Part Five

What did the battle against non-collection show?

It showed that the councils backed up and co-ordinated by the government, by imposing non-collection and imprisoning 22 working class activists for protesting, were determined to use extreme measures to smash the campaigns. It represented not just a major attack on the economic conditions of working class people but also the most significant attack on democratic rights in decades. The approach and tactics between the councils and then with the police and the courts were fully integrated. It gave a glimpse of the type of tactics that the establishment might try to use in the years ahead.

A loose, ill-prepared campaign would have been smashed in these circumstances. The Socialist Party tried its utmost to help prepare, politically and tactically, the activists in all the four campaigns for the battle. Crucially that would have meant nothing without campaign activists who could withstand the intimidation of the councils and the state and bring the battle as far as was possible.

The importance of fully engaging this battle cannot be overstated. Instead of capitulating in front of the government’s anti-working class offensive, a very positive marker has been put down that will act as an inspiration in future struggles. That marker included the need for public representatives who were prepared to go to prison rather than sell-out working class people. Many working class people were also prepared to defy the law. While the government and the councils have at this stage gained the upper hand, the battle against non-collection in the autumn of 2003 created major difficulties for the government and certainly contributed to the public opposition that was reflected in the local election results and in tactical manoeuvres the government has implemented on some policies since.

It was a hard and difficult battle that tested all the forces and individuals involved. Words must become translated into actions. In the heat of events in the weeks of September and October, two wings clearly emerged in the four campaigns. One argued for and was prepared to lead mass action and disruption against non-collection. The other was not prepared for the impact of non-collection and was conservative and hesitant about taking such action. Former members of the Socialist Party, Dermot Connolly and Joan Collins were on the conservative wing as was the Socialist Workers Party as a whole. The approach that they all adopted in this battle caused real difficulties for those who wanted to conduct a struggle. If such an approach is repeated on other issues and in other campaigns, it will have a very debilitating effect on working class activists.

It is necessary to discuss why the campaigns have been pushed back. While the mass of working class people in Dublin supported the campaign, they understandably weren’t prepared to get actively involved in the protests given the police and courts’ clampdown on protesters. The trade unions, by their conscious delays and lack of action simply assisted the councils and the government. The battle had changed from one of opposing non-collection in Fingal, to a battle of wills between the campaigns on one side and the government and the state on the other. With the stakes so high, activists instinctively knew that the campaigns needed more assistance. When weeks passed without any serious action from the trade unions, while people’s anger at the tax and the jailings was intense, their confidence that the campaign could win diminished.

If the whole of the campaign in the city council area had been united and organised disruption of the service in the vital weeks, undoubtedly the pressure on the councils, the government but in particular on the unions, would have been significantly increased. Whether that would have been enough to force the councils back is an open question. The forces reigned against the campaigns were considerable and they were determined. If increased pressure from the campaigns had been able to force a section of the trade unions to come out actively on the side of the campaigns, the battle certainly would have been boosted and extended.

The leadership of the trade union movement is responsible for the setbacks that the campaigns and the working class have experienced on this issue. They sabotaged the movement. In particular their collective inaction when activists went to prison represented a new low. The absolute need for a struggle against the bureaucracy and to re-claim the unions is a key lesson from the battle against non-collection 2003.

SWP – radical sounding demands don’t cover up their inaction

From the start of non-collection in Fingal to the jailing of the activists from South Dublin was a period of more than 50 days. The SWP played a very conservative role but tried to cloak their inaction in militant words and the language of struggle.

For instance at different points SWP leaflets stated: "In Dublin City and here in Dun Laoghaire/Rathdown they said they would stop collecting bins but they haven’t done it because people are fighting back. If we stand together we will win," and again: "This escalation of judicial attacks on peaceful protestors cannot be allowed to go unchallenged." These words are hollow and activists would search in vain in their material for clarity or a real and workable strategy for action because as has been shown the SWP was not in favour of an escalation of the struggle.

Socialist Worker (PDF) 24 September 2003 said: "The campaign has touched a nerve among thousands of working class people. The possibility of victory over the government and its agents in the Dublin councils is very great." From this overstatement to the directionless and empty view expressed in their paper of 15 October (PDF): "The courage of the bin tax activists is heroic…This courage needs now to be backed up by a clear strategy for victory…. the establishment will not simply be embarrassed into accepting defeat…The only strategy that is likely to bring victory is one which links the anger of working class with the power of the organised communities. If the bin workers were persuaded to refuse to implement the policy of non-collection, this fight would soon be over."

