The ‘I’m-more-Marxist-than-you pissing competition’
Small socialist organisations operating in relative isolation in the working class movements, or sometimes substantially outside these movements because they are composed almost totally of small groups of “socialist intellectuals” are chronically plagued with what might be called “Marxist” identity politics. That is they are more concerned about “proving” to themselves that they are “real Marxists” than actually applying what Marx, Engels and Lenin taught which is to build real socialist leadership in the working class. In fact, the further away such groups are from that objective, the more loudly they assert their “Marxist” identity.What passes as politics in “the left” as we have it in this country can degenerate to little more than a ridiculous I’m-more-Marxist-than-you pissing competition. We’ve all seen this time and again with various little sects. More here from comrades in Australia.
Originally spotted on Louis Proyect’s excellent blog.
I am not actually sure the disputaciousness is outside the tradition of Marx, Engels and Lenin. Marx expelled Bakunin and his followers, and much of Lenin’s energy, 1903-1917, was devoted to the split with the Mensheviks and after-effects. (Interestingly, one of Stalin’s earliest published writings, originally in Georgian, is a claim that the Bolsheviks were acting in the spirit of Karl Kautsky’s teachings while the Mensheviks were contradicting them. Kautsky was then revered as a Marxist theoretician, even by Lenin.) It seems as if the Second International shook its head, prior to WW1 at least, at the vicious squabbling inside the Russian movement.
Comment by Faust — 5 July, 2009 @ 11:24 am
Proyect argues “Reformism is not a function of the ideas in peoples’ heads but rather material forces operating in history, including the privileges enjoyed by parliamentarians and trade union bureaucrats. In other words, the Second International degenerated not because of Bernstein’s ideas but because its leaders had become corrupted by their place in society, which made it natural for them to begin thinking like the class enemy. Material reality determines ideas and not the other way around.”
True enough as far as it goes but the material basis of reformism is not just the privileges of parliamentarians and trade union bureaucrats but more importantly the relatively higher standard of living available, through struggle, to the working class in developed capitalist countries which imposes objective limits on revolutionary advance.
A good example of this relationship in practice is Ernest Bevin’s opposition to Indian independence on the grounds that it would increase the cost of living for british workers.
What is significant in present circumstances is the extent to which these objective possibilities are eroding in conditions of capitalist crisis
Comment by Nick Wright — 5 July, 2009 @ 11:39 am
`True enough as far as it goes but the material basis of reformism is not just the privileges of parliamentarians and trade union bureaucrats but more importantly the relatively higher standard of living available, through struggle, to the working class in developed capitalist countries which imposes objective limits on revolutionary advance.’
Those high standards of living are not available as a result of struggle but thanks to the super profits of imperialism. When imperialist crumbs are not available then the struggle will end not in reforms but in revolution. It is one of the reasons for the utter chauvinism of the labour and trade union bureaucracy and the better off workers and middle classes and why they not only support but initiate wars on behalf of imperialism. Still, all that will change now that the objective basis for reformism is no longer available to the Brutish ruling class and the banks have initiated a Versailles style defeat on the country.
Comment by Elephant — 5 July, 2009 @ 12:09 pm
Is this printed here as a jibe at the CPGB (PCC) Weekly Worker group?
Comment by DW — 5 July, 2009 @ 1:22 pm
I think there may be a kind of idealism involved in Proyect’s charecterisation of these debates. Callinicos in his debate with Zizek yesterday (fascinating in itself but thats another story) titled ‘what does it mean to be a revolutionary today’ stressed the paradox involved in the co-incidence of deep capitalist crisis and dissarray and confusion amongst those who are anti-capitalist.
In doing so he wished to stress the fact that the left had to re-make itself and not simply repeat old slogans. He also, drawing on Gramsci, described the great dangers involved in revolutionaries kidding themselves that they were advancing when they were in fact retreating (a clear reference for many of us to recent problems which have confronted the SWP). In this context though, the notion that the only thing holding us back is sectarian models (or indeed any model) of organisation is simply a different version of some of the mistakes that we in the SWP made.
What is missing from such a discussion is the absence of any sober reflection of the actual objective position and what is to be done about it. The notion, for example, that treating reformism and revolution as false diochotomies would magically transform the prospects for the left doesn’t seem that different to occult beliefs in verities of ‘the program’, or indeed, trying harder, or advancing dazzling slogans with flair.
