Seamus Healy TD calls for Left Wing alliance

by Sean Wed May 21, 2003 09:44

Out of the country at the minute and would appreciate it if someone could post the letter as comment here.
Cheers.

by Durutti Wed May 21, 2003 09:55

How? By what means has he proved his 'leftness'? His group joined in the racist and discrininatory vote to ban Special Olympics Athletes from Clonmel.

by Anonymous Wed May 21, 2003 10:27

I back your sentiments Jim:-

"At last a chance"

Dissapointing he did not invite the Socialist Party into this alliance. The SP and the SWP should certainly seek to become part of it.

Yes the false competition of the right needs to be exposed. Garreth Fitzgerald commenting recently on the rapid decline in electoral turnout, especially among young people, pointed to the lack of an invigorating political debate between the right and the left that existed somewhat in the 70's and 80's - as everyone is drifting towards the centre.

A left wing alliance would be a great step forward. Belgium this week has once against demonstrated the huge potential for public support for the left.

by John Meehan Wed May 21, 2003 10:40

Here is Séamus Healy's letter.

This is a good initiative.

I agree strongly with Séamus that

"it was the participation of the Labour Party in such governments which created the political conditions enabling the Fianna Fáil alliance to gain and retain power. We must not go down this road again."

Any alliance along the lines suggested must have this policy as a non-negotiable bottom line.

The same principle should apply to any type of left wing alliance that might contest the forthcoming Stormont Assembly elections - if Westminster decides to allow them.

A question to Séamus - how do you think currently unaffiliated individual socialists, feminists, other activists participate in such an alliance? What role do you foresee for smaller left wing parties that, at present, are not represented in the Oireachtas? Do you think the alliance could paly a role outside the electoral arena as well - for example to co-ordinate some activity in preparation for the USA's next war against a third world country; to address issues such as the housing crisis and local authority charges; abortion facilities in Ireland; and so on.

The question does not have to be answered straight away - and in that case, how can interested supporters of this proposal start discussing the ways and means of doing this with your organisation?

---------------------------------
The recent Irish Times/TNS mrbi opinion poll confirms the view I expressed after last year's general election that a united front of the Labour Party, Greens, Sinn Féin, and non-Fianna Fáil Independents "could give the alliance a strong majority in an alternative government."

I wrote: "The alliance is capable of growing quickly to become a major contender for government".

The poll confirms this, giving such an alliance a majority, even at this stage, over the Government parties (FF-PD 36 per cent, proposed Alliance 40 per cent approximately). The reduction of support for the right-wing parties (FF + FG + PD = 56 per cent) to just over half the electorate represents an historic shift in Irish politics.

I will now be writing to party leaders and Independents with a view to forming a united front of these parties and individuals on an agreed political basis.

The cuts in public services and the rightist nature of the present Fianna Fáil-PD Government presents a major challenge to the labour movement and to ordinary people generally. On the other hand, the outcome of the last general election presents an unprecedented opportunity to meet that challenge at the political level.

Fine Gael is now in a minority on the Opposition benches. The Labour Party has 21 seats, the Greens six, Sinn Féin five and there are several non-Fianna Fáil Independents. The total, approximately 40 seats, is greater than the number of Labour Party deputies elected in the "Spring Tide". The new poll strengthens the case for a popular alliance.

Such an alliance is necessary to provide a vigorous opposition inside and outside the Dáil. Above all, it could show a new political way forward to the poor, the disadvantaged and to ordinary people generally. We could begin now with a popular campaign against cuts in health, education and policing.

The records of Fianna Fáil and Fine Gael-Labour governments over the past decade shows that such governments offer no solution to the problems facing the Irish people.

Indeed, it was the participation of the Labour Party in such governments which created the political conditions enabling the Fianna Fáil alliance to gain and retain power. We must not go down this road again.

There is now an opportunity to create a genuine political alternative. Can the leaders of the left rise to the challenge? - Yours, etc.,

SEAMUS HEALY, TD, Queen Street, Clonmel, Co Tipperary.

by Badman Wed May 21, 2003 10:43

I can't think of a single politician in the GP, LP or SF who has genuinely strong left wing principles.

The GP support bin taxes - a stake through the heart for any socialist credentials

The LP are indistinguishable from the liberal wing of FG.

SF are opportunists who are currently building a power base among the disenfranchised, as Fianna Fail did before them. This will not last long. Populist nationalism leads quickly to conservatism once it has got it's foot in the door.

The case with SF is less clear than with the others, but for any SF socialists, answer me this: which are the socialist principles of SF that are not compromisable, ie that won't be abandoned in any coalition? I dare you to name one concrete 'socialist' policy that SF will stand over.

by Janus Wed May 21, 2003 11:04

John Meehan: I don't think Seamus Healy is a big Indymedia user, might want to actually email him.

As for the idea itself, it's very interesting but unclear whether he's talking about a new party or an alliance/broad front type job.

The last thing I think he ignores is the loathing many of these parties have for each other. Labour and SF hate each other. The Greens, friends to all the world they might like to portray themselves as, hate the Shinners, the Shinners aren't too fond in return. The SP hates everyone who doesn't agree with everything they say. The SWP is even worse.

Would this Alliance be led by Pat Rabbitte? Would the Shinners want it contesting elections in the North? Would the issue of coalition split the Alliance?

It's an interesting idea but I don't think the parties involved could deliver on it.

by ??? Wed May 21, 2003 11:05

Anyone waiting for a pure socialist revolution is deluded.

All the parties mentioned in the proposed alliance aren´t scientific socialist parties.

And there are members and supporters of these parties who would not call themselves "socialist".

I am a member of one of these parties and I do call myself a socialist.

I hope that for once we socialists, progressives, leftists or whatever left leaning label you bestow upon yourself would be able to bring about a government where leftist and progressive programs can be implemented.

Sure its not going to be perfect, and it could always be MORE Socialist, or PURER but it is a process.

by Badman Wed May 21, 2003 11:19

What is the process that turns a bunch of unprincipled, careerist, opportunists whose only quibble with the status quo is over who gets to manage it, into a left wing government?

Sounds to me to be similar to the process whereby wine is turned into the blood of christ: blind faith.

by Ciaran Wed May 21, 2003 13:08

Healy's idea is an important contribution to progressive "Left" politics on this country. With the emphasis on "politics". As such, it won't get the credit it deserves from most indymedia folk.

What I'd to see is a positive response from those who damn Healy's idea and question the left-wing sympathies of the various elements of his proposed alliance?

If we're not to have a left-wing parliamentary alliance, as a cornerstone for progressive change, then how will the dramatic changes that are sorely needed (first among them a credible left wing alternative to the current conversative consensus)be realistically achieved?

Facing up to the fact that voting once every couple of years is the limit to most peoples active involvement in politics, it has to be acknowledged that any meaningful change in the future will be based on a credible, vote winning, parliament focused, left-wing opposition - more or less what Healy is proposing. A welcome argument.

by Jim Monaghan Wed May 21, 2003 13:30

The rationale for an alliance is to move things forward. How do we create something much bigger and more progressive than the disparate forces we have at the moment. How do we create something that could permanently keep the antiwar 100,000 plus from drifting back to status quo parties. How do we craete a pole of attraction that can stop the opportunists of the pro coalition Left selling out at the first opportunity.
A victory in creating an alliance would hopefully see FG joining PD and the FF in a party of the clear right.
But not just parliamentary politics alone.
As for the the fourth anf fifth components. The fourth is the SWP/SP factor who should set aside their rivalries in order to get into and become a factor in this bigger game.The other parties CP, WP Socialist DEemocracy and alphabet soup have a responsibility. The unafilliated should organise so that they can becoome a factor. Individuals can be written off.I am not talking unity for unitys sake but so that the people who want things done can be a force3 in this alliance. The SP/SWP as big (relatively) have a responsibility in this. By creating a Left of the Left they could counterbalance the opportunists such as Rabbitte and co.
Ok it is not perfect but the struggle has to be fought not on the terrain we might choose but in the reality we face.
Again it is about dynamics not just the counting of votes.

by Gaillimhed Wed May 21, 2003 16:47

No its not perfect but real life never is, at best real life is as good as you can make it. The alternative to a leftwing alliance is no left wing alliance and we can already see that doesnt work.
Compromise is the life-blood of democracy as i see it, and the reason extreme left groups in ireland have achieved little politically is because of their unwillingness to compromise their noble ideals and get on with living in the real world.
As Jim monaghan has already said, the hard left groups, as members of a broader coalition would be able to assist in moderating the more usual right wing influences found in irish mainstream politics.
Thiss could be a really great chance to build a better future for Ireland.

by Anonymous Wed May 21, 2003 17:24

I'm very much in agreement with the contributions of the above 3 people.

