by Dave Riley
Because the International Socialist Organisation (as well as Socialist Alternative) has called for a first preference vote for The Greens at the coming federal poll while totally ignoring the existence of any socialist election campaigns the Socialist Party had challenged them to a public debate on the matter . This is the ISO's reply as published on Leftwrites by Steve Jolly.
THE SP also replies to the ISO's letter.The exchange is interesting as it reflects the perspectives of both organisations in way of their outlook (and, I suggest from my POV, their oversights).
To give you some context,while both are activist organisations with some excellent campaign credits to their respective banners, the SP has about 12 -20 members nationally and the IS0 could claim about 100* --so we aren't talking about a major issue being debated in way of reach out and impact --especially when geographical spread is factored in.
But in terms of aggregating the existing far left groups into some ongoing unity project the exchange is nonetheless relevant because it formally marks off an episode in Australian radical politics when the promise of regroupment was thought to be held hostage to an assumption that there was some pre-existing preference of these outfits to voluntarily work with one another on the same socialist project.
- See related thread on LeftClick here
*I'll correct & adjust my (generous?)estimates anytime I'm referenced otherwise
1. 3/10/2007
Reply to SP from the ISO
Dear Kylie and Socialist Party comrades,
We have to decline your offer of a public debate between our two organizations as we feel it would not be a constructive way of pursuing a discussion about socialist strategy and tactics viz the federal election. But we are happy to send someone to address one of your regular meetings in Melbourne if you wish us to clarify things in more detail.
You correctly point out that we are supporting the Greens at this election. Unfortunately, we found some of your characterisations of the Greens as sectarian and wrong. For example, to say the Greens are “not an explicitly anti-war party” is silly. Of course they are. The contradictions in their politics that you refer to require a principled response from socialists—we agree with this. But it is better to pursue these discussions in a constructive way, as part of a broader struggle to build a new left beyond the Labor Party. Constructively participating in the Greens election campaign is a useful way to do this—it’s certainly better rather than writing them off as “a small capitalist party”.
We support the Greens because they represent a very important layer of people that firmly rejects the Labor Party’s political sell-outs. Most Greens supporters reject Labor’s capitulation to neo-liberalism and support the kind of social democratic policies that were once expected from the Labor Party. But you don’t seem to have recognised this significant point. While we acknowledge many of the limitations of Green politics and we retain an independent, socialist view of the world, we feel that as the struggle moves forward this layer of people can help build a new left independent of Labor’s betrayals. Until recently we believed that the Socialist Alliance was a vehicle for furthering this aim. Unfortunately the SA was too narrow and sectarian to achieve this.
We acknowledge the local work of your comrades in Melbourne. We welcomed Steve Jolly’s election to Yarra council in November 2004 and we recognise that this was the product of many years of focussed work in the local area. We are familiar with such an approach, having had decent results ourselves as part of the Socialist Alliance in council elections in Moreland in 2003 and Boroondara in 2004.
The reality, however, is that the socialist vote at this federal election will be negligible. We do not question your right to run a candidate in the seat of Melbourne. Unfortunately, we find it hard to believe that it can attract the kind of broad support capable of aiding the development of a genuine leftwing challenge to Labor. There may be doubts about the political capacity of the Greens to do this as well—but at least they attract a broad layer of people who want a real political alternative. In a context in which many trade unionists are questioning their support for the Labor Party, and growing calls for unions to back the Greens, we would rather be part of this important discussion than point out weaknesses from the outside.
In this regard, we find it slightly weird that you would demand for our support at the election. The Socialist Party was certainly not prepared to compromise and participate in the Socialist Alliance during its formative years. With regard to your letter, you could have easily come to us, asked for a clarification of our position and we would have happily obliged. Instead, you “challenge” us to a public debate with an open letter, presumably in order to ‘expose’ the incorrectness of our politics. In our view, this behaviour reflects the kind of pettiness that the left should leave behind.
Regards,
David Glanz and Tom Barnes
For the International Socialist Organisation
2. 16/10/2007
Reply from SP
Dear ISO comrades,
Your response to our letter challenging you to a debate on the Greens is perhaps one of the weakest letters we have ever received from another socialist organisation, we almost feel sorry for you publishing it. It is however not surprising that you have declined our offer to a debate as you are clearly having trouble defending your opportunist politics around this question.
If an open debate is not a constructive way of pursuing a discussion about socialist strategy and tactics in elections then what is?
You say our “characterisations of the Greens [are] sectarian and wrong. For example, to say the Greens are “not an explicitly anti-war party” is silly. Of course they are.” What evidence do you have to back your description of the Greens as an anti-war party? We ask this question because in the latest edition of your newspaper (Socialist Worker) you state: “Even the Greens don’t have the war on their political radar.”
We maintain the Greens’ opposition to the war in Iraq has not come from a consistent opposition to imperialist war and interventions. It has been a tactical rather than a principled anti-war position. The Greens have always said that the Iraq war should have been carried out under the auspices of the United Nations and this was the main reason they opposed it.
Bob Brown has made many speeches where he has argued that Australian forces would have been better deployed in “our region”.
We have written many articles about the Greens in the past and below we publish a recent article we published in the October issue of our newspaper, The Socialist.
You say that “The reality, however, is that the socialist vote at this federal election will be negligible”. This may be true but what is the difference between this election and the last one where you to called for a vote for socialist candidates. How will we build support for the ideas of socialism if we don’t first support socialist organisations when they are small?
The Greens are a small capitalist party based on the more progressive layers of the middle class, as you acknowledged recently in a centre page article of Socialist Worker on exactly this topic.
In the absence of a mass leftwing workers’ party in Australia, the Greens have gained an electoral base in the inner-city. They have some good members who could well play a role in the future in a new workers’ party. Indeed some of their leading figures, including parliamentary candidates in this area, see the Greens as a sort of ‘holding bay’ until a new workers’ party comes on the scene.
