LABOUR WELCOMES STANDING ORDERS CHANGE TO RESTORE ROLE OF POLITICAL PARTIES

by Brian Cahill Thu Oct 24, 2002 04:02

Labour cut a deal with Fianna Fail which enables Ahern to get out of having to answer awkward questions in public in return for making sure that Labour get to speak before Sinn Fein or the Greens or Joe Higgins. Nice one.

by ? Thu Oct 24, 2002 09:22

Labour are a shower of wankers but what are Joe higgins and the Sinners do with the Scumbag Lowry?
Technical or otherwise they shouldn't be working with him.
honestly confused

by Justin Moran - Sinn Fein Thu Oct 24, 2002 10:09 maigh_nuad at yahoo dot com

We dn't work with, speak to or have dealings with Lowry. Neither, for that matter, would Higgins I reckon. The Technical Group is a purely formal relationship. Tony Gregory and Joe Higgins brought together 11 Independents and Socialist Party. That's one faction of the group. We're another and the Greens are the third. How those 11 were selected is not out business. It's for the independents to decide.

Labour are just using Lowry to duck the real issue of letting the Taoiseach away without answering questions for half the week.

by Andrew Thu Oct 24, 2002 10:45

Wow, bringing Michael Lowry into the technical group is the best example of the corrupting effect electoral politics has on the left I have seen to date.

(Presuming this is actually true of course!)

by pat c Thu Oct 24, 2002 11:17

a rocky one indeed.

by Justin Moran - Sinn Fein Thu Oct 24, 2002 11:56 maigh_nuad at yahoo dot com

Corruption of the left? I think there is a fairly serious misunderstanding of what a Technical Group is. We don't have party offices. We don't have party meetings. We don't have joint party administration. We don't have to agree on a single solitary thing, and considering some of the independents there are a lot more than single things. We never see each other, we rarely talk to each other. The only Technical Group members we see are the Greens, Higgins and Gregory and that only because we're on the same floor. Lowry gave the group greater speaking priority over Labour. SF didn't ask him in. The Greens didn't ask him in. The Independent faction did and how they adminster themselves is up to them.

The only reason for the existence of this group is to allow greater speaking time, better opportunity to ask questions, put motions and work to hold the government accountable. Last night I watched the rare event of a Dail gallery, packed with people who experienced the most terrible emotional pain, bursting into applause to acknowledge the fact that the Technical Group had managed to bring the organ retention scandal before the House for debate.

I agree with one of the SP posters. No-one here thinks a socialist republic is coming from here, or whatever the SP are after this week. But it gives us a platform, it gives us access to reams of information, it allows us to publicise things and debate issues that would otherwise be ignored. Being here is a soul-destroying day in slugfest with reactionaries, Free Staters and scumbags the likes of which i never truly understood until I had to see them every day. And there are a handful of TDs trying to fight them in here because we will not turn away from any battlefield. We set up a Technical Group to better do so.

by Andrew Thu Oct 24, 2002 12:09

Seiously your justification for working with Lowry just underlines what I'm saying. Now I agree that to groups that see the Dail as central you have quite a good argument. The compromise of working with one of the politicans who eptomises the 'corruption' of the capitalist system stands to make SF more effective in the Dail. As of coure would coalition with FF. I think we all know where that story ends up already!

I'm a little surprised to see the SP getting sucked in at such an early and weak stage in its Dail career but I guess this just proves how well the system is designed! Ah well now we just have to wait for the next group to win an election with the idea that it will use the Dail as a platform rather then the other way around.

by Justin Moran - Sinn Fein Thu Oct 24, 2002 12:20 maigh_nuad at yahoo dot com

Andrew, I respect the principled opposition to parliament of Anarchists, even admire it to an extent while deeply disagreeing with it, but I feel your opposition to it is obscuring your analysis of this.

We don't work with Mr Lowry. The Technical Group, because of its size, gets a sizeable enough speaking time. It's divided three ways. We get our bit, Greens theirs and Inds theirs. The Inds then further divide and Lowry would, if he wishes, look for time there.

