The ding-dong battle between the now-rival Leninist groupsucules the DSP (Democratic Socialist Perspective aka Socialist Alliance) and the LPF (Leninist Party Faction) continues, with accusation and counter-accusation flying thick and fast.
In reality, once the purged faction finishes getting things off its collective chest — which it has already gone some way to accomplishing — it’s likely both are going to want to proceed on to more constructive endeavours. After all, the Socialist Alliance comb that the two bald men of the DSP and the LPF have been fighting over is obviously not going anywhere, and the doublethink required in order to believe otherwise would tax even the most dedicated and obsequious of party members. Of course, that doesn’t mean SA still can’t serve a useful purpose for the DSP, especially when election time rolls around. Beyond that, however, it’s difficult to see what purpose it serves, as I’m honestly unaware of anyone — anyone at all, with the obvious exception — who regards it as being anything other than a DSP front. (The most recent indication to the contrary came from the Gold Coast.)
Do the above observations make me a do-nothing sectarian right-winger? Damn. I suppose being a self-declared (pseudo-)“anarchist” relieves me of any need to actually attempt to do anything, just shitcan those that do…
In any event, what of the junior burger version of the DSP, aka, Resistance? Well, apparently, the world-historic struggle between the DSP and LPF is having some small repercussions there too, with the launching of an investigation into the troublesome activities of Melbourne branch member James. The findings of the investigation into James’ activities are that he:
1. Discouraged potential recruits from joining Resistance
2. Failed to adequately inform the branch of political work carried out in the name of Resistance
3. Continued public attacks on the DSP
4. Failed to raise political differences in a democratic framework
— and finally —
5. Interfered with the investigating committee
After noting James’ apparent disloyalty, and refusal to place his political work under the direction of Resistance, the investigation concludes that:
4. Based on the evidence considered by the investigating commission it is clear that James is not willing to raise political differences in a comradely internal political debate. This is best illustrated by his public criticisms of the DSP.
5. Moreover the commission believes James to be openly hostile to the DSP. This continues to undermine our work with the DSP and has impacted on our ability to recruit and train new members of Resistance.
6. The investigating commission recommends the disciplinary action of expulsion from Resistance as outlined in Section 6, Rule 7 of the constitution.
7. It is regretful that we recommend this course of action, however the decision is based on recognition of the following facts:
a. James has been a long term member of Resistance for 9 years who understands Resistance’s decision making procedure.
b. That James has continued these activities despite warnings from the leadership.
c. And James has stated an unwillingness to adhere to a collective approach to our work as indicated in his email response to the notice of his formal charging.
Melbourne Branch Executive Report to May 18 NC
Presented by Trent H
Investigation of Charges against Resistance Member James C
Naturally, the investigation committee makes no mention of a fact that James himself appears to believe is central to their investigation: his membership of the LPF. According to James:
The charges are on the most part administrative and petty, and despite best efforts to politically engage with the root issues, I fear that I need to respond to some of their ‘legalese’ to an extent. The charges are on the whole attempts to bureaucratically rather then politically deal with the fact that I have political differences with the Democratic Socialist Perspective (DSP). I resigned from the DSP in 2007 after having been in the Leninist Party Faction (LPF). My expulsion from Resistance comes shortly after the expulsion of LPF comrades… However this is the end of a long road in which the DSP has sought to marginalize those with dissenting views rather then building political consensus and unity. Having marginalised the ISO and the smaller affiliates in Socialist Alliance, the DSP alienated the Non-Aligned Caucus which represented what was left of the independent leaders in Socialist Alliance. Having stuck the boot into any broader Socialist Alliance layers, the DSP turned its focus on the significant minority of DSP members who raised political differences over the DSP’s orientation to the Socialist Alliance. Now having expelled the LPF, the DSP turns on young Resistance members like myself who have raised disagreements publicly.
Resistance has historically served a different function to the DSP. While the DSP is a cadre party consisting of members who agree with the program and constitution of the DSP, Resistance is supposed to be a much looser organisation of people not necessarily convinced of the positions of the DSP. However, having failed to keep me quiet, the DSP youth cadre have sought to enforce administratively norms out of keeping with and unconstitutional in the youth organisation Resistance. Further I have recently been informed that I don’t even have the right to attend my own trial. According to Trent… “as outlined in the constitution you can request an oral submission of your report to the NC. This does not mean you can listen to the investigating commission’s report and the discussion. You will be logged on… when it is time to make your submission, and logged off after you have given it.” Sure there is no formal right for me to hear the report in the constitution, however this is just one more sign of the degeneration of the DSP spilling over into Resistance, in that they are no longer confident enough in their political positions to have me be able to directly respond to my accusers (something even allowed in bourgeois democracy). All that being said, here is my report…