Trotskyism in Australia

[zapatista]

There are lots of Trotskyist groups in Australia, I see this as rather pointless. Do you think there is any hope of a united front?

[chebol]

There was an attempt at one from 2001 onwards in the Socialist Alliance (http://www.socialist-alliance.org) (although not Trotskyist, most of the original affiliate organisations were Trotskyist groups).

Some groups - such as the Socialist Party (CWI) and Socialist Alternative (Cliffite but not IST) refused from the outset to take part. So did the Progressive Labour Party and the Communist Party.

The Socialist Alliance initially grew quickly so that its members were overwhelmingly not part of any affiliate group. Some are Trotskyist, some aren't. The point of the Socialist Alliance was to find a common minimum socialist platform upon which the various groups and the hundreds of non-aligned socialists in Oz could agree.

The various Trotskyist affiliates (Freedom Socialist Party, International Socialist Organisation, Worker's Liberty, Workers' League, Socialist Democracy) gradually left after the non-aligned membership and the Democratic Socialist Party wanted to turn the Alliance into a proper "multi-tendency socialist party", much like the SSP in Scotland, and introduce a democratic system for electing the national executive (up until that point, small affiliates had automatic NE representation, even though they might have only three or five members).

They are always welcome to return, or to negotiate a new "united front" or alliance. The impression I get from these groups, however, is overwhelmingly negative - they're currently happier sect-building than trying to forge a left alliance.

But like I said, the Socialist Alliance still exists, still has an open-door policy to other groups (and works with them where possible), and is still growing (and we just had a councillor elected in Fremantle).

[zapatista]

I wasn't aware you had a councillor, that's pretty cool. Up until now i thought the only socialist councillor in Australia was Steve Jolly in Yarra.

[Niccolò Rossi]

The impression I get from these groups, however, is overwhelmingly negative - they're currently happier sect-building than trying to forge a left alliance.

Meanwhile the Socialist Alliance is currently happier forging a left alliance, rather than trying to build a revolutionary party.

[chebol]

No, meanwhile the Socialist Alliance is currently happier uniting as much of the left as possible, rather than trying to set ourselves apart from the rest of the left and the working class by trying to build a "revolutionary party" along rigid sectarian lines.

[Q]

NR raises a good point: what about building a multi-tendency, multi-faction party? I'm not sure what SA does, outside being an electoral alliance, but building a party must be on the agenda I think.

[Niccolò Rossi]

No, meanwhile the Socialist Alliance is currently happier uniting as much of the left as possible, rather than trying to set ourselves apart from the rest of the left and the working class by trying to build a "revolutionary party" along rigid sectarian lines.

I don't think their is anything sectarian (the Socialist Alliance's favourite swear word) about actually having concrete political positions on critical class questions (above a 'common minimum socialist platform').

The reality is fundamental differences in positions - such as on the nature of the (so-called) 'socialist states', on the defence of proletarian internationalism v.s. 'anti-imperialism', on participation in parliament and electoral endorsement, on the role and nature of trade unions and possibility of work within them, or even on frontism itself, and so on - cannot be reconciled within a unified political organisation.

There is a reason why these things almost universally end in failure, and its not just because of sectarianism.

Also, to clarify, I don't think any of the myriad of Trotskyist groups, despite what they think of themselves, are actually building a class party, let alone have the capacity to do so.

[Niccolò Rossi]

we just had a councillor elected in Fremantle.

On an unrelated note; How has Sam been doing as councillor? If my memory serves me right he was elected a couple months ago. What's been done so far?

[Die Neue Zeit]

The reality is fundamental differences in positions - such as on the nature of the (so-called) 'socialist states'

Having differing opinions on this "nature" (DWS vs. stacap and so on) isn't sectarianism. It is when one particular "nature" view gets put into the party program at the expense of others, that's when it's sectarian.


on the defence of proletarian internationalism v.s. 'anti-imperialism'

Well, part of the revival of orthodox Marxist class politics is the revival of the class-strugglist-defencist question (outside a revolutionary period) and the revolutionary-defencist question, as well. That definitely puts into question illusions on the long-term political purchase of so-called "revolutionary defeatism."

