Manufacturing Dissent- A Democratic Media System to replace the Propaganda Model?

Can James Curran’s ideas regarding a “democratic media system” can accommodate the inequality concerns identified in Herman/Chomsky’s Propaganda model?

Introduction

According to the ideology of liberal democracy, the independent media functions as a “Fourth Estate”, a watchdog over the affairs of business, politics and society. Its funding by the free market is supposed to guarantee its independence from government- ideally, it is autonomous from the State, unlike the experience of mass media in Nazi Germany or Stalinist Russia, where it was a mere vehicle for State Propaganda. However, the concentration of media ownership in fewer and fewer hands, coupled with an ideological bent in favour of the status quo, has led many critical thinkers to question the mass media’s impartiality and objectivity, instead seeing it as an actor on the side of privilege and inequality. Most prominent amongst these theorists in recent years have been Noam Chomsky and Edward Herman, whose Propaganda Model provides a framework for evaluating the ideological function of mass media in late capitalism.

The Propaganda Model (PM) argues that the mass media face hidden forms of control- five main filters which suppress news items, limit their running time or slant their coverage. These filters are (1) Ownership (2) Advertising (3) Sources (4) Flak and (5) Anti- Communism (today probably better defined as Anti-terrorism). Chomsky/Herman also try to explain why dissident voices are marginalised in a media that is increasingly part of a global corporate structure, that it has an inbuilt bias to portray strikers as disruptors of the economy, or anti globalisation protestors as violent radicals.

1. Ownership

The early history of the print media in Britain was characterised by a proliferation of radical newspapers aimed at the working class. Growing on the back of the Chartist movement, papers such as the Poor Man’s Guardian and the Red Republican dwarfed the readership of pro establishment newspapers such as the Daily Mail or the Times. They provided an alternative world view to the dominant ideology, one that challenged the economic status quo so much that authorities made use of the libel laws and coercive “stamp duties” to drive the radical media down. Readers pooled their resources to resist these fines and taxes successfully- in the end, these papers were driven out of the marketplace by the rising capital costs of new printing technology. Today, publishing a national newspaper or running a TV channel requires significant capital unavailable to most.

The fact that media outlets are mostly privately controlled corporations gives their owners huge power over editorial decisions. Media barons such as Conrad Black, Rupert Murdoch, Silvio Berlusconi and Tony O Reilly control huge swathes of both national and international print and broadcast media, oftentimes wielding considerable political power- e.g. Murdoch backed Blair’s New Labour for election in his tabloids, whilst Silvio Berlusconi emerged from the political wilderness to become Italy’s Prime Minister by using his control of most of Italy’s TV channels and press.


The modern mass media in America and Europe are now huge businesses which are often owned by larger corporations. For example, American TV networks CBS and NBC are owned by Westinghouse and General Electric respectively. Herman and Chomsky point out, for instance, that: 'GE and Westinghouse are both huge, diversified multinational companies heavily involved in the controversial areas of weapons production and nuclear power.' GE has also “contributed to the funding of the American Enterprise Institute, a right wing think tank that supports intellectuals who will get the business message across” E. Herman and N. Chomsky, A Propaganda Model, Chapter 16, Media and Cultural Studies Keyworks, Blackwell Publishing, 2002. (p288).

These organisations are thus far from neutral players in society, and as corporations would be in favour of free market ideology. Managers of media organisations are thus constrained by the profit orientation of their owners, and reportage critical of this ideology would tend to be side lined.
2. Advertising

The second filter of the propaganda model is advertising. Most modern newspapers (and TV stations) are funded by advertising, which gives the corporations who advertise with them considerable economic power over these outlets. Oftentimes the culture of these organisations is socially conservative. Businesses can threaten to withdraw advertising if the media constantly air criticisms and exposes over their labour practices or environmental records. “Working class and radical media also suffer from the political discrimination of advertisers- political discrimination is structured into advertising allocations by the stress on with money to buy. But many firms will always refuse to patronise ideological enemies and those whom they perceive as damaging their interests”. Ibid., (p291)

