10 Days of Interesting Discussion on the Green Left Weekly List

By Bob Gould, bob@...

They say that a week is a long time in politics, and that statement is even
truer of a combination of politics and web discussion about politics.

It seems appropriate to me to introduce two quotes at this point, one from
Lenin, and a well-known proposition of Karl Marx:

"We need complete, truthful information. And the truth should not depend on
whom it is to serve." - VI Lenin
"History is whole cloth". - Karl Marx.

The supporters of the DSP leadership in these discussions seem to me to
violate both above precepts. By "history is whole cloth", I understand Marx
to be criticising, sharply, the tendency in his time of socialist
theoreticians to trawl back through history, and make facile judgements on
past situations from their present political standpoint, and to try to fit
past developments into a framework entirely dominated by their current
political positions.

That approach to history is not Marxism, but a kind of metaphysics, and DSP
leadership supporters frequently employ this approach to history in an
exaggerated way.

Another feature of Marxist politics, is that to neglect or falsify empirical
evidence, is extremely dangerous, and neglect of the empirical is one of the
occupational hazards of sectarian Marxists.

The empirical question of Labor's electoral support

It's become almost comical the way that people like Peter Boyle, Dave Riley
and Paperclayman seize upon every conjunctural poll, or even interpretation
of a poll, which suggests a drop in Labor's electoral support. They succeed
in sounding like reactionary journalists, or Liberal politicians, who engage
a similar kind of literary exercise.

Paperclayman simply makes general assertions about how much the advanced
sections of the masses "hate the Laborites", and presents no evidence for
this proposition.

Boyle grabs hold of Alan Ramsey's tendentious attempt to turn his reading of
past polls into the theory that the Labor vote has dropped to historically
low levels. He ignores, because it doesn't help his argument, a Newspoll of
the previous week, that suggested the Liberal vote had dropped and the Labor
vote was more than 40 per cent. Boyle prefers Ramsey's interpretation of
past polls, to Newspoll's current poll.

Ramsey has his own agenda, as is obvious from the way he writes. He is an
idiosyncratic, generally Labor-supporting, journalist, who is gunning for
Crean, and he makes a case about the level of the Labor vote that's a bit
tortuous. In some respects Ramsey is a good bloke and in other respects he's
quite right wing, but his approach to polling evidence is anything but
scientific. It's good enough for Boyle, Riley and Paperclayman, however,
because it suits their argument.
Predictably, Boyle jumps at the opportunity to grab one aspect of a Morgan
poll a week later that has the Labor vote down to 35.5%. But he ignores
Morgan's careful qualifier in the whole Morgan report, that the poll was
taken in a week very disadvantageous to the Laborites. To quote the Morgan
report, which is entitled "Federal Election would be Too Close to Call":

"During the polling period:

? The Federal Government retrospectively excised almost 4000 islands from
Australia's northern migration zone to stop a new boatload of suspected
asylum seekers applying for refugee status. The new regulations were similar
to those disallowed by the Senate last year. The United Nations High
Commissioner for Refugees told Federal Government representatives that
Australia had international obligations to process the 14 asylum seekers who
had reached Melville
Island.

? The Prime Minister visited London, commemorating the 1.5 million
Australians who served in the first and second World Wars by dedicating a
new Australian War Memorial in Hyde Park. Mr Blair and Mr Howard also held
talks in Downing Street and launched the inaugral Australia-UK Leadership
Forum.

? Pauline Hanson and David Ettridge were acquitted of electoral fraud by the
Queensland Court of Appeal and released from jail after serving 78 days.

? Queensland's Premier Peter Beattie moved in Queensland Parliament for an
inquiry into the jailing of Ms Hanson and Mr Ettridge and the involvement of
Federal Health Minister Tony Abbott in the initial legal action against the
pair following comments made in the Court of Appeal's judgement. In a
statement Mr Abbott stressed that he had never been involved in the criminal
actions against the pair.

? The Reserve Bank of Australia increased the Official Cash Rate by 0.25% to
5%.

? ALP Backbencher Carmen Lawrence was elected ALP President after the
Party's first nation-wide membership ballot for the job."

