RE: On the Greens victory

[benj <benj@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

> The DSP's theoretical position on the labour aristocracy leads it to miss
> important developments in the union movement, and to adopt positions that
> are light years away from an approach such as that of the Australian
> Communist Party from the 1950s to the 1970s, when from outside the Labor
> Party it exercised considerable influence by forging a tactical united front
> with unionists who supported Labor. Bob Gould outlines some of this in
> detail in his essay, The CPA in Australian Life, which is available on
> Ozleft http://members.optushome.com.au/spainter/CPA.html

I wasn't aware that the DSP really had a position on the labour
aristocracy, not formally anyway. I certainly have my opinions,
but they don't necessarily represent the DSP's "position" as
such.

The key to understanding the labour aristocracy is politics not
sociology. I do get sidetracked into sociological definitions but
without mass struggles I think such definitions are pretty
abstract. The processes of opportunism, of selling struggles out
and so on is the real issue. An interesting example recently of
the processes at work was the Victorian construction unions'
bargaining campaign which the bosses caved in on without a fight.
The speculation is that the bosses: firstly, are rightly worried
that the union is quite highly mobilised at present because the
government is trying to smash it, so a dispute would be very
difficult; and, secondly, (this is the interesting bit) that they
want to lull the union members into a false sense of security -
i.e. forgetting how to fight, taking the money and running, that
sort of thing. I don't know if it will work though.
Re: the CPA's old tactics -- if we assume they had good tactics
overall (I don't know enough to say yea or nay) there is still an
important difference now: the marked change in the ALP, since the
economic downturn of the 1970s (or thereabouts) -- it has
followed the dictates of neoliberalism loyally. The nature of ALP
membership and support has changed accordingly.
I don't think we are quite yet in the situation described
(rightly or wrongly) by Phil Ferguson in NZ, and in many respects
I agree with Bob and Steve: of course we have to work with the
progressive ALP members where possible. But not at the cost of
being silent on the rectionary politics of the Labour leadership
and the craven opportunism of the ALP left. Not to build up the
left inside the ALP (which seems at best a labour of Sisyphus)
but to build real struggles and hopefully the socialist movement.
The Greens are different because most of their politics are way
to the left of Labor and on many issues there is not a lot to
criticise them, I think where possible we need to work with the
Greens and encourage them to develop activist structures and to
work with the Socialist Alliance. Given the massive disparity in
our votes, which most Greens currently think is the most
important measurement of strength, it is imperative that the
Socialist Alliance develop a credible organisation in the streets
and communities in order to get a hearing from the Greens.
That's my two cents for the day.
Ben Courtice

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