Australian Left

[GhostSoldier]

Socialist-Alliance (http://www.socialist-alliance.org/)

The Socialist Alliance is an anti-capitalist party. We stand for socialism - democratic ownership and management of the social wealth. We believe that a society based on satisfying human need can be created, but only by taking power from the elites who now rule.




Resistance (http://www.resistance.org.au/)

Resistance is an Australia-wide organisation who organises young people in struggles against war, racism, sexism, environmental destruction, attacks on workers' rights, attacks on students' rights, and every aspect of capitalist oppression.Resistance is made up of young workers, unemployed, students, women, and young people involved in a huge range of campaigns and activities.




Green Left Weekly (http://www.greenleft.org.au/)

Green Left Weekly is Australia's radical weekly newspaper.

In these days of growing media concentration, Green Left Weekly is a proudly independent voice committed to human and civil rights, global peace and environmental sustainability, democracy and equality. By printing the news and ideas the mainstream media won't, Green Left Weekly exposes the lies and distortions of the power brokers and helps us to better understand the world around us.

[Ian]

You're not in the DSP by any chance are you?

[Palmares]

Sparticist

[GhostSoldier]

You're not in the DSP by any chance are you?


Not as of yet, though I know a few comrades who are in the Democratic Socialist Party... I am a member of Resistance (and consequently the Socialist Alliance), I am relatively new to leftist politics (2-3 Months)... But I am going to a DSP meeting on Tuesday...

Are you in the DSP or know someone in the DSP?

[Black Dagger]

Isn't the DSP now the Democratic Socialist Perspective? Not that that makes them any more relevant...

[GhostSoldier]

Isn't the DSP now the Democratic Socialist Perspective? Not that that makes them any more relevant...


You are correct, my mistake ... Its just that I'm half way through reading the "History of Resistance and the DSP" ... Its a good read - you can pick it up from your local Activist centre...

None the less, I intend on going to the meeting on Tues...

[Monty Cantsin]

So it seems many assize leftists don’t like the SA, which organization would you rather have people join?

on a side note i owe the SA money....do you think they'll try and break my legs if i dont pay it back soon?

[Black Dagger]

So it seems many assize leftists don’t like the SA, which organization would you rather have people join?

The SA/GLW/DSP, are reformists, plain and simple. They constantly venerate state capitalist regimes like Cuba, Venezuela, Vietnam etc. They might toss about 'Marx', 'Lenin', & 'Trotsky' every now and then, and run little 'cadres' on the 'classics', but it's just rhetoric. The SA is almost entirely bourgeois, they have no revolutionary aspirations whatsoever, they just like organising 'flash protests' at the townhall every now and then, oh and sell newspapers.

As far as what organisations people should be joining? Well if you're a reformist than join the SA/DSP, but if not, maybe your local branch of the IWW? Most of the anarchist organisations, besides the AWF have faded away unfortunately, so um... the IWW? The AWF? Or better yet, start your own! Join a union!

[Hiero]

The SA is almost entirely bourgeois, they have no revolutionary aspirations whatsoever

There is no revolutionary basis in Australia so there are no revolutionary parties.

http://members.optushome.com.au/spainter/Ozleft.html

[Ian]

"Are you in the DSP or know someone in the DSP? "

I used to be, but that was 2 years ago and I was there for 4 months or thereabouts.

[OleMarxco]

Originally posted by Monty [email protected] 22 2005, 05:29 AM
On a side note I owe the SA money....Do you think they'll try and break my legs if I dont pay it back soon?
Considering they are fighting for a moneyless society....No, that'd be hypocritic, now wouldn't it - Don't you think? If not, should be free ;)

[RevolucioN NoW]

The SA/GLW/DSP, are reformists, plain and simple.

Just because SA partakes in elections does not make us reformists, it is simply one facet of the struggle, talk to any SA member and they will deny the ability to get real and meaningfull changes under capitalism, we are in the end revolutionary socialists.


They constantly venerate state capitalist regimes like Cuba, Venezuela, Vietnam etc

Yes, we support Cuba and Venezuela as they are real examples of socialistic transformations of society, and they are worth defending for the great advances made in these nations in terms of health care, education and basic life as well as their opposition to US imperialism.


The SA is almost entirely bourgeois, they have no revolutionary aspirations whatsoever, they just like organising 'flash protests' at the townhall every now and then, oh and sell newspapers.

How is the SA Bourgsois? How do we not have "revolutionary aspirations"? what is so terrible about organising protests to oppose government policy? and what is a more worthwhile revolutionary activity than educating the masses by "selling newspapers"?

[Black Dagger]

There is no revolutionary basis in Australia so there are no revolutionary parties.

Wait wait wait... so Australia has no proletariat!? News to me.



Just because SA partakes in elections does not make us reformists,...

...

Q: What do you reformists 'socialists' 'do'?
A: Campaign and run in elections.

That seems pretty self-evident, running candidates for the bourgeois parliament every election is hardly a revolutionary act. The very fact that the SA runs in elections indicates they think there is some value, something to be gained from doing so, when there is none. The only thing parliamenteering does is erode the class base/and orientation of your organisation (which is already lax), to feed the careerism and &#39;leadership aspirations&#39; of the sparkling socialists the SA attracts (although i&#39;m sure even the SA probably has some prole members too... somewhere, oh yeah, they&#39;re the ones who sell the papers <_< ).



... it is simply one facet of the struggle, talk to any SA member and they will deny the ability to get real and meaningfull changes under capitalism, we are in the end revolutionary socialists.

Let me guess this straight, you recognise the absolute futility of trying to &#39;reform&#39; capitalist society, yet you pour hours and hours of labour (not to mention whatever funds the SA has) into running election campaigns for no fucking reason&#33;? It hasn&#39;t occurred to anyone that perhaps you should stop wasting your time? I think the misconception the SA has, as for all &#39;democratic socialists&#39;/reformists, is that they think that once the reformist gig doesn&#39;t pan out and the cappies start cracking down a bit harder, all the reformists will suddenly throw off their suits, drop their copies of the transistional program and throw on the combat fatigues and grab the AK&#39;s, HASTA LA VICTORIA SIEMPRE -style, or so they say. Fostering a reformist mentality will CREATE reformists (obviously), and will pacify your membership, you can&#39;t expect people to suddenly pick up AK&#39;s at your behest as soon as you tell them the reformism isn&#39;t &#39;working&#39; anymore. You&#39;ve spent all of your time stifling militancy by working with the bourgeoise and participating in electoral rituals.

If you&#39;re revolutionary socialists, and by that, i assume you mean communists, (or is that word to loaded to use in bourgeois elections?), because reformism is not revolutionary, then be exactly that, and dump the excess/crap from your image.



Yes, we support Cuba and Venezuela as they are real examples of socialistic transformations of society, and they are worth defending for the great advances made in these nations in terms of health care, education and basic life as well as their opposition to US imperialism.

Whilst i admire and respect the struggle and sacrifice of cuban revolutionaries, i dont want to live in Cuba, or Venezuela for that matter. I suppose i&#39;m asking too much of the SA in the end, after all, you&#39;re not communists are you? By that i mean you&#39;re statists, your goal is a &#39;big brother&#39; state to take care of &#39;its&#39; citizens, in a nice, socialistic kind of way? No? Hence the deification of Cuba and venezuela. I dont want to live in a state-capitalist society, i dont give a fuck if the economy is run by &#39;the party&#39;, it&#39;s capitalism, you&#39;ve still got wages, you&#39;ve still got &#39;a market&#39;, you&#39;ve still got CLASSES and privilege, and the inequality that is inherent to any form of capitalism &#39;socialist&#39; or &#39;liberal&#39; will only worsen over time.



How is the SA Bourgsois?

You&#39;ve not heard stories of &#39;revolutionry&#39; SA members driving their dads&#39; merc to uni? The majority of the SA is white-middle-class reformists, with a significant proportion of them pacifists, &#39;liberals&#39; in the american sense.



How do we not have "revolutionary aspirations"?

You run in bourgeois elections&#33;

This is straight off the SA website,

"The Socialist Alliance stands for:

* More government funding for community services and real job creation, not more jails and police.

* The immediate implementation of all recommendations of the royal commission into Aboriginal deaths in custody.

* Free, quality legal aid for all who need it.

* Award wages for working prisoners.

* Non-custodial alternatives to imprisonment.

* The right to vote for all prisoners.

* No police sniffer dogs in public places.

* Decriminalising victimless crimes, including personal drug use and prostitution.

* No private prisons. "


I guess they forgot to add the part about anti-capitalism? Revolution?



what is so terrible about organising protests to oppose government policy?

Nothing, as long as it doesnt become an empty ritual, which is debateable.



and what is a more worthwhile revolutionary activity than educating the masses by "selling newspapers"?

How arrogant, the &#39;masses&#39; need your &#39;education&#39; do they? How about joining with the masses (joining a union?), working with them (for them), instead of trying to &#39;lead&#39; them? Raising class consciousness from within the class itself, not trying to bark orders and &#39;enlighten&#39; them from above. The majority of people who read the GLW are labour-left hacks, greenies, or people who attend SA rallies. I dont have anything against the SA publishing the paper in and of itself, but it&#39;s telling that you think selling a newspaper is the most &#39;worthwhile&#39; activity of a revolutionary.

[Hiero]

Originally posted by Black [email protected] 24 2005, 02:14 AM

There is no revolutionary basis in Australia so there are no revolutionary parties.

Wait wait wait... so Australia has no proletariat&#33;? News to me.


Since you can&#39;t read properly i will point out that i never said Australia has no proleterait.

