Merger: Socialist Alternative and the Revolutionary Socialist Party

[TheGodlessUtopian]

Might be on the horizon. Didn't know the latter party even existed but I found the article interesting nonetheless.

http://directaction.org.au/statement_by_the_revolutionary_socialist_party_on_ progress_towards_merger_with_socialist_alternative

[citizen of industry]

They've agreed to express their differences publicly. Interesting. I wonder what their press will look like? It means they've rejected democratic-centralism.

[Prof. Oblivion]

It means they've rejected democratic-centralism.

Democratic centralism had nothing to do with keeping disagreements internal. Hell, Lenin even wrote in the publications of rival parties to publicly express his dissent. This is a myth perpetuated by these crazy organizations that want to play revolutionary.

[Smith's Dream]

It'll be interesting to see how this turns out. The RSP split from the Socialist Alliance (formerly a coalition of the Democratic Socialist Party and a variety of smaller left groups) a few years back arguing that a more Leninist approach was needed, that the original programme of the DSP was being watered down and sacrificed in order to try and build a 'broad' party. I could go on into the intricacies of it but ugh, these exchanges get boring fast.

I struggle to see this happening, to be honest. The RSP put a very high priority on championing overseas governments that SocAlt would consider state capitalist. Cuba, Venezuela, even Vietnam - these are all socialist causes worth supporting in the RSP's eyes. They're not quite as hardout about all this as, say, the PSL or the FRSO types in the States... It does take a little more than a government being in America's bad books for the RSP to start a fan club for it, but you get the picture.

That said, SocAlt are probably the biggest show in town on the Australian radical left, and the RSP (amazingly enough) have not managed to achieve stellar growth after splitting and gaining back their cherished programmatic purity. They wouldn't have more than 30-40 people, whereas SocAlt have hundreds, especially in Melbourne. In a practical sense, it makes sense for RSP people to jump onto the bigger ship.

A key RSP activist, Jorge something or other, has recently resigned from the group and joined SocAlt, and apparently the whole Cuba/Venezuela/Vietnam/Stalinist/State-capitalist interminable debate thing hasn't gotten in the way of that. I guess his mates in the RSP see which way the wind is blowing and want to get in while the going's good.

Intriguingly, the Socialist Alliance has also started 'unity discussions' with SocAlt. It seems everyone's jumping on the bandwagon. The real question, imho, is whether this is actually genuinely about trying to negotiate far-left unity, or whether there's a more strategic motive on the part of the Castroist lot of trying to negotiate unity in the full knowledge SocAlt probably won't go for it (not with STALINISTS!!!!!), thus exposing them for all the world to see as unrepentant sectarians. Who knows, maybe I'm just cynical.

Anyway, long post at an end. One final point which might have some relevance is that the RSP lot and the SocAlt lot tend to be, from my experience, quite strident, earnest and confrontational on a personal level, more so than the Socialist Alliance people. Political line aside, these guys may be perfect for each other. Obviously that's quite a subjective thing, I haven't met that many people from any of those groups, but just a wee observation based on what I've seen/heard.

[citizen of industry]

Democratic centralism had nothing to do with keeping disagreements internal. Hell, Lenin even wrote in the publications of rival parties to publicly express his dissent. This is a myth perpetuated by these crazy organizations that want to play revolutionary.

Can you link to the articles Lenin published in rival parties' papers publicly criticizing the Bolsheviks? I know there was quite the controversy on armed insurrection where he threatened to resign from the Central executive committee in order to agitate at the party congress, and went over the heads of the central committee and wrote directly to the Petrograd and Moscow committees. On the other hand, shortly thereafter he demanded the expulsion of Kamenev and Zinoviev for publishing an article in a rival paper criticizing his resolution to insurrection.

Anyway, personally I wouldn't want to read a paper where the different writers are bickering all the time, that's what conventions and voting and internal discussion bulletins are for. It's not really democratic if the minority, after losing a vote inside the party, has to criticize the majority publicly.

[Smith's Dream]

For those interested...

Roberto Jorquera

Why I am joining Socialist Alternative

I joined the socialist youth organisation Resistance and the Socialist Workers Party in 1988 and was active as a full-time organiser for many years. I came to the conclusion in 2006 that the old DSP/SWP had taken an liquidationist turn (masked as Socialist Alliance).

