The DSP's "final congress" — or is it?

Peter Symon
General Secretary
Communist Party of Australia

It may come as a surprise to many that the January 14 issue of 
Green Left Weekly announced that the "final congress" of 
the Democratic Socialist Party (DSP) was held December 27-30. The 
DSP has changed its name to Democratic Socialist Perspective, a 
name no doubt intended to enable it to retain the initials 
DSP.

At the same time, the DSP is proposing that the Socialist 
Alliance be transformed "into a single, multi-tendency socialist 
party". This is part of a process that, we believe, the DSP had 
in mind when it initiated the Socialist Alliance, that is, to 
eventually transform the Alliance into a party.

So the DSP will no longer present itself as a party — just a 
"perspective" — while attempting to transform the Alliance into 
a party.

Of course, an alliance is a grouping of otherwise independent 
organisations while a party has a single constitution and a 
single membership. They are two different organisational 
structures.

When the Socialist Alliance was first established it was formed 
by eight independent organisations, the two principle ones being 
the DSP and the ISO (International Socialist Organisation). When 
it became clear last year that the DSP wanted to turn the 
Socialist Alliance into a political party some members of the ISO 
protested against being gobbled up and left the ISO. Others 
remained and went along with the plans of the DSP.

Trial

We are told in the Green Left article of January 14 that 
the Socialist Alliance has decided to "participate in the Green 
Left Weekly project on a trial basis".

At present Green Left Weekly is published by the Green 
Left Association and its editorial has always been located at 
the same address as that for the DSP in Sydney.

The DSP does not seem to be certain whether it has liquidated 
itself or whether the Socialist Alliance has transformed itself 
into a party. We are told that the "DSP will continue as an 
affiliate of the Socialist Alliance. It will seek to integrate 
into the alliance, while organising as a revolutionary socialist 
political tendency in it".

Here, indeed, is a muddle! The DSP has held its "final congress" 
yet will "integrate itself into the alliance" and will remain as 
an organised tendency in this new multi-tendency party. So has 
it, (or will it), terminate its separate existence or not? It 
seems not.

Another clue to what is really in mind is that Resistance — the 
youth wing of the DSP — adopted a resolution that "it should 
remain a revolutionary socialist youth organisation" and not an 
organisation of the "broader left". So, there is no talk here of 
Resistance becoming a tendency within the Socialist Alliance 
(Party).

It seems to be a case of having your cake and eating it too! 
Perhaps this is just part of an insurance policy to ensure that 
part of the DSP becomes integrated into the Socialist Alliance 
(Party) while another part remains at a certain distance.

The Green Left Weekly report says that all affiliated 
groups are urged "to pool their resources and experience and 
build the Socialist Alliance as a new multi-tendency party The 
DSP resolved to lead this integration by example". One can only 
assume that the resources of Resistance are not going to be 
offered up to this new cause.

As readers of The Guardian will know, the Communist Party 
of Australia declined to become part of the Socialist Alliance 
not only because its early formation was gazumped by the DSP and 
the ISO but because of its obvious Trotskyist orientation. From 
the outset it appeared that the ultimate objective was to turn 
the Alliance into a political party and this seems to be what is 
now happening.

Similar process

The process that has been put in train by the DSP recalls a 
somewhat similar process that was followed by the former 
Communist Party of Australia when it was controlled by those who 
had lost faith in the communist movement and had abandoned their 
belief in the revolutionary Marxist-Leninist course.

In a step by step process at the end of the 1980s, the former CPA 
leaders formed a New Left Party which it was supposed would build 
a "broad" party and would bring into its ranks the many left 
social democrats in the Labor Party who it was (falsely) supposed 
would abandon the ALP. However, the dissatisfied members of the 
ALP stayed where they were and the New Left Party, despite being 
able to draw on the substantial resources of the former CPA, had 
a short life of about two years.

