[Marxism] Two perspectives on the Socialist Alliance
lnp3 at panix.com
Thu Jan 19 08:49:28 MST 2006
I wrote this in September 2002:
One can consider the possibility that a vanguard party does not exist in
Australia, not even in an embryonic form. Furthermore, all the "theoretical
conquests" that distinguish the Trotskyist, post-Trotskyist or Maoist
vanguard formations might be of little value in forming a true vanguard
party, because these conquests turn out to be little more than shibboleths
about revolutions that took place more than a half-century ago. When they
turn into litmus paper tests, they obviously get in the way of true unity.
Ultimately, this is what Marxist party-building must be about. Instead of
thinking in typical small proprietor "market share" terms (newspaper
circulation, membership numbers, attendance at national events, etc.),
activists must think in terms of the needs of the class as a whole. There
is little question in my mind that an objective basis for Marxist unity
exists in Australia as many of the "split questions" of the 1970s and 80s
recede in importance. Those who can seize the opportunity to establish a
new framework for revolutionary unity will be honoring the best traditions
of Marx and Lenin, no matter what their petty detractors say.
How Jim Percy saw the Socialist Alliance:
We can have Socialist Alliance stalls, but recognise that they're primarily
GLW stalls. We can join up people to SA from the stalls, have all the SA
literature on them, but should also have DSP and Resistance material on them.
We should continue to solicit Socialist Alliance membership, and service
them with emailings. We can use SA as an organisation that can organise and
sometimes mobilise a large milieu of our supporters, and bring the best of
them closer to the DSP. But do we have to dish out all these members'
details to the sects?
More information about the Marxism