Together with some other comrades in Melbourne we left and formed the Marxist Solidarity Network (later Direct Action).
Throughout this period we often prioritised Latin American solidarity work as one of the few viable options for practical work for our small group. In addition, a number of us had been politically formed and inspired by the revolutionary movements of Latin America. This is a continuing source of inspiration and a central part of my political history. I will continue to support the Cuban revolution and am no less inspired by the example and political thinking of Che Guevara.

In fact it his thinking that is uppermost in my decision to join Socialist Alternative and encourage others to do likewise. Che's most fundamental legacy is to remind us that it is our duty to make the revolution wherever we are. The point of solidarity work – which I aim to continue to do – is to support other struggles but not to hide behind them. The most important thing a revolutionary can do for the world revolution is to build their own revolutionary movement.

I am joining Socialist Alternative because of the role they are playing in Australia. How we see Cuba or the Latin American revolution developing can be discussed over time and patiently.

Revolutionary politics is always about learning, discussion and being open to new ideas to work out the best course of action. With this approach we can work towards a more united and clear revolutionary left in Australia.

comradely
Roberto Jorquera

[TheGodlessUtopian]

A update...


Joint statement by Socialist Alliance and Socialist Alternative representatives
A meeting was held in Melbourne on November 4 between Peter Boyle, Sue Bolton and Susan Price (representing the leadership of Socialist Alliance) and Mick Armstrong, Sandra Bloodworth and Corey Oakley (representing the leadership of Socialist Alternative), to explore the possibility of closer collaboration (http://sa.org.au/index.php?option=com_k2&view=item&id=7548%3Areport-on-discussions-between-socialist-alliance-and-socialist-alternative&Itemid=546#) and unity between the two organisations.
The meeting was comradely and constructive, and both sides agree that the basis exists to begin (http://sa.org.au/index.php?option=com_k2&view=item&id=7548%3Areport-on-discussions-between-socialist-alliance-and-socialist-alternative&Itemid=546#) a process of discussion to clarify our respective political positions and engage in collaborative work, with the aim of establishing if unity is possible.
It was acknowledged that there are real political differences between the groups, both historic and to do with immediate questions of day-to-day politics and a conception of what kind of organisation the left needs. We had only the most provisional discussion of these issues, and it is clear that we are just at the start of a lengthy process of clarification.
We both consider that, in a context of global capitalist crisis and an increasing offensive by the ruling class in Australia, it is incumbent on the left to try to work towards unity where it can. Nonetheless, neither organisation wishes to rush the process. We do not want unity at any cost, but unity that will be able to take the socialist movement forward.
We have agreed on the following:
1. Scheduling a series of discussions between the organisations to clarify our respective views on important political questions such as the socialist attitude to parliament and elections; to alliances and questions of party form; to the environment; to trade unions; and to women’s rights.
2. There was provisional agreement that Socialist Alliance would be involved in the Marxism 2013 conference at Easter, that Socialist Alliance speakers would be invited to Marxism 2013, and that Socialist Alliance would help to build the conference.
3. We will continue (http://sa.org.au/index.php?option=com_k2&view=item&id=7548%3Areport-on-discussions-between-socialist-alliance-and-socialist-alternative&Itemid=546#) and where possible increase the level of collaboration between our groups in movement and union struggles.


Source: http://sa.org.au/index.php?option=com_k2&view=item&id=7548%3Areport-on-discussions-between-socialist-alliance-and-socialist-alternative&Itemid=546

[Q]

Although I think the title is a little premature (there is no merger yet), I think this is good news from down under. Are there any comrades on Revleft involved that can keep us updated?

Edit:
And I hope the new group chooses a new name, so we can stop being confused over whether Socialist Alternative is the Australian CWI branch or not (it isn't btw) :D

[Ostrinski]

Good news. We need more of this.

[Sentinel]

Great news indeed, even though I first though it was the US CWI branch and some other party merging.. But total awesomeness if it goes through anyway, after all the hundreds of splits in Trotskyism.


I know there was quite the controversy on armed insurrection where he threatened to resign from the Central executive committee in order to agitate at the party congress, and went over the heads of the central committee and wrote directly to the Petrograd and Moscow committees. On the other hand, shortly thereafter he demanded the expulsion of Kamenev and Zinoviev for publishing an article in a rival paper criticizing his resolution to insurrection.

