearse arguments about message, media and organisation? Providing page references to What Is To Be Done?

“Is this just being proposed out of a kind of habit..?” asks Mark P. Like the habit of the SP and the SWP in putting their resources into publications? Publications which are not doubted by their publishers because rather than a lack of printed matter even small events are adorned by paper sellers, and ULA meetings – to which people with of course no great interest in publications – are reached through a gauntlet of paper sellers.

Settling upon the kind of publication, newspaper, magazine, journal, website, is secondary. The age of print is over. Or so we are told. I think maybe the left hangs on to its papers because of what Jack O’Connor of SIPTU remarked upon at the Gresham conference on the Left in February, that ‘people may say the newspaper is dead but they will all go out and buy them tomorrow’ (a Sunday).

One new socialist organisation in Britain, Counterfire, has based itself on a website in the same way as the organisation it arose from has always based itself on a paper. Counterfire says, if I remember correctly, that you don’t launch a printed paper today. And they do have a very attractive and useful website, a ‘publication’ of a type that could maybe meet the needs of the ULA. I’m not rigid on paper v. screen, but prefer paper, being old-fashioned.

Like with a half-heartedness about membership and political discussion it is hard to hear demotion of a publication from those who prize all these things at home. A thin image of the ULA appears, an electoral alliance, a protest campaign, a local agitation, in no need of a socialist party’s means of broadcast, persuasion, exposure, unification and centralisation, exchange, education , debate and outreach.

When the Socialist Labour Party (SLP) was founded in the late 1970s the pre-existing groups went in whole and the then Socialist Workers Movement (SWM) suspended its own paper (The Worker) and published a well-produced magazine (Socialist Worker Review) as the Socialist Workers Tendency. The uneasy joke for a while was that the tendency publications were better than the party ones! For a while the SLP had no paper. Then SWT member Brian Trench became editor of Socialist Labour, the SLP’s new newspaper. The SWT had pressed (sorry!) for an SLP newspaper. The SWM made mistakes in the SLP, notably coming out of it when it did, but in this case a tendency had correctly taken the lead in establishing the broad party’s publication.

2. Molyneux two

I should have made clearer reference to the significance to the present deliberations of having John Molyneux as a new neighbour. He is the author of Marxism and the Party (Bookmarks, London, 1978, republished 1986, and by Haymarket, Chicago, 2003) a minor classic and certainly a very readable summation and textbook (kinda) of the development and theory of organisation in the marxist tradition. There are some copies on Amazon and it is worth tracking down for a background briefing on the party from a ‘bolshevik’ perspective that is orthodox but not rigid. It was Marxism and the Party incidentally that Dunayevskaya thrashed, with undeserved harshness, as an “inglorious achievement”.

The preface to the 1986 edition reappraises some of the first outing, including some not very satisfactory revision of his previous enthusiasm for Gramcsi. But the willingness to reconsider over time makes for curiosity over how he would, now that he is actually involved in a broad political formation with a shared aim of creating a new party somewhere along the road, see it, and the rake of similar entities around the globe, fitting into the bolshevik tradition. Murray Smith and others have touched upon some theoretical underpinning of the broad party but it would be interesting, especially if John Molyneux was sufficiently sympathetic, to see this new stage in organisation fitted into the canon with the same rigour that Marxism and the Party tackles previous stages and adaptations.

3. The ‘S’ word.

If we were in Greece, Portugal or Spain would there be such heat about whether or not the ULA calls itself ‘socialist’. The Socialist Parties there are like the Labour Party here and their cleaving to the word ‘socialist’ does not give them anything real. Social Democracy was one the term for revolutionary socialism. It became necessary to use other language and it was done. ‘Socialism’ is, at least in Ireland I think, still a simple way of describing the fundamental decency socialists stand for, the democracy at the heart of it, and the root and branch change we want to the whole system. And it was James Connolly’s repeatedly used word. I would like the ULA to explicitly espouse socialism and even to use it in its name. But I also see that there are reasons, some good some bad, why many people who would come to the ULA might not like the word. In the recent past the South Tipperary Workers and Unemployed Action Group were against the use of ‘socialism’ and may continue to be so.

So, if a clear majority supports the use of ‘socialism’, for a policy platform that is, no matter what you call it, socialist by any reasonable use of the word, so much the better. If there is widespread opposition or wariness we should not insist on raising obstacles or, worse, denouncing whoever argues against the use of the ‘S’ word with other words like ‘opportunist’ or ‘reformist’.

[unspecific]

These fellows are really setting the tone for tomorrow and the direction

Another post, this time by Eddie Conlon.


Build the ULA

with one comment

Guest post

In advance of the ULA Forum a statement on Building the ULA from Joan Collins TD, Eddie Conlon Steering Committee Member ULA and PBP and Dermot Connolly, Steering Committee Member PBP.

The Main Job Now is to Build the ULA

The ULA has been a success. It has brought together a variety of left and socialist forces and provided a framework whereby they can work together. It has led to a focus on what the left agrees on rather than what divides us. It has shown that by working together we can have success and develop genuine and radical political representation for working people. With the election of 5 TDs the ULA has established a national profile and provided a pole of attraction for those who want to resist the attacks on workers, the unemployed and oppressed.

The key issue now is how we develop the ULA beyond being an alliance into a political force which can draw in new layers of activists and build commitment to a radical reorganisation of society. The shift from an alliance to a new political formation will take time and cannot be rushed. But if the ULA is not seen to be moving beyond its current configuration, essentially an alliance of the Socialist Party, People Before Profit and the Tipperary Workers and Unemployed Action Group, its growth could be stifled. Those attracted to it may only see at as a tool of the constituent groups. They will feel they cannot have a real say in what happens without joining one of the groups.

The real issue then is not when you declare a new party but that the thrust of our activity and debate should build a growing momentum towards a new party.

It is now vital that all members of the ULA commit to building it as a real vibrant formation and take responsibility for its organisational and political development. The revolutionary organisations within it should not see it solely as a means of building their own organisations. We should agree that the task of building a real challenge to the capitalism is better advanced through the development of a genuinely open, broad and pluralist party rather than through the growth of particular tendencies within it. Joining the ULA does not require members to sign up to a tendency and nor should it. Those who join should be free to commit to the ULA alone rather than feeling that their membership makes them fair game to be recruited to the different revolutionary forces within it.

The ULA must seek to be become the dominant oppositional voice in the country and in the Dail. It should seek to draw towards it all those disillusioned with Labour (and Sinn Fein). There should be no illusions about a left split from either of these organisations. But there should be a genuine effort to expose them and appeal to their supporters. On particular issues it should be possible for the ULA to work with broader forces when we agree. To seek to be the dominant oppositional voice the ULA will need to be:

1. Anti-capitalist

The ULA must be clearly anti-capitalist. As the founding programme says we must insist that “There can be no just or sustainable solution to the crisis based on the capitalist market. Instead we favour democratic and public control over resources so that social need is prioritised over profit”. This profoundly socialist aspiration should guide our policy and allow us to argue for reforms without being reformist. We must fight cuts and for change without sowing illusions that the current crises can be solved in capitalist terms. This guiding principle strengthens our commitment to do no deals or coalesce with the right. You can’t do deals with those committed to the current system.

The programme of the ULA is a good basis for developing the project of a new party. While the programme needs to be fleshed out it is not the case that the ULA can solve the real challenges it faces by simply adopting a set of revolutionary or socialist demands. The programme will need to be built on but this must be through debate and drawing the lessons from concrete struggles. It must be a bottom up process, the National Forum is a good start, which draws on the vast experience of the activists within the ULA, and its periphery, and addresses the concrete challenges that face us.

But the programme should not be seen as a disposable commodity which can be diluted to facilitate the entry of those who really don’t agree with us. A weak programme will lead to political domination by the organised revolutionary forces within the ULA as they will be the ones with all the political answers. The ULA needs to develop a culture of political debate and education aimed at developing the layers of activists who will be drawn to us.

2. An organisation of struggle and unity

The ULA must be to the forefront in fighting for the rights of working people and the oppressed and standing beside those who enter into struggles. If the ULA cannot draw into membership the best fighters in the communities and unions it will not grow as a mass political force. While current levels of struggle are low there is no doubt that this will change in the face of further and sustained onslaughts on the living standards of working people.