I would encourage everyone to write to Seamus Healy at the address given above, i.e.:-

SEAMUS HEALY, TD, Queen Street, Clonmel, Co Tipperary.

to encourage him in this vitally needed move.

Anyone got an e-mail address for him?

I think something like this seems to be looking inevitable anyhow. There has been a proliferation of camaign focused alliances between left wing parties over the last few years - the bin charges, Nice, anti-war movement etc.

Labour probably need to be brought more into it, though their is the risk then of being dragged into the centre - but I feel to be a stong alliance with real influence, Labour need to be on board - and I think Pat Rabitte is the best labour leader I have seen for some time to make this happen.

by mick Wed May 21, 2003 18:16

The hard left isn't ineffective because it refuses to "compromise its noble ideals".Sectarianism is the big problem but that's a different thing .While agreeing with the call for a serious left wing alliance I don't see why it should mean individuals or groups losing their principals.
Whatever you say about groups like sf, swp and sp ,they do attract large numbers of committed young people who are genuinly opposed to the right wing . These young people orientate to the "noble ideals" that they see such groups representing -you can't win them to cynicism.
Left unity is a noble cause sectarianism is ignoble. It often puzzles me on demonstrations hearing people chanting -The workers united will never be defeated- then afterwards the socialist party head off to one pub for a drink and the swp to another.
The SWP ,Socialist Party ,Socialist Democracy ISN Socialist Alternative should all be factions within the one party.Everybody could hold on to their"noble ideals" just as long as they respected other peoples right to do the same.

by Tom Shelley Wed May 21, 2003 18:17 Colorado USA

I was so happy last night (USA time) when I read Healy's letter. I have been thinking about this sort of thing a lot lately.

I think that with all the talk of and extreme liklihod of FG going down for good, this is a good time for it. I could be wrong, but I think the main reason why most LP members gave their transfers to FG was that a coalition with them was the only way they were going to get into government and try to reverse some of what FF had done. Now that is hardly an option, if FG continues their descent. Hopefully many LPers will realize that A) the Dail math of a Left-wing Alliance will work out better and B) of course, the politics of the Greens and Sinn Fein are ten times closer to theirs than that of FG.

But I think that IS a problem. There's no denying that many LP members and certainly the leadership, hate SF. Getting beyond this will be a long term project, probably taking a couple years, or at least several months. I've got a couple suggestions on how to work on that:

1) SF needs to be a little more consistently leftist. As I said in a letter in Republican News, they really screwed up meeting with Bush at Hillsborough, and as I've said several times before, they need to honor the boycott of the NY City St. Patrick's Day parade.

2) The LP needs to realize that the SDLP doesn not belong in the Socialist International, they are not socialist. I say that as a member of the SI tradition. The SDLP is completely 3rd Way, pro-life, mildly anti-gay, they probably have less connection to the unions than SF does, they have undermined non-violent resistance (the rent and rates strike and the McBride Principle campaign), they even campaigned against the opening of Brook Advisory Clinic in Belfast.

3) SF might be able to help convince LP members if they can get their friends in the SI tradition (Tony Benn, Ken Livingstone, the ANC, John Sweeney and Bill Fletcher of the AFL-CIO, etc.) to talk to the LP.

As far as Badman's comments, it's just sectarian shit I probably shouldn't bother with. If you take an ultra-purist approach, you're going to get nowhere. Some compromise is necessary to move further and build strength and make short-term improvements in people's lives that alleviate their suffering and/or empower them. Sure there are non-socialist tendencies in all 3 parties mentioned, but thye can be either won over or outmanuevered. That's politics.

I'm sure Badman's alternative plan is for all workers to vote for whatever pathetic party he belongs to, and no one else, and they will create a workers paradise. WHATEVER.

I think that, if this alliance were all-Ireland, it would be a mistake to take the same attitude to coalition government. The situation in the North is different. I'm not thrilled about the GFA or how the Assembly works, but I think that powersharing is the best way right now. And a Socialist-Unionist party, perhaps somewhat comparable to Israel's Meretz, is not going to eclipse both the UUP and DUP anytime soon, not for decades. Ruling out coalition with conservative parties there means either seriously renegoatiating or ending the GFA.

I'm pretty sure the Greens get along pretty well with the LP and SF, I don't think they'd be much of a problem.

Also, I'm not sure if the SARS decision is really racist. I'm not sure how infectious SARS is and exactly how it's spread (is it airborne?), but I think it might just be common public health sense.

Anyway, good luck to all of you who are in favor of this. You;re going to need it, but it will be amazing if you succeed.

Tom Shelley

by Yossarian Wed May 21, 2003 18:23

Vote 'em into power!

If you really wanted to destroy any sympathies people have for pseudo left wing parties/politics, you could do worse than help them form a coalition and get them elected. Watch, then, as they grapple to come to terms with a global system which is anathema to their supposed beliefs and they drop principle after principle (check out the Greens in Germany) until they have lost the faith of both their own constituency and those centrists who just voted for a change of government.

It is not possible to make meaningful change from within a parliamentarian democratic system because it is designed specifically to assimilate dissent and neutralise it.

To find out more, check out the pamphlet Parliament v's Democracy by Kevin Doyle which should be available on the WSM website.

PS I don't really think that it is Seamus Healy's intention to anihilate the left but that would be the inevitable consequence of a united left getting elected.

by Anonymous Wed May 21, 2003 18:26

Nice one for the e-mail address Pat C.

And I agree with Tom Shelly. FG is going down the tubes. Enda Kenny's personal rating is terrible and this was always going to be the case.

If FG go, then there will be a huge vacumn there to fill.

Of course Labour may wish to fill this for themselves. That's another point.

by archivist Wed May 21, 2003 19:37

After the election:

Where now for the left?

In their years in government, Fianna Fail and the PD’s have championed the neo-liberal agenda of tax cuts for the rich, the run down of public services and privatisation. The media have presented the results of the recent general election as an endorsement of these policies. The truth of the matter is substantially different.

The collapse of Fine Gael and the spectacular growth of the Greens, Sinn Fein and left Independents signal a dramatic realignment of Irish politics, with opportunities for the left. One of the major signs of the weakness of the Irish left has been that the country’s politics has been dominated by two right wing parties, Fianna Fail and Fine Gael. Fianna Fail traded on a more populist basis than Fine Gael, occasionally claiming that they were a left of centre party. The raft of corruption scandals that exploded since the 1980s exposed the party as a party of corruption and big business.

Working class support for FF has been declining steadily. This election was no exception. The majority of working class people either didn’t vote or voted for Labour, the Greens, Sinn Fein and for Independents. Fianna Fail received less than thirty percent support among those entitled to vote. They were returned to power because there is no longer room for three parties of the rich in Ireland. The vote of the wealthy minority who have benefited from the Celtic Tiger years consolidated around the party who were the gung-ho champions of the interests of the rich.

