PARTISAN!

The 2025 Victorian Socialists conference was an illuminating experience for comrades who attended. It provided an insight into the internal workings of the Victorian Socialists, as well as the leading force behind it, Socialist Alternative. Olga Konstantinova writes on experiences at the conference and the politics of VS/SAlt.

What became increasingly clear to me over the course of the two days was the intention of the VS Conference. It was never intended to be a place for serious theoretical debate or discussion, but rather appeared more like a military parade. It had been systematically designed as one large attempt to boost morale; from the chairing, to the agenda, to the motions passed.

In summary, the overarching trend throughout the event was uncritical support of previous initiatives and leadership moves. In particular, the most symbolic of the motions passed was the opening. The speeches given in this first hour were indictive of the style that was to define the rest of the Conference. They were emotive, whipping the crowds into a wild fervour, carefully crafted to maximise outrage at the peroration’s climax. However, what they had in Pathos, they lacked in Logos. The lectures seemed to blur into one another as they tallied numbers and expressed shock and horror, without any sort of analysis. The chairing style was designed to accommodate this. A chair with the intention of facilitating lively debate will ordinarily ask first if a motion has any speakers against, and if not, move directly to a vote. Instead, the Conference chair encouraged the endless barrage of identical monologues. Whilst it made sense to heighten the energy at the opening of the event, this trend continued throughout the two days.

My overall grasp of the events of that weekend were that they were a stunning reflection of the anti-intellectualism of SAlt and the hegemonic control of the leadership. To begin the deeper discussion, I think it is best to decipher SAlt’s aversion to theory and analysis. Given SAlt’s control over VS, this has substantial implications for the party.

Why is SAlt so allergic to theory?

The rejection of theory within SAlt reflects the broader loss of revolutionary optimism within the Australian left. Without the defining belief that revolution can be achieved, any motivation to work towards it as a long-term goal dissipates. Along with hope, goes any of the foundation of revolution, including fundamental theoretical ideas such how we should formulate the program or the party. They are irrelevant if we do not seriously aim for revolution. This gives rise to reformist tendencies. In particular, SAlt places a total emphasis on short-term goals, such as protests and student activism, because it sees no future in other projects.

Fundamentally, much of the emphasis on anti-intellectualism draws from this belief that the entire concept of revolution is esoteric. It is out-dated and impossible. SAlt cannot conceive of a reason to read theory or bind itself by even vague Marxist analysis because it deems the entire doctrine of Communism and Revolution as archaic. This is why it focuses so heavily upon its own theorists within its limited political education, as opposed to teaching the ‘classics’. In its attempt to revolutionise Marxist thought, the post-Cliffites have instead lost it entirely. They have substituted revolutionary hope for moral activism. Hence, why they cling to the title of activist party rather than revolutionary party. This is the ultimate origin of its reformist actions and VS’ platform. VS is limited to electoral work because it cannot or will not allow itself to be conceived as a tool for a revolution that SAlt believes won’t exist.

What are the implications of this?

To demonstrate the implications of this, I draw attention to a line in one of the passed motions:

We also call on Victorian Socialist members to keep fighting to build a socialist movement that can mobilise workers and students on the streets and in their workplaces, so that we can ultimately defeat imperialism and capitalism altogether.

Whilst this is seemingly revolutionary in tone, it calls not on the party itself as the vessel for change, but rather encourages individual members to contribute to the vague “defeat” of Capitalism.

Another notable area where this emerged was in the discussion around the adoption of the minimum-maximum program. The opportunism and reformism of SAlt is best explained by Maya Kaufmann when she says:

Socialist Alternative has inherited Cliffism’s allergy to “programmatism” – that is, they are allergic to the hard work of elaborating a socialist program and popularising it. Instead they opt to jump from issue to issue, promoting the “socialist view”, which largely consists of reformist demands in radical language. 

Thus, we must seek to inject hope and belief in revolution as a valid form of emancipation back into the movement, along with being wary of the minimisation of theory and Marxist analysis.

How did this affect Conference?