Implying the Technical Group is a coalition or could lead to it is madness. Simply because Joe Higgins and Martin Ferris are in the same Technical Group doesn't mean Higgins has accepted our policies or us his. Ferris could stand up, do a speech and then be followed by Higgins, or Lowry indeed, disagreeing with everything just said. There is no compromise with Lowry.

This isn't coalition. This isn't shared policies. This isn't agreed stands or policy platforms. We were denied a reasonable voice to speak. Whole area of the Dáil arrangements were closed to us because we weren't big enough. So we set up a Technical Group which has NO POLITICAL importance. It is a technical arrangement done to obtain time and the opportunity to make points. There is no compromising with anyone, except Labour compromising with Ahern to let him off questions. I am all for opposing coalition, and deals with establishment parties, but that's not what this is. Fuck Lowry, how do you think Green supporters who don't understand what a Technical Group is think about being asociated with those dastardly, yet oddly charming, republican gun-runners.

by Andrew Thu Oct 24, 2002 12:33

Justin I understand what a technical group is and how it is not identical to a coalition. I also understand why SF has entered into this arrangment with Lowry. To paraphrase Lenin it allows you to stand a little higher on the dung heap of parliament, the better to have your voices heard to those outside. From a parliamentary point of view you compromise makes perfect sense - which BTW is exactly the point I'm trying to make.

If you look down from you posting nearer the top of the dung heap you may notice that carrying the extra weight of Lowry has resulted in you also sinking a little deeper into it. Not so much to cause concern yet perhaps but as you stay there you will continue to sink slowly but surely until you come to look and smell like all the other segments of the dung heap. Maybe SF will get luckly and be that segment at the top for a while.

by evil twin Thu Oct 24, 2002 13:12

In your desire to get to speak more, you have provided Lowry with the same chance.

Even FINE GAEL weren't prepared to offer him this chance, but somehow Holy Joe Higgins can see past Lowry's crimes and give him a hand up.

Not to mention the rural conservative TDs that propped up the last government and forced another referendum on abortion.

But you need Lowry so you can do what? Speak for longer? Holy Joe used to say that he didn't socialise the Dail bar but he's prepared now to collaborate with pro-life loonies and one of the most corrupt TDs in the land.

Why didn't you set up a technical group with SF, the Greens, Higgins, Healy, McGrath and Gregory?

Because you are ALL drunk on power. That would have been a group of 15. You would still have got party status.

Hypocrites, one and all.

by Orla - Socialist Party Thu Oct 24, 2002 13:20 orladrohan at hotmail dot com 087 9722847

The key point in relation to the debate around speaking time in the Dail is that the Labour Party
did a shoddy backroom deal with Ahern and Harney to enable the Taoiseach to absent himself from answering questions in the Dail on Thursdays.

It is in nobody's, but nobody's, interest that the Taoiseach should be able to wriggle out of answering questions and effectively only have to present himself in the Dail for one and a half days each week. (Wouldn't I love a one and a half day's week!) Ahern wants a Presidential style leadership where he is accountable to nobody.

Why did the Labour Party do this great diservice to the Irish people? For its own petty reasons.
They wanted to be called ahead of the Technical Group in the speaking order. If it was so important to to the Labour Party to get their snout into the trough before the Technical Group, they could have negotiated with and come to a mutual agreement with that group. Instead they ran off to Ahern and did a shoddy deal; a deal which lessens the democratic accountability of the Taoiseach to the Opposition as a whole and to the Irish people.

On a final note, let's not forget that the reason the Technical Group had to be set up in the first place was because of Dail rules designed to deny democratic rights to smaller parties and independents. Rules which effectively try to stifle any minority voices in the Dail.

by Ray Thu Oct 24, 2002 13:59

Correct me if I'm wrong, but wouldn't the technical group have received the same rights as other parties even if they didn't include Lowry? They would have been behind Labour in the speaking order, but is that all they needed Lowry for?

by evil twin Thu Oct 24, 2002 14:07

That's all they needed Lowry for.

All a technical group needs is a majority of the unaligned TDs.

Does no-one see what's happening here? Orla from the SP is having a go at Labour for doing a deal with Ahern. Labour are having a go at the SP for doing a deal with Lowry.