However, all it takes are cool-headed persons to avoid sectarianism. Unfortunately, many "anti-imperialists" are willing to turn to sectarianism. In fact much of left sectarianism is based on differences in specific "anti-imperialist" positions.


on participation in parliament and electoral endorsement

Only sectarians favour abstentionism without considering the whole package of political support. Only class-collaborationists favour electioneering and coalitions without considering the whole package of political support.


on the role and nature of trade unions and possibility of work within them, or even on frontism itself, and so on - cannot be reconciled within a unified political organisation

Um, factions? The right to dissent publicly even on decisions made? Sheesh!

[FSL]

Um, factions? The right to dissent publicly? Sheesh!


In what depths have the times pushed us... :crying:

[chebol]

Q wrote:

what about building a multi-tendency, multi-faction party? I'm not sure what SA does, outside being an electoral alliance, but building a party must be on the agenda I think. Precisely what the DSP and the vast majority of the Socialist Alliance wanted to build, and which the small groups did not - an MTSP (Multi-Tendency Socialist Party). We are still progressing down this path, albeit without most of the possible tendencies. And they are welcome to participate at any point in the future.

Noone has to give up their politics, their view on Russia 1917-1938, or Cuba, or whatever.

Vis-a-vis sectarianism, I think - on top of what I've already said - Jacob's got it covered. If you think maintaining a separate political organisation on the basis of your analysis of the Russian revolution (or whatever) is more important than building a the strongest possible socialist force (even if on a minimal socialist platform) to revolutionise society, you are sectarian.

As for public dissent, affiliates of the Socialist Alliance have the right to do so, and to maintain - in public - their own position. Elected officials (eg councilors, parliamentarians) on the other hand do not.

As for Sam, he was only elected 3 weeks ago (the election went on for several weeks because it was a postal ballot - a particularly stupid idea, as it resulted in quite a low turnout) so be a little patient.

[Devrim]

There are lots of Trotskyist groups in Australia, I see this as rather pointless. Do you think there is any hope of a united front?

Regardless of my opinion Of Trotskyism, which is the same as Niccolò's, I think the question is phrased wrongly. Most of these groups are not just Australian based groups and are part of international organisations, often run from Britain. It probably isn't something that they can just decide on locally.

Devrim

[Vladimir Innit Lenin]

I don't know much at all about the left movement in Australia, but what I will say is something that I often repeat; sectarianism, in particular the Trotsky v Anti-Revisionsts struggle, is pointless. It will never be won/agreed upon as it is a matter of passion and opinion.

We should focus on what can unite is against the common enemy in the future, rather than what has divided us in the past.

[The Deepest Red]

I don't know much at all about the left movement in Australia, but what I will say is something that I often repeat; sectarianism, in particular the Trotsky v Anti-Revisionsts struggle, is pointless. It will never be won/agreed upon as it is a matter of passion and opinion.

We should focus on what can unite is against the common enemy in the future, rather than what has divided us in the past.

These divisions exist for a reason. There's nothing remotely pointless about opposing the perverse debasements of Marxism that you find in the various Stalinist tendencies and elsewhere. What you're dealing with is revolutionary and counter-revolutionary theory, tactics and practices: they're as different as night and day. I'm not saying broad-left alliances should be ruled out but they must always be on a principled basis i.e. march separately, strike together and criticisms should never be shelved for the sake of diplomacy.

[Vladimir Innit Lenin]

March separately, strike together-type maxims = no united left and therefore no revolution, all for the sake of a few groups keeping their beloved principles.

How is it that (not that I am a supporter) unity was maintained within the Bolshevik Party/CPSU, SED, Communist Party of Cuba, despite the obvious existence of different strands of socialism in said countries? A combination of democratic centralism and the acceptance that people have different views, but that they must fight a collective war, not a sectarian one.

[Crux]

Regardless of my opinion Of Trotskyism, which is the same as Niccolò's, I think the question is phrased wrongly. Most of these groups are not just Australian based groups and are part of international organisations, often run from Britain. It probably isn't something that they can just decide on locally.

Devrim
Being a part of an international making important decisions togetehr is something quite different than being run from a specific coutnry. Speaking as a Swedish emember of the CWI teh charge that we would be run "from britian" is ridicolous. Just saying.

As for having councillors in Austalia, we have that too. And as for why we did not join the Socialist Alliance: http://www.socialistpartyaustralia.org/archives/250
http://www.socialistpartyaustralia.org/archives/761

[Crux]

March separately, strike together-type maxims = no united left and therefore no revolution, all for the sake of a few groups keeping their beloved principles.