To an outsider, it seemed that SAlt’s intention through the aforementioned endless monotony of speeches was to saturate members in all the excitement of ‘real change’ and ‘activism’; perhaps to the point that they are unable to critically evaluate the leadership or any of the structures within the organisation. The speeches were all enunciated in a tone intended to illicit an emotive response, and yet in all their time seemed to substantially say nothing. The level of debate on display from SAlt’s top commanders was abysmal. The trend throughout the two days was the parroting of stock lines promoted by the leadership.

I was particularly disappointed with the aftermath of a speech I gave elucidating the contradiction between the leadership’s proposed motion and their continuously stated aims. The following speeches were unable to even acknowledge any of the contents of my speech. The impression given was that of a high school student who had memorised an essay for their exam, said student then being unable to tailor their arguments to the prompt because they fundamentally didn’t understand them. In this way, SAlt’s aforementioned lack of political education came back to humiliate them.

To display to the reader the extent of the anti-intellectualism within the Party, during a period of discussion in groups based upon location, a SAlt member suggested we do a reading group. Enthusiastically, I agreed, suggesting we do some sort of basic introductory text like the communist manifesto. It is almost beyond my skill to describe to you the widening of eyes and mass silence that seemed to overcome the air for a moment before I was promptly informed that this would alienate potential members. Accepting the logic, I asked, in more diplomatic language, for a ‘PC’ socialist text that would be acceptable. This was met with the suggestion that we should move to other ideas. This included postering and politics in the pub. The whole ordeal seemed to me to be an unwillingness to engage with theory born out of a right-opportunism, and out of a notion that socialism is an ideology that can exist without theoretical backing. In fact, I was informed by Daniel López that socialism is not a science at all.

The substitution of substantive analysis for ‘activism’ is a dangerous trend within SAlt that has a hand in the maintenance of VS’s current reformist program. A lack of political education within the party means that bourgeois ideas remain rampant in the membership. Naturally due to the society we live in, one grows up being encouraged to adopt liberal ideas of how a party should function and how change is to be brought about within society. Upon understanding the faults in the system of capitalism and beginning to call oneself a socialist, these ideas do not simply disappear, they must be actively challenged. It is a complicated and arduous process to unlearn much of the ingrained ‘logic’ of our society around economics and politics. This is inclusive of political parties’ function as purely electoral bodies, attempting to institute reform of the state. It seems to me that VS, and SAlt do not attempt to challenge this ingrained logic within the members, but rather just feed them lines. There is no deep theoretical knowledge in the broader population. I can only be reminded of the Socialist Notes substack (written by Socialist Alternative members) which defines proletariat as:

An archaic word for “working class”… In the 1800s Karl Marx used the word to refer to the growing social class of industrial workers employed by capitalists. There are few reasons to use “proletariat” or “proletarian”… today… “Working Class” is a more accessible phrase.

I’ll allow this to speak for itself.

Thus, a vast majority of the population at the conference struggled substantially with the Communist Caucus’ motions as seemingly they were unable to reckon with the notion of a party beyond it being a parliamentary attempt, or the broader theoretical concepts. Frequently the minimum maximum program proposal was dismissed on the basis of it being the ‘archaic’ program of the Social Democratic Party of Germany (emphasis on in the 19^th century). My frustration lies not with the disagreement with the proposal, but with the inability for comrades to raise substantial arguments against it, to grapple with the theoretical ideas.

On a similar note, the Conference revealed the incapacity of VS to self-criticise. I take great care in constructing the following argument. It is not my intention to downplay the substantial organisational efforts, the federal election was certainly a step forward, but we can only continue to step forwards if we learn from past mistakes. There was a complete and utter inability at the conference to critically think. This was most evident to me in the speeches, Particularly around the affirmation of the decision to go national. There was confusion at the idea that something that ‘worked’ could also be criticised. Much of the content against the Communist Caucus’ proposed amendment, which supported the decision to go national but criticised the undemocratic nature of the announcement and the decision of mechanisms for going national, seemed focused on the success of the national announcement. Not an ounce of nuance displayed.

