Australian Marxist Groups...

[gowavescene]

After having finished high school, I am moving down to Melbourne to begin Uni studies next year. Are there any Marxist groups worth investigating/joining in the Southern states? When I last in Melbourne, I was ambushed by some Soviet-apologists trying to hand me a pamphlet, and I'm pretty sure they were a student group. Can anyone recommend an alternative to the usual anti-intellectual, often-violent and totally ineffectual campus-based groups that seem, from my (rather limited) observation to be the only visible representatives of Marxism in this country?

[Niccolò Rossi]

These sorts of questions pop up quite regularly. You should be able to find what you are looking for here (http://www.revleft.com/vb/political-organisations-t27951/index.html) or here (http://www.revleft.com/vb/group.php?do=discuss&group=&discussionid=849) (beware of outdated info though)

[apathy maybe]

After having finished high school, I am moving down to Melbourne to begin Uni studies next year. Are there any Marxist groups worth investigating/joining in the Southern states? When I last in Melbourne, I was ambushed by some Soviet-apologists trying to hand me a pamphlet, and I'm pretty sure they were a student group. Can anyone recommend an alternative to the usual anti-intellectual, often-violent and totally ineffectual campus-based groups that seem, from my (rather limited) observation to be the only visible representatives of Marxism in this country?
Do you mean you don't want to join the Black Bloc? (Often violent...)

Niccolò Rossi has provided links that should be able to help. (Don't forget the Trot Guide (http://slackbastard.anarchobase.com/?page_id=336).)

But it really depends on what you want.

Are you a Trot? A non-Trot 'plain' Leninist? A 'plain' Marxist? A socialist who just wants good things, but is not sure yet how to get them?

I suggest that you wait until you get down to Melbourne, check out the local scene, find some people who seem cool (i.e. anarchists), and hang out with them.

Mind, they might be a bit violent at times, but it's better then being with the Fabians or the Christian Socialists.

[Bilan]

Depends on your political leanings, but try the Socialist Party of Australia.

[Bilan]

Also, sounds like you met the Spartacus league...:lol:

[Yazman]

I wouldn't have a fkn clue what its like in Melbourne, as I've never been there. If you ever plan to go to QLD though, let me know and I cangive you plenty of info.

[Sam_b]

I reccommend joining Solidarity, but then I would, wouldn't I?

http://www.solidarity.net.au/

Regular meetings in Melbourne, every Tuesday.

[Bilan]

Edit:

[gowavescene]

Thanks for the tips. Bilan, I would love to join any group that subscribes to Debord's thinking.

[Devrim]

This is a bit out of date but may be helpful:
http://www.broadleft.org/au.htm
Devrim

[Random Precision]

According to Wiki, Socialist Alternative (http://www.sa.org.au/) has a strong presence in Melbourne. From the materials I've read they seem to be the strongest group on the Australian left, but of course I wouldn't really know.

[gowavescene]

Excellent. Thanks again. Good people.

[chebol]

Leaving aside the anarchists and anarcho-syndicalists (of which I know more about Sydney than Melbourne, and which the posts above are more helpful for....), a bit more on the socialist groups:

The largest socialist group in Australia (over 700 financial members, plus hundreds of close supporters) is the Socialist Alliance (http://www.socialist-alliance.org) (wiki (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socialist_Alliance_%28Australia%29)), which has members in every major city, as well as branches (http://www.socialist-alliance.org/page.php?page=253) in numerous small cities and country towns. I'd recommend getting in touch with them in Melbourne (and, yes, I'm biased here), not least because we don't subscribe to one or another of the various "versions" of socialism.

The Socialist Alliance, while not officially marxist, has affiliate organisations which are marxist, leninist, or trotskyist. There are, for example, the Democratic Socialist Perspective (http://www.dsp.org.au) (wiki (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democratic_Socialist_Perspective))(size approximately 250-300), the socialist youth organisation Resistance (http://www.resistance.org.au) (wiki (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Resistance_%28socialist_youth_organisation%29))(si ze approximately 100), the Chilean Popular and Indigenous Front, and the Sudanese-Australia Human Rights Association, which contains members of the Sudanese Communist Party).