How is it that (not that I am a supporter) unity was maintained within the Bolshevik Party/CPSU, SED, Communist Party of Cuba, despite the obvious existence of different strands of socialism in said countries? A combination of democratic centralism and the acceptance that people have different views, but that they must fight a collective war, not a sectarian one.
I don't think you can say that Democratic Centralism existed within the CPSU post the physical anhilation of all oppositional tendencies, rather beauracratic centralism.
Something similar can definatly be said of the Communist Party of Cuba and the SED.

[Die Neue Zeit]

As for public dissent, affiliates of the Socialist Alliance have the right to do so, and to maintain - in public - their own position. Elected officials (eg councilors, parliamentarians) on the other hand do not.

Well, I forgot to say that public dissent has limits. In the example you brought up, I suppose the elected officials still express their own positions in party meetings, right?

[ls]

Is there a specific reason why CWI feels the need to run councillors?

I know the supposedly "anarchist" (or as JR rightly puts it "proletarian-not-necessarily-communist party") IWCA also do a similar thing, although they tend to argue that it is a mandate that they've worked with and as part of the communities correctly rather than a vying for power. Just wondering.

As for Australia, what are the biggest struggles the various groups there get involved in? And in which way in particular do the Trotskyist groups involve themselves, some examples would be interesting.

[Devrim]

Being a part of an international making important decisions togetehr is something quite different than being run from a specific coutnry. Speaking as a Swedish emember of the CWI teh charge that we would be run "from britian" is ridicolous. Just saying.

So are you saying that you could merge with whatever the IS group is called in Sweden, and still remain in the CWI?

Devrim

[Devrim]

Is there a specific reason why CWI feels the need to run councillors?

The CWI are the Socialist Party in the UK, and are one of two groups that come from the old 'Militant Tendency'. They have always been editorialist and still are today.

Devrim

[chegitz guevara]

What happened in Oz was that once the Democratic Socialist Party dissolved itself into the Socialist Alliance (as the Democratic Socialist Perspective, or some such), the other groups decided this was a sort of "French Turn" operation planned by the DSP all along, and they bolted. Given the way the DSP has continued to operate since, I can't say they were wrong. Of course, by bolting, they left the whole thing in the hands of the DSP.

[ls]

The CWI are the Socialist Party in the UK, and are one of two groups that come from the old 'Militant Tendency'. They have always been editorialist and still are today.

Devrim

Yes I know that, although I'm not too sure what you mean by 'editorialist'.

They run councillors in Ireland too, but I've never been given a clear answer as to why they do this round the globe.

[Devrim]

Sorry, that is the automatic spelling corrector. I meant electorialist.

Devrim

[ls]

Yeah, but I think electoralism can mean vastly different things.

Wanting to be elected into the parliament with sitting MPs and just electing councillors are completely different imo. Not that I support either strategy, but I can certainly see that if the reasons behind electing councillors are not that it's an intrinsic part of the platform (as it isn't with IWCA) then the group has some potential in shifting away from electoralism.

The former would mean serious structural changes to the organisation.

[BobKKKindle$]

Wanting to be elected into the parliament with sitting MPs and just electing councillors are completely different imMilitant wanted to get themselves elected as MPs because they thought that it would be possible to overthrow capitalism without the abolition of the bourgeois state, through an enabling act. That's reformism.

[ls]

Militant wanted to get themselves elected as MPs because they thought that it would be possible to overthrow capitalism without the abolition of the bourgeois state, through an enabling act. That's reformism.

Yep, but they aren't called Militant anymore to be fair and they pretty obviously advocate different tactics, this doesn't imply an endorsement of them btw.

[BobKKKindle$]

Yep, but they aren't called Militant anymore to be fair and they pretty obviously advocate different tactics, this doesn't imply an endorsement of them btw.

You're right, they now advocate a "new workers party", with the support of the trade union bureaucracy, which is basically a new version of old Labour, the same old Labour that supported British imperialism and managed the affairs of the capitalist state in the interests of the capitalist class.

[ls]

You're right, they now advocate a "new workers party", with the support of the trade union bureaucracy, which is basically a new version of old Labour, the same old Labour that supported British imperialism and managed the affairs of the capitalist state in the interests of the capitalist class.