Indeed, its possible to go further, and suggest that the argument can function as a method of closing off debate, much as the religious incantations drawn from Lenin’s writings during the first world war above.
This is my problem with Proyect’s position on all this. It effectively suggests that the existence of different currents of opinion within the movement is a problem. It might be read as orthodox trotskyism without orthodox trotskyism. Its correct that the debate about precisely how we in the SWP ought to proceed continues. But its not true to suggest that everyone else isn’t also having their own debates on how to proceed.
The kind of argument developed by Louis strikes me as an advertising flyer for a particular model rather then a critical discussion of how best to build it. Nothing wrong with advertising fliers but we also need discussions about the relationship between new forms of organisation and the problems we confront in real world.
The inevitable debates and arguments which occur in any political endeavor need room for expression, not to be shut down. The great problem in Respect was not that there were deep disagreements between different groupings and individuals (sadly too few rather then too many) but that they were not openly expressed and debated in a democratic manner. Thats the lesson that seems to have been drawn by the majority of SWP members anyway.
Comment by johng — 5 July, 2009 @ 2:53 pm
johng: In this context though, the notion that the only thing holding us back is sectarian models (or indeed any model) of organisation is simply a different version of some of the mistakes that we in the SWP made.
—
Well, of course. We are also held back by the objection situation as well as programmatic errors of one sort or another. For example, Lenin’s party was hampered by “stagist” conceptions of the coming revolution in Russia. But all that being said, the big problem for the SWP is that it is putting artificial obstacles in its own path by clinging to “Leninist” party-building norms that were not even carried out by the Bolshevik party. I actually would like to see the British SWP dump these norms and enjoy the rapid growth and influence it would almost certainly provide. But unfortunately the comrades are wedded to a competitive model that I learned about firsthand from my own involvement in the American SWP. It views the left as a kind of marketplace where different tendencies compete with each other for hegemony. The party with the most influence at the time of deepest revolutionary crisis will win the grand prize, like a contestant on “Britain’s Got Talent”.
Comment by Louis Proyect — 5 July, 2009 @ 3:13 pm
Well this is big news indeed.
This represents a serious rethink on the part of the DSP. Theoretically, much of it is a step in the right direction, of reestablishing a model of the ‘party’ as a forging together of the ‘leading elements’.
Although a few issues arise in the context of this document.
Firstly, the ‘history’ of the alliance project. The criticism of ‘the rest of the left’ for being sectarian towards the alliance project is mostly, but not completely correct. As one of the members of the ISO who was leading our work in the alliance, I can tell you that our own organization was deeply divided over the initiative, regarding to what extent we should engage with the unity process. As the DSP admit in their document, their own organization had similar divisions, (although with a different weight to each side and a very different ‘centre’ position). The destruction of the initial unity around the alliance is partly the fault of all the organizations involved. We were too hesitant, but the DSP were too aggressive. The fact that the problem went beyond the ’sectarian deviations’ of the other groups is betrayed by the fact that the DSP managed to open a rift between themselves and many of the sincere non-aligned leaders. These were individuals who agreed with 90% of the DSP’s politics, and agreed with the MTSP and Green Left Weekly proposals. It was my sincere hope that the DSP faction fight would produce some repudiation of these errors, as my reading of the situation was that this destructive behavior was driven by a sort of ‘hard cannonite’ tendency centric view which was more strongly associated with the comrades who are now in the RSP, and hopefully the DSP has now left behind. Although the RSP attack on the DSP over the allaince has probably produced a little defensiveness over this question. Hopefully this document is a step in the right direction, or finally repudiating that current of thinking.
2. Following from 1, building left unity was, and still is, a question of finding out on what terms collaboration can proceed, it cannot be force marched or willed into being. Regarding the approach in this document, the tactic of merging the DSP and alliance will really close the door on the rest of the organized socialist movement to the alliance, but this is already true anyway. But his means broader unity requires conceiving of some vehicle or proposal beyond the alliance project.
The DSP document claims that the rest of the left is implacably hostile in practice to unity proposals. But this is a concrete question. Those who have gone through the alliance experience and come out the other side have some genuine, and certainly some spurious objections to working with he DSP. In the same way the recent SWP letter has gotten a critical and somewhat cold reception.
But that should not be the end of the story.
