State of Socialist Alliance counter-report and summary

By Jon Lamb, on behalf of the LPF

[The general line of the following report and summary was rejected by the national committee. The vote for adopting the report was seven full NC members in favour, 22 against, with one abstention, and 2 candidate members in favour, 10 against, with three abstentions.]

This report is within the framework of the assessment and analysis presented in the LPF party-building resolution and counter-reports on the Australian political situation and party-building activity of the DSP. It sets out also to assess the projections and proposals made at the January Congress on the DSP’s work in SA.

Lisa’s report today and elements of the discussion over the course of this plenum has dodged and ducked a sober and comprehensive assessment of what SA actually is and what it can become, and the correct line we the DSP should adopt in relation to it.

While seeking to portray hope for SA through pursuing further tactical flexibility, what is evident in the report Lisa has just presented on behalf of the majority, is that within the real, existing day-to-day life of SA is that there is little of substance that can demonstrate that the alliance is anything other than a re-badged DSP. It has increasingly become a moribund organisation, trapped by the narrow fixation of the majority’s tactical obsession to make SA the party we build today.

In looking at the balance sheet of the last 4 months, and in the context of the development of SA over the last 3 years, it is clear we need to make fundamental changes in our submerging of the DSP in SA to correct the failed line we have pursued since the December 2003 DSP Congress.

SA has not made any substantial political gains in the last period. On a national basis it has continued to stagnate, despite the desperation of the majority to present it as an organisation with the potential and capability to become a mass workers’ party. SA has not developed from its initial embryonic stage; it has withered.

The LPF believes that if anything is to be salvaged from the failed line set by the DSP in relation to SA, this must be based on a thorough understanding of the actually existing strength and weaknesses of SA and from that what SA can and could be capable of achieving within the objective political conditions.

SA: a figment of the majority’s imagination

A balanced and Marxist appraisal of SA must be based upon asking serious questions about where the organisation is at now and what it is capable of based on this assessment. The majority perspective adopted at the January 2006 Congress report titled “DSP tasks in the Socialist Alliance” set forth some key criteria and proposals for the DSP’s work in relation to SA.

There was much in the Congress report that the minority agreed with. But the fundamental political flaws of this report and its perspectives vary little from those that have been proposed in Lisa’s report today.

A realistic and honest appraisal of the proposals made in the Congress report and the implementation of these reveals that most of these projections have not come to fruition or have fallen well short of expectations. The state of SA nationally is clearly telling in this regard, a shrinking membership and branch meetings with small attendance (almost exclusively DSP members and a few SA non-affiliated members). On the whole these branch meetings have become politically lifeless.

On SA membership figures, the trend of a declining financial membership has continued over the last year (after reaching a plateau of around 1000 between May 2003 and May 2005).

In an email posting to the Marxism list on January 20 in reply to questions from Tom Bramble, comrade Peter Boyle stated that the present membership was more than 1000. Yet the end of March figures circulated by Lisa at the April 6 DSP NE meeting, drawn from a national survey of SA branches, stated an approximate 662 financial members, with an approximate 491 potential membership renewals – a decline of nearly one third of the financial membership from May 05.

Lisa has just provided another update for May 06, with 616 financial members and 518 potential membership renewals. The reliability of these figures is dubious in many respects – how many of these potential membership renewals are real?

SA is less and less an actual “alliance”, let alone a campaigning alliance, and more and more a re-badged DSP, where the Marxist politics of the DSP has become buried or made-over and softened-up. In fact it is more accurate to say it’s a re-badged DSP without the DSP’s revolutionary Marxist politics. There is only a tiny layer of non-DSP SA members nationally that are actively engaged in the building and promotion of SA, let alone thinking through on the political direction of SA. SA has become, as a non-affiliated Canberra SA member recently described it, a “hollow shell”.

The NE minority comrades and supporters voted for the resolution “The Democratic Socialist Perspective and the Socialist Alliance” at the January Congress on the basis that the resolution stressed the potential and opportunity for SA to play an important role in the social movements as a campaigning alliance. It still had some potential to draw in new radicalising layers and work with existing forces in united front campaigns. Given SA’s activity since January, its present state and political trajectory, there is little to suggest that SA can fulfil such a role.