I think the main difference is that Lenin threatened to resign while Z and K afaik didn't, when they kept agitating against revolution even after the CC vote (where they were the only two voting against, to their eternal disgrace considering how things went).

[Ostrinski]

Although, I don't know how much of a merger this is than an absorption of one smaller org into a much larger international org. What are the obstacles of the merges of the various internationals? That's what needs to be asked.

[Q]

Although, I don't know how much of a merger this is than an absorption of one smaller org into a much larger international org. What are the obstacles of the merges of the various internationals? That's what needs to be asked.

Socialist Alternative was expelled from the IST, so as far as I'm aware they're not part of any international grouping.

As for your question, it's a good one. Say if the German IST and CWI section were to fuse, what would that mean internationally? Would they be expelled from the IST and/or CWI? Would they be in both?

But before that could happen, I think the first thing that needs to be adjusted is culture. The Dutch IST section for example would simply never tolerate the Dutch CWI.

[chebol]

Smith's Dream:
SocAlt are probably the biggest show in town on the Australian radical left,Not by a long shot. The Socialist Alliance is around three times their size, and has branches in a range of regional cities that SAlt have no presence in.


whereas SocAlt have hundreds, especially in Melbourne

SAlt have almost exactly 250 members, mostly in Melbourne. The RSP would be lucky to have 30 (let alone 40 or 50). Many of those who took part in the split have since resigned.

Nonetheless, this is a welcome development for the radical left in Australia. The RSP-SAlt merger is going ahead a-pace, and the discussions between Socialist Alliance and SAlt have begun on a remarkably comradely footing.

It's about time we *all* got our shit together comrades. We have one hell of a fight on our hands.

[chebol]

Q;
Socialist Alternative was expelled from the IST, so as far as I'm aware they're not part of any international grouping.

Correct. SAlt are from the Cliffite tradition, but not in the IST. They are close collaborators with the ISO in the US, however, and similar 'renegade' Cliffite groups.

[chebol]

Ostrinski:
this is than an absorption of one smaller org into a much larger ... org

Not quite. SAlt has recently decided that it is not *just* a propaganda group, but has grown to the size where it ought to also build the movements (not just recruit form them). Somewhere along the line, they've decided that differences over things such as Cuba or Russia, etc etc etc, are no longer the rivers of blood they once were.

SAlt members will tell you now that their new-found openness was *always* the case, but this is of course rubbish. Nonetheless, it is welcome rubbish, and the kind we should gather more of.

So, while the RSP is more 'joining' SAlt than 'merging' with it, it is an effective 'merger', albeit very lopsided. What will be *much* more interesting will be the process and outcome if SAlt and Socialist Alliance deepen their collaboration...

[Q]

In the latest Weekly Worker (http://www.cpgb.org.uk/home/weekly-worker/937/regroupment-in-a-revolutionary-party) they reproduce an SA article (http://sa.org.au/index.php?option=com_k2&view=item&id=7547:a-new-kind-of-left-unity&Itemid=546) on this merger from 2 November.

I'll repost the commentary at the start of that reproduction here:


Australian SA: Regroupment in a revolutionary party

Have the hard-line ‘Cliffite sectarians’ seen the light?


http://www.cpgb.org.uk/assets/images/wwimages/ww937/downunder.jpg
Real unity effort, or just a pose?

The article below, headed ‘A new kind of left unity’, is the editorial from the latest issue of the magazine, Socialist Alternative, published by the Australian organisation of the same name. Socialist Alternative - now the largest of the Australian far-left groups with around 300 members - split from the Socialist Workers Party’s International Socialist Tendency a decade ago, and has generally been regarded by the rest of the left as the most sectarian of all the revolutionary groups in Australia.

A great deal of scepticism has been expressed about not only the call for Marxist unity made in the article, but about the proposed merger with the Revolutionary Socialist Party. While both SA and the RSP seem to reject standing in elections almost on principle, their world outlook is very different. The RSP is an ex-Fourth International grouping, which now places its hopes in Cuba, Vietnam and the Venezuela of Hugo Chávez. It has set up ‘Chávista’ clubs on a number of campuses, while SA retains its IST, state-capitalist viewpoint. What is more, it is pointed out that an SA merger with the RSP would represent no more than a fait accompli - many leading RSP members have already left to join SA.

