Let’s unite behind Green Left Weekly

Marce Cameron
Gadigal/Sydney
September 7, 2011
Issue 
895
Analysis

For many years we were regular contributors to Green Left Weekly and proud supporters of the paper. We’ve now decided to resume writing for GLW and we urge other former contributors to consider doing the same.

In May 2008, we and about 50 other former members of the Democratic Socialist Perspective (DSP) launched the Revolutionary Socialist Party (RSP) and the monthly paper Direct Action (DA) following a bitter internal dispute in the DSP that centred on the Socialist Alliance.

In August 2010, we and six other members of the Sydney branch of the RSP left the organisation as a group, having concluded that the RSP was not viable as a Marxist party because it lacks both a critical mass of activists and realistic possibilities for recruitment.

We were unable to establish enough of a readership and support base for DA to justify the effort that goes into the paper.

GLW, on the other hand, has established itself over the past two decades as a socialist publication with a relatively high profile, readership and support base.

It’s the only such publication that comes out weekly and its website is among the ten most visited Australian political websites.

It has to be recognised that GLW is a valuable institution for the left as a whole whether or not one agrees with the politics of the Socialist Alliance, the organisation that underpins GLW.

As socialists we disagree on many things, yet most of the content of a typical 24-page edition of GLW is stuff we probably all agree on, or largely agree on.



If space is made available to express a variety of viewpoints and facilitate constructive debate among those opposed to capitalism, GLW can be both Socialist Alliance’s paper and something more: a publication of, by and for the socialist movement as a whole.

We’re not members of the Socialist Alliance and we don’t intend to join. The Socialist Alliance isn’t the kind of party we want to build. Yet we recognise the value of GLW to all of us.

With the class struggle at such a low ebb in Australia it’s very difficult to build radical left parties. “The battle of ideas” in a more pure form than the traditional party/paper combination, and non-party forms of socialist collaboration, assume greater importance.

Radical left publications, especially those with an attractive online presence, can be one form of such collaboration.

GLW could be an institutional bridge of continuity between the small and splintered socialist movement and a new, future wave of anti-capitalist radicalisation in Australia precipitated by the unfolding of capitalism’s multiple systemic crises.

In a deep crisis of capitalist rule the need for revolutionary organisation would be posed as an objective necessity and real steps could be taken towards a mass revolutionary socialist party.

In the meantime, GLW could and should be more of a collaborative project in the inclusive spirit of the introduction on the paper’s website: “Green Left Weekly aims to provide a much-needed forum for discussion and debate about changing the world ... by sharing a wide range of views.”

Socialism
Australia

Comments

Anonymous replied on

I am dedicated to the revolutionary party project so am a committed RSP member. Whatever political or tactical disagreements I may have with Marce Cameron and Iggy Kim I am continually inspired by their passionate and cerebral contributions to anti-capitalist struggles. I subscribe to Marce's blogspot translations and articles on Cuba and I read with keen interest his latest posts. I look to him as an authority on the Cuban revolution, not just historically, but particularly regarding its current struggles to reinvent itself. I don't believe the left should unite around GLW as the point of a revolutionary paper is to build a revolutionary party. If its not doing that then all the web hits and brand recognition in the world will not advance the class struggle in any meaningful way. Key editorial staff behind DA were former editors of GLW and its predecessor DA. It was GLW's original aim to build a revolutionary party which contributed to its present reputation and recognition. Leninist-Cannonist strategies argue that if DA remains committed to revolutionary party-building it will have much greater authority and influence in future times than what either DA or GLW currently enjoy. Having said that I have no problem with Marce and Iggy writing for GLW. I will not stop reading GLW just because it publishes articles by 'social chauvinists' (one incorrect characterisation of these comrades by 'anonymous' ) nor will I refuse to read Marce's articles because he calls for unity behind the organ of the Socialist Alliance (ex-DSP majority). (Like many others on the left I am dismayed by the bile and invective that characterises radical political 'discussion'. I think comrades should develop either a sense of proportion or at least a modicum of humour but hey that's just my opinion...) I won't post my name because of security issues. But I am a female socialist with a longstanding interest in the Labour Party of Pakistan and Pakistani politics so ex-DSP members (both those in and out of SA and RSP) can guess who I am. I express my personal views here only.