The best way to influence the rank and file of the Greens is to mobilise amongst the community as well as firm but friendly criticisms of their political weaknesses. These weaknesses stem from their lack of a class and socialist analysis, their parliamentary cretinism, and their inability to organise and to work with the community to mobilise on the streets behind their policies – at least in Victoria.
Calling for a vote for the Greens, acting as their unsolicited, unpaid political advisors which the ISO obviously see their role today, will get you nowhere. Rather than win over people from the Greens to your party, we predict you will lose members to the Greens. Your newspaper today is like a fanzine for the Greens with headlines like “Greens a shining light amidst election gloom” (Socialist Worker, 15/10/04).
We need to be calling on people to vote Socialist (where a socialist is standing) with preferences to the Greens. This de facto Green vote will then go to that party with a clear socialist message attached, while increasing the vote for socialists and the raising the flag for socialist ideas.
There are two ironies in this discussion.
1. The Greens were delighted when we decided to stand Kylie McGregor in the seat of Melbourne. They know that a layer of voters (especially disaffected working class voters) are angry with the rightwing drift of the ALP but are put-off by the middle class character of the Greens and the experience of them on local Council. Some of these people will vote for SP and that vote will be preferenced to the Greens. These are votes the Greens would otherwise not of received. In other words the more leftwing Greens support our campaign for electoral reasons plus the political pressure it puts on their party from the left. These people are to the left of the ISO on this issue!
2. Every week the SP does joint work with the Green councillors on real campaigns on the ground eg the (successful) fight to save St. Andrews Kindergarten and the campaign against the State government’s rise in public housing rents. Our firm but friendly political criticisms of the Greens does not in any way stop us working with them. Hardly a week goes by when SP is not in the local paper criticising the ALP and Greens in this area and hardly a week goes by when we do not work with the Greens on real issues. We are winning people from Green politics to socialist politics, not the other way around. This is the principled way for socialists to act. Your position is to the Right of us, and will have no impact on the Greens. Your statement that “we would rather be part of this important discussion than point out weaknesses from the outside” is the opposite of reality – you and your rightward drifting party are on the outside, not us.
On top of engaging in the debates about which way forward for a new workers party with other left groups, we have also publicly debated the ALP, the Greens and several union leaders. We are unaware of your organisation engaging in such an open and public discussion around this important topic. We have also written a pamphlet called ‘The Case for a New Workers’ Party’ and many articles in our newspaper. Again this can hardly be called just ‘pointing out weaknesses from the outside’.
By the way we agree with the general points you made as recently as 2001 when you stated in your paper: “We will enthusiastically work alongside Greens in many campaigns. Where there is a Green candidate that campaigns on a left, anti-Liberal platform they should receive Socialist Alliance preferences. But the Socialist Alliance is a far better alternative than the Greens because it is clear that the source of environmental and social problems is capitalist society and is committed to both offering an electoral alternative and building a mass workers’ movement.”
You say in your letter that “Until recently we believed that the Socialist Alliance was a vehicle for furthering this aim” (building a new left independent of Labor) but “Unfortunately the SA was too narrow and sectarian to achieve this”.
You also say that “The Socialist Party was certainly not prepared to compromise and participate in the Socialist Alliance during its formative years.” This is true; we saw no point, unlike yourselves, wasting 5 years on a project that was destined for failure from day one. This does not mean that we shied away from the debate. Read again what we said in a February 2001 letter to the Socialist Alliance.
“No such forces exist as a basis for this proposed alliance. It would be a fundamental error to be under the illusion that a new viable party will be created by the gathering together of the already-existing small left parties and a very thin layer of non-aligned individuals. This layer, in addition to being small, is also overwhelmingly made up of long-standing activists, rather than of fresh layers just moving into struggle. We are in favour of a new mass party for the working class. This will not develop immediately but over a period and this process cannot be viewed in isolation from the class struggle and the situation in the workers’ movement. Any attempt to declare a new party of the working class before the forces necessary to make such a formation real have congregated, will end up the same way as the Progressive Labour Party.”
We believe your incorrect perspective on the Socialist Alliance has been a disaster for the ISO in terms of its membership and influence. Today the ISO is a shell of what it was in the 1990s. In desperation you are grasping at the straws of the Green Party. It is one thing to put up socialist demands on a reformist workers’ party, it is delusional to put them on the Greens. We know from the experience of New Zealand, Germany, Ireland, and even on local Councils in Australia, that once they get into power the dominant forces in the Greens will sell-out their principles for the perks of office.
The zig-zags of your organisation are almost unbelievable. You have come from a position where you once described the Socialist Party and our sister parties worldwide as “reformist” for even daring to stand for bourgeois parliaments. You often took on an anarchist position of boycotting elections.
Then for years after the Labor Party had as you say “capitulated to neo-liberalism” you continued to call for a vote for them. You then, without any explanation, announced that you would now be standing in elections under the banner of the Socialist Alliance. When that doesn’t work out for you, you decide to ditch the idea of fighting for socialist ideas in the electoral arena and call for a vote for the capitalist alternative of the Greens!
This ISO position reflects a general shift to the Right in the IST in general. Your newspaper in the 1990s, despite its formulistic approach at least clearly called for socialism. Today you would be hard pressed to find the word in your paper, apart from the title.
We did not challenge you to a debate in order to expose the incorrectness of your politics. We are quite confident that you are more than capable of exposing the incorrectness of your politics without our help. We look forward to comradely debates on polling day when ISO members are handing out Greens ‘how to vote cards’ and SP members are fighting for the ideas of socialism.
Comradely
Kylie McGregor
On behalf of the Socialist Party