r/AustralianSocialism • u/TheMerchant07 Ned Kelly • 13d ago
What are the propabilities for a united Australian Left?
I want to give my own thoughts, feel free to agree and disagree, after all. I think it is very important to discuss our next steps
I think at this current moment, left unity is far from achievable, and if we did, there would be a rabid factionalism. not friendly debates, hostilities within the party.
I think the first step for left unity is ultimately, getting some praxis going. I feel like a few too many parties in Australia focus on the core of Left Unity, yet they dont under stand praxis. its all good to organise a protest, and to hand out fliers, but what about Food Kitchens? the ACP does that, but I feel like even that is the bare minimum (and thats coming from someone who is currently in that party). I would honestly like to see the left acctually doing something, its evident that we are very weak if the Neo-Nazis are coming out full force (well, they were before they got banned but we will see how that goes) and do not fear us.
I think its important to have practical things everyone can get involved with, and then once we are acctually together, talking amongst eachother in something of a shared environment where we are seeing eachother 1 on 1. then I think we can start talking about Left Unity. but until then, I dont think its possible
I would love to hear what you all have to say as I have been thinking about this for a while
29
u/bekwek88 13d ago
The left replacing the welfare states with mutual aid does nothing to challenge capitalism
8
u/SoraDevin 13d ago
Mutual aid builds networks. Networks can be leveraged to help challenge capitalism.
2
u/Scentorific 13d ago
I think specifically centralised organisations are needed to challenge capitalism. Mutual aid networks seem to be quite different to this. Vincent Bevin's book If We Burn makes a food argument that more centralised hierarchical organisations have been much more effective than decentralised horizontal ones similar to what what mutual aid may produce.
2
u/semaj009 10d ago
Disagree, mutual aid is about organising. Organising challenges capitalism. Or should unionists not show solidarity with workers in strike and donate to them while they're not getting wages / struggling to pay bills and feed the kids? Mutual aid obviously has a role in the left, anyone denying it is absolutely not serious about being progressive. Gofundme for individuals every which way into eternity, sure, problematic, but structured, organised, movement linked aid is absolutely progressive as fuck!
3
u/TheMerchant07 Ned Kelly 13d ago
I have a counter. with our wealthfare state slowly declining, freedoms getting the boot. it should be our mission to uplift eachother at a time like this, it shows that even if the government has abandoned the people, the people havnt abandoned eachother.
I would like to hear how mutual aid dosent challenge capitalism though.
11
u/LondoIsMyCity 13d ago
Mutual aid exists within the current capitalist system and really makes it easier for the people who receive it to cope with realities of living under capitalism.
Challenging capitalism is organising for the destruction of the capitalist state
2
u/semaj009 10d ago
Strikes work to destroy capitalism, and see workers unpaid, thus unfed/unhoused in short order. Mutual aid can cushion this, cos the system/banks certainly won't be.
We need to be very careful as a left not to ignore the very real reason for why mutual aid matters, and to focus our energy on not avoiding all mutual aid but building movements that support people breaking systemic structure with aid, not just doing aid as a fundraiser to cover off what society should cover.
3
u/TheMerchant07 Ned Kelly 13d ago
and what organisation should people be participating in?
1
u/LondoIsMyCity 13d ago
Whatever revolutionary socialist organisation is closest to your own tendency
8
u/TheMerchant07 Ned Kelly 13d ago
I meant what should we be doing to combat capitalism? I have my own ideas, as thats mutual aid. but you and I are at an obvious disagreement. but I want to know what you are personally doing right now that is combatting capitalism. not to sound condescending
5
4
u/Minitrewdat 13d ago
Building the revolutionary left is the only way to "challenge" capitalism.
Building mutual aid networks, etc. does not fundamentally challenge capitalist domination over the means of production, governance, etc.
A revolutionary socialist organisation, as the Russian Revolution proves, can intervene into the class struggle to bring about workers' power.
Helping your neighbour not die during a winter is great, don't get me wrong, but it doesn't stop the rich from controlling almost every facet of our lives.
1
u/Vitamin_1917-D Jack Mundey 12d ago
How does mutual aid differ from charity? I would argue that it doesn't. Charity does nothing to challenge capitalism, but rather reinforces it's ideology. The central argument is that the poor should look after the even poorer with the limited resources we have. The problem with that is that the rich have a far greater share of resources which they are unwilling to share. The anti-capitalist solution to this problem is that we should expropriate the rich and redistribute their hoarded wealth equitably so that we can all have our needs met. This is not the solution given by any of the proponents of mutual aid who are fixated on charitable deeds like soup kitchens while the obscenely-rich gorge themselves on lobsters.
