Is it time to make the SWP and company proscribed organisations?

Wolfe Tone

Amhran Nua wrote: »

No, the contributions from several members have answered many of the questions raised. Without a doubt I and many others recognise the damage they are doing, however.

On the grand scale of things they are not doing much damage at all, certainly when compared to those in power.
Personally I feel that sit ins, peaceful demonstrations like that, are warrented at tis time.

That depends on whether or not you think getting a dig in is the same thing as speaking out against a problem. I guess its a matter of perspective.

Yes it is I guess. However, the thread has moved away from the original topic to a general demeaning of left groups.

I would be one of the original members. May I ask your own political affiliation, if you don't want to respond that's fine.

I don't subscribe to any one political party, as none of them, at this time, represent what I believe in. I would lean towards Sinn Fein though. However, obviously, I am a republican, and like most Irish republicans I lean to the left, although not as much as many others do.

PanchoVilla

sponsoredwalk wrote: »

This thread is futile, it began with a lot of hot air about the SWP and
basically there is still no substance 3 pages later (40 posts a page!).
It's been fun seeing this unfold and watching the entrapment game
play out but I've got better things to do.

I'll just add, my thread about the SWP relaying an official condemnation
was merely to dissuade the opinions of those like the OP but obviously
it's stupid because it's a neverending quest of condemnation, you either
agree or disagree but no logic is going to have a say in this discussion
once the mind is made up.

Well this is what it boils down to. If the SWP don't act aggressively people will complain about the flag waving. If the SWP don't bring flags people will complain about their very presence. If the SWP don't show up people will complain that they don't really care enough to protest or they will find someone else to complain about. People like the OP just like playing party politics, it doesn't matter who they're against as long as they have someone to complain about and point the finger at.

southsiderosie

MUSSOLINI wrote: »

On the grand scale of things they are not doing much damage at all, certainly when compared to those in power.
Personally I feel that sit ins, peaceful demonstrations like that, are warrented at tis time.

Yes it is I guess. However, the thread has moved away from the original topic to a general demeaning of left groups.

I don't subscribe to any one political party, as none of them, at this time, represent what I believe in. I would lean towards Sinn Fein though. However, obviously, I am a republican, and like most Irish republicans I lean to the left, although not as much as many others do.

I actually agree that a sit-in is what is needed, and said as much in a thread a few weeks ago (well, specifically a sustained mass sit-down surrounding the Dail, meant to provoke a political crisis forcing elections). I also said the ideal people to do it would be students. But they would have to do it both en masse and at the spur of the moment, and most wouldn't take the risk, especially if they had to keep it up for a week or two.

That said, I think a lot of the leftist groups in Ireland deserve the stick they get. I don't understand their political strategy at all unless it is to get as many people as possible to either openly hate them, or think they are an embarrassment.

simplistic2

Its a typical case of people siding with the abuser. The government has everyone kept under the threat aggression in the form of taxation and an uncountable number of laws that victimize people that are involved in so called "crimes against the state".

Its just so funny to watch all the statists leap to the defence of the state if a little stone is thrown at their beloved abuser. How can you argue morality when the state has initiated the immoral the act in the first place? Its like the situation when a boyfriend(state) is beating his girlfriend(citizens) and somebody(protesters) steps in to stop it only for the girlfriend to turn on person helping.

All the same I think protesting is an utter waste of time. Its just begging with bells on and its sad to think that begging an abuser will get you any retribution.

Wolfe Tone

PanchoVilla wrote: »

Well this is what it boils down to. If the SWP don't act aggressively people will complain about the flag waving. If the SWP don't bring flags people will complain about their very presence. If the SWP don't show up people will complain that they don't really care enough to protest or they will find someone else to complain about. People like the OP just like playing party politics, it doesn't matter who they're against as long as they have someone to complain about and point the finger at.

And even if it is another group they say it is SWP anyways! haha

Amhran Nua

MUSSOLINI wrote: »

On the grand scale of things they are not doing much damage at all, certainly when compared to those in power.

Agreed. However, with that said, that small groups like us find it harder to get established, and larger groups find it harder to hold protests, is a significant concern in enacting political change.

MUSSOLINI wrote: »

Yes it is I guess. However, the thread has moved away from the original topic to a general demeaning of left groups.

