[The general line of this report was adopted by the October 5-7, 1996 DSP National Committee plenum.]

This report has to set forth our immediate party-building perspectives for the rest of this year, and also prefigure the perspectives we are likely to be presenting to the national conference in January to guide us internationally and in Australia for the following two years.

The report will begin with our international work. Why?

1. Partly because of the expansion of our international contacts and work in the last few years, its increased importance;
2. In a sense we can say we’re at a new stage, with the political changes and clarifications happening around the world;
3. And of course we understand the interconnection between the renewal of the socialist movement internationally and locally;
4. And finally, similar political questions are being raised and tackled in other countries, and looking at the debates and developments internationally can help us better understand our situation here and chart a clearer way forward.

It’s likely that at the conference we’ll schedule both a report on our international work, as well as on the international political situation.

Links magazine

Links magazine has proved an invaluable vehicle for our international work. It was established on the basis of our broad range of international contacts, but there’s been an expansion of our contacts as a result of it in the last two years.

This is likely to be reflected in a larger international attendance at our conference than ever before. Thus we plan to hold a Links public meeting in Sydney on the Friday night after the conference, as well as an organising and planning meeting for those involved with the Links project.

Two processes are going on simultaneously with this project.

Firstly, there’s the process of broad reachout and regroupment, the networking, breaking down old barriers. This has been an undoubted success, in some ways unique on the international left, drawing together parties from different origins and traditions, from left and right.

Secondly, there’s a process of political clarification – initially often just exchange of experiences, but also drawing the lessons, steering the discussion, the movement in the right directions. (Do we know the right directions? Not completely, but enough to begin, the right directions, if not a complete map.) The second process is now starting to become a bit more important. The reachout is still happening also, but a change in the relative weight of the two processes is developing.

This dual process did not begin with Links, of course, but was a feature of our international work since we broke out of a semi-sectarian mould in the early ‘80s. I want to begin by briefly recapitulating the evolution of our international relations and hopes.

Evolution of our international work

In the early-mid ‘80s, breaking with Trotskyist sectarianism under the impact of the Nicaraguan revolution and the FSLN, we made a closer examination of the Cuban revolutionaries, and studied Lenin more closely. We set up our own school, our “Lenin School”. Our rethinking led us to look for new ways, to new thinking on old shibboleths, to opportunities for regroupments in Australia, to new collaborators internationally. We broke with the US SWP in the early ‘80s; we left the Fourth International in 1985.

In the second half of the ‘80s, we had hopes for a residual positive component of the Stalinist parties, internationally and in Australia. We grabbed at the possibility that glasnost and perestroika might herald a real change for the better, and attempted regroupments with the CPA, and later the SPA. They were tested and found wanting yet again. The right-wing, bankrupt character of Stalinism here and in the Soviet Union was demonstrated once more. (Were we wrong to try? No. We were wrong, but not wrong to try.)

In the late ‘80s and early ‘90s, we had hopes in the Greens, in green-left formations internationally and here. Unfortunately their general evolution has also been to the right. The US Greens might get better organised as a result of the Nader candidacy, there’s a little flurry around the CPGB remnant in Britain that’s now organised as a Green Left, but mostly the political direction in this milieu is to the right. Were we wrong to try, to put our hopes in the Greens being able to move to the left, to break out of a parliamentarist framework? No, again we were “wrong”, but not wrong to try.

Green Left Weekly has been primarily an Australian project – our paper but also a de facto regroupment when no organisation was up to it – but it also served as an international tool, for our correspondents to travel and report, to gather other international correspondents, to have an impact on other currents through our impressive coverage on international questions, and non-sectarian approach to local issues.

It prepared the ground for our specific international initiative, Links magazine. Links is a very important initiative by us, even though it’s not fully used by us here, or even internationally. It was an effort to reach out internationally, to draw together the threads, the healthy elements from different traditions we’d made contact with. Following the collapse of the Soviet Union, the process of political clarification, rethinking, and regroupment made this initiative very relevant.

That political clarification, even division, in some mass formations is continuing – in the FSLN, in the FMLN, in the PRC in Italy, in the Brazilian PT, in the SACP, with an ongoing and interesting debate.

During the last two years our contacts have expanded further. We developed a much bigger range of contacts in Latin America, through Steve O’s work, and the trip made by Dick [Nichols] last year. We developed closer contact with some of the healthier forces in the FI. We built up the contact with Militant Labour in Britain. We made contact with an interesting range of parties on the Indian sub-continent, in India, Nepal, Bangladesh.

This year we got to know the German PDS better, and they got to learn about us, especially through the attendance of Andre Brie at our educational conference in January. We made contact with the ODP, the new fused party in Turkey, and the regroupment in the Dominican Republic. We made direct contact with the small group in Japan that supports Links, as well as the Canadian distributors, the former CPers there. We also expanded our contacts through the East Timor conference, other overseas trips, and participating in the Zapatista conference.

Anti-Stalinism

We’ll continue to reach out to broader forces internationally, and make new contacts, bring more groups into the Links project. There are many other groups, for example in Greece, Sweden, Norway, Denmark, and elsewhere, that we could interest in Links. There’s still a process of unravelling of ex-CPs going on.

A clarification on Stalinism is still taking place. Some currents are hardening up in their old dogmas, they yearn for the security of the “glorious” past of the Soviet Union under Stalin, and reaffirm the class-collaborationist politics of Stalinism. Others are carrying out revolutionary policies in practice, drawing their lessons from Lenin’s time.

At our educational conference in January we emphasised those important political “dividing lines,” Stalinism and social-democracy. It’s not a question of origins, of course. Some revolutionaries, some revolutionary parties of the future will come from a Stalinist background. Some that we are working closely with today have those origins, and it’s a tribute to our ability to think politically, and not scholastically, that we’ve been able to make those links, unlike dogmatic sects who can’t see change, who think in terms of labels and timeless categories, mistaking form and content.

But it is a relevant issue/dividing line, because parties that can renew the socialist project need to be clear on both the problems of Stalinist politics and practices implemented today, and also on historical questions, especially the ‘30s. That’s important, because a future revolutionary party can only succeed in opposition to that disastrous tradition – firstly, to be able to win over, convince, the mass of the working class, and secondly, not to repeat the mistakes, the crimes, of Stalinism.

But we’ve also seen the dangers of an emotional rejection of Stalinism, without a proper Marxist understanding of the phenomenon, how it can lead to a rejection of Leninism, the rejection of a revolutionary perspective, of the possibility for socialism. The Committees of Correspondence [CoC] in the USA looks like it’s going down this road (unfortunately they’ve also retained most of the CP’s political line, supporting the Democrats, for example). The unfortunate demise of Line of March/Crossroads seems partly due to this too; at least Irwin Silber’s book was a bad case of it.

The retreat to the right of former Marxists, in the name of rejecting sectarianism or Stalinism, or reviving the line that Leninism leads to Stalinism, even gives a little breathing space for Stalinist throwbacks. (Such as here, perhaps, with the SPA’s Rob Gowland dishing up incredible rubbish from the ‘30s again and again in the Guardian. In the USA you might credit the extra lease of life for the CPUSA to the failure of the CoC.)

Anti-sectarianism

A rejection of sectarianism can also easily slide into a rejection of a revolutionary socialist perspective, as people get cast off from sectarian Trotskyist groups, or these groups harden up in their sectarianism. Some fragments of the Healyite implosion went in this direction, for example Wohlforth.

This seems to be partly the case with a number of the ISO/SWP splits around the world – Socialist Alternative here, the New Socialist Group in Canada, and splits in South Africa and Britain etc. The new groups seem to have both left and right characteristics, but in reaction to the bureaucratic regime of the ISO/SWP, an anti-Leninism is getting entrenched.