In a leaflet for the DCTU demonstration on 11 October they wrote, "SIPTU and IMPACT have told their members to go along with the non-collection policy. This is a disgrace." Contrast that condemnation with: "The leaders of SIPTU and other unions have now joined the opposition to the bin tax…. Now the union leaders must now move from words to deeds. We must demand – full union support for the bin-men who refuse to obey council instructions to leave bins uncollected – A national stoppage to demand the abolition of the bin tax and the release of all the protesters." This was from an SWP leaflet written soon after the DCTU demonstration for the Dun Laoghaire/Rathdown area, in other words soon after it was clear to everyone that the union leaders were trying to sabotage the struggle!

A large portion of their leaflets, under headings like "what needs to be done" or "Action not words", are given over to placing demands on the political parties. From an earlier Socialist Worker (PDF), 24 September 2003: "The attempt to intimidate the campaign by jailing two prominent leaders must not be allowed to succeed. Elected local and national representatives and other prominent campaigners need to be pressed to join in the defiance of the courts. Sinn Fein TDs and councillors as well as a number of Labour Party public representatives and Independents have expressed opposition to the bin taxes. They now must show which side they are on. Their opposition will only be credible if they too join the blockades in Fingal and defy the injunctions." Quite, and in our opinion the same applied to the SWP!

As shown, their so-called appeals to the bin workers were equally hollow. The SWP argued that nothing should be done by the campaign that could "alienate" the bin workers. In other words don’t block the bin trucks in the communities and don’t block the bin depots. In effect while opposing the campaign actions against non-collection or to assist the Fingal campaign, they called on the bin workers to fight the battle for them. At the same time as criticising the leaders of SIPTU and IMPACT for accepting non-collection, they call upon these same leaders to hold "a national stoppage"!

At the most critical point of the anti-bin tax struggle the SWP’s position in reality was - do nothing! This inaction played into the hands of the government and the councils who were attempting to isolate and pick off the anti-bin tax campaign in Fingal.

Why did some from the revolutionary left play such a conservative role?

Perhaps some leaders of the city campaign and the SWP as a whole were caught off balance by developments. Dermot Connolly does say that the struggle opened and developed "in a way not actually fully anticipated". In fact serious non-collection and the use of a divide and rule tactic were anticipated. Given that the city campaign didn't have the basis to resist generalised non-collection in the city, those who were serious about the campaign and defending non-payment should have embraced the need for an escalation of action across Dublin at that time. The city campaign would most likely be in a much weaker position if they waited until Fingal had been pushed back and then had to campaign alone.

The conservatism of the SWP and Dermot Connolly was partly based on their assessment that it was not possible to explain and win general support for decisive action to bring the struggle to a head because people would be more focused on the fact that their bins may not be collected for a number of weeks. In other words significant sections of the working class wouldn't understand the bigger picture - that the city campaign needed to take decisive action with the other campaigns now, or run the real risk of being isolated and defeated later. What is implied is a real underestimation of the ability of working class people to understand the council’s tactics of divide and rule, and therefore the need to struggle.

Sometimes long-standing activists who have experienced at first hand the setbacks in the movement, can when the situation moves forward dramatically, find themselves behind the popular mood. As Dermot Connolly said he was cautious because "all out action, preventing the bins from being collected, might split the working class support for the campaign". In the situation of an all out attack from the establishment, a delay or waiting could well mean there was no campaign to split!

In major class battles there is a huge amount of pressure on the participants. In such pressurised situations it is vital to keep your judgement and to be very sensitive to both the views of the best activists and the mass of working class people as the battle unfolds. What is also crucial for socialists who want to play a role in redeveloping the workers movement, is not to view the attitudes of the different sections of the working class as something fixed. It is necessary to be honest and at least advocate what action and approach is necessary to take the struggle and the movement forward. Sometimes such an intervention can have a qualitative impact and give enough confidence to activists and people generally to continue the battle at a decisive point. In the battle against water disconnections in late 1994, the Socialist Party and activists played a critical role in maintaining the direct action of the campaign for as long as necessary. This action forced the government to abandon its policy of disconnections. In the bin tax battle there were many very difficult and nervous public meetings. However it is a huge testament to the understanding and fighting spirit of working class people that when the need and purpose of militant action was explained they responded positively.

