Let’s unite behind Green Left Weekly

What's curiously missing in this article is the evolution of their politics after leaving the RSP: they came out in full support of the NATO bombing campaign in Libya. DA had still being running articles by Marce until early 2011, but after his position on Libya was mistaken for that of the RSP the national committee decided not to run any more. Well I guess we can all be for "unity". But when it comes to fundamental positions like to support or not support for imperialist intervention unity pretty much becomes impossible. Given the blood of the Libyan people that is on their hands, I surprised anyone would touch them with a barge pole. It's a real reflection of the sorry state of the left in general and Green Left that this article is even running. I'm glad these pro-imperialist turncoats have found a home. It makes the politics of Green Left even clearer...

Some of us *may* indeed think that the SA is "a much-needed forum for discussion and debate about changing the world ... by sharing a wide range of views”, or might also think GLW fulfils that purpose. But speaking as someone whose views were very clearly unwelcomed from both, I have to say that nice as that *sounds*, wanting something to be the case doesn't mean it is. A year or two ago I tried to use GLW to engage in serious debate about the change in the political nature of the views on domestic violence being put forward. Despite the fact that during the '90s, GLW used regularly to host debates in its pages on various issues, I was unable to do so. I was told that my only recourse was to submit a very short piece to the letters page (the word limit I was given was shorter than some articles by SA members in the letters pages of around that time). However, it was odd since despite my attempting several times to submit pieces on this issue, it seems they weren't received. [See http://directaction.org.au/issue17/domestic_violence for a letter on this issue I sent to my party's paper, Direct Action, instead.] Re SA, as soon as the DSP had expelled its dissident minority in early 2008, I found that I had been removed from SA's notification list of its events. Mind you, by that stage, Perth SA meetings (especially of the decision-making kind) had pretty much dried up. But our experience of the decisions being made (in the DSP and now SA) is that they were made with regard to what we thought many inactive SA members (or people who we'd like to have been SA members) *might* want, or anyway were increasingly influenced by an increasingly inactive membership, and by many of the real decisions increasingly being made behind the scenes. And by the fact that members of the DSP were losing their political confidence to support Marxist politics due to acting as the non-revolutionary partners we'd hoped to find in SA, with this causing many decisions to be affected by hopes for quick short-cuts. With the DSP now dissolved into SA, I can't imagine that that problem wouldn't have increased. I can't agree that I have sufficient agreement with the contents of GLW for it to be worth my while distributing it. I haven't seen any signs that the political decline in GLW over the past 6 or so years has been substantially turned back. That's not to say I disagree with all its content, of course; it would be odd for socialists never to agree, and I've certainly enjoyed some recent real-time discussions with SA members. I've noticed some of the more recent coverage on porn is pretty sharp. I'm glad of that, but still I feel life is too short to be spent distributing political propaganda which argues for an approach to struggle with which one disagrees. A paper that was genuinely a forum for socialist debate about the way forwards might well be a different matter (depending on various factors such as alternatives, who's involved etc), but we're not discussing that. Virginia Brown

Here, I entirely agree with Nick Fredman. Virginia

That's extraordinary Nick: you're willing to gloss over these people's support for imperialism! Pointing this out becomes "sectarian"! "We'd also better hold off saying anything positive or agreeing with anything put forward by Fidel and Chavez too, due to their quite awful support for the neo-liberal, racist butcher Ghaddafi." Actually I think they got it right, certainly better than most of the Western left. The opposition is even more neoliberal, more racist and more butchering. Just ask the migrant African population.And as for this nasty beast that you feel Ghadaffi was... why then did Libya have the highest human development index score for Africa? It was always a conflict between imperialism and Ghaddafi and Fidel and Chavez rightly sided with latter. I know who I would prefer to be "united" with and it's not the bombers. May you share your grisly bed together...

The last comment is disingenuous. There us no contradiction in Marce, Iggy and any other people wanting to collaborate with Green Left but not wanting to participate in the Socialist Alliance, while the two are linked they are separate entities. It is possible that this experience of collaboration may change their minds re SA, or alternatively it could reinforce the reasons that they do not want to be in SA. By questioning their reasoning in the way above it actually suggests that SA is not open and inclusive as it poses collaboration as being based on willingness to join SA, rather than welcoming any collaboration as a postitive in and of itself.

Ok so I'm also not a member of SA, and I also still like Green Left. But what is the point of this article (aside from a dig at the RSP)? So some people left a political party, formed another one, then left it, and now they say they support the paper of the original party. You could have put something interesting in this space... And Marce and co, get an imagination ffs! Go try something new. Then we might be able to move on an stop having the same arguments over and over again.