As for the SA’s new-found understanding of democratic centralism, some say that its practice has been typically bureaucratic, with minority positions being denied publication and comrades being allegedly expelled for raising criticisms. It is also claimed that it has a very hostile attitude to the IST affiliate, Solidarity, which it seems, is one group “with whom it would be impossible to genuinely unite” (see below).

The Weekly Worker was told that SA would not respond to our approach, when we expressed an interest in republishing this article. And so far that has turned out to be the case.

Nevertheless, even if all the allegations above are true, we believe the unity call should be welcomed. We should treat it as having been made in good faith until proved otherwise.

We invite the views of others on the left, particularly in Australia.

[Ostrinski]

My bad I'm a dumbass and didn't read. I didn't know this was Australia.

[chebol]

Socialist Alternative - now the largest of the Australian far-left groups with around 300 members

It constantly amazes my how this particular meme continues to reproduce itself. I would have thought the CPGB might have tried a bit harder though.

Socialist Alternative has about 250 members (according to a leading member, a week or two ago). Even with the RSP, and ex-RSP members, they'd be struggling to hit 300.

The Socialist Alliance, by contrast, has around 700 members.

This isn't meant to be a criticism or a pissing-contest, but it's important to keep all these things in perspective.

Of course, SAlt's is a "cadre" membership, and is focussed on the inner-city and campus areas of Sydney and Melbourne, so the level and nature of their activity is "higher" in the traditional left grouplet sense, and - because of its member base - it is much stronger on campus.

SAlt also organises the biggest left conference in Australia - Marxism - held every Easter in Melbourne.

The Socialist Alliance, on the other hand, while large in those areas too, also has large branches in places like Wollongong, Geelong, and Perth, and branches in a number of country cities and towns.

They have a local councillor in Fremantle, and a recently-elected one in Moreland in Melbourne, and a strong representation in the union movement, including the Secretary of Geelong Trades Hall and a number of members recently elected to the Central Council of the NSW PSA on the Progressive PSA ticket (for example).

These are all good things, but they are not enough. Combined, these groups could begin to pose a serious left alternative in the unions, on campus, in the movements and in elections.

Throw in the good work of the Socialist Party in Yarra in Melbourne, and some of the gains made by the Communist Party in Sydney (in the Maritime Union, a new local councillor in Auburn, etc), and this could get very interesting indeed.

Discussions have begun between Socialist Alliance and Socialist Alternative, but it is likely to move slowly at first. Still, it is a welcome sign that the left is beginning to work more closely together.

[chebol]

Smith's Dream:
Intriguingly, the Socialist Alliance has also started 'unity discussions' with SocAlt. It seems everyone's jumping on the bandwagon. The real question, imho, is whether this is actually genuinely about trying to negotiate far-left unity, or whether there's a more strategic motive on the part of the Castroist lot of trying to negotiate unity in the full knowledge SocAlt probably won't go for it (not with STALINISTS!!!!!), thus exposing them for all the world to see as unrepentant sectarians. Who knows, maybe I'm just cynical.Yes, you are incredibly cynical, and misinformed.

The unity process between the RSP and SAlt is going ahead, and the Socialist Alliance and SAlt have held initial discussions, with more planned.

The RSP has nothing to gain by "exposing" SAlt because the RSP is in a terminal position as an organisation, and is in no position to capitalise on any such "exposure".

The Socialist Alliance has nothing to gain from further animosity from SAlt either - SAlt is stronger on campus, where the left generally needs to build and recruit youth. Turning a reasonably peaceful form of co-existence into internecine warfare would be stupid, and wouldn't help anyone.

Furthermore, the Socialist Alliance (which isn't "Castroist", by the way) isn't "jumping on the bandwagon" - it has been openly calling for greater left unity ever since its formation, and is absolutely, 100 percent, genuine in this call.

SAlt has responded to this in an apparently honest and open manner to their call, which is good news for all involved.

The cynicism is all yours.

[Crux]

It constantly amazes my how this particular meme continues to reproduce itself. I would have thought the CPGB might have tried a bit harder though.

Socialist Alternative has about 250 members (according to a leading member, a week or two ago). Even with the RSP, and ex-RSP members, they'd be struggling to hit 300.

The Socialist Alliance, by contrast, has around 700 members.