When this passivity turns to activity the ULA must be in a position to support, develop and lead the struggles that emerge. This must be done in a united fashion and in a way that shows that the ULA has a united approach to supporting and building campaigns.

The ULA should not passively wait for struggles to emerge but must actively work to develop united work around agreed campaigns. The constituent groups must agree on priorities and agree to focus on these priorities. To date this approach has not been taken with a fair degree of latitude being provided for constituent groups to do their own thing. Campaigns aimed at building individual constituent groups have even cut across the efforts of the ULA to do work on particular issues. For example, the Enough Campaign is now calling meetings on the issue of the EROs and JLCs while the ULA has also prioritised this as a key campaign issue.

United campaigns are a vital ingredient in uniting the ULA on the ground. Through working together traditional suspicions can be undermined and a genuine spirit for unity can be developed. They will also provide a national focus for branches.

3. Democratic, participatory and open

To date the ULA has been run by a small steering group. This group needs to be expanded. While structures will evolve slowly it is still the case that those not affiliated to the constituent groups will find it hard to have a real influence on the development of the project.

It is the case that as an alliance, which wants to develop into a unitary organisation, some degree of experimentation will be necessary to involve new layers and make them feel they have ownership of the project. This may mean that some form of hybrid structure develops which allows representation within ULA structures for the constituent groups but also for those new to the ULA.

The development of ULA membership and branches has been rightly prioritised but the process is slow and uneven. About 40 public meetings have been held since the election and it should be now possible to develop up to 40 branches if the will is there to do so.

In the interim consideration should be given to developing a mechanism to allow non-affiliated people an input into decisions in the ULA. It would provide a clear signal that the ULA is committed to developing participation by those outside the constituent groups.

In time representatives of branches should be able to meet collectively through elected delegates who could elect representatives to the Steering Committee. There would have to be agreement that such delegate meetings would be composed of those not affiliated to the main constituent organisations. In the interim the proposal of the SP for a nonaligned platform within the ULA has merit and should be debated further.

In moving to a new party we have to be clear that party will have to be democratic and pluralist and allow the organised expression of different opinions. This will mean facilitating different political platforms. But this should not lead to a cacophony of voices where differences are accentuated to draw supporters to different tendencies. This will undermine the project. The focus must stay on what is agreed with debate continuing on those issues on which we disagree.

Its important that as we move forward we don’t have false debates. For example none of us have illusions in the Dail but putting thought and effort into Dail work does not amount to parliamentary cretinism. We must derive the most from having five TDs, an MEP and around 20 councillors. This involves putting effort, thought and resources into our public representatives and becoming more skillful at linking their activity with the broader activism of the ULA. The reality is that continued electoral success, or failure, will have an impact on the growth and development of the ULA. Our success has been important in legitimating the project and giving us authority to speak for working people. Therefore the next round of council elections and the next general election are key targets in developing the ULA. We believe that we should seek to double our representation on councils at the next local elections.

As we move forward there are many organisational and political challenges to be met. Information flow must increase and an ebulletin and an improved website must be prioritised. Mechanism for facilitating the exchange of political views must also be developed. As a matter of priority steering group minutes and decisions should be circulated and regular forums should be held where activists can communicate and debate directly with the steering group and the TDs.

We believe the ULA can play a role in developing left unity in the North. The recent successes of PBP candidates in the North shows that there is a thirst for change amongst a minority. Low voter turn out suggest growing alienation form the political system. We believe that a left unity project should grow organically in the North but we believe that the ULA can play a vital role in facilitating movement towards the reorganisation of the Left in the North.

Conclusion

The ULA represents an unprecedented opportunity to build a radical political voice for working people. The confluence of an unprecedented crises in Irish capitalism and the commitment of the left to develop a unity project means there is a real possibility that advances can be made towards the reorganisation of the Irish working class. A key ingredient in realising this possibility is that the constituent organisations prioritise the building of the ULA over all other objectives. This will mean suppressing deeply developed political instincts which favour their own organisational interests. It is now vital that all members of the ULA commit to building it as a real vibrant formation and take responsibility for its organisational and political development. If this is done the real potential of the ULA may be fully realised. Concretely this means:

* Putting the resources and assigning organisers to develop a network of up to 40 branches. Branches should facilitate local campaign work, tie in with national campaigns and facilitate political discussion. Branches should have designated convenors who tie in with the steering committee. This work should provide the platform for doubling our representation on local councils at the next local elections.
* Growing the membership towards 1,000 members registered on a central data base
* United campaigns which generate real opportunities to practice unity in action
* Increasing information flows and accountability and developing structures which allow all members to have a real say.

Contact Eddie (087 6775468), Joan (086 3888151) or Dermot (087 7675691) if you want to discuss this statement further

[unspecific]

Sorry I've been very busy of late, really should have plugged some sort of Independents meetup. For any independents interested in some ragbagsian mailing list, I'll do my best to make myself embarassingly visible...

[unspecific]

And now the other side of the conference, there have been a few reports.

Fittingly, lets start with Des Derwin's account.

http://tomasoflatharta.com/2011/06/26/ula-forum-a-resounding-success/


ULA forum: a resounding success

with 10 comments

The ULA Forum yesterday was a resounding success. It filled the Theatre in Liberty Hall all day and the official registration list for the day was announced as 320. Four features of the gathering were the number of new faces, the number of non-aligned people, the number of young people and the delegations from outside Dublin (Cork, Tipperary and the North to these ears in particular).

There was a great sense of achievement, potential, departure and, for most of the time, camaraderie. The Socialist Party were rather too forthright in pressing their perspective of a more ‘revolutionary’ programme (with the emphasis on the use of the word ‘socialism’). The SWP were more sensitive, yet perhaps more arrogant, in pressing their ‘Enough!’ campaign on the gathering and on the ULA.

Nevertheless all involved must take credit for a phenomenon that would have been practically unforeseeable a year ago. It will be said that the day amounted to nothing because it was not a decision-making day. Decisions should come soon but yesterday did represent a step forward, an assertion of collectivity, arrival and belonging, and an amount of consensus about what needs to be done organisationally (membership, branches and internal communication) and actively (campaigning against austerity). There were admonishings on the responsibility that has come with the achievement and opportunity of the ULA.

The first speaker, Terence McDonagh, provided the perfect start with his proposal of an ‘Irish Big Bang’ on the crisis. Five steps: 1.Default 2.Leave the euro 3.Create a good public bank 4. Guarantee a job to everyone at the the minimum wage at least and 5. Nationalise the Corrib gas field. It was direct and refreshing, though not everyone agreed that the matter is so simple. I look forward to Paula’s film of the presentation and of Kieran Allen’s impressive economic presentation which followed, and to discussion of Terence McDonagh’s perspectives on the Irish Left Review, Notes On the Front, and elsewhere. Hopefully Paula will put up her film of all or most of the proceedings.

Declan Bree gave an excellent speech, left, radical and socialist, which was fully committed to the building of the ULA and a new party while recognising the reticence of some and that the party cannot be established overnight

Des Derwin

[unspecific]

Paddy "The Colonel" Healy on the same site

http://tomasoflatharta.com/2011/06/27/after-ula-makes-a-difference-for-lowly-paid-300-pack-liberty-hall-for-ula-forum/


Looking at Things from the Left
AFTER ULA MAKES A DIFFERENCE FOR LOWLY PAID, 300 PACK LIBERTY HALL FOR ULA FORUM

with one comment

From Paddy Healy 086-4183732. For a detailed discussion on way ahead in Trade Unions, read “How ICTU Failed Us, The Necessity for Election, Re-Election of General Secretaries” on my Blog:http://wp.me/pKzXa-gw

AFTER ULA MAKES A DIFFERENCE FOR LOWLY PAID, 300 PACK LIBERTY HALL FOR ULA FORUM

On Thursday last Richard Bruton announced that the bill to cut the pay of shop assistants, cleaners, agricultural labourers and others on JLC rates and those covered by Registered Employment Agreements was being deferred until the Autumn. This followed the discussion in the Dail of a private members motion from the ULA calling on the government to abandon the measure. The Labour Party and Fine Gael voted down the motion, but the array of deputies voting for the motion frightened the Labour Party. Voting for the motion were Seamus Healy , Joan Collins T, Joe Higgins, Richard Boyd-Barrett, Clare Daly (all ULA), Thomas Pringle, John Halligan, Catherine Murphy, Maureen O’Sullivan, Finian McGrath, Luke Ming Flanagan, Tom Fleming (All Technical Group). Sinn Fein and Fianna Fail also supported the motion. On the proposal of Cllr Declan Bree (ULA), Sligo Co Council had already passed the motion.