Anonymous replied on

So glad to hear we will be able to read more from Marce and Iggy. There is little enough in this pathetic political climate to be excited about... a quality, thoughtful, lively working class paper is a life saver. literally. Karen Fletcher

Anonymous replied on

There's more Marxism in a month of GLWs that there is of any other newspaper in this country in a year. Articles by John Bellamy Foster, Ian Angus, Derek Wall, and Marxists in and outside of the Socialist Alliance, articles from the US Socialist Worker ... I could go on. We might not have the newspaper or the party that we would ideally like, but GLW and the Socialist Alliance are the closest things in this country. What's most important is that they don't prevent "Marxists" from participating and putting forward their ideas and activity, and -- as this thread indicates -- postively encourage it. What the former and current RSP members don't seem to get is that, by not involving themselves in the Socialist Alliance, they are cutting themselves off from the largest group of organised socialists in Australia (many who are Marxists). Marce and Iggy's arguments in favour of GLW apply equally to Socialist Alliance. That's why there's howls of "traitor" directed towards them, coming from some in the RSP. Marxists don't organise as secret societies or as saintly sects whose canon cannot be sullied by the real world. They get down and dirty with the organised left and prove their worth. Just ask ol' Karl! Red Rod.

Anonymous replied on

Marce says: " "Challenging the capitalist market" is bullshit and most SA members know it. Our only hope lies not in challenging but abolishing the capitalist market and replacing it with a social order based on economy-wide, democratic planning with a subordinate role for market mechanisms. This can only happen through a social revolution, as in Cuba and Venezuela. " But Venezuela has not "abolish[ed] the capitalist market". It has made some inroads into the capitalist market, by nationalising some enterprises and carrying out experiments in workers control. I would say that Venezuela is "challenging" the capitalist market through such measures. But it has not abolished the capitalist market. Much of the economy is still privately owned. It is wrong to counterpose "challenging" to "abolishing". Challenging the capitalist market it potentially a step on the road to abolishing it. This is a transitional approach. Chris Slee

Anonymous replied on

Really Red Rod, the Socialist Alliance `is the largest group of organised socialists in Australia'?! That's an extraordinary claim to make ... maybe you should do a head count at the next demo. Or do you mean paper membership? From my recollection of recent history, none of the SA organised conferences have come close to the attendence of the Marxism conferences organised by Socialist Alternative. Not by a country mile. Geez Rod, the puffery of your comment lends itself to paraphrase the earlier post by Peter Boyle: 'Moreover, when you think you are the largest, the tendency is to collect the windbags and to substitute for the fact that you have no real mass weight, with a certain arrogant posing: to talk about your claims to continuity with Marx, Engels, Lenin, and Trotsky — as though you could inherit a program instead of forging one in life, in the class struggle itself...'' I really like the original post by Peter, the quote from Jim Percy. I knew Jim a little and learnt a lot from him. It seems that Peter and his erstwhile former DSP comrades in SA knew Jim a lot but learnt little. That's a shame. To proclaim SA as the be-all or even the step towards the party needed to overthrow capitalism is a gross overestimation. It is the hard and inescapable lesson of struggle that will bring this to light, not proclomations by SA or any left oufit. Bob J Turner

Anonymous replied on

It's true, Venezuela hasn't gone as far as Cuba in abolishing the capitalist market. But the conscious goal of the Bolivarian Revolution is the same: socialism. So why not use these societies as positive examples to emulate in SA's propaganda on climate change? Why leave it at the cryptic "challenging the capitalist market", which can have both reformist and revolutionary interpretations? If SA is an anti-capitalist party why not be more explicit about its anti-capitalist objectives and how SA believes these objectives can be achieved, i.e. through a revolution? Then, use Cuba and Venezuela as examples of revolution so it's less abstract for people. This can be done in an intelligent way without coming across as lecturing people. It's only wrong to counterpose "challenging" to "abolishing" if you're trying to deliberately fudge the distinction between the two. Why not tell people what you actually think is necessary, what your party really stands for? Revolutionaries masking themselves as reformists may be the SA approach, but it's not the "transitional approach" as advocated by Leon Trotsky. In any case, according to Peter Boyle the problem with the far left is Trotskyism. If you share his view then I'm not sure what relevance the transitional method has for SA., unless "transitional method" is a theoretical justification for what Lenin called bowing to spontaneity. What a shame that thousands of copies of expensive glossy SA Climate Charter brochures made no mention of the Cuban and Venezuelan revolutions as inspiring examples of the kind of "climate change movement" we really need: a movement for the revolutionary transformation of capitalist society incorporating an ecological emergency plan. Instead, we read about scientific facts that are readily available elsewhere and an action program that is sheer utopianism unless it's part of an overall strategy directed against the core problem: state power in the hands of the capitalist class. If SA's propaganda doesn't enlighten people about this fundamental obstacle to urgent action on climate change, if it doesn't help people glimpse beyond the ideological and programmatic prison-house of capitalist reformism, it's not going to be much help in building a movement for socialism. Marce Cameron