3. Sourcing


The third of Herman and Chomsky's 5 filters relates to the sourcing of mass media news: 'The mass media are drawn into a symbiotic relationship with powerful sources of information by economic necessity and reciprocity of interest.' Even large media groups such as RTE or BBC cannot afford to have reporters and cameras everywhere a story happens- they must concentrate their resources where significant news occurs. This leads many media outlets to rely on what are known as the “Primary Definers”- the press conferences of the Pentagon, 10 Downing Street, elected politicians, the Police, government scientists or ‘recognised experts’. Because these people are recognised or powerful, what they say is news- they “define the agenda”. Journalists, who constantly take the side of the nameless masses, be they strikers, anti war demonstrators or global justice activists can be readily accused of partisan bias, even though members of these groups can often have more relevant information than the Primary Definers. 4. Flak

The fourth filter is 'flak', which Herman and Chomsky define as ‘negative responses to a media statement or [TV or radio] program. It may take the form of letters, telegrams, phone calls, petitions, law-suits, speeches and Bills before Congress, and other modes of complaint, threat and punitive action'. (p298)

Chomsky sees these organisations as mostly right wing front organisations of groups such as the Petrochemical Agency, the ‘Intelligence Community’ or big business, whose constant, systematic and organised criticism of the “biased”, “left wing”, “liberal” media creates a perception that the media are going too far or are imbalanced, erring on the side of the radical left.5. Anti-Communism / Anti-Terrorism

Herman and Chomsky created the PM during the Cold War, but the political hostility of the West towards the former Soviet Bloc can today be seen in the ideological offensive waged through the “War on Terrorism”. In times of war, the media is expected to “back our boys”, to demonise the enemy as evil, irrational and inhumane.
The adage that “one man’s freedom fighter is another man’s terrorist” can be seen in the semiotic shift in Afghanistan, where groups who were originally backed by the West as Anti-Soviet patriots and freedom loving Muhjahadeen, became evil Islamist murderers. Ideological hostility towards radical left movements is still part of the media’s vocabulary- witness the tabloid strategy of tension leading up to the Mayday 2004 protests in Dublin. Chomsky and Herman claim that the mass media attempt to constrict debate between “conservative and liberal wings”, with anything further to the left seen as irrational or “loony”.



It is difficult to synopsise an intricate model in the space of a thousand words, but these five filters provide for considerable inequalities in the mass media’s treatment of dissenting voices. To counter this propaganda model, James Curran proposes a social-democratic, third way- one that he calls a Democratic Media System.

The Democratic Media System

Curran sees the media as a major player in what Jurgen Habermas calls the public sphere, which Habermas describes as “a space where access to information affecting the public good is widely available... within this public sphere, people collectively determine through rational argument the way in which they wish to see society develop, and this in turn shapes government policy. The media facilitates this process by providing an arena of public debate and by reconstituting private citizens as a public body in the form of public opinion”.
Summarised in J. Curran, Media and Democracy: the Third Way, p233-4

However, for Curran, contemporary political society is no longer made up of autonomous individuals, which he sees as “an 18th century archaic idea of polity”.
Instead, individual citizens are represented by organisations such as political parties, civil society, NGOs and social movements etc. Societies core is formed by Government, the civil service, the judiciary, parliament, political parties, elections and party competition, which are regulated by various agencies. Outside this core are two groups- (a) Customers such as business associations and labour unions, and
(b) Suppliers such as voluntary associations, public interest groups, and the new social movements.

The Democratic media system (DMS) should enable these opposed or separate groups to express themselves effectively, and “aid a process of communal understanding and equitable compromise”. It needs a well developed specialist sector- an activist minority media assisting collective organisations to recruit support- and sees the representative role of media helping civil society to be effective. Above this he sees a general media sector- who in a “shared search for solutions”, facilitate democratic procedures.

