Progressive Unionist Party and the CWI

[Hoggy_RS]

Something I saw Jorge Miguel say on this site made me google the link between Billy Hutchinsons PUP and the CWI in Ireland and I came across this: http://www.kmf.org/malecki/cockroach/cr0036-3.txt . Most importantly in this article is the paragraph on Militant Labour(nowadays known as the Socialist Party) & the CWI. This quote especially worried me:

Most disgustingly, Militant has given 'socialist'
credentials to Billy Hutchinson's PUP - the political arm of the UVF
death squads.

Is it true that the Socialist Party do(or have in the past) supported this party of loyalist murderers masquerading as leftists?

[PRC-UTE]

So did the Scottish Socialist Party at one point. But they may have just been one faction within, not sure on the details.

Remember, this was the scum who justified attacks on young school girls. He said that catholic youth were 'invading' a loyalist area by walking to school, so throwing nail bombs and bags of urine at them was justified in his mind.

[Pogue]

How did the CWI ignore this? Its despicable. I don't see how you could ever be a left wing or 'progressive' Loyalist.

[Hoggy_RS]

Could a mod possibly change the name of the thread to 'Progressive Unionist Party & The CWI'? Cheers.

[Jorge Miguel]

Quote:



For a while Militant entertained the hope that the PUP/UVF might evolve in a socialist direction – sometimes even claiming they had already done so – and they even advised the PUP on its programme. (9)


From here: http://www.socialistdemocracy.org/NewWorkersParty/NewWorkersPartyChapter3.html



(9) Peter Hadden, in Towards Division Not Peace (Socialist Party, 2002), displays nostalgia for the PUP’s not living up to its socialist potential. SP spokespeople will vehemently defend their “engagement” with the PUP, while being extremely coy about what that involved. They rarely mention, for example, their initiative in 1995 touring UVF killer turned PUP politician Billy Hutchinson around Britain and Ireland, presenting him as a socialist and an authentic representative of the Protestant working class.

[Andy Bowden]

The SSP didn't offer political support to the PUP. They were invited to a Socialism event we had some years ago, on a panel discussing Ireland which included Sinn Fein and the Socialist Party.

The PUP were invited as Sinn Fein said they should be part of the opposing side of a discussion on Ireland.

The SSP has invited folk who are not socialists to be part of debates before at Socialism events; I was at one debate between our party's policy co-ordinator and pro-free market journalist George Kerevan for example.

[h0m0revolutionary]

The SSP didn't offer political support to the PUP. They were invited to a Socialism event we had some years ago, on a panel discussing Ireland which included Sinn Fein and the Socialist Party.

The PUP were invited as Sinn Fein said they should be part of the opposing side of a discussion on Ireland.

The SSP has invited folk who are not socialists to be part of debates before at Socialism events; I was at one debate between our party's policy co-ordinator and pro-free market journalist George Kerevan for example.

Shame on you.

[PRC-UTE]

The SSP didn't offer political support to the PUP. They were invited to a Socialism event we had some years ago, on a panel discussing Ireland which included Sinn Fein and the Socialist Party.

The PUP were invited as Sinn Fein said they should be part of the opposing side of a discussion on Ireland.

The SSP has invited folk who are not socialists to be part of debates before at Socialism events; I was at one debate between our party's policy co-ordinator and pro-free market journalist George Kerevan for example.

I was going to PM you and ask you to comment if you didn't see this :)

I'm glad that's what the case actually was, I still have a lot of time for the SSP.

[Jorge Miguel]

So when will the SSP be inviting David Irving, David Duke or Don Black to one of their events to give a "balanced" account when it comes to anti-fascism?

[BOZG]

How did the CWI ignore this? Its despicable. I don't see how you could ever be a left wing or 'progressive' Loyalist.

So do you think that all loyalists and unionists should be written off as reactionaries? Or do you think only those loyalists and unionists who wake up one morning and reject loyalism and unionism should be accepted into the ranks of progressives? At certain junctions, class contradictions can develop within those movements with some sections moving towards class politics, while at the same time, they maintain elements of their original reactionary ideology. You see the same contradictions amongst the working class as a whole, where you can have very good activists who still have chauvinist or racist aspects of consciousness.