Fine Gael weren’t quite sure what they stood for. The dramatic collapse in their support represents a clearing the decks on the right of Irish politics. As one commentator astutely put it, ‘the people voted to change the opposition’.

Across Europe in the 1990s disillusionment with the political establishment and the neo-liberal agenda resulted in swings to Labour or Social Democratic style parties. The experience of these parties in power has bitterly disillusioned their supporters. In Ireland this has been doubly true. The Irish Labour Party has never even pretended to be a radical party. Time and time again they have benefited from the desire of working class people for an alternative to Fianna Fail and Fine Gael. Time and time again they have squandered the opportunity, trading their every political principle for a place in government with the very parties their supporters voted against.

The experience of Labour after their record vote in 1992 confirms this. Having campaigned on a platform of ‘Break the golden circle’ Labour went into coalition first with Fianna Fail and then with Fine Gael. No matter what they said in the recent election campaign — Ruairi Quinn as leader said very little of interest — huge numbers of working class people simply didn’t trust them.

The bankruptcy of Labour notwithstanding, Ireland, like every other country in Europe, is witnessing a growing mood of opposition to policies that favour big business. The anti-capitalist movement that exploded in countries across Europe has not expressed itself in Genoa-style protests in Ireland but the same mood exists. During the election anger on a wide range of issues was palpable. It was always going to find political expression somewhere.

The Greens and Sinn Fein were the most obvious candidates to pick up on this mood. Although small, both parties had a national profile and were seen to be untainted by corruption. Both parties spoke about the need for ‘clean politics’, equality, a defence of public services and the environment. Both parties were perceived to be working on the ground and were often associated with local campaigns and street politics. For people who felt that the political establishment was a million miles from their concerns Sinn Fein and the Greens seemed like a viable and radical left alternative. Joe Higgins, Socialist Party and Independents like Seamus Healy and Finian McGrath were also associated with grass roots campaigning and benefited from the mood.

Although fragmented, this overwhelmingly left vote represents the opposition to Fianna Fail. Tens of thousands of people have broken not just from the establishment but have moved to the left of Labour. There are great opportunities to create an anti-capitalist movement in this country, mirroring that developing elsewhere in Europe and across the world.

Such a movement will be badly needed. During the election Fine Gael asserted that the economy was in a mess, although nobody paid attention because it was Fine Gael saying it. Fianna Fail, they argued, couldn’t afford the promises they were making to get elected. They were correct.

The Celtic Tiger is over. The Irish boom was dependent on a massive amount of US foreign direct investment. With the end of the US boom and the dramatic contraction of the IT sector the Irish economy was always going to be particularly vulnerable. The first signs of this emerged with a raft of announcements of job losses in US multinationals. Last year saw a 48 percent increase in redundancies.

The Irish government’s strategy of stealing foreign investment from the rest of Europe has run out of steam as EU candidate countries in Eastern Europe follow the same tack. The government is now admitting that tax revenues have fallen. Cuts in public spending are on the way. This is inevitable as the government renewed its commitment to spend what money it has reducing Corporation Tax to 12.5 percent by 2004.

The votes for the Greens, Sinn Fein and the left Independents are to be welcomed wholeheartedly. They represent a desire for an alternative to parties committed to the interests of the rich. The question must be asked whether these parties can deliver.

In the minds of most, the Greens are associated with the left. They played a big part in the rejection of Nice and have been associated with campaigns against racism, corruption and war. Figures like Patricia McKenna, John Gormley and Deirdre DeBurca have a good record of supporting radical issues. However, a closer look at the Greens shows that they are moving in two contradictory directions.

In Germany, the Greens, who emerged out of the movements in the late 1960s, have now joined the political establishment. Former radical Joschka Fischer is now the Foreign Minister in the SPD/Green coalition. He backed the NATO bombing of the Balkans and the recent war in Afghanistan. In government the Greens backtracked on their opposition to nuclear power and supported the ousting of Oskar LaFontaine who attempted to close a small tax loophole on big business. In France, the Greens were part of the discredited coalition with the Socialist Party. They have been overtaken in support by Trotskyist parties as people look for a genuine alternative.

Here in Ireland the same contradictions are evident. The party refused to rule out coalition with Fianna Fail before the election. Newly elected TD Ciaran Cuffe, appearing on Questions and Answers after the election, said that the Greens had not yet decided whether they were a left or right wing party. Cuffe, along with a number of other Green councillors, voted for bin charges and have refused to come out clearly against privatisation of services under the guise of Public Private Partnerships. On a more general level, the Greens often associate themselves with grass-roots campaigns but rarely get actively involved in building them. The party’s activities are almost entirely geared towards getting elected positions.

Much the same can be said of Sinn Fein. In the South the party adopted a left stance, it called for the defence of public services and associated itself with campaigns like the Campaign Against the Bin Tax. The party has also set out consciously to build a profile in working class areas, areas treated with contempt by mainstream parties.

Closer scrutiny of Sinn Fein’s politics shows that they are on the well-trodden path towards political respectability. Sinn Fein also refused to rule out coalition with Fianna Fail before the election and their spokespeople complained when FF stated that they would not consider them as coalition partners. In Sligo, prominent SF councillor Don McManus voted for bin charges as part of a pact with FF to attain the position of Mayor. Internationally, they have been so desperate to keep onside with the Bush administration that they disowned a number of their own activists captured by the right-wing regime in Colombia. Disgracefully, Gerry Adams hobnobbed with world leaders at the World Economic Forum in New York when thousands of anti-capitalist protesters were picketing the event.

None of this is to dispute that most SF activists and voters see themselves as on the left. But clearly the leadership’s ambition goes no further than getting ministerial positions and appeasing their allies in the US.

The Independents, many of whom are left wing, do not represent a coherent alternative to the government. Even if they can gain this or that concession it will need organisation and politics that go beyond localised struggles to resist the offensive that is coming from FF and the PD’s.

In Ireland the potential for such organisation clearly exists. The votes for the Socialist Party, the Socialist Workers Party and the Workers Party show that the far left can emerge as a serious force. Without exception, the votes for socialists came where some real local organisation existed, based on grassroots campaigns and activity. An example of this was in the Campaign against the Bin Tax.

Given the likelihood that the Greens and Sinn Fein will not lead a consistent and active opposition to the right wing, socialists have a major responsibility to put forward a serious left alternative. The far left is hampered by a history of division. However, socialists need to take a leaf from the anti-capitalist movement and unite on what they agree on rather than focussing on what divides them. The failure of the different socialist organisations to form some sort of bloc for the General election meant that they lacked the national profile the Greens and Sinn Fein enjoyed.

Socialists should not make the same mistake in the local elections in two years time. A bloc of the SP, SWP and the WP with smaller groupings could have a real impact. But, of course, it’s on the front of real struggles that a Socialist bloc is even more vital. Mass action, socialist organisation and the leadership it can offer will be necessary if we are to pose a real challenge to the establishment in this country.

A united left could offer that kind of leadership but it will require the end to petty squabbling and sniping. The Socialist Workers Party is committed to pursuing that end — we hope that others on the left will join us. The alarming resurgence of the far right across Europe is a warning of what might await if we don’t pass this test.

by Robbie Wed May 21, 2003 20:40

Healy's article is just wishful thinking, especially as far as Labour is concerned.

The Labour Party's game plan is to replace Fine Gael as the second right wing party, the natural leader of the non-Fianna Fail right wing government. Fine Gael imploding has given Rabbitte and Co their chance and they aren't going to fuck it up by pissing about with SF and the Greens (still less the Socialist Party or Healy) on their left.

They want to replace Fine Gael and they are going to try to do it by sticking to the liberal politics of the non-redneck elements of FG.