In the period since the Congress, the decline of SA is clearly apparent:

As for SA continuing to join a significant number of young people, as claimed in the Congress report – let’s be honest and frank – SA has about as much appeal to young people as a sleepy tea party at a retirement village on a Sunday afternoon. The failure of the active involvement or interest of young people in SA, including from within the ranks of the DSP and Resistance is testament to this.

Rebuilding a revolutionary youth movement through Resistance, which has much more to offer radicalising youth, and developing a new layer of youth cadre is far more important and critical and worthy of our efforts than propping-up an ailing SA. SA does not and has not provided the political environment necessary to develop or involve youth cadre.

The reality of SA

The NE majority report to the Congress on our work in SA made some detailed organisational proposals to try and breath life into SA – some 24 points were listed in the summary appendix to the report. Now I’m not going to go through each point, one by one (though I do urge comrades to do this in any case), but let’s look at some of the critical ones that reflected the essence of the Congress report.

In reviewing these projections, it is also important to highlight the “out” which the Congress report gave the majority on how/when these projections were/are to be achieved – the numerous references to “flexibility”, “wherever possible” “wherever feasible”. There is no method to sufficiently address, or means to determine, whether a particular tactic has been sufficiently tested out or not. An overall assessment, however, speaks volumes; SA is flailing under the incorrect majority line.

SA contacting and branch meetings

Let’s look at one of the key proposals set as a task for the DSP: the contacting of the SA membership regularly, including at least once a month by phone.

The Congress report stated: “Unless DSP branches factor into their divisions of labour the phone contacting at least once a month where possible, we will have determined in advance that SA has little value as a campaigning alliance or the beginnings of a new party project”

Well, there is the cautionary “where possible” inserted into that projection to cover ourselves, but few if any DSP branches, especially those with larger SA membership lists have contacted these SA members once a month by phone.

The Congress report also highlighted the importance of branch meetings as the framework for the participation of SA members in the democratic decision making process within SA as: “having the opportunity to do so is vital for them to take the organisation seriously” (emphasis in the original). This has not happened or at best only in a stymied way. Most SA branch meetings are poorly built and attended by a tiny number of the membership. They are not inclusive meetings and are smaller now than they were two or three years ago. SA branch meetings have not provided the opportunity to involve and engage members in the democratic decision making process.

Then there is the actual lack of branch meetings for SA members to attend. For all the hue and cry over the suggestion by Comrade John P in PCD for a quarterly meeting schedule, when for many branches this schedule has turned out to be the actual case – or even less frequent – as with Canberra branch, which just held its first branch meeting for the year on May 9, the first SA branch meeting held since August 2005.

All too often the opportunity for involvement in branch life actually presented to non-DSP SA members at branch meetings is centered on organisational tasks, rather than a political role or taking political ownership of SA. This is also symptomatic of the uneven and low and heterogenous political consciousness of the majority of non-aligned members and the failure of this consciousness to shift forward in any noticeable and definable way. It also marks part of the process of the capitulation of the DSP’s revolutionary politics within SA and the further atomisation of our Marxist cadre.

The non-development of broader leadership teams

The summary of the Congress report stated: “the main point the majority report was making is that we have to be more political and thoughtful about what party-like structures are possible and will strengthen SA at this stage in its development. As was pointed out in the discussion, decision-making meetings of SA members are vital as spaces in which other people “can organise themselves”.

Branch meetings as a critical, basic means of developing the space where others can organise themselves are not working. Nor is there notable evidence of any SA party-like structures playing such a role. This is reflected in the failure to even start to build broader leadership bodies in the SA branches, especially the formal leadership bodies.

In several SA branches there does not exist formally elected or accountable leadership structures. Where they do exist, they are not inclusive and do not provide the means to develop a broader leadership team in the branch. They are usually entirely DSP members, with one or two non-DSP members.

In many instances, decisions are made outside of SA formal bodies or branch meetings by DSP executives or other DSP bodies. One example of this is the resignation letter sent to SA by a person in Brisbane, but refused to be accepted by a majority on the DSP exec / DSP branch meeting in Brisbane. This person’s resignation letter has never been discussed by any SA leadership body or structure.