Not left groups; many of our policies are strongly left leaning, in particular free education. It's radical and radicalising entryist left groups with agendas that don't align with the well being of the general populace that raise the ire of many.

MUSSOLINI wrote: »

However, obviously, I am a republican, and like most Irish republicans I lean to the left, although not as much as many others do.

Why pick a side? Use what works, leave the dogma at the door.

Wolfe Tone

I had a rather interesting debate with a USI head the other day, and her main objection to the violence(from the police and students) was that if they gave out too much about it it would damage USIs relationship with the government. Her plan was to pretend it never happened. What an unusual perspective that was!

Amhran Nua

PanchoVilla wrote: »

Well this is what it boils down to. If the SWP don't act aggressively people will complain about the flag waving. If the SWP don't bring flags people will complain about their very presence. If the SWP don't show up people will complain that they don't really care enough to protest or they will find someone else to complain about. People like the OP just like playing party politics, it doesn't matter who they're against as long as they have someone to complain about and point the finger at.

Some people like to play the persecution card, and lets face it, the SWP is no stranger to that tactic. Others like to weigh up the actual facts and make decisions on that basis.

southsiderosie

PanchoVilla wrote: »

Well this is what it boils down to. If the SWP don't act aggressively people will complain about the flag waving. If the SWP don't bring flags people will complain about their very presence. If the SWP don't show up people will complain that they don't really care enough to protest or they will find someone else to complain about. People like the OP just like playing party politics, it doesn't matter who they're against as long as they have someone to complain about and point the finger at.

Who will complain if the SWP don't show up?

Wolfe Tone

Amhran Nua wrote: »

Agreed. However, with that said, that small groups like us find it harder to get established, and larger groups find it harder to hold protests, is a significant concern in enacting political change.

With respect, it is a significant concern for YOU to get YOUR political change. You just don't agree with the political change that they want. I am sure they believe in their policies as much as you do yours.

Why pick a side? Use what works, leave the dogma at the door.

Ha, maybe I start my own party

sponsoredwalk

MUSSOLINI wrote: »

her main objection to the violence(from the police and students) was that if they gave out too much about it it would damage USIs relationship with the government.

What a strange perspective indeed. Yes I understand they want to
keep things friendly so that they can get certain things done that
otherwise would be harder to do but suckling the teet of those who
are the entire reason for their existence (i.e. the union exists because if they
didn't the gov would gladly do the things the unions want to prevent) is hardly the
position you want them to take when they're supposed to be fighting
against the measures these people want to put in place.

In reality the USI are nothing but a burden on the gov, from the
gov's perspective. That is not to say they are bad, but they should not
act the wolf in sheeps clothing, it's this mentality (best portrayed in
Yes Minister ) that is the reason things aren't as fair for the people
as they should be. You have to respect groups like the SWP et al
because at least they don't hide their beliefs about society. I think
the greens were once in this position until they went incahoots with
the gov.

Amhran Nua

MUSSOLINI wrote: »

With respect, it is a significant concern for YOU to get YOUR political change. You just don't agree with the political change that they want. I am sure they believe in their policies as much as you do yours.

No doubt - however I find conning naive young people repugnant, trying to bull through to the seat of democracy vile, hollowing out well meaning organisations in the name of a self perpetuating cult repulsive, and "radicalising" unions to be not just dangerous but ultimately self defeating, and therein lies the difference. Well, a difference.

MUSSOLINI wrote: »

Ha, maybe I start my own party

Do! Everyone should stand by their convictions, if they don't get overturned on appeal.

sponsoredwalk

simplistic2 wrote: »

All the same I think protesting is an utter waste of time. Its just begging with bells on and its sad to think that begging an abuser will get you any retribution.

If protests never occurred black people would still be begging with
their metaphorical* bells on, your perspective is the most anti-anarchist
position a person could take and don't you self identify as an anarchist?

*metaphorical could be called into question, possibly real bells for many people unfortunately

sponsoredwalk

Amhran Nua wrote: »

"radicalising" unions to be not just dangerous but ultimately self defeating

How so?

Amhran Nua

sponsoredwalk wrote: »

How so?

What, in your opinion, does radicalising unions involve, and what are the results of it.

