Greens I
Bill Weller (“Write On”, GLW #521) asks why, if the Greens are doing so well, and are so progressive, would the Socialist Alliance (SA) field candidates against them? While the Greens play a valuable role in profiling progressive demands at election-time, the SA also has an important role, one which the Greens are unwilling to carry out: pointing out that these and other progressive changes can only be guaranteed by changing the way society is organised, i.e., by ending capitalism and building socialism.
Weller derisively says, “while the Greens believe in their causes, the Socialist Alliance uses these causes to undermine the government and as a means of advertising." But don't the Greens seek to “undermine” the government that hinders the achievement of the “causes” they believe in, and to “advertise” (promote) their own solutions to these causes? Does Weller think we shouldn't seek to “undermine” governments that promote racism, war and economic rationalism? Would you rather we support and build such governments?
When Weller argues that, “It is time to really form a true left progressive party, not a party of activists who turn up to marches only to leave when the march is over or not even bothering to turn up at all", I'm reminded of the Greens relation to the anti-war movement in Hobart. They play little role in building the movement, but then turn up at rallies and try to flood the place with their triangles as if to dishonestly say “We did this!” Many SA members, on the other hand, have on-going involvement in a range of progressive movements.
Shua Garfield
Hobart
Greens II
I take issue with Bill Weller's views as expressed in “Write On”, GLW #521, categorising the Socialist Alliance as irrelevant spoilers in the electoral process who are weakening the “wave" of public support for the Greens. My experience as a member of the old CPA for 25 years till its demise, an official of the NSW Teachers Federation for over 15 years, and NSW state secretary of the Greens for the last two years leads me to a different view.
Using Bill's "wave" metaphor, remember waves inevitably “crash". The Greens are a federation of state/territory parties. Some are well developed, others weak or moribund. The WA Greens aren't even affiliated. They all have different structures and I have no problem with that. Consequently, we have in Australia today Greens parties, not a Greens party.
The autonomous Greens NSW has probably the best rank-and-file interactive party structure the efficacy of which is reflected in its continuing electoral successes. Other Greens parties are not so democratic. Also there is a push by elements in the federal “umbrella", the Australian Greens, to establish an all-powerful centralist Greens Party with its headquarters in Canberra. This would give primacy to bureaucrats over activists; careers rather than action.
If you go to national and state meetings of the Greens and you meet nice people with laudable ideals and although there are a few “water-melons" in the ranks most do not appear to have any substantive ideological basis for rigorous political analysis. Parliamentarism is dominant and is corrupted by “unlimited tenure".
The Green parties have no equivalent of GLW through which members can interpret the world.
Given the present level of disillusionment with electoral politics in Australia is it any wonder that the Greens are “sweeping up" the votes of former Democrat and ALP voters? But do the Greens have the “ticker" to challenge our arrogant and brutal capitalism of the 21st century? I doubt it.
Being the beneficiaries of disillusion isn't enough. You have to deliver beyond that. Bourgeois reformists that the Greens currently are represent a necessary bridge for progressive politics but in its present manifestation will never be a sufficient force for the kind of political change this country and planet needs.
The left needs a socialist party out there. Our best option in this category at the moment is the Socialist Alliance. I wish it well.
Dave Bell
Sydney {Abridged]
Labor and the war
According to the Sydney Morning Herald, a senior left faction leader advised Simon Crean not to attend the HMAS Kanimbla send-off. But he did, and his comment - "I don't believe that you should be going" — to troops departing for the Gulf on the HMAS Kanimbla represents a welcome stiffening of Crean's spine on the war.
Labor is lagging so far behind public opinion on this issue finally, it seems, the alarm bells have started to ring. But while Labor's shift is welcome, especially insofar as its influences the union leaderships to do more, the anti-war movement has to be careful not to tie its fortunes to the ALP.
Unfair comparisons have been made to Arthur Calwell, who opposed sending the First Battalion to Vietnam in 1965. Calwell was prepared to speak out against the war when it was unpopular to do so. By contrast Crean hasn't taken any risks at all. He's responding to the polls, not leading them.
Pip Hinman
Sydney
Socialist Alliance
Jeff Sparrow (“Write On”, GLW 521) claims that Socialist Alliance is "going nowhere". He says that "given none of the constituent organisations have actually changed positions on the issues which traditionally divide them, the 'unity' so far achieved seems to me rather like the proverbial umbrella full of holes - functional only until the time comes to actually use it".
So according to Sparrow we can not unite unless we first agree on the nature of the former Soviet Union and the theory of permanent revolution. This approach guarantees that the left will remain divided, something Sparrow seems quite happy with. But many left activists are not at all happy with it. They want a united socialist party, recognising that it could have a qualitatively bigger impact on politics than any existing group.
Is it really necessary to have a separate party (or small group aiming to become a party) for each different opinion on theoretical questions? Or would it be a step forward if the theoretical differences were discussed within a united socialist party (within which supporters of a particular theory could organise as a tendency if they so desire)?
Sparrow will find that agreement on theory within a small group can be “an umbrella full of holes". Agreement on theory (the nature of the former Soviet Union etc) did not prevent the split between the International Socialist Organisation and Socialist Alternative.
When differences arise in the Socialist Alliance, we discuss them with the aim of arriving at a common position. So far we have been very successful in reaching agreement on a range of issues. But if complete agreement proves impossible on some issues, ways will have to be found to ensure the maximum feasible unity in action.
Chris Slee
Melbourne
Bioweapons
Major kudos for your outstanding story: "US considers new bioweapon attack" (GLW #522). US Vietnam war veterans and Vietnamese citizens are still paying the price for our use of “Agent Orange", the chemical the US government assured everybody was safe.
Introducing biological weapons to somehow nullify the immutable law of supply and demand is both insane and counter-productive. When jackrabbits were introduced to Australia, it probably sounded like a great idea. Obviously it was a disaster.
The introduction of biological weapons in Colombia is a disaster waiting to happen.
Kirk Muse
Mesa, Arizona
From Â鶹´«Ã½ Weekly, January 29, 2003.
Visit the