Also, some comrades involved in the regroupment processes around the world have had the misconception that renewal and regroupment must mean a shift to the right, certainly a rejection of Leninism, but also often of revolutionary Marxism and an accommodation to reformism. In the USA, for example, discussions have taken place between Solidarity, CoC, Democratic Socialist of America, Freedom Road Organising Committee and the Socialist Party. There’s good comrades and good intentions involved in all of these groups no doubt, but sometimes I’ve seen their self-characterisation as “the anti-Leninist left”.

Positive developments

On the other hand, there have been many positive developments in the socialist renewal process around the world as well. The most exciting and important developments seem to have been taking place in Asia:

• In Indonesia, and we’ve had a report on the Indonesian political situation and the PRD already at this NC plenum. This re-emergence of a class-conscious workers’ vanguard in the largest country in our region is an extremely exciting and encouraging development. The comrades are young, but have displayed a very mature political sense, grabbed openings, and managed to insert themselves much more centrally in Indonesian politics in the lead-up to and aftermath of the July 27 events. Solidarity with the PRD will be a central priority for our work, and I’ll return to it later.
• In the Philippines, the comrades in MR are reorganising, and maintaining, even expanding their mass base in the Manila region. As Sonny [Melencio] reported on Saturday, they’ve still not succeeded in uniting with splits from the CPP in other regions, and still working on the organisational and political questions involved in making the transition. These comrades are important close collaborators for us, and we need to cement and build more ties. We should help build and publicise their counter-APEC conference in Manila November 21-25, attend it if possible. The close collaboration between the Philippines and Indonesian comrades and ourselves has the potential to help further the development of revolutionary socialist parties in the Asian region.
• In India, we hope to develop closer links with the CPI(ML)[Liberation]. They have Maoist origins, and still have those trappings, but don’t have a Stalinist, class-collaborationist program. They’re a healthy party, with a big and expanding mass base, and open to debate on revolutionary strategy, on the Trotsky/Stalin fight in the Soviet Union. There are interesting developments also in Nepal and Bangladesh, and of course there’s the NSSP in Sri Lanka.

The next Links, Number 8, will feature developments on the Asian left.

We hope to be able to develop further our contact with Militant Labour in Britain. They now have someone on the Links board, and hopefully they’ll distribute it seriously too. They’ve not only been able to lead important struggles in recent years, but also able to make a healthy reassessment of many past positions, although they’re still stuck on Ireland. Their international work still has two sides to it: opening up to parties outside their current – the FI, ourselves, large parties such as the PDS, the PRC – but then putting their main emphasis on the fostering of little clone groups as part of their Committee for a Workers’ International in as many countries as they can, often groups with only a few dozen members, while cutting themselves off from much larger revolutionary parties. Hopefully one of their leaders will come to Australia sometime, perhaps to our conference. We’ll see what the repercussions of their current discussion there are, and what fallout there is from Militant here breaking off discussions with us.

The Sao Paulo Foro/Forum set a good example in the wake of the collapse of the Soviet Union, and provided a meeting place for the Latin American left, but seems increasingly oriented to parties relying on the parliamentary arena. It’s been useful for us, to make contact with groups and learn more about the politics of the region.

The EZLN conference provided another dimension of “broadness”, but little political clarity.

What are the likely next steps in international recomposition and renewal? What sort of international will be needed in the future? Our conceptions are not along the lines of “one world party”. We know we don’t need clones, but independent parties, thinking for themselves, able to build their own organisation. The degree of centralisation of the early Comintern is not the way to go. An international organisation must be organised differently from a party.

What direction do we hope our international collaboration will go in? Which are the links we value and respect the most? Which are the parties that will develop best out of this period of recomposition and renewal? The last few years have provided some indications, and Links magazine has greatly helped the process of political clarification.

We value the left, the militants. We’ll develop and maintain fraternal relations with those moving to the right, and still hope to influence them, and work with them where possible. But we’re also realistic about the directions in which some parties are heading, and what politics are needed for a successful socialist renewal. Broad milieus, such as the Sao Paulo Forum and other broad international gatherings are needed, but we also need greater political clarification now. So the political role of Links is even more important.

International collaboration on campaigns needs to occur. The PRD defence campaign could be one such useful rallying point, so that’s another reason for us to go flat out on it.

Any progress in socialist renewal internationally does have an impact on our Australian party-building perspectives. The more healthy parties that develop that we have contact with, the better it is for our party-building work here. It inspires comrades, eases our isolation. Encouraging developments in the Asian region – comrades in Indonesia, the Philippines – have been especially useful in this regard.

And the international debates broaden our horizons, give us pointers, warnings of possible pitfalls, helpful ideas to follow up.

Building the DSP, developing a Marxist cadre

But also, understanding the balance between the two aspects of our international work can help us work out what to do here too, better appreciate the party-building dynamic here.

There are obviously different tempos for the international renewal and for our party-building work in Australia, building the DSP and Resistance, but there are some similarities in the processes. For example, you can look at the balance between:

• The recruitment, consolidation and education of a Marxist cadre. This aspect of building the party is always the basic goal, the bedrock.
• The less direct ways of building the party, such as our unity attempts of the 1980s.

You can also compare the relationship, the balance, between those basic party-building tasks, and our interventions in campaigns, our united front work, or work in ASIET, CISLAC, other committees we’re involved in. Green Left Weekly itself embodies this duality, being both a de facto unity effort, reaching out, when the possible candidates for unity had collapsed, and a basic party-building tool.

We always do both, but there’s a different balance at different times, in different circumstances.

Our basic party-building perspective is outlined thus in the draft perspectives resolution for the conference:

22. While our goal is to build a mass revolutionary workers’ party capable of leading masses in struggle, we recognise that we are not such a mass party or anything approaching it. We are the propaganda nucleus of such a party. This means that all our activities are propagandistic in their goals, that is, aimed at reaching out to radicalising militants with our ideas and winning them to our ranks. It means that we put priority in our activity, including in the mass movement, on explaining and popularising our ideas…

– all the basics, through Green Left Weekly and other propaganda, Marxist education, consolidation, and training.

But this does not mean we have to circle the wagons, batten down the hatches. It certainly doesn’t mean we just engage in propaganda activities (along the lines of the quintessential sects such as the Spartacists). The resolution continues:

23. While we are too small to directly alter the objective political situation by calling into being mass struggles, this does not mean that our role is limited to commenting on events from the side-lines. We can initiate modest-sized actions that can set an example to broader forces on how to struggle. Where these actions raise issues and demands that connect with the concerns and sentiments of the broad masses they can have an impact on the class struggle by forcing the labour bureaucracy, the capitalist media, and the bourgeois parties to address these issues and concerns.

Moreover, the majority of radicalising workers and students will only be won to a class-struggle perspective as a result of their exposure to Marxist propaganda drawing out the lessons of their own experiences in struggle. Our propaganda work is therefore most effective if we are actively involved in the mass movement. However, our central goal in the mass movement is to explain, popularise and win support for our ideas, including our ideas about how to advance and win struggles, and to attempt to show in practice the correctness of our ideas by demonstrating our capacities as organisers and leaders of real social and political struggles.

In this period we can even take modest initiatives ourselves, and intervene in other campaigns that crop up. We’ll be seizing every opportunity to lead in practice, even though we’re too small to change the balance of class forces. But we’ll be increasingly leading what struggles do take place, increasingly critical to whether it happens, how it goes.

