5615Re: [GreenLeft_discussion] Social democracy, theory and practice
- Apr 6 3:17 AM
Two points for Nick
Firstly, I am a he not a she.
Secondly, on the issue of "timeless denunciations of labour", maybey this is a bit harsh. It was not aimed particularily at the DSP (i think some of the the worst posts have been from non-dsp members) although i do often have problems with DSP positions.
However, i was a bit annoyed that bob has raised serious questions ( along with a bit of overblown nonsence ) and in reply most posts have been all about the ALP's betrayals.
The point is, Bob's thoery and position has nothing to do with the ALP being squeeky clean, so many of these posts seem to be just fire.
Now, that has not been everyone, but a significant proportion.
Now, as regards the DSP's position, I think the official theory is interpreted and applied in a miryad of different ways- verging from the crude "Another Liberal Party" or "Amateur Liberal Party" formulations to what I see as the more refined positions from DSP leaders such as Peter Boyle or Pip Hinman.
For example, despite the quite complex nature of the decision (Moore vs ALP), the first time we visited the question most DSP members (all who spoke) were very hard in favour of Moore, and did not engage with my points at all.
Some replied to my initial support for Lees with what I would happily term "timeless and sectarian denunciations of Labor".
It seems that those who have been in the party for a long time or who are in political leadership positions tend to have a more nuanced view, whilst much of the rank and file and on the ground leadership, tend to have a more crude position.
My theory is that some don't understand the more nuanced position, or that if they do they have had to simplify it into a crudified debating version of the theory.
I think those who have to deal with new people day in and day out tend to tail the often knee-jerk sectarianism of many newer leftists.
I suspect the crude version of the theory has also been used as a recruitment tool- i.e. "look at how shit the ALP is- you should join the DSP"
I dont sasy these things to be nasty, they are just my observations.
Anyway, back to my starting point- i think that Bob's, and anyone elses posts for that matter, have to be replied with by theory, not just fire.
It seems that when a fight starts, the more nuanced positions fly out the window and the 'another liberal party" debating version comes out to the fore.
If the DSP leadership wanted to prove that they are not simple sectarians, then they should reply to some of the cruder anti-ALP comments such as from Norbert and Kerry as well as taking Bob to task.
WIN FREE WORLDWIDE FLIGHTS - nominate a cafe in the Yahoo! Mail Internet Cafe Awards
- << Previous post in topic Next post in topic >>