The DMS has a pluralistic design, because, as Curran observes:
“In most societies, the media are linked to the hierarchy of power, and tend to promote social integration on its terms”. It is “Publicly accountable in multiple ways… its architecture is designed to create places for the incubation and communication of opposed viewpoints, and a common space for their mediation” p241.

Thus it can be seen to address some of the concerns of the Propaganda Model.

At the Core of the DMS lie general interest TV channels with a mass audience.
These are fed by four peripheral media sectors, some of which facilitate dissenting and minority views. The first two can be seen in most European countries with a state broadcasting regime. These are-
1. A Private sector which “relates to public as consumers, and acts as a restraint on over entrenchment of minority concerns to the exclusion of majority pleasures.”
2 A Professional Media: modelled on the values of public service broadcasting networks such as RTE or the BBC, which allows professional communicators operate with a minimum of government constraint.
.
In addition, he sees two other sectors-

3. A Social Market sector, where the state subsidises minority media to promote market diversity, media pluralism and choice. He points to the fact that many European countries have some form of anti-monopoly media legislation. This allows their TV channels to commission quotas for home-grown programming- for example, the support for films in France, or in the UK, Channel 4 commissioning programmes specifically for ethnic or subcultural minorities.

4. A Civic Media sector, which will provide channels of communication linked to organised groups and networks. Curran sees these primarily as activist organisations within civil society- they include political parties as well as new social movements, and he organises them in three tiers-

Propagandist links between civic organisations and the wider public, building support for partisan perspectives and sets of political objectives.
Subcultural networks. Gay/lesbian magazines, travellers multicultural and immigrant media, relating to a specific social constituency
Intra-organisational media e.g. trade union journals, student union publications which hold leadership accountable to their rank and file membership.

He sees two ways to reinvigorate civic media-
(a) Grants- “In Norway, the weekly journals of the political parties, immigrant groups and other organisations receive financial support amounting in 1995 to £2.6 million
(b) Bandwidth- an alternative is to assign “spectrum, technical facilities”
Civil society should exercise control over publicly owned bandwidth through lease and time share, radio and TV channels- this has been carried out in Cable TV networks in several US cities, where the resultant actors are largely ideological, religious or social organisations.

Addressing the concerns of the Propaganda Model

Curran essentially argues that with increased state funding, either through direct grants or through help with start up costs in the ‘Social Market’, society can increase media access, democracy and diversity. In addition, the demands for a Civic Media control of bandwidth is an idea that has arrived- the technology of Digital TV and Internet radio confounds previous government regulatory arguments that bandwidth was a “scarce resource”. These positions are supported by a wide range of civic and community groups in Ireland who are federated to the Community Media Network (www.cmn.ie ), and there are active campaigns to realise some form of the DMS throughout Europe and beyond. (See the European Forum for Communication Rights at www.efcr2004.net or www.communicationrights.org )
.
However, a major criticism of the DMS is that it seems to believe in a holistic, ‘conflict resolution’ approach to ideological conflict, a methodology reminiscent of Tony Blair’s over-hyped ‘Third Way’. The strength of Harman and Chomsky’s Propaganda Model is that it identifies an irresolvable tension between mass media and audience, one that is rooted in the nature of capitalism itself. Although the DMS may provide alternative channels to the mainstream, the mainstream will continue to act in a biased and ideological way, and will seek to hegemonise, ridicule or marginalise critical opinion.