This link between our propaganda work, our basic party-building tasks, and our intervention in the class struggle, is the key concept to get clear in this period.

Building bases

The party-building report to our June NC meeting tried to clarify this relationship further, and introduced the concept of us striving to develop permanent bases as a way to better understand our party-building tasks:

We have to firstly recognise that we’re still only a propaganda group, not a mass party, and our fundamental task is to recruit radicalising workers and students, and educate and train them as Marxist cadres. But we must also always put forward proposals for the workers’ movement that are in the best immediate interests of the working class and the longer-term socialist struggle. And we must act as though we are leaders of our class, although we know we can’t call the masses into action in our own name as yet.

But there’s also a third component of our strategy that straddles, connects these two components: we have to organise to get intermediate bases, partial gains, organisational targets to aim for, so we can both build the party, and recruit, and better aid the defensive struggles of the working class and its allies, putting forward the correct line of march for the future. We need other goals, other targets, to focus comrades, to organise their political work, to inspire them…

How can we better stabilise, and confirm, the positions we gain in relation to others on the left, in the movements? And develop permanent bases of influence and leadership? This is going beyond publicising ourselves better, raising our profile, having better propaganda.

The report later stated:

We need a sustained platform for projecting our politics. Winning bases or leadership within institutions is an extra goal of our work, but a goal that extends the resources and tools we have to build the party, extend its influence, and recruit. It also provides a series of projects which can focus energies and provide a medium-term goal which the party (and its members) can strive for that is within its capability to reach even in current objective conditions.

It would be a major advance for the party to win permanent dominance of student politics in a number of campuses over the next few years, or emerge as the permanent left opposition inside the CPSU, or emerge as the recognised militant section of the East Timor solidarity movement. [The Activist, Vol. 6, No. 8, pp. 3-15.]

• Our actual progress in the past four months on these targets has been good. The reports at this NC have already gone into our progress on the three main areas of work that we set at the June NC plenum, but I’ll recap those positive interventions:
• Trade union, especially CPSU, work. We’ve developed a relatively large network of militant delegates through the DEETYA campaign. Tim [Gooden] was elected as secretary of the ACT government section, and will now be on the CPSU National Council. We’ve trained a good layer of comrades in trade union work.
• Campus, high school and TAFE work. We’ve had some successes in SRC and NUS elections. We can see some campuses where we can build a strong base. NUS conference will be very different for us this year, with an organised intervention. We can see the potential of national high school work next year, the strongest high school base for many years, which we can play next year to more than double it.
• International solidarity with Indonesia and East Timor. August 25, despite the sabotage attempts, was a big success for us. We also had the successful East Timor Conference. We’ve begun to build ASIET into a broader, stronger national solidarity organisation. There’s the PRD defence work – the publicity, information, initiation and co-ordination of actions so far.

These are some very encouraging successes, to inspire us, and build on.

The balance sheet of the last few months must also include the results of our specific party tasks, and that’s the next report, but comrades are well aware of the pluses and minuses:

• The Green Left Weekly sales and subs campaign, where we’ve failed so far. A major focus for the rest of the year must be to remedy this.
• But we’ve had a major success with our financial campaigns, our fund drive, the budget, in spite of the big shortfall from Green Left Weekly sales. That’s something to make us very confident, proud.

Party-building in 1996

1996 has been a good year for us so far, politically and organisationally, and the last four months since the June NC plenum have been hectic, successful and productive, as the reports and discussion during the first two days of this plenum have showed. You really get the feeling we’re a much more engaged party, more in touch with more of the real struggles, and in a position to make gains.

The party this year has only grown modestly – there’s too much turnover of newer members, and attrition still of some longer-term members continues. For example, comrades would know that NC Comrade Andrew W resigned from the party since our June NC meeting. But recruitment is balancing attrition. Our overall membership has stayed steady since the June NC plenum and there’s been a slight growth since the end of last year. We’d like to have grown more, but compared with the rest of the left, we’re doing well.

Resistance has grown in the past year, with a larger number of dues paying members. And many branches have a good list of potential members, so we will grow between now and the conference. And as comrades heard yesterday, branches have 33 Resistance members on their lists to be asked about joining the party.

The party has responded well to the new period. We’ve intervened in what struggles have occurred. We passed the test on August 19, mobilised 130 comrades for our propaganda intervention, and politically responded to the events. Compare the appalling response of others like the SPA, and the minimal presences of most left groups.

This will continue to be a period of retreat for the leaderships of the mass organisations – the trade unions, and other peak bodies. Thus there will be defeats. But it’s not a period of retreat for us. This situation gives us the opportunity to actually lead some modest-size campaigns.

This reflects the good side of the end of the Accord, the good side of the collapse of the Soviet Union, the good side of the dissolution of the CPA. There’ll be a difference with the last period, and previous periods, of radicalisation: There’s less chance for co-option. The leaders of mass organisations, peak bodies, will be less in evidence in united fronts, and any actions. Where they’re there, we’ll be on a more equal footing. Where they try to exclude us or the left organisations, they can come a cropper.

There are more openings, more possibilities, than we can actually handle. There will be more chances to build the party, to lead small initiatives, to make interventions that will register the political lessons, for us and others, and allow us to recruit, train our cadres, and consolidate our stronger position on the left.

We’re confident in the party’s ability to grow. We can look forward to the prospect for modest but sustained growth in 1997.

Movementism

But to succeed, we must get the relationship between our party-building perspective and our interventions in the campaigns correct. Let’s be on the lookout for the danger we’ve identified as “movementism”. Trade union work gets counterposed to party-building work; building the education campaigns gets counterposed to building Resistance or the party. We can lose track of the interconnection, forget which is our most important task, building the party, and forget how it’s done while engaged in all other political activities.

The pressure of movementism is greatest in downturns, where the class has suffered or will suffer defeats. It’s a bourgeois idea, a bourgeois pressure. It’s a pressure that’s strong outside the party, and gets reflected inside too.

Many wish the party would just go away, it embarrasses them for us to raise our profile. Individuals might concede we’re OK as individuals, nice people, accepted, good activists, but the party… Please don’t talk about that.

For example, we’ve come sharply up against the fear and loathing of the old East Timor cliques this year. We’ve stirred up the fear of the trade union bureaucrats, with their accusations of “other agendas” and “factional interests”. And we’ve seen the fear of our political opponents in the student movement, the outright red-baiting by the ALP right, and the more subtle pressure by the ALP left or the “non-aligned left” to not raise our flag, our name. Even red-baiting about parties from Militant.

This issue comes up in some of the debates around the world too. For example, how many times have you seen misused and misquoted the line from the Communist Manifesto about “The Communists… have no interests separate and apart from those of the proletariat as a whole” as an argument against building a party, which was the very project of the Communist Manifesto itself.

A period of consolidation

The immediate period ahead of us will be one where we can grow a little, and take modest initiatives in leading campaigns, but overall it must be a period of consolidation, strengthening, education and training. Without this consolidation we’ll be unable to grow and assimilate our new members properly, nor intervene effectively in the campaigns. We need to consolidate to grow, to take the next steps.

Consolidating Marxist cadres, building a stronger party, is the fundamental gauge of success now and for the next period. But we’ll also be consolidating the bases, the political projections we set for this year. Thus the next three months will be a special period of consolidation, with the PCD [pre-conference discussion], recruiting, and party-building tasks, especially Green Left Weekly. In 1997, it will be back to full speed ahead, with campus O-weeks, ambitious projections for all our work, and on the offensive again. But the general points about consolidation, establishing bases, party building will have permanent relevance.