Anonymous replied on

No, these arguments in favour of our approach of contributing to GLW don't apply equally to SA. If that were the case then I would consider joining SA. As for SA being the largest socialist organisation in Australia, Socialist Alternative are of comparable size and they're more youthful in composition. They also don't hide their revolutionary politics as much as the revolutionaries in SA, though they have a fatal flaw: they're hostile to the living socialist revolutions. Why doesn't SA just put aside its "petty" differences with Socialist Alternative and join them? That's where the youth are. Why not "get down and dirty" with Socialist Alternative? How can you justify your separate existence, isn't that sectarian? Or: why not fuse the the Greens? They have parliamentarians and resources that the socialist organisations lack. By not involving yourself in the Greens, you're cutting yourself off from all this. Marce Cameron

stuartmunckton@... replied on

I think the approach by these comrades, which they have spelled out not just in the article but also the discussion in comments, is very positive one to be welcomed. Marce for one, in his contributions under the article he co-authored with Iggy, has been very open about the reasons for the move and also the difference he and the other comrades he is working with have with the Socialist Alliance and its approach. This is not surprising. Does anyone expect people to just throw out sincerely held beliefs? What is positive is a willingness to collaborate where possible. This does not preclude ongoing discussion, debate or even further agreement as a result of practical experiences. The only way to test this out is to try and work together where possible in the course of the struggle. I think it is a very positive example and everyone involved should be to take all the collaboration that is possible and see where this goes. Those who went through the experience of a very intense faction fight for two-to-three years inside the DSP inevitably carry the baggage of that fight with them -- it was draining and painful for all involved. But the past is the past. It can only be overcome through open collaboration in all areas it is possible to do is, without demanding more than is possible at this stage. Then we will see where it goes. As an editor of Green Left, I sincerely welcome the offer of assistance. I can already see ways that Green Left will be a better tool for the left through this offer. I am not going to demand more than it is possible for these comrades to agree on at this stage, recognising this might change in a positive or negative direction in the future, in order to take steps forward there are to be taken in the here and now. Stuart Munckton, Green Left co-editor.

stuartmunckton@... replied on

Marce says: "according to Peter Boyle the problem with the far left is Trotskyism. If you share his view then I'm not sure what relevance the transitional method has for SA..." The tradition we come from in the old DSP was one that rejected "Trotskyism" as a specific current to be defined and limited by, but without seeking to throw out the positive legacies from Trotsky -- and this, especially, included the concept of the "transitional method". Therefore I think it is wrong to suggest that because Peter says the problem is "Trotskyism", he therefore is saying the problem is the "transitional method" or that simply by rejecting "Trotskyism" that means you reject the transitional method. Of course, how you apply that at any stage depends and judgments are made at what is a useful approach in any brochure, leaflet pamphlet etc. And that is what Marce disagrees with. The one point I would make is that the Climate Charter was never the be all and end all of what we said on the climate crisis. We did also talk about Cuba and also Venezuela in a range of other places and ways that existed alongside the climate charter. The charter was never the be all and end all of what we had to say -- it was just one document -- one four page brochure that could only say so much. We helped tour Cuban permacultarist Roberto Perez, screened documentaries on Cuba's "green revolution", covered it in Green Left, among other things. Whatever was or was not in the climate charter was not all we were saying. Stuart Munckton

Anonymous replied on

In Melbourne Socialist Alliance has indicated to SAlt that our relatively few differences could be worked through with greater collaboration and a sense of proportion around what actually divides us. Such division -- and the lack of comradely relations -- does divide and weaken the genuine socialist left. And if possible, we should try to put aside our differences and work together wherever we can, without ruling out future developments in left unity. I hope the former RSP comrades take the same approach as things develop. Of course, the Greens are a different matter, as they are not a socialist organisation, but SA and GLW do have very good working relations with sections of the left Greens. All Bob J. Turner's comment reveals is that some on left continue to be incapable of addressing what is actually said. Red Rod

Anonymous replied on

Well, let's agree to disagree on the party question and get on with collaborating around Green Left Weekly. Marce Cameron

Anonymous replied on

It would be a serious mistake for the SA to tie their environmental position to support for a capitalist oil rentier state and a tiny isolated state that ultimately will be forced to revert to capitalism. (Socialism in one country, remember?) This is especially true since such support is not a requirement for SA membership - it is entirely possible for an SA member to hold a state capitalist position, for example.