THEY'RE ALL THE SAME. The difference is Higgins pretends to be so pure. There's nothing wrong with a deal being done but it stinks to try and pretend that you are different.

If it's acceptable for Higgins and the other leftist independents & small parties to promote the career of Lowry, in order to get them more speaking chances, then it's OK for Labour to let Ahern off the hook so they can get to speak more.

Once more from the top

The SP,SF,Greens and left independents want better speaking rights = they do a deal with a corrupt politician (Michael Lowry)
The Labour party wants better speaking rights = they do a deal with a corrupt politician (Bertie Ahern)

by Justin Moran - Sinn Fein Thu Oct 24, 2002 14:18 maigh_nuad at yahoo dot com

A couple of points to clear up and adjust. SF did not do a deal with Lowry. We did a deal with a group of Independents which included Lowry. The Independents had hoped at the start of the session to get enough TDs that they wouldn't need an alliance with us or the Greens. This failed but they came close, having 11 TDs. They formed a group and negotiated with our group and the Green group. We had no more right to ask them to drop Lowry than they did to ask us to drop Ferris for example. Yes, we could have formed a Technical Group without Lowry but only if the Independents were prepared to drop him which they were not. We're here to provide the most effective opposition we can and we made a deal with mostly progressive TDs like the Greens and an Independent bloc including Joe Higgins, Tony Gregory, Finian McGrath, Seamus Healy et al to do so.

Labour abdicated their responsibility as an effective opposition by undermining the already limited ability of the House to hold Ahern accountable. Their deal not only benefited them and cost us, which would be merely another chapter in fighting the Labour party, inside and out. It allows the Taoiseach to get away with not answering questions.

by Ray Thu Oct 24, 2002 14:22

- Yes, we could have formed a Technical Group without Lowry but only if the Independents were prepared to drop him which they were not.

The independents wanted to form a technical group. Sinn Fein (and the Greens and the SP wanted to form a technical group). I can't imagine that all of the independents were so adamant that Lowry must be a part of any deal that you couldn't have persuaded enough of them to join your group.

by OK - SP Thu Oct 24, 2002 15:02

The technical group is not a coalition or agreed platform. It is merely a devise to get proper speaking time for TDs and parties that should have it by right.

If you look at its membership you can see where there are differences. SP, SF, GP and the range of independents have differnt views, and some similar views. The Technical Group is not a compromise. As said before Caomhghín Ó Caoláin could get up and say one thing, then Joe Higgins could get up and say another.

I dont think anarchists realise that we in the SP do view the Dáil as it should be viewed, a platform and a great opportunity to get our ideas out among the public. We've no illusions in the Dáil.

by Orla Thu Oct 24, 2002 15:05

Some of the postings seem to misunderstand the nature of the technical group. When the current Dail was elected, Sinn Fein, the Greens, the Socialist Party and the independents all looked for speaking rights independently.

When this was denied them, they had no option but to form a technical group to enable them to have a decent amount of speaking time; ask questions; put down motions etc.

The technical group is not a "united front", it is a mere technical arrangement forced on small parties and independents by Dail rules. It is a means by which they can effectively represent people.

Under current Dail standing orders, no independent TD who wishes to join such a group can be barred from doing so.

For those who would taunt the progressive elements in the technical group with the spectre of "Lowry"; would they not agree that although he is a vile, corrupt gombeen with nothing useful to say that he should nonetheless have the democratic right to speak in the Dail if he so wishes? Or should he be gagged and denied any speaking rights?

Finally would "ultra-lefts" please take note that socialists view the Dail as just one more platform from which to raise socialist ideas and connect with people's consciousness. Nothing more.

by Ray Thu Oct 24, 2002 15:15

I agree that there should be no need for a technical group at all. Parties should get speaking rights proportional to their representation, and independents (or people like Joe, who's the sole representative of his party) shouldn't be denied access to any of the Dail facilities.

