ALP and Lenin
It is good that Jim McIlroy (GLW 171) has conceded that working in the ALP may be of some use, even if it is to be a "subsidiary tactic".
The use of an article written [by Lenin] in 1916 to resolve a tactical question in 1995 is a questionable form of argument in itself. Moreover, it neglects the varying views Lenin held about Social Democracy. In his Speech on Affiliation to the British Labour Party delivered at the Second Congress of the Communist International in 1920, Lenin described the BLP as "an organisation of the bourgeoisie ... which exists to systematically dupe the workers ..." Despite this, he advocated that Communists should, in a period of political quiescence, join the Labour Party. In the Thesis on Comintern tactics of 1921, where the British proletariat is described as "most revolutionary", there was continued advocacy of this tactic. So, which Lenin are we supporting here?
A paradox of late capitalism is that far from eliminating status differences among workers (thus creating a more homogenised proletariat) we have seen status differences widen and deepen among very large 91×ÔÅÄÂÛ̳ of the working class. Can we continue to speak of a labour aristocracy when it could, in some cases, encompass the majority of the working class? Is it the role of the revolutionary party to organise only those who are marginalised from corporatist bargains, who may form a minority within a class? I suggest that revolutionary socialists should incorporate Weberian and neo-Weberian conceptualisations of class to further our understanding of interest formation along skills and organisation that are developing within the proletariat.
That the ALP is described as representing the interests of "the most privileged" 91×ÔÅÄÂÛ̳ of a class should not lead us to turn our backs on those workers who have benefited from corporatism. A strategy that attempts to unify and mobilise a working class whose interests are fragmented and in conflict may require a new form of "historic compromise", alliance, or "historic bloc" within a class, between the privileged and the excluded.
Jeff Richards
Prospect SA
[Edited for length.]
Russia and Chechnya
Democracy cannot be expected to work in as large and culturally diverse a region as that of the former USSR. The result — which Gorbachev found to be disintegration — will simply be an interregnum until the political and military realities of Eurasian geography force the biggest government to resorb all the ex-Soviet republics, separately or in groups.
Finland is claiming ex-Soviet Karelia, Kaliningrad is isolated from Russia proper by Lithuania, and the Japanese want the disputed islands (and may be inclined to take the ex-Soviet Far East as well). Turkish officers are assisting the Georgian army, while Iranian troops are in Azerbaijan. The US has established a semi-official spy network under the guise of assisting the Russian authorities to contain organised crime.
Though justifiable, Yeltsin's Chechen adventure is likely to cause further disintegration of Russia proper, though it will have the benefit of justifying a return to a State socialist economy. It has considerable parallels with the Winter War, though of course the Soviet leadership of that time was far more competent.
The collection of buffer states created by Stalin as a barrier to further Western aggression will be transformed into a far more conflict-prone collection of buffer states around what will be little more than a latter-day Duchy of Muscovy. It is the aim of the American ruling class to ensure that what is left can pose no threat to Western interests.
By joining with the Right to denounce the USSR and the concept of Socialism in One Country the Left has discredited itself. The Left will remain irrelevant until it gives the former USSR praise in the many instances where it is due. Generally speaking, the ex-Soviet citizens are far worse off for the post-1989 changes.
Roger Raven
Applecross WA
[Edited for length.]
Compassion and tofu
In his letter in GLW 172, David Nicholls defends his animal liberationism by suggesting that our "compassionate umbrella" should extend beyond issues of racism, sexism etc. to "giving equal consideration to our fellow creatures". His argument is not new, yet proponents of such arguments are strangely silent on issues such as the inhumane exploitation of innocent soybean plants or the brutal massacres of millions of celery plants that take place every year. Indeed they are often the main proponents of such cruel injustices.
Is this not being, in David's terms, "selectively compassionate"? Of course it is, and so it should be. Entities which are not capable of self-consciousness (non-human animals, plants and rocks for instance) are also not capable of wanting, requiring or appreciating such compassion. In the case of many non-human animals their mental capabilities extend to certain mechanisms for the avoidance of pain and danger but never to a human-like desire to live — they are not capable of such abstract thoughts as are necessary for such a desire.