Anybody who is looking to the party of Spring, Rabbitte and Quinn to try to lead a broad coalition consisting of groups and individuals who are without exception some distance to the left of Labour is going to be very sorely disappointed. It was true when Mick O'Reilly wrote an artice proposing it a few years ago and it is true now that Healy is proposing it.

by Ciaran Wed May 21, 2003 22:58

Yossarian.You argue that its not possible to make meaningful change within a parliamentary liberal democracy. And, since a weak citizenry and democratic practise is the binding principle of the Irish politic elite, of all parties, I would agree with you.

However, many IMCers are working in the campaign against the reintroduction of fees for third level. Wasn't the abolition of fees, by a compromised Labour party in coalition with the right a glimpse of how meaningful change can result from the actions of parliamentarians? In effect the CFE et al. are working to support a decision made in the Dail.

The tools for radical change - perhaps not revolutionary change - are immanent in the parliamentary system. It's just the vast conservative consensus that has governed since the foundation of the state has worked to ensure that this potential for change in the current system is denied or obscured.

Healy's idea of a left-wing alliance, full to the brim with contradictions as it is, is something that everyone on the left here should support and try to work towards.

It might be unrealistic at present but it is something to focus on and think about, and by holding out one option for radical change it's a very constructive idea.

by OK - SP Thu May 22, 2003 00:08

Ciaran stated: "...many IMCers are working in the campaign against the reintroduction of fees. Wasn't the abolition of fees... a glimpse of how meaningful change can result from the actions of parliamentarians? In effect the CFE et al. are working to support a decision made in the Dail."

and...

"The tools for radical change... are immanent in the parliamentary system. It's just the vast conservative consensus that has governed... has worked to ensure that this potential for change in the current system is denied or obscured."

I think Ciaran is very wrong about parliament being a forum for 'change'. Concessions and gains that working people have won, eg the right to vote, the right to form trade unions and parties etc, where not won in parliament- they were won through struggle outside of parliament.

Ciarán, do you really think that if the Dáil voted tomorrow for nationalisation of the banks, pharmaceutical companies, the insurance companies, the supermarkets etc that it would be respected?

If there was such a vote for nationalisation would capitalists not react? would they just put their hands up and say "oh well, it was the democratic decision of the dáil"

If a Dáil was to vote for such nationalisation it would only be on the basis of massive social movements and a revolutionary situation.

I think that you should read up on Chile in 73, Spain in the 30s, etc. This is where democratically elected governments were overthrown by capitalism when elections gave the 'wrong' result.

The Parliament and parliamentry elections should only be used as a means to spread your message. Real power & change happens among the millions in the workplaces - not among 166 people in a building on Kildare St.

by Tom Luby Thu May 22, 2003 10:15

You will see why Seamus didnt include the SP in his call. He has had past experience of their sectarianism. They have to be purer than everyone else.

by Badman Thu May 22, 2003 11:39

While they put their faith into the prospects of such a left wing alliance. A left wing alliance that:
1) is pie in the sky and is not going to happen. (all bets accepted)
2) even if it did, it would be at best very mildly social democratic and would either be destroyed by international capital or would water itself down to the point where it was homeopathic leftism.

Call anarchists what ye like, but at least we have the realism not to bother with initiatives that are never going to happen and couldn't achieve anything anyway. Yez are living in the past, desperately seeking for the holy grail of the grand left parliamentary alliance, despite the fact that its day conclusively passed over a decade ago (if it ever had a day).

by Yossarian Thu May 22, 2003 11:41

Ciaran,

I'm not sure from your post what you are saying because you both agree and disagree with me, although on balance you are proposing that meaningful change can be effected through the parliamentary system. Ah, I see, you only agree with me on the basis that "weak citizenry and democratic practise is the binding principle of the Irish politic elite". So if the citizenry was strong, then it'd be OK?
Not so, give me one example where meaningful change was wrought out of parliament (and don't talk about tuition fees, important yes, significant not) ie where parliament voted to change the way it worked to make it MORE democratic...
My poinyt is that parliamentary democracy is set up specifically to give a veneer of democracy to a process which has no redress. You must wait five fucking years to vote the cunts out of office and who can ye trust in their 'stead? I wouldn't trust myself in such a position. I propose that we cannot regulate ourselves fairly by putting or accepting people in positions of unaccountable power.
OK, ye twat, excuse the insult but you make shit of any arguement for voting for the SP: you accept that you are ineffectual in parliament but still want us to vote for ye... twisted or wha'?

by Gaillimhed Thu May 22, 2003 11:59

the question is this, do you really want a r-r-rrevolution?
The true face of revolution is ALWAYS ugly, people get hurt, killed as often, freedoms suspended, production halted, schools stop, no buses run, food shortages, no imports exports, the whole thing falls apart, no jobs, no money, no law,
Revolution is war, and is never without blood and misery.
You and those who share your views would wish that for all of us because you believe that democracy doesnt work, maybe youre right, but why not try to *reclaim* OUR parliament and OUR courts by peaceful means for US. Reform is hard, and it takes a long time. Have a long look at the history books and tell me that Revolution is the best choice. YOU want THAT for me and my kids?

by pat c Thu May 22, 2003 12:36

I agree the day to day realities must be faced up to. That is why anarchists are involved in campaigns against local charges, cutbacks etc.

Look at the record of the WSM over the past decade, they dont sit around waiting for the revolution to dawn. You are setting up men of straw to knock down.

by Badman Thu May 22, 2003 12:50

The point isn't whether anarchists always want a revolution - we don't see it as an all or nothing affair. Anarchists strive to create a sense of self confidence in the working class in our ability to organise our own lives, through collective action, self-organisation and achieving victories in specific, limited areas. That is why anarchists get involved in campaigns against service charges and the like. We hardly think that the campaign against the bin charges is suddenly going to decide to storm the dail!

Revolution comes in because, according to our understanding of how capitalism works, there is only so far that this type of movement from below can go without coming into decisive conflict with the capitalist rulers. They can grant reforms in response to popular pressure, but reforms equal victories for us and victories breed confidence, which breeds ambition for more victories. Before too long you get to the point where the rulers can give no more and we either have revolution or reaction. Revolution, when it comes to pass, generally amounts to little more than people seizing their workplaces and going from their. Once the workers control the means of production, the game is pretty much up.

Your depiction of revolution is quite a distortion. The real revolutions of the 20th century were not bloody affairs in themselves. The face of true revolution is ALWAYS beautiful. A small number of people get hurt, fewer killed. But new freedoms are unleashed, production is reorganised to satisfy human needs rather than the greed of a few, schools proliferate with their creative energy unleashed, buses run for free, food is equally distributed, everybody pulls together, work is equally shared out, no money, no law, but justice.

by pat c Thu May 22, 2003 13:02

You are getting a bit carried away and waxing way too lyrical. No one can say that a revolution in any particular place will be a bloodless affair.

Even the flawed "revolution" in Nicaragua was drowned in rivers of blood and ironically the Sandinistas were deposed by democratic elrctions. Any attempt to set up a society which seriously challenges capitalism will feel the full wrath of imperialism, economically and military. (Yes I know that you know this; all the more reason for you not to paint pretty pictures)

Revolution is not on the agenda Worldwide or in Ireland in the short to medium term. (So we wont have to worry about building Socialism in One Country.)

Yeah, keep on building confidence and fighting the important local fights and make the broader links. But do have a sense of proportion.

by Ciaran Thu May 22, 2003 13:45

Going back to Healy's proposal, I think it makes tactical sense at the moment.

Is the section of the Irish left that posts to IMC that contented with life under conservative rule that it shoots down even the most modest proposal to take first step towards taking down the right?

We all know the arguements about the limits of parliamentary democracy. And "OK", patronising people by telling them to read up on Chile in '73 and Spain in the '30's is just thick. Non SP members also like reading about revolutions from time to time. Ireland 2003 is not Catalonia 1936 or even Chile in 1973. There isn't going to be an anarchist or trotskyist revolution in Ireland, ever - get used to it.