The vast majority of members, however, are not members of any affiliate group, but are socialists or marxists of whatever stripe they wish. Rather than seeking "ideological purity", we emphasise unity in struggle - in campaigns and activism (although this doesn't mean we forsake theory).
Also connected to Australia's largest leftwing paper, Green Left Weekly (http://www.greenleft.org.au).

Both Solidarity (http://www.solidarity.net.au) (wiki (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Socialist_Organisation_%28Australia% 29))and Socialist Alternative (http://www.sa.org.au) (wiki (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socialist_Alternative_%28Australia%29)) are strictly "Cliffite" Trotskyists, that is, they argue that everthing from the USSR to China, Vietnam and Cuba are/ were "State Capitalist".
SAlt's membership is largely based on campus, where they are quite strong, but limited very much by that same primary orientation to students. They also have a high turnover, partly due to the student nature of their membership, partly due to the undemocratic nature of their organisation, which is very top-down. Size: approximately 250-300.
Solidarity (formerly the International Socialist Organisation) is the result of the reunification of the 3 non-SAlt cliffite groups in Oz a couple of years ago. They're still not back to the glory days of the ISO, and - according to dscussions I've had with a few senior members - the excitement of the reunification has worn off, and a lot of senior members have stepped back from activity. Size: approximately 100.

Also in Melbourne, the Socialist Party (http://www.socialistpartyaustralia.org) (wiki (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socialist_Party_%28Australia%29)) is a Trotskyist group, affiliated to the Committee for a Workers' International, based in the UK as well. They have the distinction of being the only group with an elected councilor, but they're also fairly limited by that. The vast majority of their work is backing up his council work, in one small part of Melbourne. While they have tiny handfuls of members outside of Melbourne (Perth, Sydney, Gold Coast), they're very much restricted to the "gas-and-water socialism" of work on Yarra Council. Size: approximately 50.

There's also the Revolutionary Socialist Party (http://www.rsp.org.au), which is a small group that split last year from the Democratic Socialist Perspective (and the Socialist Alliance), ostensibly because they claimed that the Socialist Alliance had failed (palpably untrue). They also have an overbearing fixation on Venezuela, the gains of which they exaggerate grotesquely, and they've set up a series of barely-veiled front-groups called "Cuba-Venezuela Solidarity Clubs). Size: approximately 30-40.

Avoid (at all costs) the Sparts (maybe 15 members, all crazy as coconuts, defenders of sexual relations with minors, and with a tendency to "Hail the Red Army"). I'd also suggest steering clear of the Freedom Socialist Party, Workers' Liberty and Workers' League, mostly because the largest of them (the FSP) has only five members, but also because of the politics.

The same goes for the Communist Party (mostly retirement-age Stalinists), the Communist Party (Marxist-Leninist) (a handful of post-retirement age hardline Maoists with guns buried somewhere near Monash Uni), and the other bizarre little grouplets that Melbourne seems to succour.

[chebol]

Oh, almost forgot the Socialist Equality Party (who help to produce the World Socialist Web Site). Also quite nuts, they split their preferences 3 ways in the last Federal elections - one third to Labor, one third to the Greens, and one third to the Coalition - on the basis that they're all bourgeois parties, so it doesn't matter at all who wins. They also oppose unions, and receive most of their funding from printing companies, owned by their members, where unionism is banned/ strongly discouraged. Size: approximately 50, but they managed to get 450 people in a one-off effort to help them get (federal) electoral registration.

[Niccolò Rossi]

They also have an overbearing fixation on Venezuela, the gains of which they exaggerate grotesquely, and they've set up a series of barely-veiled front-groups called "Cuba-Venezuela Solidarity Clubs).This is rich comming from member of the DSP. Or maybe I was being lied to at the "World at a Crossroads Conference" when I was told that Vietnam, Veneseula and Bolivia where 'building socialism in the 21st Century" and on the need to support the "Bolivarian Revolution".