Wolfe Tone

Amhran Nua wrote: »

No doubt - however I find conning naive young people repugnant,

Tell me, if the same "naive young people" joined your party, did your protests etc, would they be conned?

meaning organisations in the name of a self perpetuating cult repulsive

A cult eh? Care to elaborate on that?

Do! Everyone should stand by their convictions, if they don't get overturned on appeal.

Haha, would have no idea how to do it, nor the time or energy. TBH I think there are enough republican groups t this stage, there would be no one left!

Change from within ftw.

Amhran Nua

MUSSOLINI wrote: »

Tell me, if the same "naive young people" joined your party, did your protests etc, would they be conned?

No, but then again I'm not trying to feed them a line of bollocks, if you'll pardon the unparliamentary language.

MUSSOLINI wrote: »

A cult eh? Care to elaborate on that?

Its a bit late to run a blow by blow comparison with the FBI abusive cult checklist, so I'll just say that the hallmarks are similar. I'm still waiting for someone to clarify the tithe situation, as passed on to me by a former SWP member.

MUSSOLINI wrote: »

Change from within ftw.

Within a party, within a state, or to align with a culture and people. One of these is the right answer.

Wolfe Tone

Amhran Nua wrote: »

No, but then again I'm not trying to feed them a line of bollocks, if you'll pardon the unparliamentary language.

Aha!!! I had a feeling something like this was at the bottom of it. So because you disagree with them, they are naive? But if they believe what you tell them, what you stand for, they are not?

sponsoredwalk

Amhran Nua wrote: »

What, in your opinion, does radicalising unions involve, and what are the results of it.

No offense but this is the second time you've made this claim & the second
time I've asked you to explain so I'm really curious what this point you
like to refer to actually means. I bet we have a very different conception
of what radicalizing a union actually means and seeing as you've mentioned
it more than once as one point in support of the positions you've been
taking I think it's fair if you elaborate on this point to further elucidate
your argument.

edit: No, I've only asked once, I wrote a question asking you about this
but I can't find it so I must have deleted that before posting, still.

imme

Only if a party were advocating violence should that be a reason to proscribe them.

Amhran Nua

MUSSOLINI wrote: »

Aha!!! I had a feeling something like this was at the bottom of it. So because you disagree with them, they are naive? But if they believe what you tell them, what you stand for, they are not?

They don't need to believe what I tell them, a bit like science. The means by which the policies were arrived at are public and open to public inspection. If they have a strenuous objection to any particular policy, they are more than welcome to take it up publicly and be answered publicly; if their objections are sufficiently supported, the policies will be adjusted accordingly. Contrast this with talmudic gesticulations at the myriad of mysterious tomes of over a century of concentrated self justification. You could pull whatever you want from that, and they do.

More important however are the objections to their political methodology.

sponsoredwalk wrote: »

I bet we have a very different conception
of what radicalizing a union actually means and seeing as you've mentioned
it more than once as one point in support of the positions you've been
taking I think it's fair if you elaborate on this point to further elucidate
your argument.

I'd be delighted to. However I feel it would be constructive as far as the discussion goes if you were to tell me what it means to you first; if not I'll be quite happy to go over the implications as I see them.

sponsoredwalk

Honestly to me radicalizing the unions is a very munane idea, I think the
operation of newspapers like it was in the 1800's that were owned
by unions would be a good move. This way workers could stay informed.
Furthermore I would think that they should constantly push for decent
things for workers that they deserve, like less than an 8-hour day and
better holidays and better pay. You know, basically the things that
people actually deserve in this day and age. The things people deserve
and need, what a radical idea. I'd like to hear yours, I expect it to
be hilarious tbh but we'll see.

Amhran Nua

sponsoredwalk wrote: »

Honestly to me radicalizing the unions is a very munane idea, I think the operation of newspapers like it was in the 1800's that were owned by unions would be a good move. This way workers could stay informed.

Doesn't the internet serve the same purpose these days, except better?

sponsoredwalk wrote: »

Furthermore I would think that they should constantly push for decent things for workers that they deserve, like less than an 8-hour day and better holidays and better pay. You know, basically the things that people actually deserve in this day and age. The things people deserve and need, what a radical idea.