But that doesn't mean that the SP (or SF, or the Greens) had to form a technical group that contained Michael Lowry, a politician that has been proven to have taken bribes, a politician that many of the other members of the technical group have condemned in the past. It appears that the reason Lowry was included (or that they didn't fight for him to be excluded) was that Lowry's membership of the grouping gave them a numerical advantage over the Labour party. While I don't carry a torch for the Labour party, that's a pretty bad reason to form _any_ sort of alliance with Lowry.

by Andrew Thu Oct 24, 2002 15:28

Seriously, if this isn't an example of the Dail tail wagging the CWI dog I don't know what is. Up to this you could take the SP claim that the Dail was just another platform seriously. Now it's rather obvious just how much in terms of principle will be sacrificed to speak 3rd rather then 4th from the dungheap. Which just goes to show that the system works all too well.

Surely there is somebody from the SP out there who will admit to be just a tiny bit embarrassed by all this? More interesting still, who decided that the SP could go into a tech alliance with Lowry. Did the members even know in advance this was coming or did their leaders decide it for them?

by vert-et-noir Thu Oct 24, 2002 15:28

doesn't in any way explain why the beast must be bigger than Labour.

Comhaontas Glas, Sinn Fein, Socialist Party and a couple of others were all that were needed, so can someone go ask one of those who actually negotiated this group how it is that they think they can justify association with Lowry and the others they have chosen as their (strange) bedfellows.

Until then it just more (negative) sectarian shit. Why can't politicos ever become involved in outdoing each other in a positive action??????

by MG Thu Oct 24, 2002 15:40

You have argued that forming a Technical Group with Lowry helps you to increase your chances of getting your views out through the Dail.

Would accepting corporate donations (if any were offered) not also help you to boost your voice?

If you are ideologically opposed to corporate corruption, then say so. Don't employ double standards and try to defend your alliance with Lowry on the grounds that it will benefit socialism, because it won't.

If you fat-cats had any morals you would have refused to participate in that Technical Group becuase it was the wrong thing to do.

Instead, you compromised your morals for the sake of power. Vive la revolution indeed.

by Justin Moran - Sinn Fein Thu Oct 24, 2002 15:49 maigh_nuad at yahoo dot com

NO-ONE is in an alliance with Lowry. You're free to call yourself whatever you want but it doesn't change the fundamental fact that this is a form decision. There is no alliance. Lowry doesn't get to ask us for money. We don't ask him to speak at party meetings. You might as well ask some of the other TDs who hate us what they're doing in a Technical Group with us? I think the Socialist Party's policy on the North is one step away from sheer lunacy. They think our policy on PFI is a complete capitulation. We compete in each other's constituencies and we compete in every other way. This isn't a problem as it would be in an alliance or a party because it's merely a Technical Group. You don't have to like, respect, or even tolerate the people in the Group for it to function.

Secondly, Lowry was not invited simply to overtake the Labour party. Independent TDs were trying to make the magic number of 13. They got 11 together. They realised they'd need the parties to make it over so two representatives from each bloc sat down to thrash out the arrangements. They brought that bloc of 11 to the table. We brought our bloc of 5 and the Greens theirs of six. It actually wasn't until the end of the meeting that one of the people present noticed we had one more than Labour.

Now who decided Lowry should be in the Independent bloc, who asked him to join, I have no idea. And frankly, I don't give a flying shit and I don't think anyone with a shred of political cop on does either. Excuse the harshness, but it beggars belief that a bunch of political activists have been distracted by what even Labour people privately know is a ridiculously transparent and see-through blind to distract attention away from their actions.

by OK - SP Thu Oct 24, 2002 15:59

The technical group does not mean that it's members agree a common platfor. It's not like the Alliance Against Nice where there was an agreed platform against NIce.

Justin is right, the SP and SF disagree strongly on the National Question, and SP are very much against SF's policy of privatisation in the North.

Being in the Technical Group doesn't mean we agree on these things. There is the (likely)possibility that on the same debate members of the Group will be in sharp disagreement with each other.

I accept Justin's point that the reason for the Group was not just to get one more than Labour, in a way that's a co-incidence. The main point of the Group is to give elected representatives the right to speak in the Dáil.

