Alliance Voices: Rebuilding Socialist Alliance
This is probably the best, most honest and clear-sighted contribution to Alliance Voices I have read since I became a member of the Alliance. Ewan clearly lays out all of the problems which have crept into organisational practices in recent years and identifies ways that we can go about breaking them down. Although the conference is presently taking place I'm not sure if this perspective will gain any traction; however, it has already informed some amendments to the party-building resolution, some of which have been adopted already. More on that later.
Showing posts with label organisation. Show all posts
Showing posts with label organisation. Show all posts
Sunday, 8 June 2014
Alliance Voices: Rebuilding Socialist Alliance Youth Work
Alliance Voices: Rebuilding Socialist Alliance Youth Work
This piece of PCD for the Socialist Alliance's 10th national conference is some interesting reading on the new direction Resistance will be taking. I argued strongly against making Resistance the youth of the Socialist Alliance two years ago in Adelaide; however, the situation in the party has changed considerably since then, and I think this has driven the need to regroup youth leadership moreso than "objective conditions".
This piece of PCD for the Socialist Alliance's 10th national conference is some interesting reading on the new direction Resistance will be taking. I argued strongly against making Resistance the youth of the Socialist Alliance two years ago in Adelaide; however, the situation in the party has changed considerably since then, and I think this has driven the need to regroup youth leadership moreso than "objective conditions".
Tuesday, 27 May 2014
One Year Ago
One year ago, I stopped being a full-time activist.
One year ago, exhaustion and anxiety reached saturation point. I couldn't sleep and I couldn't get out of bed.
There were several events which occured in the weeks leading up to this which I've written about here and here, but they weren't the final straw.
The EduFactory conference took place over a long weekend, and I spent my time at the conference involved in a variety of workshops almost exclusively attended by the usual suspects of the Sydney student left. The Alliance didn't have much impact on the discussion which formed a network of student activists, where our criticisms were certainly in the minority. In the end, I realised I'd felt exhausted from day one, underprepared and like we were going through the motions.
Over the course of the last year (and a bit), I've taken time to think about what I need to do to take care of myself mentally and physically, and assess what I want to do with my life.
So, what have I been doing?
I've been writing again, in fits and starts. It still feels like the most useful thing I can do with myself, but it's harder to make space than it was when I was studying it, so I'm working on ways to improve that.
I've been selling Green Left every other week, and occasionally writing an article - there's one which haven't made it up here yet, look forward to that soon.
I've been playing a lot of Eve Online. And other games like Minecraft and Borderlands. But mostly Eve. It's addictive, yo...
I've been enjoying some good football and some great memories.
I've been listening to a lot of podcasts for the first time since 2006. Politically - Democracy Now, ABC Big Ideas TV, Jadaliyya's Jad for Reel. Otherwise - Soccer Stoppage Time, High Drag Eve Online, Welcome to Nightvale.
And I've been preparing to go travelling again, this time with my partner. More on this as it develops.
One year ago, exhaustion and anxiety reached saturation point. I couldn't sleep and I couldn't get out of bed.
There were several events which occured in the weeks leading up to this which I've written about here and here, but they weren't the final straw.
The EduFactory conference took place over a long weekend, and I spent my time at the conference involved in a variety of workshops almost exclusively attended by the usual suspects of the Sydney student left. The Alliance didn't have much impact on the discussion which formed a network of student activists, where our criticisms were certainly in the minority. In the end, I realised I'd felt exhausted from day one, underprepared and like we were going through the motions.
Over the course of the last year (and a bit), I've taken time to think about what I need to do to take care of myself mentally and physically, and assess what I want to do with my life.
So, what have I been doing?
I've been writing again, in fits and starts. It still feels like the most useful thing I can do with myself, but it's harder to make space than it was when I was studying it, so I'm working on ways to improve that.
I've been selling Green Left every other week, and occasionally writing an article - there's one which haven't made it up here yet, look forward to that soon.
I've been playing a lot of Eve Online. And other games like Minecraft and Borderlands. But mostly Eve. It's addictive, yo...
I've been enjoying some good football and some great memories.
I've been listening to a lot of podcasts for the first time since 2006. Politically - Democracy Now, ABC Big Ideas TV, Jadaliyya's Jad for Reel. Otherwise - Soccer Stoppage Time, High Drag Eve Online, Welcome to Nightvale.
And I've been preparing to go travelling again, this time with my partner. More on this as it develops.
Thursday, 6 March 2014
Alliance Voices: Thinking About Party Leadership and Functioning in the Socialist Alliance
Alliance Voices: Thinking About Party Leadership and Functioning in the Socialist Alliance
*disclaimer: despite taking leave from organising midway
through last year, I'm still an (inactive) member of the Socialist
Alliance. As always, my opinions on this blog are wholly my own.*
This is a very useful and timely discussion of how a socialist organisation should actually organise, how we address some common problems, etc. However, I think some more elaboration is needed in a few particular areas; in general, some more "derivation from first principles", such as why team leadership building is so important, from where stances on rotating full time organisers, ensuring branch democracy and taking into account different capacity to organise or be involved, etc.
I also think we need to take into account democratic culture a lot more - how it is established and maintained. Rather than a brief note on why establishing cliques along social lines is bad, perhaps it would be better to reflect on what steps need to be taken to ensuring a functioning, healthy democracy in the party, nationally and in branches and local leaderships. This is the best way to combat cliques, in my opinion and experience.
Additionally, I think we need to adopt policy or procedures around bullying to match those on homophobia, sexism, racism, etc. We fight in our workplaces, schools, etc to ensure bullying behaviour is eradicated, yet I have seen no desire to prevent it in the party.
*disclaimer: despite taking leave from organising midway
through last year, I'm still an (inactive) member of the Socialist
Alliance. As always, my opinions on this blog are wholly my own.*
This is a very useful and timely discussion of how a socialist organisation should actually organise, how we address some common problems, etc. However, I think some more elaboration is needed in a few particular areas; in general, some more "derivation from first principles", such as why team leadership building is so important, from where stances on rotating full time organisers, ensuring branch democracy and taking into account different capacity to organise or be involved, etc.
I also think we need to take into account democratic culture a lot more - how it is established and maintained. Rather than a brief note on why establishing cliques along social lines is bad, perhaps it would be better to reflect on what steps need to be taken to ensuring a functioning, healthy democracy in the party, nationally and in branches and local leaderships. This is the best way to combat cliques, in my opinion and experience.
Additionally, I think we need to adopt policy or procedures around bullying to match those on homophobia, sexism, racism, etc. We fight in our workplaces, schools, etc to ensure bullying behaviour is eradicated, yet I have seen no desire to prevent it in the party.
Sunday, 31 March 2013
At Marxism 2013 - Contributions
I attended workshops on women's and queer liberation at Marxism 2013. Both workshops were given in-depth presentations on Marxist understandings of gender and liberation, followed by a thorough, ranging and generally comradely discussion afterwards. These are notes from two contributions I drafted on my phone before I spoke (the latter I got to give in the session), which I have slightly polished.
From Gender Construction and Capitalism
A comrade raised concerns about the attitudes towards trans* people and one particular contribution which got quite crudely biological about it. I agree, and I think that this was an issue I felt wasn't addressed enough; several comrades also repeatedly used the phrase of "same sex marriage". This is the kind of demand the Tories, Clover Moore & Alex Greenwhich can support; what we should remember we are fighting for is equal marriage, inclusive of all gender identities.