We need to find some way in which we can kick-start some moves towards a broader left unity in Australia. Regardless of what the DSP do with the Alliance, (and there are real gains that should not be discarded) there is absolutely no reason what all of the far left cannot collaborate through some other projects, be that through joint meetings, broad left conferences, a list of key demands on the ALP government, closer campaign work, a broad left journal ? . . .etc.
It would be a real step forward if the DSP were to draft a letter similar to the SWP’s, but in a much more open ended manner, and at least see what response you get. At the very least it might start some discussions in the rest of the left groups about the idea.
Furthermore, why not invite a broader cross section of the left to discuss holding a serious joint left conference ?
At our last solidarity conference, we passed a motion stating that ‘we are open to participating in practical examples of left unity, including joint meeting, conferences etc in order to raise and popularize demands that go beyond Rudd’s limited reforms’. So the door may not be completely open, but it is not closed either.
Comment by Kieran — 5 July, 2009 @ 3:29 pm
Re JohnG
In addition to the issue of democracy, there is I think a real debate around the ‘model’. to be frank the ‘united front of a special kind’ was,I think, a real brake on the involvement of both the SWP in Respect, and the ISO in the Australian socialist alliance.
My reading of what occurred in the SWP, and certainly this occurred in the ISO, is that we would pass resolutions etc saying that we are committed to the project, and many members would vote for these resolutions, and even argue for them, but then abstain or hide from the on the ground work.
Certainly we had a real split in personnel, and this reflected a somewhat hidden, somewhat open political debate. But the united front of a special kind became a justification for abstention, becuase the project was really just seen as another sort of campaign activity, or one more united front out of several. Even being a member of the broad organization became an optional commitment.
Furthermore, we had a bizarre opposition to the alliance being involved in campaign work, becuase then that apparently would entail one united front ‘collapsing into’ or intervening in the other. Thus our ‘alliance’ activists were meant to drop that hat and don their ISO one when they went to an anti-war meeting or rally. This completely missed the point that we agreed on enough to issue quite principled statements or leaflets on major issues as the alliance, and thus there was no particular reason what we could not present a united, more effective ‘intervention’ that also build the prestige of the alliance.
Of course I don’t know the whole story, but some of the reports from Britain seem to display a similar dynamic.
Comment by Kieran — 5 July, 2009 @ 3:47 pm
This must be a first. A thread packed with tedious and irrelevant pseudo-analytical windbaggery and no Gregor Gall.
Comment by Doug — 5 July, 2009 @ 4:12 pm
#3 “Those high standards of living are not available as a result of struggle but thanks to the super profits of imperialism. ”
Partly true. The objective basis of reformism is having superprofits to distrubute and then being able to bribe the more organised sections of the working class with piecemeal bribes.
#2 “What is significant in present circumstances is the extent to which these objective possibilities are eroding in conditions of capitalist crisis”
That’s often what many Marxists depend on but even in terms of the current recession capitalism has vast areas to manouvre. We can’t wait for terminal crisis- one it will be a long wait and millions will suffer 2) without laying the groundwork now there is no guarantee the working class will be won to equality and socialism. Nationalism and fascsim are two alterantives for example.
Comment by Jason — 5 July, 2009 @ 4:58 pm
Doug said it, though Gregor Gall is far from the worst; a debate on the finer points of stamp-collecting would be as relevant to the future of working class struggle.
Comment by Jock McTrousers — 5 July, 2009 @ 8:31 pm
yup
Comment by Jim McLean — 5 July, 2009 @ 8:50 pm
“That is they are more concerned about “proving” to themselves that they are “real Marxists” than actually applying what Marx, Engels and Lenin taught which is to build real socialist leadership in the working class.”
And when on those rare occasions they do apply something, in the UK they can only apply it to the usa. just go over to the leninology blog and look up his posting (and subsequent comments) which reviews Alex Callinicos’s new book.
Comment by Saeed — 5 July, 2009 @ 9:52 pm
Louis Proyect: I actually would like to see the British SWP dump these norms and enjoy the rapid growth and influence it would almost certainly provide.
—
This kind of comment sets off my snake-oil alarms.
At the very least, any perspective based on the prospect of “rapid growth and influence” is dangerous, since the “rapid growth and influence” seldom if ever occurs. That doesn’t mean that the perspective is wrong - but you should never resort to puffery to justify it.
