GAMA Documentary released by The Socialist Party and Framework Films

**Roverstillidie** · 29/08/2006, 4:10 PM

Originally Posted by BohsPartisan

Is that what it says? No its not. It would be the people of Ireland controlling the wealth of the nation and entering into a free federation not a union (a federation that would be a lot free'er than the EU) With Scotland, England and Wales.

do you not see the symbolic problem people have with rejoining a union with Britain?

Thats why the SP are labelled neo-unionists by the rest of the hard left and quite a distance away from other trots on imperialism in ireland and beyond

**Partizan** · 30/08/2006, 8:45 AM

As a card carrying member of the Workers' Party in Waterford, I find some of the SP's policies to be quite naff. Attacking Castro & Cuba ffs when his country and the socialist system is under siege from an imperialist bully-boy to the north that wants nothing less then total subjugation and all this talk of entering a federation with Britain. As a Republican Socialist I would have a real problem with that.

Though I must say Joe Higgins in my book is one of the few TD's in Dail Eireann that I truly admire.

**BohsPartisan** · 30/08/2006, 8:46 AM

Yes but its not rejoining a union with Britain. We are already in a Union with Britain. Its called the European Union.
The federation we talk of is federation of economic co-operation of workers' governments. Any Marxist party worth the name has to be for moving beyond national boundaries. You can't equate national relations under capitalism where one or two strong nations will always dominate a federation or union or whatever you want to call it with a federation under democratic Socialism, where workers' councils call the shots. If this was the case the Ukrainian communists in 1919 would not have been for federation with Russia - with whom they have a similar love hate relationship we do with England.

**Strabane_Harp** · 30/08/2006, 10:16 AM

Any idea of a union or federation with Britain is a non-starter.

The SP is living a dream is they ever think people will abandon a soverign republic for a re-union with our old imperial masters

**BohsPartisan** · 30/08/2006, 10:24 AM

See you are missing the point again. Its not abandoning the idea of a sovereign republic. Deal with the real issue and we might have a debate here.
Here is what we call for. A free independant Workers' republic with national rights for all. Then we call for a federation of free sovereign socialist republics.
A united Ireland on a capitalist basis is far more under the thumb of british and american imperialism than this model.

**Partizan** · 30/08/2006, 11:05 AM

Originally Posted by BohsPartisan

Then we call for a federation of free sovereign socialist republics.
.

Pie in the sky stuff here. Load of idealistic nonsense which will simply never happen. What exactly will this federation of yours entail. What kind of political and economic power will our new socialist British masters exercise over us. Now my understanding of a federation runs something along the lines of Italy, Germany, Mexico, ex Yugoslavia etc. If you think we are going to give up any of our sovereignty you've got to be joking. Leave all the the talk about federation to the faceless Eurocats in Brussells.

Decry me and my Party but how about working along the lines of a socialist, secular and equal republic as envisaged by James Connolly, no more, no less.
The resources and the land of Ireland for the Irish people and for the Irish people alone.

If you want to express international socialist solidarity than why not follow Hugo Chaves model of close economic & diplomatic cooperation that he has with other South American states. No talk of the damn federations tosh.

Two questions to ask you.
1. Why does your party oppose the Cuban socialism?
2. What is your party's view on Chaves and indigenous Left in South America?

**BohsPartisan** · 30/08/2006, 11:18 AM

Originally Posted by Partizan

Pie in the sky stuff here. Load of idealistic nonsense which will simply never happen. What exactly will this federation of yours entail. What kind of political and economic power will our new socialist British masters exercise over us. Now my understanding of a federation runs something along the lines of Italy, Germany, Mexico, ex Yugoslavia etc. If you think we are going to give up any of our sovereignty you've got to be joking. Leave all the the talk about federation to the faceless Eurocats in Brussells.

Decry me and my Party but how about working along the lines of a socialist, secular and equal republic as envisaged by James Connolly, no more, no less.
The resources and the land of Ireland for the Irish people and for the Irish people alone.

If you want to express international socialist solidarity than why not follow Hugo Chaves model of close economic & diplomatic cooperation that he has with other South American states. No talk of the damn federations tosh.

Two questions to ask you.
1. Why does your party oppose the Cuban socialism?
2. What is your party's view on Chaves and indigenous Left in South America?

Partizan, stop and read my post. British masters my eye. We are already subordinate to British and American Capitalism. Your understanding of a Federation runs along the lines of Capitalist nation states not the Socialist model. What is pie in the sky is thinking Socialism in one country can be achieved. You betray your Stalinist ideology with this nonsense. The stanlinist experement has failed. Its time for real Marxist Internationalism.

On Cuba, we defend the economic basis of the Cuban state but not the dictatorship that rules it. We are for the democratisation of the Cuban workers' state on the model envisaged by Lenin in the "State and Revolution" as part of a Socialist Federation of Latin America.

