Bob Gould wrote:
> 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.

Some points:
(a) For anyone doesn't know what "Zinovievism" is - Bob is referring
to an analysis of how left grouplets function developed by US Marxist
Louis Proyect. Stuff on it can be found on Proyect's website:
www.marxmail.org

For my money, Proyect has overgeneralised the experience of his former
group the US Socialist Workers Party.

(b) Bob places an emphasis on this stuff because it is in his
interests to portray the DSP as an undemocratic sect.

(c) Peter Boyle is "ultra-sensitive" about it for a couple of reasons
other than the obvious ones. The most interesting of these reasons is
that he is carefully explaining _to DSP members_ that that is NOT how
the DSP should work. That is, he is engaged in a political struggle
AGAINST "Zinovievism" within the DSP. Peter is, of course, speaking on
behalf of the DSP leadership in this.

That is, the DSP leadership are consciously acting to ensure that the
DSP does not behave in the manner that Bob alleges.

One of the key aspects of this is to encourage DSP members not to be
afraid to speak up about differences of opinion, and to guarantee that
no repercussions will follow if they do. Of course, there are
questions of reponsibility involved - unjustified slams aren't
encouraged - but of course serious differences can, and should, be
raised.

The question of whether that should be done in a public or internal
forum can't be resolved mechanically. It needs to be considered in
every specific situation in a political manner, since it is a
political question. That is, the choice is a political act.

> 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.

"Some input". Right.

> 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.

How exactly is _anyone_ outside Perth supposed to have enough
information to second guess the people on the ground? At best, what
they know is what someone from Perth told them.

As for people from Perth with different opinions, well, nobody is
stopping them from expressing it here. Of course, it is entirely
possible that the DSP's position is, in fact, the opinion of the DSP
members in Perth.

> A further point has to be made about the implications for the
> Socialist Alliance and the DSP's allies in the Alliance...

Bob "has to" make this point because Bob wants to score points against
the Alliance by convincing the non-DSP members that the DSP is messing
them around, by convincing them that the DSP is an undemocratic,
manipulative sect.

> 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.

Heaven forbid that "an ostensible Marxist leadership in the workers'
movement" should make a political decision, put it into practice, and
see if it was correct. Where's the omniscience in that? Everyone knows
that the Marxist program has all the correct answers ahead of time. If
you know it all, there is no excuse for making a mistake, is there?

Alan Bradley