Anonymous replied on

I've been heartened by the generally positive reception to our article/statement, both via this discussion and privately. By the same token, some old habits are bound to be aroused by any twist in the tortuous plot of Australia's socialist left. That our humble little statement can stir up some of the more nonsensical stuff is a sober reminder of the still immature sense of context and perspective infecting the movement. How easily we can turn into a school of Siamese fighting fish in a soup bowl. Of course, I'm not dismissing the value of polemics, but we just need to be mindful of the circumstances and limits of it at any given time. And right now, we cannot resolve the question of revolutionary organisation, no matter how much we spray back and forth. The key thing is to collaborate on our agreements while continuing an open dialog around significant differences (to the extent that it's useful at any point), without any stupidity about how much ground can/cannot be shifted given the nature of the present objective conditions. As such, let's value what we do have -- GLW for one, but also anyone extending a spirit of principled collaboration. Iggy Kim

Anonymous replied on

Just catching up on the discussion so haven't seen where the references to Stalinism and Trotskyism came from, but I think that in the current climate, both are extremely silly. Socialists (in Australia and other countries with similar political climates) who operate outside of the USSR-led parties haven't had the same recent experiences of being marginalised from radical struggle for a long time, because that dominance by said parties dwindled decades ago, as they folded or became more nakedly pro-capitalist. So analogies to the isolation of Trotskyist-influenced socialist groups in the mid-20th century (and its impacts) are misleading if overused. Of course, all our groups had their origins in a time when those dynamics were real, and we have indeed inherited political positions from that - some of us have modified them considerably since. But we don't have a situation where any Trotskyist groups are marginalised (via exclusion by other radicals) from progressive struggle and are hence caught up in sectarianism because of that. Socialists of all stripes continue to play a vital role in various progressive campaigns. I think it's probably truer to say that with the working class in a fairly low state of radicalism and organisation, all socialists have a marginal influence on the working class right now (not because we're not involved in the struggle the workers need, but because most workers aren't). All our groups are small and we are all impacted by the low levels of radicalisation. Calling particular groups arrogant for being unabashed about the ideas of Marx, Engels and Lenin won't help. And one can't separate the aim to realise those ideas from questions of cadre, team-building, press etc. You can't have those things without a marxist program. Which is getting into a larger discussion (but it's certainly true to say Jim wasn't calling for Marxist ideas and a marxist program to be deprioritised). I just wanted to get us back to the current situation so we stay grounded. Virginia

Anonymous replied on

Ok, well of course a monthly only comes out once a month, and DA's hard-copy sales have, as I said, not managed to approach anywhere near GLW's built-up audience, we could certainly fix them up a lot. It is also read online, and while I don't think it's ever gone "months" without being updated with new articles, we've sped that up more lately. But I'm left to repeat my earlier point “I'm unable to grasp the logic of distributing something which argues a basic political direction with which I disagree, simply because its readership is larger than Direct Action's.” Still don't get it. Nor do I understand being urged to write for and distribute (by some) a paper which I've already explained has refused content for me without explanation, but apparently because the GLW editors or SA leadership didn't like my challenging of its economistic retreat from a formerly marxist analysis of domestic violence. Especially since I haven't seen any SA leaders explain that this situation would change. http://directaction.org.au/issue8/letters and http://directaction.org.au/issue17/domestic_violence I take it Owen isn't disagreeing with the other criticisms of GLW taken up in Direct Action, but simply believes GLW is now open to marxist articles. I am curious as to whether this offer is extended to all, or whether ex-RSP members are more welcome contributors. Since Marce himself indicated he doesn't think GLW should be obliged to take any article, I'm quite unclear on the basis on which he is urging us to support it. It seems rather contradictory to maintain that those who've tried to get revolutionary content in GLW and failed, should still get behind GLW to "get out the revolutionary message". And I don't see the point in trying to pursue unity via a paper supporting a failed socialist unity project that's not marxist and seems to have no immediate prospects of becoming more so, nor of becoming a more real unity project. (And even if all ex-DSP members joined it - which I know is not at all what Marce and Iggy are proposing - that would not make it less of a mockery of a unity project.) All in all, the more the article orients to those involved in other approaches, the less it seems to make sense to me. Virginia