Recently we've seen footballer Robbie Rogers publicly come out shortly after retiring from Leeds - something that the progressive sporting world certainly should take note of, given the role sport plays as a bastion of reinforcing gender identities. The last footballer to do so committed suicide shortly after, alienated from the football community. Robbie has stated that he needed to step away from the sport to do so, but the fact that he felt he could now do so and seems to be recieving much more positive support for it, to me, reflects that something has changed since the turn of the millenium - and the most obvious answer is the equal marriage movement, which has totally shifted public opinion in Australia and overseas.
This is why independent movements of both lgbti people & women is so crucial to ensure we begin to challenge oppression now; the effect that victories, or even just higher levels of struggle, has on popular consciousness is significant, even if it feels as activists we're shouting into the wind.
Most people in the room seem to have different ways of putting it when it comes to feminism, current tasks or demands to emphasise, and I have an opinion on those things, but I think there is common enough opinions amongst socialist that could forms a basis for united work - against the oppression of women today, seeking to win demands like equal pay, reproductive rights or others, in the same way that we have worked together in the equal marriage movement.
From Festivals of the Oppressed - Women in Revolutions from Russia to Egypt.
I think it's a very pertinent topic to consider and thank Julia for the talk. I think we can all agree that so long as we live in a society based on class oppression then we cannot talk about full liberation for anyone.
To build on what Julia raised about how struggle inspires women to find a greater courage and dedication even than many leading male revolutionaries - Michael Lebowitz said in Socialism for the 21st century:
This us a big challenge for the revolutionary movements in the Arab world. Julia mentioned that women have played a key role in protests in Tahrir, leading the chants in the square - this was certainly my experience, even in November still the case!
But women and men have also had to challenge sexual assault in Tahrir; there have been many documented cases of assault against women since January 25, by both by forces of the state and others in the street, and that's an ongoing struggle which has come to the fore again today. But the overall success of revolutionary struggle has meant that independent feminist struggle has grown massively since the downfall of Ben Ali and Mubarak.
A key example is the struggle over the constitution in Tunisia - feminist activists led struggle against a constitutional reform being proposed by Nahda which would define women as "complimentary" to men.. That particular struggle has been a key component, along with union struggle in both cities and interior regions, of rebuilding class struggle to the point where it is now - arguably at a higher level than when Ben Ali was overgrown. The lesson is that independent womens struggle is key, not only for the class struggle as a whole but also building a movement to challenge oppression today and lead to a society where we can be rid of it.
From Gender Construction and Capitalism
A comrade raised concerns about the attitudes towards trans* people and one particular contribution which got quite crudely biological about it. I agree, and I think that this was an issue I felt wasn't addressed enough; several comrades also repeatedly used the phrase of "same sex marriage". This is the kind of demand the Tories, Clover Moore & Alex Greenwhich can support; what we should remember we are fighting for is equal marriage, inclusive of all gender identities.
Recently we've seen footballer Robbie Rogers publicly come out shortly after retiring from Leeds - something that the progressive sporting world certainly should take note of, given the role sport plays as a bastion of reinforcing gender identities. The last footballer to do so committed suicide shortly after, alienated from the football community. Robbie has stated that he needed to step away from the sport to do so, but the fact that he felt he could now do so and seems to be recieving much more positive support for it, to me, reflects that something has changed since the turn of the millenium - and the most obvious answer is the equal marriage movement, which has totally shifted public opinion in Australia and overseas.
This is why independent movements of both lgbti people & women is so crucial to ensure we begin to challenge oppression now; the effect that victories, or even just higher levels of struggle, has on popular consciousness is significant, even if it feels as activists we're shouting into the wind.
Most people in the room seem to have different ways of putting it when it comes to feminism, current tasks or demands to emphasise, and I have an opinion on those things, but I think there is common enough opinions amongst socialist that could forms a basis for united work - against the oppression of women today, seeking to win demands like equal pay, reproductive rights or others, in the same way that we have worked together in the equal marriage movement.
From Festivals of the Oppressed - Women in Revolutions from Russia to Egypt.
I think it's a very pertinent topic to consider and thank Julia for the talk. I think we can all agree that so long as we live in a society based on class oppression then we cannot talk about full liberation for anyone.
To build on what Julia raised about how struggle inspires women to find a greater courage and dedication even than many leading male revolutionaries - Michael Lebowitz said in Socialism for the 21st century:
Rather, we change only through real practice, by changing circumstances ourselves. Marx’s concept of “revolutionary practice”, that concept of “the coincidence of the changing of circumstances and of human activity or self-change’, is the red thread that runs throughout his work.This is very true for the process of struggle, particularly at revolutionary peaks, undermining sexist ideas, and other ideologies underpinning oppression. Julia identified women's oppression is a barrier to women getting involved in the class struggle already. I think this means if we want all people to be involved in our movement we should struggle against women's oppression and to challenge sexist ideas and behaviours today - the muck of the ages.
This us a big challenge for the revolutionary movements in the Arab world. Julia mentioned that women have played a key role in protests in Tahrir, leading the chants in the square - this was certainly my experience, even in November still the case!
 |
| Tahrir Square, 27/11/11 |
But women and men have also had to challenge sexual assault in Tahrir; there have been many documented cases of assault against women since January 25, by both by forces of the state and others in the street, and that's an ongoing struggle which has come to the fore again today. But the overall success of revolutionary struggle has meant that independent feminist struggle has grown massively since the downfall of Ben Ali and Mubarak.
A key example is the struggle over the constitution in Tunisia - feminist activists led struggle against a constitutional reform being proposed by Nahda which would define women as "complimentary" to men.. That particular struggle has been a key component, along with union struggle in both cities and interior regions, of rebuilding class struggle to the point where it is now - arguably at a higher level than when Ben Ali was overgrown. The lesson is that independent womens struggle is key, not only for the class struggle as a whole but also building a movement to challenge oppression today and lead to a society where we can be rid of it.
Friday, 29 March 2013
At Marxism 2013
Watch "Peter Boyle: Long live left unity" on YouTube
So i'm here at Marxism 2013. Sofar the conference is pumping; it's perhaps the largest left conference I've been to (although I did miss the last World at a Crossroads conference, which took place while I was in the middle east. #excitement is the word.
This session i'm in now, the Australian political situation today, has been sofar the best for me. It's packed out the room. Why? It's one of the only sessions raising the question of, not only why we need to fight, but how it is to be done in the concrete here and now.
What are our differences on this question, how do we organise to beat this system? We're not yet having out this question formally, so this session is being framed in the most immediate ways - so the process of hashing out such differences needs to expand from here. But from my experience here and the positive exchanges, it sofar seems there is the good will to do so.
Saturday, 23 June 2012
Their Leadership and Ours
Along with the previous post, The Tyranny of Coffee, this piece is part of a larger article I submitted to Resistance Pre-Conference Discussion discussing how socialists, particularly youth, should organise in Australia today.
UPDATE: 4000 page views, w00t!
UPDATE: 4000 page views, w00t!
The
kind of leaders and the vision of leadership prevalent in society
today today are fundamentally deformed by the nature of class
society. Under modern global capitalism, leadership – whether in
civil society, parliament or industry – is structured
hierachically. Leaders, whether formally elected or, like Rinehart,Palmer and Forrest, not at all, are expected to command those below
them, and implement their own individual vision of how to carry out
decisions that are made, either by them or collectively.
The
socialist vision of leaders is something radically different.
