Dishonest opportunism in anti-racism campaign
Comment by Nikki Ulasowski
CANBERRA — Socialist Worker, otherwise known as the International Socialist Organisation (ISO), has reprinted the August 28 anti-racism walkout promotional leaflet produced by Resistance in Canberra, after adding its name to the list of endorsements.
In itself, that is fine. Resistance has encouraged as many organisations and individuals as possible to endorse the action.
However, on the back of the reproduced leaflet, the ISO printed a statement headed "Socialist Worker says ... smash Hanson and One Nation, no free speech for a racist party". The statement includes a quote from Hitler on how the Nazis could have been beaten by their opponents if they had "smashed it with the utmost brutality", as well as slogans calling for unity to fight against racism and for socialism.
Resistance has encouraged all organisations which support the four demands of the rally (see front cover) to help build it. The ISO, however, is doing something quite different. It is dishonestly promoting a demand under the guise of official publicity which is not supported by Resistance, the organising group: the demand "no free speech for a racist party".
In fact, in a debate which has dominated the anti-racism movement for nearly two years now, Resistance has argued consistently against such a demand because it distracts attention from building a mass movement against racism in all its forms, reducing the focus to Hanson's right to free speech.
The ISO leaflet, in putting forward the "no free speech" demand, but failing to explain that differences around this demand exist among socialist and other left activists and organisations and that Resistance has a different position, has created confusion about what the rally stands for.
This is dishonest opportunism. It is not aimed at strengthening the political understanding and confidence of anti-racism activists, but at lowering it.
While the ISO has every right to print whatever material it chooses to present its own politics, it should not suggest that Resistance's politics meld with its own.
Adding its own phone number to the leaflet as a contact point for the rally organisation was also dishonest. What were the ISO members planning to tell people who rang up, given that the ISO knows nothing of the details of the rally and disapproves of its demands and aims? We can only presume that they are hoping to use Resistance's profile to make first contact with anti-racist young people.
Support for the anti-racism rallies initiated by Resistance has been growing significantly over the last few weeks. The ISO's action could, however, seriously compromise the effectiveness of the next rally.
The ISO'S statements (and its members' ultra-left behaviour at previous anti-Hanson protests) leave those of us who aim to build a militant and peaceful mass movement against racism more vulnerable to false charges of trying to gag One Nation and orchestrating violence.
It is difficult enough contesting a well-resourced political establishment which uses its parliamentary positions and media to promote racism and smear the socialist left which is campaigning against it, without also having to deal with sectarianism and ultra-left idiocy in other sections of the left.