There's another frequent poster on the Green Left list, a thoughtful
resident left laborite, Dennis-Michael Berrell. I have some ideological
disagreements with this bloke, but his posts are usually fairly well thought
out, and he gives a kind of running commentary on polls and current
political developments. The weakness of his approach, it seems to me, is
that he concentrates more on conjunctural events like opinion polls, in a
way like the supporters of the DSP leadership do, and he, like them, rarely
relates immediate events to underlying demographic or social trends.
Nevertheless, his comments are usually more careful, comprehensive, and
factually based than the comments of the DSP leadership, and he frequently
introduces a certain window of reality into the discussions.

The underlying Labor and Green electoral votes are objective material facts
which can be calculated, within limits, and which reflect class divisions
and forces in society

The question that's impossible to jump over in terms of the objective level
of Labor electoral support is this: if the Labor vote is at the historically
low levels that Boyle, etc., assert, how come the Laborites won the last
elections in every state and territory, and how come the Labor vote
federally recovered dramatically in the first Beazley election?

It's quite clear, and acknowledged by all observers, that, in the Tampa
election, a set of rather unusual factors came into play. There's an
important three-volume book about the electoral history of NSW, published by
the state parliament, and I have written a lengthy piece examining it in
detail, and in a rudimentary way superimposing census information on
ethnicity and incomes on electoral patterns.
(http://members.optushome.com.au/spainter/Peopleschoice.html)

Tracking electoral trends, even in NSW, shows that the Labor vote has held
up rather well, even despite the high housing prices in Sydney, which tend
to predispose people on the urban fringe, the most affluent section who aren
't part of the big bourgeoisie, in favour of the Liberals.

The big new factor affecting the Labor vote is the consolidation of the
Greens as a new electoral formation, politically to the left of Labor, with
a younger age profile than the Labor vote and with a higher educational
profile than the Labor vote.
It's possible to predict fairly precisely the electoral parameters of the
next elections. The Greens, on the left will get between 7 and 11 per cent
and Labor will get between 36 and 41 per cent. The Labor vote is highly
concentrated in areas where unionised blue-collar workers and recent NESB
migrants live, which indicates that blue-collar and migrant communities tend
to vote Labor.

The Green vote is concentrated in areas inhabited by tertiary-educated
people, and with somewhat higher incomes than the average Labor voter.

These observations about the parameters of the Labor and Green votes, are
empirical observations.

The far left vote for socialist groups will be less than 0.5 per cent. That'
s also an empirical observation that has been thoroughly tested in recent
times.

Whether the actual election result is at the higher end or the lower end of
these parameters will, as elections often are, decided by conjunctural
events, the nature of the campaign, etc. If the actual poll result is at the
higher end of these parameters, Labor will win the elections, and the Greens
will increase their number of parliamentary representatives, even
conceivably having the balance of power in the Senate. From the point of
view of future prospects for the working class, socialism, radical
mobilisation and leftist interests, it is highly desirable that the
Laborites and the Greens win the election. Another victory for the Tories in
current political conditions will tend to demoralise the whole workers,
Labor, progressive, and Green movements. From that point of view, the barely
concealed glee of the DSP leadership contributors every time the polls
suggest a possible Labor defeat, is quite reactionary politically. It also
cuts across the political instincts of most left wingers or radicals or
class conscious workers, who strongly desire the defeat of Howard, for the
reasons I've just outlined, even if they're not terribly enthusiastic about
the Laborites. A demeanor by some left wingers, marked by the major
hostility being directed at the Laborites, is a very ugly demeanor when
going into a crisis election, and most progressive Australians react very
negatively to this attitude from the DSP leadership, though most people
probably don't put it into words or thoughts as sharply as I do.

No amount of extravagant rhetoric by Paperclayman about how the masses "hate
the Laborites", or desperate grasping by Boyle at Alan Ramsey's
interpretation stands up against empirical observation.

My belief that revolutionary socialists would be more productively engaged
in adopting a tactical, united front orientation towards Labor and the
Greens than in engaging in a futile electoral tactic (buttressed by wild
exposure rhetoric) is based on empirical investigations, unlike the
arguments of my polemical opponents in the DSP leadership.