Socialists understand that, as human beings, we are best equipped to
solve our problems collectively, through collaboration and teamwork.
Our vision of leadership is collective too; decisions that are made
by a group should be carried out by a group, with the different ideas
of how to carry things out that all members hold tested out in
practice. Our organisers are not "leaders" to instruct
members on how to carry out their assignments or tasks they have
taken on, or take on responsibility for doing everything themselves,
but members of the team, there to ensure decisions made collectively
through branches or executives are actually getting carried out in
practice, and to help comrades out when they need it.
Failures
should not lead to individual shame or demotion, but are also the
responsibility of the whole team involved. Going it alone as
activists or taking on too much work as individuals rather than as a
team, no matter how much easier or more efficient it might seem in
the short term, is a quick route to developing bad ideas unchecked,
becoming more and more alienated from those we are seeking to lead,
and in the long run, burning out and losing faith in people or
activism altogether.
Youth
are particularly vulnerable to being under-developed as leaders in
class society – we are underrepresented in leadership positions
both in politics and the economy, under-developed or mis-developed as
leaders by civil society programs and official forms of student
politics, and super-exploited and in the workplace. Yet since we
haven't yet risen to better jobs with better perks, and we haven't
yet been as ground down by the capitalist system as the rest of the
working class, we are also most open to ideas about changing the
society that we live in in a revolutionary way.
Unless
we actively take steps to safeguard against it, the dominant
consciousness of leadership developed under class society also plays
out within activist spaces. This is true for a variety of oppressed
groups in society, but particularly so for youth and new members –
given the seriousness with which socialists committed to building an
organisation take our task of fighting to overthrow the system, it is
only natural for older and more experienced comrades to step in when
new ones are making mistakes or unsure of what is to be done – and
this isn't always a bad thing. But if it happens repeatedly, then it
means that we aren't allowing space for young activists to develop as
real leaders, with confidence in their own abilities, but who
understand they aren't operating alone.
Sunday, 29 April 2012
On Lenin, Left Unity & Organisation
The following post is my thoughts alone and doesn't necessarily represent the position of the party or any other organisations I'm part of. Check out this piece I wrote on revolutionary organisations in Australia today for a disclaimer listing the organisations I am part of, as well as a bit of an explanation as to why I'm at where I'm at.
I'd also like to make a distinction in terminology I'm using, between sectism (the practice of socialists operating in tiny organisations based on narrow differentiation) and sectarianism (hostility, aggresive behaviour or unhealthy competitiveness between such tiny organisations). Also, IMHO = in my humble opinion, with which I preface this whole piece.
It has also been pointed out to me that there's a contradiction between stating what is to be done today is more important than history, then faffing on about the history of the Socialist Alliance. I might not have done the best job of attempting to write that history without taking sides on ten year old faction fights, but I still think it's pertinent to talk about it and perhaps think about the lessons learned given Pham's proposal for such a formation to be launched in the US.
This piece is written as a response to some of the ideas about socialist regroupment in America today raised in a debate hosted on LINKS. Ostensibly, this debate started with Pham Binh's proposals for steps towards joint socialist organisation, such as joint organising committees, if not a broad-based socialist party, in Occupy and Tasks of Socialists.
But the thing that actually triggered debate is his review of Tony Cliff on Lenin: Building the Party published shortly after. Binh puts it that this is "emblematic" of "exactly what’s wrong with us, the US socialist left" and, although I am inclined to agree, the timing of the publication of Cliff on Lenin, despite his explanations, seems calculated to trigger such a response.
The US International Socialist Organisation (ISO)'s Paul D'Amato responded in the Mangling of Tony Cliff, which promted some discussion of how these issues relate to left politics in Australia, which I'll respond to further down. However, I'd like to note that this response continued the tone of the debate – any discussion of how socialists should be organising today is predicated on having The Correct Interpretation of Lenin.
Paul Le Blanc, also of the US ISO, responded in Revolutionary Organisation and the 'Occupy moment'. Of particular interest to me here is some of the constructive engagement with Binh's points around left regroupment, specifically the vision of effective "united front" work being put forward:
Le Blanc's most recent response, while advancing the discussion on interpretation of Lenin in much the same manner as the rest of the debate, actually put forward something very healthy in this statement: "Is the pre 1912 RSDLP model of hardened factions what we need"? – which was followed up in the comments to argue that the kind of united front approach Le Blanc outlines above will be more useful to build future prospects for left unity and a real mass revolutionary party than a multi-tendency united party would not (an argument that I don't think I agree with, but which I commend for actually advancing the discussion). However, I found the response of one commented extremely interesting:
Prior to this discussion, the only significant amount of Lenin that I'd read was State and Revolution, perhaps with some bits of What Is To Be Done?, so it's definitely been a helpful learning experience for me to observe the debate and learn a bit more of the ins and outs of the early Russian communist movement. But, while debates over what exactly happened historically or readings/interpretations of different texts are useful, to me more interesting is the component of discussion around "what is to be done" in 2012.
As Binh put it (while, I'd argue, falling into the same trap himself), debate around who is "right" is emblematic of what is wrong with many parts of the modern organised left – The aim of studying the past is to have an unassailably correct interpretation of the "truth" of how to organise as given by Lenin/Trotsky/whoever, then shout at everyone else until they agree and join your organisation. I'm going to write a future post of the dynamics of being right, as opposed to winning arguments, but in the interim I'll just say that I don't think this is of any use to anyone other than socialism's enemies. But the other aspect of this debate - coming up with concrete proposals around how socialists relate to Occupy, the prospects for united front work or other forms of left unity, etc have been far more healthy.
Personally, I think I'd argue for the launch of a broad left party, formation or network in the US of the line that Binh has proposed. The context in the US, with the Occupy movement putting class struggle back on the table, seems ready – and, indeed, to call out for the organised left to step up to the plate. But it's not guaranteed that such a formation is going to work, and it's definitely not going to be much "like" the RSDLP – asides from the vast material conditions on the ground, the contexts of 100+ years of splitting amongst "leninist" and "trotskyist" parties and organisations means that the main divides between left forces no longer line up with the fundamental questions like bourgeois democracy as they once did.
But Binh's (and others') criticism that those parties and organisations haven't succeded or taken as good advantage of the opportunities that the "Occupy moment" presents as they could have is well-founded. Nor is the outright criticism of such a formation, or D'Amato's comment that "There are no genuine revolutionary parties; indeed, there are no examples yet of successful new “broad-based” left parties”, well-founded. The experience of Die Linke shows that the global context today doesn't invalidate a broad left electoral approach and shows that the chaotic infighting within such a formation envisaged in the ISO's responses isn't guaranteed.
I'd like to talk a little bit about the experience of the Socialist Alliance in Australia, which initially formed as a similar proposal to what Binh is proposing. I'll start this section with another disclaimer - that I didn't join the Alliance until 2008, so much of this history I didn't witness firsthand.
As comments on "Mangling of Tony Cliff" showed, the Alliance was initially successful in drawing together most of Australia's socialist groups into a joint electoral front, with the following organisations endorsing it: "the Democratic Socialist Party, the International Socialist Organisation, the Freedom Socialist Party, Workers Power, Workers Liberty, the Workers League, the Worker Communist Party of Iraq, Socialist Democracy and Socialist Alternative." - pretty much all of the Australian socialist left forces I can think of today, bar one.