Avoid (at all costs) the Sparts (maybe 15 members, all crazy as coconuts, defenders of sexual relations with minors, and with a tendency to "Hail the Red Army").Truth be told I haven't found the sparts to be at all a bad bunch. Even though they are politically bankrupt I've found them much consitant in their politics, more committed to serious debate and certainly more fraternal in their attitudes to others than members of the DSP. Also, they don't have a 'tendency' to "Hail the Red Army", this was their line (a line they still defend) on the Soviet-Afghan conflict.


I'd also suggest steering clear of the Freedom Socialist Party, Workers' Liberty and Workers' League, mostly because the largest of them (the FSP) has only five members, but also because of the politics. Again this is hilarious comming from a member of the DSP, a group I think notorious for sacrificing political clarity and integrity for numbers. The fact that these groups are small has nothing to do with anything, expect maybe to individuals such as yourself for whom size is everything.

[chebol]

Nicolo, without wanting to get into a pathetic little argument with someone whose political activity appears to be limited to carping:

1. Venezuela: The DSP's argues that there is indeed a revolution taking place in Venezuela, where an opportunity exists to create what Chavez describes as "Socialism of the 21st Century". What that consists of depends on the balance of forces in the class struggle unfolding there. However, we still hold that capitalism has not been overthrown in Venezuela, and that the state is still capitalist (a position, I should point out, also held by Chavez, and the Venezuelan ambassador to Australia). By contrast, the RSP holds the position that the events of April 11-13 resulted in a "workers' and peasants' state", ergo, while capitalism still exists in Venezuela, the state is no longer in its hands. I think this is wrong, and the RSP's distortion of the Venezuelan revolution has become a central shibboleth arond which they organise.

2. The Sparts: Some of them are indeed a friendly bunch (much like some of my former comrades, now in the RSP). And while I disagree on their position on Afhanistan, I know that it was their position - I was simply playfully responding to the reference to "Soviet-apologists" (a term which could be applied to all of us on a bad day).

More practically, however, they do defend sexual relations with minors and Michael Jackson (on the premise that he DID IT, and it should be OKAY) , have links to the North American Man-Boy Love Association, and - in Australia, at least - used to recruit outside of menatl asylums, where they gained their current core members. They also all require members to live in the same house, and centrally alocate their pooled wages.

3. Size: If you are correct, size is irrelevant. You could be in a minority of 1, and whole world against you, and could still be right.

However, being in a minority of 1 (or 3, or 5) is just as likely to reinforce your belief that you are, in fact, correct, and everyone else is wrong.

It should be pointed out, the groups refered to (FSP, AWL, WL) are also part of Internationals, so that the opinions of their comrades half a world away can be used to prop up silly positions here.

The point, however, as good old Karlchen Marx once pointed out, is to change the world, for which size and relevance in the working class are, along with ideological clarity (something which we have plenty of, thank you very much) in fact, very necessary.

If, however, you prefer to cast peanuts form the sidelines of the class struggle, and wave your program on a pole, feel free. Just don't mistake this task for meaningful participation in the class struggle.

[Bilan]

According to Wiki, Socialist Alternative (http://www.sa.org.au/) has a strong presence in Melbourne. From the materials I've read they seem to be the strongest group on the Australian left, but of course I wouldn't really know.

In the spirit of helpful sectarianism, I strongly suggest you stay away from that group, and, if deciding to speak to them make sure don't be surprised by their abhorrent approach to people new to socialism and who haven't read the entirety of Trotsky's scribblings.
But don't take it from me, you will learn very quickly.



The largest socialist group in Australia (over 700 financial members, plus hundreds of close supporters) is the Socialist Alliance (http://www.socialist-alliance.org) (wiki (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socialist_Alliance_%28Australia%29)), which has members in every major city, as well as branches (http://www.socialist-alliance.org/page.php?page=253) in numerous small cities and country towns. I'd recommend getting in touch with them in Melbourne (and, yes, I'm biased here), not least because we don't subscribe to one or another of the various "versions" of socialism.

You misphrased: You don't subscribe to socialism at all. Your tactics and approach are little beyond the left wing of the labour party.