Oh well Bob, it's funny because the meeting I got back from a few hours ago had a nicely dressed SWP student dawg advocating the greatness of CWU. Also, remember that the SWP said people should vote for new labour in the first place.

I'm not a massive fan of CWI, IS or IMT. Nonetheless, at least in the UK, I'd probably choose the CWI-SP's politics over the IS-SWP.

[BobKKKindle$]

Oh well Bob, it's funny because the meeting I got back from a few hours ago had an SWP dawg advocating the greatness of the trade union bureaucracy and praising CWUI beg to differ.

How do we fight when union leaders waver? (http://www.socialistworker.co.uk/art.php?id=19382)
Union bureaucrats and the rank & file (http://www.socialistworker.co.uk/art.php?id=17256)

Let's also remember that the SP is the same party that voted against workers at the DWP taking strike action alongside other PCS members. If that's not siding with the trade union bureaucracy then I don't know what is, although even that probably doesn't come close to entering into a left-nationalist electoral alliance with a trade-union bureaucrat who supports the use of the death penalty.


Also, remember that the SWP said people should vote for new labour in the first place.As a tactical move, because we argued that New Labour would reveal itself to be completely opposed to the interests of working people. Flawed perhaps, but not comparable to the SP, which wants to out-do New Labour at the game of supporting British imperialism and leading the working class down a reformist road. If you would rather support a party that thinks that you can reform your way to socialism through an enabling act and which wants to rebuild social democracy instead of supporting revolutionary action than a party, which, despite its flaws, has never held or promoted either of those illusions, then that's fine by me.

[ls]

I beg to differ.

How do we fight when union leaders waver? (http://www.socialistworker.co.uk/art.php?id=19382)
Union bureaucrats and the rank & file (http://www.socialistworker.co.uk/art.php?id=17256)

Bob, what you write and what your members actually do, commonly seem to be two completely different things, how many things could be brought up against the SWP? I don't really wanna go there.


Let's also remember that the SP is the same party that voted against workers at the DWP taking strike action alongside other PCS members. If that's not siding with the trade union bureaucracy then I don't know what is, although even that probably doesn't come close to entering into a left-nationalist electoral alliance with a trade-union bureaucrat who supports the use of the death penalty.

I think BOZG said that this was factually incorrect before, his argument was a lot more convincing than yours about what the SP did. Can't be bothered to dig it up right now.


As a tactical move, because we argued that New Labour would reveal itself to be completely opposed to the interests of working people. Flawed perhaps, but not comparable to the SP, which wants to out-do New Labour at the game of supporting British imperialism and leading the working class down a reformist road. If you would rather support a party that thinks that you can reform your way to socialism through an enabling act and which wants to rebuild social democracy instead of supporting revolutionary action than a party, which, despite its flaws, has never held or promoted either of those illusions, then that's fine by me.

I don't really support any of the parties thus far mentioned in this thread, perhaps with the exception of the IWCA if they drop their idea of running cllrs.

Nonetheless, your party's politics are worse or at least as bad as the CWI section.

[BobKKKindle$]

Bob, what you write and what your members actually do

You haven't told us anything about what this member you apparently met today "does", you just said that they advocated the greatness of the CWU, whatever that means. But please, expose incidents where the SWP has lied about what it does.


I think BOZG said that this was factually incorrect before

Well, here is our article from the time:

"The PCS civil service workers’ union group executive in the Department for Work and Pensions (DWP) made a decision last week that is a setback to the campaign against the attacks on public sector pay. The executive, which is led by the Socialist Party, voted by 26 to five not to call strike action next week alongside Unison union members in local government, and other PCS members in other departments"

The PCS DWP executive is wrong to say no to strikes (http://www.socialistworker.co.uk/art.php?id=15439)

The SP responded with their own article, and they didn't contest the factual accuracy of what the SW article said, rather they tried to justify not supporting strike action:

"Genuine Marxism rejects the theory of the continual 'offensive'. A farsighted leadership, before engaging in such a serious issue as strike action, is compelled to take into account all the factors, not least the mood of the members who face such action"

Reply to the SWP attacks on the PCS leadership (http://www.socialistparty.org.uk/print/6271)

So, if BOZG thinks I'm lying, he surely thinks the SP is lying as well.

[ls]

You haven't told us anything about what this member you apparently met today "does", you just said that they advocated the greatness of the CWU, whatever that means.

Said that the CWU "did very well given mandy's attacks on them".