However, the failure of the initial excitement of such unity to translate into immediate electoral success was a setback, and fed into the reservations about the future direction of the Alliance from some members or organisations. Socialist Alternative were the first to withdraw their support for the formation; although the above debate put several reasons on the table for this (I'll get to these below), the context of an expected Labor electoral victory in 2001 and a new sustained anti-capitalist mass movement to relate to both never materialised. S11 in Melbourne gave way to 9/11 and the defeat of the anti-Iraq war movement. This question is perhaps worth thinking about regarding Binh's proposals and the current American context – will the "Occupy moment" be sustained? This question needs to be asked and thought about, even if no definitive answer is possible, for the socialist left to begin considering how it should relate to it or reorganise around it.
In the letter from the Australian ISO national executive stating their decision to withdraw from the Alliance, they cite these factors as the reason (as well as "sectarianism" towards disillusioned segments of Labor). There's another point which gets brought up in the ISO executive's letter, as well as in the early days of the Alliance and by fellow Sydneysider James Supple in commenting on my earlier piece on this topic – the actions of the late Democratic Socialist Party in eventually dissolving into the Alliance. The fact that socialists previously not part of organisations who joined the Alliance were themselves calling for this to happen, a majority of the Alliance's members, not just the DSP, is apparently not worth remembering.
But despite these concerns about the timing and significance, the Alliance was (and is) still a worthwhile exercise, IMHO; it succeeded in drawing a significant number of previously non-aligned socialists into organised political activism. The DSP's eventual dissolution into the Alliance (at the only DSP congress which I attended) was a small step towards putting aside "leninist" sectism to work in a slightly broader & more open formation – and although there is ongoing debate about how to organise, ro teach marxism in a formation without such a tight line, etc, the balance sheet 10 years later is, I feel, in the positive. The experience of the Alliance has been a step forward, even though it didn't succeed as a multi-tendency party as Binh proposed - the ISO's disaffiliation was the final nail in the coffin of this vision of dissolving old party boundaries. But instead, something else has come out of it, which I think is the healthiest of the far left "sects" today. (Dave Riley has elaborated good points as to why; this can also be seen in the electoral socialist unity campaings of 2011/12 Socialist Alliance has been involved in, such as the broad ticket for the 2011 state elections, the Community Voice campaign in the council elections, and the Community Party of Australia (CPA's) strong campaign in the SA state elections.)
The response of a Socialist Alternative member in the comments on D'Amato's article were less enthusiastic and more dismissive of the Alliance. I'll respond to some of these points which I feel are significant to the debate about how we move forward in Australia today.
- This dismissive comment reflects what I think Binh was trying to get across – sectism results in the ossification of socialist politics around points of differentiation, rather than building dynamic unity over what is to be done here today. We (Socialist Alliance and Socialist Alternative) share a critique of Stalinism as running counter to the principles of socialism, although members disagree on exactly how Stalinism developed and assumed power. Yet that label still gets thrown around as the reason we couldn't possibly work together here in Australia today in challenging the rule of capital. For the record I'm going to make a post regarding taking a position Vietnam, of which the Socialist Alliance has none AFAIK.
Despite the lip service paid to the idea that "We are well aware that recruiting a couple of people here and there isn't a timeless strategy that we will pursue until the revolution", Lewis isn't willing to concede that there could be any other strategy than sectism in this moment; any attempt to open up a space to consider new ways or initiatives to organise is a "shortcut".
This is exactly the mindset which breeds under conditions of sectism. You can recruit from those not yet involved in marxist politics and give them the correct line on every issue; those who disagree with you on those points are enemies to be defeated and eliminated. The idea that you could convince other committed revolutionaries to change their positions on anything is anathema. The idea that you yourself could have the wrong ideas about anything is anathema. The point isn't making the correct tactical judgements or convincing broader layers of people but Being Right (as I've said, I'm going to post further on this). This mindset helps to ensure we will make the kind of mistakes Binh pointed out that the US socialist left made in relating to #Occupy, or perhaps how we in Australia related to different opportunities such as the climate movement in its peak (where the involvement of a group like Socialist Alternative or other socialists who abstained from it might have meant the movement didn't fall in behind Labor's emission trading scheme that Abbott is calling a tax).
I'm not going to say that Socialist Alternative hasn't gotten some things right and build up a solid amount of cadre – they have. Perhaps Lewis is even right are even right that sectism is the only choice, and broader formations are just a "shortcut". But thinking back on Road Maps, Dead Ends, and the Search for Fresh Ground: How Can We Build the Socialist Movement in the 21st Century?, Dan Dimaggio's article on finding new forms of left organisation which I found an intensely uplifting breath of fresh thinking about socialist organisation (and written before the #Occupy moment!):
This is something I feel is an intensely important component of the activism and thinking (praxis, dare I say it) of all of us in the sects of today. But What, concretely, am I proposing Is To Be Done?
Right now Australian socialists of the leading organisations (SA, SAlt, Solidarity, SP) do work together in the vision of Le Blanc's "united front" or DiMaggio's "local groups" – on a whole bunch of issues and campaigns like equal marriage rights, refugee rights, Palestine solidarity, in various unions – I'm finishing this piece in the 2012 Climate Action Summit (CAS), where two socialist organisations and a whole variety of anti-capitalist activists beyond them are represented. But like Des Derwin, I think we need to explore a space beyond this level of unity (which at times is anything but united, as socialists who have been involved in the above listed campaign groups can attest!) while less than a single multi-tendency party of socialists. The decisions like where resources are priorities in which campaigns, activist calendars broader than those drawn up within campaigns, decisions regarding clashing events are all being made within each sect right now, and the only form of dialogue between them is through more or less hostile discussions when we see each other in movement groups (the clash between Marxism 2012 and the Eastern Convergence in Darwin being a prime example of this). We need to take some further steps now to break out of "sectism" and find some organisational forms or actions that we can take towards making us, our involvement in broader campaigns and united fronts, and convincing broader layers of the vision of a socialist Australia, more effective.
On this step, seeing a published form of the principles document, Towards a Socialist Australia, with beautiful design and layout, getting around as a pamphlet at the CAS and other activist events in recent days (and selling like hotcakes!) is heartening. Getting this document and launching into the "upcoming consultative discussions" will hopefully prove a step forward in developing this kind of common vision for what a socialist Australia could look like more broadly. I've got some feedback of my own (editorial, but also some ideas for how we could more strongly sketch out the positive vision of democratic socialism) which I might post at a later date. But rather than do so in this already lengthy post, I'd like to raise that through the forums listed above. Let's get the conversation started!
Socialist Alternative's Marxism 2013 could also be another prospect for developing such a joint vision? Sue Bolton's review of the 2012 conference outlines the potential for expanded left discussion and including climate relate issues. Many of the internationl speakers have come from a variety of tendencies with diverse views on Marxism; even at least one workshop strand or session with Australian speakers as a multi-tendency/open discussion on different ways Marxists organise would be a step forward for the left more broadly.
Dimaggio advances some concrete ideas which I'm not so confident of, esp in the Australian context - joint publications, for example. Wollongong's Broad Left exists in this kind of way, as an open network publishing circle reincarnated from a former paper publication (but such projects are often prone to material/resource/time issues). Perhaps it's worth pointing out that LINKS has sofar hosted this debate, and it is set up as a project in this vein of socialist renewal; there is an inevitable need of any publication or resource to be actively supported and organised if it is going to actually interact with and play a role in real world politics, or even maintain itself.
