[Marxism] DEbate in left parties was : Australian argument/ internal discussions

[Dave Riley <dhell@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

While I agree with Tom and Peter about this bulletion option, it can be unfair 
to minorities. Primarily because their attack can be constrained by that fact. 
In any political organisation it?s an important challenge to encourage as many  
members as possible to participate in an important debate. But by also asking 
them to go public so that their audience is broader than their immediate  
comrades/colleagues , and ?unknown,? that task is so much harder. 

That indicates that public exchanges automatically cull the protagonists down 
to those who can handle such podium level debate. 

In politics, in political parties, in my experience there are several levels of 
debate --each constrained  or freed up by who comprises the audience. There?s 
private chats socially or what have you. There?s branchh or committee level 
exchanges with the number of people in a room at any open time but who gather 
frequently as one. There?s debates between members of  national bodies. Theres? 
conference level debate when delegates muster to vote and polemicise. And 
there?s written debate -- national too -- but usually within the confines of 
the one organisation. Of course there?s also public newspaper  debate  which 
may be between different parties, individuals  or currents etc. 

You?ll note that in the Australian ALP debate is handled --such as it is -- by 
press release. Thats? public too but ask the rank a nd file where that fits 
into democracy.

Nowadays there?s debate by email which is something else again as it is a 
medium that has a comtradictory function -- but it offers no resolution , no 
voting or consensus just, as is most likely the case, occasional flame wars and 
as this caase suggests, a now and then juicy exposee. Also with email -- 
engagement tends to be socially skewed toward male participation as this 
list(and most left lists) exemplifies. You?ll also note that less than, say 25 
percent of subscribers to an elist participate in its exchanges. I think in the 
case of this list that figure would be smaller.So despite the fact that 
subscribers here can say anything they like anytime, their oipinions are seldom 
registered here. 

This reminds me of the example,a nd I think it?s a good example, of how the 
present US ISO, I think, carried out a debate in the US after the IST went sour 
on them by engaging in a ?what-now? debate via email with the participants 
employing email. That was so they couldn?t be expelled. And this is the other 
feature of so called ?public? debates --as any visit to Indymedia will show you 
-- it breeds anonymous players. Call it as you will, but I don?t think thats? 
democrratic. It simply foster maliciousness. If you doubt to just peruse the 
political ?level? of debate in Indymedia,

Those who insist that bulletins should be public are fooling themselves when 
they elevate that to a principle. Debate will still go on but its broad and 
inclusive nature WILL NOT be reflected in those documents. In fact it will be 
harder for anyone to get a sense of the issues in dispute because those 
documents would have been self censored by those who make contributions and 
much more by those who choose not to.

A good example is the discussion bulletin of the Socialist Alliance which is in 
public domain. I am a keen contributor to that organ and I have had many issues 
that I have argued in its pages. But that doesn?t mean that others will follow 
suit and that what is argued in a gathering in real time will also be developed 
for written form. Indeed, one of the features of the SA that has so annoyed me 
is that there can be a debate at local level especially emanating from the 
small affiliates which they won?t share more broadly. So there can be a ready 
duplicity, I fear, that encourages the hiding of your real views.  For instance 
if Adler is saying this now in the context of these documents, I assure you 
what he has been saying in various forums of the SA has been much worse -- in 
fact it?s been a broken record for years with him. And always on the same DSP 
theme. And I think he has contributed his  views so rarely to written debate in 
forums where he could be challenged. But as soon as he?s outside and turned his 
back on the project... 

You?ll also note that that is so often the norm. That so often people hide 
their real views from the broad  membership of an organisation only to share 
them publicly as soon as they?re out. Call me cynical but I can?t help that... 
it happens so frequently, as they seek to justify themselves.

But what people don?t realise is that such outing of exchanges does not 
generate a democratic culture in and of itself. That?s something else again. 
And a good example in contrast is the English SWP --which I understand doesn?t 
employ internal discusion bulletins for some reason. So what you get is 
confusion about whats? gooing on among the membership, even a obscuring of 
political line and lack of clarity, and I think that?s an obstacle to what you 
do or decide to carry out. However, at the same time as that, you get a 
\vigorous ?outing? of SWP material such that a whole current has consolidated 
-- the 30 member CPGB and its Weekly Worker -- whose raison d etre is dedicated 
to outing the internal life of the SWP as it runs a paper campaign against that 
party?s leadership. This only serves to obscure the politics involved furtheras 
this current is hostile to the SWP. 

Finally outing of itself does nothing in way of generating a polical 
understanding. It?s not about ?debate? at all. Take Bob Gould?s Ozleft site. 
There you will find a large archive of outed documents from left debates -- 
primarily focused on the DSP. But they are standalone statements with no 
context. ?A ? may be saying whatever -- but any reesponse is not included 
there. So they get read into the public record as unchallenged fact . They?re 
selective because the point of the exercise is not democracy at all but 
something else. 

dave riley


_________________________________________
Life of Riley Blog: 
http://ratbaggy.blogspot.com/
Ratbag Radio: 
http://ratbagradio.blogspot.com/

blog / podcast / web  radio
________________________________________________
YOU MUST clip all extraneous text before replying to a message.
Send list submissions to: Marxism@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Set your options at: http://lists.econ.utah.edu/mailman/listinfo/marxism