Politics Forum.org | PoFo

The SN and RF are currently negotiating the formation of a coalition due to similar ideological and policy orientations between the two parties. The deal is not sealed yet but it's promising. If the negotiation is successful, the SN-RF coalition would have a combined vote of 16 at this stage.

HoniSoit you should change the name to SN-RF since there is already an SLD-SN thread and I think each coalition will want to start their own topic

As for SN-RF: I would like the RF to discuss what alterations you would like to our platform to make it acceptable to both parties.

I would first like to ask whether anyone in either parties would oppose such a coalition, and also to express their concerns.

I believe SN is pretty much unanimous on this.

I propose this thread be renamed RF-SN; we are not, and never will be, junior partners in any alliance.

ingliz, SN(R)

Edit: Thankyou, let's start as we mean to go on

I'm by and large in agreement with the SN platform and thus feel no need to propose a separate platform as there would be many overlaps anyway.

Instead, I and rest of the RF members would suggest some modification and addition to the SN platform, and SN would then decide how much they are willing to accommodate.

Would this be a fair way to go forward?

I strongly oppose any coalition with SN, or any other party.

Which is silly because it paralyzes you. If all the RF members were on board, it's possible that there would be a large enough party to actually dictate to everyone else, including the SLD. If some members still choose to stay uninvolved for whatever reason, then... you get the right wing dominated government you deserve.

Joining a coalition with statist parties muddles our message and removes our revolutionary legitimacy.

The SN is only statist out of necessity if I'm reading them correctly.

So, you'd choose no voice out of principle instead of having a voice out of compromise?

That doesn't make sense.

Joining a coalition with statist parties muddles our message and removes our revolutionary legitimacy.

no, your refusal to use all the tools at your disposal removes your legitimacy

Demos, the PUC cannot possibly sit in a government with this new RF-SN monstrosity, it just can't. And it seems the SLD is hard set against a National Unity government including the CA. I think this is called stalemate.

I am of the belief that Parliament is a corrupt system; and any action by the RF in relation to it should be protest action in order to create awareness.

The SN is statist because they are Marxists who believe in the eventual withering away of the state; however I stand with Bakunin who said:

Bakunin wrote:When the people are being beaten with a stick, they are not much happier if it is called "the People's Stick

Our platform is a clear case of class war within the state by legal means; why reject such an opportunity Why not stir up the layer of the ruling class?

Nets wrote:Demos, the PUC cannot possibly sit in a government with this new RF-SN monstrosity, it just can't. And it seems the SLD is hard set against a National Unity government including the CA. I think this is called stalemate.

There is more than one way to resolve a stalemate. The members of the PUC who choose not to deal, should have thought ahead to what their stubborness might create.

Still, it seems to me that I win no matter how this shakes out, so I can't complain really.

At least, not yet...

Seeing as the Right has now organised I don't see what else we can do, this is the time for pragmatic decisions not idealistic gestures - We must work with the tools at hand.

Kon wrote:I strongly oppose any coalition with SN, or any other party.

Well, it's not a merge but a coalition, a tactical decision, aimed at defeating any right-wing coalition.

It's a good idea to try to work with other parties while recognising points of disagreement.

The Left has self-destructed so many times because of sectarianism and ideological purity.

Konulu, anarchist revolutionary legitimacy is great if you have enough power to accomplish your goals on your own, but you don't, so why split hairs and fight communists.

Seriously the fracturing of the left is our biggest problem. Although I know you're set in your opposition to the dictatorship of the proletariat, you don't have all that much to worry about as far as being dominated is concerned. We're about equal in numbers so your voice wouldn't be crushed. We would just suspend our disagreements until they need to be addressed. The union is based on protecting ourselves from rightists who want to ban our parties and crush dissent. We need to stand together against them initially, then we can duke it out.

Demosthenes wrote:
There is more than one way to resolve a stalemate. The members of the PUC who choose not to deal, should have thought ahead to what their stubborness might create.

Still, it seems to me that I win no matter how this shakes out, so I can't complain really.

At least, not yet...

I'm totally willing to compromise, and even potentially join a coalition with SN, but SN's current negotiating position is a joke and, frankly, an insult to SLDs and the PUC and indeed all of PoFo. They're not offering cooperation, they're demanding assimilation.

• The SN is the one that's being stubborn - they're demanding that the largest parties in parliament bend over for them and accept most of their platform even while they'd be the smallest partner in their own coalition.
• They demand this, even though such an option has no support in PUC and little support with mainline SLDs.
• The PNL has indicated that it is willing to moderate significant elements of its platform. The leadership of the CA and of the PNL are realists and, I expect, likely to negotiate seriously in government formation. Their negotiating position is likely to be much more acceptable than SN.
• The SLDs that dismiss grand coalitions with parties on PUC's right are at least as stubborn as anti-SN PUC members, since right-wing parties would not, I expect, make such absurd demands of the SLDs.

So it's a very nasty business. The future government will take one of the following forms:

• Center-left coalition (PUC/SLDs/SN/RF?), which presently only appears possible IF SN softens its position tremendously.
• Centrist coalition (PUC/SLDs/CA/PNL/LC)
• Right-wing coalition (PUC/CA/LC/PNL/POP?/SLD defectors)

Clausewitz wrote:but SN's current negotiating position is a joke and, frankly, an insult to SLDs and the PUC and indeed all of PoFo. They're not offering cooperation, they're demanding assimilation.

I think you're taking the 2/3rds point too seriously, not that they don't want a certain mindset going in, but then again...so do you...

Clausewitz wrote:The SN is the one that's being stubborn - they're demanding that the largest parties in parliament bend over for them and accept most of their platform even while they'd be the smallest partner in their own coalition.

At this moment they are third in vote totals by one...possibly two votes depending on how serious Zyx is.

Are you saying that should the SN gain more votes that they would then be justified in their position?

I mean, at this point it seems the PUC is making the same kind of demand, and so far...from what I've read Vladimir, who appears to be the de facto party leader is quite willing to hear discussion. I don't think they'll fundamentally change their position on Foreign Policy for instance, but surely it could be softened. Same goes for the PUC and it's conservative social agenda. It might not change your position, but I think softening it for the coalition would be doable.

Clausewitz wrote:They demand this, even though such an option has no support in PUC and little support with mainline SLDs.

Well...again, your position has even less support in their ranks, and atm you only have one more vote than they do combined. It sounds more like a push to me. Further, MOST of the SLDs have been silent for days now, as far as I can tell the SLD factions include myself and Falx on one side, and Dillpill, Attica, and one other on the other. The other 10 SLD voters have been silent on all coalition talk. Including our fearless but absent leader.

Clausewitz wrote:The PNL has indicated that it is willing to moderate significant elements of its platform. The leadership of the CA and of the PNL are realists

Funny, I would call certain SLD members and the SN the realists. The PNL, while certainly not a tradional rightist party still represents certain monied interests that have been over represented for far too long. The CA is frankly a lesser imitation of the PNL.

Clausewitz wrote:The SLDs that dismiss grand coalitions with parties on PUC's right are at least as stubborn as anti-SN PUC members, since right-wing parties would not, I expect, make such absurd demands of the SLDs.

Well again, it appears that absurd is an arbitrary conclusion. Allying with those on the right who would not even blink at Imperialist interventions in the name of Freedom but whose true aims are enrichment of the monied interests seems completely absurd to me.

As the SLD, at least for now, seems willing to work along the lines of the above, considering our stated foreign policy goals, it seems I have little other choice but to look to the SN as the only party willing to ignore the wailing squalls of "Red this" and "Red that" and simply do what is right, for once.