BY JOHN PERCY
[The following letter was sent on November 7 on behalf of the national
executive of the Democratic Socialist Party (DSP) to the national executive
of the International Socialist Organisation (ISO).]
Dear comrades, we were extremely disappointed to receive your November
3 letter threatening to “terminate” the ISO's affiliation to the Socialist
Alliance if the DSP goes ahead with our proposal to stop building ourselves
publicly and just become a tendency in the Socialist Alliance.
The DSP national executive discussed your position on November 4. We
think your departure would be a tragic mistake and totally unjustified
by the DSP proposal, which is aimed purely and simply at strengthening
the alliance.
We have contacted you by phone and sent off a letter requesting an emergency
meeting between the ISO and DSP national leaderships to avoid a breakdown
in relations within the alliance and to remove any possibilities for misunderstanding.
By the time this letter reaches you we hope that meeting might have taken
place and that together we would have removed any cause for jeopardising
the unity of the alliance.
However, we obviously do need to respond directly to your letter to
again clarify our proposals and allay concerns about their impact on the
Socialist Alliance. The other issues that you flag as the main questions
“which are most decidedly not settled” — such as the question of reformism
and the task of building a revolutionary party — need more thorough discussions
than is possible in this exchange of letters. The Socialist Alliance itself
is, of course, the best place to continue such discussions.
Your ultimatum
Firstly, we were surprised that your letter, after acknowledging receipt
of our response to your first letter, hardly attempts to respond to the
arguments in it. Instead of repeating these we would just urge comrades
to read it again (in
GLW #515) along with the original letter outlining
the proposals being discussed by the DSP membership leading up to our December
28-January 1 congress (
GLW #508) and other contributions DSP leaders
have made to the debate.
Secondly, you state that your “bluntness risks causing offence”. None
is taken. Let's have a frank and clear debate on the best way forward for
the Socialist Alliance, and all of us in the Socialist Alliance will benefit.
But for you to threaten “to recommend to our conference to terminate
our affiliation if the DSP congress votes to implement the proposal” is
to present an ultimatum, not just to us but at the Socialist Alliance as
a whole.
We urge you to draw back. Let's have the discussion about how we can
preserve the unity already achieved and build a more united, stronger and
more activist Socialist Alliance.
Your letter states that it's “settled” that we're both agreed on welcoming
further discussion and debate. But unfortunately, to “terminate your affiliation”
to the alliance would put an end to a real developing discussion. What
matters, especially to non-affiliated Alliance members, is not discussion
in the abstract (we've had that for years, with heavy polemics at 20 paces)
but a discussion aimed at strengthening unity in a framework of joint activity
that tests out the alliance's political line in practice.
What happens to the alliance after the DSP congress?
What will be the impact of the DSP national committee's proposals if they
are adopted by our congress? Your letter says that “we have to say honestly
that the more we understand how the DSP is approaching the Socialist Alliance
project, the more our fears grow”. Individual ISO comrades have expressed
their concern that the DSP just doesn't understand — or want to understand
— those fears.
What exactly are they? Your letter summarises them in the sentence:
“We will not be used as fodder in a revolutionary regroupment exercise
which has not been publicly articulated nor collectively decided, but which
will be carried by the weight of the DSP's numbers and is likely to result
in no more than a rebadged DSP.”
This fear is groundless. Firstly, as we've said in previous letters,
and in the public discussions, the DSP decision being discussed means nothing
organisationally for the Socialist Alliance. There is no “January deadline”
for the Socialist Alliance. There's merely a DSP January congress at which
DSP members will decide whether they want to put more of their energy into
building the Socialist Alliance, and stop building the DSP publicly.
It is a logical step for us to propose to DSP members. We've already
stopped running in elections in our name so that we can support the Socialist
Alliance election campaigns. We've already stopped organising demonstrations
and pickets in our name, helping the Socialist Alliance to organise actions
like this. It's a small step for us to say that all the rest of our public
activities should be organised within the framework of the Socialist Alliance.
So what would acceptance of our proposal by our congress mean for the
alliance? What, concretely, would there be to fear if the DSP becomes the
Democratic Socialist Tendency within the alliance?