But please, expose incidents where the SWP has lied about what it does.

To name but a few; attacked working for government than had that lady who joined the government as an advisor, stolen that piece of CWI media (the poster iirc) and attempted to re-engineer it to make it look like yours, pretended to be a revolutionary party then advocated a vote for new labour. Had enough?


blabla
So, if BOZG thinks I'm lying, he surely thinks the SP is lying as well.

Y'know what, I might even have the wrong story here, there are loads of sectarian stories about the SWP and the CWI. I can't be bothered to go back and forth with posts about this and that.

Even if it is true, which is fairly probable, it doesn't compare to an SWP member who was also a trade union bureaucrat calling the police in on workers: http://www.indymedia.ie/article/87064.

[BobKKKindle$]

Said that the CWU "did very well given mandy's attacks on them".So how is that the same as defending the trade union bureaucracy?


attacked working for government than had that lady who joined the government as an advisorI don't think the SWP has ever "attacked working for government", because that would mean attacking everyone who works in the public sector, given that they are technically working for the government, or at least being paid out of the public purse. I never saw anything wrong with that woman taking up a minor advisory position. By contrast, the leader of the POA is now a member of the SP. You tell me which one you think is worse.


stolen that piece of CWI and attempted to re-engineer it to make it look like yoursDon't know what you mean, sorry. If you mean the Joe Higgins issue (you should at least know the name of an elected socialist) then I don't think the SWP was trying to make it seem as if he were one of our members in the first place.


pretended to be a revolutionary party then advocated a vote for new labour.I don't think there was any contradiction at all as long as you understand the tactical reasoning. You may disagree with the reasoning, but there's no inconsistency, and we certainly have never called for a vote for any version of the Labour Party as a matter of principle - otherwise we would have encouraged people to vote for them in the EU elections. Nor do we have a new version of old Labour as our foremost objective.


Y'know what, I might even have the wrong story hereEvidently.


it doesn't compare to an SWP member who was also a trade union bureaucratFirstly, this person wasn't working full time for a union, which doesn't make him a bureaucrat, because the definition of a bureaucrat is someone who works full-time for an organization. Secondly, it was a pretty stupid and objectionable thing to do, but think of it this way - in the unlikely event that those individuals went to prison or that the SWP has ever caused anyone to go to prison, at least they'll be able to get friendly with the prison guards, whose leader is a member of the SP.

[ls]

So how is that the same as defending the trade union bureaucracy?

Defending the union =/= defending the workers.


By contrast, the leader of the POA is now a member of the SP. You tell me which one you think is worse.

The SP are more open about their position towards the police and prison guards, the SWP on the other hand act like other parties and say they are scum, then they call the police on striking workers.

Tell me which one is worse?


Don't know what you mean, sorry. If you mean the Joe Higgins issue (you should at least know the name of an elected socialist) then I don't think the SWP was trying to make it seem as if he were one of our members in the first place.

Yeah that one, well that's your opinion anyway, people can check out the thread by a search.


I don't think there was any contradiction at all as long as you understand the tactical reasoning. You may disagree with the reasoning, but there's no inconsistency, and we certainly have never called for a vote for any version of the Labour Party as a matter of principle - otherwise we would have encouraged people to vote for them in the EU elections. Nor do we have a new version of old Labour as our foremost objective.

Sure you do, you aren't even sure what a socialist society will look like from what I can tell, you have few members and you advocate doing the most opportunistic things, I think that is in some ways worse than attempting electoralism.


Firstly, this person wasn't working full time for a union, which doesn't make him a bureaucrat, because the definition of a bureaucrat is someone who works full-time for an organization. Secondly, it was a pretty stupid and objectionable thing to do, but think of it this way - in the unlikely event that those individuals went to prison or that the SWP has ever caused anyone to go to prison, at least they'll be able to get friendly with the prison guards, whose leader is a member of the SP.