The points that we made in relation to the PUP at the time was that they were a confused grouping who put forward elements of class politics and left politics while maintaining a loyalist ideology at the same time. Eventually one would be victorious over the other but was there a glimmer of hope in cracking the loyalist armour? Yes and we were correct to take an orientation towards that. I'll leave it to the sectarians and the nationalists of these forums to denounce it. I'm more interested in talking to working class people than worrying about the opinions of sectarians who would have taken the same position in 1907, when there were class movements developing amongst the loyalist groups.

http://www.geocities.com/socialistparty/Documents/SocToday.htm#psyche
http://www.geocities.com/socialistparty/Documents/TDNPPt4.htm (Protestant Insecurity)

[PRC-UTE]

So do you think that all loyalists and unionists should be written off as reactionaries? Or do you think only those loyalists and unionists who wake up one morning and reject loyalism and unionism should be accepted into the ranks of progressives? At certain junctions, class contradictions can develop within those movements with some sections moving towards class politics, while at the same time, they maintain elements of their original reactionary ideology. You see the same contradictions amongst the working class as a whole, where you can have very good activists who still have chauvinist or racist aspects of consciousness.

The points that we made in relation to the PUP at the time was that they were a confused grouping who put forward elements of class politics and left politics while maintaining a loyalist ideology at the same time. Eventually one would be victorious over the other but was there a glimmer of hope in cracking the loyalist armour? Yes and we were correct to take an orientation towards that. I'll leave it to the sectarians and the nationalists of these forums to denounce it. I'm more interested in talking to working class people than worrying about the opinions of sectarians who would have taken the same position in 1907, when there were class movements developing amongst the loyalist groups.

http://www.geocities.com/socialistparty/Documents/SocToday.htm#psyche
http://www.geocities.com/socialistparty/Documents/TDNPPt4.htm (Protestant Insecurity)

but of course Pogue didn't say all loyalists should be written off, and neither do republican socialists: we're talking about one of the most vile examples you could find. A loyalist that spent his political career justifying attacks on schoolchildren because these young girls represented such a threat to him somehow.

as for talking a bit of class politics with them, and trying to get them to break from loyalism, the people you call nationalists do that as well.

What we dont do is portray them as socialists or portray their repressive bretheren who are wardens and private security guards as "fellow workers". Nor do I see American socialists saying 'well some of the KKK and violent skinheads are workers so maybe we can get them to break from their ideology by touring them around as socialists.' Because it's insane and opportunist.

[Magdalen]

The SSP didn't offer political support to the PUP. They were invited to a Socialism event we had some years ago, on a panel discussing Ireland which included Sinn Fein and the Socialist Party.

The PUP were invited as Sinn Fein said they should be part of the opposing side of a discussion on Ireland.

The SSP has invited folk who are not socialists to be part of debates before at Socialism events; I was at one debate between our party's policy co-ordinator and pro-free market journalist George Kerevan for example.

I've heard second-hand reports from that particular event, and have heard that a massive cheer was reserved for Hutchinson's statement of 'I'm a socialist, and proud of it, and I'm British, and proud of it'. A former member of People's Democracy in the crowd was also drowned out when he attempted to heckle Hutchinson, noting that he had a received several death threats from the UVF. I agree completely with h0m0revolutionary's comment: Shame on the SSP!

[Hoggy_RS]

Believing that the PUP are socialists is similar to believing that the National Bolsheviks, or any of those bizarre groups, are true leftists.

Loyalism supports imperialism and believes in the supremacy of protestants. This completley contradicts everything that socialism stands for. Until they completley denounce loyalism they cannot be seen as anything other than the enemy of true leftists.

Fair play if the Socialist Party is trying to become involved with the protestant working class but why do this by fraternising with loyalists?

[Pogue]

In my opinion and that of a number of anti-fascists loyalism simply represents the Northern irish form of fascism. The behaviour of Paisley, and all the other Loyalists in regards to things like civil rights etc clearly demonstrates this. And here we have a man who encouraged attacks against catholic schoolgirls. I don't care what ideology he has, anyone who advocates that should not speak at revolutionary events, the fact he advocated it from the position of a defender of privilige that is being a leading Loyalist just makes it worse. I don't think we need Loyalists to debate loyalism, the same way we don't need fascists around to have a meaningful debate on fascism. I would suggest that the crowd at a revolutionary socialist event would not need to hear a loyalist's 'justification' for loyalism.