Our political priorities

We set our three main political priorities at the last NC plenum, and these will continue:

• Solidarity with the PRD. Building a stronger ASIET, able to wage a strong campaign in solidarity with the PRD and the struggle in Indonesia and East Timor, with more comrades assigned, and more independents involved. That’s a higher priority now, as we’ve resolved already.
• Our trade union work. Continuing to develop a serious intervention in the CPSU; organising our other areas; better solidarity action with industrial struggles.
• Our student work, and building Resistance. Building strong bases on a number of campuses, making recruits plus raising our political presence on campus, through SRC and NUS elections. Building a wider high school base, and expanding our influence in TAFEs.

We also want to maintain our CISLAC work at its current level.

There are also a number of areas of women’s liberation work we’ll be carrying out, and comrades will elaborate further in the discussion. We want to continue our involvement in the IWD committees, and build IWD in 1997, especially in the face of an assault by ALP women to take over the committees in some cities.

Reclaim the Night marches might emerge as possible foci for anti-Howard actions on cuts to women’s services, and we should make sure we cover the actions well with our propaganda and have our own profile.

We should be prepared to participate in campaigns defending the right to abortion, especially if decent committees or actions are initiated.

Actual priorities will be balanced differently in each branch, depending on resources, size and the situation on the ground.

For other interventions our priority will be propaganda, raising the party profile, networking. We aim to cover all political events with Green Left Weekly and our leaflets, stalls etc., and recruit. Party work, getting out our propaganda, building our profile and recruiting, must be an essential part of all our interventions.

Recruiting

The key to successful recruiting is to have our political structures, the branches and their institutions, functioning well. We need to build a political milieu, with also enough welcoming social events. Everybody must be a recruiter to the party, conscious of it all the time – while selling Green Left Weekly, around the HQ, in our political campaigns, on the job.

Recruiting is also a question of confidence, you need the right confident stance, aggression as well as clear Marxist politics. We’ve heard already of the successful experience of Melbourne comrades’ intervention at Militant’s high school camp. It was partly a result of Militant’s inability to present their ideas, or a basic case for socialism, but also a confident stance and clear politics on our part attracted the independents there. Another example I think is Wollongong comrades successfully taking on NAL on campus, not tailing or hiding our politics, which is one of the reasons for their success this year.

We need to get all comrades used to political debate, to train them in polemics with our opponents, all the while being open to real possibilities united action by the left. We also need to organise the recruiting and contacting properly, make proper use of our scaffolding, Green Left Weekly, integrate the tasks.

But the key task is consolidation. We’re meeting many potential recruits, especially youth, from all our political work, from Green Left Weekly, from clipoffs in Resist! The task is to educate, train and consolidate them.

Looking at the experiences of the months since the election of the Coalition government, the new period, we can reaffirm one of our main pillars – our orientation to radicalising youth. That’s where we continue to recruit from. We have a 30-year tradition on this. The tests of the last seven months reinforce it again. Compare our recruitment in the student milieu and actions – universities, high schools and TAFEs – and the slower, harder process in the trade union movement.

Period comparisons can sometimes be false, but it’s worth forcing ourselves to think historically. Our first look back post-election was to the post-1975 period, the Fraser years. Yes, we can see some lessons. But we notice big differences too, no signs of ALP left action, no CPA to cover up and divert the militants.

But perhaps it’s also worth comparing the ‘50s, the long Cold War rule of the Liberals, with the ‘80s, the 13 stifling years of the ALP Accord. Are there some common features? A dampening of protests, followed by different sorts of breakouts?

The ‘60s youth radicalisation was a response to Vietnam, and a social rebellion that encompassed issues of racism, sexism etc. Today, we see many heartening signs of youth radicalisation. But it begins from a higher base, with an acceptance already of the issues of pro-environment, anti-sexism, anti-racism, anti-nukes. The large secondary student components of the anti-[nuclear]test demos in 1995, and the recent education actions are very promising.

Yesterday we discussed whether the radicalisation expressed in the actions last year and this could accurately be described as “shallow,” given the short-lived nature of the campaigns, and the fact that while many got involved in the actions, those involved in the organising or follow up were few. The political understanding of activists is certainly mixed, with consensus acceptance of many of the progressive issues being challenged continually by the bourgeoisie’s neoliberal ideological offensive. But at least on the issue of illusions about the ALP, and the ease with which the ALP can co-opt or derail campaigns, we’re much better off today than in the past, after the experience of 13 years of ALP government and craven Accord politics. Rejecting the ALP has to be part of any real rebellion today.

Another big difference of course is the absence of the CPA, which in the past would have been the major benefactor of the campaigns and the major component of organising committees.

So although the radicalisation and campaigns today have contradictions and weaknesses, the possibilities for us to intervene, lead, recruit and build the party are greater.

How to keep the youth

Given the nature of our present and future area of recruitment, a vital question is how to keep the youth: how to ensure they take the next steps.

Firstly, after the first flush of excitement at breaking out, at getting an activist, progressive view of the world, but then realising that it’s an enormous, long and difficult task to change it. Then, after being assigned out of Resistance, adjusting to a longer-term, serious struggle.

It’s a continuing battle against the ruling class culture, their brainwashing to keep everyone in their place, not challenging the system. One angle is the question of “careers”, what to do with your life. Our initial revolutionary commitment signifies a break with that road, but it’s a constant battle.

Most jobs in capitalist society are unrewarding, unsatisfying – of course. Smart working-class youth can escape partially, and sometimes even a step in the direction of socialist politics can be a first step to consciousness and an alternative life or career. We’ve seen some like that pass through our ranks.

Sometimes middle-class youth can take that first step towards revolutionary politics, and a “career” as a socialist revolutionary, and last longer through not having the same desperation to escape through an individual solution. Sometimes a temporary escape can be provided by niche jobs – academia, social work, etc., that mightn’t be quite so alienating as most.

It’s OK if it’s just a temporary expedient, or if we have the political consciousness to still put politics first. But such careers have a pressure of their own, to impart a petit-bourgeois outlook. The pressure is on to make your career the priority, or to guarantee financial security the rest of your life, or give yourself regular overseas trips or other luxuries. If that happens, then revolutionary socialist politics becomes an embarrassment, or a drag, holds you back from what you’ve set as your goals, makes any financial commitment to the party ever more onerous, selling the press irksome. Individualism, personal solutions, are put before social, political ones.

What do we have to throw into the battle against such ruling-class values and inducements?

1. International solidarity. Which heroes can we look to? In the ‘60s, it was Che, Cuba, Vietnam. Today, can it be the PRD? Yes. Budiman, Dita Sari and other comrades will be on our posters. More on this later.
2. Marxist education. Getting a historical perspective, and a theoretical understanding.
3. A working-class perspective. This of course is linked to Marxist education, and our political activity. Some wins, making some bases, will also help.

Marxist education

A serious approach to Marxist education is always essential for us. Given the nature of the socialist revolution, being a conscious process, we need clarity in order to win. The socialist movement needs an understanding of the dynamics of capitalism, class society, the history of the workers’ movement, all its experiences, in order to chart a strategy, to make the right tactical decisions.

Individual revolutionaries also always need both the collective framework of a party, and Marxist theory, to withstand the bourgeoisie’s ideological assault. Without it we won’t build the sort of party that’s needed, nor will we be able to train the sort of cadres required.

Furthermore, the youth, the inexperience, of the majority of our membership dictates that we give Marxist education a high priority. A culture of politics needs to be developed in the DSP and Resistance, where comrades debate politics rather than petty gossip, where there’s a thirst for political knowledge.

