"Leninism" in action 2: Why the DSP is exemplary : Melbourne Indymedia

A response to the national leadership

By RD, Melbourne North-East branch, from The Activist Vol 13, no. 4, April 2003

To the National Executive

You will know that I was unable - for family and financial reasons - to attend this year's DSP congress. It is the first congress in twelve years that I have missed, and I was greatly disappointed I was unable to attend, given the crucial period we are entering into. One result was I could not respond in any way to the criticisms of my piece, Practices in the party (The Activist, Vol. 12, No. 21). However, I feel that some response to Comrade Boyle's report Organising the DSP for the unity struggle (The Activist, Vol. 13, No. 2) is necessary, as its method is particularly unhelpful and that this type of response to criticism should not become part of party culture.
I understand that The Activist is only open to discussion around historical and theoretical questions (not current ones), so I have addressed this response to you. Moreover, I would hate to do anything which would undermine our struggle for unity in Socialist Alliance or our campaign perspectives. I understand that discussion has ended for the time being about these issues and that we should now apply our decisions from the congress, which I am in complete agreement with. This democratic centralist method I entirely agree with. I am thus attempting to contribute to implementing these decisions to the best of my ability. Should you, however, wish to publish this article in The Activist, feel free to do so. I leave it to your judgement, which I trust in this matter.

I hope that this response helps in some way to clarify some of the issues.

Yours comradely,

RD

"There is a discursive strategy commonly adopted by politicians, particularly at election time, in the face of discomforting questions. It consists of appearing to respond to a questioner but without actually answering her question. The thing has the external form of an answer but is not one. Practically everyone knows how this works. The politician subtly alters the terms of the question to suit his own convenience, or substitutes a different one, or just repeats what he has already said (which may have prompted the question m the first place), or talks about something else altogether -- or uses some combination of these moves. In any case, he does not answer." (Geras, N, "Ex-Marxism Without Substance: A Rejoinder", in Discourse of Extremity: Radical Ethics and Post-Marxist Extravagance, Verso, London, 1990, p 127)

I was greatly disappointed with the national leadership's report given by Peter Boyle at the 2003 DSP congress. While having the external form of an answer to criticisms made, it did not seriously engage with or really address these criticisms. Instead the report offered us a repetition of what we already agree with: that our party should be Leninist; which recognises the principle of leadership, that it should be activist, that this in turn requires commitment and sacrifice. While repeating these things, the report shows scant regard to what some of us actually wrote, or indeed for the basic principles of logical debate. This allows comrade Boyle's report to introduce a false choice: either we are for Leninism and disagree with the criticisms, or we agree with the criticisms and are against Leninism. As a result the congress report also lacks any sense of due proportion. I shall deal with each of these questions in turn by looking at how Comrade Boyle responded to the criticisms raised in my pre-congress piece, Practices in the party (The Activist, Vol 12, no 21).

My disappointment comes equally from the fact that had the leadership responded within the boundaries of reasonable constraint we could put these issues behind us and concentrate on the important business of building the anti-war movement, the refugee movement, Socialist Alliance and, in general, the party. So, with a sense of due proportion I hope this to be the last I write about these issues in the near future, as they are not the critical problems facing us. To continue the discussion too long, I feel, could hinder the application of our agreed upon line of march. Nevertheless, it is important to point out some of the unhelpful argumentative strategies offered to us in Comrade Boyle's report and to consider what a more appropriate response may have been.

The criticisms

Let's briefly recap. A number of comrades wrote pieces that claimed there were certain cultures of practices in the party that were unhelpful or destructive and that could be improved upon. The way these comrades formulated these issues was different and in many cases the issues were different. But the issues clearly included:

1. That guilt, "moral pressure," or as a leading comrade put it to me "social pressure" is used too often to motivate.

2. That too often comrades who choose to have priorities outside of party activity are regarded as in some way "suspect".