There was a “robust discussion” after Bruton addressed the parliamentary Labour Party on the following day. Bruton then announced the deferral. Clearly the ULA are in a position to exert serious pressure on government on behalf of the poor and employees generally due to the threat posed to the Labour Party. ULA will remain highly vigilant in order to be in a position to resist the bill when and if it is introduced. Meetings on the issue in several centres will continue. The next public meeting will be held in Hearns Hotel Clonmel on Thursday June 30 at 8 pm. The meeting will be addressed by Seamus Healy TD, Pat Neill, President of Clonmel Trades Council, and Paddy Healy , Steering Committee ULA

Forum at Liberty Hall

300 people from all 32 counties attended the ULA National Forum in Liberty Hall last Saturday. A report was given of 40 meetings held throughout the country in recent weeks. Branches are being set up in several parts of Dublin and in many provincial centres. The intention is that these branches should organise local support for national ULA initiatives, such as resistance to pay and social welfare cuts, water and house charges, and opposition to repaying the debts of private banks. The organisation is preparing for a major push to increase the number of ULA councillors from the current 20 to a target of fifty in the next local elections. A National Trade Union Activist Network is being organised with groups in all trade unions. The first national Meeting will take place in Teachers Club, Parnell Sq on October 1. There was considerable discussion on the process to be followed which might result in the transformation from an alliance to a political party.

Paddy Healy 086-4183732

[unspecific]

Unbelievably accurate from where I was sitting

http://ranksavagespit.wordpress.com/2011/06/26/minutes-from-the-united-left-alliance-forum/

Part 1


Minutes from the United Left Alliance Forum
Posted: June 26, 2011 by lenihanm in politics
6

Typed out below are notes from the two plenary sessions of the United Left Alliance forum in Liberty Hall, June 25th, 2011, giving a report, noted down on the spot, of the main points made by speakers from the podium and the floor. These are for the perusal of anyone interested who couldn’t make it. More importantly, in a few years there may be great interest in what exactly was said by whom. Let’s look back on this and see how well we anticipated the challenges and opportunities, and learn from that. Also I have in mind issues of democratic accountability and minute-taking, which were recurring themes in speeches.

The Left Response to the Crisis- 10.30-12.00

Chair: Ailbhe Smith (PBPA) Speakers: Professor Terence McDonagh (NUIG), Kieran Allen (SWP), Kevin McLoughlin (SP)

Ailbhe Smith (PBPA) Acknowledged Gay Pride parade on the same day, displayed the lgbt flag and apologized for not showing up in costume! Stressed need for “generosity of politics” and spirit of compromise between constituent organisations. Sent message of solidarity to comrades on the Gaza Flotilla including Paul Murphy MEP and Cllr Hugh Lewis.

Prof Terence McDonagh Will outline an economic programme that can be implemented within 48 hours and turn the economy around

1-Default, 2-Leave the Euro, 3-build a good public bank, 4-guaranteed job for everyone, 5-nationalize corrib gas

Default- by 2014 debt will be €80 bn private banking debt, €40 bn sovereign debt and further €80 bn interest on borrowing Can’t possibly pay back, shouldn’t pay back

Leave the Euro- control over own currency, fall of value of new punt, fiscal control for public works

Good Public Bank- public bank to provide credit for people, bad private bank for the bondholders & shareholders of private debt [applause and laughter]

Job guarantee- control over punt gives leeway to govt. Little risk of inflation because inflation is created by bidding against the private sector- not applicable

Nationalize Corrib gas- Nobody loses except Shell

Endorses end goal of Socialism- this programme is a step in the right direction

Kevin McLoughlin (SP) Emphasis on mass uprising creating basis for programme to be implemented- Perspective of such an uprising taking place in Ireland in coming years

Outlines crisis of capitalism since the 1970s- shift to finance, credit to fuel consumer spending, fundamentally unproductive capitalism resulting in the bubble bursting

No way out under capitalism Debunking 2 myths on which the right-wing discourse rests: Recovery through 1) MNCs, 2) Exports

Multinational Corporations- account for 7-8% of labour force but 90% of exports in Ireland- profits sent abroad, equipment and raw materials mostly ordered from abroad

2005-2011: 11% growth in MNC sector- no corresponding job growth.

Exports- Indigenous Irish Capitalism & “entrepreneurship” accounts for only 10% of exports

2000-2007: 11,000 jobs lost in indigenous enterprises ULA must debunk these myths, as a starting point

Kieran Allen Economists compared to priests, interpreting “the signs” of the markets for the benefit of the rest of us ignorant masses- with no offense meant to Prof. McDonagh- “He’s one of the best ones! It’s unusual to see an economist like him!” Economics is not a technical matter- it’s about choices

Eg. Last budget took €100 million from corporations but took €1 billion from PAYE workers

Need for wealth tax

Middle East- North Africa revolutions presented by mass media as being for “Western-style democracy”- in fact the demands of the revolutionaries, little-publicized, are for better wages and social conditions, “for democracy and against neo-liberalism”

The €18 billion sovereign deficit that commentators always go on about: if 450,000 people were working instead of on the dole, we wouldn’t have that deficit

The rich are effectively on strike, demanding major reforms and threatening to sabotage society if their demands are not met

2007: investment in economy of €50 bn, 2010: only €14 bn- collapse on the scale of the Great Depression

Economist John Fitzgerald says: Irish people apparently have loads of savings, economy would recover if only people went out and spent more! In fact Irish people have been hit very hard, repeatedly

Capitalism is insane- €613 spent on advertising, which would solve world hunger if invested Need for democratic public ownership

Over to the floor—

Anne McShane (CPGB) Need to hold ULA TDs to account Membership-led organisation

Debate on what we mean by socialism

Internationalist agenda

Alan Gibson (IBT) Accusations of stage-ist approach in economic programme

Sinead Kennedy (SWP) Need to present concrete alternatives to people

Slavoj Žižek says that now, Socialists are the realists and the Capitalist class are the new utopians

Kerry Cuskelly Need to go beyond economics to civic engagement and social development

As a social worker, she works in communities where they wouldn’t get what we were talking about, communities with serious problems like racism and drugs

Can’t just frame it in terms of economics but involve underprivileged people in a real way

Brian Gould Don’t pay back the banking debt

State should honour debt but not private debt

Question to Prof. McDonagh: leaving Euro or leaving EU? Need to express economics in simpler terms

Anne Connolly In a simple capitalist default, working people will still be hit hard- not enough to argue for a default

Need for a 32-county workers’ republic Condemn Union ldrship

Spirit of James Connolly

Brendan Young Use of the word “socialism”- link abstract to concrete

Getting rid of Euro would result in speculation against the punt

Ireland in the European economy, need for a Europe-wide solution

Control over currency would not mean control over economy or capital

Paddy Healy (WUAG) Victories and achievements of ULA TDs

Govt has deferred the JLC bill

Substantial differences from the 1080s when WUAG was formed- people now far more qualified

Mary Smith (SWP) A revolutionary socialist, but not hung up on the word “socialist”- must not be “abstract”

Need for mass organisation and building of campaigns

“It’s wonderful to be swimming in a sea where people agree with you”

People don’t have the confidence to call themselves socialist, while they do agree with us.

Cian Prendiville (SP) Vital need for a programme that represents reality and will solve our very real crisis, rather than simply chasing opinion polls

Key problem: strike of capital

“telling the truth” demands that we talk about socialism

We need not to demand a limited public sector “tangential” to the capitalist system but the end of capitalism

Eg. Sinn Fein/Unite: €2 bn public works programme proposed- would still only restore economy to 2010 levels

Amal Nasser [apologies. I missed her name and I’m certain I have it wrong here- please correct me by commenting below] Egyptian revolution- revolutions are a progressive force in society

Problems: Middle East, petrol. Imperialists/Capitalists will not allow revolution to survive

Ruling class planning Islamist regime

Military govt arresting, torturing activists

Female activists arrested and subjected to virginity tests

Attacks on Copts allowed by military govt., no investigations

Young officers leaked documents on how military govt,. Is pushing a plan drawn up with Soudi Arabia and the USA

Revolution in Egypt is only the beginning

Summation

[Alibhe Smith says that time is up and we must return to the main speakers. an attendee proposes that he be allowed two minutes to speak before return to podium for summation. Refused by chair. Persists. Shouted down by audience. Sits down, heard to grumble: “...not very democratic.”]