Or the case of the SA State Executive in Victoria, a body that doesn’t meet or operate and which has been supplanted by the SA Steering Committee – comprised entirely of DSP members. It is a body whose membership is constituted by appointment of the DSP executive. This is not the development of a democratic structure or process in SA. It is another reflection of the re-badging of the DSP as SA.

SA campaign caucuses at the branch, district, state or national level remain almost entirely composed of DSP members of SA. What of the campaign e-groups? These too have floundered as a means to involve non-DSP members in SA campaign activity. A partial exception here could be attributed to the national SA Trade Union Caucus, but even here, this is really a re-badged DSP national trade union fraction.

If anything, the exception to the national picture are those branches where there is no immediate DSP involvement and presence, such as in Armidale or on the Gold Coast. But even with these branches the party-like structures here have developed in a limited way. Gold Coast SA is affectively in the process of transforming itself into the United Casual Workers Alliance.

The narrowing of SA’s appeal and campaigning focus

The Congress report on DSP tasks in SA stressed that SA branch activity, on a national basis, provides the means for SA to be involved with a “larger, more decentralised network of movement activists” This has not happened. The narrowing of the DSPs building SA as party line has tended towards the opposite – we are not seeing a broader layer or network of activists relating to SA.

Through our obsession with SA we have become blinkered and strayed into a sectarian-like attitude towards a range of social movements and campaign groups. The inability or unwillingness to have strong interventions of the DSP in the guise of SA into, for example, Union Solidarity (and other community union solidarity groups), the civil liberties campaign and refugee work is reflective of this. Others on the left, and the Greens even, have jumped the gun on SA and many issues of the day. SA’s rigidity towards and lack of involvement in broader social movements has become a block to further deepening socialist unity. We are cut off from other sections of the left and weakening our ability to maximise attempts at united front work.

There is also a tendency to further and further isolate ourselves from particular movements or campaigns because increasingly the only ones we talk to are those who are seen as prospective joiners to SA. The fixation we currently have with SA means it acts as a block or “filter” for recruiting directly to the DSP.

Neither can we point to a discernable expanding or growing base of supporters for SA The recent state election results in Tas, SA and WA help in part to demonstrate this According to Lisa’s SA report to the April 3 DSP NE, the responses for the SA national survey on supporters was too imprecise to be a meaningful figure.

We had previously assessed and projected that through SA, “ …as we continue to build the extra-parliamentary movements of resistance and prove our leadership ability, our electoral resonance will also increase …”.1 There is no indication that this resonance is increasing because SA is not leading in the extra-parliamentary movements.

Lisa has highlighted the growth and activity of SA branches, such as the Gold Coast and the recently constituted Blue Mountains branch. Yes, the comrades have done good work in the Blue Mountains, but let’s be clear about this and put it into the context of the long history of our work as the DSP in the Blue Mountains before SA existed.

We did distribute GLW fairly consistently throughout the Blue Mountains with a good rate and good sales, along with occasional forums and events. There was consideration for some time about setting up a DSP branch in the Blue Mountains, even expanding westward over the mountains. Let’s also not forget that we had a Sydney West DSP branch for 12 years, which has now been abandoned. The loss of a major branch in the largest city in Australia is a big retreat for the DSP.

What we propose for SA

The LPF is urging this body, and the broader membership of the DSP to see the necessity of breaking from the failed line set at the Congress and set a new course that clearly recognises the reality of the present situation. What can be reasonably salvaged from SA given its present state? What steps can and should we take to make some constructive gains from the mess created by our wrong line?

If we are open to admitting our errors, SA could be maintained as an electoral vehicle, in support of and in solidarity with Green Left Weekly. Not maintained as the re-badged DSP it has become. The DSP should take the initiative and sit down with others, inside and outside SA, and have an open dialogue where we admit our errors and discuss what role and function SA could continue to realistically play in the electoral sphere.