Would the DST start using Green Left Weekly to propagate its
own views as if they were those of the alliance? Absolutely not. That would
destroy the alliance at a stroke. The DSP has been scrupulous (as have
all affiliates) in demarcating its specific positions from those of the
alliance. That won't change.
Would GLW suddenly be transformed into, or present itself as,
the paper of the alliance? Any relationship between the alliance and GLW
(or Socialist Worker, for that matter) can only develop if and when
the alliance's elected leadership decides that it wants to negotiate such
a relationship. The DSP simply does not have “the weight of numbers” on
that leadership to impose such a course.
Would GLW become the de facto voice of the alliance? GLW
is already seen by many as one of the voices for the alliance for the simple
reason that it reports and promotes as much alliance activity as it can
manage, and because it carries the alliance debate in a completely open
and unrestricted way. That coverage is a good thing, should increase and
would be a strange thing to fear.
Would Socialist Worker be somehow squeezed out as part of a future
paper of the alliance? If the ISO decided to make Socialist Worker
available to the alliance — which we in the DSP would heartily applaud
— then we would be enthusiastic supporters of the idea of creating a joint
paper for the alliance out of the existing resources of Socialist Worker
and GLW.
Would the DST start setting up new alliance branches all over Australia
in order to “get the numbers” at the next alliance conference in May?
The Socialist Alliance has operated in a cooperative, democratic and
inclusive basis up to now and despite the fact that the DSP is already
the affiliate group with the most members of the alliance, we have not
used this weight to force anything on anybody.
If the extra DST energy released after the proposed DSP congress decision
in January were to succeed in helping make the alliance bigger, more active
and more involving of the membership, it will have the result of reducing
the relative weight of the DSP — and of all affiliates.
The alliance would increasingly be the property of the unaffiliated
membership and that new balance would be reflected at the next national
conference. Isn't that what we all want?
Obviously, the DSP proposal puts some moral pressure on all affiliates
to reconsider their relationship to the alliance. It dramatises the question
we all have to address: what is the way forward? If not the approach we
have proposed, what?
We make no apology for that, because the political situation demands
that it be addressed, urgently and seriously.
The Socialist Alliance has been starved of attention, and resources,
by the affiliated groups. We all acknowledge that's natural — it's hard
building two organisations at once. And this lack of resources limits the
alliance politically. What the DSP is proposing is a generous step
to help solve the situation and we hope others can follow.
A revolutionary party by May 2003?
Next, are there any grounds for your specific fear that the ISO (and the
alliance as a whole) is being rushed into “a revolutionary regroupment
exercise, which has not been publicly articulated nor collectively decided”?
What most seems to have provoked this reaction is Peter Boyle's report
to our recent national committee plenum, which has come into your hands,
and Dick Nichols' draft perspectives and principles manifesto (“vision
statement”) produced for discussion within the alliance.
There is nothing in either of these documents that should in the least
come as a surprise or a shock. Right from the outset we in the DSP made
clear that we saw the alliance as the site of socialist regroupment in
this country and that our goal was to take steps along this road as
the unfolding of real experiences and debate allowed.
No deadlines being set
We have never set a deadline for this process — it is not in our power
and even if it were it would be stupid — and Peter Boyle's statement that
our January conference “opens the real political struggle for left regroupment
in the Socialist Alliance, one that will stretch over months or perhaps
over years” is simply a recognition of the facts.
That's because different alliance affiliates have different views of
what the alliance is and how it should develop. Its actual development
will depend on the debate (“real political struggle”) between these viewpoints
within the alliance itself and which positions succeed in persuading the
alliance membership.
That's where the draft “vision statement” (not platform, as you call
it) comes in. It's an attempt, done by Dick Nichols in his own name, to
make explicit the actual operating basis of the alliance, above and beyond
its founding platform. The idea is also to see if a “credo” with which
the mass of the alliance members would identify could be written.
In my initial letter to the alliance national executive I indicated
such a draft would be produced.
The document involves a “statement of revolutionary intent” as you describe
it, and that is based on the understanding that if we are going to talk
about socialism then it's impossible not to talk — in real content if not
in so many words — about revolution. But whether or not such a statement
accurately captures the viewpoint of the mass of Socialist Alliance members
is up to them — and the debate — to determine.