And given the variety of experiences, the variety of exposures, and the variety of manoeuvres and tactical measures we’ve had to take in the last 15 years, education and steeling of our cadres is especially vital. Overall these different experiences and experiments have been positive, exposing the party to many different situations and tests, but we’re also aware of the negative, unsettling effect this can have on comrades too.

There’s always the danger that when going through manoeuvres some comrades will convert our tactical necessities into political principles. Entrism becomes a permanent principle. Alliances become the required form, even without real content. Broadness becomes a permanent orientation rather than a conjunctural response. Anti-sectarianism can even become anti-socialism, anti-Leninism. Unfortunately it’s a very common problem in the shakeout of the socialist movement around the world. We see it here too with some of our ex-members, some of those who’ve now drifted off into the green milieu. They’re demoralised, pessimistic about socialism. So education is again essential, to ground our newer comrades in the past of our movement.

Then there’s all the charges and accusations flung at us by our political opponents, from right and left. The slanders step up of course as our relative weight increases and our profile grows. Without education our members can either bend, or shut up, or simplify and defend our tactics and strategies with dodgy arguments.

So Marxist education is vital for the party. We need to raise the profile and importance of education across the party, and implement a clear national plan. Each branch needs a clear plan for classes, educationals, reading, seminars, conferences, camps, and educational literature for members. And it needs to carry out the plan, make sure the classes happen, follow them up.

The formal, basic education is vital, but we also recognise the need for active education, not just passive book learning. Comrades need to be steeled in action, standing on our own feet, learning through struggles, political fights, polemics.

Our goal is to build a politically homogeneous Marxist party, to be in a position to make sharp turns, and take the whole party with us, ultimately to be in the position to respond rapidly in a revolutionary situation. We’re certainly not in that state at the moment, we’re rather creaky, rusty on the theoretical, political level. To reach that goal of a homogeneous party, we need a free and democratic atmosphere of discussion, a membership trained in debate, in polemic and practice.

Responsibility and participation

And we need a higher level of Marxist understanding in a larger proportion of the party membership. To achieve this we need the democratic structures, the debates, a sense of ownership and responsibility on the part of comrades. Comrades have to be tested and steeled, they have to learn to take responsibility.

We’ve hammered away at recent NC meetings on the importance of more comrades being encouraged, forced, to take responsibility. We want a bigger proportion of the organisation to take responsibility, we want more activists, less “back-seaters”. This will allow us to achieve more, it will help us recruit too.

Setting up more small branches is one way to involve more comrades, to have them take responsibility, participate in all party activities. We’ve been inching in this direction in recent years as a result of this understanding. Having more branches in more cities and suburbs is also a way to maximise our propaganda reach.

We’ve had some very positive experiences with our smallest branches this year:

• In Wollongong, we’ve rebuilt Resistance from practically nothing. Now we have a strong Resistance branch, and an excellent base on campus, that’s engaged with the political struggles, and doing the main tasks well, e.g., Green Left Weekly, with up to 50 sales a week in the Mall. It’s flowing through to the party now. Now Wollongong is a young branch, whereas for so many years it was seen as a holding-on operation by the longer term comrades.
• Newcastle branch was also pretty much down to the bones at the start of the year, but has joined two new recruits in recent months. (For a small branch of course this means a big percentage growth!)
• Darwin branch has been going for nearly three years now, and it’s been a good experience for us. The geographical isolation will always make it hard, and we’re still small, but the branch has recruited, and comrades have won a high profile for the DSP and Resistance in Darwin now.

At the June NC plenum we reported the establishment of the Fremantle branch. The branch has now obtained an office in a house near the centre of Fremantle, holds meetings and classes there, and has some potential recruits. The personnel of the branch is still not completely stable, and there’ll be some rearrangement of comrades assigned at the end of the year. A key task will be to establish responsibility for Murdoch Uni, and build a Resistance base there.

At this plenum the NE proposes the chartering of another new branch, in the Penrith-Blue Mountains area. There are two already existing components of the branch – longer term comrades and contacts living in the Penrith-Blue Mountains area, and high school comrades recruited to the party and Resistance in the lower Blue Mountains. These comrades often find it hard to get to Sydney branch meetings anyway, so this is a very logical step. At the first meeting, two more comrades will definitely join the branch as provisional members: another high school comrade, and a close supporter who was formerly in the SPA. So, with an initial group of transfers from Sydney branch, including Dave W and Terry [Townsend], the branch would begin with 10 members.

The branch would be centred on Penrith, with responsibility for the area from Parramatta westward to the Blue Mountains. Saturday sales stumps would be held at Parramatta, Penrith, and Katoomba to begin with, looking to expand to other spots in Springwood, Blacktown etc. The advantage of this location, apart from the fact we already had a base of comrades in the area, is that it’s distant enough from Sydney to have to stand on its own feet, and would have clear specific areas of responsibility.

The branch would hope to get some presence on the University of Western Sydney campuses out there at Penrith, Richmond, and Westmead. There are some local political, environmental and union campaigns that comrades have already been involved in, and in the Blue Mountains last year we brought together a meeting of left and progressive people that decided they wanted to do East Timor solidarity activities.

The branch will be looking to get a small office in Penrith, and have had increased pledge offers already from comrades who are very enthusiastic about the project.

District structures are needed where there’s more than one branch in a city, so we will be proposing the NC constitute the Sydney and Penrith-Blue Mountains branches into a district, and appoint an interim district committee consisting of Dave [W], Chris [Sp] and Wendy [R]. District fractions will also be necessary, e.g., CPSU, other trade union, other main interventions.

At the end of this session we’ll be putting a specific motion regarding the chartering of Penrith-Blue Mountains branch, the list of transfers from Sydney branch, and the setting up of the Sydney-Penrith-Blue Mountains district.

In Melbourne, the branch has set up an organising committee in the Frankston-Dandenong area, to orient to and hopefully recruit from a large milieu of sympathisers at the Frankston TAFE college. Classes are being held in the area, with some Melbourne comrades assigned to attend. We hope to recruit as many as possible, and then would like to assign a few experienced comrades to look for work or study in the area, and eventually charter a branch there. So far three have agreed to become provisional members, and more are likely.

Also next year we’ll be looking to establish a branch in the Lismore area. Two comrades will move there next year, possibly followed by two or three other comrades. We know the Lismore-Byron Bay area has always been very lucrative ground for Green Left Weekly sales, there’s a fair base of subscribers and former subscribers, the Southern Cross campus has mobilised large numbers of students on education cuts campaigns in the past year, there’s a high consciousness on environmental issues, and there’s an East Timor committee run by some Green Left Weekly supporters.

We’re not proposing some sort of ISO turn with these new branches, we don’t have illusions about the period, or illusions about building a “small mass party” they have to import from Britain. And we note the ISO here has had to retreat from most of the extra branches they set up. Their projections were unreal. But each of our new small branches or steps towards a new branch has been a response to some specific political openings, or not wanting to lose the possibility of some new recruits, as well as our general motivation to have a larger number of comrades take direct responsibility for leading party units.

Our thinking about new branches has been prodded by the openness to our ideas and Green Left Weekly in country centres particularly. The regional NSW responses to Nico’s tour were excellent; so often Green Left Weekly sales experiences in country areas have been better than those in the cynical inner-city areas; there’s no competition, but a yearning for an activist alternative in many places. We should be considering special trips for Green Left Weekly sales and subscriptions combined with political meetings in many of the larger country towns.

In the future, especially with a bit of growth under our belt, we can look at places such as Townsville, Toowoomba, Cairns, Launceston, Geelong, Ballarat, Armadale, Bathurst, etc., for new branches.

