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

Re: RSP on progress towards merger with SA

Expand Messages
  • sherrife2008
    Hi all, First time poster on this list, and a member of Socialist Alternative. I think James (and Jorge, and the RSP s official statement) have pretty clearly
    Message 1 of 83 , Oct 6, 2012
    View Source
    • 0 Attachment
      Hi all,

      First time poster on this list, and a member of Socialist Alternative.

      I think James (and Jorge, and the RSP's official statement) have pretty clearly enunciated the reasons for why they are for revolutionary unity. Here James C sums up my take on things too:

      "Well I am sorry but I don't want to have unity with the Greens or the ALP (maybe we should even have unity with the Liberal party by your logic!), the main game is building the revolutionary party to overthrow capitalism, the next step in that game is building a revolutionary cadre organisation i.e. Socialist Alternative."

      Those who disagree with this strategic orientation are free to do so, but it is a point of convergence for the SA and the RSP. Both seek to build an explicitly Marxist organisation. Both believe in the working class as an agent for change. Both see systematic transformation of the system as necessary. Both are opposed to oppression and imperialism. On all these questions there can be differences of opinions, but the principles are uncontroversial.

      Someone raised the point that the formal political programs of the RSP and the leaders at the core of the Alliance being more similar than those of the RSP and SA. So too in Greece, the abstract positions of the DEA and SEK are more or less identical. Go back far enough, the formal position of Lenin and Martov on the question of the coming Russian Revolution was pretty similar too, at least until Feb 1917.

      Clearly, in all these cases, strategic questions have proven to be far from secondary. SEK counterpose ANTARSYA (itself a failed attempt at broad unity) to building a new, genuine mass workers party of the left in the form of SYRIZA. Martov prioritised an alliance with the bourgeoisie over one with the working class/peasantry. And so on.

      An example closer to home, Solidarity at Melbourne Uni are in a campaign with the Liberal-dominated Clubs and Societies committee to disaffiliate us and sabotage the Marxism 2013 conference. Our agreement on the Russia question is relatively irrelevant; their rabidly sectarian shenanigans are the dominant barrier to unity and cooperation. Meanwhile the RSP (and the Alliance for that matter) are happy to discuss unity and have long worked with us in a comradely way.

      So, on the need to continue to build an interventionist, cadre, *Marxist* organisation, the RSP and SA are in agreement. On a whole series of general principles, the same is true. Where there are differences, they will be debated in a comradely manner, as we work together to build a revolutionary current in Australia.

      On questions such as Cuba, Venezuela etc., James rightly refers to the fact that people in existing campaign work will be allowed to continue that work. But the reality is that there are few instances where these issues will have direct import for Australian revolutionaries. Where differences do arise, open debate and democratic decision-making will be the default means of dealing with them. At the same time, it will be important to avoid unnecessary sectarian point scoring - there is limited value in rehashing historic debates endlessly.

      Finally, I would echo James's conclusion. Those who wish to be part of the exciting new developments on the revolutionary left should come to a meeting and/or contact our leadership for a more direct discussion.

      Omar
    • chris_breen_70
      Hi all I have had a request for the C&S minutes where the Soc Alt disaffiliation was discussed, and a suggestion that I upload them on sribd, so I have done
      Message 83 of 83 , Oct 21, 2012
      View Source
      • 0 Attachment
        Hi all I have had a request for the C&S minutes where the Soc Alt disaffiliation was discussed, and a suggestion that I upload them on sribd, so I have done so.

        Regards

        Chris Breen

        http://www.scribd.com/doc/110667296/Minutes-2012-Special-Meeting-3-08-10-12
        http://www.scribd.com/doc/110667292/Minutes-2012-17-01-10-12
        http://www.scribd.com/doc/110667158/Minutes-2012-16-13-09-12
        http://www.scribd.com/doc/110667280/Minutes-2012-15-27-08-12