Many media and egalitarian activists continue to build independent media- and editorial independence from state funding is very important if the State is not also a neutral arbiter. Radical newspapers such as Socialist Worker, the Voice and An Phoblacht have won themselves an audience and base by taking the side of the powerless. There is a danger in Chomsky’s model of seeing the media as a homogenous, right wing bloc- there are still many spaces where critical voices can be heard. Within the mainstream media, courageous journalists such as John Pilger, Robert Fisk, Eamonn Mc Cann and Paul Foot continue to win space, hearts and minds to an anti-capitalist, anti-war perspective. We must also remember that just because certain media push a right wing message, the audience can oftentimes decode this in a negotiated or oppositional way. The effects of the propaganda model, even without the mediation of a DMS, are not akin to a Hypodermic injection of ideology to the brain. An audience will resist messages it knows it is untrue if it has alternative sources of information e.g. the huge trade union strikes that toppled the first Berlusconi government- no matter how many TV stations he owned, his propaganda couldn’t change the fact that he wanted to half people’s pensions!

Finally, DMS or no, the internet has provided a horizontal networking communication tool unprecedented in history. Inspired by the anti capitalist movement, the global phenomena of indymedia.org finds its Irish _expression at www.indymedia.ie, where activists instantly publish text articles, photographs, audio and video clips that can reach an international audience. The revolution may not be televised, but it will certainly be organised on the web!

Bibliography
James Curran, Media and Power, Routledge London
In particular Chapter 8, Media and Democracy: the Third Way, p233-4

E. Herman and N. Chomsky, A Propaganda Model :Chapter 16 in
Media and Cultural Studies Keyworks, Blackwell Publishing, 2002.


Colin Sparks, Resistance: the Movement, the Media and the War

International Socialism 98 (Spring 2003), London, 2003.


Websites : www.cmn.ie, www.indymedia.ie, www.communicationrights.org .

Challenging the Corporate Media- The Press Barons Ball







The Press Barons BALL

VIDEO of the protest against the
WORLD ASSOCIATION OF NEWSPAPERS SUMMIT IN DUBLIN, JUNE 9

MONDAY JUNE 9th- 12 noon: GR picketed the opening ceremony of the World Newspapers Congress at the RDS. That evening at 8pm, there was a loud and colourful demonstration outside the reception being held for the WNC at the Guinness Storehouse in James Street. Top hats, monocles and copies of the Scum abounded at the Press Barons Ball!
http://uk.indymedia.org:8081/local/webcast/uploads/j9media.wmv


Joe Carolan, GR-
“Many people feel that the corporate media present a biased view of the world. Anti war activists feel that our side of the argument was marginalised in favour of the pro war pundits- many newspapers sided with Bush and Blair’s hollow arguments for war on Iraq- but where are the WMDs? The myth making power of corporate media was seen by many as pro war propaganda, with only a few principled journalists like John Pilger or Paul Foot cutting against the mainstream.”

“But it is not only wartime propaganda that we are protesting against- Print Media also re inforces many stereotypes and myths in daily life about the role of women, the status of refugees and asylum seekers, and the validity of workers taking strike action to defend jobs and services against privatisation. Corporate print media is not a free press- huge corporations like Rupert Murdoch’s News International, Tony O Reilly’s Independent Newspapers and Lord Conrad Black’s Express Group are part and parcel of an economic system that puts profit before people- indeed all three corporations have been involved in attacks on their own journalists and printers unions.”

“Trade unionists who have been vilified as dinosaurs and militants, asylum seekers and refugees who have been demonised as scroungers, women who feel that the media peddles sexist stereotypes of their bodies, will join anti capitalists who believe we need an alternative radical press, a true free press from the grassroots.”

The Politics of the SWP

The Socialist Workers Party wants to end the vast inequality of wealth in Ireland and the wider world. The control of the resources by a tiny few is at the root of a host of other evils, most notably racism and war.