Please don't patronise me by asserting without justification that my objections to these comments are "personal" (an unimpressive criticism often levelled at women). My point was that we all make mistakes and that asserting not that they should not be welcome in one's party, but that any collaboration at all should be shunned (eg no-one should "touch them with a barge pole", "May you share your grisly bed together..."), is sectarian and ridiculous. I've had disagreements with socialists over other positions, and you know what? These positions also dealt with human rights and lives. But I never spoke of blood on people's hands or shunning people entirely. I'm pretty sure I've also had mistaken positions on various matters, and pretty sure you have too. And it's certainly the case that softer words do help us build bridges and make us more amenable to collectively working out the way forward and perhaps improving our collective positions. At the very least, telling people to "share your grisly bed together" will achieve nothing useful. Not sure if I am replying to one person or several, when comments are made anonymously it's hard to tell. Virginia

The idea that Marce and Iggy's position on Libya is some kind of "mistake" is disingenuous. This is a major capitulation to imperialism. The core of Leninism is the rejection of social chauvinism. It is: "the relentless struggle waged all along the line against these parties—or groups, trends, etc., it is all the same—there can be no question of a struggle against imperialism, or of Marxism, or of a socialist labour movement." That's right: "relentless struggle" How can any revolutionary or even militant current of the labour movement so enthusiastically welcome this trend and still regard itself to be Marxist? Raising the possibility of sentimental attachment to these comrades was being charitable. If you can't see the truth in this Virginia then I suggest your avowed commitment to Leninism is at best formal.

Anonymous says: "Well I guess we can all be for "unity". But when it comes to fundamental positions like to support or not support for imperialist intervention unity pretty much becomes impossible." Normally this is the case, but there can be exceptions. In 1999, the Democratic Socialist Party supported Australian troops being sent to East Timor to end the massacres and to ensure implementation of the referendum vote for independence. Most other left groups, including the International Socialist Organisation, were opposed to the sending of the troops. Despite this difference, the DSP, ISO and other groups came together in 2001 to form Socialist Alliance. This illustrates that differences of over such issues do not necessarily prevent groups from working together. (The ISO and other groups later left Socialist Alliance, but this was not due to the differences over East Timor) Of course, the specifics of Australia's intervention in East Timor and NATO's intervention in Libya are very different. Each situation must be looked at on its merits. I have argued against support for NATO's bombing of Libya (see for example http://links.org.au/node/2300#comment-107302). But this does not mean I am against any form of cooperation with those who take a different view. I welcome the decision of Marce, Iggy and others to write for Green Left. Chris Slee

I hate to say this but how much agreement is warranted before you sign up to any project? Only fools and infantiles insist on an absolute 100 percent. So the point has to come back to the old political stand-by of "line of march" . And the fact is that the SA and GLW on are on the same journey and I find it disingenuous on Marce and Iggy's part to consciously try to separate the two. Th neither came down in the last shower. But of course there can be a difference between IDEAS as expressed in the pages of GLW and the sort of ORGANISATION that is built. I give you that. But to not recognise that there is some relationship between the two is unfair. We're not fools and 100s on the left recognise that there is something happening between what the SA does and strives for day to day and what is published in the pages of GLW. But to say " However the question of how much agreement is necessary is ultimately up to individuals..." is simply to pander to subjective apolitical double think. Tens of thousands sign onto the ALP despite that fact that they agree with only a smiggin of what it does. Millions are trade union members even though their unions do fuck all for them. At some point you have to step back from what's "ultimately up to individuals" and make a decision about what is needed and with whom you seek to align. Not in a boutique customized way -- but with a decision that makes historical sense. And playing up to separate subjective preferences is a massive undermining of what we collectively need to do. In Australian politics at the present time the options are straight forward: go with Labor, the Coalition, the Greens...or...and that's the rub. How can the less than 50 members of the RSP address this conundrum or even the 6 who left that organisation? How can even each one of the separate would be socisalist parties address this question? But we are told that separatism for the sake of disagreement is right, just and warranted.(Adter all we value our individuality after all). Maybe grudges are involved ... but while this angsty business goes on our working class peers are faced with increasingly worse political options JUST SO OUR DIFFERENCES CAN BE SUSTAINED.