3. That differences in the party are too quickly considered "threats" or reflective of "alien class pressures".

4. That the response to difference is too often combative or escalated into a semi-factional atmosphere.

These claims in each comrade's case may or may not be related to the "Renovation" document put forward by former comrades, Begg, Carmen and Healy ("Appendix: It's time for renovation", The Activist, Vol. 11, No. 9), and to Comrade Healy's "Campaigns counter-report" (The Activist, Vol. 13, No. 1).Comrades will remember that the "Renovation" document included similar claims at least, while the Campaigns counter-report" claimed that:

1. Too often we "issue hop" rather than spend enough time dedicated to the slow patient work of movement building.

2. That a result of this is that we pull comrades out ("comrade inter-changeability") and reassign them too quickly.

3. That too often we don't show enough respect for the needs and decisions of the movements or mass membership organisations.

4. That we are too often concerned about getting demands "right" and fighting over them in movements.

5. That we too quickly "label" people outside the party and in effect write them off.

6. That we are too often concerned about our members "adapting" to the ideology of the movements.

There are more besides, but these lists give an idea of the basic contours of the debate.

The leadership's response

The leadership's response has been pretty consistent since "Renovation" was published, and it follows a pattern. First: we defend Leninism (sacrifice, commitment etc). As Comrade Boyle opens in his report: "Our proposals for left regroupment through the Socialist Alliance have prompted some contention about our Leninist organisational tradition -- its real record and value." Second: the criticisms raised by comrades challenge the Leninist principles. The implication of this response then, is that this stuff simply does not happen. This should not be convincing; all comrades know that these things do happen on occasion. But to say this publicly, if you're not part of the leadership, immediately attracts criticism far out of proportion with the allegations made.

I want to use my own piece, "Practices in the party" as an example, as I am responsible for what I wrote.
Comrade Boyle claims that: "If you were to believe the contributions by comrades RD and CW, we have an undemocratic party with a really bad leadership and a sectarian political culture".

Comrades will forgive me if I'm a little aghast at this characterisation. For I have been a member of the party for twelve years, I continue to be, and if I thought that the party was "undemocratic" had a "sectarian political culture" and with a "really bad leadership," then I would surely leave. Thankfully I do not. Nor can anything I wrote or have said be interpreted this way. What then is Comrade Boyle referring to?

My pre-congress discussion "Practices in the party" mentioned four things I thought we could do better: education work, electing and moving to part-time organisers, base building, and having more tolerant debate. This last section was a detailed analysis of an exchange between the comrades who wrote the "Renovation" document and the national leadership as expressed by Comrade Boyle, and I pointed out that I was not individualising it, so it seems unfair that Comrade Boyle should claim that "I am allegedly particularly guilty because of my 'defensive' and 'combative' response").

Here is what I wrote in the last section (I have italicised the section from "Renovation" so comrades can see it all clearly):

"Responding to what would seem a fairly uncontroversial claim that there are aspects of party culture that have "a destructive impact on the involvement of members, and on internal democratic discussion", comrade Boyle (on behalf of the national leadership, as comrade Percy's report was later, here I use the names of the comrades to denote the particular report, not to suggest that this is an individual question) responds overly defensively. He says that these claims are "way off the mark" then claims that party culture has hindered integration and democratic functioning is "a very serious charge". He then responds not by discussing the truth of these "charges", but by implying that these comrades are criticising loyalty to the party.Comrade Boyle says:

"This is how they [Carmen, Healy, Begg] explain the rise of this problem with the party's "internal culture":
"The tough times of the I990s necessitated a heavy emphasis on defending the party project. While we feel that there is certainly still a need to defend and extend the party project, there are certain attitudes that have become mixed up with this and which should now be jettisoned - without threatening that project.

"A rigidity has crept into the party's culture and fostered an overly administrative and defensive approach, not so much the result of the party's perspectives, but more an unintended consequence of the periods we have had to fight through.