Dimaggio also proposed a roster of talented speakers on joint tours organised by socialist groups – this kinda does happen between groups in the current form (Malalai Joya's recent tour of Australia was organised in this way, with Socialist Alternative booking her for Marxism 2012 and other engagements being arranged due to her presence) – but such things exist within the boundaries of the sects, sometimes with competing organisations "poaching" each other's speakers for tours, otherwise "boycotts" of relating to speakers if they are speaking for a group you are hostile to, otherwise exlusive tours just in the places it benefits whichever group that "gets" the speaker – democratic broad left forums or organisations of one sort or another could actually plan and discuss such proposals democratically, weighing up benefits of which left speakers are being toured, etc, as with the benefits of intervention into movements, etc.
The successful examples of Broad Left (the lack of posts for 6 months notwithstanding) & Community Voice in Wollongong and Left Unity in Adelaide (see here and here for some more info on the Adelaide experience, with which I'm not as familiar) show us what is possible when the left actually does attempt to move beyond sectism. I think that it requires national replication, or attempts towards it that may take remarkably different forms, in as many cities as possible. Multi-tendency forums, networks or councils, short of a party or even an organisation which exists in its own right, but networks or space to have discussions re the questions I outlined above about movement work, strategic aims, electoral candidates, etc in a democratic forum rather than simply in our own sects is, I think, entirely achievable even in today's context. There are formations which do serve this role already (such as Sydney's Politics in the Pub) but I think we need to ensure these are not just discussion or social circles, but formations actually focussed on some form of activism (or even just left activist networking, not just talkfesting). And ultimately, such projects could open the way towards some sort of national network of left forces.
The question of unity on the basis of ideas is an important first step, and one which underpins almost all of the current forms of organisation we have – however, the American debate amongst is playing between people who would seem to largely agree on how socialists should relate to democrats, occupy, unions, etc but not to agree on what structures they should agree on those things in! Obviously, agreement around ideas is important, but the more important thing is unity in action. The kind of "united front" work that Le Blanc suggested we concentrate on (ie business as usual) to me is an attempt to avoid the minefield that building unity based on ideas between the competing socialist groups right now could be; but ultimately, it falls short of setting up a constructive framework for building unity through joint action. Ultimately, this means that not only will business will continue as usual, but when the shining moment comes when there is a crisis that shifts mass consciousness so much that there is a big enough layer of people convinced of revolutionary ideas around that we actually could start to build the revolutionary party that will lead the fight to overthrow capitalism, as the IST comrades have suggested will be the case, the party won't be ready for them, and the socialists who've lived through this period of history will be found wanting.
I'd also like to make a distinction in terminology I'm using, between sectism (the practice of socialists operating in tiny organisations based on narrow differentiation) and sectarianism (hostility, aggresive behaviour or unhealthy competitiveness between such tiny organisations). Also, IMHO = in my humble opinion, with which I preface this whole piece.
It has also been pointed out to me that there's a contradiction between stating what is to be done today is more important than history, then faffing on about the history of the Socialist Alliance. I might not have done the best job of attempting to write that history without taking sides on ten year old faction fights, but I still think it's pertinent to talk about it and perhaps think about the lessons learned given Pham's proposal for such a formation to be launched in the US.
This piece is written as a response to some of the ideas about socialist regroupment in America today raised in a debate hosted on LINKS. Ostensibly, this debate started with Pham Binh's proposals for steps towards joint socialist organisation, such as joint organising committees, if not a broad-based socialist party, in Occupy and Tasks of Socialists.
But the thing that actually triggered debate is his review of Tony Cliff on Lenin: Building the Party published shortly after. Binh puts it that this is "emblematic" of "exactly what’s wrong with us, the US socialist left" and, although I am inclined to agree, the timing of the publication of Cliff on Lenin, despite his explanations, seems calculated to trigger such a response.
The US International Socialist Organisation (ISO)'s Paul D'Amato responded in the Mangling of Tony Cliff, which promted some discussion of how these issues relate to left politics in Australia, which I'll respond to further down. However, I'd like to note that this response continued the tone of the debate – any discussion of how socialists should be organising today is predicated on having The Correct Interpretation of Lenin.
Paul Le Blanc, also of the US ISO, responded in Revolutionary Organisation and the 'Occupy moment'. Of particular interest to me here is some of the constructive engagement with Binh's points around left regroupment, specifically the vision of effective "united front" work being put forward:
"The key to left unity is to engage in the real struggles of today. For example, a number of us in Pittsburgh (from different groups and from no specific groups) are engaging in a united front effort to defend public transit, and some of us are engaged in related efforts to help the Occupy movement to be part of this and similar struggles. That is reflected here:
http://www.pittsburghersforpublictransit.org/
http://www.facebook.com/groups/184136405014024/240591199368544/
http://pittsburgh.cbslocal.com/video/6795512-riders-protest-planned-port...
http://www.livestream.com/occupypittsburgh/video?clipId=pla_481e856b-3f9...
Out of such experiences as these, a genuine left unity can be forged, which can advance mass struggles and mass socialist consciousness that are among the essential preconditions for the crystallization of a substantial revolutionary socialist party."
Le Blanc's most recent response, while advancing the discussion on interpretation of Lenin in much the same manner as the rest of the debate, actually put forward something very healthy in this statement: "Is the pre 1912 RSDLP model of hardened factions what we need"? – which was followed up in the comments to argue that the kind of united front approach Le Blanc outlines above will be more useful to build future prospects for left unity and a real mass revolutionary party than a multi-tendency united party would not (an argument that I don't think I agree with, but which I commend for actually advancing the discussion). However, I found the response of one commented extremely interesting:
Thu, 04/19/2012 - 04:03 — Des Derwin (not verified) Refining further "I'm not sure Pham is trying to cram us into a "revolutionary party" rather than explore the ground between the movements, and united fronts within the movements, and the holy grail of the revolutionary party. "
Prior to this discussion, the only significant amount of Lenin that I'd read was State and Revolution, perhaps with some bits of What Is To Be Done?, so it's definitely been a helpful learning experience for me to observe the debate and learn a bit more of the ins and outs of the early Russian communist movement. But, while debates over what exactly happened historically or readings/interpretations of different texts are useful, to me more interesting is the component of discussion around "what is to be done" in 2012.
As Binh put it (while, I'd argue, falling into the same trap himself), debate around who is "right" is emblematic of what is wrong with many parts of the modern organised left – The aim of studying the past is to have an unassailably correct interpretation of the "truth" of how to organise as given by Lenin/Trotsky/whoever, then shout at everyone else until they agree and join your organisation. I'm going to write a future post of the dynamics of being right, as opposed to winning arguments, but in the interim I'll just say that I don't think this is of any use to anyone other than socialism's enemies. But the other aspect of this debate - coming up with concrete proposals around how socialists relate to Occupy, the prospects for united front work or other forms of left unity, etc have been far more healthy.
Personally, I think I'd argue for the launch of a broad left party, formation or network in the US of the line that Binh has proposed. The context in the US, with the Occupy movement putting class struggle back on the table, seems ready – and, indeed, to call out for the organised left to step up to the plate. But it's not guaranteed that such a formation is going to work, and it's definitely not going to be much "like" the RSDLP – asides from the vast material conditions on the ground, the contexts of 100+ years of splitting amongst "leninist" and "trotskyist" parties and organisations means that the main divides between left forces no longer line up with the fundamental questions like bourgeois democracy as they once did.
