Nick Fredman does it again. More on the WA ETU elections

By Bob Gould

Nick Fredman's post this morning is an example of example of exactly
what I was talking about when I referred to smoke and mirrors. He
evinces great concern about what he says is a factual inaccuracy in
one of my posts and then uses that to make a sweeping generalisation
questioning my judgement in everything.

Well, I don't concede his point that I was factually inaccurate. The
exchanges at the Socialist Alliance conference, which he repeatedly
posts demonstrate that what's at issue is an interpretation of what
that exchange involved. In my view it involved implicitly, views on
both sides about matters such as union affiliation to the Labor Party
and the general approach to Laborism and the Laborites.

But even if his interpretation is more correct than mine, how does
that invalidate the rest of my many arguments about the ETU elections?

He implies that because, in his view, I make one factual error my
proposition should be rejected, and he's quite happy to, by
implication, accept the wisdom of Peter Boyle and presumably the rest
of the DSP leadership, as he admits he has no direct knowledge of the
events under discussion.

He does say, however, that he's very interested in the argument about
the ETU elections, and I believe that he probably is, as are no doubt
many other DSP and Socialist Alliance members and supporters, who
follow this discussion list but don't express themselves.

Peter Boyle, in his post, displays ultra-sensitivity to the
proposition that the DSP has a Zinovievist structure, internal life
and atmosphere. Well he might have such sensitivity, because the way
this discussion has proceeded seems to me is a striking demonstration
of Zinovievism in the DSP, and how, presumably, that's carried into
the Socialist Alliance.

We can agree that a decision was made somewhere in the DSP to support
a change of leadership in the WA ETU, from a leftist maverick to a
less-defined political figure who appears to have the support of the
centre-right Kevin Reynolds machine.

The DSP leadership no doubt has extensive knowledge of the issues
involved in this decision and obviously some of the members in Perth
would have some idea, but it seems highly likely that the ultimate
decision was made in the national office of the DSP because that's
how the DSP works, although there may have been some input from
members in Perth.

Zinovievism at work

Members of the DSP other than the leadership, in places other than
Perth, as Fredman says, have no information on which to make a
judgement other than their general loyalty to the wisdom of the DSP,
and members in Perth, who may know something about the decision and
its ramifications, and who knows, may even disagree, are not in a
position to say anything because of party discipline interpreted in
the Zinovievist way.

The only way such a DSP decision of an important strategic sort can
possibly be questioned once it's made is if some knowledgeable, noisy
outsider like me has a go at the DSP over it. But if that happens
party discipline and partinost are invoked to repel the impudent
outsider who questions the party line or practice. ("If you disagree,
comrade, you can take it up at some undefined time in the future in
discussion for the next congress.") That approach is hardly much help
in relation to disastrous or unprincipled day-to-day decisions in the
labour movement.

The DSP is not alone in this structure and atmosphere. A much worse
version of it prevailed in the old Stalinist movement, which I spent
20 or so years of my political life trying to combat.

But many organisations in the Trotskyist movement have the same
disastrous way of arriving at and defending decisions, which is one
of the factors that contributes to the fierce and often uninformed
clashes between adherents of the different groups bound by the
disciplines of their organisations on conflicting tactical matters.

How much better would be a regime if tactical decisions in Marxist
organizations could be disputed publicly, as they were in the
Bolshevik Party in Lenin's time, before the ban on factions and the
Zinovievisation of the Comintern.

In relation to the WA ETU a decision was made essentially by the DSP
leadership nationally, and as the saying goes, most of the membership
is kept in the dark and fed bullshit, and the only serious debates
take place in the leadership, and you usually only get to know about
them after some kind of split.

A further point has to be made about the implications for the
Socialist Alliance and the DSP's allies in the Alliance. By reason of
the weight of the DSP's weight in the Alliance, actions such as this
by the DSP are interpreted in the wider world as actions of the
Alliance.

Yet the dominating presence of the DSP in the Alliance, with its
Zinovievist internal structure, precludes any of its Alliance allies
from having any internal input into the decisions. The DSP members
don't have much input, and other Alliance affiliates and members have
none, but politically speaking they're saddled with the results.

In his earlier major post, Boyle appears to back away a little,
admits that the Chris Latham article last week was a bit misleading,
and indicates that the editor of Green Left Weekly had indicated that
may be corrected. They'll print an article from Game, big deal, and
he can write an article if he wants to. As I said in my previous
post, that's totally cynical.