What i mean is that the proleteriat in Australia are not revolutionary.

[RevolucioN NoW]

That seems pretty self-evident, running candidates for the bourgeois parliament every election is hardly a revolutionary act

In the present political climate running candidates in bourgois parliment IS a revolutionary act, we are getting out a true socialist message (albiet a transitional program sorta one) and can use elections as a means of gaining publicity (which we got, many local newspapers publicised socialist candidates) and also gaining recruits.

I do not entirely support the policy of electionering, it certainly is a waste of money, but since the SA is an amalgumation of several Australian socialist groups (something that is quite difficult to hold together) we are held back by certain affiliate groups from deepening the SA into more than a election based party.


The very fact that the SA runs in elections indicates they think there is some value, something to be gained from doing so, when there is none.

There is of course nothing to be gained from "getting elected" (which we never will in any meaningfull way), but election campaigns are a great way to get the message out and build the profile of communist parties in this country.


The only thing parliamenteering does is erode the class base/and orientation of your organisation (which is already lax), to feed the careerism and &#39;leadership aspirations&#39; of the sparkling socialists the SA attracts (although i&#39;m sure even the SA probably has some prole members too... somewhere, oh yeah, they&#39;re the ones who sell the papers).

the "class basis" of our organisation is strong, at least in my branch (cant speak for the others), all are members of the proletariat. if SA members were "careerist" or had "leadership ambition" they&#39;d join the fucking ALP, at least then mabye they&#39;d be elected.

Everyone in the DSP sells Green Left Weekly as well, the "leadership" doesnt get out of it :P


Let me guess this straight, you recognise the absolute futility of trying to &#39;reform&#39; capitalist society, yet you pour hours and hours of labour (not to mention whatever funds the SA has) into running election campaigns for no fucking reason&#33;?

As I&#39;ve said above, elections offer a great chance to get out a socialist message at polls and to build the organisation, although they are not worth wasting too much money on (SA spent more money on buying ad space for an Anti-Howard rally in my city than it did on its electoral campaign :lol: )


Fostering a reformist mentality will CREATE reformists (obviously), and will pacify your membership, you can&#39;t expect people to suddenly pick up AK&#39;s at your behest as soon as you tell them the reformism isn&#39;t &#39;working&#39; anymore. You&#39;ve spent all of your time stifling militancy by working with the bourgeoise and participating in electoral rituals.

a) we never said reformism DID work, its a MINOR facet of the struggle to build and reconstitute the socialist movement in this country.

b) All members of SA who I have met are revolutionaries, we teach new members of the need for revolutionary change

c) we do not "work with the Bourgeoise", we half heartedly participate in their electoral farce.


Whilst i admire and respect the struggle and sacrifice of cuban revolutionaries, i dont want to live in Cuba, or Venezuela for that matter. I suppose i&#39;m asking too much of the SA in the end, after all, you&#39;re not communists are you? By that i mean you&#39;re statists, your goal is a &#39;big brother&#39; state to take care of &#39;its&#39; citizens, in a nice, socialistic kind of way? No? Hence the deification of Cuba and venezuela. I dont want to live in a state-capitalist society, i dont give a fuck if the economy is run by &#39;the party&#39;, it&#39;s capitalism, you&#39;ve still got wages, you&#39;ve still got &#39;a market&#39;, you&#39;ve still got CLASSES and privilege, and the inequality that is inherent to any form of capitalism &#39;socialist&#39; or &#39;liberal&#39; will only worsen over time.

a) we dont want to live in Cuba or Venezuela either, these are third world countries with all the limitations that entails, but we will defend the gains made by these revolutions.

b) SA members "arent communists? Where did you pull that from? Every affiliate member ogranisation is Marxist-Leninist in one respect or the other, we do not believe that society can magically jump to communism overnight, but that a transitional state of sorts is required, our aim is not a "big brother" state (whatever that is), our aim is communism.

c) "state capitalism", i direct youhere (http://www.dsp.org.au/ss/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=45&Itemid=49)


You&#39;ve not heard stories of &#39;revolutionry&#39; SA members driving their dads&#39; merc to uni? The majority of the SA is white-middle-class reformists, with a significant proportion of them pacifists, &#39;liberals&#39; in the american sense.

No I have not heard of SA members driving Mercs :D, our membership in my city is FAR too poor for that.

there are no "pacifist liberals" in SA, they are in Just Peace :D

There may be a few white middle class members, but who gives a toss since they are revolutionaries NOW?


You run in bourgeois elections&#33;

This is straight off the SA website,

so is this

"The Socialist Alliance is an anti-capitalist party. We stand for socialism - democratic ownership and management of the social wealth. We believe that a society based on satisfying human need can be created, but only by taking power from the elites who now rule.

We stand for a society run by and for working people, both here, but also internationally. We believe that socialism will be won by the power of the masses on the streets and in the workplaces. We seek election to parliament not to "represent" the movements, but to help build them, resource them, and help them win."

http://www.socialist-alliance.org/page.php?page=286

notice the parts about "socialist alliance is an anti-capitalist party" and that socialism will be won by the power of the masses on the streets and in the workplaces (Otherwise known as a revolution)

It also provides a good explanation of why we run in elections.


Nothing, as long as it doesnt become an empty ritual, which is debateable.

It is not an "empty ritual", and we would welcome anarchists if they want to "spice up" these rallies to help us organise them.


How arrogant, the &#39;masses&#39; need your &#39;education&#39; do they? How about joining with the masses (joining a union?), working with them (for them), instead of trying to &#39;lead&#39; them? Raising class consciousness from within the class itself, not trying to bark orders and &#39;enlighten&#39; them from above. The majority of people who read the GLW are labour-left hacks, greenies, or people who attend SA rallies. I dont have anything against the SA publishing the paper in and of itself, but it&#39;s telling that you think selling a newspaper is the most &#39;worthwhile&#39; activity of a revolutionary.

The "masses" need to read something other than the murdoch spew, and GLW offers the alternative. Most SA members are in their respective unions, and many are delegates etc, we played a major role in engineering a mass unionist meeting in victoria in opposition to Howard&#39;s planned IR "reforms", and this has spread to other cities.

Did you do a poll of GLW readership to establish that "left labor hacks and greenies" read it? :rolleyes:

The revolutionary press is the most "revolutionary" thing we can do AT THE MOMENT, it helps to build rallies, events and overall conciousness, we live in conservative times, and it may be counter-productive to declare a revolution today, sieze city hall and proclaim "communism", at least for now.

[GhostSoldier]

RevolucioN NoW is making the most sense on this post... All you Anarchists are asking for TOO MUCH TOO SOON... You think you going in and bombing a Liberal or ALP office is going to show people the alternative... Do you think that is going to make people support you...

The media is just going to lable you as terrorists... You anarchists have the potential to RUIN the revolution and set it back years...

We live in a FIRST WORLD COUNTRY ... Radicalising an entire country is hard here because most people would call themselves middle-class (everyone basically owns a car and has a place to sleep)... So it is up to us to educate people (NOT FROM ABOVE) but as fellow human beings...



RevolucioN NoW
The revolutionary press is the most "revolutionary" thing we can do AT THE MOMENT, it helps to build rallies, events and overall conciousness, we live in conservative times, and it may be counter-productive to declare a revolution today, sieze city hall and proclaim "communism", at least for now.


Exactly&#33;

All you Anarchists should go study Venezuela - and the PROCESS - they are going through and see how much sense it makes...

We live in a Capitalist world, if we run around storming offices and screaming Communism on the top of our lungs - we will be crushed by THE PEOPLE (The very people the revolution is for) - Because the majority does&#39;t understand the system and the alternatives...

[Palmares]

Sectarian bickering indeed...

The fact is, the SA/DSP/GLW are Democratic Socialists, and by technical definition they believe in bringing about socialism by means of democratic elections, which in this society equates to bourgeois elections.

Bourgeois elections is a reformist tactic.

The question over whether SA is revolutionary is blurry, due to the fact that they support reformism, yet within their constitution uphold the possibility of revolution.

Individuals can join whatever party they want, hell, it gives them some experience. I am afterall, an ex SA and Resistance member. I&#39;ve also dealt with SAlt, the Greens, anarchists, and other leftist movements.

As a situationist anarcho-communist, I find almost none of the groups I have been involved with (in whatever form) function to my liking.

But given the opportunity and the right circumstances, I may well later work with a anarchist collective... maybe.

[RevolucioN NoW]

Cthenthar,

You misunderstand what we mean by "democratic socialism" - We mean that society should be run in a democratic fashion with the means of production owned and operated by the Working Class.

We are not "democratic socialist" in the bourgeois use of the word, we are comminists.


Bourgeois elections is a reformist tactic.

Not when our overall aim is revolutionary emancipation of the working class&#33;

Bourgeois Elections are simply usefull for publicity, spreading the word of socialism and so on.

[Hiero]

Being in elections is a good thing since it is a way to show to the voters you are serious.

It looks like a bit wierd if you dont compete in election.

[Palmares]

Originally posted by RevolucioN [email protected] 24 2005, 03:08 PM
Not when our overall aim is revolutionary emancipation of the working class&#33;
The overall aim of SA is irrelevent, as other reformist groups indeed also envision a more revolutionary process after first using the means of bourgeois elections to gain power.

So SA would be most accurately described as a reformist revolutionary party, however contradicting that may seem to hear.

[GhostSoldier]

Look at Chavez and Venezuela and in Scotland the SSP...