"Are we too defensive about the party project? We treasure our party and what it has achieved, especially after weathering the I990s so well. And now that we have started to grow and lead on more fronts, we should all feel, justifiably, even more proud of our party." (Party-building perspectives, The Activist, Vol 11, No 9, p 8)

Comrade Boyle goes on to say: "There is absolutely no victimisation of people with dissenting views ... if comrades here have a case of such victimisation then they have a duty to raise it before this body and we will act on it immediately". (Party-building perspectives, The Activist, Vol 11, No 9, p 8)

Before I go on, I'd like to note how one-eyed this vision of the national leadership is. It is a very big claim that "there is absolutely no victimisation" in the party. The call to "raise it before this body" is also an escalation that's unnecessary. If one did feel victimised, raising it before a body of so many comrades is not exactly the sort of thing you want to do. You want, in fact, to be first of all reassured that: 1) you will be taken seriously, 2) that your claim is not taken out of your hands and is dealt with in some cases confidentially. The tone of Comrade Boyle on behalf of the national leadership is not very reassuring. Another aspect that this does not recognise are the distinct differences in power that must be taken into account whenever there could be a case of victimisation. Here we need to remember that we are feminists also, and that a woman comrade, say from a working-class background, is less likely to raise a case of victimisation, and more likely to internalise it as an individual problem We must remember that even in the party we are not some liberal kind of level playing field."

So to sum up what I said in Practices in the party, I pointed out, then, that Comrade Boyle's response wasn't to answer the "charges" laid by "Renovation". I quoted his report at length and showed that his answer was: "we treasure the party project". Comrade Boyle's report then claimed that "there is absolutely no victimisation of comrades with dissenting views". All of this, then, has the external form of an answer, but actually talks about something different. Comrade Boyle's report responding to "Renovation" never asks the question: "are there practices in the party (aspects of party culture) that sometimes hinder comrades' involvement?" For the only actual answer to this is simple: of course there are. The real questions are whether these practices are alien to party culture or constitutive of it or somewhere in between, and what we can do about them. Instead Comrade Boyle simply inserts a defence of the party project -- as if claiming that there were things we could do better was to challenge the project as a whole. As a result I consider his response too combative and defensive. It was an unnecessary escalation.

I then pointed out that Comrade Percy, in a report given a year later, raised extremely similar claims to those of the "Renovation" document, but that no one had levelled similar accusations (these are "very serious charges" comrades) towards his report.

Fast forward to the 2003 Congress: here is Comrade Boyle's response to my analysis: "... I am allegedly particularly guilty because of my "defensive" and "combative" response to the minority position debated at the October 200I National Committee. But the only "defensiveness" R cites was my defence of party democracy. In the heat of argument, one NC comrade referred to alleged bullying and intimidation of a particular comrade. I responded that this was a serious allegation and that if it had taken place we need to hear the details so that the party could take action. I got a little heated about this, but that's not uncalled-for "defensiveness"-- it's because we take party democracy very seriously." (Peter Boyle, Organising the DSP for the Unity Struggle, The Activist, Vol 13, No 12, January 2003, p 4)

Notice the subtle shifting of the terrain here? Comrade Boyle does not defend democracy in the initial report. First, he defends "the party project", the implication that the comrades who wrote "Renovation" were questioning such a defense. This changing of the question in his response to "Renovation" meant that Comrade Boyle's was too combative and defensive. And when this is pointed out he uses exactly the same method. He doesn't answer the question I posed (was the report too combative and defensive?) but talks about something completely different: his "defence of party democracy".

Second, the question of victimisation was not stated in "Renovation" as an individual question but in general and then in a report (presumably written before and therefore not subject to the "heat of argument"). Comrade Boyle gave a very general response: "there is absolutely no victimisation of comrades with dissenting views". Here then is an example of Comrade Boyle's report showing scant regard for what I actually wrote (and for what was in the "Renovation" document) and continually shifting the terrain of debate. By doing so he shows scant regard for the principles of logical debate. It's as if someone were to say: "It's going to rain, we should put on jackets", and for you to respond with, "How dare you criticise my shoes!" The first person then says, "I wasn't criticising your shoes", to which you respond, "All I did was defend my hairstyle".