This isn't meant to be a criticism or a pissing-contest, but it's important to keep all these things in perspective.
Well, it should tell you something about how reliable the Weekly Worker is though.


Of course, SAlt's is a "cadre" membership, and is focussed on the inner-city and campus areas of Sydney and Melbourne, so the level and nature of their activity is "higher" in the traditional left grouplet sense, and - because of its member base - it is much stronger on campus.

SAlt also organises the biggest left conference in Australia - Marxism - held every Easter in Melbourne.

The Socialist Alliance, on the other hand, while large in those areas too, also has large branches in places like Wollongong, Geelong, and Perth, and branches in a number of country cities and towns.

They have a local councillor in Fremantle, and a recently-elected one in Moreland in Melbourne, and a strong representation in the union movement, including the Secretary of Geelong Trades Hall and a number of members recently elected to the Central Council of the NSW PSA on the Progressive PSA ticket (for example).

These are all good things, but they are not enough. Combined, these groups could begin to pose a serious left alternative in the unions, on campus, in the movements and in elections.

Throw in the good work of the Socialist Party in Yarra in Melbourne, and some of the gains made by the Communist Party in Sydney (in the Maritime Union, a new local councillor in Auburn, etc), and this could get very interesting indeed.

Discussions have begun between Socialist Alliance and Socialist Alternative, but it is likely to move slowly at first. Still, it is a welcome sign that the left is beginning to work more closely together.
Yeah, it's interesting times. The question, as always, though what kind of unity. I know the SP comrades had some reservations about Socialist Alliance before.

[Q]

In this week's Weekly Worker there are some corrections sent in as letters on last week's article:


Add SAlt

In addition to the discussions between Socialist Alternative and the Revolutionary Socialist Party, there have also been talks between SAlt and the Socialist Alliance, which is in fact larger than Socialist Alternative, despite what the article in last week’s issue seems to suggest (‘Regroupment in a revolutionary party’, November 8). This is somewhat interesting, as both the RSP and the SA come from the same tradition of Mandelite Trotskyism turned more ‘broad left’, though both groups have taken their politics in uniquely different directions away from even what exists as Mandelite Trotskyism today.

I would treat both developments with a cautiously positive attitude, though it’s worth looking into the differences between the two statements. On the one hand, the statement on the proposed SAlt/RSP merger, a fair amount of historical and international context is brought into the discussion, and it at least briefly touches on points that seem positive for CPGB supporters, such as the need for a Marxist party and a rejection of the textbook definitions of Leninism. On the other hand, in the statement on cooperation between SAlt and the Socialist Alliance places much more emphasis on current struggles in Australia and, to my eyes at least, reads as more diplomatic than the first statement.

Unfortunately, I am neither a participant nor an expert watcher of the Australian far left, so it’s difficult for me to say what these apparent differences of focus in unity discussions that are being engaged in by the same group may mean. Nevertheless, it seems like there are important enough differences (probably relating to the respective groups’ evolutions) that watching the progression of further talks may help shine light on what those differences actually are. As the article noted, hopefully there are Australian comrades reading who can give more insight into these respective cooperation talks.

Peter Moody
New Jersey
I think this is an interesting observation, perhaps indicative of how early the SAlt/SAll talks are? It would be in line with what chebol has been saying.

And another letter:


Not opposed

The RSP does not oppose electoral intervention. Indeed it has run candidates in the past.

There is more at www.directaction.org.au and www.sa.org.au.

I especially recommened:
http://directaction.org.au/reflections_on_starting_anew_some_experiences_from _the_australian_left_0

Ben Reid

[Yazman]

I have to say that, living outside of my state's metro area (Brisbane), when I tried to contact them some years ago before I moved away, the Socialist Alternative were basically very damning and refusing to lend any support, assistance, or advice. It was basically "We won't have anything to do with you unless you live in Brisbane". The guy in charge even told me that to my face.

Whereas the Socialist Alliance were never like that. They made sure to help out where they could, encouraged me to start up my own group, provided assistance, put me in touch with other locals they heard of, etc.

So I just wanted to add that in there, the Socialist Alternative seemed to me to be a pretty elitist group based on their attitude towards anything outside of their main operating area.

[blake 3:17]

I'm befuddled between the differences between the DSP, Socialist Alliance, Socialist Alternative and RSP.