The Socialist Alliance, while not officially marxist, has affiliate organisations which are marxist, leninist, or trotskyist. There are, for example, the Democratic Socialist Perspective (http://www.dsp.org.au) (wiki (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democratic_Socialist_Perspective))(size approximately 250-300), the socialist youth organisation Resistance (http://www.resistance.org.au) (wiki (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Resistance_%28socialist_youth_organisation%29))(si ze approximately 100), the Chilean Popular and Indigenous Front, and the Sudanese-Australia Human Rights Association, which contains members of the Sudanese Communist Party). So? Size is nothing. The Labour Party squashes you and is twice as bourgeois, and twice as clueless!



The vast majority of members, however, are not members of any affiliate group, but are socialists or marxists of whatever stripe they wish. Rather than seeking "ideological purity", we emphasise unity in struggle - in campaigns and activism (although this doesn't mean we forsake theory).
Also connected to Australia's largest leftwing paper, Green Left Weekly (http://www.greenleft.org.au).The tactic is nonsense. The fetishizing of 'out in the streets' is is as absurd as 'theoretical purity'. The fact is your 'group' is out in the streets without having an idea of where you're going, why you're going there, and how you're going to get there. So you just stay where you are

And I don't mean to be mean, but my experience with your group has led me to detest the lot of you for you 'rent-a-crowd' politics. And these are not 'one time incidents' or because of my politics but because of your horrendous approach and bourgeois tactics. My favourite example was the role played by the Socialist Alliance and its cronies at the APEC...Oh, I mean "Stop Bush" (:rolleyes:) protest.



However, being in a minority of 1 (or 3, or 5) is just as likely to reinforce your belief that you are, in fact, correct, and everyone else is wrong.

It's no more likely to do that then it is to do the opposite.



It should be pointed out, the groups refered to (FSP, AWL, WL) are also part of Internationals, so that the opinions of their comrades half a world away can be used to prop up silly positions here.And isn't the SA?



The point, however, as good old Karlchen Marx once pointed out, is to change the world, for which size and relevance in the working class are, along with ideological clarity (something which we have plenty of, thank you very much) in fact, very necessary.You don't have ideological clarity. The fact that you have sects inside your organisation is a blatant demonstration of that. Ideological clarity manifests in a single, clear line, not in sevral different solidified sects within your organisation. That is the opposite, and is stupidly obvious.
And yes, the point is to change the world, but the size of your party doesn't determine when that's going to happen, Bernstein.



If, however, you prefer to cast peanuts form the sidelines of the class struggle, and wave your program on a pole, feel free.We don't have to do that. We just don't buy into the nonsense your group spouts.



Just don't mistake this task for meaningful participation in the class struggle.As long as you don't mistake your party as socialist, clear, revolutionary or consistent!
Also, don't paraphrase Marx so vulgarly.


Thanks for the tips. Bilan, I would love to join any group that subscribes to Debord's thinking.

There's no such group in Australia. Though, if you were to find any, you should pop by Barricade books. But then, I doubt it. At best, you'll get vulgar readings of Debord, coupled with vulgar politics generally, and it'll be quite a mess. Though, there are some okay groups in Melbourne (okay: key word). SP is probably the 'best' out of the bunch. Though, they have their fair share of crap politics.

[Niccolò Rossi]

Nicolo, without wanting to get into a pathetic little argument with someone whose political activity appears to be limited to carping

That's cute


I was simply playfully responding to the reference to "Soviet-apologists" (a term which could be applied to all of us on a bad day).Apologies if I misunderstood your original meaning. Either way, I think it's pretty rediculous to say that the term "Sovet apologist" can be applied to any of 'us' on a 'bad day' (what ever that means)


More practically, however, they do defend sexual relations with minors and Michael Jackson (on the premise that he DID IT, and it should be OKAY)I thought it was R. Kelly.


in Australia, at least - used to recruit outside of menatl asylums, where they gained their current core members. They also all require members to live in the same house, and centrally alocate their pooled wages.This is the funniest thing I've heard all day. On a serious note I think this can be taken as slander and nothing else unless you have any solid evidence for this accusation (one that I think it very serious)


Size: If you are correct, size is irrelevant. You could be in a minority of 1, and whole world against you, and could still be right. Naturally, though I think an analogy that Devrim used the other day is very relevant here: In 1914 you could have got all of the internationalists in Europe into a railway carriage. By your logic of course these militants were just locked in an irrelevant battle with the whole world against them, isolated, dogmatic and worngly convinced they were correct.