Prof. Terence McDonagh Leaving the € and leaving the EU inseperable.Costs vs. Benefits- Benefits of leaving Euro outweigh costs

Outlines conflict between broader and narrower range of demands

Kieran Allen (SWP) Private &state debt now too closely intertwined to continue slogan of “burn the bondholders”

Must default on all

Blackmail about being kicked out of the EU must be answered

Believes People Before Profit is a better name than Socialist Party or Socialist Workers’ Party

Not about words, it’s about methods

If we say socialism, we must explain what it means, not be abstract

Kevin McLoughlin (SP) SP is not “abstract”- delivered detailed, worked-out manifestos to 250,000 homes in the country during election

If SP is abstract, it got 2 TDs elected on that “abstractness”- but SP is not abstract- history of linking concrete proposals to the need to change society

Should be no hesitation about using the word socialism or having a socialist programme

People are not turned off by socialism- socialism has never dissuaded people from voting for Socialist Party

[unspecific]

Part 2


14.15-16.00: The ULA: What kind of party do we need? Chair: Laura Fitzgerald, Speakers: Declan Bree (Cllr), Richard Boyd Barrett (SWP, TD), Seamus Healy (WUAG, TD), Joe Higgins (SP, TD)

Declan Bree (Cllr) Outline of general situation- Huge crisis of capitalism, austerity, union sellout EU/IMF diktats

Attempts to divide public and private sector workers Social Democrats and Republicans who see the state as neutral must soon see the error of their ways

ULA must be the new force on the Irish left Amid growing radicalisation, it must definitely be socialist ULA as it is now- only an initial step

Must be prepared to fight capitalism, not just fight for a more humane form of capitalism

Must create a new party, as soon as the ULA has built a base through campaigning

New level of cooperation Non-aligned members- a democratic participatory structure is vital

Industrial, social and community action

Joe Higgins (SP, TD) Filling the vacuum left by the shift to the right of the Social Democratic parties across Europe

Recognition that capitalism is “a diseased system” that is wounding economy and society NO solution within capitalism

Yes to reformist demands, but these demands, to be consistent, must be led into the need for a socialist alternative Orientation toward working class & youth Unions, communities, action groups

ULA must not crudely control campaigns as has happened in the past with some organisations, but assist in a leadership capacity, also provide logistics, resources Building a mass workers’ party

NO COALITION with right-wing parties -labour totally discredited -anomaly of Sinn Fein opposing cuts down here, implementing them in Northern Ireland with the “lame” excuse that they are in a power-sharing government ULA must act with principle, honesty, consistency

Raise criticism of an SWP leaflet- ULA should give no platform to any Labour Party TD or Cllr- they are supporting the govt, even if they are willing to criticize it

Parliamentary limitations have been frustrating for ULA- technical group rather than party etc.

However, Dail intervention on many issues, eg, the JLCs, has been excellent ULA will work for new party- November 2010 was very good timing for the launch of the ULA- the launch of a mass party demands equally good timing

Limited numbers currently- need to build the ULA Vital need to represent non-aligned members on the steering committee

Launching a mvmt of thousands against double taxes

Great success so far- 5 TDs, 20 Councillors, 1 MEP

Must work towards the ending of the “diseased, sclerotic” system of capitalism

Richard Boyd-Barrett (SWP, TD) Come a long way in the past year- achievements so far still relatively modest, but still it’s a very exciting time

Lots of hope invested in the ULA

New force outside of the ”cosy club” of the political establishment

Context & basis of this alliance: Egyptian revolutionary movement- coalitions of diverse groups on the basis of what unites them rather than what divides them- we should be the same, the 90, 95 % we agree on should be the basis

Vast majority of people agree with us that austerity and the overall policies of the govt are bad

That is is unjust that we are paying the gambling debts of rich people

Need to win over people who are not used to the same tradition and language as we on the left are

People furiously angry- most favourable situation for the left since the foundation of the state

Problems: we’re not big enough

People want to resist, need leadership- starting from a starting-point that may not be close to us but on a trajectory toward us

Party of struggle- we’re all here on the basis of broad movements

Answer concrete questions, break the strategy of fear

There is an alternative- cancel the debt, tax the wealth, default

“captains of enterprise” are vultures, parasites- take wealth, invest it, struggle mass movements, power of workers

“wage war on jargon”- language& traditions of the left can be off-putting- suspicion of political parties

Séamus Healy (WUAG, TD) ULA must be grass-roots and bottom-up

Comparison to birth of South Tipperary WUAG- workers, unemployed, housewives got together and got active

Local and national electoral success of group- many borough, county and town Cllrs as well as a TD

1980s- “no alternative” mantra- real alternative

The bailout is to benefit British, French, German banks

Not a “good Samaritan” deal- paying off bad debts of international gamblers

Default, burning the bondholders, wealth & assets tax

Building through campaigns- water, JLCs etc

Importance of building personal& political relationships

Good start today, great turnout

Must be all around the country, not just Dublin

Over to the floor…

Eddie Conlon (PBPA) Tremendous success, very encouraging

Ppl looking towards us

Ldrship-responsibility and opportunity

Constituent organisations must concentrate on building the ULA

intervention into campaigns and independent ULA-launched campaigns

We can build 40 branches, very soon

Serious democratic structures, get ppl on board

Great opportunity, let’s not blow it

Shane Fitzgerald Presenting view of an independent participant, unaligned to a constituent organisation

Need to bring in loads more people Open question: how many in the room are non-aligned members?

Some proposals- doesn’t want to press for huge changes but just suggestions

One branch meeting per month is not enough for independent members, while SP and SWP members meet every month.

Unaligned members fall out of the loop

Proposal: E-mail newsletter. Contact @ weareragbags.wordpress.com or weareragbags@gmail.com

Ruth Coppinger (SP, Cllr) Campaigning party first and foremost

Lively, interesting discussions at branch meetings

Meetings should be about the ULA

Programme- Boyd-Barrett’s comments on “war on jargon”- heard the same thing years and years ago in another party- one called Labour Youth. Same things said about scaring ppl away and being too extreme

We need to politicize, not depoliticize- not abstract demands, but demands that make a bridge

Gerard Lawlor (SIPTU Shop Steward) Piece of EU legislation regarding Unions- demanding democratic participation from membership, information sharing systems

Works in a private hospital, struggled very hard over recent years bringing membership from 10% to 60%

Local union branches not implementing this very important piece of legislation

Union leadership holding back movement

David Begg- on board of Irish Times, Aer LIngus and Central Bank, yet still General Secretary of ICTU! David Begg must go!

John Lyons (SWP) Lots of ppl voted Labour to take the edge of Fine Gael, while many voted Sinn Fein because they believed SFs radical rhetoric- many times more than voted for us voted for those two parties

Lots of disappointed Labour voters will be coming over to our side- target labour supporters

Andrew Keegan, Larkhill candidate for PBPA- campaign to save the no. 3 bus, public mtg- 70 present

Labour TD Róisín Shortall came to meeting, read out info given to her by Dublin Bus- proposed nothing concrete- people just listened politely

Bus campaign will expand and Labour will have little to do with it

Dermot Connolly (PBPA) ULA is a process for now, not a party

We need to build not over a scale of years but over a short space of time

Build party culture, build trust between organisations

Campaigning together will be successful- eg. Of general election

Next local elections- double number of councillors

Build branches, not just a Dublin project- 15 present at Mullingar launch- that’s a branch, in somewhere the Left has never truly been active outside the Labour Party

Unaligned ppl need control over branches- we should have 40-50 branches soon

Proper communications network for unaligned- regular forums- rank & file must control

Annette Mooney (PBPA) Question of gender representation- only 9 women speaking at ULA forum out of 25 total- undemocratic

What is ULA policy on gender representation? Issues like childcare& education get ignored without representation for women

Matt Waine (SP, Cllr) Not the 1st time the left has got together- previous left parties

Immediate demands to mobilize around are not enough- mistakes of past Social Democratic and Labour parties- same mistake of current left formations

Socialism is not something for the dim and distant future

Consciousness lags behind the situation

Example of youth mvmts in Greece and Spain- independent youth movements totally bypass the left because the “left” was too conservative

Gareth Fitzpatrick (ULA North Kildare) Need for taking minutes at meetings Information for individual members- steering committee needs more contact

Mick Barry (SP, Cllr) Busy week next week- vote in council, protest, 2 meetings

Class issues opening up, vital to build ULA on these issues

Saturday- ULA day of action in Cork- 18 on the streets- credibility through campaigns

We fight for reforms, but we are not reformist

Election programme- a step forward, a left anti-capitalist programme but not a socialist programme Emphasis not on jargon but on content- whether you call it socialist or whatever else you want to call it, what’s the content?