The error Marce and Iggy made was to underestimate the capability and necessity of the working masses to emancipate themselves. In context, this was an easy error to make, of course, which is why I am inclined to cut them some slack. However, it was not an isolated incident. The same thing occurred during the faction fight that gave rise to the RSP. The minority comrades similarly underestimated the potential of the struggles occurring in Australia, and instead adopted an inflated estimate of the Venezuelan struggles, and tried to orient towards that. Similarly, they adopted an inflated estimate of the Cuban revolution. There's a term for this. The essence of Trotskyism (outside the Soviet Union) was the defence of the self-emancipation of the working class, against the search for saviours and gurus. That's why we need to call Cameron and Kim's mistake what it was: a Stalinist error. But it didn't come from nowhere - the RSP is prone to the same tendency. And the ex-DSP majority comrades in the Socialist Alliance are at risk from it too. Alan B

GLW was always pitched as a broader paper than the party that ran it. The editors and the DSP may not have always managed to uphold that broad approach, but it's a good approach to keep if it can draw in others. I'm not sure if its available online but the first GLW edition in 1991 had a pretty broad list of sponsors way beyond the DSP that was launching the paper. Pretty sure they didn't all agree on the DSP's way of organising but they supported the paper. I think it's great if this small group of people want to support. And the approach in this comment, that because SA supports GLW you need to support both (that seems to be the implication) is a damagingly narrow view of the way things work. Making GLW broad is good. If it doesn't overlap completely with SA that's good. The more the better! BCC

We hold no grudges towards anyone. However, we do have political differences on the question of SA. Despite these differences we believe collaboration around GLW is both possible and necessary. Marce Cameron

My understanding is that the RSP decided to not allow Marce to write on Cuba ... because of his position on Libya! Whatever the case, Marce's article on Libya (http://links.org.au/node/2247) was part of an ongoing discussion among leftists of many traditions, which was also hosted at Links International Journal of Socialist Renewal (http://links.org.au/taxonomy/term/222). Such discussion is essential to the left as a whole coming up with a correct position. The idea that if one takes an unpopular or wrong postion on one issue, that condemns them to being wrong on every other issue, or worse, an "agent of imperialism" with "blood on their hands", is simply childish. As editor of Links International Journal of Socialist Renewal, I collaborated with Marce, as editor of the very useful "Cuba's Socialist Renewal" (http://cubasocialistrenewal.blogspot.com), for a number of months prior to the ex-RSP group's decision to work with GLW. I'd like to think that that collaboration helped pave the way for this small but important step forward in left unity. Hopefully, others on the left can emulate Marce and Iggy's example. Terry

Your kidding aren't you. Let's not let a little disagreement about a fundamental issue in world politics get in the way of "collaboration"! I mean c'mon: support for the NATO attacks is not just a tactical quibble! As the other post says: why not involve supporters of the Iraq invasion?

Of course we all have political difference with anything we do any one day of the year. Nothing I ever do is what I want it to be. Everything is a disappointment...but I still negotiate through this and club together a political journey that I may think makes the best of what is to hand. That's life on the left.We have to get used to it as we strive to remake the modus operandi.Thats' what folk like Lenin did. While Marx and his mate talked about a socialism that was Utopian AND scientific most far left politics (post Trotsky) is ruled by Utopianism as it's individual dynamic is ruled by niche hunting: seeking an outfit who suits personal political preferences...as though history and the imperatives of history matters not one iota. But, in the beginning, it nonetheless took the disaster of the rise of Fascism in 1933 before Trotsky gave up on he Communist parties... Everything is ruled by 'last hesitation' thinking: I cannot join THEM because I have differences. This cannot be built now because I expected something much more to happen. I'm a socialist but I cannot sign up with any socialist party because I don't relate to any socialist party that exists...but the one I like is so small. As for this aside about 'since you're big' I hate to say that's a very old excuse to stay small ..and irrelevant -- because what you mean is that you're right and the rest is wrong. But the complication is how do we know that is true? Because you are small, failed to grow,and are more read up than the rest ..so of course you're small and side lined but magnificently right? That supposedly justifies it. So what you do is focus on the differences between you and any larger activity as proof positive that you are right..a proof positive that justifies your smallness. How can that logic work enough to be justified under an anti capitalist agenda? On the other hand you could take the view that you can have confidence in the ability of any number of people to come together and create a viable political enterprise through a shared commitment to socialist transformation of society and en route work through any differences as they may occur. Whats' wrong with that as a game plan? Because it isn't big enough yet? But just look at where your ruling from? IF it was at take off maybe you'd reconsider...But the fact is that even for the Greens the take off was a long time coming and they won that not because they were special but because historical circumstance(pre existing senators) and main party duplicity was so bad that such a come together ordained them as the primary alternative political option. And today Greens members, including those who see themselves as socialist, have to sign onto a party that is enmeshed in neo-liberal cut backs and committed to the capitalist market. The Greens are much more conservative than I expected them to become.As a political option for socialists I think they have failed miserably to deliver. So the question of what to do/what to form/where to go still hangs...To presume that you can then negotiate a future coming together without utilizing the unity vehicle that exists in the form of the Socialist Alliance borders on naivete. If GLW is a major asset on the left then so too is the Socialist Alliance .

