PARTISAN!

Comrade Corey Oakley’s comments on our amendments are much appreciated – the purpose of proposing these was to encourage debate and discussion and assess the popularity of our minority position, and we are glad they have at least partially succeeded so far. Given the fact that these comments were posted the day before the conference itself, comrades will forgive us for a shorter (initial) response than this discussion warrants. 

We will be brief: Oakley is absolutely correct in stating that our motions and amendments aim to overturn the entire strategic orientation of VS. They do so in proposing an alternative one, aimed squarely at utilising and nourishing the embryonic potential of The Socialists as a mass organisation, a revolutionary mass party. Stepping through Oakley’s opposition to our motions, we see clearly what is at stake here is what VS is to become, what it should seek to be.

Amendments to “Expanding Victorian Socialists Australia-wide”

On our very first amendment, Oakley opposes the change from ‘national’ fight to ‘international’ (having removed this sentence from the proposed motion itself) on the basis that it “has nothing to do with the reason we are expanding Vic Socialists across Australia.” This is disputable. What is the reason we are expanding VS across Australia? The Communist Caucus believes, in the broadest sense, it is to advance socialist struggle – a struggle Oakley recognises as a necessarily international one. Surely, then, acknowledgement of this fact is important in combating any conception which would see socialism as something achievable within a single country, and affirms the necessary commitment of communists to international struggle.

Oakley then moves to defend the decision of the executive to initiate nation-wide expansion prior to conference as being within the executive’s mandate, a critique of which is the second part of our first amendment. Oakley points out that there is no evidence provided in the motion itself for this assertion – that is correct, we imagined that we would detail our case at the conference itself. Yet to outline the argument, there is no clear reason for the executive to have not waited until the conference. The responsibility of the executive, as broadly defined as it is (another problem the Communist Caucus has with the VS constitution), is to be the governing body of the party subordinated to the Party Conference and the constitution. It determines the political line, strategic orientation, and membership of the party in between conferences and in line with the constitution. 

Nothing within the constitution or the motions of the last VS conference expressly outline a move towards a decision as significant for the party as national expansion. If we want a democratic mass organisation, we must ensure that significant decisions on strategy are made democratically. Oakley argues that the opportunity for this expansion was defined to a specific window of time, and points to the thousands of people who have signed up for The Socialists as evidence of this. We argue that there is no evidence to suggest that such an opportunity was in fact time-sensitive at all, nor that the thousands of applicants are due to the specific timing of the launch. It seems difficult to justify why expansion could not have waited for democratic approval by conference on this basis, particularly considering the immense amount of consultation and discussion that would be necessary to determine the specifics of such an expansion democratically. 

Corey then opposes the renaming of Victorian Socialists to “Socialist Party (Victorian Branch)” on the basis of the name recognition VS currently possesses. We find this hardly convincing, considering a renaming would reflect the significant change that a national expansion is to the very character of the organisation. Furthermore, it is highly unlikely that VS voters would find such a name change impossibly confusing or disruptive, particularly if our agitational materials remain stylised in a similar way. While state parochialism may not be an immense problem for the socialist movement now, in not moving to combat a federalist separation of state parties, we are actively sowing the seeds for it – why not change our name now, and avoid such a problem as we grow?

Oakley further moves to address our amendment on changing support for a united socialist party “in the Australian electoral sphere” with “in Australia.” Oakley opposes this change under the belief that it would force the dissolution of constituent organisations and potential constituents of The Socialist Party (Socialist Alternative and Socialist Alliance) into such a party. While we certainly would not oppose any move from such organisations to dedicate themselves utterly to the work of building The Socialists, our formulation does not order this. The Socialists (and by extension VS) should support a united socialist party, as it should seek to become such a party. What other socialist organisations participating in VS choose to do in order to support this is demonstrably up to them. Ideally, it is true, this formulation would spell an end to each and every socialist sect, to be replaced by something greater than the sum of their parts; a mass socialist party. But we recognise this as an aspiration of The Socialists, something to work towards, as opposed to something that can be implemented through changes to wording.