Madeleine Johansen (SWP) Need for grassroots, democracy Discussions at branch mtgs in which everyone puts forward their opinion ULA must be revolutionaries ULA must have “A vision of a future society that is better for all”

Summation [Same guy as before wants 2 minutes to speak. Chair refuses, time is pressing. Persists. Lots of shouting from the audience. A handful seem to be shouting “Go back to the workers’ party”, “Go back to Labour”, even “go back to your IMF”. One individual stands up and says it’s unfair that this guy wants special treatment. Applause. Dermot Connolly stands up and proposes that the guy is given just a minute to speak. Less applause. Shouting continues for some time until the guy finally sits down.]

Séamus Healy (WUAG, TD) Vital to get information to members and take minutes of meetings Campaigns vital to knit together the organisations

Richard Boyd-Barrett (SWP, TD) Building branches- 40-50 branches- key unit of democracy and accountability

Branch delegates to a national council which would make decisions, coordinate

Local groups should decide their own regularity of meetings- no central diktat

Public reps and delegates must be kept accountable to branches.

Agreeing on action & campaigns, ideological ferment on IMF etc Forces moving toward us, not as left-wing as us, but getting there Socialism about the deed, not the word, eg. Socialist parties in Greece and elsewhere, who are in govt bringing down cuts, what does the word “Socialist” mean there?

Declan Bree (Cllr) Urgent need to develop ULA internal democracy- hopes that the steering committee can provide that

Joe Higgins (SP, TD) Gender balance points raised- 9 women out of 25 is not undemocratic. Would not advocate Fine Gael-style gender quotas – what is needed is an open and welcoming atmosphere. Further, ULA should choose the most able candidates, and the ones most willing to make sacrifices in their personal lives for politics

Unions- ULA must reclaim them for workers- activist networks forming in unions

Rest over the summer- in September things will heat up- opposition to local charges and water taxes

Water charges, ‘94-’96- great victory, but we’re fighting that battle again. Why, because it’s the same system. Critical need to bring together all our demands and campaigns with the aim of a Socialist world

[this is all taken from notes I jotted down while sitting in the audience- inevitably I will have made some mistakes and misrepresented some things. If you’re reading this and want to propose an amendment to it, feel free to comment below. Sorry if I misunderstood or misleadingly rephrased anything anyone said]

[unspecific]

Here is Bolshevik's fine report

http://revolutionaryprogramme.wordpress.com/2011/06/26/my-report-on-the-national-forum/


Starting with the attendance, it was reported in the afternoon that there had been 320 registrations which coincided with a rough head count I did during the initial plenary session, however a reliable source informs me that her headcount in the afternoon was just over 400 which could well be more accurate as many would have arrived late and the registration desk system was more than a little chaotic so not everyone will have chosen to register, especially if they were not ULA members or wannabe members already.

We can however safely assume that there were at least 300 odd members of the ULA present which probably gives a breakdown of roughly 1/3 SWP, 1/3 SP 1/3 individual members and members of constituent groups not in the SWP or SP.

First plenary

The initial plenary session was most noticeable for the presence of Terrence McDonough (Professor of Economics in National University of Ireland, Galway – see http://www.progressive-economy.ie/search/label/Terrence%20McDonough for some articles outlining his general approach) who presented a 5-point plan for dealing with Ireland’s economic problems.

* 1. Default on the debt
* 2. Leave the Euro and create new punt currency
* 3. Build a good public bank
* 4. Guarantee a job for all (new jobs to be on, or about, the minimum wage)
* 5. Nationalise the Corrib gas fields with a compulsory purchase order

He claimed to also be for socialism as a long term goal but was explicit that this was a plan for resolving the current capitalist economic crisis – a plan that could apparently be implemented in 48 hours and would minimise the pain for working people.

Kieran Allen for the SWP and Kevin McLoughlin for the SP both outlined the need for the ULA to have a realistic alternative to give in response to questions about what our answer to the economic crisis is. They both gave positive support to Professor McDonough’s 5-point plan as providing the basis for that alternative. But bizarrely they both seemed to think that it was consistent with having a programme that “challenged the logic of capitalism” – when Professor McDonough had been quite explicit that this was a workable programme within the confines of capitalism.

That this is quite blatant old-style reformist social democratic stagism seemed to pass our two “revolutionary socialist” speakers by. I spoke second from the floor and directly confronted this and argued that surely socialists should be presenting a programme for socialism, rather than a radical reform of capitalism, as “the alternative”. None of the speakers chose to deal with this in their summaries and it wasn’t directly responded to during the discussion from the floor either.

The main substantive discussion from the floor was over whether Professor McDonough’s plan was in fact workable or not and what the consequences of it might be – all explicitly taking the context of capitalism as a given.

The other thing of interest in this session was a bit of low-level sniping between the SWP & SP over whether the aim of “socialism” should be an explicit part of our programme.

So I’ve got to say not a particularly positive start for anyone, like myself, who is interested in building an organisation with a clear programme for socialism rather than a programme for the reform of capitalism with socialism as some distant aim for a future stage in the struggle.

Second plenary

I’ll now jump to the second plenary session and come back to a few points about the two workshops I attended after that.

The second plenary was on the topic of “What kind of party do we need?” with speakers Declan Bree, Richard Boyd Barrett (SWP), Seamus Healy (WUAG) & Joe Higgins (SP).

Declan Bree argued in favour of an explicitly socialist party to be created as soon as was reasonably possible. We need structures now that will stimulate development towards that party, becoming a membership-led organisation with equal participation based on democratic structures involving all members.

Joe Higgins also argued in favour of a party with explicitly socialist policies, highlighting in particular opposition to entering coalition governments with capitalist parties and for a “rigorous and honest appraisal” of other parties, such as exposing the reality of Sinn Fein’s role in the North as compared to their pro-worker posture in the South. He explicitly criticised the SWP’s call for having LP representatives on campaign platforms arguing instead that this should only be the case if they have clearly shown they have broken with the government’s attacks. Regarding the pace of movement towards the new party he was more cautious than Bree arguing that we have to wait the development of an upsurge in the class struggle, we are only at the very beginning of the process.

Richard Boyd Barrett argued for stressing the “90-95% that unites us” rather than differences. He agreed with the aim of the socialist transformation of society but disagreed with using the term “socialism” as part of a “war on jargon” that we need to undertake. We need to build the alliance as fast as we can as a “party of action”.

Seamus Healy talked about the history of the WUAG coming out of campaigns in defence of working people and that should be the priority of the ULA. He also emphasised the need to create the ULA as a truly national organisation. He called for default on the debt and a wealth and assets tax as the key elements of the programme we should put forward.

Representatives of the Collins, Conlon & Connolly non-SWP PBP grouping spoke a couple of times in favour of their proposals on the way forward (http://tomasoflatharta.com/2011/06/24/build-the-ula/) and it seemed to find something of a resonance with speakers from the floor, particularly the parts about creating more inclusive structures, by those describing themselves as individual members.

Shane got to speak in favour of his proposal for an email list for individual members (http://weareragbags.wordpress.com/) – I would encourage all individual members to contact him and ask to join this list.

The other main issue in the discussion was over whether to be explicitly for “socialism” with the low level dispute between the SP & SWP continuing though compensated for by their agreement on the need for activity as the key element in building the ULA.

The other issue of interest was over gender balance when Joe Higgins responded to a question about the low number of women speakers by brusquely arguing against quotas but without really presenting an alternative to the problem of the low level of participation by women in the ULA.

