[JPE]
On Tactical Alliances
Recently, Albert Langer wrote that there was no reason why One Nation
members should not be members of 'Neither'.
Albert is right in principle. There is no reason why people or
organisations with fundamentally different outlooks (or even completely
counterposed ones) should not be conclude adhoc alliances in pursuit of
some specific well defined objective which they agree is desirable.
Whether such alliances are principled or desirable in practice depends
on how one answers a number of questions.
[AL]
Tactical alliances, membership criteria and policies towards One Nation
are 3 different
questions. I was discussing the second and third. They are quite
independent of the first -
We can have a policy hostile to One Nation and/or a membership criteria
that makes it's supporters unwelcome while actively involved in a
tactical alliance with them. Likewise we
can have no policy concerning One Nation and make their supporters
welcome (as in an Electoral Reform Society) without any tactical
alliance with One Nation.
Tactical Alliances are of many different types - e.g. the Queensland
Coalition and One Nation were tactically aligned against the ALP in the
Queensland State elections - by swapping preferences to the great
benefit of both One Nation and through backlash, to the ALP.
Likewise the ALP and the Coalition were tactically aligned against One
Nation to kick Hanson out of the House of Representatives by swapping
preferences.
My view is that when they adopt a policy of PR to smash the two party
monopoly that denies them representative we are faced with two options:
a) Recognition that we are in fact not merely tactically, but
strategically aligned with them on that specific issue.
b) Rejoining the "gang" seeking to exclude them from representation in
order to maintain the
two party system.
If we handle this properly we could emerge as a recognized new force
representing the OTHER
people, "on the left" who want to smash the two party state and
introduce PR with quite different politics to One Nation.
If we get confused and disoriented we will remain irrelevant.
If we had got our act together earlier, it is quite possible that we,
rather than One Nation
could have been perceived as the major threat to the two party system by
now.
[JPE]
1. Does the alliance necessarily bring nearer goals to which one or
more of the participating parties are hostile?
Every organisation that concludes an alliance with a political rival
hopes to get more out of the alliance than it concedes to its rival -
principally by manipulating the shared resources to augment its broader
goals - while suspecting its rival of attempting to do just the same
thing! The challenge for the participting organisations is always to
give their rivals as little as is consistent with efficiently achieving
the agreed common goal.
[AL]
I don't understand the question numbered 1 or it's relation to the
discussion following it.
Also I don't agree with your assumptions about tactical alliances. They
rarely have anything to do with "shared resources". I think you may
perhaps confusing the issue with the "broad united fronts" periodically
set up by tiny rival lemmingist sects to compete with each other for
recruits. These have no relevance to serious politics.
[JPE]
But this in turn presumes each organisation having a clear sense of what
it values and what it opposes. Any organisation which lacks this clear
sense of purpose is likely to finish up doing the leg work for causes
whose merits are, at best, dubious - and therefore unprincipled. And
whatever one may think of One Nation - they certainly have a much
clearer sense of who they are and what they value than does 'Neither' -
not to speak of being many times better resourced, having a clear set of
historical traditions upon which to draw etc? Unless there is an early
clarification of Neither's position on those matters of importance to
leftist supporters of Neither - the likelihood is that Neither, if it
survives, will become a kind of One Nation electoral think tank.
[AL] I agree that Neither needs a clear sense of purpose or it will not
survive (there is no danger whatever of it surviving as a One Nation
electoral think tank). The purpose is to smash the two party state and
establish PR by convincing people who support the ALP or the Coalition
to reject both and not vote for either of them. Extensive and open
discussion of a wide range of issues will be necessary to clearly
establish that sense of purpose and distinguish it from other purposes
that individuals within Neither may have (or to adopt a different view
of the sense of purpose).
In my view we should be carrying out that purpose "from the left" as
vigorously as One Nation is doing so from the right.
[JPE]
2. Can the participating organisations criticise each other without
either confounding the common goal or destroying the adhoc alliance?