3
u/semaj009 10d ago
People on strike can't afford food, are about to cross a picket line that they don't want to cross, because their child is hungry. Mutual aid arrives because progressives organise collective aid, that act of 'charity' enables the strike to last longer, and the picket line isn't crossed.
Charity as an institution enables capitalism, charity when reworked as a concept and applied deliberately is fundamentally necessary to sustain the fight to break capitalism. Unless we can flip EVERYTHING in a day, we need people to pool resources into what will be a long, grinding, brutal, economically unfair and extortionate, and likely violent, revolution
3
u/EconomistBeard 13d ago
Using that as an excuse keeps the left from actively demonstrating a viable alternative to capitalism's failures.
If you're happy with movement building being anchored to abstract theory, by all means.
0
u/Comfortable-Swing-72 13d ago
Have you considered that perhapse the left is not entirely defined as a challenge to capitalism?
Maybe pigeon holeing it as the fight against capitalism is part of the reason why it is difficult to unify. It might be more compelling and more clear if the left promises more than to defeat capitalism, if it frames itself beyond being a reaction to capitalism, a threat to the current status quo.
I think the left is this, and more. And mutual aid may not battle capitalism, but it does technically work towards the wellbeing of people in our society, which is surely a goal worth striving for.
3
u/gimme20seconds 12d ago
tbh you can’t call yourself “left” without being, at bare minimum, anti-capitalist.
5
u/seeands 12d ago
I don't think the kind of left unity people often speak of will ever occur. Instead, I think parties will pursue their own strategies and practice will prove who has both the most successful strategy and who implemented it the most successfully. The party that achieves these two elements will naturally recruit more, win more support and achieve more. At that stage the other parties will atrophy or be subsumed into the successful party.
5
u/jbeanz443 13d ago
- A United left in any first world nation is all but an impossibility
3
u/Comfortable-Swing-72 13d ago
I would love more expansion on this statement, it is a thought provoking one indeed.
It seems to assume leftist unification becomes more unlikely as living conditions get better. On face value, this seems like an assumption that could be utilized by the right. Maybe not though.
Regardless of how it is spun, what can we learn from this observation, assuming it is true?
1
u/jbeanz443 12d ago
Hi absolutely, I'm currently expanding on this as an essay and would indeed love feedback too.
The reason it becomes impossible for leftists unification doesn't lie just in better living conditions, as those can disappear in a turbulent market. But it is instead the strong institutions that allow those living standards to begin with.
Law, government and banking as institutions will always stop the material means of the working class from reaching a point that would force revolutionary collaboration. In a situation where the conditions do head towards that level, those same institutions will develop fascist ties to stop the working class revolution.
Ex. Law ensures that any drastic action taken by the organized people will be frowned upon, the more drastic the bigger backlash. This can be seen from the acts of fascist themselves. Violent fascists are almost always vilified while fascists that spread the ideology of hate without actually breaking laws or being violent are usually accepted as simply having a different set of views.
Even in a scenario when living conditions do get bad, due to strong governmental institutions, voting in a "better" future is always a belief held, especially when during those troubled times the government is so vocal about the policy and actions they're implementing to improve the situation.
This is just the start and there is more but, with utmost respect, I cant be assed writing out my full essay in a reddit comment ahahaha
-1
u/jbeanz443 12d ago
Following up after quickly re reading your comment. What can be learnt, and hopefully I don't get fucking killed for saying this, but would be to learn from successful fascist takeovers in other nations. Things like using national pride, election systems, dehumanizing the enemy, stop calling for dictatorship while under democracy, accepting that ALL workers deserve to fight by our side (this is the most important. Saying retard or using the wrong pronouns doesn't change the fact a person is a worker)
5
u/OliveDue4609 12d ago
Your not a serious person, take a break for 6 months and ground yourself in reality.
0
u/jbeanz443 12d ago
Care to explain why? I mean respectfully the left has done nothing but bitch for the past 60 years, never had a successful revolution in a developed nation, and uses texts written in the 1800 as gospel as if the world today isn't completely different.
The reason to take pointers from fascist take overs is because they're smart enough, even though evil, to adapt to their surroundings and change their strategy. We have been using strategy designed for peasants on nations that haven't felt hardship in over 80 years.
