Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

DSP NE statement on CPGB article 'DSP split over future'

Expand Messages
  • Pip Hinman & Peter Boyle
    DSP National Executive statement in response to the article “DSP split over future” by Greg Adler published in Weekly Worker (the newspaper of the
    Message 1 of 52 , Dec 1 8:04 PM
    • 0 Attachment
      DSP National Executive statement in response to the article “DSP split
      over future” by Greg Adler published in Weekly Worker (the newspaper of
      the Communist Party of Great Britain) 603 Thursday December 1, 2005:

      The publication by the CPGB and former Australian Socialist Alliance
      member Greg Adler of selected and out-of-context quotations from the
      internal discussion being held in the Democratic Socialist Perspective
      in the lead-up to its congress in January 2006 is a calculated and
      malicious attempt to destroy the modest progress in regrouping the left
      made by the Socialist Alliance over the last four years.

      The DSP membership, like the membership of any Socialist Alliance
      affiliate, has the right to have a frank internal discussion about the
      DSP’s perspectives towards the Alliance. Since the inception of the
      Alliance and prior to every DSP congress our members have always
      participated in a frank discussion about these relations.

      The DSP has been the strongest builder of the Socialist Alliance and has
      made great sacrifices to advance this left regroupment project. It also
      has an unblemished record of operating constructively, democratically
      and collaboratively within the Alliance. Unfortunately, the same cannot
      be said of Greg Adler.

      In the DSP’s internal discussion, a variety of views are expressed by
      members. None of them should be equated with the views of the DSP, even
      if these are views expressed by individuals holding leadership positions
      in the DSP.

      The DSP remains completely committed to building the Socialist Alliance
      and a broad, multi-tendency socialist party project. Any change in this
      position will be promptly reported to the Socialist Alliance and
      announced publicly.

      DSP National Executive
      Friday, December 02, 2005
    • Nick Fredman
      ... You re got the shibboleth , no you ve got the shibboleth, nah nah! . Dear oh dear. I ll try and avoid thunderous polemics and argue briefly that the idea
      Message 52 of 52 , Dec 11 10:48 PM
      • 0 Attachment

        >The dishonest mantra of the DSP is that political openness -
        >discussion in front of the working class - is some sort of
        >shibboleth. Codswallop. This evades the fact that it is actually the
        >DSP's practice of consipiratorial methods of internal organisation
        >that is the shibboleth.

        "You're got the shibboleth", "no you've got the shibboleth, nah
        nah!". Dear oh dear. I'll try and avoid thunderous polemics and argue
        briefly that the idea of "openess about every single discussion at
        all times", is an incorrect approach for a serious socialist
        political organisation, and to repeat this refrain when discussing
        virtually any issue, as the CPGB tends to do, often misses the
        essential points entirely.

        For one I'm not sure when one this lofty aim, even if it was
        desirable, has ever been achieved or could be. The CPBG in fact don't
        publish all their discussions, do they Marcus? They publish an edited
        extract in their newspaper, which is fine and dandy for them if they
        want to, but I can't see from their site any comprehensive list of
        all their bulletins and discussions (SA actually seems much more
        comprehensive on this score).

        In fact this question is obviously a tactical rather than a
        principled one, as there's times when it's not at all advisable to be
        open about everything. Ed Lewis' real name. The affiliations of DSP
        members in unions with particularly nasty and spiteful leaderships
        (this is a real issue). Planning an insurrection. Stuff like that are
        fairly obvious.

        Yes this happens in my union branch executive - they are technically
        open meetings but at times discuss tactics that we wouldn't want
        leaked to the management, or, on occasion, the branch of the CPSU,
        which I'm not shy about saying plays an often rotten role on
        campuses. About this Greg Adler
        http://members.optushome.com.au/spainter/millerstale.html puts
        forward a "when did you start beating your partner" kind of
        statement, (must be a clever lawyer trick they teach at Lawyer
        School), when he states:

        >>The point, of course, is that if Fredman's union leadership was
        >>discussing internally how to undermine other unions and to maintain
        >>a regime of misinformation to its own membership - that is, if it
        >>were acting like the DSP's internal bulletins reveals it was in the
        >>SA - I would think there was an obligation to reveal it, <<

        That is, he's implying something's proven when it hasn't been at all.
        There's no evidence Adler has or can point to that the DSP has
        misinformed SA members about anything. Please show us, Greg, in
        documents and verifiable incidents (rather than what some person
        supposedly said to you, or one person's opinion in a wide-ranging
        discussion), where *the DSP* has done this. The DSP does, like
        everyone else, have a right to a frank discussion about other
        tendencies it considers are playing a negative role. Just like my
        NTEU branch exec has a right to discuss, in camera, the rotten
        tactics of the CPSU branch, e.g. campaigning for a non-union
        agreement, and in that sense BTW, discuss how to undermine (counter
        the tactics of) another union.

        Marcus can no doubt say well if it's a changeable tactic, the DSP
        seems pretty inflexible about it. He may have a point there, and the
        fact that the right to private discussion maybe a bit moot when
        there's people about who get very excited about receiving such
        naughty illicit things and ther means to disseminate them are easily

        Even if there *was* a case for the DSP to be supposedly more "open",
        and stick all bulletins on its website, or sell them door to door for
        the whole working class to see, there's a practical question of what
        help this would currently be. All this stuff about "debates in front
        of the class" is pretentious hooey for small propaganda groups, the
        main practical result of easier access to DSP discussion would be to
        make it more convenient for Strom, Adler and Gould to make their
        polemical lectures from the sidelines. This probably isn't the end of
        the world but you'll have to excuse me for thinking it doesn't
        particularly advance the class struggle either.

        SA has problems and the DSP has problems putting as much effort into
        SA as it has. There's some big objective problems that has affected
        all of the left, and errors made by sections of SA itself - I think
        mainly by the other affiliates, maybe the DSP has made some mistakes
        too. The DSP has a right to discuss what it should be doing at the
        moment, and SA members have a right to participate in an ongoing
        discussion about what SA is doing, which includes an honest statement
        from all groups about what their collective positions are. Having the
        DSP discussion more open is going to do pretty much jack shit for
        both organisation working out the best path, which is why banging on
        about this question, as opposed to the perspectives and tactics for
        socialists today, is a useless shibboleth.

      Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.