I was of course disappointed not to get to speak but as I’d spoken in the first plenary session it wasn’t unreasonable that others were taken this time.

From the point of view of taking some concrete steps to start moving the ULA from an alliance towards a party this session was more positive, at least in terms of rhetoric, as there were repeated references to making the ULA, “membership-led”, being a “bottom-up” organisation, having structures that “encourage diversity” etc but this must be seen in the context of nothing concrete actually being proposed for how this might come about.

This was also mostly perceived in terms of facilitating activity and the central question of needing to set up structures for political discussion about the programme was pretty much secondary. Given that there is apparently significant work being done by the ULA’s Dáil research teams on policy questions there must be a big worry that the membership will be presented with a programme as a more-or-less fait accompli with little ability for individual members to be part of the process of discussion about that programme.

Workshops

So to the workshop on trade unions that I attended in the morning where there was lots of discussion on the need to build networks of activists at rank-and-file level with the meeting on 1 October on this topic being seen as a major focus for ULA trade union activists. There was a small spread of opinion between those who wanted to put pressure on the trade union leaders to stop dithering and take action and those, such as myself, who saw them as actually being in active collusion with the attacks and while they might respond to a strong rank-and-file this shouldn’t be seen as a strategy.

I suggested that the activists in different unions should set up contact between themselves but other than the 3 IMPACT members I exchanged email addresses with this didn’t happen. I was a bit disappointed with this but realised afterwards that as most of the participants were members of the SP & SWP they already had their own contact networks set up so presumably didn’t see the need – just another example of the problems with fully integrating the individual members.

I attended the “What is Socialism?” workshop in the afternoon. Mick Barry (SP) and John Molyneux (SWP) presented a very similar understanding of socialism – being a combination of public ownership and democratic control through workers’ council type organisations. They both agreed that it was not a question of reforming or taking over the existing capitalist state structures and instead we need to create our own working class organisations to replace those of capitalism. They both also agreed that this is not an abstract issue but relates to our concrete struggles now.

There was some discussion over the question of the place demands for nationalisation under workers control should have in our programme in response to a comrade from the Socialist Democracy group arguing that having it as an immediate demand, as the ULA does, necessarily implies that the capitalist state can be made to act in our interests.

I agreed with the speakers’ emphasis on socialism being based on our own working class organisations rather than those of capitalism and that this should be related to our practical policies now. I said this should also be reflected in the programme of the ULA and that we therefore should reject policies like the SP’s “community control of the police” which implies that the existing capitalist state apparatus can be controlled and made to work in the interests of working people and points away from the building of our own organisations in opposition to the capitalist state. This point was not responded to. On the question of use of the nationalisation slogan I said I was aware of the potential problems with it and therefore preferred to talk about expropriation.

Final rally

That just leaves the final rally which was of the usual rah-rah kind and I found of interest only for two reasons. First was the emphasis by Brid Smith for everyone to participate in the activities being organised by the Enough campaign against the EU/IMF visit in July. Given that I understood this not to be an agreed ULA campaign (the SWP had not been allowed to put Enough campaign leaflets on the ULA stall in Cork the previous weekend) I was somewhat surprised by this. Certainly it seems that in the coming period the SWP dominated parts of the ULA will be concentrating on the Enough campaign’s opposition to EU/IMF visit while the SP dominated parts will be concentrating on the campaign against the changes to the JLCs/REAs.

The other thing of interest in the final rally was Joan Collin’s direct call on the Steering Committee to look at the question of the lack of structures facilitating involvement by individual members “within the next 4 to 6 weeks”. My heart hopes for something substantive but my head remains sceptical we will see anything beyond token changes.

Conclusion

So my overall feelings about the national forum are mixed. It is good to see the individual members expressing the strong desire for structures which will facilitate our equal involvement and ending the situation of effectively being second-class members and the constituent groups having to recognise the strength of that desire, in word at least.

But the apparent commitment of the SP & SWP to a stagist strategy of presenting a programme of reforms of capitalism as “the alternative” with the socialist transformation of society therefore relegated to an unknown future stage is a major disappointment. This points in the direction of an organisation set up by professed “revolutionary socialists” having a concrete programme that is not even “socialist” let alone “revolutionary”. In the absence of any structures for this to be effectively challenged we are likely to see this presented very much as a fait accompli and to the extent that happens the project, from the point of view of furthering the politics of revolutionary socialism, would have gone down the road of a complete dead-end.

[unspecific]

Aaaand the SWP's report... which SP members are peeved by.

http://www.swp.ie/editorial/after-united-left-alliance-forum/4602


fter the United Left Alliance forum
ulalogo.jpg
27/06/2011

The United Left Alliance held a successful national forum on Saturday with about 350 people in attendance . The mood at the daylong conference was very upbeat and confident. It is clear that a new left wing force is emerging with branches in most major towns in Ireland. Reports at the conference indicate that the ULA is already having a strong impact.

Paddy Healy, from the Workers and Unemployed Action Group, stated that a recent ULA bill on the JLCs in the Dail had severely rattled the Labour Party.

‘The United Left Alliance recently moved a bill in Dail Eireann to protect JLC rates and Sunday premium pay. The venom of Labour’s attack showed their nervousness. But since the bill was introduced, we have also learnt that Bruton’s bill to scrap the JLC has been postponed. Labour is under pressure from the left.’

Michael O Brien from the Socialist Party said that ‘Sinn Fein moved a good resolution opposing water charges. But the ULA had to put down an amendment calling for a mass campaign of non-payment. It showed that the ULA is a stronger, more genuine left.’.

The conference kicked off with a large plenary session on the left’s response to the economic crisis.
Terry McDonogh ,a professor of economics in NUIG, outlined a five point economic programme that should form the core of the left’s response. There should be a default of Ireland’s debt; we should exit the euro to gain control over currency; the state should provide a guarantee of the right to work; Ireland’s natural resources should be taken into public ownership.

Kieran Allen from the Socialist Workers Party claimed that conventional economists cloaked their political choices in favour of the upper class in a technical language. Replying to a debate about more boldly asserting socialism, he said:

‘It is not about how many times you mention the word socialism. It is whether you are capable of spelling out in concrete ways what it means and how you will get there.’
He went on to argue that a ‘not for profit’, socialist society would base itself on public ownership of the major economic units of the economy. These needed to be organised through ‘self management’ and be part of a democratically planned economy’.

Throughout the day participants broke up into groups and attended 12 workshops. These were conducted in a democratic fashion and produced a lively debate between the different sections of the left.

Summing up the conference Brid Smith, a People Before Profit councillor and member of Socialist Workers Party said:

‘There should be no long summer rest. The IMF are coming to town in July and all the supporters of the United Left Alliance should be building for a massive display of opposition. The Enough! Campaign has called a mass demo on Saturday 16th and we should all get to it’.

DEBATES:

A number of debates occurred at the United Left Alliance conference but these were conducted in a new spirit of comradeship between the different elements of the left. Far from weakening the alliance, the openness and diversity of views strengthened it. There were four key topics of debate.

A SOCIALIST PROGRAMME NOW?

This debate kicked off in the first session when the Socialist Party’s National Secretary, Kevin McLoughlin, stated that they would be fighting to get the ULA to adopt a socialist programme.
However, it soon became clear that were a number of ambiguities on this issue.

Neither the SP nor the SWP have any difficulty with using the word ‘socialist’ as it is included in the titles of their organisation. The question, however, is what type of socialist programme? It could be a revolutionary socialist programme which stated clearly that an uprising rather than parliamentary change was required to bring about socialism. Or it could be a more general set of socialist demands and not spell out the exact steps required in the revolutionary overthrow of capitalism.

If it is the former then the programme would differ little from that of the SWP – or the SP. Yet the ULA is being constructed as a broad movement where those who are not yet fully convinced of the need for revolution can join and participate.

Some within the ULA see such a broad, plural party as the end point of the process. As one speaker from the Campaign for an Independent Left put it ‘the material roots of reformism’ have been removed and a right wing tendency will not emerge within the ULA.

This, however, ignores how other radical left formations in Europe such as the Refundatzione Communists in Italy were also pulled back into reformism when they supported a left of centre government.

A dual strategy is required to resolve these issues. It is necessary to construct the ULA on the broadest possible basis, creating a space for those who still have reformist beliefs but who want to fight. But it is also important that revolutionary socialist forces organise within the ULA on an open and democratic basis to win the majority to the need for an overthrow of capitalism.