The ISO says that it doesn't (and shouldn't). But instead of threatening
to walk out, why not produce a draft statement of your own which you think
better captures where alliance members are at?
The DSP has no intention of trying to ram through any “vision statement”
of this sort if the discussion reveals widespread reluctance and doubts
within the minds of the alliance membership. Such a situation would simply
reveal the need for the alliance as a whole to pass through more experience
of struggle and more discussion about the political meaning of that experience.
In summary, there are no deadlines at all for the Socialist Alliance
and your picture of a DSP bent on force-marching the alliance into adopting
a revolutionary program by the May alliance conference really is false.
Perhaps the May conference might take important decisions. Perhaps only
minor advances for the alliance will be agreed on, and further discussion
scheduled. Let's see.
Why not return to your initial position?
Given that there is nothing new in what the DSP has been saying about the
alliance in the recent period, we simply don't understand why you have
had to change the position outlined in the document presented by your national
executive for your December 7-8 national conference (“The Socialist Alliance
Challenge”, which appears in your first conference discussion bulletin).
We were looking forward to developing the discussion, especially after
reading the conclusion of that document, which states:
“We need to avoid three mistakes. One is to reject the DSP's proposal
out of hand because of cynicism about their record past and present. The
proposal is gaining a hearing among a layer of non-affiliated SA members
for positive reasons…
“The second mistake is to believe that we should endorse the DSP's document
because it would make life easier, or because it would be a short-cut to
more resources or influence….
“Instead we need to grab the debate with both hands. The worst mistake
is to be passive….
“Transforming the SA into an SSP-style party is not our preference.
We need to defend our original conception of the alliance. We need to acknowledge
the steps forward SA has taken, without endorsing the DSP's attempt to
force march its progress.
“But because the DSP's proposal reflects a partial reality — the way
SA has won members and respect among a layer of working class activists
— we also need to put down markers for the kind of Alliance we want if
the DSP goes ahead with its plan. That means insisting that SA does not
become a quasi-revolutionary party by the back door, that it is open to
collaboration with those on Labor's left as well as with those who have
broken from Labor, and that revolutionaries who participate in a `new'
alliance have guaranteed platform rights….
“In summary, we need to engage with the debate in a firm but comradely
fashion. By doing so we can try to:
“a) deflect or deter the DSP from its crash through or crash course,
which endangers SA's very existence;
“b) win a layer of non-affiliated SA members around us; and
“c) ensure that if we are left with no choice but to negotiate a role
in an SSP-style party, it can be on the healthiest terms.”
We don't understand what's changed since that document was adopted,
but if you were to return to it, then both our organisations and everyone
else in the alliance would be free to continue the existing discussion
on the substantive issues in debate without a sword hanging over our heads.
These are important. That's because, irrespective of what the DSP
January congress decides, the alliance will have to decide whether
or not (and how far and how fast) it wants to move beyond its founding
platform. And debate on this question is, of course, tied up with our differing
judgments on such issues as how working people break from the ALP, of what
the natural constituency of the alliance is and what it political character
should be.
In conclusion, let me repeat our urgent request not to proceed with
your proposal to disaffiliate from the alliance in case the DSP congress
votes to become a tendency within the Socialist Alliance. There is nothing
in what we propose, have done or will do to justify such a destructive
course. Think what a demoralising impact it could have on alliance members.
Even if you are not convinced by our arguments at least reserve judgment
and decision until you have seen the actual impact of our proposal. If
it can be shown to have damaged the alliance — which it will not — you
will be able to demonstrate this to the delegates to the May national conference.
Further, we remain open to any proposals for a more effective way forward
for left unity through the Socialist Alliance. We will seriously consider
the responses and suggestions of the ISO and all other affiliates and individual
members of the Socialist Alliance before making any decisions at the coming
DSP congress.
We can be certain that building the alliance will involve us in strong
debates and even sharp differences. But let's all agree to leave the ultimata
where they belong — outside our common socialist home.
From Green Left Weekly, November 13, 2002.
Visit the Green Left Weekly
home page.