The Socialist Party also believes that for Dermot Connolly, Joan Collins and the SWP, electoral considerations played a very important part in their conservatism and in the case of the SWP their effective abandonment of the struggle at a crucial time. Put simply they thought blockades and disruption of the service by the campaign would lose them votes and given that a huge part of their involvement in the campaign over the preceding three years was about building an electoral base, they became very nervous. It is a poor indication of the attitudes of these leaders in the city campaign that they weren’t open enough to respond to the needs of the struggle itself and that events weren’t even enough to force a change in their conservative approach.

They actually feared that an escalation of the campaign would also bring the battle to a head well before the election. They had hoped that non-collection wouldn’t be imposed and that the bin tax would be a fully live issue for the local elections in June 2004. However it is very rare that you get a chance to choose when and in what way a battle unfolds. The way it unfolded necessitated a decisive response in all four council areas. The attack may have initially been physically directed at non-payers in Fingal but in a real sense it and the jailings were designed as a blow against non-payers throughout the whole city.

Those on the left, who echoed the lies in the media that the Socialist Party's militant tactics were all about winning votes, should reflect on that point. It was not at all straightforward or easy to judge the attitudes of the different layers in society to the militant approach of the Fingal campaign in the first weeks of the battle. The media and the establishment rounded on the campaign and the Socialist Party in particular. For the Socialist Party the danger that we might lose votes because of our campaigning tactics was never a consideration. We were committed to doing whatever was necessary to give the campaign the best possible chance to beat non-collection irrespective of the impact it would have on our party in the elections.

Of course over time it became clear the conservative approach of a section of the city campaigns leadership and the SWP generally, was out of sync with the majority of working class people. While the mass of people didn't actively participate, they supported not only the campaign but also its tactics. An opinion poll in the Sunday Tribune indicated in late October, that 37% of people in Dublin supported the campaign and its tactics. That probably translates into a considerable majority in the working areas. In our opinion the 'leaders' of the city campaign again underestimated the working class.

Moving away from militant struggle and the Socialist Party

Hard struggles expose the strengths and weakness of the groups, parties and individuals involved. In the course of a battle like the bin tax differences of opinion are inevitable, most of which can be resolved through discussion and review of the issues involved. With an honest, political approach parties and movements can be strengthened through the process of discussing and resolving differences.

The tactical differences that Dermot Connolly developed with the Socialist Party in the autumn of 2003 were not secondary. These differences flowed from deeper differences regarding estimation of the working class movement and how socialists should work at this time. Dermot resigned from the party in October 2003 but had relinquished a real political link with the party considerably earlier. In 2003 significant differences emerged between Joan Collins and the Socialist Party regarding similar issues relating to the anti bin tax campaigns and the tasks facing socialists.

Joan was one of the party members playing an important role in building the city campaign and operated mainly in the Crumlin and Drimnagh areas. Like all the party’s bin tax co-ordinators, the party tried to facilitate Joan in terms of assistance including the production and printing of countless leaflets and posters.

Joan did not agree with the approach of the Socialist Party in trying to get a proper assessment of the city campaign or our attempts to make the campaign’s leadership more democratically accountable in the run in to the conference in April 2003. In the key weeks of the battle from mid September till the end of October 2003, Joan did not play a significant role in escalating the disruption of the bin service contrary to the position of the Socialist Party. The party’s position was agreed through discussions in which Joan fully participated. On a number of occasions Joan acted as a brake on such disruption; that was the case with regard to issuing the call to put blockades on all the depots covering all the four different councils in mid October.

Joan’s conservative approach to disruption and blockades and how to conduct the battle was illustrated in the text of a leaflet, which she wrote shortly after the above two-day blockade of the depots. To try to make sure that the calling off of the blockades after two days was not seen as a sign of weakness, the campaigns, co-ordinated by the Socialist Party, issued a statement which said: "Although depot blockades will not be organised again this week, the ability of the anti bin tax campaigners and bin workers united to cause massive disruption to the service will be displayed again if the Councils’ policy of non-collection and the jailings don’t stop."

The leaflet that Joan produced said: "The campaign has proven that we can successfully disrupt depots and be responsible in stopping protests to allow for the breathing space that has been asked for by the Unions. We will give that breathing space but we will also make the point that it is with people power and huge numbers on our protests and demos that we can win this. We call on your support to win this issue."