By rejecting parliamentary democracy as a TOOL, not as an end in itself, the left is basically surrendering to the right and consigning this country to perpetual right-wing rule. A very pleasant prospect for some on the left I'm sure.

Badman argues that even if Healy's idea got off the ground, the best we could hope for is some mild form of Social Democracy. I recall Chomsky arguing that in the present climate of pervasive and intensifying neo-liberalism even Social Democracy is worth holding onto. Neo-liberals fear Social Democracy more than revolution because it's core tenets - freely accessible education and healthcare, decent employment protection, decent pensions, low-cost housing, full-employment, high taxes on wealth etc are understood by all and perceived by workers to be to their benefit. Neo-liberals and capitalists are not currently fighting to turn back revolution - they're working to destroy social democracy - which they correctly perceive as their real enemy.

You also argue that Social democratic change would be destroyed by internatinal capitalism - is that an arguement for doing nothing? You're in effect saying that international capital should be presumed to have a veto on how we decide to govern ourselves - an interesting perspective from an anarchist!

If the left are to start making any kind of structural progress here something along the lines of what Healy proposes will be crucial. For the left to dimiss it out-of-hand strikes me as perverse and self-defeating.

by Seamus Loughnan Thu May 22, 2003 13:47

I see that Archivist from the so called SWP is again attacking Sinn Fein. He says that Councillor Don McManus voted for the bin charges in Sligo. Again he got it wrong. It is Councillor Sean Mcmanus, not Don McManus. And as for voting for the bin charges that is not correct.
While it may be true that Sinn Fein had a deal with Fianna Fail about the election of Mayors the situtation is that Councillor Sean McManus and the other Sinn Fein councillors abstained when the vote on the bin charges took place.

If they had joined with Labour and FG in voting against the bin charges then Sligo Corporation would have been abolished by the Minister. Then the Ministers representative could have increased the bin charges even higher. Is that what the SWP want, higher bin charges?

by Jim Monaghan Thu May 22, 2003 13:56

The task we all face is to win a majority to our ideas. The bigger the majority the less the difficulty in making a revolution and sustaining it. When people hear that elections are a waste of time they do not hear the arguement that this is because they are manipulated by the rich and powerful. They hear instead the call of dictatorship whether of the Barrett (Yes, he is no fan of the electoral system either) or of Stalinism where the votes were more than meaningless.In Portugal the Left got tainted with being anti-democratic and suspicions arose.
In the Spanish Civil war and before it the Anarchists ignorded elections and the people only had Left bourgeoisie, Stalinists and others to vote for.When they decided to give back power to the government the revolution was lost.They particulary ignored the May events in Barcelona. ( I remember a WSM leaflet at a showing of Land and Freedom which made no mention of this) Mind you they had no problem with taking and leaving representatives in the government which destroyed the Anarchist led communes.
The fact of the matter is that the vast majority regard our limited democracy as better than any of the alternatives on offer.Look at the defence of PR against the attempts of FF to end it. That is why so many revolutionary upsurges occur in defence of electoral democracy when it is under threat form the right.
Fighting elections, Taking the seats and pointing out that democracy needs to be extended to all parts of society (ending the dictatorship of Capital)is a very important part of the struggle. Fine, many will be corrupted in this process, but this happens to tarde union militants as well as electoral activists.
By building a leftwing alternative to the status quo we would be ending the illusions people have in FF and FG. This would only be a beginning. A Left of the Left spearheaded by SP/SWP (Yes, I known their flaws, but they are part of the reality we have to deal with)could begin to deal with the Labour fakirs as well.
The 100,000 plus antiwar marchers can be won and moved further to the Left if we create this alternative.
Alas, many of us prefer preaching to the converted and living in isolated purity.
Write to Seamus Healy supporting him. Write to the political leadership of your own organisation asking for a positive response to it. Publish these letters so that these leaderships cannot claim they never heard of the call for unity.

by Tom Luby Thu May 22, 2003 14:38

' A Left of the Left spearheaded by SP/SWP (Yes, I known their flaws, but they are part of the reality we have to deal with)could begin to deal with the Labour fakirs as well.'

Jim

How could the SP be a spearhead of the Left? Would you be prepared to ignore the National Question in this Alliance?

How could a Revolutionary Programme capable of winning over the masses be hammered out when the SP holds a Pro Imperialist position regarding the British occupation of part of this island?

You can try and ignore the National Question but it wont ignore you. The SP policies on British Imperialism and Loyalism must be confronted head on by true Socialist Republicans.

by Jim Monaghan Thu May 22, 2003 15:40

Yes, the National question has not gone away. Interestingly Seamus Healy has done more here than most.
We could build a long list of what is wrong with each part of a potential Leftwing alliance.
SP Yes the weakness on the National Question.Not quite support for British Imperialism but an awful blind spot
Various Socialist Republicans. The dismal heritage of elitist militarism and with some a fondness for accelerating the march of history rather than the slog of elections, campaigning etc.
Republicans and Greens, leaving open the road to coalitions and propping up the status quo.
Take your pick of everyone else. We could go on and many on Indy do for days , no forever.
In an alliance we would at least be talking to each other. Trying to persuade each other. Trying to end confusion and bring clarity.
A mass revolutionary party without weaknesses and with fully fledged programme will not spring into existence without debate and persuasion.
I want a democratic movement where we listen to each other and try and persuade each other and where we unite to the maximum effect
The tragedy of my times was the Socilaist Labour Party of Browne and Merrigan. It could have been like the Scottish Socialist Party with tendencies that pulled together rather than apart.
To achieve anything we have to persuade and convince a huge multiple of those we have persuaded already. If we cannot work with those who share at least a significant element of the same beliefs we don't have much chance

by Tom Luby Thu May 22, 2003 16:04

The National Question is central to the Irish revolution, you are correct to criticise militarists but the Counter Revolutionary role of the SP cannot be denied. All through the war in the Occupied Six Counties they have called British Soldires Workers in Uniform, while calling Republicans terrorists. Yet another case of the SP taking the side of the State in a revolutionary struggle.

Their attitude towards Loyalism is also Counter Revolutionary. Threy see Catholics as being Sectarian and in their mirror world it is the Protestants who are discriminated against. This turning of the real world upside down results in the SP believing Catholics are Sectarian if they oppose Loyalist Parades.

Lets have unity but not at any cost. To coalesce with the SP is to spit in the face of the down trodden people of the Garvaghy Road.

by witchdoctor Thu May 22, 2003 16:51

That is why people turn to groups that sound 'sane' and coherent such as the GP,SF etc. If they wanted old fashioned arcane dogma from the likes of the SWP or the SP they would be better off joining some religon or other such gazing at the entrails.

by Psychiatrist Thu May 22, 2003 17:07

People would do well to read Denis Tourish on political cults. He does a great analysis of the SP.

by OK - SP Thu May 22, 2003 21:57

I know that this is not Chile or Spain. This is Ireland in the 21st century. The point is that Chile and Spain are examples of where the democratic decision of the people was not 'correct' in the eyes of capitalism.

Do you think that capitalism has fundementally changed so that now it will accept the decision of voters if they vote for nationalisation in a parliamentry election? How and when did this great change occour Ciarán?

Ciarán stated: "Neo-liberals fear Social Democracy more than revolution because it's core tenets - freely accessible education and healthcare, decent employment protection, decent pensions, low-cost housing, full-employment.... Neo-liberals and capitalists are not currently fighting to turn back revolution - they're working to destroy social democracy..."

Ciaran, you miss the point I was trying to make about the nature of reforms under capitalism. Reforms and gains such as 'free' education, healthcare, employment law etc are not gained by people sitting in parliament. It's because of struggle by ordinary workers.

When women won the right to vote it was not because the Parliament decided to do so out of the goodness of their hearts. It was because of struggle. Similarly elsewhere on other reforms.