Some remaining stalwarts of this venture continued in an 
organisation known as "Left Connection" but this also did not 
survive for long. The long standing and respected newspaper of 
the CPA — The Tribune — ceased publication in favour of 
a new newspaper called Broadside. Again, despite 
considerable money being poured into this venture, it soon 
folded.

Although comparisons can be taken too far, the reality is that 
the liquidation of the former CPA and its newspaper The Tribune 
was a heavy blow to the genuine communist movement in Australia. 
Many who wanted to contribute to the revolutionary movement in 
Australia became confused by the rapid changes and by the fact 
that the New Left Party, Left Connection and Broadside did 
not survive for long.

The present initiative of the DSP (and it is the DSP which is the 
dominant player in the new political spin) is intended to create 
a divisive and opposition pole to the communist movement 
throughout the world. Somewhat similar "multi- tendency" parties 
are being formed in a number of other countries.

There are several references in the report in Green Left 
Weekly to "united campaigning" but this is contradicted by 
the references made in the article to the role of Resistance 
during the demonstrations against the war in Iraq which have been 
seen by many as divisive.

Those who are familiar with the anti-Iraq war protests will know 
that a very broadly based coalition, the Walk Against War 
Coalition, already existed and helped to put 400,000 to 500,000 
people on the streets on February 16 (in Sydney), many of whom 
were young people.

A separate demonstration by students could have been organised by 
all the organisations that made up the Walk Against the War 
Coalition.

It appeared to many that Resistance did not want to share 
"control" with others despite them being partners in the big 
demonstrations opposed to the war against Iraq.

The DSP's "final congress" also heard reports on the 
international situation and international work, work in trade 
unions and in the peace movement, the Australian economy, etc.

In a report on the international situation, Doug Lorimer is 
reported as saying in connection with the defeat of the US in 
Vietnam "it was the eventual refusal of these [US] soldiers to 
fight which ultimately ended the US occupation of Vietnam. The 
mass anti-war protests back home, which demonstrated the deep 
unpopularity of the war gave them the confidence to do this".

What about the military defeats inflicted on the US armed forces 
by the Vietnamese army, government and people? This was the 
fundamental factor that resulted in the US defeat in Vietnam — 
which is not to underestimate the anti- Vietnam war movements in 
the US and elsewhere. But why omit such an important factor?

There is another rather interesting statement of "principles" 
guiding the DSP in its international work.

The statement speaks of "Being implacably opposed to the ruling 
class of your country, and fighting to overthrow it, and building 
a strong united socialist party in your own country as the means 
to reach that goal". The DSP seems to be not only talking of 
Australia but other countries as well.

This conclusion is strengthened by reference to "class struggles 
in other countries" and, "helping where possible, without 
creating an external centre to direct others' work or distorting 
newer parties and groups".

There is no recognition in this statement to the existence of a 
number of socialist states, others which are led by communist 
parties such as Laos and Cambodia, the left front governments in 
India, or the emerging left progressive governments, particularly 
in Latin America. It is the responsibility of genuine socialists 
and communists to support such governments against the constant 
imperialist threats of intervention and war. The above 
unqualified statement could be read as a call to "overthrow" 
these governments too.

The view that the omission of any such reference from the DSP 
resolution is not accidental is strengthened by the DSP's support 
for Gorbachev who was responsible for the breakup of the Soviet 
Union, support for the separatist forces that resulted in the 
breakup of Yugoslavia, their support for the fascist Kosovo 
Liberation Front (KLF), and for Tibetan separatism. The DSP also 
supports a break-up of the alliance between the ANC, COSATU and 
the South African Communist Party which plays into the hands of 
reaction at this point in time.

The call to be "implacably opposed to the ruling class of your 
country and fighting to overthrow it" could be seen to have a 
much more far-reaching implication than being just a reference to 
Australia or capitalist governments.

Perhaps one can describe their position by paraphrasing a 
monarchist call: "The DSP is dead. Long live the DSP".