Australia is a first world country - we are not the kind of place a Guerilla based campaign is going to be effective... Its a sad fact, but the majority of Australians consider themselves Middle-Class (Almost everyone has a place to sleep, and a car to drive)...

So it is an up-hill battle from the beginning, you have to break down the walls of their mind - And show them the light... SA does not want a revolution to happen from above, they merely want to open peoples eyes so that they can finally make an informed decision with all the facts for a change...

I&#39;ll be the first to admit I would take up arms in a Guerilla Struggle (providing it had the correct politics) - But in this country, at this time - It is not the way to have a revolution...

The closest thing we&#39;ve had to a First-World revolution was France in the 1960&#39;s... And look how that turned out...

[Palmares]

But is participating in bourgeois elections the answer?

I believe that, like "third world" nations now, the political, social, economic and environmental conditions for revolution will come into being, but that time is far from now. Very far. Capitalism will do whatever it can to perpetuate itself.

Only when we are directly affected by the harsh realities of capitalism will people wake up. And when capitalism falls, they will. It is just a matter of what happens after this collapse: destruction, or revolution.

[chebol]

Without wanting to get too much into this ATM (it&#39;s after 2 am and i&#39;ve still got work to do..), I have acouple of points.

It&#39;s nice to be able to use the word "venerate" (as in the "venerates" so-called "state cliffist"; sorry, &#39;capitalist&#39; "regimes), particularly when it has no relation to reality. Firstly, the use of the word suggests unthinking support, and the only unthinking support here is your use of the word "venerate". The DSP doen&#39;t blindly follow Cuba, or hold it up as a paragon of virtue and beacon of perfect socialism. That would be ridiculous. But based on the acheivements Cuba has made, and the revolutionary socialism which lies at the heart of those gains, yes, we support it. And much the same goes for Venezuela, although the process is far behind Cuba- a debate has only just opened up on socialism in Venezuela. And NOTE, i said &#39;debate&#39;. While many gains that might be otherwise regarded as &#39;socialist&#39; are already being made in Venezuela, the working class is still in the process of awakening and taking control. This makes the situation both contradictory (there are "counter-revolutionaries" in the "revolutionary" leadership, and corruption as well), and, therefore, fragile. Without the leadership of Chavez (and his assassination is on the cards) or the revolutionary organisation of the working people, the gains could be &#39;rolled back&#39; at horrendous cost. But, yes again, we support the trajectory and gains being made.
Vietnam ought to be a case in point- go read the latest LINKS or Mike K&#39;s contributions (he&#39;s doing his PhD in Vietnam) and tell me we "venerate" VN&#33;&#33;&#33;
As for the SA, given that the other affilliates are mostly fiercely anti-Cuba (the whole State Capitalist shibboleth, or worse) and are trying to squeeze venezuela into the same shoe, i think it&#39;s important to get a better understanding of what the SA is before lumping it all in together. The IS comrades would chuck a tizzy fit, for example. ;-p


Reformism vs Revolutionism
Right, let&#39;s get it straight. I&#39;m a revolutionary. OK? Hard to grasp? I hope not.
I am a communist (which, yes, for the moment is a dirty word, more&#39;s the pity, but I&#39;m not going to alienate people for the sake of linguistic pedantry and gratuitous sophistry).
I&#39;m in 2 (yes, 2) revolutionary organisations- Res and the DSP. And I&#39;m also in the SA.
The Alliance is a strange kind of fish. It&#39;s based around a very loose program allowing about a dozen groups (more to come soon) to work together along with hundreds of non-affiliated socialists (these now easily outnumber the affilliated members) towards building a better, socialist, society.
The membership of SA includes both people who would prefer &#39;reform&#39;, a well as people who are committed revolutionaries. (It also includes a number of people who reckon a few AK&#39;s is the only real way to go. And they&#39;re wrong. A good place to start on why they&#39;re wrongis Peter Camejo&#39;s "Liberalism, Ultraleftism or Mass Action", or you could go back to Lenin&#39;s "&#39;Left-Wing&#39; Communism"). There are divisions in the SA. There are conflicts. And there are things that could be done better.
Guess what people? A revolution doesn&#39;t just happen&#33; A party doesn&#39;t just &#39;form&#39;&#33; And people aren&#39;t &#39;naturally&#39; marxists or revolutionaries. They arrive at this through a combination of struggle and education (theory and practice). And that is just what the SA is about- combination (golly gosh, what a horribly dialectical thing). So, one day we discovered that you can campaign in workplaces and on the streets, whilst simultaneously running in elections, and NOT suddenly become transformed into the spitting image of Bob Hawke. Shock&#33; Horror&#33;

I kind of like Black Dagger&#39;s logic. Protests are non-revolutionary. Running in elections is non-revolutionary. Writing and distributing a paper is non-revolutionary. But..... working with or joining a union (which apparently we don&#39;t do- beats me what so many comrades are up to then) is a somehow magical formula to success(especially if we join the wobblies. ahem). Whoopee. Then I can have revolutionary fun while the REAL labor hacks steamroll me, because I don&#39;t have the infrastructure of a developed revolutionary party behind me.

Why do we run in elections, my lettrist comrade? "detournement". Even situationism should be able to get it&#39;s head around that. We use the illusion people have in the bourgeois electoral system as an opportunity to build class consciousness.
And one of the most effective way we&#39;ve got at the moment (short of a mass organisation or a few billion &#036;), is to run in elections (while at the same time always remembering that the main game is in working class organisation- union work, antiwar work, and other active areas of society). That is when the masses in general start paying a little more attention to politics. That is also when even the bourgeois media is willing to give you a platform (the Sydney Morning Herald&#39;s Election 2004 website put us on their links section, next to the major parties- can&#39;t remember if it was GLW or SA. Sorry). We join more members, we get more profile, we get better at agitating and propagandising, and- we get our more peripheral members more active, enabling us to build a more revolutionary force for change. So, SA running in elections IS a revolutionary act (while the Greens or One Nation doing so is not).

Shit, that got longer than I meant it to. I&#39;ve got to go to sleep. Will finish it later.

hasta siempre,
Chebol

P.S. Monty- why do you owe us money? If it&#39;s important enough I can make you feel wanted and arrange a knee-ing (although it&#39;s more likely to be a check-up for arthritis, to work out why you haven&#39;t paid. ;-p)

[Black Dagger]

I wasn&#39;t going to bother replying to this thread (again), since the &#39;argument&#39; will be undoubtedly fruitless, but since you mentioned me, i have to respond&#33; :lol:


Protests are non-revolutionary.

That depends. Ritualistic protest is largely irrelevant, i&#39;ve got nothing against the SA or anyone organising protests, i just don&#39;t think that they&#39;re as &#39;effective&#39; as SA/resistance do, as a means to radicalise people, but by all means protest.



Running in elections is non-revolutionary.

Yes.



Writing and distributing a paper is non-revolutionary.

As an end? Yes. As a means, it is necessary, but it&#39;s reach/use is limited, the means seems to have become an end for some people in the SA/resistance.



But..... working with or joining a union (which apparently we don&#39;t do- beats me what so many comrades are up to then) is a somehow magical formula to success

I never mentioned any &#39;magic&#39;, but i think being involved in a union is important (although not essential), a lot of unions have been choked by careerists and the like (like my union), but not all. And failing that, engaging workers one-on-one works too, but this is not a panacea or my &#39;magic&#39; is better than yours argument, i just have significant distaste for reformists. In terms of resistance and their members, obviously i haven&#39;t done a survey on their activities (maybe you should?), but any estimates as to how many of your members are students? (and middle class?) They seem to form the core of your membership (as far outward appearances go).



We use the illusion people have in the bourgeois electoral system as an opportunity to build class consciousness.

Or as an &#39;opportunity&#39; to confuse them. By participating in electioneering fraud you&#39;re not doing anything to delegitimise the ritual, in fact, you&#39;re reconciling it for a lot of people (of anxious &#39;leftists&#39; in particular, but also &#39;socially conscious&#39; religious-types etc), with supposedly &#39;revoltionary&#39; ideals/rhetoric. You dont&#39; think that participating in bourgeois elections under the banner of &#39;socialism&#39; will not but attract REFORMISTS? I honestly don&#39;t give a rats&#39; if your &#39;real&#39; goal is revolution, you&#39;re sending out the wrong (or right, depending on your perspective i suppose) message to A LOT of people, which is a great way to attract new members, but you&#39;re recruiting reformists with that message. Socialism advocate a class-based society where a &#39;revolutionary&#39; government &#39;run by the workers&#39; makes decisions on economic and social &#39;policy&#39; (runs the economy) and generally makes decisions &#39;on behalf&#39; of the class, socialism lends itself greatly to reformism, which makes the reformist a consistent ally of most socialist organisations. Despite any rhetoric you wish to offer to the contrary, i think it&#39;s naive to assume that many people in your organisation arent operating under these assumptions, and see reformism as a &#39;genuine&#39; &#39;path to socialism&#39;, and that&#39;s what worries me.



And one of the most effective way we&#39;ve got at the moment (short of a mass organisation or a few billion &#036;), is to run in elections

What has been &#39;effective&#39; about this strategy? The number of fully-paid member have gone up?



while at the same time always remembering that the main game is in working class organisation- union work, antiwar work, and other active areas of society).

Weren&#39;t you criticising my advocacy for &#39;union&#39; work earlier? And as aside, the troop &#39;support&#39; rhetoric, &#39;bring the troops home&#39; etc. Why not frame your rhetoric in imperialist terms rather than in &#39;liberal&#39;, quas-nationalist, &#39;i support the troops, but they should come home now&#33;&#39; terms.