Of course there are dangers and disadvantages in small branches. Small branches can’t be as rounded as larger ones. The formal education and range of experiences available to comrades might be more limited, not as comprehensive. Therefore the national educational institutions and national propaganda from the party becomes even more important – Green Left Weekly is vital, Party Campaigner, The Activist, Links, pamphlets, books, study guides, schools, etc. And cheap quick communication via the internet can bridge the isolation.

But the other side is that standing on one’s own feet, with the backing of the party NO [National Office] etc., can also speed up the education and integration process.

In other branches, we should be aiming to get back to full-time secretaries for Perth and Adelaide branches, with part-time secretaries for the smaller or new branches. We also need to make more efficient use of rosters, even volunteers from among our supporters, to get the basic work done around the office. We need a professional, serious, attitude by all comrades, whether on full-time or not. A collectivist atmosphere should be encouraged.

Green Left Weekly

Green Left Weekly has now been going for nearly six years. The tasks and organisation report today will go into the serious drop in sales, even subs, we’ve undergone recently, and present proposals to address this crisis. But it’s not just campaigns and harder work that will be needed, we need to understand the political importance of the paper.

We still underestimate what we’ve achieved. We’re not boastful to say that it’s the best left paper in Australia, possibly in the world? That’s not just us talking, we hear it from others. But it’s very much under-utilised!

We know it’s the scaffolding that integrates all our work – our interventions are led through the paper, we build the party around the paper, we use the paper to advertise our events, forums, literature. We need to use it more for educating party members, Resistance members, sympathisers, and as the vehicle for more debates, polemics.

There are pros and cons of a broad non-party paper such as Green Left Weekly. It can become and is becoming the paper of record for the left, as well as its calendar; it’s becoming the place for debate – we’ve had wonderful letters pages this year. It’s become an international news magazine. Green Left Weekly is a bit like Intercontinental Press in its healthy days. There are so many countries, where our exclusive coverage is unsurpassed, unavailable elsewhere – Indonesia, Philippines, East Timor, Bougainville, Russia still, Latin America. We’ll develop all these aspects, and continue to still reach out, but definitely not let the form restrict the party-building needs that we do have. We can increase the DSP and Resistance profile in Green Left Weekly. We have to be “proud recruiters for the DSP through the paper.”

Other propaganda material

We also must do the theoretical work to back up our dominance on the ground, consolidate the hard work we’ve invested in a huge range of campaigns, our persistent activity, through Green Left Weekly etc.

We must encourage the whole party to take theoretical work more seriously – study, research, thinking, reading, debates, polemics. It’s not academic, but for a purpose, directed to a political end. Although it can seem disguised at the moment, since we’re not engaged in any overt faction fight, in reality it’s a huge political battle, firstly, against the bourgeoisie’s neoliberal offensive, and secondly against the many confused and confusionist currents in the working-class and progressive movement.

We want to publish more books, pamphlets and propaganda. In many cases it’s just a matter of editing and publishing the material that’s already there, the work’s done. In other cases we have to write it. The progress with our bookshops will be covered in the Tasks report, but we have to stress that they’re vital for the education of our members, and for building a political culture that encourages comrades’ reading, buying books, subs to magazines.

Let’s use Links more in this way, to educate our members. Have discussions around articles. The hectic pace of the last period delayed the latest issue, but it will be back from the printers immediately after the NC. After that let’s keep to the regular schedule, and promote it and distribute it better.

We want to retain The Activist as a combination internal magazine, for discussion, education, reprints, and organisation of our members. We need a more conscious approach to reports for The Activist from branches, from important interventions and areas of work.

Also let’s make full use of Party Campaigner to organise our party-building campaigns, with more feedback from branches, and possibly back to a four-page PC.

The consensus seems to be that Resist! was very useful, so we’ll plan more of them, finance permitting. Sometimes perhaps they won’t have a run on, but just be an insert in Green Left Weekly.

We need to significantly expand and upgrade the DSP and Resistance web pages, together with those for Green Left Weekly, Links, DSEL, ASIET, CISLAC, Resistance Bookshops, CPSU Challenge. We can’t be left behind on this, it’s an important new medium, that reaches out around the world.

DSP profile and recruiting

We want to schedule branch Easter or post-Easter educational conferences in 1997, with a clear socialist or Marxist theme (80 years since the Russian Revolution might be a possibility). We want to make an early start on planning them and building them, certainly so they’re ready to go completely by O-weeks.

The NE proposes that branches start advertising their classes publicly, in Green Left Weekly and elsewhere. We don’t have to give the exact time, and can have a filter, via a phone number, and require confirmation to keep out nuts and opponents. But it will attract some extra contacts. Perhaps more importantly, it will let our supporters, potential recruits, and Green Left Weekly readers, know that we do have a serious attitude to Marxist theory, that we run classes on an Introduction to Socialism, Introduction to Marxism, the DSP’s Program, Feminism and Socialism, Introduction to the Marxist Classics. We can run the ads regularly in the calendar, put them on branch leaflets, an extra little box. Perhaps we can have even larger Green Left Weekly box ads now and then listing all branch classes.

For the Jim Percy Memorial meetings this year, unfortunately Renfrey [Clarke] won’t be back in time. So we’ll have him do a tour next year, a topic like “1917-1997” perhaps cover some of the Easter conferences. For the lectures this year, we were proposing that leading comrades in each branch present a public talk on party perspectives, an argument for socialism, perhaps linked to the Russian Revolution anniversary, but the suggestion of Indonesia and the PRD sounds good.

Party schools

We definitely want to hold one or more party schools in January, 2-3 weeks long, and perhaps a one-week December school in Melbourne. The party needs them, comrades want them.

The difficulty of holding longer or more frequent schools at the moment is a problem of freeing up enough comrades from their branch assignments or work, not, for example, a problem of providing tutors. But we all feel the need in this period to restart this institution as a permanent feature. With a bit more growth, and greater financial stability, and we’ll want to regain our full-time party school.

Also, branches need to schedule enough weekend conferences, camps, and seminars throughout the year.

Branch meetings and executive meetings

Next year, we need enough forums and branch meetings to have regular good political discussions, to provide political stimulation for old and new comrades, and to have something to bring new comrades to, and recruit.

Some branches have cut back to fortnightly executives, because of too lengthy discussions. But it’s better to make the exec smaller, more efficient, task-oriented, and meet weekly, more briefly. We’re likely to build a more unified, functioning team this way too. Executives need to be efficient bodies, to get the work done, to provide leadership and direction and co-ordination for the branch, and provide communication both ways with the National Office. Executives aren’t the place for long, repetitive discussions. They shouldn’t take away the life from branch meetings and forums. We don’t need a closeted discussion. We can have much of it out at the branch meeting, or the forum.

Pre-conference discussion

What should we hope for, expect, from our pre-conference discussion? The written discussion has been open since June, but from now to the conference the written and oral discussion has to be a bigger part of comrades’ political life.

Firstly, it’s a time for conveying information, and generalising experiences. This is something we try to do year round, but we step it up in the pre-conference period.

Secondly, it’s a time for longer term reflection, for trying to work out our perspectives, trying to get clarity on problems that have been held over. Do we have all the answers? No, so get working.

And finally, it’s specifically a time for hammering out differences over our tactics, strategy, and theory, if they exist. We should not schedule educationals and think that they’re pre-conference discussion. They’re not the same at all. However, the discussion will be very educational in essence, even more so if genuine, serious debates occur.

The task for the party leadership, for NC members, in this PCD, is to take the lead, give political direction, but also open up the discussion in areas where we need greater clarity, encourage the debate.