Despite the forced, ahistorical constructions of the DSP leadership, which
were cobbled together twenty years ago, that Labor and the Liberals are two
equivalent, capitalist parties, it remains the case that the bulk of the
organised, class conscious working class in Australia, in particular its
blue-collar and migrant sectors, remain Labor supporters. However
disillusioned the masses are with the often reactionary policies of Labor's
leadership, there is little evidence of a large scale shift away from Labor
to any progressive electoral alternative among the organised working class
and migrant communities. Labor also retains the electoral support of a
significant segment of the left leaning part of the new social layers and
the middle class, despite the rapid consolidation of the Green organisation
and electoral vote, politically to the left of Labor, made up primarily of
less traditionally 'proletarian' elements.

The Boyle-Riley-Paperclayman bunch grasp at a lot of straws. Paperclayman
says:

"I am of the view that the Socialist Alliance won't break out electorally
for some time -- it may take a few years to even get above 1.5 or 2%-- so
the main markers today are the trends. That the ALP goes down so many
percent is not a guarantee that the formations left of Labor are going to
pick up that lost support."

The perspective involved in this statement is delusional. The real problem,
from the point of view of the DSP leadership is, that even after the quite
considerable effort of getting registered on the ballot paper in the Senate
in the various states, and in the state upper houses also, that the
Socialist Alliance's vote will inevitably be less than half a percent,
nothing like even 1.5-2%. It gets worse. There's no indication that that
vote is likely to change at all, because of the substantial reality of the
consolidation of the Green political formation as the electoral alternative
to the left of Labor. There is no historical example of, or present
indication of, relatively small socialist cadre groups having any
possibility of building themselves up into a recognised broad electoral
alternative to major, established mass working class or leftist political
formations by simple propaganda-electoral activity, in the current
Australian circumstances or the foreseeable future in Australia. It won't
happen.

Towards the end of this week a new element entered the discussion.
Dennis-Michael Berrell speculated on the list about possible entryism in the
Greens. Wisely, all of the other participants distanced themselves from any
general statement about entryism in the Greens. Obviously socialists trying
to establish themselves as political citizens in the Greens need loose talk
about "entryism in the Greens" like a hole in the head. Discussions of
"entryism in the Greens" raises the awkward history of the ham-fisted,
excessively organisationally preoccupied intervention of the DSP, in both
the Nuclear Disarmament Party (NDP), and the then embryonic Green
organisation, ten or fifteen years ago. Unfortunately the DSP in both
instances blundered (via an exaggerated preoccupation with the structural
arrangements in each organisation) into a considerably premature battle for
organisational hegemony. The "war of position" in the NDP between the DSP on
the one hand, and the minor public figures, who had initiated the NDP, on
the other, was a rather cruel conflict on both sides, and contributed
considerably to the demise of the NDP. The early DSP entryism in the Greens,
which also concentrated on battles over the organisational arrangements, was
unsuccessful, and after some acrimony, the DSP departed from the Greens.

The Boyle-Paperclayman bunch responded fairly carefully to the question of
socialists in the Greens. They did not subject the socialists in the Greens
to the kind of abuse they reserve for socialists, like myself and others,
who operate in the ALP. On Wednesday Paperclayman even put it into words:

"Being in the Greens or not being in the Greens isn't anything to get
steamed up about I reckon so long as it is in something OUTSIDE, and to the
left of, the ALP. I think that's the main political marker for the
significance of what we speak. It terms of the more complicated strategic
picture this is a baseline which we share in common."

