Australian Socialist Allaince left unity meeting in Brisbane
Steve Painter and Rose McCann
spainter at optushome.com.au
Mon Nov 25 07:09:46 MST 2002
Bob Gould responds: The Dave Riley-DSP school of gratuitous abuse, or is
the drought and the heat causing strange poisons to enter the Queensland
I've just, within the space of an hour or two, read Dave Riley's vindictive
and petulant account of a political meeting in Brisbane, and the latest
issue of Green Left Weekly. The editorial in GLW continues its relentless
"exposure of Laborism" around the not-yet-passed ASIO legislation and,
rather than attempting any campaign to persuade the Laborites to throw out
the legislation, it simply "exposes" the Laborites for a betrayal not yet
The editorial finishes with this imperishable expression of the united
front: "Australian desperately needs an alternative to the economic
rationalist, racist and anti-democratic two-party duopoly. It is clearer
than ever that this will not be found inside the ALP. If there are still
decent, hopeful activist inside the ALP, now would be a good time to leave
and join the Socialist Alliance."
Nice and simple, that proposition. I bought my GLW at tonight's meeting of
the coalition organising the November 30 Walk Against Bush's War, with about
35 people in attendance, about 10 of whom were members of the ALP. The
editorial writers in GLW can't help themselves when it comes to abusive
language about Laborism and individual Laborites. I wonder if the other ALP
members, who are union officials, student activists, etc, who were there
tonight, read Green Left.
Despite the fact that a federal Liberal government is in power and actually
perpetrating most of the attacks on our rights and living standards, most of
the recent editorials in Green Left mainly denounce the Laborites, using
similar language to the editorial cited above.
Which brings me to Dave Riley. He posts a weird and abusive account of a
forum on lefty unity, or in Riley's case, left disunity, and slags off
almost all the assorted Brisbane leftists attending, accusing them of
dishonesty, etc, and in particular of the greatest of all capital crimes:
assorted disagreements with the DSP's regroupment proposals.
Apparently, if you don't snap to attention and do what the DSP and Riley
tell you, you're dishonest, backward-looking or, the mildest epithet used by
Riley, insufficiently "upbeat".
Dave Riley should draw on his psychiatric nurse training and step back a
bit, look at what he's saying, demanding and projecting. He asserts that the
way of the future lies with the DSP's unitary regroupment proposals and yet
he describes a meeting where everybody present, except the DSP, rejected the
He doesn't just report their views. He doesn't report their views in any
detail at all, he just abuses them a bit for holding those views and
disagreeing with the DSP.
Dave Riley fancies himself a bit, as a literary kind of bloke. He's
knowledgeable enough to dismiss, in a sweeping way, Trotsky's approach to
literature because Trotsky was insufficiently fond of Stalinist social
realism (I intend to comment in a bit more detail on these literary
questions soon, in another post).
Riley will no doubt remember Bertolt Brecht and his famous, enigmatic
Stalinist aphorism about the people: "The people have lost the confidence of
the government; the government has decided to dissolve the people, and to
appoint another one," and that seems to be Riley's approach to the other
leftists at the meeting, who obstinately refused to roll over and understand
the profound political wisdom of the DSP.
Which gets me to my next point: the function of abuse and ridicule in
politics. I'm no angel in relation to abuse, humour and ridicule. If someone
attacks me, or my associates, or someone I respect and consider important, I
'll respond as shrewdly and brutally and sometimes humorously as I can.
Like Michael Palin on Australian television, in a clip from the Life of
Brian, at the end of his Sahara piece last night, I often find effective
laughter is a good way to bring opponents back to earth. Nevertheless, in
political conflict, struggle and argument, in general it's usually sensible
to only attack either people who attack you and things you hold dear, or
really entrenched enemies such as the ruling class, Stalinist bureaucracies
or right-wing Labor leaders, and even with them it's sound politics to keep
your abuse or ridicule to specific current issues. Most sane people rapidly
tire of gratuitous abuse.
Great polemicists such as Lenin and Trotsky even had the knack of treating
their worst class enemies with a certain respect, because that was often a
more effective method of combating them than simple abuse.
If I crack a few highly political jokes at Peter Boyle's expense, I've got
reasonable cause. He slung the first piece of abuse in recent times.