Firstly, on all the reports and the draft perspectives resolution coming from this plenum. But there’s a whole list of particular questions that I’d like to see comrades take up. For example:

• The stage we’re at in building the party here, and in the recomposition of the Marxist movement internationally.
• Our regroupment experiences in the ‘80s, ‘90s: what lessons can be learned from them?
• The united front, what is it, how it applies.
• The ALP; the Accord experience; union affiliation. Would Australian workers be better off or worse off if there was no ALP? no union affiliation, like the US Democrats?
• Leninism, the party question again, the vanguard party, its relation to movements; Marx, or Lenin too, i.e., the Russian Revolution question, again; What is sectarianism?
• The [James P.] Cannon tradition. What is it? What are the aspects we defend? What’s being attacked by the IS-Shachtman tradition, with their attacks on “the Cannon regime”.
• The politics of Militant and Militant Labour.
• Debates in the SACP, key debates in other parties;
• Small branch experiences;
• New experiences in the student movement, the unions;
• The evolution of environmental groups, peak bodies, the Greens;
• Indonesian perspectives. Popular front/united front.

Comrades here have to get writing, gear up for debates, and intensify your study and reading to back up your contributions. Some topics will be debated anyway, comrades will want to write, want to discuss. On other issues it will be worthwhile to stimulate the process, to provoke, to get comrades thinking, even toss up challenges.

Something to consider for next year is whether to keep The Activist open for discussion. We think it would be useful to have it open for discussion on theoretical and historical questions, and discussion of ways to implement our perspectives, even open for bright ideas, or worries. The party would benefit from a more open approach that encourages more debate and discussion.

Let’s make The Activist a must read, so that in addition to reprints, and reports and organisational articles, there’s debates and thinking out taking place there too. Outside of the pre-conference discussion period, it would be subject to control of the NE, so there’s no chance it would degenerate into a permanent discussion atmosphere to the detriment of our activity and implementation of our perspectives.

Today an organisation with a free and open democratic discussion will be attractive to radicalising young militants. Such a discussion is possible and needed today, without preventing the possibilities of centralised action when it’s needed. It’s similar with Green Left Weekly, our forums and seminars.

Organising our periphery

We now have a growing periphery of sympathisers and supporters. How do we consolidate them, tie them closer to the party, recruit some of them? There’s also a recognition of our size, weight and influence now by others on the left as well. How do we capitalise on this? We have a higher level of moral authority in the broad, left, activist milieu than we’ve actually organised.

Green Left Weekly subscriptions is obviously the main organising medium. There’s enormous potential for new subs, and following up the enormous list of lapsed subs.

Secondly, there’s DSEL. All supporters and contacts should be asked to join up. We expect it to be our main electoral vehicle.

We can also organise our intellectual/academic sympathisers around issues. PRD solidarity, through ASIET, will be one useful focus. It’s another reason to prioritise this work.

Change in relationship of forces on the left

The draft perspectives resolution points out:

24. There has been a striking change in the relationship of forces within the radical movement since the last federal Coalition government. Under the Fraser government of the late 1970s the radical movement was dominated by the social-democratic left in the ALP and its allies in the Communist Party. Today there is a partial vacuum on the left, resulting from:

1. The incapacity of the labour bureaucracy and the various liberal-reformist leaderships of the other social movements to break with bourgeois electoralism.
2. The collapse of the social-democratic left as an identifiably separate force on the Australian political scene owing to its uncritical support for the Labor government’s neoliberal austerity program and its withdrawal over the last decade from involvement in extra-parliamentary struggles to immerse itself in the bureaucratic machine politics of the ALP.
3. The destruction of the Communist Party due to its support for the class-collaborationist alliance between the labour bureaucracy and the ALP government.

25. Owing to these circumstances, and the still small size and influence of the revolutionary left, the initial struggles against the Howard government will be disconnected and fragmented instead of being programmatically and organisationally coordinated through the influence of any single leadership.

However, unlike the situation under the Fraser government, these struggles will arise in a context in which we do not have to confront the hegemonic domination of a relatively large pro-ALP left-reformist party. The relative strength of the DSP within the organised left puts us in a better position today to win the political leadership of the radicalising workers and students that will emerge out of struggles against the Howard government.

26. In the wake of the dissolution of the old Communist Party, the organised left consists of ourselves and a range of smaller petty bourgeois leftist sects, all competing for the allegiance of unaffiliated young radicals. In this context, mobilising broad forces in independent mass political action requires bringing together a diversity of elements in united-front type coalitions aimed at building a broad base for mass action on specific issues directed against the Howard government. Because of our relative strength within the organised left and our understanding of how to apply united-front tactics, our party can play a crucial role in initiating and holding together such united-front type coalitions.

Joint action, however, does not entail the suspension of political differentiation and polemical struggle against our petty bourgeois leftist opponents. To the contrary, we must be continually on the alert for concrete situations in which to effectively counterpose to their false ideas, positions and methods the proven program and methods of Marxism.

So we’ll toss up challenges, adopt a united-front approach to the rest of left, to build the campaigns we initiate or are involved in. We can expose their limitations, their sectarianism, their inadequate politics.

The discussion on Saturday addressed the question of what chance or likelihood there is of the ALP rising again to try to (mis)lead the movements, make a fake left turn, and divert or co-opt radicalising young militants. The consensus seemed to be that there was no sign of revival, no hint of a left turn. So we’re not seeing much of them, and the united front is rarely posed in this period. But we’ll still pose a united front to them on actions over issues (not the tailist caricature of a united front that the CPA followed and the SPA follows) but recognising:

• Firstly, on many of the issues they’re not going to be able to support even the basic demands of most campaigns, their policies are so rotten. On so many of the issues and campaigns, Labor was so complicit in preparing the ground for the latest attacks – privatisation, weakening the unions, etc. – that a decent campaign and slogans can’t avoid making the connection.
• Secondly, they’re so sectarian, (and wary) they’ll refuse, demand that it’s just them on a platform, certainly not us or other lefts (That doesn’t stop us tossing it up to them, of course, to expose them yet again).

Is there any chance of winning over individuals? That should be the aim, the purpose of the united front tactic, “to steal their supporters”. We won’t do it by accommodating to them, so scathing criticism, sharpness is needed. The most likely recruits are from those already disillusioned, the many who’ve already turned their backs on the ALP. Many are angrier than us. So trenchant ongoing criticisms of the ALP and their Accord record are absolutely essential.

We’ll win people in struggle, yes, but also in debates. Raising a socialist flag, and putting a clear Marxist analysis in this period is essential.

Failure of Militant

The one group on the left that we had some hopes for in the first half of this year, Militant, has taken a step back, deciding to break off discussions on exploring the possibility of unity with us. The letter we sent them, and a report of a discussion in Melbourne where they informed us of their decision, is in the latest Activist.

They’ve decided instead to take in most of the membership of Solidarity and Communist Intervention. This means they’ve taken in a few rather hardened sectarians, with their own factional agendas. It will make interesting watching, the digestion process. Let’s see the political debates develop. (This small group now has components with allegiances to the CWI, the FI, the LIT; there’ll be interesting debates on Cuba, on Ireland.)

The regroupment could give them an initial boost. They’ll certainly be aggressive, with extra confidence. They boast of tripling their membership in Melbourne, claiming 25 now, but with six in Sydney, and a few in Perth, that still doesn’t put them much over 30. They’ll be looking for quick fixes. We’ve heard about the attempt to play prefect to the secondary student movement in Melbourne.