[Devrim]

Nothing at all progresive can come out of Irish loyalism or Unionism. I think that this says more about the SP than the PUP who are clearly an anti-working class organisation. If the SP wanted to do joint work with these people, I think it would be an apt example of the class politics of their organisation.

Devrim

[Philosophical Materialist]

The PUP resemble third positionism in their economic outlook. They support a segregationist imperial Northern Ireland statelet while speaking of redistributionist trinkets to gain working class support. No, they're not leftish nor are they progressive.

[BobKKKindle$]

To be honest, this doesn't surprise me that much. Let's not forget that the Socialist Party invited the General Secretary of the Prison Officers Association Brian Caton to speak at the opening rally of Socialism (their equivalent of Marxism) in 2007 after the one-day prison officer strike in August of the same year, and gave the same individual a platform in their weekly newspaper The Socialist. This individual is the representative of those who carry out racist abuse on a daily basis, and yet the SP would have us believe that there is no contradiction between supporting the rights of prisoners, and siding with those who make life in prison hell for large numbers of people, especially Britain's ethnic minorities. This is a reflection of their stance that the police and prison officers are "workers in uniform", whereas the SWP has always argued that, whilst they may be deprived of union rights in the same way as workers in other sections of the economy, and endure poor living standards, these groups are always part of the capitalist state, and as such they are responsible for maintaining the class rule of the bourgeoisie and cannot be considered reliable allies in the class struggle.

Giving loyalists and prison offices a platform can never be justified and the SPEW's willingness to give these people legitimacy should make everyone ask serious questions about where this organization stands.

[Revy]

The trends in SPEW are rather worrying. No2EU and this. They are not something revolutionaries can look towards.

[Crux]

Oh no we are being badmouthed on the internet.
First source that we have been "collaborating" with Hutchinson. Well, beyond the statements on the class contradictions within the PUP.
Until then I give this about as credence as th claim that we want to bring Ireland back into the brittish empire.

[Crux]

To be honest, this doesn't surprise me that much. Let's not forget that the Socialist Party invited the General Secretary of the Prison Officers Association Brian Caton to speak at the opening rally of Socialism (their equivalent of Marxism) in 2007 after the one-day prison officer strike in August of the same year, and gave the same individual a platform in their weekly newspaper The Socialist. This individual is the representative of those who carry out racist abuse on a daily basis, and yet the SP would have us believe that there is no contradiction between supporting the rights of prisoners, and siding with those who make life in prison hell for large numbers of people, especially Britain's ethnic minorities. This is a reflection of their stance that the police and prison officers are "workers in uniform", whereas the SWP has always argued that, whilst they may be deprived of union rights in the same way as workers in other sections of the economy, and endure poor living standards, these groups are always part of the capitalist state, and as such they are responsible for maintaining the class rule of the bourgeoisie and cannot be considered reliable allies in the class struggle.

Giving loyalists and prison offices a platform can never be justified and the SPEW's willingness to give these people legitimacy should make everyone ask serious questions about where this organization stands.
That's just ultraleft nonsense, in regards to prison officers that is, the supposed collaboration with loyalists is just hearsay at this point.
Unless you knew the working class as a whole is a quite important part of the capitalist system. So do you hold the same view towards the military as well? If no, why not? Further more you say "giving this individual a platform" in the same paragraph as you denounce all prison officers as racists. That's a quite cheap attempt at smear.

[Crux]

In my opinion and that of a number of anti-fascists loyalism simply represents the Northern irish form of fascism. The behaviour of Paisley, and all the other Loyalists in regards to things like civil rights etc clearly demonstrates this. And here we have a man who encouraged attacks against catholic schoolgirls. I don't care what ideology he has, anyone who advocates that should not speak at revolutionary events, the fact he advocated it from the position of a defender of privilige that is being a leading Loyalist just makes it worse. I don't think we need Loyalists to debate loyalism, the same way we don't need fascists around to have a meaningful debate on fascism. I would suggest that the crowd at a revolutionary socialist event would not need to hear a loyalist's 'justification' for loyalism.
And in my opinion this is taken grossly out of proportion obviously to attack the CWI and SSP. Does debating against someone mean approval of their opinion?

