History is not an intellectual exercise. It impinges concretely on what is possible, where and when... This is why it is not very useful to consider revolutionary strategy today as somehow shelved between electoral and insurrectional strategy. Revolutionary strategy never was and is no more now about making this choice. Insurrection is but a moment in the struggle for power; the latter being the strategic compass for all revolutionary strategy... It is perhaps the most common attribute of the revolutionary left globally that, after 30 years of “depthlessness”, we are too keen to find a quick break; as if our tactics can exist outside of the accumulation of class forces. One aspect of this, which we have had some opportunity to discuss in the workshops at this seminar, is the elevation of small campaigns to the same mantle as mass struggles. Understandably, we on the left are acutely aware of our own small size and isolation and keen to find or rediscover the agency of the class. In this discussion, I think we are right -- as most contributors at this seminar have said -- to emphasise not only that there is no contradiction between class and party but that in fact we can say quite confidently that the former comes first. This is self-evident when we speak in historical terms but is also true when we are thinking in terms of revolutionary strategy. The problem is that this is easily lost in translation; especially so when we are still so small and isolated. Right now in our context here in Australia, there are lots of small campaigns we are part of, a couple a bit larger, but we are not in a position to speak of a period of accumulated mass struggle. So our engagement is necessarily a bit tentative, which is not to say that we can’t achieve some things; as a number of campaigns that our groups have been part of definitely have. What we want to avoid, however, is grandiose statements about revolutionary strategy and tactics. We simply have not got the experience behind us to back such statements. We can discuss the basic pillars of revolutionary strategy -- the centrality of mass action, the place of different tactics -- but we should be careful to guard for proportion. I think we can agree that Socialist Alliance and Socialist Alternative both understand and put priority on the importance of mass struggle and the mass mobilisation and organisation of the class. Such mobilisation is not equivalent to our tactics but includes them... So mass work is not, in essence at least, about talking to the organised forces “to your right”, as if they may provide a bridge to the mass. Fundamentally, mass work is about winning the confidence of workers for revolutionary solutions and in revolutionary leadership. I think that we could learn from the different experiences of Socialist Alliance and Socialist Alternative. A united organisation would be a better organisation. I have been especially impressed, as someone who has been a member of both tendencies, by the campaigning approach of Socialist Alternative; not narrowly organisation-centric but rather conceiving of the party organisation and its role politically. Having come from the Cannonist tradition, I can confidently say that I have learnt a lot from the IST comrades in terms of defining and elaborating the party in thoroughly political terms.
Posted on: Fri, 21 Jun 2013 01:03:22 +0000
Trending Topics
Recently Viewed Topics
© 2015