It's only through struggle that reforms can be won, and maintained. Parliament (and it's elections) is something that can be used to spread revolutionary ideas - in a revolution things will not be changed by 166 people sitting in a room, it will be changed by millions of ordinary people on the streets and workplaces.

I would not dismiss the idea of a left alliance out of hand. I think that any alliance should not include those such as the LP who are not 'left' at all, and have unashamedly accepted capitalism and the market fully. Any left alliance must include genuine activists. Unfortunatly I dont think that the forces are there at the moment to launch as broad left party.

However, despite what slurs and lies have been put here, the SP are very willing to work with others in building the left in Ireland. And for the record the SP where involved in the Taxation Justice Alliance with the WUAG (Seamus Healy's group) in the 1997 election

by Fergal OB Thu May 22, 2003 22:40

As a member of the Labour party i strongly welcome Seamus Healys initiative and I hope it is taken up by others. I presume Seamus was primarily interested in working with parties who have both the organisational ability and political integrtiy to put their manifestos to the people and contest elections.
Some criticisms of the Labour party I can take, and many are valid, but most of the attacks on our movement, and it is a movement, on this site come from people who either never have or never will, put their necks on the line. They all love the 'People' alright, but not enough to stand up for them in the Councils, Corporations or Oireachtas of this country. And to the SFers out there, you've a long way to go yet before the workers of this country forget how many of their jobs you guys fucked up when your colleagues in the provos started their campaign against so called 'economic targets'. So if you want to cooperate, thats fine, if you want to fling mud, then prepare to get as good as you give.

Other than that comrades i look forward to working with you!

by Phuq Hedd Thu May 22, 2003 23:02

The traditional gains that we imagine to be characteristics of a Social Democratic society (visions of Sweden and Denmark dancing in our heads) were concessions wrung from the Capitalists by revolution and the threat of revolution.

Without a serious threat of revolution (as evidenced by a large group of those who agree with the principle and are active in taking steps such as strike action, seizure of property, blockades etc) there will be no "market" for a Social Democratic party. They won't be seen as a "compromise" party, they'll be seen as unrealistic left-wing nutjobs.

They probably won't be elected.

If they are, then as OK-SP points out, they won't be able to introduce reforms which threaten the interests of our would-be masters. The likelihood is that anyone elected will trim their sails and go with the tide of international neo-liberalism. Election promises will be unfortunately revised in the light of current exigencies. Alternatively if there is an attempt to jack up taxes, open more hospitals and provide health-care to cancer patients then our economy will experience massive capital-flight to some other neo-liberalised economy.

All that an electoral platform like the above can achieve is disappointment.

Side note to the person wittering on about the WSM and the May Days in Barcelona. The WSM are highly critical of the position taken by those anarchists in the CNT-FAI because they _entered_ the Republican government and didn't distributed weapons to the population to defend themselves. This was taken by the Friends of Durrutti and other platformists to show the dangers of entering representative governments, NOT the dangers of staying out of them. Try reading some of the material on their site:
http://struggle.ws

by Tom Shelley Fri May 23, 2003 02:36

Fergal-

I realize there are larger issues in your message, but let me say this quickly.

You claim to support Healy's call, but then launch into a negative and UNPROVOKED attack on SF. I realize this web-site is a small part of the political realm, but in this discussion, where has a SF member thrown mud? And in general, it definitely seems to me like SF has been a lot less hostile to Labour than Labour has been to SF.

Tom

by Magneto Fri May 23, 2003 11:24

It is obvious from their comments that the SP are not interested in left unity. They just write off the Labour Party. They are akin to fundamentalists who think anyone who disagees with them is in league with the devil. They seem to think that all truth resides in their organisation and their 300 members are the only ones who are 'saved'.

Fergal is a bit too hard on SF, we need unity, there is a lot we can agree on. Lets sweep forward bringing in radical independents, even the SWP. But dont waste your time with a bunch of born again "trotskyists". Tom Luby criticised their views better than I could.

by Ciaran Fri May 23, 2003 11:40

Two interesting replys and I can see where you're both coming from, the points you raise are valid and have strong support looking back at the evolution of socialism/anti-capitalism over the past 150 odd years.

I fundamentally agree that whatever reforms were won in the past were won under the threat of a revolution. It's obvious that in the first part of the twenty century when capitalists were looked at the options of confronting mass revolutionary movements, with all the implied bloodshed and chaos, or capitulating to the far-reaching but manageable demands of Social Democracy they chose the latter. Any self-interested capitalist when given a choice between revolutionary firing squads or the negotiation table of social democracy wouldn't need too much persuasion as to which is the option is their best interest.

However at the moment there is no, at least in the developed world, perceived need for revolution. As I've said in a previous post - most peoples active involvment in politics is limited to voting - due to any number of factors. Life is more complicated now than in the period when mass revolutions were a realistic option.
The proletariat and lumperproletariat just don't exist anymore and the term "working class" has any number of meanings that its political usefulness is limited.

As such, we have to face up to the task of securing change without the support of the "threat of revolution" - the left has to chart a new course towards change - and here Healy's idea has great worth and ONE element in this change.

by OK - SP Fri May 23, 2003 16:02

"The proletariat and lumperproletariat just don't exist anymore and the term "working class" has any number of meanings that its political usefulness is limited."

The working class do exist! who do you think is employed by the capitalists? who works in the factories and offices? Who is it that produces all the goods and services that exist in the world?

"Working Class" does have different meanings for different people. Petty-bourgeois elements view it as 'the poor' or as a group of people that are below a certain income. These are very unscientific understandings.

The term 'working class' refers to all people that sell their labour in order to make a living. The workers are not just people that wear cloth caps and work in the mines.

The Working class are essential to revolution due to their diametrically opposed interests to capitalists, we have an ability to take over and control the economy, and we are the vast majority of society.

Ciarán you seem to think that there is no need for a revolution in Ireland. So you are happy with the concentration of wealth and resources in this country in the hands of a few such as Tony O'Reilly, Dermot Desmond et al. You are happy with the social partnership deals, tax amnesties and tax write-offs?

Magneto stated: "It is obvious from their comments that the SP are not interested in left unity."

Magneto, I thought that it was clear from comments I made on this thread that the SP are very interested in Left Unity. We played a role in the IAWM, and played the crucial role in the formation of the Alliance Against Nice. Where were Labour? you did not support an anti-war movement, and you campaigned for a Yes vote in Nice. The SP were a part of the Taxation Justice Alliance with the WUAG in the 97 election. And Labour? you were campaigning with FG.

Magneto also stated: "They just write off the Labour Party."

We do not just 'write off' the LP. The fact is that Labour do not have any respect from activists on the left. There are no longer activists in the membership of the LP. Militant campaigned to transform the LP into a party that would fight for working people. However over the past 10-15 years Labour has lost its membership, any respect it had, and has continually sold out. Labour are not a workers party with a bourgeois leadership, you are a bourgeois party.

by Magneto Fri May 23, 2003 16:25

"Magneto, I thought that it was clear from comments I made on this thread that the SP are very interested in Left Unity."

Yet you refuse to have unity with Labour the largest left party.

"We played a role in the IAWM,"

Yeah, sabotaging DA, refusing to lobby the ICTU conference, calling people Virtual warriors as they were face to face with the cops and army.

"and played the crucial role in the formation of the Alliance Against Nice.
Where were Labour?"

I campaigned against Nice as did many Labour members. You are allowed to disagree with party policy in Labour. If an SP member publicly disagreed with party policy they would get the John Throne treatment.

"you did not support an anti-war movement, "
Labour did, unfortunately the LP leadership was as bad as the SP in opposing DA.

"We do not just 'write off' the LP. The fact is that Labour do not have any respect from activists on the left."

yes they do, hence this thread.