The leadership's method: either/or

So why does the national leadership think that I believe "we have an undemocratic party with a really bad leadership and a sectarian political culture"?
Here then we get to the crux of the issue, for the form of Comrade Boyle's report is simple: we are offered two options, a simple counter-position. Either we think that there are things which could be improved in the party's culture and practice and therefore reject Leninism or we defend Leninism and deny the existence of these issues. Either the party has a terrific leadership with a healthy culture and is democratic or it is "undemocratic", "sectarian" with a "bad leadership". But why? Why must we choose between these two extreme alternatives? Why can't we respond in a number of more reasonable ways? For the sake of argument let's try this on for a moment. We might, for example, see the party as fundamentally correct on most issues but wrong about some political or theoretical issues (maybe the position on the ALP, or permanent revolution or an aspect of women's liberation, or to use a concrete example, "globalisation" - see comrades Nichols' and Lorimer's debate in The Activist). We might think the leadership is essentially good, but weak in a particular area (say union work). We might see the party's culture as verbally expressing openness but with some bad habits. We might see the party as essentially democratic but with too low a level of education, thus inhibiting real discussion about strategic questions. We might see the party as overly centralised or overly "loose" with relation to the period at hand. All of these - I repeat - all of these are perfectly compatible with Leninism, with loyalty, with sacrifice, with leadership. What Comrade Boyle's response reveals is a monolithic view of the party, in which anyone who criticises certain aspects of it is immediately challenging the whole thing. It is a thoroughly simple and undialectical view. Therefore the response of the report is lacking in due proportion with relation to the questions at hand, because its natural mode is escalation: if your critique is relatively minor, as mine was, it is asserted to be very serious.

Examples two, three and four

A similar approach is used with regard to two of the more minor suggestions I had. Comrade Boyle, sums these up:

"Comrade RD argues in his pre-congress discussion contribution:

"1. That the party is too centralised and too many decisions made by the national office or district committees;

"2. That branch organisers are not elected (which is not true as they are elected by the branch executive and only made available by transfers in some instances)."

On the first point: I did claim that some of the party's decisions should take place more in the branches. However Comrade Boyle does not mention the particular example I used, leaving the impression that I was very general about these "decisions", that I believed all decisions were made too often in the national office or the district committees. If Comrade Boyle's report was to mention the general claim, then he should have engaged with the specific example. For example, I do not think that decisions about the time or place of national conferences should be decided by branches; and there are many other examples besides this one. Instead I mentioned "transfers between areas of work or geographical transfers". I mentioned that the way that these transfers occur can sometimes hurt our attempts to build long-term "bases". On this Comrade Boyle says nothing - as if I asked us just abstractly to consider these problems of some unknown "decisions" made in the national office or the district committees. I am not for some all-round, loose, ultra-democratic network, but this is one possible reading given by Comrade Boyle's report.

On the second point: I never claimed that organisers were not elected - I claimed they were not elected by the branch. Instead, I wrote, the current system we have is the "[branch] executive essentially ratifying a national office appointment". I argued that there were some good reasons for the branch to elect organisers. I argued that a branch election of organisers would improve the branches' political discussion and decision making. Again Comrade Boyle does not answer this question. (After some reflection it is not a position I necessarily hold to any more.)

