Re: Peter Boyle's hare - Bob Gould's analysis

[Shane Hopkinson <s.hopkinson@xxxxxxxxxx>]

> Date: Fri, 28 Jun 2002 11:08:28 +1000
> From: "Steve Painter and Rose McCann" <spainter@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> Subject: Peter Boyle's hare
>
> Peter Boyle led the discussion on the usefulness of the party/sect a merry
> dance with his introduction of the term revolutionary factionalism.
> Sometimes when a fox is pursued by a pack of hounds it will cross the trail
> of a hare and the hounds will go off after the hare.
> Tell us, Peter, is "revolutionary factionalism" a bit like "propaganda
> work" -- like, perhaps, doing what the DSP has always done, but with a
> different name? That won't cut it, just as the DSP's approach hasn't cut it
> for the past 35 years.
> By the mid-1980s the DSP recognised that space had opened up on the left
> with the crisis of Stalinism and Social Democracy, and we did out damndest
> to move into that space. We couldn't do it, and it wasn't because of lack of
> resources, small size, wrong objective conditions or any of the other
> excuses we hear from the DSP.

Its hard to respond in kind to this.  Since Steve as a DSP leader at the time 
what
is his *analysis* of the squandered opportunities of this period.

> But some might disagree with my assessment of the past 15 years or so, and
> there's another test of practice taking place now. The left is trying a new
> electoral tactic: the Socialist Alliance. How is it going?
> Here's an assessment from Bob Gould, a long-time Trotskyist and Labor Party
> member, from an open letter  to the DSP written earlier this year. I don't
> agree with Bob on everything: for a start, he's in the Labor Party and I'm
> in the Greens, but he makes some interesting points.

Indeed but let's fill in a bit of the background for others on the list.  Bob 
is an
old friend of the Percy brother's though they went their separate ways in the 
early
70s the Percy's went on the build the DSP as a national organisation with a
respectable newspaper and publishing program.  Bob is still in the Labor party 
and
runs a famous (if chaotic) bookshop in Sydney.  He is presently writing a book 
on
the DSP and is gathering ex-members of the DSP to share their thoughts with him.
So there's a bit of history between the groups.  More recently Bob has produced 
a
number of sheets critical of the DSP and offering his thoughts on the left more
generally.  His assessment of the Socialist Alliance reflects his committment to
building a 'united front' strategy with the Labor party as a means of building 
the
socialist movement.  He also suggests a "secondary united front" with the 
Greens.
Rather than Steve's characterisation of the Greens as a 'mass defensive 
formation'
which arose " to defend most of what the working class needed to defend."  Bob
characterises them as a "leftist expression" of the 'new social layers' (the
Australian Democrats being the 'rightist expression').  The seocndary united 
front
is a 'political necessity'   but presents problems since there are strains of 
Green
ideology that are hostile to economic growth and to the traditional organised
working class due to its base in the new social layers.  This and the focus by 
some
greens on identity politics makes for difficulties.  He goes on "nevertheless 
taken
as a whole there is no quesiton that the bulk of those voting for the Greens 
are to
the left of labor [party] on most issues."  This makes the united fornt 
necessary
but it would be "unncescessarily blind" of Marxists not see the potential 
conflict
between the traditional labour movement  and these sections of the Greens.  This
will be worked out in the struggle.

Of course Steve is not required to agree with Bob on this, but I thought since 
he
was using him as an authority to beat the Socialist Alliance it was important to
put it in context and also ask Steve to respond to Bob's comments on the Greens
from a Marxist perspective.

Cheers

Shane


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