Such an initiative would demonstrate leadership and good tactical nous. It would be wholeheartedly in line with the DSP’s method, strategic goals and past experiences of making well thought-out and serious tactical turns to meet our party building needs. That was our experience of the 80’s and 90’s with our left unity and regroupment attempts; testing out and making the most of the openings for left unity when they were presented. When the potential to develop these openings were exhausted or blocked, we made the necessary tactical shift and changes. We have well and truly reached, indeed we have passed, that point now with SA. SA is dead as a regroupment project. Let’s put it to rest with dignity.

It is time to let go of the fiction comrades. It is time the DSP stopped masquerading as SA, that we immediately shift to publicly building the DSP as the party we build today. We stand to gain much in terms of respect and acknowledgement of our honest appraisal of the present state and condition of SA, as well as free up the DSP to play a more dynamic role in united front work in the movements with a clear prioritisation towards Resistance and the development of cadre to lead and build these movements.

We should recognise that the more politically astute non-affiliated membership within SA will have the maturity to understand and accept the DSP’s assessment and decision. The DSP had close working relationships with many of these members – including the trade union militants – over many years before SA was formed. They respect the seriousness and openness of the political approach of the DSP through the process of collaboration and struggle shared over a lengthy period of time.

They will still want to work with the DSP, in DSP-led caucuses and as allies in united-front campaign work. They will still respect and support our greatest political resource and reach-out tool, Green Left Weekly. So let’s not have any fear mongering and subjective hype about losing credibility on the left or setting the revolutionary movement in Australia back for decades. Such a circumstance is already creeping upon us; we are losing credibility, precisely because of the way the DSP is operating at present under the SA cloak.

The DSP needs to break free from the inward looking, straitjacket like SA framework we have been operating within, and take real and much needed steps towards rejuvenating and strengthening the socialist movement and the broader social movements necessary to organise and lead the fight back against Howard and the fake ALP opposition. The first step we need to take is recognise our error in the line we have adopted towards SA and publicly re-launch the DSP.

Summary

Comrades in the time available there are a few points raised in discussion that I would like to address, but obviously can’t take-up everything. But firstly, I’d just like to state that no, the LPF has not become “deaf” or “blind” or “poisoned” as some comrades have suggested at this plenum. The discussion is “not a dialogue of the deaf” as suggested by Dick N. Neither has the LPF “abstained on thinking” as stated by Jody B.

We have clear political differences, on breaking out of our relative isolation, on how to build a mass revolutionary workers party and the tactics we need to do this. SA is not the vehicle that offers the means to do this, based on the political conditions we are faced with.

Lisa said that she would not bet her life on the information in the SA national survey presented here. Well I wouldn’t either. Jody claims that the LPF has presented factual misinformation on the state of SA. But this survey is a factual fudge.

On Sam W’s point about the recent WA election campaign experience and the number of SA members mobilised and the profile of SA. Well we’ve had as many people mobilised and involved in election work before, as the DSP. In 1990 we had a big DSP election campaign – in WA we stood Rodney Cheuk and Michelle Hovane – and drew in a large number of supporters. In the mid-90’s we initiated the successful Racism No election campaign in WA, which also involved a lot of supporters. Much of the DSP election campaigning work was better organised and more political than SA election campaigns.

SA has become a hollow shell. It is not just a question of political leadership that the DSP provides. We are SA. As a regroupment project it has withered and waned. Take out the DSP and what’s there? A largely passive paper membership that we service. As to the layer of non-DSP members around us that are active to some degree, comrades have argued that we have a closer collaboration with these comrades. Yes, this is true. And that’s the basis upon which we still can work with them and have a real dialogue with these comrades, so as to intervene more affectively in politics, in united front work – not as the DSP masquerading as SA. Many of the meetings or events put on in SA’s name are re-badged DSP or GLW events. We used to get the similar numbers of people – sometimes more – to our GLW events.

SA’s activity has stagnated and it is not playing a leadership role in the movements. We have become lost with SA. The fixation with the SA shortcut has led us to a dead-end where we are it.

Notes

1 “Socialist Alliance & Australian Politics after the elections”. Talk by Lisa Macdonald to the DSP & Resistance Summer School, Sydney, January 2005.