After one of the main activists in the city campaign (Joe Mooney) had been struck by a truck (in pictures) leaving Collins Avenue bin depot during a blockade and against the background of the jailings and the continuing battle in Fingal, ICTU issued the call for a "breathing space". This was in reality a call by ICTU for the anti-bin tax campaign to surrender. It was an attempt by Begg and co. to throw dust in the eyes of the campaign activists, to sow confusion and the illusion that by suspending the battle that the government and the councils might back off from its offensive campaign of non-collection and state repression.

If all of the anti-bin tax prisoners have been released and all pending charges against other campaigners has have been dropped and the policy of non-collection ended in all council areas – then and only then would we have even given a consideration to the call raised by ICTU for a "breathing space".

To say, "we will give that breathing space" when the government and the councils were continuing their campaign against the communities shows an incorrect approach to organising struggle. At the height of a battle when the campaigns needed to go on the offensive, we would not willingly consent to a breathing space as it gives the council’s or the union leadership a chance to re-organise against the campaign. Also to use the word responsible in this context is wrong and implies that to continue the blockades would have been irresponsible. The text of this leaflet was changed with Joan’s agreement but it clearly showed that Joan had developed a conservative approach, which was further demonstrated by subsequent developments.

Democracy in the Socialist Party – our attempts to resolve the political differences

As November came and the battle was being reviewed, the differences between the party and Joan featured at national and regional party meetings. Between then and the end of January 2004, members of the national executive committee had five separate meetings with Joan to discuss the issues. Joan was a leading member of the party with a public position. On a number of occasions during the bin tax battle Joan broke with the agreed position of the party and in doing so had breached the party’s approach of democratic accountability. These discussions took place to try to discuss out the differences and to come to a resolution.

The party recognised that Joan was in a good position to stand as a candidate in Crumlin on the basis of the general work in the bin tax campaign over the preceding three years. Given that the local elections were approaching quickly these discussions had added purpose and urgency. They were conducted in a political and fraternal atmosphere but no agreement was reached regarding the differences on the bin tax. In fact it became clear that Joan had broader differences with the party relating to the mood of the working class and the potential for new left alliances or new workers parties. When a leading party member with a public position disagrees with the democratically agreed policies and approach of party it is a matter, that necessitates discussion. It is a much more serious situation when that member/representative has actually refused to advocate the views of the party in public but has instead put their own position above those of the party to the detriment of an important working class struggle.

Claims have been made that the leadership in the Socialist Party had already decided that Joan Collins would not be a candidate for the party in the local elections and that this process of discussions was bogus. Despite our concerns the fact is that the Socialist Party proposed to Joan that she should be a party candidate in the Crumlin area, if she agreed in general to accept and advocate the agreed positions of the Socialist Party. Given the history of the working class movement, this approach of having a democratic accountability and a check on all officials and representatives is a necessary and an extremely positive democratic feature of the Socialist Party.

For the record below is the full text of the letter sent to Joan regarding our political differences and her candidature. Joan’s response is also printed in full:

2/2/04

Dear Joan,

I think that you would agree from the five discussions we have had over the last couple of months that there are important differences between your views and the party on: tactics in the bin tax battle and work in broader campaigns; estimation of the mood in the working class and the basis for a new left formation; and the tasks of building the Socialist Party.

As you know while every member has the right to full, thorough and open discussion in the structures of the party, political clarity and cohesion demands that members must represent clearly the agreed party view in public. The party is proud of our record of fighting in the interests of working class people. Essential to such campaigning successes is our approach of maintaining democratic accountability of our public representatives.

The party fully recognizes the hard work you have put in over years and is aware of the time and effort that you and a whole number of members have put in during the bin tax battle. However there have been serious public disagreements between you and the party over the last year where you have knowingly opposed the agreed position of the party regarding the bin tax. I think in turn, it is generally accepted that those proposals and tactics that the party pursued in the battle actually strengthened the movement significantly.

The party has played a tremendous role over the last couple of years in terms of fighting on issues and in spreading socialist ideas. We are carving out a profile nationally as a principled party that is capable of leading militant struggles and we are looking forward to making some important gains in the local elections in June. We will further use any positions we might win in order to fight on the key issues but also to build the active base of the party amongst workers and young people. We believe you can play a very important role in this struggle.