Let us first outline what we seek to change :

Class polarisation in Ireland:
A tiny elite of the super-rich control our country and ensure that the main right wing parties, Fianna Fail, Fine Gael and the Progressive Democrats implement policies which favour their interests.
Ireland has one of the lowest rates of tax on profit in the EU and this allows the banks, for example, to pay a lower proportion of tax than most PAYE workers do on their wages.
Most of the richest people - for example Tony O Reilly - designate themselves as 'tax exiles' by claiming to reside outside of Ireland for 183 days a year, so escaping many taxes.
The result is that Ireland has a first world economy - and third world public services. There is simply not enough money invested in health, education, and crèche provision. In effect, the majority subsidise the tiny elite by putting up with inadequate services. We are also increasingly subject to 'user fees' to avail of basic services.
Bin charges, hospitals charges, 'registration fees' for universities are all forms of indirect taxes. They are also usually the first step towards privatisation.
In the last decade there has been an enormous transfer of wealth - to those who are already wealthy. The share of national cake going to wages, social welfare and pensions has fallen by approximately 10 percent - while the share going to profits, dividends and rent has risen by 10 percent.
The Socialist Workers Party supports every struggle to reverse this state of affairs.
Global Divide:
Every morning a national newspaper could run a headline: 'More than 20,000 people perished yesterday of extreme poverty'.
The fact that none have ever done this is a testament to their priorities.
This level of suffering is not 'inevitable' and it does not happen just because African countries are 'corrupt' (If corruption by political leaders were the cause of poverty, then Ireland would be experiencing a famine!).
Its root cause lies in an economic system that vests control of the resources of the planet in the hands of large corporations.
The Make Poverty History campaign has been launched by Nelson Mandela to dynamise
world opinion into seeking change and we fully support its central themes - cancel the debt; aid programmes with no strings; trade justice. However, we go further.
Currently, just three super-billionaires own more wealth than all of the people of sub-Saharan Africa.
The corporations they control dictate the world's economic priorities - leading to resources being squandered on arms spending or advertising.
Millions die, for example, from curable diseases because the large drug companies spend one third of their resources on advertising and only 11 percent on research.
They try to stop cheaper 'generic drugs' coming on stream as these might reduce their profits.
Ending poverty on a global scale will involve a challenge to this economic tyranny.
Permanent War:
Behind the façade of democracy, the US remains a colonial power in Iraq, seeking to make that country safe for giant firms like Bechtel and Halliburton.
It is singularly failing as it faces a huge insurgency that it cannot crush.
The military and industrial complex that runs America, however, is still determined to spread its empire across the world.
In a recent article, Naomi Klein has shown how the White House has created an Office of the Coordinator for Reconstruction and Stabilization, headed by former US Ambassador to Ukraine Carlos Pascual.
Its mandate is to draw up elaborate "post-conflict" plans for up to twenty-five countries that are not, as of yet, in conflict.
Under the guise of 're-construction', the aim is to open up poor countries for neo-liberal policies that align them closely with their masters in Washington.
The Socialist Workers Party has played an important role in helping to forge an anti-war movement. Our primary target at the moment is ending the use of Shannon airport by US troops.
Over 150,000 US troop passed through Shannon last year, making it one of the largest transport hubs for the US occupation of Iraq.
The airport has also been used to transport prisoners to Guantanamo Bay and other torture centres, but the corporate media in Ireland ishiding this national scandal.
Nevertheless, we are determined the break the silence and seek to mobilise in opposition.
Racism:
The case of the GAMA construction workers shows how immigrant workers are being mistreated in Ireland.
They were paid less than €3 an hour - even though wages in the construction industry should have been €12. The PD leader Mary Harney personally went to Turkey to invite GAMA to Ireland.
She was told in April 2003 about the under-payment of workers- yet she did nothing to resolve it.
The workers were intimidated into speaking out for a long period by the work permit system.
The permit is only given to the employer - and if workers seek to improve their conditions they can be repatriated.
GAMA is a clear case of how racist treatment of immigrants is used to bolster profits.
But racism also operates in a more general way through successive media campaigns which try to scapegoat asylum seekers.
The stories present asylum seekers as 'spongers' who want to simply use Ireland's social welfare system.
This type of racism deflects anger away from the real spongers in Irish society - the tiny elite whose greed is endless.