Further on he buttresses his argument by a quote from George Petersen
towards the end of his life when George was depressed and in a very
"leftist" mood. George and I were close political associates for many
years. We collaborated on many battles and projects, and we also had a
number of political disagreements. For those that may be interested, I made
my estimate of George's political activity at the Sydney Memorial Meeting to
George, which can be accessed at
http://members.optushome.com.au/spainter/George.html. One of the
disagreements I had with George, was initially over whether he should vote
for Neville Wran in the Labor caucus over Pat Hills. George's inclination
was to abstain. I argued the case that Marxists never abstain, and that Wran
was marginally better than Hills. My argumentation had some effect, but what
swung the day on that question with George was the intervention of Jack
Ferguson, the Deputy Labor Leader, later Deupty Premier, who was a close
personal friend of George's. George often proceeded, as well as on the basis
of principles, also on the basis, all other things being equal, of
friendship. George's vote was decisive, Wran was elected with all the
consequences of which we are aware, some good, some not so good, from the
point of view of socialists and the working class. One of the paradoxes of
George's decisive vote in that ALP caucus is the unforeseen outcome in
relation to the electoral arrangements in NSW. Much to the amazement of all
observers, at the high point of his electoral popularity, Wran succeeded,
where all previous Labor leaders had failed, in reforming the NSW upper
house, and replacing what had been a totally reactionary appointed body with
a body now elected, by proportional representation, with the lowest
statewide quota in the country. For instance, the three Greens in the NSW
upper house owe their electoral success in part to this reform, which flows
directly from Petersen's one majority vote electing Wran to the Labor
leadership way back then.

Ten days ago Boyle was in full swing denouncing me for assorted treacheries,
and particularly for the crime of allegedly covering for Doug Cameron, by
objecting to the reckless tone, factual errors, and sectarian anti-Labor
orientation of the coverage in Green Left Weekly of the QLD AMWU elections.
Then the physical assault on Cameron erupted in the press, and several
injudicious rank-and-file DSP contributors to the Green Left discussion
list, posted contributions which carried Boyle's intemperate rhetoric about
Cameron a stage further into very dangerous territory. After Ed Lewis of
OzLeft quickly struck a note of caution about this on the discussion list,
and Boyle, to his credit, saw the point, agreed with Lewis, and the very
sensible moderator of the list, Margaret, removed the problematic posts from
the web site. The point I'd make is that the reason the two DSP
rank-and-filers said what they said is political. The tone set by the Boyle
crowd in their ferocious verbal attacks on a united front approach to the
Laborites, is taken by many of the rank-and-file as good coin, and normal
considerations of political judgement tend to be ignored in these
circumstances.

Happily, the tone of the Green Left Weekly coverage of events in the
metalworkers union has become markedly more careful. I believe that this
improvement is probably a result, both of the lessons of the eruption on the
Green Left list, and also of pressure from the left wing militants who are
active in the metalworkers union. Its notable that Steve Dargaval, the ALP
member, and former Labor parliamentarian, who is the current leader of
Workers First in Victoria, made a very considerable point, which was quite
properly reported in Green Left Weekly, of condemning the attack on Cameron,
without any qualifications or speculation about who might have done it.

A Historical Note

Dave Riley, a staunch Socialist Alliance ostensible 'independent' supporter
of the DSP leadership, posted a historical piece on the 22/11/2003. This
contribution is notable for the fact that it only mentions retreats and
defeats that took place in and around the ALP. This is a completely
eccentric version of labor movement history, in the period he discusses. The
reader should consult my pieces The Communist Party in Australian Life
(http://members.optushome.com.au/spainter/CPA.html) and The Red North: how
not to write labor history
(http://members.optushome.com.au/spainter/Rednorth.html). The point about
the working class history of the period, is that as well as the defeats and
retreats that Riley notes, there were also a large number of upheavals and
rebellions in and around the ALP, a number of which had good outcomes from
the point of view of the working class. For instance, the old Trotskyists,
that Riley considers a bit of a sideshow, played a very significant role in
turning the Communist Party's flank, so to speak, and precipitating a large
proletarian industrial mobilisation, that eventually achieved its aim of the
40 hour week, through the usual channels of the unions and the ALP. A very
major reform for the time. In the whole post-war period, the incremental
improvements for the working class that comprised the Australian part of the
new order desired and achieved by the working class after the war, a limited
reformist but still significant new order, proceeded through the well-worn
channels of the traditional labor movement. The Communist Party and the much
smaller group of Trotskyists in the unions, started fights and
mobilisations, and many social gains were achieved which were eventually
registered through the traditional channels of Labor Councils, ALP
conferences, etc, etc. Riley should consult the very useful book by Tom
Sheridan, Industrial Relations in the Chifley Era, if he disbelieves me.