Anonymous replied on

Iggy and I are urging other former contributor to resume writing for GLW on the basis that: 1. It has a profile, audience and support base that is relatively large compared to any other Australian socialist publication, something that has been built up over the past two decades. 2. It is the only weekly socialist publication, which means that it is able to house a greater range of contributions to analysis, discussion and debate than any of the other socialist publications. 3. GLW "aims to provide a much-needed forum for discussion and debate about changing the world" by "sharing a wide range of views". This last point is important because the tiny, fragmented, dispersed and marginalised anti-capitalist left in Australia needs such a collaborative project if we are to wage the battle of ideas effectively, even if we disagree on some of these ideas and their organisational embodiment. If you restrict yourself to writing for a publication that hardly anybody reads then you won't be making the most effective contribution you can to the socialist movement as a whole. I think the logic of this argument is compelling. Virginia writes: "Marce himself indicated he doesn't think GLW should be obliged to take any article". Well, it would be hard to disagree with that. The Socialist Alliance has every right to decide the content of its paper, just as the RSP has the right to ban eight former members from writing for its paper on any issue because of the opinion expressed by two of them on Libya. However, alongside this right SA and the GLW editors also have a responsibility to all of us, in our opinion, to ensure that point (3) above is implemented as far as is practicable in the circumstances. Those circumstances include, among other things, the willingness of people other than SA members to write for the paper. Hence our appeal for other former collaborators to resume writing for GLW. What I said in my earlier contribution was that we're not asking for any special consideration as a condition for offering to resume writing for the paper because that would be silly. Whether GLW copy submissions by RSP members are more or less welcome than those of other people I have no idea. That's something only SA and the GLW editors can answer, and something that could be put to the test if RSP members were willing to resume writing for GLW as well as for Direct Action. Marce Cameron

Anonymous replied on

Virginia: "...believes GLW is now open to marxist articles" "...those who've tried to get revolutionary content in GLW and failed..." "...a failed socialist unity project that's not marxist" Translation: we're Marxists and you're not. Cos we said so. So there.

Anonymous replied on

Socialist Alternative is a sectarian cult that chews up and spits out all it's youthful members within a few months or years. They mostly recruit bright but middle class kids with no life experience to know better. The rest of the left needs to get it's shit together and start picking up these kids before SAlt (or any other sects like the RSP or frankly like SA in some of it's branches) puts them off socialism for ever.

Anonymous replied on

Sorry Socialist Alternative, but the Hari Krishna's and Scientologists still have much bigger memberships than you.

Anonymous replied on

Half the left sent petitions around begging Nato to intervene. It may have been extremely stupid but it doesn't mean they should all be written off as pro-imperialist. It's just confusion. They need to be educated not denounced.

Anonymous replied on

The anti-stalinist Socialist ALternative are pretty stalinist organisationally. They are opportunist and they are bureaucratic with no free thinking mind. They are the most arrogant socialists on the left, now what kind of socialist would be like that? a counter revolutionary that is who.

Anonymous replied on

"Anonymous" says Socialist Alternative is a "sectarian cult" I agree SAlt is sectarian, but to see only this aspect is one-sided. SAlt's sectarianism is reflected in practices such as misrepresenting the views of others on the left in order to portray them in a bad light (e.g. as "Stalinist"). However this does not explain SAlt's growth. They build movements such as those for same-sex marriage, refugee rights, and Palestine solidarity, particularly on campus, and recruit students as a result. Are they so sectarian it is impossible to contemplate unity with them? I don't want to pre-judge this. Surprising things can happen. In the meantime, we should work together whether possible. Chris Slee

Anonymous replied on

I think it should also be possible to talk to SAlt too, or at least some of their members. It would be useful to get non-trivial and thought out versions of what they think "Stalinism" is, for example. It's true that it gets used as a sectarian jibe, but what do they mean by it? We have to presume they actually believe it, so we can insist on them explaining what they mean in a serious fashion. That means two things. First, we need to not be fobbed off. They need to take the time to think about what they are saying. Their more thoughtful members should have not problem with that. Secondly, we have to listen to them, and take what they are saying seriously. This is the hard part. We can't expect them to take us seriously unless we take them seriously - and that means thinking about what they are saying. It's horribly easy to dismiss what people say if we think we already know what they are saying and that it's nonsense. Of course, learning to listen is useful in all kinds of other ways too.

Pages

You need Green Left, and we need you!

Green Left is funded by contributions from readers and supporters. Help us reach our funding target.

Make a One-off Donation or choose from one of our Monthly Donation options.

Become a supporter to get the digital edition for $5 per month or the print edition for $10 per month. One-time payment options are available.

You can also call 1800 634 206 to make a donation or to become a supporter. Thank you.