But Binh's (and others') criticism that those parties and organisations haven't succeded or taken as good advantage of the opportunities that the "Occupy moment" presents as they could have is well-founded. Nor is the outright criticism of such a formation, or D'Amato's comment that "There are no genuine revolutionary parties; indeed, there are no examples yet of successful new “broad-based” left parties”, well-founded. The experience of Die Linke shows that the global context today doesn't invalidate a broad left electoral approach and shows that the chaotic infighting within such a formation envisaged in the ISO's responses isn't guaranteed.
I'd like to talk a little bit about the experience of the Socialist Alliance in Australia, which initially formed as a similar proposal to what Binh is proposing. I'll start this section with another disclaimer - that I didn't join the Alliance until 2008, so much of this history I didn't witness firsthand.
As comments on "Mangling of Tony Cliff" showed, the Alliance was initially successful in drawing together most of Australia's socialist groups into a joint electoral front, with the following organisations endorsing it: "the Democratic Socialist Party, the International Socialist Organisation, the Freedom Socialist Party, Workers Power, Workers Liberty, the Workers League, the Worker Communist Party of Iraq, Socialist Democracy and Socialist Alternative." - pretty much all of the Australian socialist left forces I can think of today, bar one.
However, the failure of the initial excitement of such unity to translate into immediate electoral success was a setback, and fed into the reservations about the future direction of the Alliance from some members or organisations. Socialist Alternative were the first to withdraw their support for the formation; although the above debate put several reasons on the table for this (I'll get to these below), the context of an expected Labor electoral victory in 2001 and a new sustained anti-capitalist mass movement to relate to both never materialised. S11 in Melbourne gave way to 9/11 and the defeat of the anti-Iraq war movement. This question is perhaps worth thinking about regarding Binh's proposals and the current American context – will the "Occupy moment" be sustained? This question needs to be asked and thought about, even if no definitive answer is possible, for the socialist left to begin considering how it should relate to it or reorganise around it.
In the letter from the Australian ISO national executive stating their decision to withdraw from the Alliance, they cite these factors as the reason (as well as "sectarianism" towards disillusioned segments of Labor). There's another point which gets brought up in the ISO executive's letter, as well as in the early days of the Alliance and by fellow Sydneysider James Supple in commenting on my earlier piece on this topic – the actions of the late Democratic Socialist Party in eventually dissolving into the Alliance. The fact that socialists previously not part of organisations who joined the Alliance were themselves calling for this to happen, a majority of the Alliance's members, not just the DSP, is apparently not worth remembering.
But despite these concerns about the timing and significance, the Alliance was (and is) still a worthwhile exercise, IMHO; it succeeded in drawing a significant number of previously non-aligned socialists into organised political activism. The DSP's eventual dissolution into the Alliance (at the only DSP congress which I attended) was a small step towards putting aside "leninist" sectism to work in a slightly broader & more open formation – and although there is ongoing debate about how to organise, ro teach marxism in a formation without such a tight line, etc, the balance sheet 10 years later is, I feel, in the positive. The experience of the Alliance has been a step forward, even though it didn't succeed as a multi-tendency party as Binh proposed - the ISO's disaffiliation was the final nail in the coffin of this vision of dissolving old party boundaries. But instead, something else has come out of it, which I think is the healthiest of the far left "sects" today. (Dave Riley has elaborated good points as to why; this can also be seen in the electoral socialist unity campaings of 2011/12 Socialist Alliance has been involved in, such as the broad ticket for the 2011 state elections, the Community Voice campaign in the council elections, and the Community Party of Australia (CPA's) strong campaign in the SA state elections.)
The response of a Socialist Alternative member in the comments on D'Amato's article were less enthusiastic and more dismissive of the Alliance. I'll respond to some of these points which I feel are significant to the debate about how we move forward in Australia today.
Wed, 02/29/2012 - 20:08 — Lewis T
"The simple fact is that the 'broad party' model has failed everywhere it has been tried....
It was formed on the initiative of the DSP, then the biggest group on the far-left, a Stalinist group which supports the Vietnamese and Cuban governments."
- This dismissive comment reflects what I think Binh was trying to get across – sectism results in the ossification of socialist politics around points of differentiation, rather than building dynamic unity over what is to be done here today. We (Socialist Alliance and Socialist Alternative) share a critique of Stalinism as running counter to the principles of socialism, although members disagree on exactly how Stalinism developed and assumed power. Yet that label still gets thrown around as the reason we couldn't possibly work together here in Australia today in challenging the rule of capital. For the record I'm going to make a post regarding taking a position Vietnam, of which the Socialist Alliance has none AFAIK.
"The reality almost everywhere is that revolutionary Marxists are in a small minority. This makes it easy for us to get frustrated and look for shortcuts like the broad party model. But the model has been a failure everywhere, so to insist on it as the new way forward is sheer dogmatism. It requires patience, hard work and dedication in the slow periods, combined with an ability to throw oneself into action and relate to mass movements and radicalisations when they do happen, to rebuild revolutionary Marxism."
Despite the lip service paid to the idea that "We are well aware that recruiting a couple of people here and there isn't a timeless strategy that we will pursue until the revolution", Lewis isn't willing to concede that there could be any other strategy than sectism in this moment; any attempt to open up a space to consider new ways or initiatives to organise is a "shortcut".
"All of the broad parties are well to the right of the social-democratic movement that Lenin considered himself a part of. Furthermore, after Stalinism has held back the left for over 50 years, why would we want to unite with it? We should be trying to consign them to the dustbin of history where they belong."
This is exactly the mindset which breeds under conditions of sectism. You can recruit from those not yet involved in marxist politics and give them the correct line on every issue; those who disagree with you on those points are enemies to be defeated and eliminated. The idea that you could convince other committed revolutionaries to change their positions on anything is anathema. The idea that you yourself could have the wrong ideas about anything is anathema. The point isn't making the correct tactical judgements or convincing broader layers of people but Being Right (as I've said, I'm going to post further on this). This mindset helps to ensure we will make the kind of mistakes Binh pointed out that the US socialist left made in relating to #Occupy, or perhaps how we in Australia related to different opportunities such as the climate movement in its peak (where the involvement of a group like Socialist Alternative or other socialists who abstained from it might have meant the movement didn't fall in behind Labor's emission trading scheme that Abbott is calling a tax).
I'm not going to say that Socialist Alternative hasn't gotten some things right and build up a solid amount of cadre – they have. Perhaps Lewis is even right are even right that sectism is the only choice, and broader formations are just a "shortcut". But thinking back on Road Maps, Dead Ends, and the Search for Fresh Ground: How Can We Build the Socialist Movement in the 21st Century?, Dan Dimaggio's article on finding new forms of left organisation which I found an intensely uplifting breath of fresh thinking about socialist organisation (and written before the #Occupy moment!):
"Even if it is the case that “micro-sects” are all that can be built now, then let them be less pretentious, less sectarian, more open to working with one another, and more aware of their own inherent weaknesses (not to demoralize them but rather to help better understand the role they might play). Let them critically evaluate all their methods, search out more effective forms, and really ask if they are preparing the way toward something better in the future."
This is something I feel is an intensely important component of the activism and thinking (praxis, dare I say it) of all of us in the sects of today. But What, concretely, am I proposing Is To Be Done?