Comrade Boyle, a little later in his report, again claims: "Don't we have a thoroughly sectarian, Trotskyist, 'program-fetishising' heritage? Are we still saddled with it, as comrades W and D argue in their Pre-Congress Discussion contributions?". Again there is no evidence, no actual engagement with what I actually wrote. Comrade Boyle simply fails to include that I considered the concept of base-building - to which it seems he is referring - a break with the conceptual paradigm of Trotskyism, which always had to work on the margins of a movement dominated by Stalinism. I suggested that much of the Trotskyist and - perhaps I should have spelled it out - post-Trotskyist left were grappling with the situation in which they were at the centre of the radical movement. This meant trying out new strategic orientations, new tactics and so on, which include not only "base building", but also organisational forms such as the "multi-tendency organisation". This is the case for organisations such as the Socialist Workers Party in England, the Scottish Socialist Party in Scotland, the International Socialist Organisation in the US. Those coming from a Stalinist heritage, on the other hand, face a different situation, not one where they were isolated. So the challenges facing the Communist Refoundation Party in Italy are quite different. So, I tried to argue, the idea of base-building is an important one, as it tries to grapple with this new situation. From one angle, I was actually saying that we had gone beyond Trotskyism with this concept, and that this is an important gain that we should reaffirm. Yet Comrade Boyle manages to assert that I believe the exact opposite by failing to include what I actually wrote. I was, it is true, also saying that we need to reaffirm our long-term commitment to building bases, that base-building is not something we do consistently enough. Somehow this is claiming that we are "saddled with a thoroughly sectarian, Trotskyist, 'program-fetishising'" heritage.
But enough. The point remains in each of these cases: Comrade Boyle's report simply misreads what I actually wrote because he does not engage with the actual, real, on the ground, problems I was trying to address. In addition to this reading, it establishes no connection whatsoever between what I wrote and the supposed fact that I think the party undemocratic, with a bad leadership and sectarian culture. This assertion is entirely supported by the general method of choice: criticisms versus Leninism. If you accept this as the choice you have to make then it is possible to assume that I believe these things because there is no alternative. I raised criticisms (actually suggestions for improving our work) therefore I must be criticising our Leninist tradition and method. But a responsible report would show the necessary connection between what I wrote and how it meant these things. From Comrade Boyle's report -- not a word.

The obligatory references

A final note on the method of Comrade Boyle's report. Comrade Boyle mentions that: "We don't think our party democracy is perfect or that we never make mistakes". It is also admitted that "bullying" and "intimidation" can be found in the party and the very reasonable claim that we need to stop it and make sure everyone knows it is not acceptable. He also admits that we suffer from "the imposed semi-sectarian condition that comes from relative political isolation from the working class movement...". However these comments remain very general. It's as if Comrade Boyle felt that, given all this discussion, he was obliged to make some references to these things after all.

What then are the limitations of our democracy? What could these mistakes possibly be? Comrade Boyle gives us two examples of things we have done to improve our democracy: circulating reports before meetings, improving the preparation of reports and the responsiveness to suggestions in discussion. Apparently then the leadership is allowed to make criticisms (and suggestions) which are not in violation of Leninist principles but others aren't.

The method is again without regard for basic principles of argument: comrades raise some issues which limit democracy and criticise unhelpful practices in the party. The leadership responds: this is questioning sacrifice, leadership, vanguards (ie, Leninism), and then, as an afterthought adds oh, and we should improve our democracy and our culture.

This method really is like a game: pick an aspect of the party that could be improved, then when someone suggests it could be improved, show that this is really an attack on our Leninist methods, on leadership and democracy, centralism, and so on. Then go on to say, "oh and by the way, this aspect of our party could be improved".

Try it out:

Comrade A: Our branch meetings could be improved by using more videos, overheads, and so on.

Comrade B: This is a questioning of our need for reports. We have reports so we can decide and act. We are not a film watching society or a discussion club. That's not Leninism ... oh, but we should improve the quality of our branch meetings.

Or another example:

Comrade A: We need to concentrate more on selling.

Comrade B: This is questioning our need to work in movements. Leninism is not some sectarianism that avoids getting into the struggles of the day (refugee, anti-war work). But ... we do need to improve our sales.

The tone of discussion

Comrades will note that I tried to keep my comments within certain limits, showing that while there were aspects of party culture that I found unhelpful, this did not invalidate the project. So I wrote: "... the response to differences is not always healthy in our party. I think that sometimes comrades tend to have too narrow a conception of Marxism...and too tight a conception of the right line ... the result is a too early combative response, designed to unveil the comrade with differences as deviating in one way or another." (RD, "Practices in the party", The Activist Vol 12, No. 21, December 2003, p.15.)