One thing the Conference did right was expose the internal tensions and contradictions within SAlt. Personal discussions with a variety of members revealed a few things to me. First, an unconditional (in the truest sense of the word) loyalty to the leadership. Second, a genuine vague agreement with certain positions of the communist caucus. Third, an inability to substantiate positions. Conceptually, this isn’t dissimilar to what I discussed above. A particularly notable moment was being informed by a member that he saw no reason to propose even SAlt alternatives to the incumbent leadership because there was ‘nothing wrong with them’. To me, this speaks to the way members are disenfranchised within their own party, being told they are not experienced enough to lead, and never being given an opportunity to gain said experience.

In the same conversation, the member informed me that he agreed with some of the counter-motions of the caucus but seemingly couldn’t produce a defence of the leadership’s motions beyond unsure references to the ‘timing’. I think the analysis to be pulled from this is that simultaneously there is a very strong and a very weak allegiance to the bureaucracy. Said allegiance is not built on a theoretical understanding from members that subsequently leads them to agree. Rather, agreement with the leadership comes first, and then the unilateral adoption of its’ politics. This creates numerous weak points within the organisaton, as once the fanaticism dissipates, the members have no genuine tie to it. Perhaps this explains the heavy emphasis on ‘morale’ at the Conference. In this way, SAlt’s anti-intellectualism assists it in the short-term and makes it extraordinarily weak in the long-term.

Controlled Opposition

It would be remiss of me to write this and not acknowledge the “independents” within the party. There are two major figures who I believe are worth discussing, that being Daniel Lopez and the Socialist Workers’ Caucus (SWC). What is evident to me is that both are a form of ‘controlled opposition’. Fundamentally, they exist as extensions of SAlt. Both López and Mick Clune of the SWC are ex-SAlt, and this is extraordinarily evident in their politics. A hegemony of SAlt within the Party is a benefit for them as subsidiaries of that organisation.

No Luck, López.

López is a fair representation of broader opinions within VS, that being the tolerance or even encouragement of ‘internal debate’, but final unwillingness to make drastic changes or challenges to the leadership. While we must give him credit where it is due for his earlier efforts in the establishment of VS, now he is a part of a broader coordinated effort to coax independents in the party into a position of acceptance with SAlt’s control. Nowhere is this more evident than in his response to the Communist Caucus’ motion. His suggestion of attempting to win a minority position on the political leadership reeks of reformist tendencies that attempt to obfuscate the true intentions of the caucus.

It can be appreciated that this perhaps comes from a place of genuine desire to see minor successes won by the caucus, but in the long-term, it would be damaging to the caucus’ goals and aims. A serious formation should never attempt to fundamentally hide its aims, for at this point the mask becomes the face. Once again we see what Kaufmann describes as the allergy to “popularising” a socialist program, and instead a desire to take the ‘easier’ route. While we can certainly make policies more appealing in other ways, we must be extraordinarily careful in this distinction. Corey Oakley made no mistake when accusing us of “attempting to overthrow the current structure and orientation of Victorian Socialists”.

‘Socialist’ Workers

The greatest black cloud over the conference was the SWC’s ‘Imperialism’ Motion. When I asked, the seconder of the motion, Yasemin Shamsili, flatly informed me that the intention of it was to discourage or barr Communist Party of Australia or ‘Stalinist’ involvement in the party (perhaps alluding to Red Ant). Once again, the poor chairing allowed an hour of time to be allotted to speeches that were essentially wholly in favour of it. It is also worth noting that Shamsili directly called out the Revolutionary Communist Organisation in her speech. This demonstrated that the SWC are willing to become a vessel through which SAlt can smash genuine opposition within the party, while still maintaining the façade of tolerating alternative perspectives.

As a side-note, I would like to point out the hypocrisy in the motion which states

We reject “lesser evil” politics that align workers with the Capitalists and imperial powers that oppress them.

This is in spite of the evident pervasiveness of other forms of opportunist politics in other areas of the party such as the shying away from explicitly Marxist or communist branding, and the Greens-tailing by some members. Generally, this just speaks to the character of the SWC as a ‘guard dog’ within the party.

All we can desire is that we ignited in some attendees a revolutionary hope SAlt has abandoned.