I appreciate Q's comment on the IST and CWI in Holland. A culture of an organization is much more visceral than abstract ideological commitment.


The best left group meeting I've been at in ages was a Communist Party event. I agreed with pretty much all the speakers said and in sympathy with quite a lot of the CP perspectives on domestic issues and the Middle East, but have a big disagreement about South Africa.

Anyways... Socialist Alternative does appear to have some cohesion about doing something in a positive direction. But as the previous poster said, they couldn't do anything outside of a particular location.


@those of you who've been involved in left groups for a long time -- is it possible for different currents to fulfill different roles in the struggle in some kind of organized non-sectarian way? Wait for an upsurge endlessly? How do we try to push a class wide politics that goes beyond an issue here, an issue there?

[Q]

Updated commentary in the WW of this week (http://cpgb.org.uk/home/weekly-worker/942/socialist-alternative-australia-strange-sort-of-unity).

Last month the Weekly Worker published a statement from the Australian group, Socialist Alternative, calling for a “new kind of left unity” (‘Solidarity in a revolutionary party’, November 8).

Edit:
I guess Solidarity's statement can be nicely summed up as: "No, but thanks for asking".



http://www.cpgb.org.uk/assets/images/wwimages/ww942/sm-hugo-chavez-cancer-health-nationalturk-0458.jpg
Hugo Chávez: split issue?

Although SA has a reputation for extreme sectarianism we were willing to consider the possibility that it had mended its ways, especially when we read:

“What we want to create is an organisation that does not start with the historic differences that divide the far left, but a socialist programme for Australia today: for revolution; for a Marxist party; against imperialism; against all oppression; against the capitalist state; for workers’ power.

“We are not proposing a ‘broad party’ that tries to involve all kinds of non-socialist forces. We want a Marxist party, with a clear programme and principles. We want a political organisation that operates on the basis of majority decisions, but where minorities have the right to their opinions. We don’t want ‘unity’ for its own sake, but unity of the forces who want to fight for revolutionary change.”

The Weekly Worker emailed the group and its journal, Socialist Alternative, both before and after we republished its statement, but unfortunately received only automated responses. It is very strange that a group calling for Marxist unity refuses even to reply to approaches from others on the revolutionary left.

Below is the response to Socialist Alternative’s call from Solidarity - like SA one of several Australian splinters from the Socialist Workers Party’s International Socialist Tendency:

Building unity and a stronger left

The announcement of the proposed merger between Socialist Alternative and the Revolutionary Socialist Party has triggered some discussion about the prospects for unity on the far left.

In the context of a rightward-moving Labor government, and the threat of an Abbott Liberal government in power after the next federal election - not to mention the global crisis of capitalism - there is a pressing need for a stronger left. Public sector workers and students across the country are receiving a taste of the austerity policies gripping Europe, and job losses are, again, starting to mount.

We face government attacks on refugees, Muslims and Aboriginal people and the threat of climate change and increased ‘natural disasters’. A more united left could be a stronger force for building grassroots movements for change, as well as helping to increase the support for socialist ideas within the working class.

But taking unity seriously also involves recognising that the existing differences on the left, in terms of political theory and practical orientation, cannot simply be brushed aside or papered over.

There is a superficial attraction to the idea of merging organisations as a short cut to building a bigger organisation. Going from 250 to 275 members can seem a big jump when the far left is so small, but the political basis of any fusion is far more important than resulting size. Simply building a bigger sect does not mean any greater influence of socialist ideas in the movements or the working class - far from it.

Solidarity has shown by its own practice that we are committed to building greater unity where there is a real basis for it. Our own organisation was formed in 2008 out of a merger between three existing groups in the International Socialist tradition: the International Socialist Organisation (ISO), Solidarity and the Socialist Action Group.

But this was only possible as a result of an extended period of joint work, discussion and reappraisal of previously held positions. The possibility of talks leading to our merger came from the recognition that there was a practical convergence in our approaches to both building campaigns and movements and to building a revolutionary socialist organisation.

From our perspective, there are important challenges that any organisation on the revolutionary left in Australia must face up to. Foremost among them are the problems of propagandism and sectarianism - for instance an approach that measures the value of struggles by what the group can get out of it.

Socialist Alternative and the Revolutionary Socialist Party insist they are united by their intention to build a cadre organisation. But cadre can’t be built in isolation from the day-to-day struggles of workers and the movements.