That is when the masses in general start paying a little more attention to politics.

Well whether or not &#39;the masses&#39; really pay that much attention to reformist politics is debateable, but regardless, it&#39;s still reformist politics they will be &#39;paying attention to&#39;, your goal should be to get people to think critically of our &#39;democracy&#39; (and by extension capitalism), to see it&#39;s failure, and i disagree that by participating in this &#39;democracy&#39; people will be &#39;lead&#39; to this conclusion.



So, SA running in elections IS a revolutionary act (while the Greens or One Nation doing so is not).

I support your campaigns against imperialist wars (but frame them as such), i support any campaign against racism, homophobia, sexism and so forth, but i cannot support the idea that the SA is in any ways a revolutionary organ, the &#39;well we&#39;re just doing this (electioneering)&#39; for X reason is meaningless, you don&#39;t need to do it, period. I doubt that not participating in such processes would greatly hurt your &#39;profile&#39;, except if you actually came out aggresively, rhetorically and practically AGAINST our sham &#39;democracy&#39;, in which case you might lose the support of your middle-class &#39;reformist&#39; elements, but good fucking riddance&#33; I would fully support the SA in such actions, and the SA more generally, but until that time, my opinion of the SA... reformism is counter-revolutionary.

[chebol]

Of course ritualistic protests are useless- but where is the evidence that SA is doing that? Answer- zilch. If by "ritualistic" you mean the way the CPA and other pensioned ex-revolutionaries celebrate May Day, Palm Sunday or Hiroshima Day (not a reflection on the days themselves....), I agree. But that&#39;s not what SA does.

My point about unions is that they are not (to use your attempted criticism) "an end in themselves", and require a broader political force to make them effective. Of course the SA supports unionism, a cursory glance at our material, activity and one member who&#39;s currently rotting in Lodden prison until later this month proves this more than I can say here.

What has been effective about running in elections? People are more aware than ever that there is a socialist alternative to the mainstream bullshit which is out there and fighting, on any number of issues, for a better world. And yes, increased members. Would a decrease in members be better in your eyes????

Anti-war: We do not use the sentiment expressed in "i support the troops, but they should come home now&#33;". We support the troops being brought home, and taken home, by everybody, making them leave Iraq for the people of Iraq to govern. It&#39;s a little old idea called "national self determination". That is where the SA stands. Please don&#39;t confuse us with the Greens or any of the &#39;liberal&#39; forces in the antiwar movement on that issue. That said, we work in wider coalitions which have more &#39;liberal&#39; demands, precisely becasue there is the need to bring as many people as possible around the issue. (Hell, we even had former Liberal Party national president John Valder speaking on an anti-war (STWC) platform- does tht make me a &#39;neo-liberal&#39;?).

Your comments on the paper are as nonsensical as those on the antiwar movement. You&#39;re just making up a fictitious reality in which the DSP/SA is a reformist, aging carcass that only cares about a paper, the occasional march and slow reform. Once again, I think you&#39;ve got us confused with the CPA (no offence Hiero, but it&#39;s true).

When we engage in elections, we get to (wait for it) TALK to people. MORE people than we normally do. So we can tell them about why we support socialism and why we don&#39;t think the current system is able to do so. This includes criticising the electoral system in which we are taking part. The Alliance has no chance of winning government in elections, but we explain WHY that&#39;s the case to the people we meet. Confuse people? People OUGHT to be confused. Why is the farce we engage in every 3-4 years called "democracy"? Why do our votes not count for shit? How can we change the fucked-up nature of society?
Our answer: socialist revolution. But it is not a mantra. We also outline HOW, and WHY, and WHAT tasks must be done in the immediate sense. If we recruit reformists- so be it. We DO, however, recruit &#39;revolutionaries&#39; (ie people who are open to or believe in radical change). Further, there is no reason why &#39;reformists&#39; cannot become &#39;revolutionaries&#39; through practical struggle (they&#39;re hardly separate species&#33;)- and this is exactly what we try to do.

I doubt very much if you know much at all about the Alliance or it&#39;s functioning, let alone read our material, as you criticisms are those of an armchair critic (care for some peanuts?). You should look at the reality before you create the &#39;answers&#39;. That said, the Alliance *is not* a revolutionary organ. It is a mixed party, and the are challenges to be overcome. Sure, but there are strong revolutionary currents working within it. Until the movement kicks up again, that&#39;s going to be the reality we are faced with.

I think the flaw is actually in your understanding of how social revolutionary change will take place. I presume you are an anarchist, an as such, our strategies are markedly different, and some of our ideas are slightly more rational than others&#39;. In that sense I agree with the "fruitlesness" of the discussion from your point of view. I disagree that it is totally fruitless, as I have taken the opportunity to outline some of our ideas and to refute your mischaracterisations.

hasta siempre
Chebol

[Hiero]

Once again, I think you&#39;ve got us confused with the CPA (no offence Hiero, but it&#39;s true).

Why would he have you confused with the CPA.

I think for the anarchist it shoudl be made clear it doesnt matter how revolutionary a group of inidividuals are, untill the workers are revolutionary it doesn&#39;t mean shit.

[Black Dagger]

What has been effective about running in elections? People are more aware than ever that there is a socialist alternative to the mainstream bullshit which is out there and fighting, on any number of issues, for a better world.

The risk you run (and i would argue, the general perception created) is that people will look at you, see the world &#39;socialist&#39;, and go to you as a socialist (state-based reform) &#39;alternative&#39; in the true sense. As an alternative form of capitalism, an alernative to the ALP, to the libs, even to the greens, you become the more &#39;extreme&#39; (or as &#39;extreme&#39; as a one can run in bourgeois elections), but a &#39;comfortable&#39; extreme, not some &#39;crazy&#39; revolutionary movement. So you get embraced by &#39;leftists&#39; who idealise places like Cuba, Venezuela and so forth, but think that &#39;violent revolution&#39; is unsuitable for australia and/or they&#39;re pacifists.

You get (you seem to think misrepresented) as &#39;democratic socialists&#39;, but you claim to be a revolutionary communist, wonder why most people on this board don&#39;t support organisations that run in elections? Because they regard themselves as communists/anarchists, not socialists/reformists. You said you regard yourself as a communist, that&#39;s great comrade, but your organisation doesnt reflect that.


And yes, increased members. Would a decrease in members be better in your eyes????

If that meant shedding the overtly bourgeois elements, the reformists, &#39;social democrats&#39; and other reactionaries, then yes, that would be &#39;better&#39;. I mentioned in my last post,

"I doubt that not participating in such processes [elections] would greatly hurt your &#39;profile&#39;, except if you actually came out aggresively, rhetorically and practically AGAINST our sham &#39;democracy&#39;, in which case you might lose the support of your middle-class &#39;reformist&#39; elements, but good fucking riddance&#33; I would fully support the SA in such actions,"

what do you think about that?



Please don&#39;t confuse us with the Greens or any of the &#39;liberal&#39; forces in the antiwar movement on that issue.

The anti-war movement is largely &#39;liberal&#39;, so it&#39;s hard not to confuse the positions of orgs, unless perhaps you took more aggresive rhetoric.


So we can tell them about why we support socialism and why we don&#39;t think the current system is able to do so.

But socialism as a system of government, a socialist state, correct?


This includes criticising the electoral system in which we are taking part.

What kind of criticisms? How do you justify your own participation in the system when in such discussions?


Confuse people? People OUGHT to be confused.

What do you mean by that? o0


Our answer: socialist revolution.

can a socialist revolution occur via an election (generally speaking)? For some people &#39;socialist revolution&#39; amounts to a/the socialist party winning/seizing control of the government, is that a &#39;socialist revolution&#39;?


If we recruit reformists- so be it.

This is what worries me, you dont give a shit if the supposedly revolutionary goal of your organisation is erroded by reformists? WHY THE HELL NOT?


We DO, however, recruit &#39;revolutionaries&#39; (ie people who are open to or believe in radical change).

I&#39;m sure you do, but im doubtful as to whether your current electoral strategy is helping this process, rather than hindering it.


Further, there is no reason why &#39;reformists&#39; cannot become &#39;revolutionaries&#39; through practical struggle (they&#39;re hardly separate species&#33;)- and this is exactly what we try to do.

This is contentious. Some people are reformists because of their class background, which is something that can prevent them from embracing a truly revolutionary approach. Moreover, there is a correlation between supporting reformism (as a position opposed to revolution) and pacifism. Pacifists dont make good revolutionaries despite any amount of &#39;practical struggle&#39; they may engage in, a &#39;violent revolution&#39; will always make them uncomfortable, about as uncomfortable as the idea is for a reformist.


I doubt very much if you know much at all about the Alliance or it&#39;s functioning,

Well i&#39;m an anarchist, so reformist &#39;socialist&#39; organisations are not really things that i want to be a part of, so no, of course im not privy to the internal &#39;functioning&#39; of the SA. However, that doesnt prevent me from being able to criticise the actions and strategies of the SA as an organisation.


... let alone read our material,

I have read some of your material, but as i said, im not a socialist, so your material is not really that relevant to me, but I do read your flyers, leaflets, when they get to me.


... as you criticisms are those of an armchair critic (care for some peanuts?).

An &#39;armchair critic&#39;? I&#39;m criticising a reformist &#39;socialist&#39; organisation, and i&#39;m &#39;armchair&#39;? I&#39;m not a socialist, i&#39;m not a reformist, and i&#39;m not a part of any related organisation, i&#39;m not really sure what the alternative for &#39;armchair critic&#39; is in this case. I dont participate in your activities, because i dont support them, how is that being &#39;armchair&#39;? Sounds rather meaningless.