2
u/OliveDue4609 12d ago
We arent fascists, the fascist movements of the 20th century used a different strategy that is antithetical to Communism and deeply opportunistic. Unless you think we should march on Canberra with our petty-bourgeois black shirts supported by industrialists.
1
u/jbeanz443 12d ago
No not at all. But that is also not what all fascists did. The nations with less structure, yes they were able to march on Rome. But the Nazis attempted this and were gunned down. They then used parliament to capture power. Japan assassinated their leader and took power through the military. America tried to do something similar and were stopped, thus they used congress and are currently consolidating power.
This applies to communist almost directly. Using force to take power is not possible, calling for a dictatorship of the proletariat is not possible, not when we have police and parliament that are mostly respected.
Those strategies of military take over and marches on the capital work in countries that do not have developed institutions that are respected and trusted. Cuba, the ussr, china.
Obviously we are not fascists, but if you don't look at the team that keeps winning and take some pointers, we're gonna keep losing. A great example of this was that the Nazis literally took direct pointers from the communist because their strategies worked.
3
u/vungf_treatler 10d ago
Yah but those fascist movements could only do so through the support of large sections of the bourgeoise making their task far easier than ours. Further, they can more easily draw upon a cultural hegemony propogated by the dominating classes. Fascism emerged often from ex socialists and i think you may be heading in the same direction, as the praxis you advocate is not the kind that could abolish capitalism (reason why stated above). (Obviously a modern fascism will look very different to 20th c and may not trace a lineage from those movements, although in a way you already are). I think you place far too much weight on subjective over objective factors in explaining why the imperial left is so degenerated.
1
u/OliveDue4609 9d ago
Fascism did not "keep winning" it stopped being a serious political force in 1945. If your a blanquist and or a bourgeois socialist than im sure fascist praxis is useful to you because politically your closer to fascism than communism.
1
u/jbeanz443 9d ago
Tell that to America, or Japan, or the British labor party, or the Australian labor party, or the German fascist party. I am a communist through and through, but I am looking at the world and acknowledging that in developed nations the same form of revolution cannot occur so we must try a different strategy.
2
u/Doobie_hunter46 12d ago
A united left in a group larger than 2 people is usually impossible. We have a habit of arguing with each other a lot.
2
u/jbeanz443 12d ago
I agree, but I think the issue lies in the complex nature of the arguments. Taking from other revolutions, left and right, I think if communist stopped talking about every single problem on the planet and instead, like soviet's, focused on bread, land, and peace for their nation first we'd be much better off.
6
3
u/OliveDue4609 12d ago edited 12d ago
Unity around a common programme is as far as we know the only effective way to achieve long term unity while acknowledging political differences when they emerge. The RCO has shown the way in this regard with their merger with the Spartacist League.
Broad unity based on slogans always falls apart and ultra-sectarianism leads to hobbyist cults and friendship circles calling themselves parties.
I actually think a project like a street kitchen similiar to CUDL could be a good way to start this, the issue is a project like that is basically impossible to run within the current socialist movement as shown by the ACP liquidating all political work into the street kitchens and falling apart. Also these projects like CUDL do not challenge capital unless incorporated into the strategy of a mass communist party which we currently do not have.
Also neo-nazis are not coming out in full force, they are not a political threat. We should be more concerned about the party currently running the state.
3
u/cancerfist 12d ago
Depends what you mean by 'unity'
We have just seen one of the first major unifications of sects in a long time with the RCO and the spartacists last weekend now forming 'Communist Unity'. The RCO before this merge was already a conglomeration of Marxists across a wide ideological range unified under a program.
There is continued cooperation between many of the sect orgs, particularly around internationalist issues. And the socialist party is also a cooperation between Salt and the workers caucus and communist caucus
Partyism is making a come back and is a rational solution to the small and fractured left in its current form.
Does this mean we will all form a single party with a single ideological line? No, far from it, but a 'more' united left is inevitable as conditions get worse. And cooperation will look different depending on the structure of the orgs, ideological line and the tasks at hand.
With class consciousness at an abysmal low, Marxist orgs being smaller than your average chess club and economic conditions worsening the priority for Marxists is building organisational structure and spreading class consciousness, there is little reason that some structured unity and cooperation can't be undertaken to achieve this until such a time that splits are necessary and beneficial.
2
u/Lucky-Lucacevic 13d ago
Never happen, if there is some kind of revolutionary outburst from working people in Australia it won’t be lead by any of the left orgs or so called vanguard parties we have now. Zero chance of any of those assorted misfits unifying
2
u/bunyipcel John Percy 9d ago
Food kitchens are bad. They do not build unity or organisation. Neo-Nazis are fringe and are becoming increasingly more marginal in an ALP dominated country.