It should be pointed out, the groups refered to (FSP, AWL, WL) are also part of Internationals, so that the opinions of their comrades half a world away can be used to prop up silly positions here.I think this shows a very warped view about the importance of internationals and global organisation.


The point, however, as good old Karlchen Marx once pointed out, is to change the world, for which size and relevance in the working class are, along with ideological clarity (something which we have plenty of, thank you very much) in fact, very necessary.I think this comes down to what you see the role of revolutionaries as and their potential in the current context (or rather, the context we have been operating in in the past).

[Hiero]

Depends on your political leanings, but try the Socialist Party of Australia.

Who are they?


The same goes for the Communist Party (mostly retirement-age Stalinists), the Communist Party (Marxist-Leninist) (a handful of post-retirement age hardline Maoists with guns buried somewhere near Monash Uni), and the other bizarre little grouplets that Melbourne seems to succour.

How could you possible know that?

[Bilan]

Them. (http://www.socialistpartyaustralia.org/)

[Devrim]

It should be pointed out, the groups refered to (FSP, AWL, WL) are also part of Internationals, so that the opinions of their comrades half a world away can be used to prop up silly positions here.

I don't quite see how this matters unless you want to support particular 'national' positions.

Devrim

[chebol]

Bilan, do grow a spine. If the best you can do are pathetic little childish attacks, I'm taking my bat and ball and going home.

No, the Socialist Alliance is not in an international.

No, you don't understand how the Socialist Alliance works.

No, you are not going to have any meaningful impact on the class struggle with your pompous, self-righteous, puerile approach.

No, calling a revolutionary marxist "Bernstein" is not clever, nor political, nor useful.

No, size does matter. It's just not *all* that matters. Much like theory *does* matter, but by itself is pretty useless. However, size is often (but not always) a good test of theory.

No, the fact that you can try to make a clever argument (and fail) on an internet forum doesn't mean that council communism is going anywhere.

No, the point of this thread is not ad hominem abuse between different groups, but providing information to someone who is moving to Melbourne, and wants to know what group are there to join. I'm sure he's more than capable of deciding who he fits in with without having your slanders, half-truths and gibberish thrown about in a sectarian fit. And good luck to him.

No, you clearly don't understand Marxism, but like to think that you do, and in doing so present a wonderfully crude version of it yourself, comrade.

Goodbye.

[Devrim]

No, the point of this thread is not ad hominem abuse between different groups, but providing information to someone who is moving to Melbourne, and wants to know what group are there to join. I'm sure he's more than capable of deciding who he fits in with without having your slanders, half-truths and gibberish thrown about in a sectarian fit. And good luck to him.


Thanks for the tips. Bilan, I would love to join any group that subscribes to Debord's thinking.

If the OP is someone who subscribes to Debord's ideas, he would be absolutely disgusted by your group, and most if not all of the other groups being recommended.

Devrim

[Black Dagger]

Yes i have to agree with Dev here.

Whilst there are situationist politics (like Treason in the ACT) in Australia... you won't find a word of it in any of the groups mentioned in this thread so far (trotsky didn't like debord you see). The kind of group you're looking for doesn't really exist here, even if there are individuals with this political outlook (and they tend to gravitate around anarchist activities).

If you join one of the groups or 'parties' mentioned in this thread you're only going to be disappointed. Most marxist groups in australia are either of the 'Chavez/cuba/etc. rules!' type variety (big on waving che flags and parading around in circles, populism) or the corpse-in-the-mouth 'correct line' trotskyist variety, and many have some more than dubious ties with bourgeois politics (the Marxist-Leninist parties need not be criticised in detail, they're not for you). From what i can gather from people on here, the SWP in the UK seems to resemble most the kind of marxist parties here in oz.