Moreover, the purity of a programme is no guarantee that a party remains set on the course of revolution. Reformism does not arise simply from the betrayals of a leadership but has deeper roots in the experiences of the working class during periods of ‘normal’ capitalism when it does not enter a crisis.

One can find many examples in history of parties with pure programmes who fail to develop a revolutionary practice.

The major parties of the Second International – the socialist movement between 1870 and 1914 – all had ‘socialist programmes’ but then capitulated before national chauvinism. Even the Russian revolutionary Lenin, thought that they were committed to the overthrow of capitalism until he witnessed with horror their support for the war.

The ULA must, therefore , be seen as a development towards explicit revolutionary methods. Many of these can be learnt from the experience in struggle. Others can develop through ideological argument. But all of this will progress better if the ULA is a large broad force that mobilises thousands of new left wing activists.

THE UNITED FRONT

Joe Higgins, Socialist Party TD argued that the ULA should always oppose Labour Party TDs being on the platform of any campaign. Given the hostility to Labour, this view was understandable but there is a deeper debate about whether or not the ULA should position it to work with others on the left in broader campaigns.

Mass movements are normally not set into motion by the decisions of a Steering Committee of a political party. Typically, they involve broad diverse forces which initially galvanise large numbers of protestors and then divide on how best to pursue the movement.

The Egyptian revolution against the Mubarak dictatorship was initiated by protests organised by different sections of the left and liberals who wanted democracy. The Spanish protests had even a distinct anti-political party tone to them.

Even short of full scale mobilisation, smaller campaigns often involve diverse forces. Over the past month, for example, hundreds have come to bus protest meetings in Dublin precisely because they have not been ‘branded’ as belonging to one political formation. At those meetings, socialists make known their political affiliation and proposals for action in an open and clear way.

Instead of simply ULA ‘branded’ campaigns it is necessary to initiate movement where we work with broader forces. If there are large scale mobilisations or campaigns, debates on tactics that invariably arise between reformist and revolutionaries, can be conducted in front of many people. Closing off this possibility by insisting that only pure left wing forces are involved is a recipe for a retreat into propagandism.

Undermining the Labour Party requires a sharp tactical sense. Its leadership are totally wedded to the system and the IMF programme. But the aprty won a base in working class areas because it promised reform.

In many real popular struggles, workers will request what is the position of Labour representative on issues. If unions are involved, they will also push for Labour party speakers. The key issue for the ULA is to argue for real popular struggles that involve all who want to fight and within that to explain that the words of Labour party representatives are utterly useless unless they break from the IMF programme by actually voting for left resolutions.

SHOULD THE ULA EXPAND TO THE NORTH?

The SWP, People Before Profit and the Workers and Unemployed Action Groups think it should. The SP think not.

Since the time of James Connolly socialists have opposed partition and promoted the idea of a 32 county socialist Ireland. This will involve a challenge to both Irish states who were born, amidst what Connolly called, ‘a carnival of reaction’.

The SP argue, however , that the ‘timing is not right’ to form the ULA as a thirty two county organisation. They also argue that there are considerable differences between socialists on the national question.

However, the joint government of Sinn Fein and the DUP is about to implement a major cuts programme that will attack the living standards of both Catholic and Protestant workers.

Even before these attacks have begun, two People Before Profit candidates and SWP members, Eamonn McCann and Gerry Carroll achieved 8 percent of the vote in recent elections. This indicates a respectable base to start building a broader left.

There are important differences between the left on the national question. But it would be deeply ironic if the right wing parties can unite in government in the Northern Assembly, but the left cannot create a united space where they can work together – and allow each other to go their own way when there are differences.

FOCUS ON THE IMF?

Everyone is agreed that the next budget will unleash a new wave of attacks on workers. The United Left Alliance will initiate campaigns in local areas against water charges and the home tax. Even before this, the ULA TD Joan Colllins is calling a major meeting on July 2nd against housing repossession and the problem of negative equity.

But beyond these immediate economic issues, one over-arching focal point of protest is the role of the IMF and the EU in dictating economic policy.

The SWP argued for a strong focus on Enough! Demonstration on July 16th that will protest against the IMF. Joe Higgins, however, suggested that activists take a summer holiday to prepare for the big battles from September.

However, anger against the IMF is huge. The IMF turn up every three months to insists that every line and detail of their memorandum is adhered to. They are like absentee landlords who come to inspect their property. Their role exposes the hollowness of democracy and it is therefore perfectly valid to call for a referendum against them.

It would be a mistake for the ULA to ignore these broader political conflicts in favour of a more mechanical focus only on immediate economic issues. Relating to broad social movements against the IMF is also a way for the alliance to sink deeper roots and will assist it in opposing water charges, home taxes and house repossession.

ONWARDS

The left should not shy away from these debates as they are pointers to the long term direction and shape of the ULA.

The crucial point is that they are conducted in a way that is open, honest and respectful of the views of others.

Whatever the differences in the ULA ,there is a huge commitment to work together and advance strong left wing policies.

The national forum showed that the ULA will emerge as the centre where all activists who want to fight capitalism should gravitate to.

[scrawledincrayon]

Aaaand the SWP's report... which SP members are peeved by.

With some justification, as it systematically misrepresents the debates at the forum and the disagreements between different parts of the ULA. A disappointingly cynical piece of writing.

However, it's worth noting that their statement does try to adopt a more "left" posture than the SWP have generally done with the ULA. They contrast, for instance, the use of the mere word socialism with the real socialist content of demanding that large sections of the economy be taken under public ownership. Up to this point, the SWP have opposed including explicit demands to take the commanding heights of the economy into public ownership or for a democratic plan of production.

If they have actually changed their view on this and now are willing to include these things in the ULA programme, then that would be a significant step to the left. I suspect however that the shift might not last longer than it takes the article to fall off the front page of their website.

[unspecific]

With some justification, as it systematically misrepresents the debates at the forum and the disagreements between different parts of the ULA. A disappointingly cynical piece of writing.

However, it's worth noting that their statement does try to adopt a more "left" posture than the SWP have generally done with the ULA. They contrast, for instance, the use of the mere word socialism with the real socialist content of demanding that large sections of the economy be taken under public ownership. Up to this point, the SWP have opposed including explicit demands to take the commanding heights of the economy into public ownership or for a democratic plan of production.

If they have actually changed their view on this and now are willing to include these things in the ULA programme, then that would be a significant step to the left. I suspect however that the shift might not last longer than it takes the article to fall off the front page of their website.

I think it is there to reassure their own newer/younger members who might find themselves questioning their policies after meeting SP policy unfiltered, face to face for the first time.

[unspecific]

Seems I've missed an important article/point of view of the national forum that should be here. Anne McShane's report for the Weekly Worker here

http://www.cpgb.org.uk/article.php?article_id=1004455


Voodoo and left posturing
Anne Mc Shane reports an exchange of views at the United Left Alliance forum

Image: Joe Higgins: talking left
Joe Higgins: talking left

On June 25 the United Left Alliance held its first national membership gathering - not a democratic conference, but a forum. Despite the election of five ULA TDs in the February general election, both the Socialist Workers Party and Socialist Party, the two main components, seem incapable of uniting in a ULA party.

As I noted in my article last week, the SWP wants the ULA to be a broad front which does not describe itself as socialist (‘No to ULA talking shop’, June 23). In the first plenary session Kieran Allen told the 350 comrades gathered in Dublin’s Liberty Hall: “It’s not about how many times you mention the word ‘socialism’. It’s whether you are capable of spelling out in concrete ways what it means and how you will get there.”[1]

On the face of it this seems an entirely reasonable position. Marxism is, after all, about theory and practice. Simply calling for socialism without putting forward a programme would be hopeless. But actually what comrade Allen was really doing was trying to obscure the fact that he and the SWP leadership are totally opposed to the inclusion of ‘socialism’ in the ULA bullet-point platform and literature. It is not that he does not want the word used abstractly - he does not want it used at all. In other words, SWP leaders are divorcing socialism from the immediate struggle.