While you have indicated your desire to be a candidate for the party in the local elections, the extensive discussions have so far, despite much effort, not been able to resolve these differences. At a certain stage in the discussions you yourself raised a question mark as to whether you should be a party candidate. Mindful that the elections are approaching quickly but also mindful that the differences that have emerged are real, we would like to recommend your endorsement as a party candidate on the basis of agreement on the following propositions:

That as a public representative, you argue and vote for the political positions of the party as agreed through our democratic structures. That the issues of dispute mentioned earlier are discussed as appropriate in the party with a view to clarifying and resolving any political differences in advance of election.

That in relation to bin tax tactics, slates of candidates, relations with other parties and political alliances, that it is very important that you support the agreed position of the party. As you know these issues are likely to be contentious, with some political forces attempting to claim credit for work they have not done by posing as anti bin tax candidates, something that can actually weaken the movement.

That it is fully accepted that in the forthcoming elections, building the party in terms of new members must be given equal priority to the election result. That you fully participate and use your authority to make any recruitment initiatives that the party will undertake in the Crumlin area as successful as possible in the next months.

That with full discussion locally, the election campaign - tactics, resources, priorities and responsibilities - will be directed by the relevant party branch, in your case the South City Branch, in conjunction with the RC and the REC.

That while recognising that members who are candidates make significant personal sacrifices, standing as a party candidate is in itself a recognition that any position won is primarily a party position. In the event of any change in our representative’s political or personal circumstances which means they can no longer maintain the position as elected, the elected position remains with the party.

All members who are candidates will be asked to give commitments in line with the points about democratic accountability and finance etc which are contained in the party constitution. Some of the points above flow from important political issues that have emerged recently like the abuse of the political process by the establishment parties, which is covered in point five and in our opinion relates to all candidates. All the points above are consistent with the general democratic procedures of the party. We believe that the basis of this particular letter to you and its proposals is simply to detail and make relevant the general points in our constitution as they relate to your situation and the particular differences that have emerged over the last while.

Political differences and disputes are a fact of life in the socialist movement. All members and the party itself have a responsibility to act in a principled and honest fashion when important differences exist. We hope that with a combination of political discussion and clarification and action to build the party, that the differences can be resolved and the work of the party and the role of all members, yourself included, can be developed further. Please contact me regarding your response to these points.

Yours fraternally,
Kevin McLoughlin,
For the NEC and REC

===

4/2/04

Dear Michael,

This is a short note to reply initially to the letter from the NEC/REC. I no longer wish to be considered for the position of a party candidate in the June local elections. Given all that has happened and under point 4 of your letter, I do not believe I will receive the necessary support and resources from the party to fight an effective campaign.

I wish to take some time now to consider how to respond further to your letter.

Yours,
Joan Collins.

===

Joan withdrew from the candidate nomination process. Her letter is so brief it gives little away. However in it she says she doesn’t believe that she’ll get the necessary resources to run an effective campaign. The party is quite experienced at running effective election campaigns and would have been able to organise its resources to ensure an effective campaign in Crumlin.

If Joan was serious about being a Socialist Party candidate she would have accepted the points in the letter. If Joan had serious concerns regarding resources she would have discussed what resources could/would the party make available to her campaign. The reality is that there was nothing unreasonable in this letter or in the approach of the Socialist Party. The party was not engaged in a game of bluff, if Joan accepted the five points in the letter, she would have been a party candidate. Our approach was marked by a willingness to honestly discuss the issues with a view to coming to a resolution of the differences. When that was not possible in the short-term we proposed to continue the discussions and in the mean time Joan could be a candidate bound by the democratic decisions of the party - exactly what we would expect from all our public representatives and elected officials.

The Socialist Party did not overstate the differences with Joan. Given what had happened in the anti bin tax campaign, not to insist on democratic accountability would have been an indefensible retreat from the revolutionary, democratic tradition. It would have created a ridiculous situation were Joan would have been a Socialist Party candidate with party resources but without the Socialist Party having any right to hold her accountable politically or financially.

These issues featured in discussions at the Socialist Party Conference in March 2004 including motions from a party member who disagreed with the approach that the party’s national and regional committees had adopted to Joan Collins and on the issue of an anti bin tax slate of candidates. Joan Collins did not attend the conference. The views of the party committees were overwhelmingly endorsed at the conference. Conference also accepted that if Joan Collins subsequently stood as an independent in the local elections 2004 that she would have placed herself outside the ranks of the Socialist Party. That is what happened.

<-Next->