Greens I
Bill Weller (“Write On”,
GLW #521) asks why, if the Greens are doing
so well, and are so progressive, would the Socialist Alliance (SA) field
candidates against them? While the Greens play a valuable role in profiling
progressive demands at election-time, the SA also has an important role,
one which the Greens are unwilling to carry out: pointing out that these
and other progressive changes can only be guaranteed by changing the way
society is organised, i.e., by ending capitalism and building socialism.
Weller derisively says, “while the Greens believe in their causes, the
Socialist Alliance uses these causes to undermine the government and as
a means of advertising." But don't the Greens seek to “undermine” the government
that hinders the achievement of the “causes” they believe in, and to “advertise”
(promote) their own solutions to these causes? Does Weller think we shouldn't
seek to “undermine” governments that promote racism, war and economic rationalism?
Would you rather we support and build such governments?
When Weller argues that, “It is time to really form a true left progressive
party, not a party of activists who turn up to marches only to leave when
the march is over or not even bothering to turn up at all", I'm reminded
of the Greens relation to the anti-war movement in Hobart. They play little
role in building the movement, but then turn up at rallies and try to flood
the place with their triangles as if to dishonestly say “We did this!”
Many SA members, on the other hand, have on-going involvement in a range
of progressive movements.
Shua Garfield
Hobart
Greens II
I take issue with Bill Weller's views as expressed in “Write On”,
GLW
#521, categorising the Socialist Alliance as irrelevant spoilers in the
electoral process who are weakening the “wave" of public support for the
Greens. My experience as a member of the old CPA for 25 years till its
demise, an official of the NSW Teachers Federation for over 15 years, and
NSW state secretary of the Greens for the last two years leads me to a
different view.
Using Bill's "wave" metaphor, remember waves inevitably “crash". The
Greens are a federation of state/territory parties. Some are well developed,
others weak or moribund. The WA Greens aren't even affiliated. They all
have different structures and I have no problem with that. Consequently,
we have in Australia today Greens parties, not a Greens party.
The autonomous Greens NSW has probably the best rank-and-file interactive
party structure the efficacy of which is reflected in its continuing electoral
successes. Other Greens parties are not so democratic. Also there is a
push by elements in the federal “umbrella", the Australian Greens, to establish
an all-powerful centralist Greens Party with its headquarters in Canberra.
This would give primacy to bureaucrats over activists; careers rather than
action.
If you go to national and state meetings of the Greens and you meet
nice people with laudable ideals and although there are a few “water-melons"
in the ranks most do not appear to have any substantive ideological basis
for rigorous political analysis. Parliamentarism is dominant and is corrupted
by “unlimited tenure".
The Green parties have no equivalent of GLW through which members
can interpret the world.
Given the present level of disillusionment with electoral politics in
Australia is it any wonder that the Greens are “sweeping up" the votes
of former Democrat and ALP voters? But do the Greens have the “ticker"
to challenge our arrogant and brutal capitalism of the 21st century? I
doubt it.
Being the beneficiaries of disillusion isn't enough. You have to deliver
beyond that. Bourgeois reformists that the Greens currently are represent
a necessary bridge for progressive politics but in its present manifestation
will never be a sufficient force for the kind of political change this
country and planet needs.
The left needs a socialist party out there. Our best option in this
category at the moment is the Socialist Alliance. I wish it well.
Dave Bell
Sydney {Abridged]
Labor and the war
According to the
Sydney Morning Herald, a senior left faction leader
advised Simon Crean not to attend the HMAS
Kanimbla send-off. But
he did, and his comment - "I don't believe that you should be going" —
to troops departing for the Gulf on the HMAS
Kanimbla represents
a welcome stiffening of Crean's spine on the war.
Labor is lagging so far behind public opinion on this issue finally,
it seems, the alarm bells have started to ring. But while Labor's shift
is welcome, especially insofar as its influences the union leaderships
to do more, the anti-war movement has to be careful not to tie its fortunes
to the ALP.
Unfair comparisons have been made to Arthur Calwell, who opposed sending
the First Battalion to Vietnam in 1965. Calwell was prepared to speak out
against the war when it was unpopular to do so. By contrast Crean hasn't
taken any risks at all. He's responding to the polls, not leading them.
Pip Hinman
Sydney
Socialist Alliance
Jeff Sparrow (“Write On”,
GLW 521) claims that Socialist Alliance
is "going nowhere". He says that "given none of the constituent organisations
have actually changed positions on the issues which traditionally divide
them, the 'unity' so far achieved seems to me rather like the proverbial
umbrella full of holes - functional only until the time comes to actually
use it".
So according to Sparrow we can not unite unless we first agree on the
nature of the former Soviet Union and the theory of permanent revolution.
This approach guarantees that the left will remain divided, something Sparrow
seems quite happy with. But many left activists are not at all happy with
it. They want a united socialist party, recognising that it could have
a qualitatively bigger impact on politics than any existing group.
Is it really necessary to have a separate party (or small group aiming
to become a party) for each different opinion on theoretical questions?
Or would it be a step forward if the theoretical differences were discussed
within a united socialist party (within which supporters of a particular
theory could organise as a tendency if they so desire)?
Sparrow will find that agreement on theory within a small group can
be “an umbrella full of holes". Agreement on theory (the nature of the
former Soviet Union etc) did not prevent the split between the International
Socialist Organisation and Socialist Alternative.
When differences arise in the Socialist Alliance, we discuss them with
the aim of arriving at a common position. So far we have been very successful
in reaching agreement on a range of issues. But if complete agreement proves
impossible on some issues, ways will have to be found to ensure the maximum
feasible unity in action.
Chris Slee
Melbourne
Bioweapons
Major kudos for your outstanding story: "US considers new bioweapon attack"
(
GLW #522). US Vietnam war veterans and Vietnamese citizens are
still paying the price for our use of “Agent Orange", the chemical the
US government assured everybody was safe.
Introducing biological weapons to somehow nullify the immutable law
of supply and demand is both insane and counter-productive. When jackrabbits
were introduced to Australia, it probably sounded like a great idea. Obviously
it was a disaster.
The introduction of biological weapons in Colombia is a disaster waiting
to happen.
Kirk Muse
Mesa, Arizona
From Green Left Weekly, January 29, 2003.
Visit the Green Left Weekly
home page.