Is there some strange poison in the water in Brisbane, and perhaps it has
spread to Christchurch, as well. What is it that causes Phil Ferguson to
sling such awesome personal abuse at Russel Johnson? I only met the man a
couple of time, and he seemed to me a passable sort of clone of the US SWP,
out of the US SWP's clone factory, I don't see much point in pursuing him to
When Barry Sheppard first came to Australia in 1969, Jim and John Percy and
I didn't initially recognise him at the airport, until we finally worked out
that the bloke who looked like a Mormon missionary had to be the visiting
North American Trotskyist.
Sheppard and the Percys got together quickly to organise my overthrow,
despite the po-faced way they deny it now. But that's life, I don't see much
point in pursuing a rabid personal vendetta with either John or Barry.
Things happen in political life, you do certain things, and then you move
I'm a bit amazed at the explosion of massive retrospective personal injury
and vindictiveness that has poured out on Marxmail, particularly about the
US SWP, particularly in the past few weeks.
Like Richard Fidler and Tom O'Lincoln, I'm not too fussed about who drank
what, when, where or how, except insofar as it affects politics. And such
things often get twisted in personal memory, depending where you sat in past
When we held our seminar here in Australia a few months ago for past members
of the Australian SWP/DSP and other Trotskyist groups, there was in fact a
fair bit of cathartic debriefing, some of it of an intensely personal
nature. But sound political judgement has led us to put a lot of that aside,
except insofar as particular events have a very direct bearing on political
It seems to me that a sense of proportion and sound political judgement is
required when deciding just how much of past personal conflicts to commit to
paper and how to handle them if you do commit them to paper. Some events and
experiences should possibly be left for inclusion in the novel many of us
toy with in the back of our heads. Sometimes it's better just to let the
dead bury the dead.
We all have lots of atrocity stories to tell about past injuries done to us,
but truth to tell, those atrocity stories are not the decisive political
events of the 20th century.
I have a slight advantage here, in that, at some expense. I've acquired
under the Australian Freedom of Information Act, the voluminous files
accumulated on me by ASIO (the Australian political police), which start in
1954, when I was 17 and cut out at the end of 1972 under the 30-year rule. I
'll get 1973 next February, and annually thereafter until I cark it, and I'
ve authorised my heirs and successors to continue the process after that.
There's about 5000 pages of it, between the ASIO and NSW Special Branch
files. I'm told by the archivists in Canberra that mine is the biggest file
they've ever seen. The reason is that I was at the centre of a series of
agitations for seven or eight years, and due to ASIO's methodology of
sticking into your file every telephone conversation in which you figure,
which they tapped, my file is a kind of social history of the time, as I
figured in the conversations of many friendly opponents, friends and
friendly opponents, as well as enemies.
If I got hot under the collar, now, about what people said about me then, or
if other people got upset about my comments, there'd be no end to it. It's
interesting and has some political, literary and historical importance, but
one should try to keep a sense of proportion.
I find Gary McLennan's retrospective demonising of Ian Rintoul of the ISO
and Mick Armstrong of the Socialist Alternative a bit mystifying,
particularly when Gary says he feels physically sick at the prospect of
being in the same room as the relatively inoffensive Rintoul. I find both
blokes actually quite affable nowadays.
I've had plenty of blues with Rintoul and Armstrong in the past, as I'm
having currently with Boyle, but I can and do quite happily sit in the same
room as Boyle even if he and his mates growl at me a bit and I growl back at
them. That's political life.
I'm no Christian. I'm not advocating a turn-the-other-cheek philosophy, I
just believe that it's smart politics, in the main, only to attack people
verbally if they attack you first, do it as humorously and effectively as
possible, and use a certain sense of proportion in these questions. I also
think it's rather mad to carry extreme personal grudges for 30 years.
I shudder at the thought of the verbal exchanges about assorted
personalities that must take place when Dave Riley and Gary McLennan run
into each other, if what they commit to paper is any guide.
A genuine question: is Russell Johnson still alive? It's hard to tell from
Phil Ferguson's verbal assault on him.
PLEASE clip all extraneous text before replying to a message.
More information about the Marxism