Expulsion from the DSP : Melbourne Indymedia

On Sunday, August 29, at a meeting of about 40 people in Sydney, LF was expelled from the DSP for disloyalty.

The following emails provide some background.

Date: Sun, 08 Aug 2004 14:45:36 +1000
From: Resistance National Office <nationaloffice@resistance.org.au>
To: jp, pb
Subject: Why I think L should be expelled

The more I think about it the more convinced I am that LF should be expelled from the DSP.

There is no doubt that his actions would justify such a course of action, the only arguments against it could be tactical ones (as it was pointed out in the discussion earlier in the year his letter he put out provided justification for explusion, that course wasn't taken for
tactical reasons - he was given one last chance to operate as a loyal DSP member and he has failed to do that).

LF is campaigning against Resistance in the student movement by pushing for a new organisation in direct violation of the decisions of the last DSP congress. He quite clearly no longer agrees with democratic centralism. However, he does not raise *any* of this inside the DSP, despite the fact that the Activist is open for contributions. He campaigns for his views outside the DSP amongst our political opponents. His posting of internal Resistance discussions are particularily horrendous because D's contribution contains unsubstantiated and false allegations about the lack of democracy in Resistance and other absurd charactatures about our internal life. While this goes public the replies remain internal. Talk about punching someone with their hands and feet bound. And the person punching us is not a former member turned bitter, but a *current* DSP member!

T said to LF after the student left meeting on Friday that it was a problem to have DSP members argueing different positions. After clarifying the different positions, LF said he thought given the differences there would be no point having a fraction. He said more or less the same thing to me on Saturday. He has made it abundently clear he sees no reason for him to act as a loyal DSP member.

The only alternative would be to censure him, direct him not to attend any more student left meetings or participate in student left e-lists and start to immediately the discussion on the political differences inside the DSP. And, once the congress makes a decision, to submit to the decision. However, it is quite clear already that LF has NO intention of doing any such thing, and even if he did it would only be putting his leaving the DSP off. The value of such a discussion would be its educational value for our membership, but we also know full well that anything we say in such a discussion will be used against us publicly once he inevitably leaves. Expulsion is what he wants, but if some one really wants to be expelled then we can't stop them. It is more dangerous not to take firm stand now and expel him. Not to do so risks spreading confusion and demoralisaiton amongst Res comrades engaged in the student movement at a time when we are especially susceptible to pressure from the non socialist left because of the intensive red baiting against SAlt (which puts a lot of pressure on us to lower our heads to avoid getting caught up in it). A tough stand now, knowing LF will use it against use amongst this milue, will help stiffen our backs.

I think we can defend it to best of the people in this milue - who we want to maintain a dialogue with - on the basis that DSP is a totally voluntary organisation, we don't want to, and couldn't even if we did, silence LF from saying whaterver we wants whereever he wants to whomever he wants. That is entirely up to him, but he knows full well that his actions are not in accord with the democratically worked out rules of DSP membership. The principled thing for LF to do would be a) bring up his difference inside the DSP to convince the rest of the membership and get our position changed according to the rules b) if he didn't want to do this, or didn't think he could convince the rest of us, then he should voluntarily leave. Plenty of others have taken that course. We don't force people to agree with us, there is no gun against LF's head keeping him a member of the DSP when he has no intention of operating as a DSP member. We can't force people to agree with us on Leninism and we will work with anyone constructively in struggles against injustice regardless of their views on our internal operating methods. LF clearly agreed with the politics and organisational methods of the DSP when he joined. Over time he has come to disagree. It is obvious and easy to show that he only hung around in order to get himself expelled so he could cause the maximum fuss and damage.

I think LF has had enough chances to act as a loyal DSP member and there is no reason whatsoever to think anything will make him start now. The only prelude to his expulsion should be an attempt by one of the two of you to convince him to leave voluntarily.

comradely, SM

Date: Sat, 07 Aug 2004 20:48:08 +1000
From: Resistance National Office
To: jp, pb
Subject: LF
Fwd: Re: [nbl_rebel] Political Basis for Rebel]

Hi,

PR has forwarded this post by LF to "NBL Rebel" - a list set up by the anarchist/anarshist influenced milue in the NBL (an attempt by the bureacratic right wing elements of hte NBL to group the non socialist left around themesleves in order to win them to their opportunist politics using ultra-radical anarchist rhetoric as corver – PR finally got accepted on this list after sparking a big debate by asking if he could be included.

I have already spoken to J about an item on LF at next PC. We are coming across a problem of having him argue a different line in student left meetings from Res comrades - he has no doubt been argueing things informally differently, but on Friday he did it for the first time in a meeting. The "NBL rebel", who call themselves the "swampy left" in an ironic reference to SAlt's label of them, have started meeting as part of a cold split in the NBL. SAlt are barred from attending but they are yet to kick us out. The most opportunist elements are argueing for a new "Love and Rage" style organisation to group together all the non socialist left (and do a deal with NOLS to give NOLS the NUS ed officer position instead of SAlt). T argued that we need to keep meeting as the NBL in order to provide a united challenge to the ALP and that there is n political basis for a new organisation but it is being used as a cover for opportunist deals. LF was argueing in favour of a new youth organisation, a pluralist organsitsation. In this context a new organsiation could only be a challenge to Resistance and would be led by unmistakable political enemies (even LF is forced to aknowledge the political character of these people).