Its not at all radical, in fact it has very solid socioeconomic underpinnings. Where consumption and political motivation are driven by a strong middle class, generally an economy performs better, jobs are created, and productive investment benefits. However I would say that existing legislation is more of a support these days than unions. Yes, unions help create legislation, but that can be a double edged sword.

sponsoredwalk wrote: »

I'd like to hear yours, I expect it to be hilarious tbh but we'll see.

Harsh, tbh.

What I would understand by "radicalising unions" is a concerted effort to press for an extremist viewpoint from union members and effectively recreate the conditions which exist in Greece, where a pregnant woman was burned to death, in the name of a murky agenda. The bottom line is the country cannot afford to pay ongoing increases in pay, in fact cannot afford to maintain public sector salaries and payroll as they are today, and nobody will lend us a red cent, for good reason.

Ultimately we need to restore the spending power of productive workers, this is essential, but trying to incite resistance to short term cuts is self defeating, because we just can't afford it. Full stop.

Plautus

MUSSOLINI wrote: »

Agreed.


The airwaves are clogged with discussions about the protests. If it was not for the violence etc, the protest would be forgotten. We certainly would not be talking about it as much. Instead we have USI heads coming on the radio with the opportunity to say why they were marching etc, and to discuss fees in general.

I like that someone was banned for suggesting to bring in the Paras but yet this slipped under everyone's radar.

No organisation or group of people were invited to be violent and the USI and respective Students' Unions shouldn't be 'grateful' to any perpetrators of violence for their 'help' in getting the message out. It's repugnant to suggest violence has a legitimate place in getting heard.

Violence always sours the dialogue anyway because it's an admission that reason has failed you - that you don't want to talk, you want to fight because you know you're right beyond question and therefore any other human being that gets in the way is an 'enemy' and can be battered. Needless to say, you'll get a countering response. Nobody should want that! It just gets backs up and entrenches and embitters a debate that need not be that way.

If you're referring to civil disobedience, such as sit-ins, I don't think it's my cup of tea, but that's not violence. Please say that was what you were referring to.

And on the subject of free speech, re: flags and materials - quite right, the SWP can turn up to these events and talk about Palestinian struggle or whatever they wish. Doesn't mean that it isn't unwise to do so and completely at a tangent: associating a relatively non-confessional cause (the question of third level fees) with just one side of an intensely emotive war in the middle east.

In the process of using this protest as a platform for the venting of the Israel/Palestine question such people could very well intimidate others who want to be there to protest fees, but who perhaps have different political proclivities or don't want to get involved in that highly-strung debate because of how bloody narrow it tends to be (you're anti-semitic! you're genocidal! being the cries that go up from respective factions.) Bringing these flags along is trying to make the march appear as something other than what it was: about fees. Not about US Foreign Policy or whatever. And again: they're perfectly entitled to, but forgive me for finding it highly off-putting.

And, finally, yes, proscribing any political organisation until shown without doubt to be perpetrators of terrorism or criminality (on a systematic, directed, scale - not just individuals going off the reservation) is way overboard.

sponsoredwalk

Amhran Nua wrote: »

Harsh, tbh.

Yeah, it was a bit harsh Apologies! But you have to understand how
common a refrain it is that the unions are X, Y or Z based on complete
fallacy arguments. I mean the US is exemplar in this respect, especially
from the 80's, as is Britain. I just expected another tirade about
corruption or something.

Amhran Nua wrote: »

Its not at all radical, in fact it has very solid socioeconomic underpinnings. Where consumption and political motivation are driven by a strong middle class, generally an economy performs better, jobs are created, and productive investment benefits. However I would say that existing legislation is more of a support these days than unions. Yes, unions help create legislation, but that can be a double edged sword.

I don't know how unions could be a double-edged sword, I honestly
don't see how they are a problem unless the goal is to deprive
workers of their rights in some way that the unions prevent.

Amhran Nua wrote: »

What I would understand by "radicalising unions" is a concerted effort to press for an extremist viewpoint from union members and effectively recreate the conditions which exist in Greece, where a pregnant woman was burned to death, in the name of a murky agenda. The bottom line is the country cannot afford to pay ongoing increases in pay, in fact cannot afford to maintain public sector salaries and payroll as they are today, and nobody will lend us a red cent, for good reason.