[BobKKKindle$]

the supposed collaboration with loyalists is just hearsay at this point.Firstly, no it's not. This thread includes numerous sources including the link presented by the OP, which seems to be taken from an issue of a left-wing e-journal covering different leftist organizations, as well as the link presented by JM, which makes the same point. If you think that these sources are not telling the truth and the CWI/Militant does not give a platform to members of the PUP and did not regard that organization as having socialist potential then you should be able to provide evidence to show that this is the case, and then we can lay this matter at rest, but as it stands it seems that the CWI/Militant did have ties with loyalists in the past, if not the present.


Unless you knew the working class as a whole is a quite important part of the capitalist systemThis is true by definition - of course all workers are involved in the capitalist system. As Marx said, capital is a social relation, and so the existence of a working class depends on there being bosses who own the means of production and buy labour power - you can't have one without the other. What we are discussing here is a different issue entirely. The reason the SWP and other organizations on the left object to the SP's description of prison officers as "workers in uniform" and the decisions that flow from that description (such as letting Caton speak at Socialism alongside people like Mark Serwotka) is because prison officers are part of the capitalist state and are responsible for carrying out the decisions of the capitalist judicial system, and as such there is a qualitative difference between these individuals, and, for example, teachers, or nurses, even when they may share the same living standards. During the POA dispute in 2007 the SWP argued that prison officers should be allowed to go on strike and have a union, and we also pointed out that if prison officers were feeling confident enough to defy the government by taking illegal action then there is no reason why other public-sector workers should not do the same, but we also contended that because their role is to uphold the law and order of the bosses, prison workers are frequently pushed towards the most right-wing ideas, and many of them have a proven record of racism and violence. It is evident that whilst working people are punished when they threaten the interests of the bosses by occupying their factories or taking some other form of direct action, prison officers and other groups such as the police who share the same relation to the bourgeois state are able to impose themselves on others and commit acts of violence in defence of the capitalist system without being held accountable for their actions, especially when oppressed groups such as ethnic minorities and political activists are the targets, and this dynamic explains why it is that discrimination and the idea of a structured and regulated society have such an important role in the culture of these armed bodies of men, to take a phrase from Lenin, and why it is that prison officers cannot be considered allies in the class struggle, as I noted above. As we said in Socialist Worker after the death of Ian Tomlinson, whilst we are told that the police and their friends exist for our benefit, they actually exist to protect one thing and one thing only - and that's the status quo. You and the other members of the CWI want us to believe that the people who beat political activists on the streets (which includes interning activists without trial in Ireland in 1971 - let's not forget about that) and threaten workers with legal action when they occupy in defense of jobs and pay are our allies despite all the evidence to the contrary.


So do you hold the same view towards the military as well?I don't think that volunteer soldiers are workers in uniform, if that's what you mean, for the same fundamental reason - these individuals are part of the bourgeois state apparatus and play a crucial role in maintaining the capitalist system by carrying out wars of imperialist aggression, which inevitably involve atrocities being committed against those under occupation, and, by placing soldiers in a position of dominance over the populations of oppressed nations, breed the most reactionary ideas, in much the same way as prisons, and the police force. We support soldiers like Joe Glenton (link (http://www.socialistworker.co.uk/art.php?id=18561)) who have spoken out against the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq and exposed the real interests that led to those countries being invaded by the British state at the risk of being deprived of their income and subject to prison sentences, but nonetheless we do not believe that soldiers are likely to support workers when they challenge the bosses, and support those who fight against imperialism, even if their activities lead to the deaths of soldiers who come from working-class backgrounds.


you say "giving this individual a platform" in the same paragraph as you denounce all prison officers as racistsFirstly, I don't quite know what you're getting at here - you did give Caton a platform by letting him speak at SPEW's most important annual event, and I don't see how this stands in tension with saying that prison officers are often racist. It just shows that the SPEW is willing to give legitimacy to a representative of a racist institution. Secondly, I've never argued that all prison officers are racists. However, I, like most people on the left, do not accept the argument that racism in institutions like the prison system is the result of there being a few bad apples; rather we argue that racist abuse is an integral part of these institutions (i.e. institutionalized) and not something that can be combated simply by removing the worst offenders. The existence of racism and other prejudices results from the fact that these institutions necessarily involve power being concentrated in the hands of a small group of people who are given the task of doing whatever they deem necessary to keep a larger group of people under control and in a submissive condition - in the prison system this means keeping prisoners behind bars. In addition, the existence of racism within the judicial process means that in countries like the UK ethnic minorities tend to be over-represented in prison, which easily gives rise to the idea amongst prison staff that these minorities are inherently more deviant than the dominant ethnic group, and are responsible for broader social problems such as drug abuse and domestic violence.