Right now Australian socialists of the leading organisations (SA, SAlt, Solidarity, SP) do work together in the vision of Le Blanc's "united front" or DiMaggio's "local groups" – on a whole bunch of issues and campaigns like equal marriage rights, refugee rights, Palestine solidarity, in various unions – I'm finishing this piece in the 2012 Climate Action Summit (CAS), where two socialist organisations and a whole variety of anti-capitalist activists beyond them are represented. But like Des Derwin, I think we need to explore a space beyond this level of unity (which at times is anything but united, as socialists who have been involved in the above listed campaign groups can attest!) while less than a single multi-tendency party of socialists. The decisions like where resources are priorities in which campaigns, activist calendars broader than those drawn up within campaigns, decisions regarding clashing events are all being made within each sect right now, and the only form of dialogue between them is through more or less hostile discussions when we see each other in movement groups (the clash between Marxism 2012 and the Eastern Convergence in Darwin being a prime example of this). We need to take some further steps now to break out of "sectism" and find some organisational forms or actions that we can take towards making us, our involvement in broader campaigns and united fronts, and convincing broader layers of the vision of a socialist Australia, more effective.
On this step, seeing a published form of the principles document, Towards a Socialist Australia, with beautiful design and layout, getting around as a pamphlet at the CAS and other activist events in recent days (and selling like hotcakes!) is heartening. Getting this document and launching into the "upcoming consultative discussions" will hopefully prove a step forward in developing this kind of common vision for what a socialist Australia could look like more broadly. I've got some feedback of my own (editorial, but also some ideas for how we could more strongly sketch out the positive vision of democratic socialism) which I might post at a later date. But rather than do so in this already lengthy post, I'd like to raise that through the forums listed above. Let's get the conversation started!
Socialist Alternative's Marxism 2013 could also be another prospect for developing such a joint vision? Sue Bolton's review of the 2012 conference outlines the potential for expanded left discussion and including climate relate issues. Many of the internationl speakers have come from a variety of tendencies with diverse views on Marxism; even at least one workshop strand or session with Australian speakers as a multi-tendency/open discussion on different ways Marxists organise would be a step forward for the left more broadly.
Dimaggio advances some concrete ideas which I'm not so confident of, esp in the Australian context - joint publications, for example. Wollongong's Broad Left exists in this kind of way, as an open network publishing circle reincarnated from a former paper publication (but such projects are often prone to material/resource/time issues). Perhaps it's worth pointing out that LINKS has sofar hosted this debate, and it is set up as a project in this vein of socialist renewal; there is an inevitable need of any publication or resource to be actively supported and organised if it is going to actually interact with and play a role in real world politics, or even maintain itself.
Dimaggio also proposed a roster of talented speakers on joint tours organised by socialist groups – this kinda does happen between groups in the current form (Malalai Joya's recent tour of Australia was organised in this way, with Socialist Alternative booking her for Marxism 2012 and other engagements being arranged due to her presence) – but such things exist within the boundaries of the sects, sometimes with competing organisations "poaching" each other's speakers for tours, otherwise "boycotts" of relating to speakers if they are speaking for a group you are hostile to, otherwise exlusive tours just in the places it benefits whichever group that "gets" the speaker – democratic broad left forums or organisations of one sort or another could actually plan and discuss such proposals democratically, weighing up benefits of which left speakers are being toured, etc, as with the benefits of intervention into movements, etc.
The successful examples of Broad Left (the lack of posts for 6 months notwithstanding) & Community Voice in Wollongong and Left Unity in Adelaide (see here and here for some more info on the Adelaide experience, with which I'm not as familiar) show us what is possible when the left actually does attempt to move beyond sectism. I think that it requires national replication, or attempts towards it that may take remarkably different forms, in as many cities as possible. Multi-tendency forums, networks or councils, short of a party or even an organisation which exists in its own right, but networks or space to have discussions re the questions I outlined above about movement work, strategic aims, electoral candidates, etc in a democratic forum rather than simply in our own sects is, I think, entirely achievable even in today's context. There are formations which do serve this role already (such as Sydney's Politics in the Pub) but I think we need to ensure these are not just discussion or social circles, but formations actually focussed on some form of activism (or even just left activist networking, not just talkfesting). And ultimately, such projects could open the way towards some sort of national network of left forces.
The question of unity on the basis of ideas is an important first step, and one which underpins almost all of the current forms of organisation we have – however, the American debate amongst is playing between people who would seem to largely agree on how socialists should relate to democrats, occupy, unions, etc but not to agree on what structures they should agree on those things in! Obviously, agreement around ideas is important, but the more important thing is unity in action. The kind of "united front" work that Le Blanc suggested we concentrate on (ie business as usual) to me is an attempt to avoid the minefield that building unity based on ideas between the competing socialist groups right now could be; but ultimately, it falls short of setting up a constructive framework for building unity through joint action. Ultimately, this means that not only will business will continue as usual, but when the shining moment comes when there is a crisis that shifts mass consciousness so much that there is a big enough layer of people convinced of revolutionary ideas around that we actually could start to build the revolutionary party that will lead the fight to overthrow capitalism, as the IST comrades have suggested will be the case, the party won't be ready for them, and the socialists who've lived through this period of history will be found wanting.
Friday, 6 January 2012
On Revolutionary Organisations Today
The following piece is my thoughts on the nature of revolutionary organisations in Australia today; they are mine alone. I am a member of the Socialist Alliance and of SA's youth organisation, Resistance; in the 2011 NSW state election I was a candidate on Socialist Alliance's upper house ticket. My criticisms of any groups or parties in Australia or abroad, including those I am part of, are in not in any way meant to belittle the noble efforts of those who are part of them. Normally I would have sent this article to someone whose opinion I respect before posting it, but this is my raw opinion on the subject, and I'd love to see debate and criticism of it in the comments below.
An activist from Socialist Alternative, with whom I was discussing my decision to leave that group after some months of membership in 2006 and my later decision to join Resistance in 2007, asked me something along the lines of "surely the question of how we organise can't be the reason why you left?" He is an activist for whom I have a lot of respect; although we'd read each others emails on e-lists, we first met at Australia's first national BDS conference, and he is a leading activist in Palestinian solidarity in his home city. We were both in Sydney for the ALP's national conference, at which there were two major protests to support equal marriage rights and against mistreatment of asylum seekers (my photos to follow soon). Yet despite the fact that we were marching side by side, presenting almost identical demands on these two issues, the thing that seemed the most important to him was whether we agreed on the theory of state capitalism and, thus, Cuba's revolution.
In late 2011 I travelled to the Middle East, largely to try and gain insight on (& show solidarity to) the revolutionary struggle being waged there in the last year, so I am someone who thinks a real understanding of the nature of imperialism is important. Yet to me, the far more important difference is Socialist Alternative's differentiation between propaganda groups and mass parties, and thus their attitude towards organising in Australia today.
The number one sign of a group that has grown too inward-looking is elevation of doctrine and theoretical correctness ahead of the kind of invaluable experience earned in struggle, which is the only way that an activist can truly put their theory & assessments to the test. Despite making obligatory statements against it, this assessment of "The nature & tasks of a small socialist group in Australia today", recently reposted by John Passant, displays exactly that dogmatic approach. This idea of marxism as a static and rigid formula that one can simply read and then apply to everything goes hand in hand with a perspective that one's own group is the only one with the correct theoretical line, and all others are practicing some perversion of marxism. To me, this attitude is ultimately counter-productive to real marxist thought.