The Socialist Workers Party central policy can be summed up as follows: Stop deportations - migrant and Irish workers unite and fight.
How did we get here?
How did all inequality this come about? Why did the elected government not look after the people who put them into office?
To understand what is happening we need to 'join the dots' as the problems we face do not stem from a few bad rulers or simply reflect human nature. Their root cause is a socio-economic system that puts profit before people.
Industrial capitalism is a comparatively recent phenomenon, starting just after 1750 with the Industrial Revolution. Originally, it was based on many small firms competing over prices and more efficient means of production. The most successful capitalist did not squander profits on luxury goods - but rather re-invested a high proportion back into production. This led to a regime of 'accumulation for accumulation sake' where human need took second place to the competitive drive to expand.
Under late capitalism, this dynamic continues - but gets worse. Thousands of people now co-operate across the globe to produce simple goods - but control of the process lies in the hands of a few Boards of Directors of large corporations. These directors are unelected and driven only by the need to 'maximise shareholder value'. The corporations have grown so huge that they now dwarf many countries with General Motors, for example, being bigger than Poland, South Africa or Ireland. In every sector of the economy, there are usually only a handful of large firms which control production and form oligopolies to share out the wealth between them. They grow ever closer to the state and seek to fully subordinate its institutions to their interests.
So the reality is that modern capitalism is run by a business class who operate behind the scenes to make sure policies suit their interests. Recent revelations at the corruption tribunals give some idea of how it works. Top business people in Ireland established a secret Ansbacher account to pay the former Taoiseach Charles Haughey a monthly bribe of £20,000. Haughey in turn looked after their interests by slashing taxes on profits.
Even when brown envelopes are not handed over, money dictates how important decisions are made behind the scenes.
Wealthy business people blackmail governments by claiming that if they do not get a good enough profit they will move their companies elsewhere. They form close networks with the top politicians so that what is seen as good for business is good for the country. The power of money means that democracy is undermined.
Parliaments no longer hold the real power in this society. Most of the decisions which affect our daily lives are made in the boardrooms of big business. Having a socialist in the Dail is important as Joe Higgins has shown but real change will not come just from parliament. Big business can be only successfully challenged when huge numbers of workers take action against its rule.
The Socialist Workers Party always points to the power of workers to bring change from below because our fundamental belief is that socialism be based on self-emancipation. It cannot be handed down from on high - it must be taken by a movement that starts at the bottom.
What is socialism?
Socialism means that production is based on human need and is not designed to satisfy the greed of the few. Instead of large factories and offices being run by private individuals whose sole interest is profit, they should be controlled by those who work.
The market should not dictate what is produced but the majority of people should be able to debate and plan what is needed for society as a whole.
Socialism therefore involves a huge extension of democracy. Under capitalism, you get to vote every four years and during elections we are told we have 'a say in running the country''. But the next morning when you go past the factory gate or the office door, nothing has changed. The boss is still dictating everything.
The global anti-capitalist movement which sprung to life after the great Seattle protests against the World Trade Organisation in 1999 is not content with this fake political democracy. It wants economic democracy as well.
We should not allow institution like the World Bank, the IMF and the WTO to dictate our lives. We should have say in how our jobs and colleges are organized. We need workers' control of the factories and offices so that the majority of people make democratic decisions about the issues that directly affect them.
When the majority controls production much of the insanity that comes with capitalism can be eliminated. There would be no need for an arms industry or for nuclear power plants, which produce plutonium as a by-product for nuclear power.
The multi-nationals would not be allowed to dictate what we eat by producing genetically modified food. The debts of underdeveloped countries in Africa and Asia would be cancelled instead of feeding the greed of the bankers.
Socialism also means co-operation rather than endless competition. Today humanity faces huge problems like the spread of AIDS or climate changes that could threaten the planet itself in the future. Instead of different companies hiding their research in the name of 'commercial secrecy' or fighting each other, socialism means that we pool resources to solve problems.