They’re unencumbered with a range of interventions, a range of responsibilities, so they, and ISO, and Socialist Alternative, and other small groups, can concentrate on a campaign or two, plus the weekly forum/meeting recruitment focus. We have to cover them in the campaigns, not allow any of them to get a jump, and match them with our aggressive recruiting and political discussion. We need to schedule enough party events, forums, functions, to build in Green Left Weekly.

What it means to be a revolutionary today

What does it mean to be a revolutionary socialist today? What are the new features, or the challenged concepts that we should reassert? What are the questions important for recruitment and consolidation of new members? What are the issues that motivate us, and will inspire others, and ensure the party develops?

Firstly, we need seriousness, professionalism, commitment. Commitment and dedication are essential, a point we’ve always stressed. But you notice around the world and here that rejection of “sectarianism” too often gets misinterpreted to mean rejection of revolutionary commitment, dedication and activism. You get the “paper sellers” charge – from people in US Solidarity, to the anarchists of the Newtown Political Collective, to Militant here. There’s cynicism about commitment and activity. You see scorn about handing over money to the party. There’s contempt for any idea of party loyalty.

Cynicism on these questions is fatal for a revolutionary party that’s serious. You’ll never build anything.

Secondly, we need a collectivist approach. A proletarian approach to politics is fundamentally a collectivist approach. The party is an instrument for a specific task – leading and organising the transition from capitalism to socialism. We can’t reproduce the future socialist society in relations between comrades today. But we should do what we can to avoid reproducing all the worst of capitalist society inside the party – competitiveness, individualism, a dog-eat-dog attitude to others.

We know we can’t build the utopian future in the brutal crappy now of capitalist society. But we should do what we can to make each other’s life and political activity more fulfilling. We aim to be very clear in our politics, and hard in our determination to succeed, but also decent human beings and comradely in our relations. Haughtiness or rudeness has no place in relations among comrades. It’s also the smart way, the efficient way, to achieve the most.

We’re engaged in a joint project. We should all be multi-skilled. We don’t want a special caste of thinkers, and a lower caste of doers. All comrades should be thinkers, theoreticians, all should have a chance to study, be encouraged to speak out, write, lead. And all should do shitwork (cleaning the HQ, “menial” tasks). We’ve had indications of some new young Resistance comrades seeing the relations between comrades in hierarchical, individualistic terms. We’ll pay a political price for such attitudes. It will miseducate others, it is setting the wrong example, it’s likely to demoralise other comrades. It runs against our party building needs. A collectivist approach is non-hierarchical. We want genuine equality in the party. Again, it’s the efficient way too.

In the struggle we know we need leadership. That’s the project of the party itself. So all of us are leaders. But we build an inclusive party and a team leadership. Teamwork is the proletarian norm. We aim to build a team of comrades engaged in the most important task there is.

But also vital is initiative, thinking for yourself, standing on your own feet, taking responsibility.

That’s the third point – engagement, participation, taking responsibility. That is, you get the conviction that you’re connected to the struggle, in important ways that you can make a difference. And we all have the feeling of “ownership” of the party.

We’ve been pushing on this over the last year or two, trying to encourage comrades to take more responsibility, learning through having a go, participating. We should also understand that now is important, i.e., don’t put your political activity and commitment on hold, until you think the class struggle might heat up, and concentrate instead on your personal enjoyment and betterment.

Fourthly, developing theoretical confidence, through education. We have to develop an atmosphere of seriousness about Marxist theory, of engagement with the political issues and literature. We’re serious about the hard work involved in the theoretical training of cadres, of ourselves. So we gain a historical perspective, a Marxist understanding. I’ve dwelt on the centrality of this at length in this report.

Fifthly, political boldness, ambition. We need to break out of routines, routinism, including trying new challenges, trying new tactics. Our fundamental strategy for building the party has been unchanged, but we do try all tactics. Comrades should be bold, innovative too. We’re still a centralised party, and need to set our priorities, because we’re small, that’s absolutely necessary. But we should be open to initiatives.

We should be aggressive, confident in our debates and polemics, during our interventions, in what we write.

And we won’t allow small sects to falsely claim that they have the left ground. Their delusions are false – they’re usually only pseudo left on demo tactics, smashing a window or door, and overblown macho posturing; but tailing the ALP on the main political questions.

We need to claim the left ground for ourselves, raise the party, the socialist, the Marxist profile. We’re activists, leading and intervening in the main struggles that are there, with no illusions that we’re able to lead masses in struggle yet. But there’s no need to make a permanent habit of modesty, being diplomatic about our politics, when there are no broad forces there to unite with, to work with, when the main recruits will be coming from the radicalising youth.

Solidarity with the PRD

Sixth, and finally, we have an internationalist perspective.

Here I want to stress again the special importance of solidarity with the PRD. It’s important, firstly, for basic reasons of internationalism, it’s our fundamental duty. Those brave young worker and student activists need our help against the vicious repression of the brutal Suharto dictatorship. They’re in the vanguard of the struggle for democracy there, and leading a clever and heroic fight.

Secondly, Australian imperialism has fostered a special relationship with the Indonesian military dictatorship, for sordid economic reasons. As our draft resolution states: “Victories won by the movement for democracy in Indonesia not only help alter the relationship of class forces in Indonesia to the workers’ advantage, they also help to weaken Australian capital. Every advance made by the workers in Indonesia in their struggle for democracy directly helps to strengthen the working-class movement in Australia.”

Thirdly, they’re our comrades, we’ve developed a close relationship with them, we see eye to eye with them, we’ve helped them in various ways. Many of them have visited here. We know them well. We should treat the jailing and repression of a PRD comrade just as we’d treat the jailing of one of our own comrades here. In fact the initiative of branches to adopt a PRD comrade to defend is commendable.

But there’s a fourth reason too. We should prioritise the defence of the PRD for the education, training, inspiration and steeling of our own cadres. We benefit. It directly contributes to building our party here. Since we don’t lead the mass of the working class here, there are likely defeats ahead and potential demoralisation for our comrades here. The events in Indonesia provide a bigger horizon, an international perspective, a more immediate revolutionary example. The struggle of our comrades in Indonesia can inspire and spur on our comrades here.

Just to recapitulate our solidarity tasks:

• Build the international day of action and hunger strike on October 28, and the ongoing solidarity activities here in Australia.
• Build ASIET.
• We can help the PRD recruit among Indonesian workers here, and they can help us recruit too.
• Help provide a base and support for the PRD’s international work, for Comrade Nico;
• Organise the international solidarity campaign.

This solidarity campaign is a perfect illustration of the interconnection of our international socialist renewal work, and our party-building work in Australia. It’s a vindication of our course over the last decade. The growth and development and of the comrades in Indonesia vindicates our non-sectarian approach.

Perhaps also the reactions of sectarians to events in Indonesia provides a second vindication – “there but for the grace of god go we.” If we hadn’t broken with a sectarian, pure “Trotskyist” framework, would we also have regurgitated our slab of text on Permanent Revolution and wagged our fingers at the PRD?

We’re going to organise the broadest, principled political solidarity campaign in defence of the PRD, in defence of the struggle for democracy in Indonesia. We’ll appeal to all currents and organisations. We’ll put all the left on the spot. It exposes the pontificators, the sects if they don’t respond. But they’ll be left behind in the big, broad campaign that we know we’ll build.

At our national conference, from January 3-8, a major focus will be on the PRD, on solidarity with the struggle in Indonesia. The venue will be decorated with banners, slogans, displays on the struggle in Indonesia, with portraits of the jailed comrades. There’ll be a report, videos, feature talks, panel discussions.

With this, and all the international guests, and all the interesting discussions, and all the new young comrades there, and experience of a very successful year, and good prospects for 1997, we’ll have a great conference.