A second comment: one of the reasons for the caution on the part of the DSP in moving completely over to an NPA-style model is that we saw what happened to the Communist Party of Australia when it dissolved itself into the New Left Party in the early 90s. It, and the NLP, disappeared without a trace. We are not going to do that.
Comment by Alan B — 5 July, 2009 @ 10:45 pm
Yes inspiring stuff. I like the following:
“The real “Leninist” party building includes a permanent search for ways to unite with real emerging political vanguards in the working class, including (but more than) the regroupment with left groups and individuals.”
But the odd thing is I’ve had a read through and I don’t very exact figures or much of an idea on who they’re actually ‘regrouping’ with.
Does anybody know???
Comment by Skeptic — 5 July, 2009 @ 11:40 pm
A good question.
In the first place, with the non-DSP component of the SA. These folks have stayed with us through all the ups and downs of the past few years. There are somewhat more of them than there are DSP members, although, of course, their levels of activity vary.
There is another layer of people who have shown an interest in the SA, but which we haven’t really been able to incorporate due to simple disorganisation.
So that’s the starting point. It’s not huge, but it’s there.
After that it’s following the strategic approach of searching for real emerging vanguards in the working class.
It’s not a get rich quick scheme - or if it is, it’s the dumbest one ever, because it’s just not going to work that way, and we know it.
Hence our caution.
Comment by Alan B — 6 July, 2009 @ 12:10 am
Kieran: It would be a real step forward if the DSP were to draft a letter similar to the SWP’s, but in a much more open ended manner, and at least see what response you get. At the very least it might start some discussions in the rest of the left groups about the idea.
Furthermore, why not invite a broader cross section of the left to discuss holding a serious joint left conference ?
—
Of course this is right, but surely the DSP aren’t the only responsible political leaders on the Australian far left? Why can’t someone else do it? Why don’t they?
Comment by Alan B — 6 July, 2009 @ 1:00 am
re Q: Who is the SA regrouoing with? I’ve been railing and ranting about the regroupment experience long term and I do go on so stop me if you’ve heard this before.
The irony of the Socialist Alliance exercise in Australia is that the far left orgs as Kieren points out are hostile to the project. The polarised polemic nonetheless has tended to obscure the actual on the ground situation.
The main point to make is that the membership of the SA is twice as large as that of the DSP even today, and even after what has been three years of organisational neglect while the DSP weathered its own internal faction fight.
Among these comrades who are not aligned to the DSP but are SA members are trade union militants, a Sudanese Communist grouping (which publishes The Flame in Arabic , some leading Indigenous figures, Marxist intellecturals, Tamil and Latin American community activists — and (as I like to point out from among my local membership circle) comrades who are also still members of the Labor Party and the Greens. Since we haven’t taken a recent poll it is hard to keep up with the demographics.
But the SA project is uneven across the country so its buoyancy and verve will vary. In regional centres like Geelong and Wollongong it is a major historical asset that has begun to match the halcyon days of the old Communist Party. But in places like Canberra, especially after the factional contest in the DSP, it isn’t very strong.
On top of this are some key alliance building initiatives such as between some trade union leaders and the Alliance in Victoria; with sections of the Indigenous and Tamil communities; between the SA and the left wing of the Greens in South Australia… So it is a complex mix of partnerships within the Alliance itself and outside and beyond it. So in a very real sense I think it needs to be stressed that as well as possessing an organisational form, the Socialist Alliance is essentially a very different (and novel) perspective than what has been the standard attitude to political interventions on the far left.
That’s what the report addresses in way of measuring the Alliance’s potential.
However, it needs to be pointed out that within this political mix is the role that has been played by Green Left Weekly for the past 18 years as a core asset for the left in Australia. GLW is a sort of regroupment package in itself.
That said, the SA isn’t a interventionist milieu as in the way many Marxian outfits would associate with united front work. (This is what Proyect discusses in regard to the ‘French Turn’ and entrism sui generis.) This is not something “other than” the DSP as though it is a foreign or hostile environment. In fact, even members of the Alliance get the DSP and the SA mixed up and its very hard to estimate where the DSP supposedly ends and the Alliance begins.
As well, the DSP would strongly argue against Proyect’s estimation of the exercise as un-Leninist. The DSP would argue that regroupment is at the core of Leninist party building approach and, if you like, the DSP minority’s main objection was that the DSP adopted the SA perspective as a permanent tactic rather than one that should have, according to them, been spent and rejected a few years back.