Firstly, no someone doesn't have to work full-time to get in the way of workers' progress via the union, secondly that was extremely funny, well done. It still doesn't compare. :cool:

[chebol]

chegitz wrote:

What happened in Oz was that once the Democratic Socialist Party dissolved itself into the Socialist Alliance (as the Democratic Socialist Perspective, or some such), the other groups decided this was a sort of "French Turn" operation planned by the DSP all along, and they bolted. Given the way the DSP has continued to operate since, I can't say they were wrong. Of course, by bolting, they left the whole thing in the hands of the DSP.As a matter of fact that is incorrect, on several counts. In 2003, the DSP (then still "Party", rather than "Perspective") wanted to reduce itself to a solely internal faction of the Socialist Alliance as part of the process of building a Multi-Tendency Sociaist Party along the lines of the SSP (so, more of a "Scottish turn", than "French"). The DSP also offered to hand over its (considerable) assets, including the buildings it owns, and the newspaper Green Left Weekly, to the Socialist Alliance.

This was supported by almost the entire non-affiliated membership of the Socialist Alliance, but opposed by the small affiliate groups, and by the ISO - the only affiliate of any meaningful size.

The ISO threatened to walk, so the DSP decided not to go ahead with/ postpone the move. Since then, the other groups have indeed left (and others have joined), but their "reasons" are pretty piss-poor to say the least, and the DSP is an easy target for a scapegoat (and a number of leading members of some affiliates have admitted to me that this was the case).

The DSP is currently discussing whether to try again with a "merger", which it will decide at its congress this January, just before the 7th Socialist Alliance national conference.


Of course, by bolting, they left the whole thing in the hands of the DSP.Well, no, not quite. The majority of Socialist Alliance members are not affiliated with any group.


ls wrote:

As for Australia, what are the biggest struggles the various groups there get involved in? And in which way in particular do the Trotskyist groups involve themselves, some examples would be interesting.It varies from group to group, but everything you would expect (and probably some stuff you wouldn't. A few areas where a number of groups work together are the Stop the War Coalition, refugee rights, LGBTI rights, anti-racism, aboriginal rights work, some trade union work, and around climate change.

There's also been a limited amount of collaboration between the Socialist Alliance and the Socialist Party (CWI) around elections.

Jacob Richter wrote:

In the example you brought up, I suppose the elected officials still express their own positions in party meetings, right?Of course, although we only have one member elected to a government position (council in Fremantle), and none in any parliament. Also members in union positions sometimes have to take a more nuanced position than an official spokesperson for the party (like a local councillor).

Mayakovsky wrote:

As for having councillors in Austalia, we have that too. And as for why we did not join the Socialist Alliance: http://www.socialistpartyaustralia.org/archives/250 (http://www.anonym.to/?http://www.socialistpartyaustralia.org/archives/250)
http://www.socialistpartyaustralia.org/archives/761 (http://www.anonym.to/?http://www.socialistpartyaustralia.org/archives/761)A few quick responses:
1. Yes, you have one councillor too - Steve Jolly. But your organisation, despite one or two members here or there around the country is limited to basically one suburb of one city in one state.

2. Neither of those links above explain why the Socialist Party didn't join the Socialist Alliance. They are post factum justifications, and bad ones at that.

* The first link is infected with the worst of the IST's position on left regroupment being a "united front of a special kind", and the author is a sectarian par excellence who is well known for splitting groups that he can't control. It is also incredibly dishonest. When we didn't immediately receive a massive influx of disenfranchised Labor members, and automatically get over 5% in elections, the ISO progressively abstained from Alliance activity, and then blamed the DSP for "taking over" when we did the work.

* The second link is contradictory and pack full of falsehoods, both deliberate and perhaps mistaken. The primary source of "information" is an former faction of the DSP, which has since split, and whose "information" is distorted at best and lies at worst.

These articles serve the purpose of the Socialist Party in not joining the Socialist Aliance by allowing them to employ the "stopped clock" approach to politics (even a stopped clock is correct twice a day), but they do nothing to shed light on the reality of the Socialist Alliance, nor improve left collaboration.

[chegitz guevara]

chegitz wrote:
As a matter of fact that is incorrect, on several counts. In 2003, the DSP (then still "Party", rather than "Perspective") wanted to reduce itself to a solely internal faction of the Socialist Alliance as part of the process of building a Multi-Tendency Sociaist Party along the lines of the SSP (so, more of a "Scottish turn", than "French"). The DSP also offered to hand over its (considerable) assets, including the buildings it owns, and the newspaper Green Left Weekly, to the Socialist Alliance.

I'm not incorrect. I'm not stating what the DSP intended, but what it was accused of doing. Since y'all haven't abandoned Cannonism or vanguardism yet, it's not unjustified to be suspicious. There's a lot of good stuff in what the DSP has done, but . . .