Oakley also takes issue with our replacement of “with the aim of not contesting the same seats and supporting each other’s campaigns” with “in the interests of the Socialist Movement” when it comes to Socialist Alliance. He states this means a withdrawal of support for Alliance, replaced with an attitude of “we will do whatever we want and screw you.” Bar the abrasive formulation, which would be incredibly undiplomatic of us to present in a motion, this is somewhat correct. The Communist Caucus does not believe that The Socialists should strive to accommodate the existence of multiple electoral socialist parties; why not aspire for hegemony? The numbers are on our side, and if it suits the interests of the socialist movement, of socialist agitation, to contest the same seats as Alliance, then why should we inhibit ourselves from doing so? This does not by any means mandate hostility towards Alliance, but our change refuses to give them the guarantee of the privilege they currently enjoy from VS support without VS membership.

Oakley then moves to our motion to rewrite point 6. We won’t spend long here, as many of these critiques surround specific semantic ordering. What should be noted is: 

• Establishing a task to expand VS nationally is not the same as the immediate formation of such a national party here in Victoria, with only Victorian members. 
• Immediately convening a national conference can be reasonably interpreted as referring to once new local branches have had a chance to meet and elect delegates – the specific execution of such a motion is something we would leave to the Executive, were it to pass. We are more than happy to amend this amendment itself to remove references to ‘immediately’ in the first place – would this make such a motion acceptable? 

Oakley also dismissively references the minimum-maximum programmatic style the CC proposes for a potential VS program – it is true that this was the style of the SPD, a genuine mass party for all its failings, and, need we remind comrades, also the program style of the Parti Ouvrier – drafted in part by Karl Marx.

Amendments to “2026 Victorian state election” motion

Oakley then goes on to assert that our proposed change from “Victorian Socialists considers the 2026 Victorian state election campaign to be our key strategic priority” to “key electoral priority” is “a rejection of the importance [of] electoral campaigning.” Far from it – the CC is firmly in favour of the critical importance of a staunch communist electoral strategy. Yet we believe the importance of going beyond this into the future; of striving to expand the party’s base. The goal of the conference should be to clarify such a strategic orientation in broad strokes, but in full ones – hence our addition of an aim to expand the base of the party in certain ways. 

As it pertains to our change from “negotiations about preferences with other parties” to “by our engagement with working class organisations,” Oakley asserts that VS will be unable to win without a preference strategy. The position outlined here is intended to rule out not ‘preference strategies’ generally but to rule out deals with bourgeois parties. VS should not rely upon particular ways of preferencing in order to win seats, it should rely upon its base in the class, and thereby working class organisations. We have seen precisely how well an electoral strategy dependent upon particular ways of preferencing from bourgeois parties turns out for minor parties; the recent electoral result of the Greens being a perfect example. 

We will not address the critique against our proposed position towards Socialist Alliance here – we have done so above. 

Amendments to “Constitutional changes to expand democratic structures in Vic Socialists”

Here, Oakley accuses the communist caucus motions of being ‘schematic formulas’ which do not reflect conditions on the ground for VS. It is wholly undeniable that communist caucus members have less knowledge on the current internal operations of VS when compared to those on or close to the executive – it would be a serious concern if this were otherwise! But we reject the accusation of schematism here. We believe the local coordinator system is profoundly undemocratic in function, and does not facilitate the growth of both democracy in local sections and the centralisation of The Socialists nationally.

We are more than happy for the suggested number of comrades needed to form a branch to be lowered through an amendment to our constitutional motions, and have intentionally left the pre-selection process unclarified in terms of what electoral boundaries branches are formed on to accommodate for executive interpretation and flexibility of circumstance. In the case in which specific branches do not exist for certain electorates – local, state, or federal – a meeting of members in such an electorate would participate in candidate pre-selection. This is clarified in our motion, but we are happy to discuss alternative proposals for branch representation.

The spirit of each and everyone one of our motions has been the spirit of potential. The potential for The Socialists to aspire to something greater than an electoral front, something beyond what currently exists, something that can challenge the capitalist state directly. This ‘something’ is a mass party. A mass party requires a program, it requires a strategy that extends beyond elections, and it requires a robust internal democratic process and culture. Our amendments and motions represent an attempt to orient VS towards these things, towards what it can become. We do not expect to win the organisation as a whole to these positions now, but we cannot struggle for them, and win comrades to them, if we do not fight under their banner. We welcome open discussion and debate, and thank comrade Oakley for his response – may there be many more between the Communist Caucus and other Victorian Socialists members into the future.