The response of much of the far left to the difficult decades following the upturn in struggle in the 1960s and 1970s was to retreat into a routine of socialist propaganda, rather than recognising the importance of continuing to find ways to intervene in the wider left (such as the unions, the Labor Party and more recently The Greens) and to constructively building broad-based campaigns and social movements.

Solidarity has attempted, within our own limited resources, to take union work and the building of political campaigns seriously, with modest union work as well as work around the Northern Territory Intervention, refugee rights, climate change and on university campuses. It is primarily through such political interventions that socialist activists learn how to argue their politics and lead struggles in the real world.

Conscious effort and goodwill are necessary to ensure that self-interest does not get in the way of working together to fight around issues of immediate concern to the class. Too often, the left has put differences over their analysis of Cuba or whether or not Stalinist Russia was state-capitalist or a degenerated workers’ state in the way of this.

Having said that, we also recognise that theoretical positions are important in determining such things as an understanding of the trade union bureaucracy, the state, maintaining a consistent anti-imperialist stance, and the potential of the revolutions transforming the Middle East.

Our experience is that, along with practical campaigning, engaging with and intervening in ideological debates both generally and on the left is a crucial part of developing revolutionary socialist activists.

In the past, without practical convergence and an openness to reassessing previously held positions, attempts to unite the existing left groups in Australia have ended badly. It is too easy to see uniting the left as a short cut to size and influence rather than recognising that it is political practice that is key to effective socialist organisation.

A touchstone for a sound basis for regrouping the revolutionary left must be its attitude to the wider task of relating to the crisis of Labor and the task of winning reformist workers. The Labor Party is increasingly divorced from its working class base, yet it retains the electoral allegiance of significant sections of the class. Although it remains ambivalent about how much it is an explicitly left party, the Greens have increasingly occupied the political space vacated by the Labor left.

The original Socialist Alliance is one example of a failed unity project. It began in 2001 as an electoral alliance that united virtually the entire far left, including the International Socialist Organisation (ISO) and the Democratic Socialist Party (DSP), as well as at least five smaller socialist groups. It foundered, not least because despite the united organisational form there were markedly different motivations for unity. The DSP, in particular, saw the alliance as the beginning of a multi-tendency party and despite being an ‘alliance’ in name, there was no convergence in political practice. By 2006 all the other participating groups except the DSP had withdrawn from, or ceased to be active in, the Socialist Alliance.

Solidarity hopes that the merger between the Revolutionary Socialist Party (RSP) and Socialist Alternative can contribute towards strengthening social movements and campaigns, and lay the basis for a stronger socialist left in Australia.

But there are obviously large obstacles to overcome. Last year, Socialist Alternative attempted to shout down a pro-refugee Labor speaker at a lobby of the Labor Party’s national conference. A slightly larger fused organisation committed to the same sectarian politics that produced that incident is not going to build a more influential left.

Nor is it clear what political reappraisal the two groups have undergone to lead them towards fusing. Prior to the regroupment discussions, the two groups attached great importance to their respective theoretical differences. The RSP thought that Socialist Alternative’s politics on Cuba and Chávez in Venezuela demonstrated “the utter bankruptcy” of Socialist Alternative’s dogmatic “state-capitalist theory.”1

Similarly in an exchange with the ISO, in 2003, Socialist Alternative insisted that regroupment with the DSP was impossible, because, “We believe that regroupment is impossible without agreement on fundamental questions of political principle,”2 referring to the political heritage of the International Socialist tradition (ie, state capitalism and socialism from below).

Yet Socialist Alternative now proposes that the fused organisation drop any reference to state capitalism in its statement of principles. Some more explanation of how the respective groups’ reassessment of the basis of fusion would greatly assist an understanding of what principles underpin the fusion of the two groups.

For its part, Solidarity will continue to seek, and looks forward to, collaboration with all of the left in the struggles that, collectively, we face ahead. The possibilities of building a more united and effective left will be forged by patient discussion and cooperatively building those struggles.


Solidarity national committee

Notes

1. ‘Why some socialists can’t see revolutions’ Direct Action August 2008: www.directaction.org.au/issue3/why_some_socialists_cant_see_revolutions.