"There are no longer activists in the membership of the LP. Militant campaigned to transform the LP into a party that would fight for working people. However over the past 10-15 years Labour has lost its membership, any respect it had, and has continually sold out. Labour are not a workers party with a bourgeois leadership, you are a bourgeois party."

This has been argued over many times. You always run away in the end. Labour now differs in no way than when Militant were in it. How was it not a bourgeois party when Joe Higgins was in it and it supported VAT on kids shoes, closed down hospitals and Irish Shipping?

by OK - SP Fri May 23, 2003 16:34

I think that all this shite hos been gone through before. Magneto just wants to misrepresent and spread slurs against the SP.

My position is clear in previous comments. Anyone interested can read them. And any genuine person will see that the like of 'magento' is just trying to stir things up.

He or she could at least give his real name. I do suspect that 'magneto' is "huh!" on another thread about fees.

by Ciaran Fri May 23, 2003 16:58

"OK" quit the amateur sociology - I know who the f**king working classes are, I consider myself a member of it as is everyone I know. The point I'm making about the "working classes" is that it's usefulness as a rallying-cry is over in advanced, liberal democratic, capitalists states like Ireland. Most people who are,using whatever Marxist/sociological criteria you choose, objectively part of the working classes (ie who produce the goods and services that generate the surplus for capitalists blah, blah, blah) don't view themselves as "working class" in the politically loaded sense of the term that many on the far-left use.

"Ciarán you seem to think that there is no need for a revolution in Ireland. So you are happy with the concentration of wealth and resources in this country in the hands of a few such as Tony O'Reilly, Dermot Desmond et al. You are happy with the social partnership deals, tax amnesties and tax write-offs?"

No way am I happy with this, but O'Reilly and Desmond would be shitting themselves if they thought that a credible left-wing PARLIAMENTARY force was going to emerge. They're wasters but the tax amnesties and write-offs that underpin their wealth are all ultimately based on parliamentary decisions in some shape or form. I want to take these guys down a couple of pegs, redistriubte the wealth so that, at the very least, we can raise standards in the provision of healthcare and education. But a revolution just IS NOT going to do this - a parliamentary left-wing alliance JUST MIGHT.

by OK - SP Fri May 23, 2003 17:04

Ciaran stated: "I want to take these guys down a couple of pegs, redistriubte the wealth so that... we can raise standards in the provision of healthcare and education. But a revolution just IS NOT going to do this - a parliamentary left-wing alliance JUST MIGHT"

No a revolution will not just 're-distribute' wealth. It will take wealth and the power to creat it off the capitalists and into the hands of the working class.

A revolution will dramatically increasre the standard of healthcare and education.

by Magneto Fri May 23, 2003 17:05

If there are any slurs or lies then point to them.
Whats been said here about the SP is true. On the famed UCD thread (attackinf SA to start with) all thos points about the SPs role in the IAWM were proved. Domnic Haugh tried to deny he'd spread stories about the risk of garda firing into unarmed crowds. But Ray found the relevant piece and reposted it. The SP then shut up about the IAWM.

Just because you say Labour has changed doesnt make it a fact. I have put forward evidence by which it could be argued that Labour was further to the right when Militant was in it- the VAT on kids shoes, hosrital closures, Irish Shipping.

OK seems to think that if someone disagrees with the SP then its a slur.

I am not Huh! Do something about your paranoia.

by Magneto Fri May 23, 2003 17:07

Red Dawn 1917, hs, SP Member and other SP members should consider using their real names. Do you agree OK?

by Magneto Fri May 23, 2003 17:16

On the linked thread the SP are caught out lying about their role in IAWM.

http://www.indymedia.ie/cgi-bin/newswire.cgi?id=47473&start=140

by Anonymous Fri May 23, 2003 19:10

Don't forget to write to him and e-mail him (assuming of course you are in favour of it). Having a debate about it is all very well, and enjoyable, but action has to be taken to try and make this happen - and this needs to happen.

SEAMUS HEALY, TD, Queen Street, Clonmel, Co Tipperary.

[email protected]

Don't know his phone number(s).

by John Meehan Sat May 24, 2003 00:45

Some further thoughts on the South Tipperary letter :

I agree with calling on parties such as the Greens, Labour and the Greens to be part of such a "left wing alliance"; everyone on the far left should also welcome the stress on opposition to any coalition with the right.

However, in today's conditions, the leaderships of these parties will not accept the policy of opposing coalition with the right on principle.

So the question becomes this: can socialists who do agree with this basic anti-coalition proposition begin now the job of setting up such an alliance now? We can leave the door open to supporters of the LP, Greens and SF who also do not wish the left to prop up and revive the likes of Fianna Fáil and Fine Gael - or, for that matter, ideological triplets north of the border like the UUP, DUP and the SDLP.

If we do not approach the tactical question in this way, the danger is that Séamus Healy's letter will be nothing more than a useful propaganda call, and a possible recipe for doing nothing because the the bigger parliamentary parts of the Irish left will not budge.

Starting a move towards an alliance clearly implies the eventual recomposing of the Irish left along the lines of our comrades in the Scottish Socialist Party, with an internal democratic régime that allows different "platforms" or "tendencies", and guarantees their rights.

by No 2 Alliance Sat May 24, 2003 16:15

I'm opposed to a left wing alliance because:

1. Labour are not left wing. They, and Greens, will not rule out coalition with the bourgeois parties.

2. Why should left cover be given to Labour, Greens and SF? The irish left jumping into bed with these parties will not do us any favours and will only benefit these groups.

3. Calls for 'left unity' tend to come from those with either low political confidence (such as groups like Socialist Democracy) or those that are opportunist (such as the SWP). Rather reflecting a genuine need to lauch a broad formation their calls are more to do with their own politics.

4. Left Unity and an alliance can only be made when there are more activists on the left. In the TUs and in communities there are far less activists than in the past. Since the war a good number of people have become active- however not to the level needed to launch a genuine 'left unity' formation.

by Anonymous Sat May 24, 2003 17:37

All good points you make there "No 2 Alliance", but without going fully into it I would still be in disagreement.

If the likes of the SP or SWP had any chance of having real political influence in this country over the next 10, 20 or even 30 years I would agree with you. But realistically I do not see it happening.

In the interim why should the disadvantaged people in Ireland have to continue to suffer under FF rule? They have endured it for countless decades now and unless a government spearheaded by Labour can get into power, they will continue to suffer.

Yes I agree Labour are probably more centre now than anything, arguably even right wing, but the disadvantaged in Ireland will fare much better under their rule than under FF's.

My opinion is to use this as an interim soloution till hopefully socialist parties can become big and influential.

by John Throne - labors militant voice Sat May 24, 2003 20:58 loughfinn at aol dot com

I think it is very interesting to see the call by Seamus Healy for some sort of unity between Sinn Fein, The Greens, the Labor party and anti Fiannia Fail independents. Others have referred to his call as being for "left unity". I am not sure if I have seen his complete text. But in the part that I have seen which is included in this thread he talks in places about a "popular alliance" and a 'popular campaign". This seems a bit different from a "left alliance'. He also says the step he proposes "would give the alliance a strong majority in an alternative government". Does this mean the alliance he calls for would be prepared to be in government for a period with some other forces. I am not clear exactly what he is calling for.

But assuming these are just loose formulations and that he is calling for an alliance of Sinn Fein, the Greens, the Labor Party and himself and other anti Fianna Fail indepentents and that he refers to this as a left alliance I would like to raise a few points for consideration.

One contribution to this discussion raised the need to consider the 100,000 people who took some action against the war in Ireland and the need to give a way forward for these people. These are my words not his but I think they accurately reflect his meaning. I think that this is a very important consideration. I believe that left forces who respond to this new development, this new force that emerged briefly in those few weeks, by simply recruiting to their own ranks and to building the occasional united front on a specific issue are acting in a way holds the movement back. I believe that the affect of such an approach is sectarian.