[Invariance]

Treason (http://treason.metadns.cx/) in Canberra is one situationist group I have heard of. There was another group which had a magazine called Theft! but I'm not sure if they are around any more or if they have any political activity whatsoever. There's also this (http://www.toysatellite.org/doods/index.htm).

[Hiero]

No, the point of this thread is not ad hominem abuse between different groups, but providing information to someone who is moving to Melbourne, and wants to know what group are there to join. I'm sure he's more than capable of deciding who he fits in with without having your slanders, half-truths and gibberish thrown about in a sectarian fit. And good luck to him.

You slandered both the CPA and CPA-ML.

[Yazman]

More practically, however, they do defend sexual relations with minors and Michael Jackson (on the premise that he DID IT, and it should be OKAY)

I'm sorry dude but you're an ignorant piece of shit for propagating this myth. Michael Jackson has been proven innocent multiple times and the claims against him were perpetraded by fraudsters who also tried to extort and sue Jay Leno and other celebrities.

Also, I don't know what they're like in Melbourne (again I've never been that far south, I'm a QLD person when I'm in aus) but the Socialist Alliance are quite good in Brisbane. From my experiences I've had many good discussions and debates over theory with different members and they are always active, and probably the least sectarian.

The Communist Party have some good members, particularly a lot of the latin americans I know who are members are really cool but generally I don't really like them all that much, even if I do support them sometimes. Some of their members however don't like me as they think I'm somewhat disruptive to their campaigns (they sometimes try to reach out to the labour party and show solidarity, and some of the CPA members get pissed when I tell people the labour party are just as bad as the liberals, and even worse). There's still some good members in there though.

Socialist Alternative.. well they seem to be theory heavy, I haven't really done much with them so I couldn't really tell you a lot.

Again this is all my views of how things are in Queensland, so let me know if this isn't helpful to you. If they're active in VIC though my views of their QLD branches might be useful.

[Bilan]

Bilan, do grow a spine. If the best you can do are pathetic little childish attacks, I'm taking my bat and ball and going home.

My spine is intact - your parties credibility, however, is not. This however, is no fault of my own.



No, the Socialist Alliance is not in an international. Thanks for clearing that up.



No, you don't understand how the Socialist Alliance works.Ah, quite an observation! Do go on!



No, you are not going to have any meaningful impact on the class struggle with your pompous, self-righteous, puerile approach.What puerile approach? Not being a rent-a-crowd nonce? That's not exactly a bad thing, except to a social democrat.



No, calling a revolutionary marxist "Bernstein" is not clever, nor political, nor useful. In every way it was political, and it is most certainly true.




No, size does matter. It's just not *all* that matters. Much like theory *does* matter, but by itself is pretty useless. However, size is often (but not always) a good test of theory.It's not a 'good test' of theory. A good test of theory is a theory which is proved in practice. Your "theory" has been negated in practice, you clinging onto it is embarrassing.



No, the fact that you can try to make a clever argument (and fail) on an internet forum doesn't mean that council communism is going anywhere.Childish. I didn't advocate anything, I just pointed out that the lot of you are bourgeois. Care to contradict me?



No, the point of this thread is not ad hominem abuse between different groups, but providing information to someone who is moving to Melbourne, and wants to know what group are there to join. I'm sure he's more than capable of deciding who he fits in with without having your slanders, half-truths and gibberish thrown about in a sectarian fit. And good luck to him.What half-truth? You claim half-truths and then do ever so little to dispell them. If I'm wrong, prove me wrong. He is perfectly capable, but those of us who have been around the block (pun intended) do well know what the Socialist Alliance is like, and I'm sure most of us have had (if not, all of us) bad experiences with your abhorrent approach, and equally abhorrent politics.



No, you clearly don't understand Marxism, but like to think that you do, and in doing so present a wonderfully crude version of it yourself, comrade.I don't understand Marxism? What don't I understand? Has Marxism descended into some vulgar reading of Marx (That might be pushing it: perhaps you read the blurb on Capital instead) in which all that matters is the size of it. The Bernstein reference was certainly relevant.