Ideally all parties and independents would have the right to speak at the order of business and at Question time.

As I said before, going into a technical group is not the same as entering a United Front with the other groups and independents.

by Joe Higgins - Socialist Party Thu Oct 24, 2002 16:02 joe.higgins at oireachtas dot irlgov dot ie

Press Statement – 24th October 2002

Labour attempts a smear campaign to cover up its shabby sellout to Fianna Fáil

Joe Higgins T.D.
Socialist Party

The Labour Party is involved in a desperate bid to divert attention from its shabby deal with Fianna Fáil allowing the Taoiseach to be absent from the Dáil on Thursdays.

That Labour should be prepared to make this sellout in order to get its speaking snout into the trough in the Dáil ahead of representatives of the Technical Group is beneath contempt.

The Labour Party is now attempting a smear campaign against the main groups in the Technical Group, claiming it has “rehabilitated Deputy Michael Lowry”.

The Labour Party knows well that the Technical Group is merely a technical arrangement to provide speaking and other rights for those elected to Dáil Eireann. It is the only recourse left to the smaller parties and independents to arrange time as of right under the rules of the Dáil, which the Government refused to change. Nobody has the right under these rules to exclude any member from being in the Technical Group.

Labour’s cheap smear is a desperate effort to divert attention from its shabby sellout which, even by the historical standards of the Labour Party, reaches a new low.

For further information, contact Joe Higgins T.D. at (01) 618 3038

by Andrew Thu Oct 24, 2002 16:23

Hi guys,

you can give up on the excuses, if the press release is accurate in saying "Nobody has the right under these rules to exclude any member from being in the Technical Group." then you had no choice but to allow Lowry join the group. Now why didn't you tell us that in the first place ...?

by OK - SP Thu Oct 24, 2002 16:26

The Technical group is not an Alliance. Any TD could have joined.

SP disagree with SF strongly on a range of issues, same with GP. Why are you not criticising SP over an 'alliance' with these parties?

I think that you still don't get it............ it's a technical group not an alliance. Being in the group doesn't mean that we agree on policy etc.

by vert-et-noir Thu Oct 24, 2002 16:53

and seemingly we can't tell anyone we can't say no either. Sounds depressingly familiar.

Are ye trying to tell us that because Joe Higgins or Seamus Healy had initially been negotiating with M. Lowry, once it became apparent that the ind. approach would fail (to gain 13 members) they felt they could not back out and negotiate elsewhere.

There may be no hidden agenda here but there's a serious lack of cop-on.

Both Joe Higgins and Seamus Healy would say they are members of political parties in the Dail. Why, when the independents approach failed did these parties not negotiate with the other parties (SF & GP) to form a 'parties technical group'? you've got the magical number and a lot less uneasiness.

I trust that once a technical group is set up it cannot be disbanded until another election has occoured, so yuose cant even get out of it....

by Justin Moran - Sinn Fein Thu Oct 24, 2002 17:16 maigh_nuad at yahoo dot com

As far as I know a Technical Group can be changed once formed and as for why Healy and Higgins didn't just join with SF and the Greens, while that would make 13, it would be very likely SF and the Greens would dominate speaking time at the expense of Messrs Healy and Higgins. Tactically, it wouldn't have made sense for the Inds to go in with less than five or six.

by Sammy J Thu Oct 24, 2002 17:51

Joe Higgins of the SP says: "Nobody has the right under these rules to exclude any member from being in the Technical Group".

But nobody can be forced to be *in* any particular Technical Group. Therefore the SP and SF could have just said "No, we're not in if it includes Michael Lowry".

No lads, ye *chose* to be in a Technical Group with Michael Lowry.

by doheochai - Socialist Party Thu Oct 24, 2002 18:23

As far back as the Dublin West by-election, Anarchists have been claiming that Joe Higgins would sell-out. They even went so far as to tell people not to vote for him despite the fact that he was endorsed as the anti-water cherges candidate. When he got elected again they said he would sell out.

Sorry comrades but Joe Higgins has proved time and time again that he will not be bought off. This lastest whing is just more of the same. When will you guys ever learn.

by FK - SP Thu Oct 24, 2002 20:04

The Technical group is just that it is TECHNICAL. There are no whip meetings or any common political platforms decided upon. If there was I would consider leaving the SP.