Instead they want the ULA to continue as an electoral bloc ... meanwhile let the working class learn “from the experience in struggle”. But such an organisation needs semi-Keynesian policies. Professor Terrence McDonagh from National University of Ireland was invited to provide intellectual legitimacy for this voodoo economics. He seriously proposed a scheme which could “be implemented within 48 hours and turn the economy around”. The plan would involve not only defaulting on the debt, but also leaving the euro, relaunching the punt, creating a ‘good bank’ and nationalising the Corrib gas field. This would create the basis for full employment, as control over currency would mean there would be more money to invest.

But the good professor and his followers in the SWP leadership seem to have forgotten a few things. Firstly Ireland is an integral part of the world economy. We are in the middle of a global economic downturn, within which Ireland is particularly vulnerable. The Irish economy has little indigenous industry and has always been the ‘poor relative’ of world imperialism, dependent on investment and loans from outside. It is not possible for it to ‘opt out’ of what is an international crisis ... without courting the fate of Stalin’s Russia, Enver Hoxha’s Albania and Kim Il Sung’s North Korea. To suggest that Ireland could go it alone even for a short time is a utopian diversion. We should leave that to neo-Stalinists such as Alan McCombes and Tommy Sheridan of the failed Scottish Socialist Party.

Instead of indulging in such left-nationalist, hair-brained schemes, we should be concentrating on developing a programme of immediate demands to defend and build our movement. These would include a minimum wage, healthcare at the point of need, and formulations in response to the many serious and urgent democratic and social questions that need to be addressed. We must link up with workers’ organisations throughout Europe - for both united action and moves to build an all-European revolutionary party. Instead, sadly, in this time of unprecedented capitalist crisis and working class discontent, the SWP is turning to what are Stalinist solutions rather than fighting for what they say they believe in.

Throughout the day SWP members repeatedly said that arguing for ‘socialism’ was an abstraction, a barrier to building the ULA. By pushing for the inclusion of the word, the Socialist Party was apparently putting an ultimatum to the working class. Instead, according to the SWP’s Richard Boyd Barrett, we must “wage war on jargon” - the language and traditions of the left can be off-putting, you know, and there is a lot of suspicion of leftwing political parties.

The SWP’s report of the forum argues that there needs to be “a dual strategy”: that is, on the one hand, “construct the ULA on the broadest possible basis, creating a space for those who still have reformist beliefs”; while, on the other hand, “revolutionary left forces organise within the ULA on an open and democratic basis to win the majority to the need for an overthrow of capitalism”. It is difficult to see how promoting the likes of McDonagh can be interpreted as attempting “to win the majority to the need for an overthrow of capitalism”. However, in reality, the SWP only wants to build itself. The immediate need for a mass party is absolutely secondary to its narrow interests.

But, as was countered by Socialist Party members and others, if you believe in your ideas you should argue to win others to them. There are plenty of campaigns and broader alliances that the ULA can work in to win people. To build an organisation based on ideas you do not believe in seems absurd, but is in fact profoundly opportunist. This was linked to another area of contention. The SWP is determined to push its own anti-IMF campaign, Enough, and its own Right to Work rather than involve the ULA directly in organising such campaigns. The only lesson the SWP seems to have learned from the abject failures of the Socialist Alliance and even Respect in Britain is that they went too far in the direction of creating party-like organisations.

The SWP editorial also says that revolutionary purity is no guarantee that an organisation will not sell out. This is a non-argument. It is the SWP that seems intent on pursuing opportunism of the crassest kind. The logical conclusion is liquationism .... Republican Congress, Democratic Left and many others have taken that route before.

As for the SP in Ireland, it is all very well posing to the left - not too difficult when your main opponent is the SWP. But it too is just as hostile to the building of a single united party based on Marxism. It too is against transforming the ULA into a fully democratic party armed with a revolutionary programme.

There were calls for democracy throughout the day, mainly from various non-aligned members, who made up about a third of the ULA forum. TD Joan Collins remarked at the closing session that she hoped the steering committee would deal with the lack of structures within the next few weeks. At the moment there are branch meetings once a month at most and there is little communication outside of that. Individual members are left in the dark. By way of compensation perhaps, it was agreed that the minutes of the forum would be circulated to all members.

The workshops saw a number of non-decision-making debates and constant pleas to be involved in policy development. At the moment research groups have been set up which do not report to the membership. In one well attended workshop the women’s question was discussed. It seemed to be agreed by all that abortion rights need to form part of the ULA programme and we were told by Sinead Kennedy of the SWP that she expected the current absence of this question from the platform to be rectified shortly. There were also a number of complaints about the lack of women on the platform and there was a call for quotas and positive discrimination.

The most you can say about the forum was that there was an exchange of views and that it brought some differences to light. But in a situation where our class is under constant attack by crisis-ridden capital, in a situation where workers are so disillusioned with established parties that they voted in five TDs belonging to the newly formed ULA in the general election, it is criminal that neither of the two left groups wants to take the project forward to its next logical step.

[unspecific]

Aaand the highly selective and limited Socialist Party report.

http://www.socialistparty.net/comment/710-ula-forum-building-the-alternative-


ULA Forum – building the alternative PDF Print E-mail
Written by Socialist Party Reporter
Thursday, 07 July 2011 11:00
Share/Save/Bookmark

The United Left Alliance (ULA) national forum, held in Liberty Hall, Dublin on Saturday, June 25, was held exactly four months since the General Election at which the ULA broke through and won five Dail seats and represented the first gathering of ULA activists from throughout the state.

With mass protests shaking Greek and Spanish capitalism to the core and the threat of national bankruptcy beginning to loom in Ireland, the forum provided an opportunity for ULA activists to prepare for the gathering storm.

The day featured two key discussions ("The Left Response to the Crisis" and "What Kind of Party Do We Need?") as well as a dozen workshops on issues such as water tax, the unions, the North, womens' rights and socialism.

The days' proceedings revealed a clear determination to build a new party to resist the austerity drive begun by Fianna Fail and the Greens, now continued by Fine Gael and Labour. Those present spoke enthusiastically of campaigning against JLC pay cuts, water tax, IMF dictatorship and a host of other issues in preparation for the launch of a new party.

There was real debate as to what programme the ULA should adopt in preparation for the events ahead.

Professor Terence McDonagh advocated a 5-point programme as the left response to the crisis: default, leave the euro, establish a good public bank, a guaranteed job for all and the nationalisation of the Corrib gas field. Kieran Allen of the People Before Profit Alliance, a member of the Socialist Workers Party (SWP), argued for cancellation of the national debt to be brought to centre stage. Kevin McLoughlin of the Socialist Party said that neither foreign direct investment nor Irish capitalism could solve the crisis and that what was needed was a mass movement of ordinary people to be equipped with a socialist programme for decisively ending capitalism.

Professor McDonagh, in reply, stated that the programme he was advocating was different to, and separate from, a full socialist programme. Kieran Allen argued that ULA's programme is effectively the best programme for attracting broad layers of working people and that the Socialist Party line of argument was "abstract".

Richard Boyd Barrett TD (People Before Profit Alliance, SWP member) continued on this theme, arguing that the ULA could win the support of a majority of Irish people who were opposed to cuts, needed to avoid "jargon" and instanced the 'Enough!' anti-IMF protests in July as an example as to how ULA can build.

Joe Higgins TD (Socialist Party) received a round of applause when he said that ULA should not facilitate dissident Labour TDs on campaign platforms, something the SWP argued for after the election but did not defend at the forum.

Cllr Mick Barry (Socialist Party) said that ULA branches should campaign hard on the class issues, fighting for reform but oppose reformism - any hint that long-lasting change can be won without ending capitalism. He also argued that the ULA's General Election platform was left-wing and anti-capitalist, but needed to be strengthened by explicitly calling for an end to capitalism and for a democratic, socialist society with the agenda set by ordinary working people.

In other words, the SWP and some others argued for a radical, left programme allied to activity as a way to reach broad masses of ordinary people. Whereas the Socialist Party and some others, argued that a socialist programme plus campaigns could reach the same broad masses and provide a more effective challenge to capitalism.

Joe Higgins TD (Socialist Party) said that campaigning, the discrediting of Labour by their own actions and a more active response by working people to the crisis would be key to developing ULA from an alliance to a party. The days' debates and discussions will have focussed ULA members on this goal, as we step up our efforts and continue the discussion on the policies that a new party will need.

[Pat]

Aaand the highly selective and limited Socialist Party report.


It's a report that was written for our paper, with limited space.