Goodbye.Til we meet again!

[Bilan]

Yes i have to agree with Dev here.

Whilst there are situationist politics (like Treason in the ACT) in Australia... you won't find a word of it in any of the groups mentioned in this thread so far (trotsky didn't like debord you see). The kind of group you're looking for doesn't really exist here, even if there are individuals with this political outlook (and they tend to gravitate around anarchist activities).

If you join one of the groups or 'parties' mentioned in this thread you're only going to be disappointed. Most marxist groups in australia are either of the 'Chavez/cuba/etc. rules!' type variety (big on waving che flags and parading around in circles, populism) or the corpse-in-the-mouth 'correct line' trotskyist variety, and many have some more than dubious ties with bourgeois politics (the Marxist-Leninist parties need not be criticised in detail, they're not for you). From what i can gather from people on here, the SWP in the UK seems to resemble most the kind of marxist parties here in oz.

Which is why, if any, I suggested the SP-CWI as they're the only ones not like that. Though, still with not great politics.

p.s. the Vaneigem reference <3

[AnthArmo]

Well, while we're vaguely on the topic, could Chebol answer a question for me?

Recently, the Socialist Alternative held a "Marxism 09" conference which they do every year or so. I was surprised to find out that this is basically used by the SA as a recruiting grounds for other socialists.

While they were trying to recruit me, I told them that at the time, my primary preference was towards the Socialist Alliance, because of your anti-sectarian multi-tendency attitude and your size. However they told me that you guys were a bunch of Stalinists and that I should stay well the way away from you. They also told me that you guys are reformist as opposed to revolutionary.

Don't worry, I didn't join them, they seemed friendly enough but my gut instinct said otherwise. Could you give me another viewpoint as to what they told me about the Socialist Alliance?

[apathy maybe]

SAlt are well known for saying that anyone who isn't them is no good.
But, it is true that the Socialist Alliance as a whole is a reformist body. But, hardly Stalinist.

I'm not sure as to the SA's position on revolution as a whole, but certainly some of the groups within it are "revolutionary" (at least, claim to be).

[Bilan]

I'm yet to come across a group within the Socialist Alliance which can distinguish revolution from Strawberry Jam.
They're not Stalinists, they're Social Democrats.

[Black Dagger]

I believe they would argue that their participation in electoral politics is 'strategic', i.e. strictly for propaganda purposes, rather than out of any desire for 'political power' or view that political office is a source for meaningful change. But then again, it's hard to discern the individual motivations of the people who do this kind of shit, like electioneering for either of these ends takes the same form.

[Bilan]

I think their other tactics and goals reflect their mediocrity more clearly.
My favourite was always "Medicare not Warfare".
Rhyming: for those without real politics.

[Invariance]

I think their other tactics and goals reflect their mediocrity more clearly.
My favourite was always "Medicare not Warfare".
Rhyming: for those without real politics. And how exactly is an anti-war stance, and a pro-health care position 'without real politics?'

[Niccolò Rossi]

And how exactly is an anti-war stance, and a pro-health care position 'without real politics?'

What do you think is anti-war about the DSP? I think the anti-war positions of the DSP (where they exist) manifest themselves as nothing other than bourgeois pacifism, certainly not "real [revolutionary] politics".

Also, how does being 'pro-health care' (what ever that means) contribute to the "real [revolutionary] politics" of an organisation? I suppose if a party's position on health care is in and of itself contributory to the nature of that organisation Whitlam's Labor Party did indeed have "real [revolutionary] politics".

[chebol]

AnthArmo, SAlt like to throw around the term "stalinist" with regards to the DSP and Socialist Alliance (which they refuse to distinguish, preferring the lie that these are the same things) because of the DSP's support of Cuba and Venezuela (NOT the same thing as the Socialist Alliance position).

Essentially, however, they use the term for anyone who doesn't accept the Cliffite "state capitalist" theory of the Soviet Union and every other "socialist" state of the C20.

