re SocAlt & unity

[Ben Courtice <benj@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Jeff wrote:

> But that's the problem with your whole regroupment project, isn't it! The
> DSP and SAlt have been at loggerheads in every campaign in which the two
> organisatisations have participated, not because SAlt members are
> inherently ornery (though I am!)
Well, ornery you may be, but I thought you were very funny at the Green Left 
annual comedy debate, and notably non-sectarian by helping out a rival group's 
fundraiser... maybe I should eat my words?

>  I would have thought the same went for the other Trotskyist groups. Of
> course, in periods of relative political calm, the differences don't seem
> so obvious -- in the stop-start or top down campaigns we've had over the
> last year, there's been less opportunity for anyone to argue about
> strategy. But surely everyone understands that, as soon as struggles pick
> up, the divisions of the past will raise their heads once more.

> What's more, the traditional divisions aren't necessarily simply about
> tactics or strategy. You have't replied to the question raised in my last
> post -- how, in the name of Jah, would the Socialist Alliance party have
> coped with the controversy that emerged in 1999 over the DSP's support for
> imperialist troops entering East Timor? That was, after all, only two years
> ago!
Without wishing to re-start a debate that I believe raged and flamed for some 
time on this list...
it would be difficult but that sort of disagreement (over "fundamental 
principles", yours if not ours) doesn't seem to happen so often.
Of course, when politics "heats up" differences are more firey. But the 
interesting thing is that, as the imperialist bourgeoisie increase their offensive 
against the world, the left in Australia (including both those in SA and others such as 
SocAlt or the SP) seem to be fairly agreed on the broad outlines of what the tasks for 
socialists are.

> Political divisions have to be overcome, not simply ignored. That's why, as
> I said last time, the traditional basis for regroupment is either the
> identification of a new audience <or> a dramatically new political climate.
> Given that the Alliance seems entirely unable to mobilise its supporters in
> any of the recent large demonstrations, and given that the anti-corporate
> movement has largely fallen away in this country, I'd be curious to know
> what grounds you give for this current attempt.

I think there is a new audience, not completely new, but those who are 
starting to break from Laborism and Accordism in the unions, and those who are 
starting to support the Greens electorally -- sometimes they are even the same 
people.
The political climate is not dramatically new but the stakes are higher (world 
war 3 anyone?) and the mood of the more political sections of the working class 
tends to reflect this, with, among other things, a greater desire for unity.
I don't think that the SA will "resolve all differences". There are two 
processes: first, relating to the newly politicising layers of the population, and 
socialists co-operating enough (which I believe means within the socialist alliance) to 
provide a political framework for these people.
the other process is revolutionary regroupment, which is far more difficult and there is 
no time frame we can nail it onto. But I think the experience of practical collaboration, 
with the "higher" ideological debates where necessary and appropriate, can help 
to bring about some degree of revolutionary regroupment.
SocAlt obviously don't agree, and maybe that doesn't make you necessarily 
sectarian. But from where I'm standing (and thinking), your political course is 
to pose a return to the previous situation of rival socialist groups, only 
collaborating when convenient with no prospects of greater unity or indeed 
providing a home for the new layers of radicalising workers. I think that in 
effect is sectarian.

As to the ISO, yes they have fallen on hard times it seems. I don't think the 
majority of their leadership is very sympathetic to SocAlt - bad blood perhaps 
- but at this stage they don't seem friendly to the DSP's proposals either. I 
do think they will have to, more or less, go in one direction or the other, 
sooner or later. But that's up to them.
But jut because you "formally" share similar politics (state capitalism etc) 
doesn't seem to relate too much to the divergences in practice between the groups, and 
hence I don't see why it means that unity will be so easy. And although SocAlt has grown, 
you are still very small -- at least outside Melbourne (should I say Melbourne 
University).
Actually on a number of occasions, for all my accusations of "sectarianism" I 
know the DSP and SA worked quite constructively together, e.g. M1/MayDay. The more the 
better I say.
What does SocAlt's different political position, from which you seem to think 
flows the impossibility of anything but ad hoc collaboration, mean in terms of 
what I've outlined here? A different analysis of the situation vis-a-vis newly 
radicalising workers (students, youth etc)? Or do you think that Socialist 
Alliance is too reformist, electoralist? Or both?




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