These 100,000 are part of the ten million plus internationally who took to the streets in Febuary against the invasion of Iraq by US imperialism and its dogs in Westminister. These forces were preceeded by the rise of the international anti global capitalist movement. I believe that these forces reflect the rise of a new international force that the revolutionary left have to be part off and help it clarify its ideas and develop more of a structure. I believe that the struggle is for an anti capitalist working class international with a base in every country which would have as its objective to confront and throw back the capitalist offensive and to end capitalism and within which the various anti capitalist ideas would be debated and tested.

In this context I would like to look at Healy's call. It seems to me that he is trying to reach out to the 100,000 and offer this new force an electoral alliance of the parties he proposes. That is how he sees taking this movement forward. I believe when we look at his call in this way it is not hard to see that he is mistaken. First of all the policies of the various parties he speaks of are all based on a continuation of capitalism. Labor has proven this by its policies when in office. It helped carry out the capitalist offensive against the working class. Sinn Fein have gone into government with the capitalist unionist party in the North and carried out policies which were part of the capitalist offensive. The Greens I believe have made clear they want to manage capitalism only in a more environmentally safe manner. So Healy is calling for the new movement to use its energies to build an electoral alliance which would not identify and oppose capitalism as the cause of the problems and which if it got power would carry out the policies of the capitalist offensive. Rather than take this new movement forward this would be to take it into a dead end.

I am leaving out that in the present situation in my opinion there is no way that Sinn Fein or the Labor Party would enter such an alliance. Sinn Fein wants to become the main nationalist capitalist party in the South as it looks like it is poised to become the main catholic capitalist party in the North. It is gaining support and it would see any such alliance as cutting across its rise. This does not mean that there are not many serious anti capitalist activists in its ranks. However its policies in the North and its hobnobbing with the Irish American bourgeois and the Bush regime show that its leadership are very clear where they are going. I feel it is almost like watching a replay of the rise of Fianna fail.

Labor wants to become the main capitalist party in the South. To replace Fine gael and then go on to become the main capitalist party such as we see to a greater or lesser degree with its colleagues in Britain, Germany, etc. Labor are in a bitter conflict with Sinn Fein in this regard. The idea that they would enter an alliance such as Healy suggests at this time seems to me not in any way credible. And of course if they did and if Healy's proposal came about and there were enough TD's to form a government it would be a capitalist government carrying out the capitalist offensive. It would be competing for capitalist investment with other countries. We see Labor's and The Greens' German colleagues trying to bring in "labor reform" that is cutting labors rights and gains to placate capitalism. This would be the same with any alliance including these parties in Ireland. I believe therefore that this is a call that is not credible in the sense it will never come about. That it is not a progressive step in the sense that it would not develop the new forces that have emerged in a way that will take forward the struggle against the capitalist offensive. That it is not progressive in that it would not help build an anti capitalist working class movement. Instead it would take the movement that exists and the new forces that briefly showed themselves in the anti war movement into an electoral alliance which will capitulate at every turn about and demoralise and further fragment and divide the potential anti capitalist forces.

But what is the alternative. The revolutionary left has to have an alternative if it is to face up the needs of the working class and the possibilities ion the new situation. It would be sectarian just to reject Healy's call and only offer instead membership of a revolutionary organization and the odd united front on specific issues. I am not as fully informed as i would like to be of the situation In Ireland but I would like to raise the following suggestions.

I understand that there has been an anti war movement involving many different groups and also new forces . That there is an ongoing anti bin charges campaign involving different groups and activists. That there are other campaigns such as against the attacks on education involving different groups and activists. I also hear now and then about the different struggles that flare up in the neighbourhoods, the workplaces, as working class people try to deal with the negative affects on their lives of the capitalist offensive. And of course there are the daily attacks which go unanswered as working class people cannot see a way to fight back at this time.

I believe that the alternative to Healy's call for what is basically an electoral alliance, the main participants of which base themselves on capitalism, is to discuss and call for and work for a united front movement of the forces that are fighting on these issues referred to above. That is that the struggle is taken up to build neighbourhood and workplace action committees of the various forces involved in these struggles. That is rather than setting up a united front committee on this issue and then another on another issue and another on another issue that we attempt to bring together the various forces into action committees to fight the capitalist offensive. That is we call for and work for anti capitalist working class committees to confront and throw back the capitalist offensive. I believe that these bodies should be explicitly anti capitalist and should see as their main task fighting the day to day attacks on working class people through direct action fight to win tactics and the linking of these day to day attacks on working peoples lives and on the environment with capitalism and the need to end capitalism.

I think that the struggle should be taken up to link these committees together and for them to reject the token protests of the leadership of such organizations as the unions and the liberal groups and instead base themselves on direct action fight to win policies. By this I mean policies which confront the attacks and make those who carry out these attacks pay an economic and political price and which actually defeat the attacks.

Central to this approach is that such actions would be seen as building a new working class movement both inside and outside the union movement. That these direct action fight to win policies would also be based on the need to build a movement of the working class and to rebuild in the working class movement a new anti capitalist current that would help the working class as a whole see what it faces and what has to be done. And that the new emerging forces which we saw take action against the invasion of Iraq would be offered this alternative form of struggle and these alternative organizations of struggle.

A few basic principles could be drawn up for such action committees. In this part of the world we are trying to move forward on this front around the following basic principles but I am sure that in Ireland there may be some variations that would be useful.

Here we are fighting for:

# that the action committees and the new movement see its role as to identify, confront and defeat the capitalist offensive which impacts on all aspects of working peoples lives and threatens the future of the planet.
# that these committees and the new movement be explicitly anti capitalist.
# that it is orientated towards and seeks to build a new movement of the working class.
# that it rejects token protests and instead bases itself on direct action fight to win policies the aim of which is to halt and throw back the capitalist offensive.
# that it is opposed to racism and sexism.

I believe that the revolutionary groups and activists and the anti capitalist activists should take up this struggle and offer this as the alternative to the new forces that are emerging.
I believe that this approach would allow activists from a revolutionary socialist background and anarchist background to work together, it would allow the many activists in Sinn fein and those in the Greens and the Labor party who genuinely want to fight to work together, it would allow the activist workers who want to fight against the daily attacks to work together, it would allow the those who are drawn into activity on a specific issue, the invasion of Iraq, the bin charges, the cuts in wages, the cuts in services, privatization, the attacks on the environment, etc etc to work together. It would allow for a real struggle to identify these problems that we face as being caused by capitalism and specifically in this period the capitalist offensive.

I would like to suggest that this would be a much more progressive alternative than that of Healy's. It will be raised but this leaves out the important field of electoral politics. I do not believe that capitalism can be ended by parliament but I also do not believe that a genuine mass movement against capitalism can be built by abstentionism. This suggested approach I explain above can be leave open initially what position this struggle and these action committees would take on this issue. There are various alternatives which can be considered. But for me the most important issue at this time is to offer a way in which the existing activists and the new movement can identify capitalism as the source of the problems, can fight capitalism in a way that defeats the attacks on all of us and can in this way begin to build a new movement of the working class which is addressing the needs of the situation in an effective manner.

John Throne.

by No 2 Alliance Sun May 25, 2003 15:22

"Yes I agree Labour are probably more centre now than anything, arguably even right wing, but the disadvantaged in Ireland will fare much better under their rule than under FF's."

Labour support:
Social partnership deals,
Tax amnesties,
Nice Treaty,
bin tax in Dublin City,
Privatisation and 'private role in public services',
Education policy based on 'needs of the economy',
Sanctions on Iraq,
Taking corporate donations,
The TU bureaucrats.

This is what Labour are all about. How can a 'left alliance' be 'spearheaded' by this scum?

And as for John Throne:
Why do you not realise that establishing anti-capitalist 'committees' in Ireland cannot happen in a genuine way at this stage in Ireland.