I might say I prefer Direct Action too. But that’s beside the point. Hardly anyone other than RSP members read Direct Action. It can be as revolutionary as it likes; but if that message is not reaching anyone, what does it matter? Further, Virginia writes, “I'm unable to grasp the logic of distributing something which argues a basic political direction with which I disagree, simply because its readership is larger than Direct Action's.” But Marce and Iggy’s proposal makes no mention of distribution. The point is writing, being heard, getting out the revolutionary message. And that can’t be done with DA. Direct Action is hardly sold, hardly read, comes out just once a month in print format, sometimes goes months at a time without having its web presence updated, and elicits zero feedback. It amounts to a great pile of paper on an office floor. On the other hand, Green Left is a weekly, has an established long-term readership, has an increasingly relevant web presence, and as this very debate attests, generates feedback on its content. Like it or not, it is an institution on the Australian left. Owen Richards

It's unbelievable that we still get these messianic cults that go around declaring themselves the arbiter of who is or isn't a Marxist. I heard recently a well-known anarchist blogger explaining that most of the "anarchist" left in Australia are in fact of a Marxist bent; himself being one of the few that isn't. I'm happy if anarchists want to call themselves (or other anarchists) Marxists. Hopefully they will learn something from Marx. On the other hand those who set themselves up as the only pure and true Marxists seem to have missed the whole point. I think the word for them is "wanker".

My views regarding collaboration with GLW vis-a-vis my views on Libya have been amply covered in those two articles, as well as by many of the posts here. And that is the core of the discussion, of course. But, gee whiz, I'm burning with curiosity about who this "anonymous" contributor is, who accuses Marce and I of having "blood on [our] hands" and equating us with the German social democrats who voted for war credits in WW1. (I mean, I stand by what we wrote, but I'm not sure how I feel about being accused of running NATO from my little patch of Sydney!) Could I respectfully ask that you at least tell us your name? The others directly engaged in the debate with you have had the courage to name themselves. Iggy Kim

Well Marxism means being for the revolutionary overthrow of capitalism. Does SA call for this? No. Does it call itself a Marxist party? No. Given that it little more than the ex-DSP pretending to be a "broad party" it sounds like repudiation to me.

We're not on a rightward trajectory. We just had a different view of how the anti-imperialist left should respond to the concrete dilemma posed by the fact that the Gaddafi regime was about to launch an all-out assault on Bengazi in late March/early April. We thought, rightly or wrongly, that the crushing of the rebellion by the pro-imperialist thug Gaddafi would be a setback for the anti-imperialist struggle in North Africa and the Middle East, and that the likely outcome of imperialist air support for the rebels, a somewhat less autocratic pro-imperialist regime arising out of a popular insurgency, would offer better prospects for the class struggle of Libya's working people than the stabilisation of Gaddafi's pro-imperialist autocracy. Perhaps we were mistaken. Time will tell. We're not rusted on to a viewpoint we expressed on April 3. All of us in the DSP at the time demanded Australian imperialism's intervention in East Timor under the UN flag, an intervention that involved a lot of boots on the ground and human rights abuses by some Australian service personnel. Others on the left were astonished and dismayed and some accused us of betraying the anti-imperialist cause. Yet that instance of support for an imperialist intervention didn't reveal that we were on a rightward trajectory. We just disagreed with other anti-imperialists on how best to respond to a concrete dilemma.

Socalist Alliance is no risk of becoming Stalinist. we know for experiences with the cpa how were pro soviet about the beaucratic nature of soviet union and the way that the cpa conducted its internal affairs is way different form democratic manner in which dsp was run, which allowed rank and file of party to vote on any policies did allow right to object and propose any policies. It was not top down. Socialist should not throw the word stalinism around willy nilly as some parties do. They are wrong in their analysis of cuba and venezuela. There is no risk of socialist alliance becoming stalinist because we allow the right to all rank and file members. For example, Libya. We had many different opinions about NATO's intervention, with majority opposing the bombing of Libya. Stalinism would see those who object to policies reprimanded, which is in democratic. by sam bullock brisbande

Sam Bullock misses the key point about Stalinism - it does not refer to a particular organisational form, but rather is a description of a particular political approach, whose key feature, compared to Trotskyism, is the downgrading of the role of the working class in its own emancipation.