How do we get there?
We need to be organised to get socialism because those who run this system are highly organised. The use the state machinery to crack down on workers struggle. They control the media and use it to spread ideas, which divide workers.
However their system is anarchic and even they cannot fully control its workings. Our rulers are like a band of hostile brothers who unite to defend their privileges but who can also turn on each other.
All of this means there will always be struggle against their rule. These struggles manifest themselves in different ways. Most directly, it involves workers fighting for better wages and conditions. But it also involves struggles over bin charges, or resistance to evictions or students looking for decent grants because those who control capital deprive society of valuable resources.
The aim of the Socialist Workers Party is to link these struggles into a challenge to capitalism itself.
In practice this means that the SWP organises:
* In anti-war and anti-capitalist movements
In the recent past, a host of social movements have sprung up to challenge the priorities of the system. Before the attack on Iraq, the Irish Anti-War Movement was able to mobilise over 100,000 people to march against war and has sustained protests ever since. Beyond that there is a wider anti-capitalist movement which meets regularly in events like the European Social Forum and the World Social Forum to discuss its priorities. One of the main themes is to 'Think Globally, Act Locally' so it seeks to draw links between resistance to privatisation and the wider policies of the IMF and the WTO. The Socialist Workers Party believes in building and expand these movements. We work alongside a host of people who oppose the way the system work but do not necessarily draw socialist conclusions. Through common struggle, we seek to show that there is a real alternative to the system.
* In the Unions
Workers have huge power to bring change but are constantly told there 'is nothing that can be done'. This defeatist message, often unfortunately promoted by some union leaders, has led to a weakening of the unions. One result is that people often work under more stressful conditions, for longer hours and do not get full premium payments for Sunday or weekend work. The Socialist Workers Party is for a return to strong, fighting unions and our members occupy key position as shop stewards or union representatives. We argue for solidarity action between workers and oppose the idea of social partnership as a device to get workers to accept less than what they deserve in a booming economy. We press for the election of all union officials and argue they should be paid no more than the members they represent should.
* In local areas
The SWP organises branches across the country and they take up a host of issues that affect people in their area. This can mean fighting to prevent swimming pools being taken over by private companies - or simply looking for better community facilities. Throughout these struggles we argue that people should rely on themselves, that 'people power' and forging links with organized workers is the key to winning.
* In the Colleges
The SWP is the most active political organisation in many campuses. We hold regular meetings to promote socialist ideas and press for militant action to galvanize students. At all times we stress the need for students to link up with struggles outside the colleges.
Standing up against oppression
In all of these activities socialists promote the common interests of working people. Capitalism constantly tries to divide and rule, seeking to convince one group that they are superior to others. So Northern Ireland, for example, was supposed to be 'a Protestant state for a Protestant people'.
Socialists oppose all forms of oppression because they divide workers and tie one section of workers to their rulers.
This is why the Socialist Workers Party has been to the fore in organizing marches against racism and in saying that 'refugees are welcome here'. We have campaigned actively for the right to divorce without huge financial penalties, a woman's right to choose, and for the right of gay people to live without discrimination.
In Northern Ireland we argue that there is far more uniting Catholic workers and Protestant workers than dividing them. We seek to persuade Protestants to turn their back on loyalist ideas which promote superiority and for Catholic workers to reject the idea of a 'pan-nationalist alliance'. We fight for a 32 county socialist Ireland that will rise out of a challenge to both Irish states.
How we organise
The SWP is organised into local branches, which meet regularly. The meetings are practical and pull together activists who want to organise in their area, workplace or college. We also hold regular socialist forums to bring socialist ideas to a larger audience.
Becoming member of the party means joining the fight against exploitation and oppression. It entails taking a few copies of our paper Socialist Worker, participating in the activities of the local branch and paying dues.
The SWP is open to all no matter how tight their time constraints because of family or work.
The main thing is a commitment to advance the cause of socialism in whatever way one can.