According to T, LF also explained to the meeting that he wasn't in Resistance because he had been kicked out prompting others in the meeting to start chanting "purge! purge! purge!". As well as posting D and K and S's Res PCD's to this list (in the attachment) he apparantly also made a snide remark about lack of democracy in Res in another post to this broad list that includes political enemies. One of the leading participants on the list is DL, who is former Banlstown SRC President and Queer office this year. D is leading the charge against M out there attempting to force her to resign, using attacks on Res as part of the basis. This could only assist him.

I spoke to LF before the DSP meeting today and told him it was a major problem to have DSP members argueing a different line in student meetings and suggested some kind of tendency wide student fraction to discuss what position we take in to such meetings. (There is the of course the question of whether we want him even attending, but I left that aside as this was the first time it had been discussed with him and I hadn't spoken to anyone else - in some ways we can't keep him out of the student movement completely because he is very active in the education camapign on his campus). He said he didn't see the need, didn't see it as a problem that two competing lines were being put forward by DSP members etc. I also had a go at himn about making a snide remark on a public list set up by political enemies, he didn't really have much defence. I spoke to him not long before the start of the meeting so there wasn't time to talk much more.

This is just so you know what the situation is so we can work out exactly what to do about it. From talking to LF I can't see any hope that he will stop doing what he is doing - the line he is purseuing is very counter-posed. I can not see him decided to abide by a caucus decision. Given this, he would be thinking that his time in the DSP is pretty much up, and he will probably want to force it to explusion.

We probably also need sooner rather than later to have a discussion on the PC about our student movement perspectives, Res is trying to nut it out in a relatively difficult tactical situation.

comradely, S

From: rebel_hobbit pr
To: nationaloffice@resistance.org.au
Subject: Fwd: Re: [nbl_rebel] Political Basis for Rebel Sent: Saturday, 7 August 2004 7:11:47 AM

You might want to forward this the pb or jp - it's very not cool to include this anti-res stuff and a DSP debate on an open list.

In nbl_rebel@yahoogroups.com, LF wrote:

OK, a few more cents from me.

I tentatively agree with M that we (as in swampy left) need a political basis if we want to do something. As others have said, just being anti-SA is not really enough to motivate people to do much and certainly not a basis on which to involve new people.

However, I think we need to define this basis practically, not in terms of ideology or 'programme' (even one which "does not view any political theory or tradition as sacrosanct" (M).

The number one fact which we have to base any perspective on is that the student left has shrunk (or remained the same size, or not grown much) in a context where there is an increased support for left-wing ideas on campus.

I would argue (although I am very much open to other ideas and would like to hear them) that this is principally because the left is (rightly) viewed "to be hopelessly divided, and to be caught up with sectarian feuds or the sanctity of their own programmatic details" (D in the article linked below).

This obviously affects those of us not in organisations in different ways than those of us in them. While those out are extremely unlikely to declaim themselves to be the true descendants of Trotsky (as opposed to the Stalinists, liberals and assorted riff raff in the Judean People's Front) I think sometimes the non-party left can be equally impenetrable to those who don't know what words like autonomism, anarchism or the 'disruption of business as usual' mean.

So, what kind of left will be attractive? (Obviously I don't know but I have a couple of ideas and am interested in hearing others'.)

Firstly, the student population (as with the broader population) is increasingly non-homogeneous. Working vs non-working students, sandstone vs red brick students, local vs international students, students in vocational courses vs students in academic courses, etc. Obviously these are not binary opposites and many students are in both simultaneously, most will shift between categories. All will develop different ideas and emphasises based on their different experiences.

Secondly, the Internet means students (probably more so than any other sector) have access to a plethora of views on any topic under the sun. Frequently they put forward their own. No one will want to be involved in an organisation that is qualitatively less encouraging of diversity than the Internet. (Incidentally I think this is a major reason for the decline of the socialist organisations.)

So, on these bases, a commitment to pluralism must be the core of any new organisation ('organisation'?).

What does that mean exactly? I guess I agree with M's points about viewing no theory as sacrosanct and not viewing ourselves as having all the answers. I think it also extends to the realisation that different people will come to different conclusions as to action, and that this should be respected.

Also, in this context, 'being nice' is a political statement as much as one of politeness.

Beyond that I'm way more uncertain. I think one of the major things we need to do is work out how to be coherent in a way that respects our plurality. That is, we need to actually be out 'recruiting' people to the left. There does not have to be a contradiction between pluralism and recruitment if we see recruitment as essentially an organisation issue (the swampy left is a good place to develop politics and for the left to work together) rather than a political one (swampy left are the real Marxists / swampy left are the anti-authoritarians / etc / etc /etc).

I don't think this has to be cliquey provided we are actually having the political discussions and the group has a purpose beyond us all being friends.

I still think we need to think about what we actually do on campus to do this though. Tallace came up with a few things earlier like reading groups and meetings and some other stuff, but I haven't heard of anyone actually doing this stuff (although I'm sure some people have). I know I haven't done anything specially lefty vs general campaign stuff. Maybe more cross campus discussion amongst the existing swampers on campaigns / issues / politics / etc. would help to embolden people / give people ideas as to what they could do on the ground (I know it would me).

What's everyone think? LF

PS - Here's a few articles that have had an influence on my thinking on these questions if people are interested.

Murry Smith - Notes on the Workers' Party A 'Troty' article that introduced me to the idea of a party built on a political rather than ideological basis and I highly recommend.

DF - Pluralism and Left Youth Unity An article written last year in the context of a discussion in Resistance about what type of organisation it should be. I think D's analysis of what the problems of the left are is spot on.

SM Creativity, Initiative and Pluralism. A practical discussion of pluralism in a different context (Resistance in Melbourne), but still with relevance to us.