On Venezuala, for your pleasure:

http://www.socialistworld.net/category/venezuela.html

**jebus** · 30/08/2006, 12:05 PM

Originally Posted by BohsPartisan

See you are missing the point again. Its not abandoning the idea of a sovereign republic. Deal with the real issue and we might have a debate here.
Here is what we call for. A free independant Workers' republic with national rights for all. Then we call for a federation of free sovereign socialist republics.

But you see you're not dealing with the real world, and neither is your party, so it's very hard to have a debate on here. I'd love to see a free independent Worker's republic, but I've accepted, as has the majority who have realised just how enslaved we all are in this world, that this will never happen, ever. How do we shift the basis of power back to the individual's rights when the individual has nothing to do with capitalist society? Nor would it have anything to do with a practicing socialist society. I find it hard to argue with you on this because I can't believe that the Socialist party still believe that they can take on the capitalists and win by harping on and on about worker's rights, that revolution has been fought and won, and it wasn't won by you lot. I think that's why so many people find it hard not to sneer at the name of the Socialist party

**Strabane_Harp** · 30/08/2006, 12:38 PM

Originally Posted by Partizan

Pie in the sky stuff here. Load of idealistic nonsense which will simply never happen. What exactly will this federation of yours entail. What kind of political and economic power will our new socialist British masters exercise over us. Now my understanding of a federation runs something along the lines of Italy, Germany, Mexico, ex Yugoslavia etc. If you think we are going to give up any of our sovereignty you've got to be joking. Leave all the the talk about federation to the faceless Eurocats in Brussells.

Decry me and my Party but how about working along the lines of a socialist, secular and equal republic as envisaged by James Connolly, no more, no less.
The resources and the land of Ireland for the Irish people and for the Irish people alone.

If you want to express international socialist solidarity than why not follow Hugo Chaves model of close economic & diplomatic cooperation that he has with other South American states. No talk of the damn federations tosh.

Two questions to ask you.
1. Why does your party oppose the Cuban socialism?
2. What is your party's view on Chaves and indigenous Left in South America?

hmm i find myself in agreement with a sticky for the first time in my 23 years

**BohsPartisan** · 30/08/2006, 12:43 PM

See there were alot of bourgeois around the time of the rennaissance saying, we'll never have our bourgeois republic so we may as well resign ourselves to feudalism. You have to take the long view of history to see what can happen in the future.
To quote Mumia Abu Jamal, "Contrary to popular belief, conventional wisdom would have one believe that it is insane to resist this, the mightiest of empires.... But what history really shows is that today's empire is tomorrow's ashes, that nothing lasts forever, and that to not resist is to acquiesce in your own oppression. The greatest form of sanity that anyone can exercise is to resist that force that is trying to repress, oppress, and fight down the human spirit"

**jebus** · 30/08/2006, 12:57 PM

Originally Posted by BohsPartisan

See there were alot of bourgeois around the time of the rennaissance saying, we'll never have our bourgeois republic so we may as well resign ourselves to feudalism. You have to take the long view of history to see what can happen in the future.
To quote Mumia Abu Jamal, "Contrary to popular belief, conventional wisdom would have one believe that it is insane to resist this, the mightiest of empires.... But what history really shows is that today's empire is tomorrow's ashes, that nothing lasts forever, and that to not resist is to acquiesce in your own oppression. The greatest form of sanity that anyone can exercise is to resist that force that is trying to repress, oppress, and fight down the human spirit"

That said I think we have very much entered into a stage where what George Orwell predicted in 1984 is looking more and more realistic. O'Brian in that book hits the nail on the head when he talks of how their rule will continue on and on because it is not an empire built on fear and oppression, but built on the people wanting them to be in power.

Take that and look at the way capitalism has enetered into every aspect of our culture. Everything in this world is geared to towards advertising, and I do mean everything, and what they are advertising is the capitalist lifestyle. This philosophy of living on credit and wanting the newest and shiniest item on the market is what is beating down the workers and people in this day and age, not the oppression of the bourgeois republic. The majority want their lives to be like this, whether they admit it or not, and since the media has control of what the majority think and feel life will continue along these lines and socialism will fail yet again. So I will leave you with a quote too, this one is from the Coen Brother's classic the Big Lebowski,

Jeff Lebowski shouting after the Dude as he leaves his office:Your "revolution" is over, Mr.Lebowski! Condolences! The bums lost! My advice is, do what your parents did! Get a job, sir! The bums will always lose-- do you hear me, Lebowski? THE BUMS WILL ALWAYS LOSE!