I have here italicised the words I very carefully inserted to show that I was not saying that always this occurs or that this is the only mode of operation. A careful reading then would be enough to convince any fair-minded reader that I do not think the party "undemocratic" with a "sectarian political culture" and a "really bad leadership". This entire debate does not convince me that we have these things, even though it is a very good example of what I have been saying. It only convinces me of what I have already argued: we need to be more open and fair-minded in our approach to debates. I still respect the leadership, even if I think they should have responded differently, because there is more to the party than just these things. There are political orientations, such as SA, which the party leadership has got right. The intervention into the National Broad Left and the National Union of Students this year sounded exceptional. Or to use a historical example, the demand for Australian troops into East Timor was one hundred percent correct. In fact the party leadership, over three decades, has managed to get some big questions that are by no means easy to get right - right. Let's include internationalism, permanent revolution, the ALP, unity processes. The list goes on. Therefore the leadership rightly enjoys a great deal of authority. Is that enough to show that I do not believe that we "have a really bad leadership", but instead have a more complex view?

Comrades will know that I am not adverse to polemics or sharp discussion (this contribution should be evidence of that). I played, comrades may remember, some part in the dispute with Comrade Robson in Perth in I994. However if possible it is best to keep debate calm and reflective. And here it is worth remembering that the dominant group or view almost always sets the tone for the debate. In Perth in I994, despite being in the majority group of the party, we were in the minority in the branch. We attempted to approach the debate, however, with the most comradely tone possible. When the tone of debate became harsh, it was because it was forced upon us by the grouping around Comrade Robson. No doubt we slipped up and made mistakes - I personally recall making errors, including prematurely, in private and to a member of the majority position, categorising Robson's perspective as "liquidationist". Somewhere along the line, I believe, Comrade Nichols explained that we did not want to prematurely categorise. A lesson imprinted on my mind. However we certainly attempted to keep it an educational and clarifying perspective - attempting to win over as many of the branch as possible.

Moreover the overall political context of the debate was also set by the fact that for some time the branch had been built along the lines of a network, rather than an activist party. (Thus the initial dispute arose over a party-building report that did not prioritise our work that is, the political reflection of exactly such a network.)As a result there was much at stake in this dispute. An entire branch went into crisis, and the factionalisation of the dispute meant that many comrades, who were new to our traditions and methods were at risk of demoralisation. As it turned out, we did lose a fair number (in the vicinity of 20 or so). I recall this dispute to remind comrades of their responsibilities in the recent discussion around the "Renovation" document and the various pre-congress discussions that have been written. For the political context is entirely different, and if a less harsh tone could have been used, then comrades should have made every effort to do so. It certainly wasn't the case with the initial response to the "Renovation" document, nor is it, I feel always the case when differences are raised. This was one of my points in my pre-congress discussion.

An alternative response was possible

There was an alternative response that the leadership might have taken to these critiques raised, an altogether less combative and more reasonable one. It could have responded like this: yes, we have some of these problems. Sometimes we do a number of things wrong, including those things comrades have mentioned. But there are reasons for this: we are still small and our size means we can't always dedicate the resources to, say, long term movement building or base building. We also have to work with the material at hand; we're all human and make mistakes. What we need to do is minimise these problems, and that means: educating comrades in Marxist history and its debates, giving comrades as many political experiences as possible, building a culture that is inclusive politically, in which people feel that they can have differences, and so on. That is, the leadership could have used this opportunity to have an educational discussion.
Instead the leadership forced a harsh and polemical debate onto the party. I would have preferred not to have written this contribution in the tone I have used. But again, the dominant view chooses the terrain. The leadership has chosen to escalate. Unfortunately, while I started to write this in as conciliatory way as possible, just recounting the reports themselves makes the contribution polemical. For how else can these reports be accurately described?

It is my opinion that one negative consequence of this mode of denial and escalation is that it contributed (note I say contributed, not caused) to comrades Carmen, Begg and Healy leaving the party. I think that is a shame, and an unfortunate error, for we must do everything to conserve our cadre. These comrades had close to thirty years experience between them. We should reflect, think, on what their departures mean. For at least two of them are still active in the radical movement -- through the anti-globalisation group Marina set up. In the past comrades who have left have often left politics altogether. This is not the case with these comrades. Was there really no space for their views in the party? Did we do everything we could to help them remain members, without jettisoning any of our fundamental principles?