For the 'Labour' party to be bringing up Lowry is a disgrace. it is the Labour party that were in GOVERNMENT with him when he was taking backhanders and doing corrupt deals left right and centre.

by iosaf who remembers what he learns - reclaim the streets & genome for peace. Thu Oct 24, 2002 20:05 iosaf at email dot com barcelona

that SF and SP can fellow travel with Lowry for their technical grouping quite well.
If SF and SP and the Greens and the anarchists
(and there are many many shades of black black red black green)
could work together against NICE in the company of repugnant "white blockers" now linked to German Neo Nazi movements, then I see no immediate reasons to think that Lowry will divert either SF or SP from exercising their democratic mandates.
IF Mr. Lowry proves to be a problem in the future and his "resuscitated Dail career" threatens us all with reactionary nonsense, then never fear Ignatius the Indignant will be recalled from Rome (to hell with Opus Dei, Ratzinger and the RC right) and put to work on Mr Lowry.
So there you go Mr. Lowry has been warned.
a "green/red/white" technical grouping is present in Dail Eireann and the other "green" block can find another solution.
I think this should be of longterm advantage to anarchists.

and in reference to participation in governance/ control issues anarchists should maybe consider an article posted yesterday on indymedia.uk in reference to re-instatement of a Met police officer.
The 21century is proving very difficult for some of us anarchists.
But that is to be expected, we have now learnt that it is not a feasible solution alone for us all to head for the hills and set up organic farming collectives and hold weekly assemblies.

by big deal Thu Oct 24, 2002 23:33

i dont support sf or the sp, but whats the distinction between the sp and sf talking to ex blueshirt lowry and labour dying to get into coalition with racist kenny and his blueshirts?

by OK - SP Fri Oct 25, 2002 00:22

the difference is that SP, SF, etc are in a TECHNICAL group, not a coalition. The technical group does not mean any agreement on programme.

If it did I'd have serious problems with going into a deal with SF or greens, or most of the independents.

Can people not see that it's a TECHNICAL GROUP it does not mean any agreement on policy, principle etc. It merely exists so that TDs can get the speaking rights they should be entitled to.

Having a go at the SP because Lowry is in the group is stupid. It is merely an attempt by the Labour Party to divert attention their shamefull deal with Bertie Ahern.

People on Indymedia should be attacking Labour not the SP. Labour are the ones that gave Berties Ahern less accountability (not that he's very accountable as it is!), they are the ones that went into coalition with FF-FG-IBEC, they are the ones that take money from big business, they are the careerists, they gave big business a tax amnesty.

Labour are a disgrace and should be the ones that are attacted. Or is it that Anarchist types prefer the Labour party to the SP?

by contra - diction Fri Oct 25, 2002 01:24

hmmmmm, i wonder why the anarchists are getting so damn upset about a TECHNICAL, i reapat TECHNICAL, grouping in an institution that they claim to abhorr. after all everyone in the dail is a self professed 'leader' arent they? is that not your platform girls and boys?

in my opinion, everyone in the dail if elected should be entitled to an eqaul speaking platform. why? because they are elected, and this includes that muppit lowry. anarcists are all about 'the people' arent they? well my friends, im afraid that your beloved 'people' saw fit to elect mr lowry in spite of the shity nature of his politcs, and therefore he has a right to speak in the dail.

i can see why the tech grouping was formed, cos the rules of the dail (constantly changing) are against the smaller parties and independents. so a group was formed to ensure democratic rights for those who have none in the dail.

the main question here has nothing to do with lowry or other rightist indos in the group, but the deal done between labour and ff, a truly dispicable manouvere. so now bertie can, as the green geezer said, "open irish pubs in europe" and avoid genuine dissent from those who are willing to do so ie joe, tony, finian, seamus, sf and the greens. also remeber that tony gregory went into coalition with ff back in the day, so obv he should not be included in the tg either.