Without offering details it is also important to note that the DSP has a 25 year history of exploring regroupument mode and left unity: with the Moscow aligned Communist Party in the eighties, with the Euocommunist influenced Communist Party during the same decade, with the Nuclear Disarmament Party in 1984/85, with the New Labor Party and in the formations that later became The Greens in the early nineties (to name a few episodes). (Aspects of the Greens constitution I gather were actually written by DSP members.)
As well the DSP relates to a loose network of parties and groupings that pursue a regroupment agenda in other countries, especially in Asia, and these experiences are often logged and discussed in the pages of LINKs — an online discussion journal of socialist renewal. Similarly, the DSP has had a long term engagement with the rise of struggle in Latin America and its membership follows the unity experiences in places like El Salvador and Venezuela closely.
So this isn’t an odd development in terms of where the DSP is coming from and while the discussion is still further to be had inside the DSP and with the Alliance membership the DSP is obviously very serious about and committed to the Socialist Alliance vehicle as a locus for a new party dynamic.
Comment by Dave Riley — 6 July, 2009 @ 1:11 am
johng says “the notion that the only thing holding us back is sectarian models (or indeed any model) of organisation is simply a different version of some of the mistakes that we in the SWP made”
But what’s holding us back is sectarian models - SP / CPB unity with regards No2EU both a step forward (Trotskyists and “Stalinists” working together ) AND sectarian (the deliberate exclusion of the SWP).
Comment by Charlie Marks — 6 July, 2009 @ 2:34 am
Well Louis the short answer would have be no. I don’t think the SWP views politics as a market place of different groups: or rather if sometimes we sunk into that over the last year it was a deviation from rather then a development of, our own politics.
On Kieran’s point, certainly there is a debate about models. But I wholly reject the particular way the criticism of united front of a special kind is developed by some. Lazy SWP members preventing growth of broader coalition etc.
Actually I think that it was just hard to build the organisation period, outside of those areas where it had made an initial impact. I favour Mike Rosen’s ‘federal’ model, reproduced in Socialist Worker as a starting point for debate here (and have done for some time).
I don’t think its healthy to insist on different groups and tendencies dissolving themselves. To me this is just another kind of sectarianism. In my view the real problem with Respect was not that there were too many hats but that there were too few. Not that there were real political differences, but that those differences were not openly and honestly debated.
Mike Rosen’s response to Open Letter:
http://www.socialistworker.co.uk/art.php?id=18181
Comment by johng — 6 July, 2009 @ 2:57 am
I don’t think it would be sectarian to point out that Louis Proyect — whatever is good about him, his work, his blog, or any other projects he’s involved in — has certainly been guilty numerous times of exactly what is being condemned here. That being said, let me agree with some of the komrads above that the issue is not so much the issues which various sects have with each other — right or wrong — but that there is a lack of conscious, structured dialog taking place in a democratic socialist context which unites us all.
And for one thing, indeed: there is no way now this side of Hell, that any one party will “win it all” — and walk away with the prize: the leadership of the entire working class. Clearly instead, we need to take very seriously some version of a ‘united front’ amongst ourselves — considering just the marxist Left first of all, let alone potential non-marxist allies. Because it’s absolutely the truth that not any one party or group holds all of the truth about Reality and the way forward, let alone being able to convince all the others of it. So let’s instead work out all our problems in our own ’soviet’ parliaments. Ahead o the Revolution. Let’s practice what we preach.
Comment by grok — 6 July, 2009 @ 3:40 am
John- I don’t think it is a question of lazy members at all.
The point is , we at least found it very hard to incorporate our other united front work with our alliance building work, because the theory had taken the form of a strict formulation that united fronts are areas of revolutionary intervention.
Thus some of our comrades, on the basis of the ‘theory’ or ‘model’, did refuse in practice to caucus as alliance members, or distribute alliance material at rallies ect, because this was where we apparently needed a ’sharp, revolutionary intervention’. I remember hearing some story about the virtuous of a small sharp axe as opposed to a large blunt one.
Now, of course sometimes this is true, but it is a concrete question. Where principled unity can be found amongst your allies, why ‘intervene’ on your own steam ? where such unity can be found, the ‘intervention’ is more likely to succeed, as you have potentially portion of the movement making that argument.
Because this is not always the case, revolutionary groups need to retain the right to act independently.
