U4P General Meeting, Whither Activism?

Anthony Furia discusses the state of Unionists for Palestine and the role the SAlt-Solidarity divide plays in its internal politics.

The Unionists For Palestine (U4P) general meeting on the 5th of July accomplished a fairly substantial symbolic victory for the left forces of the movement. In a “win” for those of us who oppose coalitionism [forming broad activist coalitions] and ALP tailism [following behind activists and taking up unprincipled positions for the sake of popularity], Solidarity’s motion rebuking the events of the ALP state conference protest (in which protesters from U4P conducted a sit-in in the lobby) was thoroughly voted down; whilst the Socialist Alternative and RCO backed counter-motion supporting the protest and condemning the ALP was successful. In a loss for attempting to maintain unity within U4P, the motion devised by comrade Seb to establish a line of communication and reconciliation between the wider U4P and the disgruntled (by those same events at the state conference) Teachers and School Staff for Palestine (TSSP) was shot down.

Beyond a summary of the actual motions passed at this meeting, the more important aspect for those of us on the socialist left was just how dominated politics within it were by the same thing that has been haunting the Australian socialist movement since 1995; the Solidarity/Socialist Alternative divide. Broadly defined along the lines of coalitionist tailism, represented by Solidarity, opposed to spontaneous movementism [seeing disparate social movements and activist coalitions as the basis for revolutionary change], represented by Socialist Alternative, the history of the Solidarity/SAlt conflict is one worthy of our attention if we endeavour to understand both groups today, and the contemporary Australian revolutionary left.

Formally beginning in 1995 with the expulsion of 16 members of the International Socialist Organisation (ISO), who disagreed with the organisation’s position on the importance of the 1990s (“the 1930s in slow motion”), Socialist Alternative was formed shortly after from such ex-members. Was this an issue over which a split was necessary, or even tactically sound? Certainly not. However, such is the case with bureaucratic centralist organisations. The ISO all but formally renounced unity in action itself in 1993, passing a motion that read;

“individuals who can’t implement [conference decisions] … should not obstruct them. Refraining from a particular activity on these grounds is not regarded as sabotage.”

Indeed, the formal expulsion of these members of the ISO was partially motivated by accusations of “factionalism” (amongst other utterly dull bickering). Impressively, the ISO had worked itself into violating both Unity in Action and Diversity in Opinion, banning both factions and conceding disciplined action in practice.

Socialist Alternative thus begins its storied (twenty-nine year) history with the explosive bang of yet another publication on the left that makes no reference at all to its history as a product of the expulsion of members from the ISO. Indeed, it’s impressive how little SAlt did to truly differentiate themselves from the organisation they had just departed from. For all intents and purposes, these were two organisations sharing almost the exact same organisational principle and Tony-Cliffist ideological lineage.

However, let it not be said that these organisations did not grow apart. To their credit, both socialist groups scrambled to define themselves in the negative of the other, in order to justify and legitimate their own existence in the face of an organisational identity crisis. The ISO, in the wake of the (not-so) crisis filled 90s, worked with the Democratic Socialist Perspective (DSP) and seven other smaller organisations (including their own splinter group from 2001, Solidarity, not to be mistaken for Solidarity) to establish Socialist Alliance as an electoral project. SAlt abstained, notably, although clearly having walked back such an anti-electoral position with the establishment of Victorian Socialists (VS) a few years ago.

Socialist Alliance would struggle on for a few years (and still struggles on now!), before the ISO resigned in 2007- designating 100% of the blame for the failures of SA to achieve its established goals on the conduct of the DSP. Most of these critiques of conduct reflect an increasingly coalitionist turn on the part of the ISO, as they centred around the DSP expecting a “pace of activity suited to a revolutionary organisation, not a broad left party,” arguing for a central SA publication in the form of Green Left, and declaring SA a multi-tendency socialist party. These critiques were made on the basis that the DSP was establishing in SA an organisation that didn’t properly accommodate “disaffected Labor members” and instead geared itself towards cohering and coordinating the existing socialist movement (if only!), betraying the ISO’s own right-turn.

Not a year later, and the ISO merged with two smaller organisations, Solidarity and Socialist Action Group, to become simply Solidarity. This organisation adopted much of the politics and tactical positions accumulated by the ISO over the years since 2000, including electoral support to the Greens followed by Labor, and a “United Front” orientation towards these organisations and the trade unions. This was the culmination of the political ups and downs since 1995; an organisation committed to a tactical tailism of major parties and unions in order to exist within the “real movement” and build up the potential for the eventual mass-party.

It should be noted that, in the years before Solidarity’s formation, SAlt grew considerably, orienting itself almost entirely towards students and campus organising, and committing to a militant propaganda routine. In contrast to Solidarity, SAlt developed a line committed to socialist propaganda within as many social movements as possible, it committed itself to its own growth through these movements, and through propaganda, in preparation for the emergence of the mass party.

These two positions manifest with blinding clarity in most contemporary political struggles amongst the far left. The university encampments for Palestine, and this very U4P meeting, are two of the most recent examples that spring to mind. In the U4P meeting, Solidarity members and affiliates attempted to condemn actions which they saw as endangering their tactic of Labor Party entryism in the hopes of exacerbating conflict within the party and pulling rank and file away from it. SAlt members, affiliates, and ex-members rejected this out of hand, and supported the affirmation of these actions, which would surely themselves draw in new members through their radical appeal and socialist orientation. Attempts to impact ALP policy were futile, the reasoning goes, and actions like this attracted, rather than subtracted, supporters.

It should also be noted that the overall tactics of SAlt and Solidarity aren’t all that dissimilar, despite the constant conflict between them. Both tactics are founded firmly upon a belief in the spontaneity of revolution and the mass party itself, which will emerge, as if from the heavens, in order to lead forth the revolutionary working class in the moment of critical crisis. Solidarity aims to “build” this mass party by developing forces within existing bourgeois institutions and parties, until the moment the party appears, able to lead the working class itself. SAlt aims to build itself through outward propaganda and social movement participation, existing as a propaganda group of the highest order, until the emergence of the revolutionary moment (and thus the mass party).

Both groups acknowledge they are not the sole inheritors of revolutionary socialist legacy. Both acknowledge they are not the mass party, and neither aspire to become it through sheer growth in membership. In fact, in SAlt’s latest “What kind of organisation is Socialist Alternative?” article, although referencing the mass socialist party, they explicitly typify themselves (and their future aspirations) as a “socialist organisation” instead of a mass party. So where will the mass party come from? From organisations that don’t allow disagreements over “major” strategic questions (whatever that may mean) and have spurious, tactically single-minded orientations to students or unions? Certainly not, by their own admission. From the coalescing of the existing left? Perhaps, but neither group makes much explicit noise or reference to this goal. From spontaneous, phantasmic political forces above the control of any organisation? It would seem so.

This is not a tactically, let alone a strategically sound position, yet both groups that currently dominate far-left politics in Australia hold some variation of it. Their perspectives have shaped, and continue to shape the orientations of the far left to movements, institutions, and actions as they have occurred over the past 35 years and will likely continue to do so in the future. What we can learn from the U4P meeting, which exemplified this stagnating state-of-play, is what role we play. What role a partyist faction in the workers movement must fill, and how we navigate these conflicts to the best of our abilities in order to meet our aims, fill our role, and stride forward to the patient (yet hurried) construction of the mass workers party. We cannot afford to ignore these tensions, as we cannot afford to ignore the existing left – we must determine how we work with and through these groups towards the extremely intentional project of a mass party. A mass party through which we can save ourselves from the stagnating status quo of sectarian conflict and a culture of irresponsible spontaneity.