ffs anarchists, get yer shit together, if u wanna whinge about 'leaders' then do so, by all means ITS YOUR DEMOCRATIC RIGHT! as is the right for equal speaking allowances in the dail. but dont bitch about people who are trying to secure a proper debate in the dail to, guess what(?!?!?), try to raise peoples consciousness through tackling the government face to face in the dail. it is a propaganda platform, nothing more, hell even an illiterate drug feind alco like myself understands that. but then, i suppose anarcists are totally pure. and that why theyve been waiting 120 years (and counting) for theyre revolution. arise the people, but for fucks sake dont let anyone who we dont agree with have a platform.

and you are still bitching about kronsdat, when you were in alliance with the WHITE FORCES OF IMPERIALISM. oh your purity amazes me.

jesus you sound like the fecking sparts, cop yerselves on!

by Andrew Fri Oct 25, 2002 11:15

The rant above is really weird, not least in the ending. It starts by assuring us that the agreement reached by the SP with Lowry is not an alliance because ? and ends with telling us the very old lie that the Kronsdadt rebels were in alliance with the whites. Obviously somewhere between the start and the end the author made his definition of an alliance a lot looser as obviously there is a releationship now between Higgins and Lowry (call it what you will) whereas this is what the Bolshevik soldiers taken prisoner during the struggle had to say to the idea of an alliance with the whites.

---

A RESOLUTION BY PRISONERS OF WAR

At a general meeting of 240 prisoners of war, being cadets, officers and soldiers, taking place in the Army Stables, the following resolution was passed unanimously.

"On March 8th, we, Moscow and Petrograd cadets, officers and soldiers, received an order to attack the town of Kronstadt. They told us that White Guards had raised a mutiny in the town of Kronstadt. When we came without a shot to the shores of the Town of Kronstadt, and having met the forward units of sailors and workers, we became convinced that there was no kind of White Guard mutiny in Kronstadt. On the contrary, the soldiers and workers had overturned the power of the commissarocracy. Right there we voluntarily crossed to the side of the people of Kronstadt. We now ask the Rev. Com. of the Town of Kronstadt to add our strength to its army units, since we want to stand up as defenders of the workers and peasants, not just of Kronstadt but of all Russia also.

We consider that the Prov. Rev. Com. of the Town of Kronstadt has really taken the true path in the cause of liberation of all laborers, and that only with this slogan, "All power to Soviets, and not Parties," is it possible to bring to an end the work which has been begun.

We promise to tell of anyone noticed propagandizing against the actions and orders of the Prov. Rev. Com. of the Town of Kronstadt, and to send them on the the Rev. Com.

(signature), President
(signature), Secretary

As published in the last issue of the Kronsdat Isvestia, in full at http://struggle.ws/russia/izvestiia/issue14.html

---

On a final and ironic note. If the trots don't want to talk about Kronsdadt why do they keep bringing it up? I mean its hardly obviously relevant to the thread above is it?

related link: struggle.ws/russia.html

by Andrew Fri Oct 25, 2002 11:35

Doheochai of the Socialist Party writes
"As far back as the Dublin West by-election, Anarchists have been claiming that Joe Higgins would sell-out. They even went so far as to tell people not to vote for him despite the fact that he was endorsed as the anti-water cherges candidate."

What we actually said is all archived online at the link above. But I would cetainly argue that this alliance with Lowry is a very definite sign of how the Dail is reforming the SP in general. It's not a coalition (what on earth would you base a coalition on?) but it is an alliance as its entering into an agreed structure (the technical group) out of which both Higgins and Lowry expect to gain. Trying to argue otherwise on semantic grounds is just silly but feel free to paste in a dictionary definition of alliance if you think it helps your cause!

Whether its better or worse then the alliance the Labour Party entered into with Bertie is another question but its not like anybody had any expectations that the Labour Party might act differently.

For those interested in historical accuraccy here is what we were actually writing back in '96 in advance of the election. (The Socialist Party was then called Militant Labour)

Anarchist News No 7. March 1996
Watch Out - Politicans about

LIKE cow pats after a stampede, politicians have been appearing all over Dublin West since the by-election was announced. Fine Gael and Labour have a hard neck. They are standing on their record of job cuts, low pay, miserly social welfare payments, water charges and all the other burdens they have been heaping on our shoulders. Fianna Fáil have no problem with that, the only difficulty they have is finding major disagreements with Bruton, Spring and De Rossa.