Comment by Kieran — 6 July, 2009 @ 3:49 am
Alan - Why not the other groups- becuase none of them have the confidence, perspective, cohered position/leadership, or weight to do it.
But you know, some of us are trying to work on that.
Dave- Sure-the alliance is bigger than the DSP. But there is still a space for a bigger party altogether.
Even leaving aside groups like my own, surely it would be good to get people like Raul back on side ?
Whatever criticisms i make of the DSP, it is due to respect for your underlying position. I actually want it to succeed. Part of that requires a critical look at some past mistakes. another part is some bold optimism and fresh thinking, of which your document is one example.
Comment by Kieran — 6 July, 2009 @ 3:59 am
There is indeed still plenty of “space for a bigger party altogether” (Kieran). No one is saying anything other than that — but to presume that it’s up to the DSP to do stuff is to ignore what the report is arguing.
The report even suggests that maybe the DSP won’t exist past 2010!
I know that the Socialist Alliance will unconditionally consider any unity proposition or re-engagement — no matter how provisional — by any organisation in the country. On that point there is no doubt.
Comment by Dave Riley — 6 July, 2009 @ 5:09 am
johng - Well Louis the short answer would have be no. I don’t think the SWP views politics as a market place of different groups: or rather if sometimes we sunk into that over the last year it was a deviation from rather then a development of, our own politics.
Sorry, but this claim is not borne out by the facts. The SWP are by far the worst in attaching itself to campaigns and mobilisations with the primary objective of recruitment and selling papers. Every time they get involved in something they kill it. Their history is littered with abandoned campaigns and the alienation of those who made the fatal mistake of getting involved with them.
The debate on Cuba on the other thread is also most revealing. Left unity might sound well and good, but speaking for myself, I would find it impossible to sit in a room listening to the kind of anti-Cuba crap that’s been posted by members of the SWP. In fact, I would find it offensive listening to some snotty-nosed, middle class student lecturing me about what socialism really is and what it isn’t. Even without hearing it, knowing I was in a formation with people who held such views wouldn’t work. Solidarity with the Cuban revolution today is an absolute imperative for socialists. To be against Cuba is to be against socialism itself.
Sorry, but that’s how I feel.
Comment by lovely sunny day — 6 July, 2009 @ 6:56 am
Since I’ve also been engaged with this discussion elsewhere on another blog post at the excellent AVPS – “Socialist Activism and Responsibility” — I’ve archived my extensive comments HERE on this topic of regroupment politics primarily because Blogger has introduced a character limit to comments and I tend to be verbose.
[It is also to Phil B.C.’s credit that he puts up with me.]
Comment by Dave Riley — 6 July, 2009 @ 8:33 am
“In the first place, with the non-DSP component of the SA. These folks have stayed with us through all the ups and downs of the past few years. There are somewhat more of them than there are DSP members, although, of course, their levels of activity vary.
There is another layer of people who have shown an interest in the SA, but which we haven’t really been able to incorporate due to simple disorganisation.
So that’s the starting point. It’s not huge, but it’s there”
“The main point to make is that the membership of the SA is twice as large as that of the DSP even today, and even after what has been three years of organisational neglect while the DSP weathered its own internal faction fight.
Among these comrades who are not aligned to the DSP but are SA members are trade union militants, a Sudanese Communist grouping (which publishes The Flame in Arabic , some leading Indigenous figures, Marxist intellecturals, Tamil and Latin American community activists — and (as I like to point out from among my local membership circle) comrades who are also still members of the Labor Party and the Greens. Since we haven’t taken a recent poll it is hard to keep up with the demographics.”
Ah yes I see. You say SA’s membership is twice that of the DSP. I heard the latter was around 400. So the dsp’s is 200 odd? I like the candid way you reveal that branches are only active in a few places. With these numbers one is left wondering what all the boasting is about then?
The various revo groups here, however, function through quite active memberships that distribute press etc. Is the SA membership like this? The SWP seems to go through periods where it opens the gates to anyone to join and says ‘gee look how big we are’ and then most of these recruits disappear.
Sorry, but it could be construed that this is the DSP doing something similar but it is also watering down its politics a bit and changing its definition of member as an opportunistic grab?
By the way, it is disconcerting that both the DSP report and others above seem to like blaming the previous decline of SA on the fact there was factional dispute in the DSP for 3 years. Surely there were other factors like the absence of any fight back against Howard government’s anti-union laws?