You should look at the reality before you create the &#39;answers&#39;.

I looked at reality, and expressed my opinion.


That said, the Alliance *is not* a revolutionary organ. It is a mixed party, and the are challenges to be overcome. Sure, but there are strong revolutionary currents working within it. Until the movement kicks up again, that&#39;s going to be the reality we are faced with.

So you&#39;re saying the SA is a reformist organisation with &#39;revolutionary currents&#39;? Which side has stronger support from within the alliance?


I think the flaw is actually in your understanding of how social revolutionary change will take place.

:lol: The only thing i dont understand is how reformism raises the revolutionary consciousness of the working class, empty revolutionary rhetoric and holiday cadres aside.


I think for the anarchist it shoudl be made clear it doesnt matter how revolutionary a group of inidividuals are, untill the workers are revolutionary it doesn&#39;t mean shit.

I agree, and my point is that reformist strategies dont make workers revolutionary, they do the opposite.

[EDIT: Fixed quotes, - Cthenthar]

[chebol]

We all run risks. That&#39;s the nature of life. The question is whether or not those risks pay off.

This entire attempt at &#39;critique-ing&#39; the SA is based on a false separation of the electoral tactic which the alliance employs from the overall strategy. If we were so electoralist, why do we criticise the electoralism of the greens? Why do we put blood sweat and tears into anti-war movements, queer rights campaigns, militant unionism (I suggest you find out about Craig Johnston, for one, who is in prison for defending workers&#39; rights. Does this sound nice and &#39;reformist&#39; to you?), student campaigns, refugee campaigns? The list goes on. And all this outside of bourgeois electoral politics. Do the math.

You want us to shed members BEFORE we&#39;ve got any?????? Is 1300 too many for a revolution? Maybe 8 would be better? Or one? You&#39;re premising your whole "critique" on this fantasy that the SA is nought but reformist, therefore anything we do that doesn&#39;t fit a dogmatic "revolutionary" schema must be reformist and counter-revolutionary. Hiero is right; the whole thing hinges on the revolutionary nature of the working class- and that depends on a lot of factors. In the interim, it is necessary to work just as hard (or harder) to convince people of revolutionary politics.

The question then arises- who to convince?
OK. We want revolutionaries, so where are they? Several hundred are in the Alliance. Done. More revolutionaries? SAlt aren&#39;t interested. The SP aren&#39;t interested. The CPA aren&#39;t interested. The PLP aren&#39;t interested. The left-leaning greens aren&#39;t interested. The ALP left aren&#39;t interested.

Yet.

What we do have, however, are hundreds of people who are new to socialism, and doesn&#39;t who aren&#39;t, who are interested in creating a new socialist party. The majority position may tends towards a revolutionary party. Does that mean that if we declare SA a revolutionary party, we should suddenly eject all &#39;non-revolutionaries&#39; from the organisation? Bullshit. When I was 12 I was a reformist. When I was 15 I was an ultra-left. I like to think that I&#39;m neither now. But the same thing goes for all those nasty *reformists* that Black Dagger is so frightened of. For the most part, THEY CAN BE CONVINCED&#33;&#33;&#33;&#33; And if they&#39;re not, they&#39;ll not hang around the Alliance very long, because we don&#39;t poll well, and we spend most of our time in campaigns. If we don&#39;t convince them, or if the movement doesn&#39;t take off, perhaps the Alliance will fail. BUT WE TAKE THE RISK, BECAUSE THE NEED IS GREATER&#33;


But socialism as a system of government, a socialist state, correct?"

You trying to insult me, or trip me up? Yeah, a socialist state, much like anarchist police forces. ;-p
Say it: C-O-M-M-U-N-I-S-M.
We don&#39;t think a socialism can come through an election. Perhaps there are some, but they are horrible, naiive, dangerous reformists, whom we must TALK to and CONVINCE otherwise in a nastily COMRADELY & FRIENDLY manner.


can a socialist revolution occur via an election (generally speaking)? For some people &#39;socialist revolution&#39; amounts to a/the socialist party winning/seizing control of the government, is that a &#39;socialist revolution&#39;?

Don&#39;t be childish. Even in Venezuela, where Chavez was elected, the socialism can only be implemented by the organised masses of the working class. Guess they&#39;re lucky, in that they just happen to have won the battle of &#39;democracy&#39;, and have the forces of the state on side. All they have to do now is start withering away at it. ;-p

As for the point on confusion- if you weren&#39;t clear on why society is like this, and how to fix it, you&#39;d be confused. If you weren&#39;t confused, I&#39;d be very worried. Very worried. It&#39;s not as if capitalism is that rational, you know.

I&#39;ll answer the other points later, but the Alliance&#39;s internal disputes and discussions are made public through Alliance Voices (check the website).

Otherwise- BD, I&#39;m not surprised that you&#39;re an anarchist- you appear to have an aversion to other people.

hasta siempre
chebol

[EDIT: Fixed quotes (maybe I&#39;m pedantic?), - Cthenthar]

[Black Dagger]

If we were so electoralist, why do we criticise the electoralism of the greens?

Because they&#39;re a political rival? You want to have the monoply of the guilty-bourgeois/leftist/&#39;radical&#39; reformist/whatever vote? I don&#39;t know, but then again, i dont understand why you bother with that shit (elections) either...



Why do we put blood sweat and tears into anti-war movements, queer rights campaigns, militant unionism

You dont have to be revolutionary to support or participate in such campaigns, i&#39;m sure there&#39;s plenty reformists who actively oppose the war, campaign for queer rights and even work for unions. There&#39;s nothing preventing the greens, or labour, or the democrats from doing the same things, and there are &#39;left&#39;-labour elements that do participate in such campaigns, but they&#39;re still reformists.



(I suggest you find out about Craig Johnston, for one, who is in prison for defending workers&#39; rights. Does this sound nice and &#39;reformist&#39; to you?)

I&#39;m very aware of craig johnston, and the &#39;free craig johnston&#39; campaign, again, i&#39;m not criticising you for participating in the trade union movement or for campaigning for queer rights etc, i&#39;m critcising your electioneering, that is the base of the &#39;reformist&#39; tag.



And all this outside of bourgeois electoral politics. Do the math.

What math? If you can do all this constructive work OUTSIDE of electoral politics, why bother doing anything WITHIN it?



You want us to shed members BEFORE we&#39;ve got any?????? Is 1300 too many for a revolution? Maybe 8 would be better? Or one?

I want you to shed the bourgeois reformists, that&#39;s all. Are you afraid that by doing so you&#39;ll lose most of your members? If the SA membership is as revolutionary as you claim it to be, taking a more militant line shouldn&#39;t hurt you too much, because the reformists who leave will be a insignificant minority, yes?



You&#39;re premising your whole "critique" on this fantasy that the SA is nought but reformist,

As i&#39;ve made clear several times already, i support the SA in it&#39;s campaigns and advocacy for refugees, queer rights, against US imperialism etc, i never said that these things were worthless (&#39;nought&#39;), the only thing i have been criticising is the SA&#39;s electioneering, that&#39;s it. And so far i dont think you&#39;ve given me much of a defence for this.



therefore anything we do that doesn&#39;t fit a dogmatic "revolutionary" schema must be reformist and counter-revolutionary.

You said:

"That said, the Alliance *is not* a revolutionary organ. It is a mixed party, and the are challenges to be overcome"

And i made the observation that running in elections is what reformists do, if you&#39;re not revolutionary, then what are you? There&#39;s nothing &#39;dogmatic&#39; about opposing bourgeois elections as farce (which you have stated also), and criticisng non-revolutionary... revolutionary organisations who choose to participate in said bourgeois farce. MOST communists/anarchists would make a similar criticism. Not only does the SA not need to run in elections to maintain its profile, running an elections can only undermine the class-basis of the organisation, and it&#39;s revolutionary goals.



In the interim, it is necessary to work just as hard (or harder) to convince people of revolutionary politics.

As i said before, i agree, except unlike the SA, i see a contradiction in working to convince people of revolutionary politics whilst at the same time choosing to participate in the most grotesque of reformist politics.



Say it: C-O-M-M-U-N-I-S-M.

Communism, so why aren&#39;t you called the &#39;communist alliance&#39;? The &#39;democratic communist perspective&#39;? resistance, the &#39;communist youth organisation&#39;? Communism is revolutionary, in a marxist context it implies some form of socialist transistional state leading eventually a stateless, classless society, communism. Socialism can be, but is not always, revolutionary. In a marxist context it implies the socialist state as not a stage of transistion but as an end in and of itself. Socialism in this context is not stateless, nor is it by extension classless, it becomes a &#39;reformed&#39; version of capitalism, where a party-elite controls the economy, ie. state-capitalism.

By constantly using the term socialism, describing yourselves as socialists and running in elections, you dont think you may be giving the impression that you&#39;re a socialist and not communist organisation? Reformist, not revolutionary?



Otherwise- BD, I&#39;m not surprised that you&#39;re an anarchist- you appear to have an aversion to other people.

:lol: An aversion to bourgeois reformists, yes.

[chebol]

You missed the point again.
The SA is a mixed organisation (not yet a *party* in the common understanding of the word, but on the way there), made up of revolutionaries, reformists, and people who don&#39;t know where they stand.

The reason we don&#39;t go around expelling &#39;reformist elements&#39; is precisely the reason we formed the party in the first place- to unite the left in Australia. The organised revolutionary left in Australia is particularly weak (probably only about 1000 in total- but I could be wrong). If we expelled (or drove out) all the people who are coming around us with half-formed ideas on the basis that they weren&#39;t &#39;revolutionary&#39; enough, we&#39;d defeat the whole point of the Alliance, which is a regroupment project.