The Socialist Alliance - just to clarify - is not stalinist, nor is it social democratic (there are, actually, one or two of each in our ranks, but that's as far as it goes). It is a socialist organisation, but - due to the delicate negotiations between affiliate groups when it was set up, and their expectations (the ISO, for example, expected a massive influx of disenfranchised Labor members, which never hapened) - it refrained from describing itself explicitly as "revolutionary".

Most of its members are, however, revolutionaries, although some certainly differ as to what that means, and how it can be acheived. It is not, however, reformist, just because it doesn't use the "R" word in every sentence.

With respect to the silly little game being played with the slogan "medicare not warfare", am I to understand that the Bolshevik slogan "bread, peace, land" is deserving of the same smug, useless, critique; or do you just have a sectarian axe to grind with the Socialist Alliance today?

On the Sparts and Michael Jackson. Sorry, but I actually still have the hard copy of their paper where there is an article on the back cover defending Jackson on the premise that he did it (regardless, that is to say, of whether he was guilty or not).

On the CPA/ MLs: Hiero, no slander there. I work closely with a number of CPAers around the country, some of whom are, indeed, fairly young. The Vast majority are well over the hill, however (at least relatively to other left groups, as well as to the pension age). The thing with the MLs and buried guns is a long-running joke on the Oz left (and actually has a fair bit of truth to it - but I'll save that for another day).

Black Dagger wrote

I believe they would argue that their participation in electoral politics is 'strategic'

Tactical, actually.

Bilan wrote:

I didn't advocate anything, I just pointed out that the lot of you are bourgeois. Care to contradict me?

I'd rather not waste my time, but yes, I care to contradict you. Now get over it, and put away your silly little copy of "The Realm of the Left-wing Insult". (PS - calling someone "Bernstein" when the politics under consideration contradict the meaning of the term is, at least in the context of this "discussion", apolitical. It's just a childish smear.)

[chebol]

FWIW, the Socialist Alliance press release on the recent by-election in Fremantle:
http://www.socialist-alliance.org/page.php?page=843 (http://www.socialist-alliance.org/page.php?page=843)

And the latest Green Left Weekly article:
http://www.greenleft.org.au/2009/795/40962
(It's worth noting the last paragraph, by the way)

[Niccolò Rossi]

The Socialist Alliance - just to clarify - is not stalinist, nor is it social democratic (there are, actually, one or two of each in our ranks, but that's as far as it goes). It is a socialist organisation, but - due to the delicate negotiations between affiliate groups when it was set up, and their expectations (the ISO, for example, expected a massive influx of disenfranchised Labor members, which never hapened) - it refrained from describing itself explicitly as "revolutionary".

How can a group be 'socialist' yet contain stalinists and social democrats? How can a group be 'socialist' yet not (explicitly) revolutionary?


On the Sparts and Michael Jackson. Sorry, but I actually still have the hard copy of their paper where there is an article on the back cover defending Jackson on the premise that he did it (regardless, that is to say, of whether he was guilty or not).

Sorry chebol but there is no need to apologise. On a serious note however, thanks for the clarification, I did not know this was the case, either way it's a pretty irrelevant matter that doesn't change their position.


On the CPA/ MLs: Hiero, no slander there. I work closely with a number of CPAers around the country, some of whom are, indeed, fairly young. The Vast majority are well over the hill, however (at least relatively to other left groups, as well as to the pension age). The thing with the MLs and buried guns is a long-running joke on the Oz left (and actually has a fair bit of truth to it - but I'll save that for another day).

Oh and I suppose calling the sparts core members mentally ill (literally) and making allegations of them living in the same house etc. is ok? It's pretty easy to point the finger at others.


FWIW, the Socialist Alliance press release on the recent by-election in Fremantle:
http://www.socialist-alliance.org/page.php?page=843 (http://www.socialist-alliance.org/page.php?page=843)

On an unrelated note: Even though I think the article is a joke (a greens victory is a "good day for working class people"!), Wainwright quoted in the article was the one good (read comradely) DSP bloke I spoke to the entire weekend of World at a Crossroads.