It seems almost like the existence of debate is seen as a bad thing that led to SA’s decline from 1000 or whatever it was. I’ve looked over some of what these minority comrades say at www.lpf.org.au and www.rsp.org.au and they don’t seem particularly unreasonable. There does seem to be unhealthy degree of scape-goating here and this does not bode well for an inclusive and democratic new organisation.
Will the new SA have the same position that internal debate and the existence of factions is necessarily disruptive and bad?
Comment by Skeptik — 6 July, 2009 @ 9:56 am
Re 20 ‘In my view the real problem with Respect…was not that there were real political differences, but that those differences were not openly and honestly debated.’
This was not the real problem with Respect. There was no practice or culture in the organisation which hindered people from discussing differences. It was a real problem inside the SWP though, where the opposite was very much the case. Certainly in my time in it you were viewed suspiciously, or as being ‘disloyal’, if you seriously questioned the judgment and actions of the leaders. And anybody who was in a paid employment in the organization knew full well to do so would ensure your days were numbered.
This ultimately had damaging consequences for Respect. Had a more open internal culture existed inside the SWP, I like to think that some of the madness that did happen, wouldn’t have happened. But it had even more damaging consequences so the SWP itself.
Hopefully, this is something they are now putting right, although to an outsider, it is difficult to see how much they will learn from the Respect experience when the central core of the Rees/German critique remains, in essence, the official version.
Comment by Ger Francis — 6 July, 2009 @ 10:00 am
Sunny day, if the SWP attached itself to Respect to just sell papers and recruit, it hardly did very well did it?
“To be against cuba”, “snotty nosed children”..the SWP the worst? Really?
Ger, in those days Respect included the SWP of course.
Comment by johng — 6 July, 2009 @ 11:37 am
Yes John, I know, but they were never one and the same. My point is that the problems which arose from a lack of internal debate had their origins first and foremost within the SWP, which then spilled over into Respect.
Comment by Ger Francis — 6 July, 2009 @ 12:18 pm
#29 `I am reminded of how much the SWP tries to relate to the world as it is . . .’
Took me a long time to work out this was an ironic joke. Good work, keep the funnies coming. What was decided on China out of interest?
Comment by Paulie — 6 July, 2009 @ 12:28 pm
Despite Skeptik’s cynicism. Eg:”Sorry, but it could be construed that this is the DSP doing something similar but it is also watering down its politics a bit and changing its definition of member as an opportunistic grab?”
The points raised have of course been raised before by those such as the RSP who have been hostile to the Alliance and see the DSP as pursuing a liquidationist course.
A similar argument is the one bandied about that the Socialist Alliance is the “DSP rebadged” and that the DSP “is dumbing down its politics” to accommodate to a social democratic milieu.
If you want to believe that is what is essentially happening then this exercise is of no interest whatsoever to you and you’re welcome to your sectarian preferences.
We could similarly argue that the French Revolutionary Communist League has fallen into the exact same trap with its commitment to the Nouveau Parti Anticapitaliste — in fact any engagement that requires political adjustments could be viewed as a watering or a dumbing down for the sake of an “opportunistic grab”.
The same arguments were thrown at the Scottish Socialist Party — so really, is there anything new — some devastatingly potent polemical point — that completely destroys this regroupment approach?
The Alliance has begun to aggregate its policy/platform/program perspectives here which are combined with the as-needed position statements as issues arise… Is this a watering down of the DSP’s politics in the everyday struggle?
Is the Socialist Alliance absolutely dedicated to reformist perspective? Is the French NPA? And if it was or wasn’t, how would we judge that? By dint of words on a page or by what the organisation does.
So is the DSP “watering down the politics” it deploys to engage with any number of campaigns because it is formatted or restrained by the Alliance umbrella?
That’s a key question, I’d think, for the DSP membership if it was deciding whether to throw its all into the SA amalgam.
But then if we were absolutely constrained by the desire to rule our political existence by the best of all possible customized, untested and patented programs, none of this would be happening and the ‘I’m-more-Marxist-than-you pissing competition’ would prevail.
Comment by Dave Riley — 6 July, 2009 @ 2:49 pm
“Is the Socialist Alliance absolutely dedicated to reformist perspective? Is the French NPA? And if it was or wasn’t, how would we judge that? By dint of words on a page or by what the organisation does.”
