Sectarian factionalism (was Updating Louis report (was DSP, etc))

[Shane Hopkinson <s.hopkinson@xxxxxxxxxx>]

> From: "Steve Painter and Rose McCann" <spainter@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>

> >>I read Lou's 'report' but my mind immediately to how it could be applied
> here in Australia. Since Rose and Steve are members of the Greens I wonder
> how they would see Louis' 1974 report being updated and what role the Greens
> would play in developing the Marxist movement as per Louis' posts.>>
>
> Sorry Shane, I (I can't speak for Rose, who has her own opinions and is away
> for a few days) don't have a blueprint for the socialist movement

I wasn't looking for a blueprint I was wondering what analysis the Greens had of
the present Australian political situation in the context of what I understood 
as the
broad goals of the list - how to promote the Marxist movement/ideas etc. I was 
wondering
as a Marxist member of the Greens how you saw that playing out.

> and I
> don't think there's one to be found in the writings of Lenin, Marx, Trotsky
> or anyone else, valuable as their writings are.

Indeed the strength of these writers lies in their ability to apply Marxist 
ideas to
concrete realities they face and they were more/less successful to the extent 
they
did so.

> I think Hal Draper (in an
> article mentioned by Lou in an earlier post) in puts forward an interesting
> alternative to what most Zinovievist groups today consider the only way to
> organise: a political centre without the tight organisational structures of
> the party/sect.

Yes I have read this too and it is interesting.  I am presently reading 
Draper's 4 volumes
of 'Karl Marx/s Theory of Revn' as a result.  It provides alternative ways to 
organise.
It also suggests that such an organisation be organised around a newspaper as 
well and
that would be a role I would like to see "Green Left" play more of a role in. 
I'm not
sure that a "looser" organisation could produce (and more importantly 
sell/distibute)
a paper like GL.  Do they Greens have any plans like this?

I wonder if someone could clarify the term "Zinovievist" for me.  Do you 
"Leninist"
 or Stalinist or something in between?

> Ben says in one of his posts that there are no mass struggles in Australia
> at the moment. I think it's a matter of being able to recognise a struggle 
> when you see it.
> The Greens are a mass defensive response to the right-wing offensive.

I have never heard this argument.  I will have to give it more thought.  I have 
just finished
reading Joel Kovel's "The Enemy of Nature" Kovel he is with the US greens and 
openly
eco-socialist and Shseasby is currently coordinating a reading group on 
"Capital".
Are there such currents in the NSW Greens.  There are none in Central
Queensland where the Greens are not really an organisd force.  Their focus here 
is solely
on elections or on local issues, driven by state funded campaigns.   Not really 
a mass struggle.

> People
> who wanted to take a stand against social spending cuts, anti-immigrant
> hysteria and racism, privatisation of public assets, and a lot more, have
> gravitated to the Greens. That's why I'm there. I want to support that
> defensive movement, participate in it, learn from it, influence it if I can
> convince people of my opinions.

Sounds sensible.  How sympathetic are the NSW Greens to socialist ideas?

> The DSP, on the other hand, has succeeded spectacularly in isolating itself
> from this movement. It didn't measure up to the DSP's blueprint, you see.

Not clear, since you were a leader with the DSP at the time why do you think
this occured?

> For a start, its class origins are suspect in the eyes of the DSP. Because
> of the sorry state of the trade union movement and the Labor Party, no
> defensive movement could come from that direction for the time being. But
> that doesn't mean nothing happened. A party/movement did arise to defend
> most of what the working class needed to defend.

I'm not clear about the Greens position on a lot of issues but surely most 
working
class people "needed to defend" wages against the neoliberals, strength the 
unions.
Do the Greens have good relations with the Unions - that's not my impression.
Do they have a sustained critique of neoliberalism?  They may do but its not
clear to me from my involvement with them in Newcastle or in Rockhampton.

>  We tried an organisational takeover
> to give the thing a Marxist program, but those liberals just didn't want to
> listen, so screw them. It's all to hard for us, we'll denounce it and wait
> until it falls apart and then the field will be clear for us."

Are you saying that when you were a DSP leader that the leadership framed it 
strategy as a "takeover" of the Greens? or that the liberal greens split off
because the association with socialists would do them electoral damage?

> One mistake the DSP makes is to equate the Greens with Bob Brown. Peter said
> in one of his posts that Green Left wouldn't be a cheer squad for Bob Brown.

My guess here is that Peter meant that the Greens focus is primarily 
electoralist, and
so needs high profile candidates to win seats.  Otherwise the DSP has always 
preferenced
the Greens after their own candidates.  Not so in the other direction when in 
Newcastle
Greens preferenced Fred Nile over the DSP because they called for a donkey vote 
when they were
top of the ticket, not Greens policy of course but I mean it as an examine of 
how an electoral
focus can mean sacrificing principles.  Here in QLD the Greens preferenced the 
Nationals in
some seats in an attempt (I presume) to put pressure on the ALP.

> The Greens are much more than Bob Brown, as was shown recently when the
> Green party disagreed with Bob's statement that he was prepared to negotiate
> on the sale of Telstra, and Brown admitted his error.

Yes that was good to see that the parliamentary wing of the party does not 
control
the party.

> That's not to say Brown is unimportant. He is certainly the most visible
> leader of the Greens, and the DSP makes a big mistake to write him off, he's
> very competent and very principled.

I don't know what you mean by write him off.  Electorally if there was no DSP or
Alliance candidate as in Central Queensland then who else would you vote for?
As I said the Greens are not organised this far north they did stand a 
candidate but
only by doing a 'ring-around' of locals from Brisbane to get a face up.


> At the moment, he's an ally of everyone
> who's defending the basic democratic rights and living standards of working
> people (funny, I seem to have written that phrase a few times before ... now
> I remember, it was when I was editing Direct Action for the Australian SWP,
> now the DSP).

Sarcasm aside this is why the DSP preferences them.

> There's a tactic called the united front that the DSP should dust off from
> the Leninist armoury.

I think an united front would be great but on what terms would the liberal 
elements
of the Greens accept such a proposition? As I said above socialists are going 
to be
an electoral liability so why would they take such a position?

> Reality's a funny business, Shane, and sometimes it's hard to recognise from
> within the walls of a sect.

Indeed it can be, but then we each view the world with ideological glasses.

> Sorry to reduce this discussion to hard political facts when so many people
> are off having such a wonderful time pursuing Peter's
> revolutionary-factionalist hare.

I am interested in 'hard facts' of how to build a grassroots movement for
fundamental change, changes which will reflect Marxist ideas (in content
if not in form).  The difficult seems to be finding a basis on which to build 
it.
I thought the Socialist Alliance was a step in this direction but it appears 
that
various members have different ideas about its role and so it looks less
promising.

Regards
Shane




~~~~~~~
PLEASE clip all extraneous text before replying to a message.