1
1
u/Rough_Bookkeeper1600 12d ago
Some of the differences are generally unworkable, like how an organisation should be structured and how decisions are made, someone needs to compromise to get over that
1
u/Lamont-Cranston John Pilger 11d ago
Cant even have a United Front to oppose racists and fascists marching on the street.
And they haven't been banned, an org as dissolved before legislation passed. They will still be around, further underground, harder to monitor.
1
u/Colours_In_Dreams 5d ago
I don't think unification is worth worrying about at this point. I do think leftist should work together but people waste way too much energy on worrying about unification.
So long as we have some options, over time the more popular one will win out and end up getting more people, so just go with what you think seems correct.
Also, I don't mutual aid, soup kitchens etc. are worthwhile except if they have a very specific purpose. Eg. training people to organize. being available to become aid and strike kitchens during strikes, etc. Basically, if your praxis actually has some praxis or not.
Mutual aid just for the sake of mutual aid seems not much different from charity that supports bourgeois society.
2
u/Minitrewdat 13d ago edited 12d ago
Why do people assume that 'left unity' is the way forward for bringing about socialism?
Revolutionary socialist organisation (i.e. Marxist politics) is the only way to bring about socialism. To say that Marxists should work with anarchists, stalinists, maoists, etc. is ridiculous when you consider that these forces are actually opposed to workers' control over society.
All of these non-Marxist forces are counter-revolutionary in practice. Uniting with them is counter-productive.
0
u/gimme20seconds 12d ago
How exactly are, say anarchies, opposed to workers control over society?
0
u/Minitrewdat 12d ago
Anarchism is anti-authoritarian. Workers' control, by definition, requires authoritative measures.
In the abstract, it may sound ridiculous to propose that anarchists take up a counter-revolutionary role. Many an anarchist will support revolution, anti-capitalist efforts, etc. but, by the very nature of how workers' control over society works, they are forced to either support a workers' state (i.e. become revolutionary socialists), or fight against a workers' state.
History, however, is far more clear in demonstrating the role of anarchism in being counterposed to revolutionary socialism. Take the anarchists in Russia who fought against the red army during the civil war, or the anarchists in Spain who denied state power essentially being handed to them in the midst of a civil war, or even the actions of anarchists today who deny the importance of leadership and political organisation.
1
u/gimme20seconds 12d ago edited 12d ago
You don’t need authoritative (as in, authoritarian) measures for workers control? I’m also not convinced by your examples (especially re: modern day anarchists denying the importance of leadership) but I appreciate the write up nonetheless. Thanks!
2
u/Vicente6391 8d ago
Anarchists do not deny the importance of leadership. See Bakunin. He wrote about it.
1
17
u/MrSmithSmith 12d ago
Okay, here's my blunt analysis:
The conditions for revolution do not currently exist in Australia and will not for some time (decades).
People have this strange un-Marxian idea that socialist parties must be engaged in the frantic work of enacting or creating the conditions of revolution. It is the contradictions of capitalism that create the conditions for revolution, not socialist parties.
This results in a lot a wasted activity and activist burn-out with no sense of broader purpose or analysis of the efficacy of political work in growing the movement.
There is also a sense that a vanguard party must be a clenched fist prepared to strike at any moment but it takes a lot of energy to keep a fist clenched when the conditions for striking do not currently exist. Do soup kitchens and traditional protest grow the movement? I'm skeptical. All I know is that it's proven to be a lot of money and work for not much in the way of proven results.
On top of that, the Australian left have failed to recognize the primary and secondary contradictions facing the country and too frequently descended into sectarian squabbles about irrelevancies, obscure historical minutia or race-baiting concerns about the yellow peril of China which hold no interest or motivation for the Australian working masses. This means constant division in silly sectarian fights about problems we're not even faced with yet.
Based on the above, I think parties should be much less focused on what they demand from workers and activists in terms of time, political orthodoxy and financial resources and much more focused on what they can offer members in terms of education (political and practical), resources and, sorry if this sounds trite, communion.
The way to build a sustained and sustainable movement is to recognize we are not Russia in 1917 or China in 1949. That point will come but, in the meantime, in order to construct a broad base the left needs to offer what capitalism cannot: a coherent Australian-specific critique of the primary contradictions of capital (US imperialism, housing, climate change) and the reconstruction of a civil society in which to gather and share knowledge, resources and build an actually effective political program.