The inherent link between the role of prison officers and racism stands in contrast to the situation of workers, who have a direct interest in not being racist because racism and other forms of prejudice have the effect of dividing the working class and helping the bosses, and when workers engage in struggle, the effect is to break down these barriers, as the benefits of collective struggle become evident for all to see, especially when socialists are present and able to combat reactionary ideas.


Oh no we are being badmouthed on the internet.Actually, these criticisms are widely voiced outside of the internet as well.

[h0m0revolutionary]

The trends in SPEW are rather worrying. No2EU and this. They are not something revolutionaries can look towards.

Youre right, but more right than you tihnk. Because SPEW never have claimed to be revolutionary, their 'road to socialism' as it were, always was and is, a parliamentary one. They want no revolution, they propose only the nationalisation of the top 200 industries. Their recent growth is a very sad phenomina that we should all try and stem, the Labour Party wasn't ever any good and SPEW being Labour Mark Mark II won't be any better. Whooly reformist and opportunist, as you rightly point out, the nationalism of No2EU showed that :/.

[Jorge Miguel]

"In 1996 the success of the PUP and the Ulster Democratic Party, political advisers to the Ulster Defence Association, indicated the potential for an independent voice from the working-class unionist community."
Communist Party of Ireland (Source: http://www.communistpartyofireland.ie/caipeis-en.html )


"however, he always recognised Gusty Spence for the part that he played, encouraging David to see the road to real political work, class politics, to challenge sectarianism, and to work for peace. He condemned those people who “come from places where drawing-room sectarianism is at its worst . . . They have luxuriated and benefited as society, divided more and more, crashes on the rocks.”

"Davie was a personal friend of some CPI members, and in the late 1990s he was welcomed into the Communist Party premises to speak at the Betty Sinclair Education Forum. At that meeting he expressed his admiration for Betty and the politics that she stood for. "

Statement by the Communist Party of Ireland on the death of David Ervine(Source: http://www.communistpartyofireland.ie/unity/051ervine.html ) (http://www.communistpartyofireland.ie/unity/051ervine.html)

Gusty Spence was imprisoned for murdering a Catholic civilain, whohad no part in the conflict.

Likewise, Billy Hutchinson shot two workers on their way to work. Unarmed, and had no part in the conflict.

Some of the "socialists" that these trendy lefties keep as company. Perhaps they ought to try to split the BNP along class lines next because the boot boys are overwhelmingly from working class estates.

Re: Betty Sinclair. She was a Unionist "socialist" (economist, gas and water socialist, etc) and in a broader context, a revisionist. She was certainly not a Marxist-Leninist.

[Crux]

Youre right, but more right than you tihnk. Because SPEW never have claimed to be revolutionary, their 'road to socialism' as it were, always was and is, a parliamentary one. They want no revolution, they propose only the nationalisation of the top 200 industries. Their recent growth is a very sad phenomina that we should all try and stem, the Labour Party wasn't ever any good and SPEW being Labour Mark Mark II won't be any better. Whooly reformist and opportunist, as you rightly point out, the nationalism of No2EU showed that :/.
Jesus christ. So because we call for nationalisation of the commanding heights fo the economy we are not revolutionary? Labour mark 2? Have any understanding at all fo what the purpose of our work, as a revolutionary opposition isnide labour, was? Get a grip.

[Revy]

Jesus christ. So because we call for nationalisation of the commanding heights fo the economy we are not revolutionary? Labour mark 2? Have any understanding at all fo what the purpose of our work, as a revolutionary opposition isnide labour, was? Get a grip.

I think it was their avid participation in a primarily Eurosceptic campaign led by crypto-nationalists which blamed foreign workers for unemployment. I think that's what really unveiled SPEW to be blatant opportunists.