Recall Trotsky's comments: "An experienced worker member represents an inestimable capital for the organisation. It takes years to educate a leader. We therefore should do everything possible to save a member. Don't destroy him if he weakens, but help him to overcome his weakness, to get over moment of doubt. Never forget those who fall by the wayside. Help them to return to the organisation if you have nothing irremediable to reproach them for on the level of revolutionary morality."

And again: "Building the revolutionary party requires patience and hard work. At any price, the best should not be discouraged and you should show yourselves capable of working with everyone... After the liveliest, most polemical discussions, he [Lenin] knew how to find the words and the gestures that would soften unfortunate or offensive remarks." (Trotsky, L., The Crisis of the French Section, New York: Pathfinder, 1977, pp70-71)

Conclusion

I have used Comrade Boyle's criticisms of my document "Practices in the party", as an example for the method I describe. I think a similar method is used when discussing other comrades' criticisms and earlier, in discussing "Renovation". This method does not show sufficient respect for what the comrades actually wrote, does not engage with those ideas and by asking us to choose between the Leninist party building approach and these "criticisms" results, naturally, in escalation. One of the odd effects of this method is that one can agree with the general points, but disagree with the response to the criticisms. One can agree, as I do, with the general line of the report, but disagree strongly with many of the particulars.

What about these initial criticisms? What can we say about them?

We can certainly put them in perspective. I happen to agree with the criticisms that many of the comrades have written. These are things that will not go away by denying their existence; these are things we should struggle against. Even then we work with comrades we've got and we're all human. We are still small and this isolation also takes its toll. But we risk miseducating our membership if we simply deny them. We risk miseducating our membership if we continue to pursue the sort of method used in Comrade Boyle's report.
But all things in proportion also. These problems are definitely secondary to the tasks ahead: the unity struggle in SA, the anti-war movement, and so on. We should just admit that there are some things we could improve and then keep this in mind as we go to work. For in the end, some of these cultural things will be changed as we grow. Or if we find ourselves as a tendency in a larger party. Or if a mass movement arises around us. I think we need to continue to consider some of our methods in the movements, and I think that such things as "base-building" are important concepts to develop. But this is all part of the socialist project. Our task is to continue to fight to make that project a reality, and that requires an open, democratic, but also centralised party composed of activists who are dedicated, committed, ready to sacrifice.

Reply to Cde RD's letter to the National Executive

Dear comrade,

Your letter to the DSP National Executive and your article "A response to the national leadership" was circulated to the NE and discussed at our meeting on March I0. It was resolved to print your article in The Activist for the information of comrades, but not to reopen a discussion on these issues. They can be taken if you wish, during the next pre-congress discussion period.

There is a need for discussion, but not on this. We need discussions, thinking, assessment, on a range of important issues, especially on building the party in the new circumstances, how to relate to the developing movements, especially the anti-war movement, and how to develop left unity and regroupment. The congress also specifically resolved to keep the discussion bulletin open on historical and theoretical issues.

I'd refer to your article itself, where you admit the issues you raise "are not the critical problems facing us" and that it is important to "concentrate on the important business of building the anti-war movement, the refugee movement, Socialist Alliance, and, in general, the party." So let's do it.

But I can't let a couple of your assertions just pass without at least a formal denial.

Firstly, let me reiterate, in our party there is no victimisation of or discrimination against comrades who raise dissenting views. There is no pressure for comrades to retract or recant, other than the normal political discussion and argument in the party. Within the party leadership itself there are different views on various questions. The other side of this is that all comrades, whatever their views on particular issues, are expected to loyally build the party. But this is ABC, and has been elaborated and discussed many times in party talks and party-building reports over the years.
Secondly, the tone and atmosphere and relations between comrades in our party is not perfect, but compared to all other parties and left organisations in my more than three decades of experience both in Australia and around the world, we are exemplary.
Finally, please don't try to manufacture a difference between Peter Boyle and myself on these issues. On these questions there is agreement. A party-building report to one National Committee meeting will need to focus on some issues; other party-building reports will need to focus on others. Peter and other members of the party leadership voted for my report; myself and other members of the party leadership voted for Peter's report.

Comradely greetings,

John Percy

DSP National Secretary