There were a considerable number of events and mobilisations that had good
outcomes, from the point of view of the working class. The defeat of the
Communist Party Dissolution Bill by the Labor Party, the unions and the
Communist Party. The defeat and isolation of the Industrial Groupers in the
labor movement, by a coalition of the same forces, led by the then Labor
leader Dr Evatt. The mobilisation against the Vietnam War, commenced largely
in the space given by the opposition of the courageous Labor leader Calwell
to the war. The final abolition of the White Australia policy, and its
elimination from the Labor platform. The defeat of Prices and Incomes
proposals at the 1971 Federal Conference. All of these events were marked by
conflict and interplay of various labor movement factions including the CP
and the Trotskyists, but they were all ultimately fought out through a
combination of mass working class mobilisations and political battles in the
official channels of the labor movement, the ALP conferences, trade union
conferences, Labor Councils, etc.

Even in the period when Riley was active as he describes it, in the CP, the
main feature wasn't a defeat in the ALP, it was a victory, when the
Victorian Socialist Left was formed, primarily, by a revolt of lower rank
leftist union officials inside the ALP against the more conservative leftist
federal officials, and in this instance, the Bernie Taft wing of the CP
apparatus, who had, de facto, supported federal intervention against the
leftists in the Victorian ALP. The formation of the Socialist Left at that
moment had the character of a mass revolt, and directly led to the defeat of
the prices and incomes proposal at the 1971 ALP Federal Conference, almost
immediately subsequently. Dave Riley's account is a very flawed labor
movement and socialist history, when it can only notice defeats and retreats
in an ALP framework, and not rebellions, upheavals and successes.

The strategic point of all the foregoing is this: there are some new factors
facing revolutionary socialists. There is a certain element of truth in some
of the things on which the DSP leaders tend to concentrate. It is important
to notice, and base yourselves to some extent on, changes that are taking
place. The trend that of events obviously has some bearing on politics. For
instance, a new political formation, like the Greens, emerging to the left
of the ALP, a bit outside the framework of the traditional class formations
in Australian society, is a significant development with which Marxists have
to come to terms in a realistic way.

Nevertheless, Marxists base themselves, primarily, on the class forces in
society, and from this point of view, the most decisive sectors in Australia
are the working class and the migrant communities. There is no question that
the politics of the organised working class and the migrant communities
revolves around the Labor Party-trade union continuum. From that flows the
necessity of a strategy that takes into account both the new developments
and the underlying, ongoing class and social divisions in society. This
poses pretty clearly the need for serious Marxists to pursue a united front
strategy both towards the Labor Party and towards the Greens, of the sort
that I sketched out in my recent lengthy post about the coming elections.

The quixotic animosity that the DSP leadership have developed towards any
leftist who considers it useful to engage in socialist activity in an ALP
framework is a dangerous shibboleth, and to try, for instance, to maintain
that the leaders of most of the militant unions in Victoria are 'reluctant
ALP members' is politically delusional. Those Victorian militant union
leaders are ALP members for practical, functional reasons. They consider it
useful in their activities as militant socialist union officials to exercise
their institutional power in the ALP for whatever radical things they wish
to achieve. In the final analysis this stems from their recognition of
certain current objective realities in Australian society and politics. No
amount of exposure rhetoric, moral pressure, or in my case, abuse, from the
DSP leadership is likely to have much affect on the political behaviour of
the large number of serious socialists who are still active to a greater or
lesser degree in the ALP environment. The activity of such people is based
on objective circumstances and considered political objectives. The
sectarian demeanor towards the Labor Party adopted by the DSP leadership is
badly misleading the DSP membership. The failure of the DSP leadership to
draw back from these shibboleths, to look at Australian political reality in
a more objective spirit and to seriously consider reorienting their
organisation in the direction of the serious application of a united front
strategy is a genuine barrier to the numerical and political growth of the
DSP, and that of the Socialist Alliance.



Gould's Book Arcade
32 King St, Newtown, NSW
Ph: 9519-8947
Fax: 9550-5924
Email: bob@...
Web: www.gouldsbooks.com.au