Within this project, it is possible to win people to a revolutionary perspective, as has been happening in many cases- more than were being won to these politics before when there were a plethora of grouplets and parties-in-miniature. We also have members who, more or less, see reformism as a feasible option. The revolutionaries in SA (in my opinion) outnumber the &#39;reformists&#39;, and, even if they don&#39;t, we are the ones doing most of the work (electoral or otherwise) and who carry most of the political weight in discussions and movement work.

Further, we would also like to win over unorganised revolutionaries to the idea of a united multi-tendency socialist party, with a democratic and open structure. This would lead to the growth of the organised revolutionary left in australia, it would make winning over people who are unconvinced either of revolution or even of socialism more effective and easier, and would mean that the electoral part of our work would take up an increasingly diminishing amount of our time. In short- rebuild the left&#33;

However, the Alliance is also open to groups such as former leftist Labor supporters, and &#39;red-greens&#39; (the famous "watermelons") joining, or working very closely with us. (For those who don&#39;t know, the Australian SWP, now the DSP, helped to form the Greens, but were expelled for being organised socialists). We have joined a lot of Greens members, who are pissed off with the Greens&#39; opportunistic and electoralist strategy, and many have been won to revolutionary socilaism. Further, there are many ex-revolutionaries within the greens, who can&#39;t organise (or they&#39;d be expelled), who we hope to bring back into activity.

We (the left) are too small to keep splitting ourelves into increasingly tiny fragments at the moment. We are in dire need of unity, if not in theory, then at least in action. If running in elections raises the profile of socialism (of whatever kind) in Australia, that&#39;s a good thing. By my calculations, it is also increasing the membership (both revolutionary and reformist) of the Alliance (and other groups- because of the healthy impatience of youth, many people we organised in the Books Not Bombs and anti-Hanson demos are being more attracted- temporarily- to Socialist Alternative, who appear more *revolutionary*. I agree this is a probem from our perspective, and we&#39;re working on it, but our electoral activity is a plus in this, not a minus) , as is other work. Now sure, union work, or latin american solidarity is more likely to attract revolutionaries; but not exclusively either. It is important to understand that our approach is aimed at joining any socialist, and trying to convince (and educate) them of the need for revolution. {"our" here is the revolutionary part of the alliance, which is the most active}

Many of our campaigns are ones that are also run by reformist parties. For example, refugees, antiwar, or gay rights. What makes us different? We argue in these campaigns that the root cause of the injustice lies in the capitalist system, which must be overthrown. By revolution. (Which, incidentally, is in breach of Section 30 A of the crimes act). But we also fight for reforms at the same time. So, for example, in the Anti-war movement, we call for the end of the occupation of Iraq as an immediate demand (instead of SAlt, who carry around a great big banner saying "Smash Imperialism", which tends to alienate people. I agree, smash it, but let&#39;s create the means by which to do so too, rather than just a tiny sect).
I urge you to check out our web-page in more detail- read the policy AND the discussion bulletins. Also the latest Seeing Red, our quarterly magazine, contains a beginning of a debate on just this issue, initiated by Humphrey McQueen.

QUOTE: "What math? If you can do all this constructive work OUTSIDE of electoral politics, why bother doing anything WITHIN it?" (thnks for the formatting Cthenthar).

One easy answer, comrade: "By any means possible." They are not counterposed, except in your own schematic mindset. Have a little browse over Marx, Engels, Lenin, and then tell me that running in elections makes you a reformist.

Why not "Communist"? Because &#39;communism&#39; is still a dirty word (Stalin, Cold War, Berlin Wall, Hungary, gulags, MAD, etc). People haven&#39;t gotten over that shit. Further, there is still a Communist Party, which is Stalinist, and tail-ends the Labor Party (and occasionally the Greens).
Not really the best way to advertise yourself. Further, it&#39;s NOT A COMMUNIST PARTY. To be one, we&#39;d have to chuck out all those nasty reformists your so adverse to. Which would mean a very small and largely ineffectual party indeed at the moment.

But what is "socialism"? Sorry, but it&#39;s not "state socialism". That&#39;s "state socialism". "Socialism", as a goal, is no different to communism. The difference (as this debate will attest) is the WAY in which that society is acheived. And my point is that the way to acheive it is through &#39;scientific socialism&#39; (ie communism). Doing that which needs to be done.

Now, I could agree with myself until the cows come home, but unless I find someone else to convince, we&#39;re not going anywhere in particular. And the word &#39;communism&#39; tends to turn people off atm. (Not ruling it out for the future, but the left is a bit to weak to be declaring itself the incipient ruling force in Australia just now). &#39;Socialism&#39; is a *softer*, *nicer* word. (Note the dripping sarcasm).

But what is socialism? To our members who are &#39;reformists&#39;, it is most likely a utopia, which, if we work in the &#39;proper&#39; channels, arguing nicely, we might somehow magically acheive.
Or socialism is *scientific* in it&#39;s creation. Which is "communism" (and therefore, revolutionism). While many SA members are not *communists* there&#39;s a greater chance of them becoming so in SA than in the ALP, for instance, as they are exposed to more radical politics.

I&#39;m repeating myself, but I&#39;ll just reiterate a point.

When there is a war, we campaign in the antiwar movement.
When refugees are locked up, we campaign to free them.
When workers are oppressed, we campaign to liberate them.
When people are engaged in political activity, we go there to convince them of socialism.
So, when there are elections, and people are thinking about politics, we go and talk to them. Because we have limited resources, we USE the state, and it&#39;s own resources, to give us a platform- media, ballot papers, electoral material, etc, etc, etc. This creates a sense of legitimacy (oh, socialists are &#39;allowed&#39; to run. maybe they&#39;re not all nasty stalinists after all.), as well as providing an opportunity to break the law, and advocate revolution to an increasingly larger number of people, anywhere, anytime.

socialismo o muerte&#33;

[GhostSoldier]

If we were so electoralist, why do we criticise the electoralism of the greens?

Because they&#39;re a political rival? You want to have the monoply of the guilty-bourgeois/leftist/&#39;radical&#39; reformist/whatever vote? I don&#39;t know, but then again, i dont understand why you bother with that shit (elections) either...



Elections are just one tool in our tool box - something you try-hard political activists dont seem to understand... Has anyone seen the way the SSP (Scottish Socialist Party) works? - If you have, you will understand why having people running in the elections is a great idea...

The idea being - elections play only a small role - in what could be termed a "revolutionary campaign" ...

Having a political party allows Socialist Alliance to reach out to an entirely new &#39;audience&#39; - who other wise would have paid no attention to a bunch of ultra-leftists burning the Australian flag...



Why do we put blood sweat and tears into anti-war movements, queer rights campaigns, militant unionism


You dont have to be revolutionary to support or participate in such campaigns, i&#39;m sure there&#39;s plenty reformists who actively oppose the war, campaign for queer rights and even work for unions. There&#39;s nothing preventing the greens, or labour, or the democrats from doing the same things, and there are &#39;left&#39;-labour elements that do participate in such campaigns, but they&#39;re still reformists.



The difference being - those other parties are almost 100% reformist - Where as, Socialist Alliance veiws elections as only a small peice of the puzzle...

Anyone against elections (as part of a process) - Is merely a pessimist with tunnel-vision... The action of running for an election may be termed as &#39;reformist&#39; - but surely it does more good than harm...

You&#39;re arguments against Socialist Alliance are ridiculous...



(I suggest you find out about Craig Johnston, for one, who is in prison for defending workers&#39; rights. Does this sound nice and &#39;reformist&#39; to you?)


I&#39;m very aware of craig johnston, and the &#39;free craig johnston&#39; campaign, again, i&#39;m not criticising you for participating in the trade union movement or for campaigning for queer rights etc, i&#39;m critcising your electioneering, that is the base of the &#39;reformist&#39; tag.



I&#39;ll say it again - &#39;electioneering&#39; is only a teenie-tiny-tinsy little part of what Socialist Alliance stands for - Australia is a First-World country&#33; - A somewhat &#39;reformist&#39; approach is going to be alot more successful here, than a bunch of anarchists storming Parliment House and declaring Australia in a state of Anarchy...

Its all a process...

Capitalism -> Socialism -> Communism -> Autonomous Living (Anarchy)



And all this outside of bourgeois electoral politics. Do the math.


What math? If you can do all this constructive work OUTSIDE of electoral politics, why bother doing anything WITHIN it?



Another weapon to use against capitalistic oppression... Are you crazy not to see why it is a useful tool?&#33;?&#33; - The more weapons we have, the more battles we can fight...



You want us to shed members BEFORE we&#39;ve got any?????? Is 1300 too many for a revolution? Maybe 8 would be better? Or one?


I want you to shed the bourgeois reformists, that&#39;s all. Are you afraid that by doing so you&#39;ll lose most of your members? If the SA membership is as revolutionary as you claim it to be, taking a more militant line shouldn&#39;t hurt you too much, because the reformists who leave will be a insignificant minority, yes?



Again, taking a more Militant approach in Australia - would be more harmful than beneficial... Especially considering the way the word "terrorism" gets flung around...



You&#39;re premising your whole "critique" on this fantasy that the SA is nought but reformist,


As i&#39;ve made clear several times already, i support the SA in it&#39;s campaigns and advocacy for refugees, queer rights, against US imperialism etc, i never said that these things were worthless (&#39;nought&#39;), the only thing i have been criticising is the SA&#39;s electioneering, that&#39;s it. And so far i dont think you&#39;ve given me much of a defence for this.