**BohsPartisan** · 30/08/2006, 1:17 PM

Its your very point about making workers want what the bourgeois have that will eventually be capitalism's downfall. Capitalism cannot economically sustain this forever. Its $h€l$ syndrome to use an EL analogy. Keep spending what is not there and hope the wolf won't come to the door looking for what he's owed.
This is what happened feudalism too. During the rennaisance, an unbridled flowering of bourgeois culture (the twentieth century could be described as the proletariat's rennaisance) monarch's and princes bought off the nacent bourgeois class hoping that they would give up their chance's of power for a taste of the finest things that the Feudal class enjoyed. This certainly worked for a while but and for a period of history after this the bourgeois did not look all that significant a force other than as an auxiliary to the feudal class. However after some time the bourgeoisie wanted more wealth and more control over this wealth to prevent it being abused by their feudal masters. Over a period they got politically organised, not without false starts, but eventually leading to the great bourgeois revolutions. History has taught us that every social system is a product of its time, ie its economic base, though some systems do outlive their usefullness to humanity, it is invariably on life support. To mistake Capitalism's current spluttering and stumbling walk through the last period for a sign of health is to completely misread the situation. The opportunity for building Socialism will arise again, however to take advantage of any such revolutionary opportunity there needs to be a strong workers organisation with a revolutionary perspective. This can only be built in periods such as this one by engaging in the day to day struggles of the working class. There is no quick way to a revolution. No one said it was going to be easy. Its called the class struggle, not the class picnic.

**Partizan** · 30/08/2006, 2:14 PM

Bohs Partisan, getting back to your argument. Personally speaking I have the greatest of admiration for Joe Higgins. Joe is held in very high esteem by fellow comrades in the WP and is easily the only true voice of the working class and disenfranchised in Ireland. Thank God for the man. But however I do take exception to some of the fancy airy fairy anarcho-Trotskyist policies that you have adopted.

1. The talk of federation. The socialist model was tried in Yugoslavia but split apart due to petty squabbling of the ruling elite and the regional rivalries that it created coupled with outside interference. Another fine example was the quasi socialist Bolivarian model of federal governance in South America (United Provinces, Colombia, Peru, La Plata - Argentina) formed after the Spanish departure in the 1830s. That too fell apart. I have absolutley no problem with socialist solidarity and socialist led trading blocs to rival the capitalist counterparts but federation simply is a load of idealistic rubbish just like the anarchist diatribate of everyone living in multi-communes.

I dont betray as you put it - "my Stalinist ideology". Stalin said "Socialism in One country" which meant that the socialist society must be nation based. As a Republican Socialist and a firm believer in James Connolly, the national question, i.e. Northern Ireland is the central question to every Republican Socialist. Every sovereign state must have the right and control over its own resources. A federation of states would simply undermine that whetehr it be socialist in orientation or not. Are you honestly to believe a powerful state will ascceede to the demands of a weaker one. No way. 32 county, socialist, secular state, that cherishes the children of the nation equally and devoid of any foreign presence or nothing. Simple as that. Federation, no thanks. Any Republican Socialist would never sign up to that.

Why condemn Cuba. Have you met the Cuba Support Group or have you attacked them as well. Cuba is not a dictatorship. Its a Peoples' Democracy. If you look at the Cuban system closely you will see it is anything but. The local workers councils elect the Members of Parliament. The ruling Communist Party only account for 8% of the total seats in parliament. Cuba is the most equal societies in the world. Everyone has equal access to all state services.

We had some issues with the USSR but we never outright attacked them and cheered when they collapsed. Why because we saw the USSR as the only effective bullwark against American hegemony and we knew what would happen to its people when robber market capitalism would do when it took hold - mass pillage.

Socialism is all about solidarity whether you agree with respective strains of Socialism or not. You dont attack your neighbour just because he has a different coloured car than you. Trotskyism (International Marxism) State Socialism can all live together. Yeshave your issues with states like Cuba who are desperatly trying to hold onto the gains made in the Revolution but you dont go the whole hog and outright condemn them. How about some solidarity they need it.

We live in a capitalist world but instead of talking about internationalist idealistic nonsense , we just have to participate in the system and try to change it from within which is what Joe Higgins is effectively doing.

Cast of some of the SWP-esque loonie anarcho-Left stuff and hey people will take you seriously.

**BohsPartisan** · 30/08/2006, 2:36 PM

Originally Posted by Partizan

Bohs Partisan, getting back to your argument. Personally speaking I have the greatest of admiration for Joe Higgins. Joe is held in very high esteem by fellow comrades in the WP and is easily the only true voice of the working class and disenfranchised in Ireland. Thank God for the man. But however I do take exception to some of the fancy airy fairy anarcho-Trotskyist policies that you have adopted.

1. The talk of federation. The socialist model was tried in Yugoslavia but split apart due to petty squabbling of the ruling elite and the regional rivalries that it created coupled with outside interference. Another fine example was the quasi socialist Bolivarian model of federal governance in South America (United Provinces, Colombia, Peru, La Plata - Argentina) formed after the Spanish departure in the 1830s. That too fell apart. I have absolutley no problem with socialist solidarity and socialist led trading blocs to rival the capitalist counterparts but federation simply is a load of idealistic rubbish just like the anarchist diatribate of everyone living in multi-communes.

