BY DAVID SCRIMGEOUR
As a non-affiliated member of the Socialist Alliance I would like to contribute to the current debate within the SA about the proposal of the Democratic Socialist Party (DSP) to become a tendency within the SA, and the response of the International Socialist Organisation (ISO) to this proposal.
I joined the Adelaide branch of the SA at the time of its inception in 2001 because of my support for what I saw as an emerging, and very necessary, global anti-capitalist movement.
I believed then, and still believe, that there should be a political organisation to provide ongoing strategic leadership to that movement within Australia, and that the SA, as an explicitly anti-capitalist group, had the potential to be that organisation.
I welcomed the fact that the diversity of groups to the left of the ALP appeared able to work together to take on this role, and to fill the vacuum on the left created by the shift of the ALP from being a workers' party to being a capitalist party with neo-liberal economic policies. I continue to be an active member of the alliance.
My reaction to the DSP proposal is one of cautious optimism. I agree that the SA has not achieved its full potential, and I can understand the difficulties experienced by DSP comrades in trying to support two organisations. I am therefore willing to take at face value the reasons given by the DSP for the proposal in order to be able to dedicate their time to building the Socialist Alliance.
I want the SA to remain a pluralist socialist grouping, and I am prepared to believe the reassurances of the DSP comrades that this is not an attempt to take over the SA. At the very least, I am prepared to wait and see.
If it becomes clear that I was wrong, and that the DSP appears to be exerting hegemony over the organisation, to the extent that it has become an organisation that I do not wish to support, I can always resign. It would be premature to resign before I am convinced that that is the case. The need for a united anti-capitalist front is too important.
I appeal to the comrades in the ISO to consider a similar approach. It would be reasonable, in the interest of left unity, to wait and see. If, after a reasonable period of time, they are unhappy with the direction the Socialist Alliance takes as a result of the dissolution of the DSP, they can always withdraw from the alliance.
I also agree with John Percy that ultimately it is the decision of the DSP whether they choose to proceed with the proposal. I do not see the proposal as an ultimatum, but unfortunately the response of the ISO does appear to be so.
In Adelaide, the DSP is the only affiliate, so I have no direct experience of the background to any DSP/ISO differences. However, I believed that the SA was worthy of support not only because it demonstrated the possibility of left unity, but also because it appeared able to include a diversity of views and to provide an opportunity to debate these views. I hope that this belief has not been unfounded.
I read with interest in the ISO response [see GLW #516] the list of political differences between the ISO and the DSP — the nature of reformism, orientation towards Labor, the role of the union bureaucracy, permanent revolution and the tasks of the working class in the Third World, free speech for Nazis, the nature of the anti-capitalist movement, etc (summarised as "competing visions of socialism from above and below").
I also found Alex Callicinos's article in the last SA internal bulletin helpful in explaining some of the sectarian background. I would be very interested to learn more about these different perspectives and hope that through comradely discussions and debate within the SA I will be able to do so, to form my own opinions and to contribute to further debate.
Such debates, however, should not distract us from the main task of building a broad anti-capitalist front in Australia. I certainly do not see the differences articulated by the ISO as such fundamental differences that they justify, at this stage of the development of the SA, the termination of the ISO's affiliation.
If this were to happen, I would feel betrayed, in the sense that the opportunity for a range of different perspectives to inform the development of a united socialist front in Australia has been lost.
One of the main issues discussed in the ISO response is the different approach to reformist or revolutionary socialism. Again, debates on the meaning of reformism and revolution should not distract us from our main task.
My own view is similar to that of Rosa Luxemburg: "On social reforms and revolution there exist ... an indissoluble tie. The struggle for reforms is the means, the social revolution, the aim".
I would expect that most members of the SA see socialism as an alternative to capitalism. The transition from a capitalist society to a socialist society will entail a radical shift in the class structure of society — in other words, a revolution.
Reforms may be a necessary part of the road towards socialism, but ultimately the fact that we call ourselves socialists suggests that we are working towards a political and social revolution, towards a society in which value is placed on people before profits, rather than the other way around.
There will be differing views on the nature of this revolution (my own views, which are not in the "Bolshevik tradition" would almost certainly differ from the views of both the DSP and the ISO comrades) but there is enough time for debates on this issue to be played out.
On the other hand, time is crucial when it comes to the development of a united front against the juggernaut of global corporate capitalism.
I hope that, with the active support of all the members of the SA (whether as affiliated organisations, as tendencies within the alliance, or as non-affiliated individuals such as myself), the momentum for that development will be maintained in a comradely way.
From Â鶹´«Ã½ Weekly, November 20, 2002.
Visit the