How about you answer THIS question...

WHY WOULD WE BE BETTER OFF WITHOUT IT?&#33;?&#33;



therefore anything we do that doesn&#39;t fit a dogmatic "revolutionary" schema must be reformist and counter-revolutionary.


You said:

"That said, the Alliance *is not* a revolutionary organ. It is a mixed party, and the are challenges to be overcome"

And i made the observation that running in elections is what reformists do, if you&#39;re not revolutionary, then what are you? There&#39;s nothing &#39;dogmatic&#39; about opposing bourgeois elections as farce (which you have stated also), and criticisng non-revolutionary... revolutionary organisations who choose to participate in said bourgeois farce. MOST communists/anarchists would make a similar criticism. Not only does the SA not need to run in elections to maintain its profile, running an elections can only undermine the class-basis of the organisation, and it&#39;s revolutionary goals.



20-Million Australians are not going to jump into Socialism with enthusiasm...
Most Australians would not even understand what Socialism/Communism is even about...

A national leadership of some kind is needed (as part of a transition) - to get the ball rolling...



In the interim, it is necessary to work just as hard (or harder) to convince people of revolutionary politics.


As i said before, i agree, except unlike the SA, i see a contradiction in working to convince people of revolutionary politics whilst at the same time choosing to participate in the most grotesque of reformist politics.



Has your dogmatic and sectarian Anarachist approch to the entire leftist movement been able to achieve anything so far?

A huge tree, grows from a small seed - Anarchists are asking TOO much TOO soon... 7-Billion people are not going to swamp to your ideals... Its going to be a gradual process...

Next you will be critising Socialist Alliance for using money - Fucking ridiculous - we live in a Capitalist World - Running around screaming Communism is not going to solve anything...



Say it: C-O-M-M-U-N-I-S-M.


Communism, so why aren&#39;t you called the &#39;communist alliance&#39;? The &#39;democratic communist perspective&#39;? resistance, the &#39;communist youth organisation&#39;? Communism is revolutionary, in a marxist context it implies some form of socialist transistional state leading eventually a stateless, classless society, communism. Socialism can be, but is not always, revolutionary. In a marxist context it implies the socialist state as not a stage of transistion but as an end in and of itself. Socialism in this context is not stateless, nor is it by extension classless, it becomes a &#39;reformed&#39; version of capitalism, where a party-elite controls the economy, ie. state-capitalism.

By constantly using the term socialism, describing yourselves as socialists and running in elections, you dont think you may be giving the impression that you&#39;re a socialist and not communist organisation? Reformist, not revolutionary?



Communism cannot exist until an international Socialist globe has been formed... Its all part of a process...

As for giving the impression that we are "socialists not communists [...] reformists not revolutionary"

-- I think this is a pathetic argument against Socialist Alliance... Do you not think, that if Socialist Alliance won the elections and made HUGE socialist changes to Australia - Do you not think that Socialist Alliance would want to take the next step towards Communism?

Of coarse they would, but that is not going to happen with people like you picking holes in everything that Socialist Alliance does... How is you sitting here *****ing about it on an internet forum make you MORE revolutionary than Socialist Alliance... How is this helpful for the leftist movement on a whole?



Otherwise- BD, I&#39;m not surprised that you&#39;re an anarchist- you appear to have an aversion to other people.


:lol: An aversion to bourgeois reformists, yes.



No offense intended towards anyone... Just a final piont though - Anarchism is all good in my books, but its not going to happen anytime soon... Everything isn&#39;t all black and white, you cant finish a race without taking it a step at a time...

[Hiero]

here is still a Communist Party, which is Stalinist, and tail-ends the Labor Party (and occasionally the Greens).

Stalinist? We don&#39;t promote or sell Stalin&#39;s works.

Tail ends the Labor party? What do you mean.

[chebol]

Selling (or not selling) Stalin&#39;s works is not what makes you Stalinist. (For example, the Resistance Bookshop sells Stalin&#39;s "Marxism and the National Question", but we&#39;re not Stalinists- despite what the sects might think).

Do a bit of research into your party&#39;s history, comrade. (Although, to be fair, you&#39;re "ex-Stalinist" now, but still retain a strong pro-Beijing focus, from what I can tell).

Anyway, I&#39;ll respond more fully later. (BTW, are you aware that the CPA when it was the SPA used to be in a Socialist Alliance with the SWP (now DSP)? Split over your support for the crack-down in Tianenmen Square, amongst other things.

[Ian]

If we must dig up the Skeletons of old, may I play devils advocate, and mention the DSP&#39;s support of Gorbachev. Would it be inaccurate of me to assume that the support is now often regretted?

[Monty Cantsin]

P.S. Monty- why do you owe us money? If it&#39;s important enough I can make you feel wanted and arrange a knee-ing (although it&#39;s more likely to be a check-up for arthritis, to work out why you haven&#39;t paid. ;-p)

last time i was at my local SA center they gave me a paper but i said i didnt have enoug h money and went to give it back but they said i could take it and pay later...i didnt argue and just took the paper and I haven’t had the chance to pay it back yet for various reason none of which are monetary problems because it’s only like 2 or 3 dollars....I’ll get the money in there soon though next time I’m in the area

[Hiero]

(BTW, are you aware that the CPA when it was the SPA used to be in a Socialist Alliance with the SWP (now DSP)?

The Socialist Alliance was formed in 2001. The SPA took the name of CPA in 1998.

[chebol]

Monty- no worries. Whenever.

Hiero- there was ANOTHER Alliance, in the mid-to late 80&#39;s, of the SWP and SPA. You might want to check it out.

[Hiero]

Monty- no worries. Whenever.

Are you serious, you expect him to pay it?


Hiero- there was ANOTHER Alliance, in the mid-to late 80&#39;s, of the SWP and SPA. You might want to check it out.

That what i assumed, ill have to check it out.

[chebol]

While we&#39;d gladly hand out Green Left for free, the fact of the matter is that we produce it at a loss (that is, the &#036;2 or &#036;3 we ask is less than cost price).

That being the case, we have to organise fundraisers, we donate &#036; ourselves, and we further ask for donations from other people who appreciate the paper and feel they can give something to keep it running. It&#39;s fairly knife-edge.

Monty&#39;s in no fear of being chased down by masked hooligans with baseball bats demanding our &#036;2, or else.....&#33; :-)

But if he&#39;s got 2 bucks next time he drops by or he sees someone selling GLW, we&#39;d love it if he paid us, but only if he can. If not, well, the primary role of a paper such as ours is not to make money (as you may have gathered), but to disseminate information.


P.S. If anyone does want to help GLW keep running, there&#39;s info on the website (see my sig.).

[Hiero]

The CPA aren&#39;t interested

Why would the CPA be interested in a Alliance that will soon be a party?

[chebol]

Why were they interested almost 20 years ago?

The Alliance is only formally moving towards becoming a "multi-tendency socialist party"- the concrete changes are more difficult to enact.

But, why wouldn&#39;t the CPA be interested in left regroupment??? Are they doing so much relevant work that it is an &#39;unnecessary superfluity&#39;?

[apathy maybe]

One problem I have with the Socialist Alliance is the way that all the various member parts don&#39;t throw themselves whole heartedly into it. For example here in Hobart I found out that the ownership of all the stuff is kept as part of DSP, the DSP members want to make sure that DSP will continue if Socialist Alliance ever collapses.

There are other critisisums of DSP as well, when Socialist Alliance first formed others were saying that DSP was using it simply to gain members for themselves.


Ignoring conflict with in Socialist Alliance, as a whole they do participate in elections. They do spend a large amount of money on these elections which could be better spent building the movement and persuading unions to join in the fight.

That is not to say I like how Socialist Alternative do things. They seem to be sectarian and centralist as well. They also seem to be in covert conflict with Socialist Alliance, which I think is pretty silly.

(Applogies for the spelling).

[chebol]

Apathy Maybe, I share your concerns about the various member organisations of the Alliance, but I disagree with the way you have presented these concerns.

The DSP is NOT the reason why the Alliance is not more integrated. We have dedicated time, energy, effort, money, our paper, and more, into making the Alliance a reality. The reason we hold onto our material interests is because we have been given no indication that the other groups are willing to implement the decision of the majority at the last 2 national conferences, and accept GL as a gradual *gift* to the Alliance as it becomes a "MultiTendency Socialist Party".

The antipathy of these groups (and some individual non-aligned members) to the MTSP and GLW projects means that the degree to which the Socialist Alliance can rely upon the DSP continuing to underwrite it&#39;s costs, let alone throw all it&#39;s eggs into a basket that may be slashed open at any time, can&#39;t be maintained.

We are stretched incredibly, and have significantly limited our own ability to function as an organisation in order to give life to the Alliance. We are still waiting for that dedication to be reciprocated.

That said, the Alliance is still a significant milestone in the Australian left. Outside of Sydney, Melbourne and one or two other places, the Alliance has developed much more into an integrated political party (if perhaps not MTSP, it certainly isn&#39;t "DSP mark 2"), and the next year ought to show how much that will be translated into the major centres as our initiatives of a national trade union fightback conference on June 11 and national stop-work on June 30 take hold.

You criticise us for running in elections, on financial grounds. While a considerable amount of money is spent on elections, it is perhaps best to examine HOW that money is spent during election campaigns. Such a study shows that the money is not *wasted*, but is used to further our agitational and propaganda work.