Sowing compassion on barren ground is a pointless distraction. Its logical and consistent conclusion is eating nothing whatsoever. Even its selective application to merely not eating animals leads only to individualist lifestylism and not to a confrontation with the real issues and causes deserving our compassion.
Neville Spencer
Sydney
Woodchipping
A lie is being repeated about woodchipping, which must be scotched.
The lie is that woodchipping only uses waste timber which would otherwise be burnt. The truth is that up to 90% of the logs taken from our old-growth forests are used for woodchipping.
Vast numbers of ancient hollow trees, which cannot be used by sawmillers, are cut down by the woodchippers.
These ancient trees, some up to 1,000 years old, contain many hollows which are inhabited by rare and endangered birds and mammals.
Selective logging solely for sawlogs leaves these ancient forests virtually intact, with the old hollow trees left standing as valuable habitats.
The woodchipping industry takes the best habitat trees, as well as large numbers of trees which could be used by the sawlog industry for housing and furniture.
The devastation left by the clearfelling and burning after woodchip operations has to be seen to be believed.
The woodchipping industry costs Australian jobs, destroys priceless habitat and brings no return to the taxpayers of New South Wales.
The woodchipping of our ancient forests must be stopped as quickly as possible and the Australian Democrats will do everything we can to move the woodchippers out of our old forests and speed the implementation of a plantation strategy to create hundreds of new long-term jobs.
Richard Jones, MLC
Sydney
Anarchists
The recent anarchist conference held in Sydney was an encouraging experience for this young democratic socialist. Although some of the more vocal and experienced anarchists were openly hostile to leftist politics, the majority of young would-be activists were much more open and friendly towards socialism and the need to organise to change society.
One thing that many attending the conference would have realised is that serious activism cannot take place within the anarchist framework. A clear example of the inability of anarchists to take activism seriously came to the fore when a discussion paper was presented on the need for a Revolutionary Anarchist Party.
Although this is exactly what the anarchist movement needs if their politics are to be taken seriously, their inability to get over their phobia that democratic organisations are necessarily authoritarian will prevent anarchism from offering a convincing solution to newly radicalising activists.
Essentially the difference between democratic socialism and the anarchism discussed at the conference is a question of what to do now in the pre-revolutionary period: actively organise to bring forward the revolution through projects such as GLW and effectively intervening in social movements; or trying to live a post-revolutionary lifestyle now whilst hoping the revolution will somehow spontaneously occur.
We all want to be free, to live in a non-sexist, non-racist, anti-imperialist, ecologically sustainable world. The more we organise and agitate together in a democratically organised activist party, the sooner we will get there.
Daniel Webster
Sydney
Bligh campaign
The Eastern Suburbs Greens have added an interesting political factor to all the media hoo-ha surrounding the competition between candidates Clover Moore (Independent) and Susan Harben (ALP) in the Sydney seat of Bligh.
Much of the media focus so far has been on the fact that Harben is running as an openly lesbian candidate and, as a result, has been seen by much of the lesbian and gay press as the "natural" candidate, particularly for lesbians to support. Moore has been pigeon-holed as the more likely candidate for gay men to support because of her perceived history in campaigning mainly in that arena. I find it particularly disturbing that there has been so little debate relating to Harben's decision to run as an ALP candidate and all that implies.
To a large extent, Harben has toned down the fact that she is standing as an ALP candidate. While I acknowledge that Harben's decision to stand as an out lesbian is a positive thing, I cannot support her decision to do this in the framework of the ALP machine, given its horrific history on social justice, human rights, sexism and environmental issues.
Harben is not standing as a single-issue candidate or as an independent; she is standing as a candidate for the current ruling government party and must take responsibility for the huge list of crimes it has committed against every progressive sector, just as any other member of that party standing for parliament should.
The suggestion that lesbians and gays should only vote for out lesbian and gay candidates does not work in favour of the progressive community if these candidates hide their interests and the disgusting track records of the major parties they are members of.
Kylie Budge
Glebe, Sydney
[Edited for length.]