Yugoslavia was run by a Stalinist style bureuacracy, so its not the same model we propose. We are not proposing London as the capital of any federation. We don't propose any one nation dominates. Its a Federation based upon economic co-operation.

I dont betray as you put it - "my Stalinist ideology". Stalin said "Socialism in One country" which meant that the socialist society must be nation based. As a Republican Socialist and a firm believer in James Connolly, the national question, i.e. Northern Ireland is the central question to every Republican Socialist.

Connolly was an internationalist and believed in the eventual disapearance of the Nation state. He often echoed the belief in the Co-operative commonwealth of Socialism.

Every sovereign state must have the right and control over its own resources. A federation of states would simply undermine that whetehr it be socialist in orientation or not. Are you honestly to believe a powerful state will ascceede to the demands of a weaker one.

If you take away the economic power of Britain's capitalist class, Britain would no longer be able to dominate Ireland in any way shape or form. Why would the English working class armed with a socialist programme want to dominate the irish working class anyway?

Why condemn Cuba. Have you met the Cuba Support Group or have you attacked them as well. Cuba is not a dictatorship. Its a Peoples' Democracy. If you look at the Cuban system closely you will see it is anything but. The local workers councils elect the Members of Parliament... Cuba is the most equal societies in the world. Everyone has equal access to all state services...

We had some issues with the USSR but we never outright attacked them and cheered when they collapsed. Why because we saw the USSR as the only effective bullwark against American hegemony and we knew what would happen to its people when robber market capitalism would do when it took hold - mass pillage.

We didn't cheer when the Soviet Union fell either. We defended it from the arguements of capitalists and imperialists and we do the same for Cuba. However as you said we have issues and we also criticise the bad aspects of the regime.

The ruling Communist Party only account for 8% of the total seats in parliament.

So with 8% of the seats, how come they are the ruling party?

Socialism is all about solidarity whether you agree with respective strains of Socialism or not. You dont attack your neighbour just because he has a different coloured car than you. Trotskyism (International Marxism) State Socialism can all live together. Yeshave your issues with states like Cuba who are desperatly trying to hold onto the gains made in the Revolution but you dont go the whole hog and outright condemn them. How about some solidarity they need it.

I agree with solidarity and co-operation between Socialist organisations but we still have our differences and to brush over them is ridiculous.
I'm glad you are for co-operating with Trotskyists. Its a pity Stalin and his henchmen didn't feel the same way when they were murdering our forebears.

We live in a capitalist world but instead of talking about internationalist idealistic nonsense , we just have to participate in the system and try to change it from within which is what Joe Higgins is effectively doing.

Cast of some of the SWP-esque loonie anarcho-Left stuff and hey people will take you seriously.

To think you can change the system from within is idealistic nonsense. If the history of the Labour movement in the 20th Century taught us anything it is this.
Get thee behind me Bernstein!

Some Connolly articles: (You'd have said he was a hopeless idealist too then?)
http://www.marxists.org/archive/conn...l/stmonsoc.htm

Socialism properly implies above all things the co-operative control by the workers of the machinery of production; without this co-operative control the public ownership by the State is not Socialism

http://www.marxists.org/archive/conn.../socpolref.htm

http://www.marxists.org/archive/conn...08/contrev.htm

This one aimed more so at Jebus:
http://www.marxists.org/archive/conn...e/futrlabr.htm

But first, and as an aid to a proper understanding of my position, let me place briefly before you my reading of the history of the past struggles against social subjugation, my reading of the mental development undergone by each revolting class in the different stages of their struggle...
in the first period of bondage the eyes of the subject class are always turned towards the past, and all efforts in revolt are directed to the end of destroying the social system in order that it might march backwards and re-establish the social order of ancient times – ‘the good old days’. That the goodness of those days was largely hypothetical seldom enters the imagination of men on whose limbs the fetters of oppression still sit awkwardly.

In the second period the subject class tends more and more to lose sight and recollection of any pre-existent state of society, to believe that the social order in which it finds itself always did exist, and to bend all its energies to obtaining such amelioration of its lot within existent society as will make that lot more bearable. At this stage of society the subject class, as far as its own aspirations are concerned, may be reckoned as a conservative force.

In the third period the subject class becomes revolutionary, recks little of the past for inspiration, but, building itself upon the achievements of the present, confidently addresses itself to the conquest of the future. It does so because the development of the framework of society has revealed to it its relative importance, revealed to it the fact that within its grasp has grown, unconsciously to itself, a power which, if intelligently applied, is sufficient to overcome and master society at large.