Pregnant woman? Was that in the bank that was burned? That was
hardly the unions, and the Greek situation is a complex one, there the
leaders had been lying to the European Union for years, literally lying
their asses off about the state of the economy. The Greek people had
every right to protest and if they didn't do something so utterly stupid
as get violent, especially the bank situation, they would have done
way way better. Honestly I think the violent aspects of the greek
protests destroyed all sympathy from the world for them. If they hadn't
done those things who knows, they could have made real change.

Similarly with these protests here, if they are hijacked by thugs their
goals will justifiably be perverted and the protests rightly condemned,
that's why I want to contact the organizations involved, to clearly and
explicitly get them all to condemn these actions so that we do not
have history repeating itself, whereby the media have carte blanche
to demonise the protests as the actions of the majority rather than the
fringe minorities. If you can show it's just random scum doing it then
your goals cannot be tarred and the world/people have to acknowledge
the reasons behind your being there.

Amhran Nua

sponsoredwalk wrote: »

I don't know how unions could be a double-edged sword, I honestly
don't see how they are a problem unless the goal is to deprive
workers of their rights in some way that the unions prevent.

That depends what those rights might be perceived as. Should the population as a whole suffer for the wages of a minority? I don't think so, in fact that would be the exact opposite of what unions should stand for.

sponsoredwalk wrote: »

Honestly I think the violent aspects of the greek
protests destroyed all sympathy from the world for them. If they hadn't
done those things who knows, they could have made real change.

Exactly why I am against anyone wanting to "radicalise" the unions. It means what I said, and we both know it.

sponsoredwalk wrote: »

that's why I want to contact the organizations involved, to clearly and
explicitly get them all to condemn these actions so that we do not
have history repeating itself

But sure I've been asking for such a condemnation from the start. That it hasn't already been issued doesn't bode well for any future statements, I think you'll have a hard time getting one.

Wolfe Tone

Plautus wrote: »

I like that someone was banned for suggesting to bring in the Paras but yet this slipped under everyone's radar.

Thats pathetic. He said bring in the paras, a clear reference to bloody sunday and the peaceful protesters murdered there. So dont talk absolute bollocks. That poster was a loyalist. Do you think that is equal to what I said?


What I said is that this violence has shone a light on the issues. I have said multiple times that peaceful sit ins would be my ideal protest. I was stating simply that if there was just the USI march, no sit ins or violence, the march would have been forgotten about by now.

If you're referring to civil disobedience, such as sit-ins, I don't think it's my cup of tea, but that's not violence. Please say that was what you were referring to.

What I was referring to was the fact that if there was no violence, we wouldnt be talking about the march as much

sponsoredwalk

Plautus wrote: »

I like that someone was banned for suggesting to bring in the Paras but yet this slipped under everyone's radar.

No organisation or group of people were invited to be violent and the USI and respective Students' Unions shouldn't be 'grateful' to any perpetrators of violence for their 'help' in getting the message out. It's repugnant to suggest violence has a legitimate place in getting heard.

I really don't think that was the point. When violence enters into a
protest it will never be forgotten because it's such a horrible act. I mean
we still haven't forgotten about storming the gates this year, but how
many people remember the 18 May? I bet not as much. Also, do a google
search for protests in Ireland, do you know how many have gone on
in the last 3-4 months? I bet not because they are not mentioned as
often. I hadn't heard of a lot of these until I searched.

Protests need to be done intelligently, sit-ins are smart idea's, non-violent
actions that grab the attention of everyone and do no harm are the
only way to go.

Plautus

I thought your post, while not directly comparable with the banned comment, seemed to skirt close to saying violence was, on balance, a 'good' thing (TM) because it, as you say, 'shone light on issues'. You can see though, why this might gall a little given that someone has been banned for implying extrajudicial killing by the police force.

The only difference between you and him is one of degrees if you think violence shouldn't be anything other than condemned. And furthermore you should think it a sad day when violence helped to buoy the fees message.

I think that people are always on the radio complaining that no one is protesting full stop, not that the country is awash with protests. There's no need to differentiate this one with a sprinkling of mayhem - everyone then focuses on the mayhem, not the message.

DeVore

A left wing protest got hijacked by hardline elements??


I don't believe it....!!! :rolleyes:

DeV.