Socialist Alliance I
The value and necessity of a united response from the left on key issues has been borne out during the current debate around asylum seekers. The Socialist Alliance has consistently been present in (and often driving) community mobilisations; on the streets, at detention centres, and against politicians who are behind mandatory detention. As a result, the alliance now has a significant public profile. It is a valuable structure to increase both the profile and impact of the organised left in this country.
Any development that will increase unity within the left parties is to be encouraged and, given the current role of the alliance, any specific proposal to increase its membership (and hence power) should be viewed favourably by everyone in the left.
Cam Walker
Friends of the Earth
Melbourne
Socialist Alliance II
In a letter to GLW (#510), Dave Riley asked what the Socialist Alliance is "all about if it isn't about regroupment?" I would hope it's about building a bigger left, not just about regrouping the existing left.
I think David Glanz of the ISO is right to warn of an exodus from the alliance if it becomes explicitly revolutionary (Socialist Worker #501). We cannot wish away the gap between revolutionary and reformist consciousness, or imagine that we can deal with it once and for all in a few weeks of debate between existing Alliance members.
Glanz is also right that it would be destructive for the DSP, as the largest affiliate, to unilaterally dissolve into the alliance. I urge the DSP to be sensitive about this and withdraw the January "deadline" until the alliance as a whole has reached some consensus.
Perhaps the best way to avoid DSP "swamping" of the alliance would be for the ISO and others to follow its lead in adopting the alliance as their major public face! Seriously, regroupment of the revolutionary left is a worthwhile goal, which we should not dismiss.
I think it is too early and would divert energy from building the alliance to found a formal revolutionary umbrella organisation alongside the alliance.
But the revolutionary groups should certainly explore every opportunity to work together, whether it is appropriate to do so under the alliance name or not. Examples could include joint publications (diverting some, but not all, resources from individual groups' papers), union and campaign caucuses, rally contingents and public meetings. This is the best way to find out which of the differences really matter, and whether formal regroupment may be possible in the near future.
Robert Stainsby
Northcote, Vic
Socialist Alliance III
The left in Australia is currently engaged in crucial discussions about the way forward and the future development of the Socialist Alliance. We are having this discussion because of the challenge posed by changes in the real world; in particular the rise of the anti-capitalist movement, the continuing right-wing trajectory of Labor and the imperialist war drive against Iraq. These factors pose the question of how socialists can best organise to build mass resistance to the system today.
Dave Riley, in response to ISO member Sue Johnson's address to the Marxism 2002 conference about the Socialist Alliance (GLW #510), takes up this question by posing a series of rhetorical questions in a hostile tone. He asks "Isn't this primarily an organisational question?", "Is she in favour of organisational left regroupment within the Socialist Alliance or isn't she?" and "what on earth does she think the SA is all about if it isn't about regroupment?"
While I don't speak on behalf of Sue Johnson, I would like to respond as a member of the ISO. Firstly, I think that the future development of the Socialist Alliance is primarily a political question. That is, how can revolutionary socialists and left reformists best unite in activity to build a left wing alternative to Labor and mass struggle against the system? In this sense the Socialist Alliance is about a lot more than the regroupment of existing socialist organisation.
In its 18 month existence the Socialist Alliance has had modest success as a united front that brings together socialists, anti-capitalists and working class activists breaking to the left from Labor in posing a socialist alternative in council and parliamentary elections. This is the stated central purpose of the alliance.
Building greater left collaboration in the Socialist Alliance is certainly a worthwhile project, and an important discussion. We have a historic opportunity to re-build a vibrant socialist left independent of Labor. The possibility of bringing such a project to fruition will depend on the extent to which all Socialist Alliance members are involved in thorough political discussion and control the decision making process.
In this regard, any decision by the DSP to "dissolve" into the alliance after January 2003 represents an unwelcome ultimatum. Discussion about the future of the alliance must be open-ended. If the DSP dissolve unilaterally it will only produce cynicism and could potentially destroy this collaborative project.
I look forward to continuing this discussion about how we can work together to build a stronger socialist movement for the future.
Hamish McPherson
Collingwood, Vic
Palestine
Ariel Sharon's appalling treatment of the Palestinians will surely give rise to anti-Semitism again in Europe it is already rearing its ugly head in Germany. Isn't it possible to find a civilised Israeli leader or party that will go back to the 1993 Oslo Agreement conditions, for which Yitshak Rabin died? If there is an anti-Sharon movement in Israel, we are certainly not told about it; and he is apparently still bringing in settlers, though why anyone would want to settle in his Israel is beyond me.
Rosemary Evans
St Kilda Vic
From Green Left Weekly, October 16, 2002.
Visit the Green Left Weekly home page.