Re: [Marxism] The DSP's fresh approach to applying democratic centralism

["Richard Fidler" <rfidler_8@xxxxxxxxxxxx>]

A growth in membership from 133 to 268 since 1981 - 27 years! - in a country
with a population of some 20 million is pretty insignificant if you see your
task simply as one of "patiently accumulating cadres". But is that how the
DSP's contribution is to be measured? 

Perhaps it is little more than an indication of how limited the objective
possibilities are at this time for building a revolutionary party. A more
relevant question might be, is the DSP standing in the way of other forces
that could build such a party? I see no evidence of that. On the contrary,
it appears to be remarkably resourceful in reaching out to broader forces
who are prepared to fight the neo-liberal offensive and mobilize in the
trade unions, on the campuses, etc., and to build active solidarity with
revolutionary movements in other countries. What opportunities to build a
revolutionary current have they missed? 

In fact, no other formation, including Tom O'Lincoln's Socialist
Alternative, has been more successful. 

A further question might be, how has the DSP assisted in educating new
generations of radicalizing youth? What is the net value of its many
pamphlets, books, newspapers, etc. in documenting and analyzing the nature
of the Australian social formation, developing a theoretical understanding
of developments in the class struggle, publicizing and explaining the
significance of advances, setbacks and defeats for the workers and popular
movements both in Australia and elsewhere? I think that record, overall, is
a very positive contribution to building the collective memory of the
Australian working class.

It would be interesting to know how many of those who have passed through
the DSP or its predecessors are still active in the labour or socialist
movement. My impression, based in part from a brief visit to Australia in
2003-04 as a guest of the DSP comrades, was that many of the so-called
"independents" in the Socialist Alliance, that is those who were not members
of one of the affiliated groups (and there were literally hundreds of such
independents), were ex-DSPers. They tended to support the DSP's positions
within the SA. But for a wide variety of reasons they were not prepared to
expend the time and effort the DSP required of them to help build a small
"cadre" organization.

In Canada, literally thousands have gone through the various small groups
posing as the revolutionary party over the last few decades. Only a relative
handful remain in such groups, and with few exceptions they are not the most
active or influential on the broad left. Many remain active - or have
returned to activity after raising families, building professional careers,
etc. But they seldom return to small-group politics. So what? Much of what
they do now is informed by the lessons (both positive and negative) they
have learned from previous experiences in such groups. I suspect the
experience in Australia is quite similar, as it is in many other countries.

On this email discussion list alone, there are dozens if not hundreds who at
some point in their lives were members of the U.S. SWP or similar groups (to
mention only the organization that still manages to attract a lot of
attention here). Do we all look on our experiences as negatively as, say,
Louis Proyect does of his? I for one have spent the majority of my adult
life outside of any such "cadre" organization, but I don't regret the 20
years (well, most of them, anyway) that I spent in the Canadian section of
the "Fourth International". Many of us - including Louis, despite his
reluctance to acknowledge it -  had many positive experiences and learned
much from our sojourn in such groups.

Among the many achievements of the DSP is the publication of Green Left
Weekly, widely viewed even by many non-DSPers as the finest socialist weekly
newspaper in the English-speaking world. Most of its readers read it
on-line, I believe. Although its print circulation may be stagnant or even
declining, there is still a role for some form of print publication, if
nothing else as material proof of the organization's existence. 

Another major contribution of the DSP is its educational function. The group
holds educational classes, public forums, and publishes many documents
developing and explaining key concepts of Marxist thought and experience. I
have read many of these (some are available on the DSP website), and I'm
impressed by their high theoretical calibre.

The DSP comrades and their periphery also play a vital role in spearheading
the international solidarity movement in Australia. These contributions are
not limited to the formal membership of the DSP. For example, ex-members
Dave Deutschmann and Deb Schnookal are the foremost English-language
publishers of books and other publications on the Cuban Revolution, with
more than a hundred such titles under their Ocean Press imprint. The
Jorquera brothers, until recently members of the DSP, are playing a leading
role in the Australian movement in solidarity with the Bolivarian
revolution, along with DSP members. Even ex-DSPer Ed Lewis - a carping
critic of the DSP if there ever was one - has made a contribution of sorts
by helping Bob Gould set up the Ozleft web site, which contains much
valuable documentation on the Australian left and workers movement. Ed would
make a further contribution if he put more of the DSP's historical documents
on-line!

So I would look at a group like the DSP as part of a continuum of the left's
activity, not as some static phenomenon, its value and influence to be
determined solely by its current membership figures or other, material
assets. For some decades now, the DSP and its predecessors have provided a
means for successive generations of radicals to work together in close
collaboration for a least a period in their lives as part of a common
cadre-building enterprise.

The DSP is unique, among the many organizations originating in the Cannonist
mode, in having avoided the worst sectarian features often attributed,
rightly or wrongly, to that tradition. Its leaders have repeatedly
demonstrated their ability to learn from their experiences, to take
initiatives in action, and in some key respects to break consciously with
some of the most ossified conceptions that unfortunately came to
characterize post-WWII Trotskyism and Cannonism. Instead of repeatedly
harping on the demerits of their supposed "Leninism", or handing out
unsolicited advice to these comrades, we would be better advised to pay more
attention to their real record in action. There is much to be learned from
them, even in the narrow context of the largely unfavourable objective
conditions of Australia today.

-- Richard


________________________________________________
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