From what I can see from the documents you sent I would say SA is left reformist.It did have a nominally revolutionary current within, but now that is disolving. I have not read the NPA program so I don’t know. SSP: yes this is a reformist program, but revolutionaries remained as a current within it in the form of ISM. That’s not to say they did not make grave mistakes, in my view.
IMHO the key question on whether or not compromise on the program and organisation is warranted or not is if other real forces are really coming into the organisation. If these are mass or semi-mass forces (as they are in the NPA and were in the SSP) then fine. The debate on revolution will emerge in part of the struggle etc.
For instance, the NPA is 9-10000 people with the LCR (2000 or so) at its base. It also has a key leader who attracts circa 5% support in national elections.
The problem is that the DSP document and none of your responses to my questions is that you do not demonstrate that other real forces are actually coming into the organisation. Instead it is what I suspect is purposefully vague.
For instance:
“Among these comrades who are not aligned to the DSP but are SA members are trade union militants, a Sudanese Communist grouping (which publishes The Flame in Arabic , some leading Indigenous figures, Marxist intellecturals, Tamil and Latin American community activists — and (as I like to point out from among my local membership circle) comrades who are also still members of the Labor Party and the Greens. Since we haven’t taken a recent poll it is hard to keep up with the demographics.”
How many “militants” exactly?: the documents I have read suggest there is ONE who not in the DSP. How many “leading Indigenous figures”? I have seen 1 or maybe 2. Marxist intellectuals: who? Tamil and Latin American community activists: how many? What is their particpation like in SA structures? Do they see SA as the party framework for their activism?
There are other questions about the process. The LCR in France ensured local committees for the NPA were real by having at least one non-league member as a representative at national gatherings. What measures is the DSP taking like this to ensure the new SA is not the DSP ‘rebadged’?
Where are the assurances that the DSP will not dominate SA? I am told that the current SA national executive are nearly all if not exclusively DSP members. Will non-DSP members allocated say half of any new SA leadership body?
You constantly use the NPA and SPP as models but ignore examples of psuedo regroupment such as the Lambertistes in France. Without knowing what the exact composition and character of the process is, it leaves you open to these kinds of criticisms.
Finally, you accuse me of “cynicism” but interestingly you do not answer my question on why any potential member of SA expecting democratic organisation should be wary of the DSP given its intolerance of and rather ham fisted expulsion of the dissident minority faction?
Comment by Skeptik — 6 July, 2009 @ 3:29 pm
Oh right Ger I get you. The point I was trying to make was a) I don’t think those (on boths sides actuallY) who saw the problem in terms of insurmountable political differences and are thus suspicious of any future ‘fudging’ were correct.
On your side (roughly) of the argument this took the form of a Proyect-type argument about the need for people to cease to be organised seperately. On my side of the argument (roughly) this took the form of a lurch into ultraleftism and eventually a kind of manic substitutionalism, whose aftereffects can still occassionally be felt.
Its in that context that I think Michael Rosen’s suggestion is more realistic as an assesment of where we are now and the general direction we should probably go in.
But that doesn’t mean that such a thing is easy or even immediately likely. I happen to think its the most likely outcome though, if the whole left doesn’t just continue to fragment further and further as other forces move in to fill the void (a rather small void at present admittedly).
Comment by johng — 6 July, 2009 @ 3:42 pm
Sorry Skeptik I’m not going back to the 3 year long dispute inside the DSP. You want to revisit that, then cruise over to the RSP pages. It’s all there, more than enough to keep you occupied.
Comment by Dave Riley — 6 July, 2009 @ 4:20 pm
“Sorry Skeptik I’m not going back to the 3 year long dispute inside the DSP. You want to revisit that, then cruise over to the RSP pages. It’s all there, more than enough to keep you occupied.”
Well anyone with a nose for “spin” would probably have seen through your bullshit by now anyway. The reason why you won’t answer the questions is that there are fuck-all militant trade unionists, Aboriginal leaders etc etc in SA and that the ‘regroupment’ is a farce?
You very silly old fart
Comment by Skeptik — 6 July, 2009 @ 4:41 pm
Skeptik spends his offline days as Ben Reid,an RSP member ….despite the facade posed here. This is his version of academic discourse and comradely discussion…
Comment by I Not Skeptik — 23 July, 2009 @ 3:37 pm