The Green Left Weekly in which Game's article might appear is printed
next Monday or Tuesday, when the ballot starts being counted. GLW has
ambushed Game and insulted him by offering him an article well and
truly after the event.

When you examine this week's GLW there's no article about the ETU
elections, in which the effective misinformation in Latham's article
could be corrected, and ever so graciously GLW has published a letter
by Game, in which he has to attempt to defend himself within the very
limited constraints of the GLW letters column. I regard all that as
pretty insulting to Game, the members of the DSP and Socialist
Alliance, and the broader left public.

Meanwhile the GLW discussion list drags on, we have elaborate and
arcane discussions about matters such as the vital question of
antiwar slogans in the US, and there's absolutely no serious
continuance of the discussion on the WA ETU elections as the clock
ticks towards the counting of the ballot next Monday.

Boyle's crude assertion that the DSP leadership will be proved wrong
if the other bunch ousts Game and then shifts to the right is pretty
revealing. He's obviously staking a lot on the DSP leadership's
belief that Game will be defeated in this election. The DSP's whole
disreputable manoeuvre in this election seems to be predicated on
that hope, and they now hope they can pass off this manoeuvre as some
kind of wisdom because they've attached themselves to a successful
team.

Unfortunately for Boyle and the DSP leaders, there are several other
possibilities:

Game may still win, he may win in a very close result or he may lose
in a very close result. If the result is close, either way, that very
fact will subject the DSP's electoral manoeuvre to very careful
scrutiny indeed.

The difference between the DSP leadership and myself on this question
doesn't just hinge on who wins or loses. It hinges on the social and
political forces brought into play by Game's victory or defeat in
this election.

Boyle reduces it to an abstract decision, almost as if it was based
on the toss of a coin, and says we might have been right or wrong,
we'll find out later. That's a poisonous practice and outlook for an
ostensible Marxist leadership in the workers' movement.

I've gone to considerable lengths to describe the general social
forces at work, which should have bearing on the decision one makes
on who to support in that election, and I've made a case which, the
further one proceeds, only seems to appear more convincing. (I'm
aware, of course, that one tends to convince oneself by one's own
eloquence, and I expect readers will allow for that.)

Boyle and the DSP leadership haven't done anything like that. They
haven't seriously put their decision in any context, and haven't
explained it to anyone in a comprehensive way, and they still refuse
to respond and discuss the question in any depth.

They seem to be precluded from engaging in that kind of discussion by
their own internal arrangements, which is a practical indictment of
those arrangements.

In the course of this discussion, one of the DSP's leaders, Paul
Benedek, in an aside, casually declares political war, so to speak,
on what he describes as "the rotten leadership of Andrew Ferguson" in
the CFMEU. That also sets off major alarm bells for me, but I'll
address that in due course in another post.

I return to my five critical, unanswered questions from my second
post and I'd like some attempt at an answer by Boyle, the DSP
leadership or anyone else in the DSP, for that matter, if possible
before the ballot is counted next Monday.

Question 1: Was it at any stage possible to avert a bitter electoral
conflict in the ETU between two personalities you say are both left-
wingers and their two small industrial machines? Did you make any
effort to mediate the conflict? (Obviously in this situation, such
mediation would more or less necessarily have had to involve
accepting that Game, the senior bloke so publicly identified with
leftism in Perth, would continue as General Secretary.)

Question 2: Did you ever consider going with the Game camp?

Question 3. Did you ever consider remaining neutral in the ETU
elections?

Question 4: What were the general social and political criteria, in
and outside the ETU, that brought you to the conclusion that Les
McLaughlan's leadership of the ETU would be better for the socialist
and labour movement?

Question 5: What is the character of the election propaganda on both
sides? The printed propaganda used by competing factions in union
ballots is usually pretty revealing about the two groups of
candidates. Would you be prepared to put up on the Green Left
website, for careful consideration, the printed material of both
sides, including the "shit sheets" that are circulating, attacking
Bill Game. I'm getting them from WA, but you may already have them.
Why not put them up on the Green Left website to strengthen your
case? Also, would you be willing to try to acquire, for publication
on the web, the script being used by the people phoning every member
of the ETU attacking the Bill Game team? The character of that script
would be of some interest, obviously.