        --- In GreenLeft_discussion@yahoogroups.com, "chris_breen_70" <cbreen70@...> wrote:
        >
        >
        > Hi all, Omar has claimed:
        >
        > "An example closer to home, Solidarity at Melbourne Uni are in a
        > campaign with the Liberal-dominated Clubs and Societies committee to
        > disaffiliate us and sabotage the Marxism 2013 conference. Our agreement
        > on the Russia question is relatively irrelevant; their rabidly sectarian
        > shenanigans are the dominant barrier to unity and cooperation."
        >
        > This is simply not true, and Omar should know that it is not true. If he
        > doesn't know, it can only be because his Melbourne University comrades
        > have not told him the truth.
        >
        > I intended to attach the minutes from all 4 Clubs and Societies
        > committee meetings about the disaffiliation, but it seems attachments
        > are not possible in this forum (if you email me at cbreen70 @...
        > <mailto:cbreen70@...> I will send them to you. I am open to any
        > other suggestion about where I can upload them, they are word docs up to
        > 20 pages each). It is clear from the minutes at the C&S committee that
        > the petition to disaffiliate Socialist Alternative was not brought about
        > by Solidarity. The complaint was not initiated by us. The original
        > report comes from security, and has been taken up by people within C&S.
        > We were not present at any of the meetings. We are not in any campaign,
        > and have not conspired with the Liberals.
        >
        > Socialist Alternative are aware of this. In fact, Stephanie Price asked
        > the committee directly about Solidarity see pg.6 of attached minutes
        > from C&S committee regarding Soc Alt disaffiliation, 01-10-12:
        >
        > Stephanie Price: The petition is based on unfounded accusations. Fiona
        > is aware that Jasmine Ali is not a member of Socialist Alternative and
        > has had contact with her. Speculates about Fiona'smotives
        >
        > Fiona Sanders : Stop implying things and ask me an actual question.
        >
        > Stephanie Price: Do any anecdotal complaints come from Jasmine Ali?
        >
        > Fiona Sanders: No.
        >
        > Omar's post above comes only a week after this was revealed at the
        > C&S committee meeting.
        >
        > Similarly Liz Walsh from Socialist Alternative has claimed on Facebook
        > (a week after Omar's comment):
        >
        > "Solidarity¬Ö. is collaborating with the Young Liberals at Melbourne
        > University to disaffiliate Socialist Alternative from the Student Union
        > thereby jeopardising the Marxism conference. Your clubs central role in
        > this appalling affair is fully documented in the student union minutes."
        >
        > There is no such thing documented in the minutes. These comments by Omar
        > and Liz appear to be made in the full knowledge that they are not true.
        >
        > It may suit Socialist Alternative to try and scapegoat Solidarity,
        > rather than look at their own comrades' behaviour which has put them
        > into this situation; but sooner or later, you have to face facts.
        >
        > Socialist Alternative members may want to ask why their leading members
        > are inventing conspiracy stories rather than tell the truth. We hope to
        > see a retraction from Omar and Liz of their unfounded attacks on
        > Solidarity.
        >
        > Chris Breen
        >
        >
        >
        > --- In GreenLeft_discussion@yahoogroups.com, "sherrife2008"
        > <sherrife@> wrote:
        > >
        > > Hi all,
        > >
        > > First time poster on this list, and a member of Socialist Alternative.
        > >
        > > I think James (and Jorge, and the RSP's official statement) have
        > pretty clearly enunciated the reasons for why they are for revolutionary
        > unity. Here James C sums up my take on things too:
        > >
        > > "Well I am sorry but I don't want to have unity with the Greens or the
        > ALP (maybe we should even have unity with the Liberal party by your
        > logic!), the main game is building the revolutionary party to overthrow
        > capitalism, the next step in that game is building a revolutionary cadre
        > organisation i.e. Socialist Alternative."
        > >
        > > Those who disagree with this strategic orientation are free to do so,
        > but it is a point of convergence for the SA and the RSP. Both seek to
        > build an explicitly Marxist organisation. Both believe in the working
        > class as an agent for change. Both see systematic transformation of the
        > system as necessary. Both are opposed to oppression and imperialism. On
        > all these questions there can be differences of opinions, but the
        > principles are uncontroversial.
        > >
        > > Someone raised the point that the formal political programs of the RSP
        > and the leaders at the core of the Alliance being more similar than
        > those of the RSP and SA. So too in Greece, the abstract positions of the
        > DEA and SEK are more or less identical. Go back far enough, the formal
        > position of Lenin and Martov on the question of the coming Russian
        > Revolution was pretty similar too, at least until Feb 1917.
        > >
        > > Clearly, in all these cases, strategic questions have proven to be far
        > from secondary. SEK counterpose ANTARSYA (itself a failed attempt at
        > broad unity) to building a new, genuine mass workers party of the left
        > in the form of SYRIZA. Martov prioritised an alliance with the
        > bourgeoisie over one with the working class/peasantry. And so on.
        > >
        > > An example closer to home, Solidarity at Melbourne Uni are in a
        > campaign with the Liberal-dominated Clubs and Societies committee to
        > disaffiliate us and sabotage the Marxism 2013 conference. Our agreement
        > on the Russia question is relatively irrelevant; their rabidly sectarian
        > shenanigans are the dominant barrier to unity and cooperation. Meanwhile
        > the RSP (and the Alliance for that matter) are happy to discuss unity
        > and have long worked with us in a comradely way.
        > >
        > > So, on the need to continue to build an interventionist, cadre,
        > *Marxist* organisation, the RSP and SA are in agreement. On a whole
        > series of general principles, the same is true. Where there are
        > differences, they will be debated in a comradely manner, as we work
        > together to build a revolutionary current in Australia.
        > >
        > > On questions such as Cuba, Venezuela etc., James rightly refers to the
        > fact that people in existing campaign work will be allowed to continue
        > that work. But the reality is that there are few instances where these
        > issues will have direct import for Australian revolutionaries. Where
        > differences do arise, open debate and democratic decision-making will be
        > the default means of dealing with them. At the same time, it will be
        > important to avoid unnecessary sectarian point scoring - there is
        > limited value in rehashing historic debates endlessly.
        > >
        > > Finally, I would echo James's conclusion. Those who wish to be part of
        > the exciting new developments on the revolutionary left should come to a
        > meeting and/or contact our leadership for a more direct discussion.
        > >
        > > Omar
        > >
        >
        >
        >
        > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
        >
      Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.