If our primary goal is "arguing our ideas – selling our magazine, running information stalls, holding meetings, talking to individuals, organising study groups, selling books – not agitating for mass action or running for parliament", then having arguments over differences in marxist thought and ensuring that we all get on the same page theoretically is the only useful task during a period of little sustained struggle against capitalism. Thus, I can see why the comrade I was speaking to would place such significance on what I see to be a relatively small point of theoretical difference – important, but not hugely relevant to our understanding of the nature of modern Australian capital or the best strategy for revolutionary Australian socialists to work towards overthrowing it.
The fact that small-scale struggles often break out locally, or that there has been some exciting openings in campaigns relating to mass audiences in recent years, such the movement against coal seam gas mining or the one for equal marriage rights, thus only presents a new audience with whom to have such arguments; those who agree with you or can be won to your position, you recruit, and the rest you attempt to get behind your banner or condemn as "liberal". Bearing such a "sectarian" attitude is a complaint commonly thrown against any socialists attempting to work in such movements, including myself; most of the time it is pure red-baiting by those who either ideologically or personally see socialists within movements as a threat. Yet the organisational approach of SAlt argued in this document to me seems prone to such a counter-productive attitude, or, at the very least, unconcerned with the potential for activists to fall into such an approach.
I don't mean to undermine or belittle the hard work that a great many SAlt comrades do in supporting such campaigns, nor suggest that all of their members behave in this fashion (all socialists can become prone to falling into such traps of thought, after all); but to me the organisational approach of limiting a revolutionary organisation's work to propagandising and recruiting new members, and abstaining from seeking to win leadership of what struggles are being fought in the here and now, not only risks condemnation for "sectarianism", but will ultimately stifle the development of leaders and sabotage any potential to impact the political climate and move forward to a future in which we can realistically talk about an Australian revolution.
For example, the following list of tasks:
"We need to be able to confidently answer [the mileu's] concrete questions about the issues of the day and to refute the arguments of the right wing and the reformists. We participate in these movements to argue how they can win – for the need for mass action rather than relying on the ALP - and to explain how the drive to imperialist war and the attacks on workers’ living standards are all the product of a capitalist system in which a wealthy minority lives off the labour of the mass of workers. In other words, we intervene to argue ideas – to make concrete propaganda - to try to win people radicalised by these protests to a socialist standpoint. We also see intervening in these movements as vital training. It is a way to test our analysis and arguments about capitalism today. It is a way to hone the arguments of our existing members so that they can intervene more effectively and cohere a layer of people around us. It is a way to integrate new members recruited from these movements, as they have to go out and try to convince other people of our arguments about the road forward. It is a means to educate ourselves so that we can actually play a central leading role in the future, when we have accumulated more forces."
The list of tasks makes no mention of the real work of leadership, beyond providing ideological and practical direction; learning how to comprimise, build consensus behind your proposals (and find the ways to democratically move forward when consensus cannot be found), and inclusively build a campaign, network or movement. This is a vitally important question for training cadre; is is only through testing out ideas in struggle, whether practical ones about the most effective means to organise or theoretical ones about the correctness or strength of certain arguments, that we can actually see which ones work most effectively. It's not just about about seeing which ideas win arguments, but which ones win campaigns and struggles. Thus, the revolutionaries of Tunisia & Egypt did not come away from their respective episodes of workplace-based struggle in 2008 thinking that workers would not play the leading role in a struggle against the regime; instead, they sought out new ways to reach a mass audience and for the working class to provide leadership to the millions suffering from the capitalist order.
The fair and honest assessment of the weakness of the left in Australia & other similar areas of the western world today that this article gives is used to justify, most significantly, a sectarian approach to leadership of mass struggles. This is summed up in the sentence "Socialists have to learn to lead, i.e. how to convince others of ideas they initially don’t totally agree with." Even on the basic level of education & leadership within the party, such an approach, resting upon a notion of a leader as the one who is correct and should be obeyed, is a product of capitalist ideology and against any real spirit of revolution. To take such an attitude into working with others in campaigns, who may or may not be revolutionary socialists, will inevitably lead to alienation; perhaps a few who agree with you will be joined to the group, as the above quote assumes, but with such an attitude it's hard to see how healthy and productive working relationships within campaigns will be developed, and thus how those campaigns could ever win their demands.
This, ultimately, is the most important things that revolutionary socialists can bring to a struggle; an understanding of the reasons why sexism, homophobia, abuse of workers, etc exist today, and thus the clearest understanding of how we can fight back against the constant assault of capital, and perchance then to win these struggles. And ultimately, putting big wins on the board for little campaigns like these has a flow-on effect for the working class and the rest of the 99% as a whole, which becomes to realise that changing the way things work is possible and, when the next crisis of capitalism comes along, is far more ready to rise up against it. Thus the success of the mass movement against Mubarak has spurred on a whole variety of activists in Egypt, from the Coptic minority to feminist bloggers to workers. If building the party comes at the expense of building mass sentiment like that, then we're no closer to winning anything real at all.
After that, it was somewhat refreshing to read Dan DiMaggio's article Road Maps, Dead Ends, and the Search for Fresh Ground: How Can We Build the Socialist Movement in the 21st Century? on LINKS. For me, it does a far better job of outlining the real limitations and tasks for revolutionary socialist organisations in the West in this period than the artificially limited definition of a "propaganda group". For example:
"Even if it is the case that “micro-sects” are all that can be built now, then let them be less pretentious, less sectarian, more open to working with one another, and more aware of their own inherent weaknesses (not to demoralize them but rather to help better understand the role they might play). Let them critically evaluate all their methods, search out more effective forms, and really ask if they are preparing the way toward something better in the future."
Certainly to trick ourselves into thinking we are on the verge of winning revolutionary change here in Australia if only the organised left could get its act together is going to lead us to inevitable demoralisation. But to likewise condemn ourselves to banging our head against a wall because of the limitations of the objective conditions of society will do the same. Of course, there are many admirable people amongst the organised left who are willing to sacrifice their time, energy and health because they are ideologically and morally convinced to do so; but I don't like to count myself amongst their ranks. Thus, when a party has a line that greater unity & political collaboration is the goal, yet at every conference the same organisational and political tactics are proposed in order to reach that goal even though there have been limited successes (and I'm talking here about my own party, at least on certain aspects such as membership) – it's time for some changes. Experiences like the 2011 NSW state elections, in which the upper house ticket included a broad variety of leftists (some who quit the ALP in protest to join it), though, are important steps forward; but in the absence of a mass revolutionary party or layer, I don't think there is the capacity for them to form without a "micro-sect" party to initiate them.
DiMaggio's list of things to attempt on page 47-48 is an interesting example of creative ideas for organisation, and I think many of them are initiatives that could be pursued, either through direct communication between left organisations or through left unity forums such as Broad Left in Wollongong or Left Unity in Adelaide. But the question of "A common website, newspaper, and/or journal, with the aim of posting important news, reports on struggles, socialist and radical analysis, and serving as a forum for debate and organizing ideas" is one where there are limitations to what can be done in the absence of an organisation. Any paper hoping to pay the bills for production simply on donations or even sales will inevitably struggle; even corporate newpapers are experiening difficulty in this way. However, I think a project like Green Left Weekly, which is supported by a group (the Socialist Alliance distributes papers throughout the country, both through subscriptions as well as selling in the traditional "annoying" sense at rallies and events) but constantly aims towards left regroupment, encouraging contribution from a broad range of activists, can provide this need for a revolutionary media project; this is the kind of direction I'd like to see Green Left move in order to become a real rival to resources like Counterpunch and Znet, the two mentioned by DiMaggio, as well as Australian left media outlets like New Matilda.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)