Sinn Fein want a nationalist alliance with the bosses parties, the Workers Party want to embarrass their former friends in DL, and the Christian Solidarity Party want to bring back the Spanish Inquisition. The rest of them want to raise their profile in the hope of getting more votes at the next election.

Joe Higgins of Militant Labour is going to do very well. As chairperson of the Anti-Water Charges Federation he is popular and hard working. He has done trojan work to build the non-payment campaign and is the candidate least likely to compromise his beliefs.

The Workers Solidarity Movement is not standing a candidate, nor are we urging a vote for anyone. We advise you to abstain. It is not just a question of how dishonest and corrupt most politicians become, nor that they say one thing before an election and do something totally different when elected. [Remember Democratic Left getting elected on an anti-water charges ticket, now they are in a government that is dragging pensioners into court while the beef barons go free after multi-million pound frauds.

If voting could change the system it would be illegal

The crucial question is whether casting a vote every few years can give you any control over the things that effect your life. Many will vote for Joe Higgins or Tomas MacGiolla because of their anti-establishment stands. But neither can change the system which makes the working class pay through the nose while the rich live it up.

Real power lies in the boardrooms of big business. They decide where to invest and on what terms. To see the power of money over democracy you only have to look at the beef scandal. To see how far the bosses will go you can look at Chile in 1973 where a reforming government was overthrown by a military coup backed by big business. As long as a small minority have massive power they will be the ones calling the tune.

Don't vote - it only encourages them

To think that elections provide a real choice, that they can fundamentally change things, is an illusion. Once your vote is cast you have had your say. You have given your consent to a politician or party to make decisions for you. The political system where a few give the orders and the rest obey has been given your personal stamp of approval.

We don't abstain because are opposed to democracy. Not at all, we are fully in favour of it. By democracy we understand the right of people to manage their own lives and collectively organise society in their own interests. Everyone effected a decision should have the possibility of helping to make that decision.

This means workers' councils running industries & services, neighbourhood councils in our communities. These would be federated upwards on a regional and national level. All delegates would be subject to immediate recall if their electors were not satisfied with their conduct.

The outstanding feature of the anarchist idea is that control comes from below. There would be no ruling elite. In this by-election you are being asked to change one of your, admittedly minor, rulers. Anarchists don't want to change the faces in the Dáil; we want to get rid of the division into bosses & workers, order-givers & order-takers.

by Pat Rabbitte - Labour Party Fri Oct 25, 2002 16:18

Dear Anarchists,
Thank you very much for defending my party on indymedia. I thought that deal we did with Fianna Fáil might have exposed us as the right wing careerists that we are. But you were very successfull in distracting attention away from us and attacking Sinn Féin, the Greens and Socialist Party. The critisism of SP and SF going into an 'Alliance' with Lowry was particularly good, thankfully not many people seemed to remember who gave him the oppurtunity to abuse his government position by going into coalition with his party. Again I express my thanks to you Anarchists, hopefully when the time of revolution comes we can work together in order to cause havoc, scupper the revolution, call for restraint and butcher the workers movement.

Yours,
Pat Rabbitte
(Soon to be leader of Labour Party)

by Doheochai - Socialist Party Fri Oct 25, 2002 19:36

On the Dublin West By-Election

"The Workers Solidarity Movement is not standing a candidate, nor are we urging a vote for anyone. We advise you to abstain."

The WSM argued that the anti-water charges campaign should not endorse any candidate. The reality is abstaining is supporting the status quo. Luckily the ordinary working class people involved in the water charges campaign ignored the advice of the WSM as did the voters of Dublin West.

The WSM can rant on about Joe Higgins and the SP selling out in parliament, as they have done continuously about the CWI and it won't make a blind bit of difference to the working class. Personally, I thrust the ability of the working class to decide the best course of action for their representatives and not live in the utopian world of the WSM.