2. Letter to the ISO from Socialist Alternative, February 2003: http://pandora.nla.gov.au/pan/22446/20040815-0000/www.sa.org.au/isoreply.pdf.

[kashkin]

I have to say that, living outside of my state's metro area (Brisbane), when I tried to contact them some years ago before I moved away, the Socialist Alternative were basically very damning and refusing to lend any support, assistance, or advice. It was basically "We won't have anything to do with you unless you live in Brisbane". The guy in charge even told me that to my face.

Whereas the Socialist Alliance were never like that. They made sure to help out where they could, encouraged me to start up my own group, provided assistance, put me in touch with other locals they heard of, etc.

So I just wanted to add that in there, the Socialist Alternative seemed to me to be a pretty elitist group based on their attitude towards anything outside of their main operating area.

I can't comment on most of that, but I certainly don't think we are elitist (though I would think that, but hey). We certainly don't have many people in Brisbane, maybe that was the reason.


I'm befuddled between the differences between the DSP, Socialist Alliance, Socialist Alternative and RSP.

The DSP created the Socialist Alliance in around 2000. It was supposed to be a broad party of several left wing groups, both SAlt and the ISO (SAlt was formed out of members who were expelled from the ISO in '95). SAlt left not too long after arguing that the kind of broad left unity DSP/SAll were arguing for was the wrong approach. ISO also left soon afterwards, fell apart and was created into Solidarity. The RSP is a breakaway group from the DSP, they left in '08. They argued that SAll was becoming more and more reformist, and wanted a party that took a more serious attitude to revolution.
However, I only became involved in revolutionary politics around a year and a half ago, so take everything which a pinch of salt.

Anyway, I think the unity project is good, hopefully it will work. Only time will tell.

[Q]

So, are there any updates to this?

[Dobomo]

The merger between SAlt and RSP is to be complete easter weekend at socialist alternatives conference called marxism. RSP members have been involved in the organisations regular work like weekly meetings and stalls. Also in campaign work and educationals. Theyve spoken at multiple public meetings and will have speakers at Marxism. At SAlt national conference it was voted in that leading members of the RSP would be put on the national exec when the mergers complete.
Another update is that socialist alliance will have a few sessions at the conference (3 or 4) all in the spirit of unity. I think the ongoing merger and unity discussions have been positive and shit has noticeably changed in Melbourne in how SAlt relates to others.
Have any questions just ask and ill try and answer.

[Kubehiz]

As a relatively minor member of the Socialist Alternative, the only thing that I could essentially confirm is that the likelihood of any merge between the Socialist Alliance and the Socialist Alternative, at this stage, is close to null. As for the RSP, negotiations are still proceeding and I could paraphrase some recent journal articles from our quarterly book if RevLeft is intrigued. Otherwise most other updates from our regular magazines are published on out website.

Quote from co-editor Corey Oakley - 'What kind of organisation do socialists need?'

'The RSP, with whom we are in the final stages of merging, have differences with us bover historical questions... However there is no reason such disagreements cannot be handled within a united organisation if we agree on the fundamentals... We believe that the steps we have taken to integrate the RSP over the last few months have done a substantial amount to build trust on both sides about the future.'

There are also comments on aforementioned 'democratic centralism' if you would like me to quote further and discussion on 'multi-tendency'.

[Q]

Two contradictory posts, nice.

[Dobomo]

I dont see them as contradictory. I think unity discussions have been positive for our organisations and have been a step foward for the far left in discussing and rehashing old and new debates. Kubehiz believes the unity will not occur. It doesnt mean the discussions around revolutionary unity havent been positive so far.

[Kubehiz]

I don't see the posts as contradictory either. Sorry if it was perceived that way :s. All that was meant to be deducted was that at this point in time, during the early merger discussions between our two organisations, debates have been fruitful. However at this point in time, due to some significant differences, a merger is not on the horizon. At some point in future, perhaps, but currently I don't think it is near enough to say it is a likely event.

But that is also not to say that we don't participate in collaboration on important events and tasks involving leftist politics, for example our conference Marxism that Dobomo mentioned. We have also joined forces to fight for gay rights on occasion. So whilst a merger is not in the foreseeable future (there is still much to be discussed on both fronts) that is not to say we are at all to say we are diametrically opposed, antagonistic organisations. Unity/collaboration is something that has been significantly enhanced over the last decade.