Not sayin' yer all bad, or even mostly bad.

http://louisproyect.wordpress.com/?s=socialist+alliance+australia

[chebol]

Sorry, Chegitz, but you are incorrect (try re-reading my last post).

You wrote:

What happened in Oz was that once the Democratic Socialist Party dissolved itself into the Socialist Alliance (as the Democratic Socialist Perspective, or some such), the other groups decided this was a sort of "French Turn" operation planned by the DSP all along, and they bolted. Given the way the DSP has continued to operate since, I can't say they were wrong. Of course, by bolting, they left the whole thing in the hands of the DSP.As I've already pointed out (and believe me, I was there) the DSP didn't dissolve (neither then, nor now - at least not yet) into the Socialist Alliance. It proposed to become a solely internal faction and donate its resources to the socialist alliance as a whole, under the democratic control of the entire Socialist Alliance (of which the DSP were, and still are, a minority). If the affiliates though this was too "gauche", well then, my name's Jacques.

And when the ISO and others cried wolf, we pulled back from the plan.

One key problem the smaller affiliates had wasn't that the DSP was "taking over", but that the DSP, and the vast majority of the Socialist Alliance membership - who were not in any affiliate group - were proposing a democratic method for electing the National Executive.

Up until that point, the NE was made up of representatives of affiliates alone - some of whom only had 3 or 5 members but who had automatic representation due to their affiliate status. So more than two thirds of the membership had no voice on any national body, while representatives of potempkin "revolutionary vanguards" were running the show.

We proposed - and the vote was carried by around 80% of conference - that national bodies be democratically elected. Apparently some people didn't like that, and decided to blame us for everything wrong with the world, then picked up their bat and ball and went home.

To their credit, the ISO and FSP stayed in for longer, but they abstained from work, which meant that the DSP and non-aligned members had to carry the slack, so, yes, this: "Of course, by bolting, they left the whole thing in the hands of the DSP." is more or less correct, except for the fact that - as I said before - most SA members are not DSP members.

Also, while you claim that you were "not stating what the DSP intended, but what it was accused of doing", you seem quite happy to continue the baseless accusations:


Given the way the DSP has continued to operate since, I can't say they were wrong.Given the way the DSP has continued to operate since, I'm surprised more people haven't realised that we were genuine the whole time, and are still open to rebuilding alliances with those groups.


Since y'all haven't abandoned Cannonism or vanguardism yet, it's not unjustified to be suspicious.I'm not sure how "vanguardism" as the DSP views it (ie, not as ourselves, but as the entire "political vanguard" of the working class, its various ideological tendencies and its uneven form, all of which we are trying to unite in a democratic and pluralistic fashion) is justification for suspicion. Just the opposite, I would have thought.

[Crux]

You're right, they now advocate a "new workers party", with the support of the trade union bureaucracy, which is basically a new version of old Labour, the same old Labour that supported British imperialism and managed the affairs of the capitalist state in the interests of the capitalist class.
Because Respect went so well. Could you take your irrelevant secterian mudslinging somewhere else?

[Mehring]

but who leads? Rather than sectarianism (which is pointless and was opposed by Trotsky) we need to be able to grasp - or understand and respond to - actual class forces. But his does entail avoinding political tendencies that represent other class forces. Does anyone have thoughts in this regards?

[Mehring]

But who leads? Rather than sectarianism (which is pointless and was opposed by Trotsky) we need to be able to grasp - or understand and respond to - actual class forces. But This does entail avoiding political tendencies that represent other class forces. For example we need to keep liberals and liberalism out of the movement because behind liberal "criticism" is a defence of capitalism. On the other hand there may be times when workers have something to gain from temporary alliances with other tendencies as long as the workers interests come first.

Does anyone have thoughts in this regards? What is sectarianism and what is a legitimate defence of a genuine socialist program?

Also are there any other thoughts on alliances between different Marxist tendencies? If we can identify the actual class forces and begin to organise around those issues will new alliances form along with support for the revolutionary parties?

Perhaps we could discuss housing issues! This effects millions from a great variety of backgrounds in many countries and is something barely touched on by liberals. Facing hard economic problems faced by workers of all backgrounds rather than idealist nostrums about self fullfilment and ethnic harmony and showing how socialism directly tackles the real life problems is key to awakening class consciousness once again.