[Marxism] What conditions are required for a more united socialist party in Australia?

[Louise Walker <louiserw2003@xxxxxxxxxxxx>]

--- Shane Hopkinson <chen9692000@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> One of my main criticisms all along of the SA project has been that the 
> objective conditions for
> a new party simply do not exist ? and that the Hanson Rallies, anti-war stuff 
> and even MUA
> dispute which the DSP relied on as the said basis turned out in retrospect to 
> be insufficient.

I really feel that this idea needs to be discussed thoroughly, because its this 
reference to such
supposedly scientific 'objective circumstances' that has been used by various 
organisations to
justify their organisational separateness from one another for years. I 
disagree with both Shane,
*and* with the DSP/ISO original reference to 'objective conditions in 
Australia' as a sound basis
for starting a united left project like the Alliance. The big question for the 
left in Australia
is the fight for greater unity in resisting constant neo-liberal attacks.

I think that the various far-left propaganda groups have had as their central 
aim the building of
an explicitly revolutionary party. That is certainly very different from 
starting with the aim of
rebuilding the socialist movement in this country. I think we need to rebuild 
the socialist
movement before we can expect to have any serious influence on the class 
struggle, and I think
that it is within a much healthier broad socialist movement that revolutionary 
politics could
flourish.

I have had a friend in Socialist Alternative try to tell me on several 
occasions over the last 4
years that socialists in Australia CAN'T rebuild the socialist movement. I 
don't know if this is a
widespread notion in SAlt, but my reasoning is: if you can't achieve that 
relatively modest aim,
how on earth do you think you can build a *revolutionary* workers party? But 
he's got that covered
too: we have to wait until 'the upturn in class struggle', and in the meantime 
all we can do is
'preserve revolutionary socialist ideas'. Many of his comrades in SAlt probably 
wouldn't agree
with him, and they can speak for themselves on this list.

Of course, the aim of building a particular brand of revolutionary politics is 
more widely
presented as the basis for such organisations, and in itself it is supposed to 
be sufficient
grounds for being in a separate organisation. The problems with it, in my view, 
include that the
thinking behind it is circular, and it is very negative political thinking that 
will continue to
relegate socialists to the margins of Australian political life. Surely, if 
attempts at left unity
in Socialist Alliance have proved difficult over the last five years (and the 
Alliance has very
serious problems indeed), what does that say about attempts to build 
revolutionary socialist
politics, which, correct me if I'm wrong, is at its weakest in Australia now 
than it has been for
more than 100 years?

As far as I'm concerned the only 'conditions' that are required for 'a united 
socialist party' to
be the formation/model we all try to work with are 1) capitalist social 
relations with a bourgeois
democracy, and 2) some socialists willing to have a go at being 
organisationally united. On the
latter requirement, time is rapidly running out for us to capitalise on that 
considerable, but
divided, layer of socialists who were radicalised in the '60s. (Sorry, 
comrades, but we're all
getting older.)

The main socialist groups in Australia have no significant differences between 
them on the
important domestic political questions of the day. Whatever joint 
organisational formation they
should be in, they should not be in separate organisations. It just isn't 
warranted. (I'm for a
genuine united multi-tendency socialist party.) When it comes to rallies, 
protests and meetings,
the literature of these little separate socialist groups all has the same basic 
message.
Meanwhile, many people who are in the process of being politicised leftward and 
come across the
broad array of groups are bewildered by why they are separate, and, quite 
reasonably in my view,
read it as a reason to stay away. And many, like myself, who have been through 
such groups, but
still see themselves as socialists and remain politically active, would never 
rejoin. This is a
tremendous waste, especially when it is most conceivable that a united party 
formation would
provide a platform for revolutionary as well as social-democratic and other 
streams of socialist
politics. More than a waste, I think our organisational divisions continue to 
leave the political
field open to other left alternatives such as the Greens and Labor, and worse, 
our political
opponents and their class. Whether conscious or not, that is an abdication of 
our responsibility.

And this is what really frustrates me about the nonsense that goes on between 
the DSP and Bob
Gould, as well as others, when discussing what socialists should be doing. 
While at times I have
been an ally to the DSP within SA, I disagree with the DSP leadership on a lot 
of things. I was
one of the non-affiliated people who at the last National Conference opposed 
their remodelling of
the leadership bodies to remove automatic representation of affiliates at 
national level. But many
of the attacks that Bob and some others launch against the DSP both within and 
outside the
Alliance are a smokescreen, used to try to avoid having to deal with the 
elephant in the Left
room. How do we achieve organisational unity with political diversity to more 
effectively fight
the greatest attack against the Australian working class in our lives? Is 
organisational
separateness /really/ an option?

I could say much more, but I would like us to I'd like to hear from others on 
this, and am happy
to correct factual errors.

Louise


                
____________________________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
The New Yahoo! Movies: Check out the Latest Trailers, Premiere Photos and full 
Actor Database.
http://au.movies.yahoo.com

________________________________________________
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