Eg. Last election campaign (Federal), we spent money on the End the Lies rallies. We produced How to Votes that didn&#39;t just call for a vote for SA; they, along with our other material, was aimed at activating the people we encountered at polling booths, on the street or in the workplace- getting them involved in an ongoing campaign- REGARDLESS OF THE ELECTIONS.

It is precisely this dual role that is so valuable, and which gains us the respect of so many unionists, greens, activists and others. Groups like SAlt argue that socialists shouldn&#39;t run in elections, but then advocate a vote for the Greens. THIS, more than running a socialist election campaign, confuses left-leaning people.

SAlt, in fact, characterise themselves as a "propaganda group", which somehow seems to justify them shoving ultra-left propaganda down people&#39;s throats, and also, somehow, legitimates a call for a Vote 1 Green.

Note: I am not saying that we shouldn&#39;t, for example, call for a Green vote. Socialist Alliance did so for the Werriwa by-election, where we didn&#39;t run. But it&#39;s a kind of odd position for a groups which claims to oppose the elections on principle.

[Black Dagger]

But it&#39;s a kind of odd position for a groups which claims to oppose the elections on principle.

It&#39;s no more &#39;odd&#39; than a group that claims to be revolutionary throwing itself into running elections.

[apathy maybe]

Surely the Socialist Alliance could better spend the money used to stand candidates on explaining why socialism is the alternative, and encourage people not to vote at all&#33; (Except that it is against the law).

Simply stop running candidates, don&#39;t tell people to vote for anyone (tell them not to vote or to null vote), continue doing everything else, but with more money.

[Black Dagger]

Simply stop running candidates, don&#39;t tell people to vote for anyone (tell them not to vote or to null vote), continue doing everything else, but with more money.

I&#39;ve already suggested as much, electioneering is a valuable source of new members and a good way to &#39;get the message&#39; out-apparently, which message is debateable. In reality, a more militant approach, a rejection of bourgeois &#39;democracy&#39; and reformism would turn away many in its membership.

[Palmares]

The question is: is it better to be more passive and reformist to attract more members via a larger audience, or to stay more true to the core ideals of the revolutionary movement?

The former alienates the true revolutionaries, and the latter alienates the reformists and much of the larger community.

[Black Dagger]

The question is: is it better to be more passive and reformist to attract more members via a larger audience, or to stay more true to the core ideals of the revolutionary movement?

Good question.

The question seems to be another way to ask, is it better to be a reformist &#39;socialist&#39; or a communist/anarchist?

Its&#39; not &#39;better&#39; to be militant if that&#39;s not the goal or orientation of an organisation and its membership. In the case of the SA i think its approach is fitting, as its&#39; a socialist organ, not a revolutionary one. An argument only emerges when the SA claims to be revolutionary or support revolution. That&#39;s when i begin criticising their approach, because you can&#39;t assert the &#39;revolutionary&#39; tag, still be &#39;passive and reformist&#39; and actively seek to attract reformists members.

I have no problem with the SA existing, or doing what it wants to do. My problem is that it claims to be a proponent of revolutionary communism- that is all. And in the case of revolutionary communist organisations encouraging the kids of the bourgeoisie to join in hope that they can turn them all against their parents/class, that can only be damaging to the class-base and orientation of the organisation as a whole. I will and do fully support the SA and other socialist organisations on issue-agendas, like Homophobia, Racism, Sexism, Land Rights and so forth, but then again i support openly bourgeois organisations on these issues as well, this is not building a revolutionary consciousness, it&#39;s fighting against the gross execesses produced by a capitalist society.



The former alienates the true revolutionaries, and the latter alienates the reformists and much of the larger community.

Reformists will eventually LEAVE any supposedly revolutionary organisation- when things get &#39;heasted&#39;, so that&#39;s no real loss. The only important point here is the &#39;larger community&#39;. My question to you is, should &#39;communist revolutionaries&#39; &#39;tone-down&#39; their image (ie. compromise) and speak on bourgeois terms, in order to sucker the &#39;masses&#39; into an organisation? Shouldn&#39;t we just be honest? Our goal should be to help create the &#39;spirit of rebellion&#39; in society, in people, to try and get people thinking more critically, &#39;to think like communists&#39; (to paraphrase redstar), whilst at the same time spreading revolutionary ideas of organising etc. to as many people as possible. I think groups like the SA definately have a role in this process, at the moment though, i don&#39;t think their strategies are contributing to the &#39;spirit of rebellion&#39; at all, quite the opposite.

Not only this but they dont seem to have ANY problem with this reformism or its effects on the base and orientation of their organisation. Another gripe being that SA members seem completely opposed to any criticism of their organisation and it&#39;s policy, not a good sign for the &#39;revolution&#39;.

edit:

Cthenthar, did you read the thread on the communist league (new group in US)? Same themes, should communists build proletarian-exclusive organisations and so forth, here&#39;s a quote from Marx/Engels that i ripped from someones sig that talks directly to this,

"If people ... from other classes join the proletarian movement, the first condition is that they should not bring any remnants of bourgeois, petty-bourgeois, etc., prejudices with them but should wholeheartedly adopt the proletarian point of view [which is only possible by joining the proletariat]. But these gentlemen ... are stuffed and crammed with bourgeois and petty-bourgeois ideas.... If these gentlemen form themselves into a Social-Democratic Petty-Bourgeois Party they have a perfect right to do so; one could then negotiate with them, form a bloc according to circumstances, etc. But in a workers&#39; party they are an adulterating element. If reasons exist for tolerating them there for the moment, it is also a duty only to tolerate them, to allow them no influence in the Party leadership and to remain aware that a break with them is only a matter of time."

(Marx and Engels, Circular Letter to Bebel, Liebknecht, Bracke, et al., Sept. 15-18, 1879)

[Palmares]

Rising from, it should be asked: if the reformists and broader community are to join the revolutionaries as "non-revolutionaries", and hence making the overall grouping non-revolutionary, what is to keep them from furthering and promoting such non-revolutionary means and to eventually become revolutionary in itself?

The fact is, often when a group makes a compromise on a fundamental tenet of their given ideal, it is inevitably extremely difficult to return back to such a position that is in accord with the tenet.

In other words, in revolutionaries becoming reformist, once they are corrupted by reformism, it is unlikely they will return to a revolutionary status.

This is quite parallel to the dictatorship of the proletariat, in that an ideal of no class is up held, yet an individual, or group (vanguardism) is held above the rest, and is very difficult to return all to equal footing.

The system is inherently flawed, and giving any ground is not nearly enough to change a system that perpetuates itself (and hence by supporting any mechanism of it, you are both supporting it, however indirectly, and slowing down our own revolutionary progress).

[Hiero]

The question is: is it better to be more passive and reformist to attract more members via a larger audience, or to stay more true to the core ideals of the revolutionary movement?

To stay realistic to the material conditions.

[apathy maybe]

Originally posted by [email protected] 17 2005, 03:07 AM
The question is: is it better to be more passive and reformist to attract more members via a larger audience, or to stay more true to the core ideals of the revolutionary movement?

The former alienates the true revolutionaries, and the latter alienates the reformists and much of the larger community.
Every step along the path towards a better society is a step away from a worse one.

This does not mean however that you should give up your principles. The means justify the the ends, if you use electoral politics to get into power, expect to see electoral politics used to kick you out of power. If you use a dictatorship to change the system, then the new system probably isn&#39;t worth having.

If you use violence and terror, then this is all your new society is worth.


Stay true to your principles, but work towards the better society. Work with organisations, but only on specific campaigns. Don&#39;t join organisations you disagree with. Do work with and network with those who aim for what you do. As soon as you stop wanting the samething, stop working with them.

[Palmares]

Originally posted by [email protected] 17 2005, 11:11 AM
To stay realistic to the material conditions.
But what does that entail?

[Black Dagger]

Cthenthar,


if the reformists and broader community are to join the revolutionaries as "non-revolutionaries", and hence making the overall grouping non-revolutionary, what is to keep them from furthering and promoting such non-revolutionary means and to eventually become revolutionary in itself?

You&#39;ve confused me, is there a typo in there? Did you mean to say, "and to eventually become non-revolutionary in itself?" That seems to be the logic of your statement, yes/no? You answer this question yourself, in the last paragraph.



The system is inherently flawed, and giving any ground is not nearly enough to change a system that perpetuates itself (and hence by supporting any mechanism of it, you are both supporting it, however indirectly, and slowing down our own revolutionary progress)

Is that meant to be read as an argument against reformist strategies? That&#39;s how it sounds to me, in which case, what is your position then on what i said about the reformist strategies of the SA and the potential effects on the organisation itself? I want to say it plainly :P

[Palmares]

Originally posted by Black Dagger+May 18 2005, 02:52 AM--> (Black Dagger @ May 18 2005, 02:52 AM) You&#39;ve confused me, is there a typo in there? Did you mean to say, "and to eventually become non-revolutionary in itself?" That seems to be the logic of your statement, yes/no? You answer this question yourself, in the last paragraph. [/b]
Errr... yep. My mistake. :)


Black Dagger

Is that meant to be read as an argument against reformist strategies? That&#39;s how it sounds to me, in which case, what is your position then on what i said about the reformist strategies of the SA and the potential effects on the organisation itself? I want to say it plainly :P

Indeed it is.

The potential threats are as mentioned before: the alienation of the most radical leftists; the shifting of fundamental beliefs away from leftism due to the pull of reformism (as in, pragmatism); and thus a more bourgeois &#39;left&#39;.

Simplistic I know, but I&#39;m hell tired right now. :)