Here is the nub of the problem - and David Kidd has done us all a favour
by providing an early example where this is put to the test. "Stop
dumping on One Nation or take me off your mailing list" 'Neither' can
choose between criticising One Nation or fracturing the alliance before
it even starts. That, of itself, says how unprincipled the allaince
would have to be in practice - for the business of preserving the
allaince would surely entail a mutual non-aggression pact, and a
deliberate attempt to muddy the political meaning of this or that
political adventure, or, at best, declaring that 'Neither' was
interested in nothing more than a populist and classless electoral
reform program. But then, there are already plenty of liberal electoral
reform organisations - and the question would arise - why have Neither
at all?
[AL]My view is that we should be strategically and tactically aligned
with the ALP, Coalition, Democrats and Greens on opposition to One
Nation's Racism and strategically and tactically aligned with One
Nation, probably the Greens and perhaps the Democrats on the question of
PR.
I cannot see any reason to refrain from not just criticism but also
aggressive hostility towards the ALP and the Coalition on the question
of PR merely because they will opportunistically try to label anyone
attempting to destroy the two party state as giving aid and comfort to
One Nation. (Though the Democrats may and it is even possible that the
Greens could, if we do not provide a focus for people who do understand
this).
Nor can I see any reason to refrain from aggressive hostility to One
Nation on the question of racism just because we will be in agreement
with them both on PR and on taking an aggressive hostile attitude
towards the two party state.
After all the whole point of PR is to enable representation of all views
instead of just those views approved by a majority - all views DOES
include racist views.
Whether David Kidd or others decide to stay or leave is irrelevant to
whether or not we are likely to be objectively aligned with One Nation
on central issues.
Although his initial remarks were open to the interpretation you made,
they were also open to the interpretation that he would leave if we
joined the gang of One Nation opponents - ie
support the ALP, Coalition and the media etc in trying to maintain a two
party state under cover of opposing One Nation. His subsequent remarks
have been perfectly reasonable contributions to an obviously necessary
discussion. I am sure he is as well aware as you are that nobody will
influence the outcome of this discussion by "threats" to leave or by
carrying out those "threats". People join and leave email lists any time
they wish. Please avoid unmerited personal attacks and stick to the
political issues under discussion.
[JPE]
If Albert is right, and quite a few One Nation supporters are likely to
be in this milieu - then clarification of Neither's attitude to One
Nation (and indeed the other parties on offer) is essential. After all,
the name 'Neither' does imply opposition only to two parties - but says
nothing at all about the Democrats, Greens, One Nation etc ?. Perhaps
the organisation should rethink its name and call itself 'none'. After
all, from a Marxist viewpoint - all current political parties are
currently politically opposed to the interests of working people. This
position would radically distinguish Neither not only from One Nation,
but also from simple electoral reformers. Why not put them all last? (by
writing 1 next to all candidates or crossing them all out )
[AL]
My belief that I am right on that is why I started this discussion :-)
Clarification of Neither's attitude to One Nation is essential and is
best achieved through
open discussion rather than presumption. The same applies to clarifying
Neither's attitude to
other parties. Supporters of the Democrats and Greens might be just as
surprised to learn
that "Marxists" are attracted to Neither as you seem to be surprised
about One Nation supporters.
I always vote informal myself, but Neither quite clearly is intended to
be an organization that encourages participation by people who DO
support existing Parliamentary parties. As you say,
the focus on opposing the two party state, is implicit in the name.
Assuming we do opt for clearly identifying as "on the left", a far
bigger problem than One Nation supporters leaving will be the STRONG
tendency for any such organization to rapidly disintegrate in factional
bickering about what line to take on side issues.
[JPE]
Of course, if Neither is not an organisation in the usual sense of the
word - but merely a kind of forum for discussion and temporary tactical
manoevers around hostility to the bipartisan electoral fraud going down-
then the issue of One Nation supporters becoming members simply doesn't
arise. Every common activity is justified by reference to immediate
goals. No-one can assume because one alliance took place that another
will follow. There will be no organisational imprimatur to which one can
refer. Each person will have to decide for themselves what they want to
do and with whom they wish to do it. Then each of us will have to take
responsibility for our own politics - and isn't that the foundation of
any bona fide democracy?
[AL]
I'm not sure whether the final bit about the "foundation of any bona
fide democracy" is
intended to be sarcastic or not. I do believe we need a coherent
organization with well defined policies that are the only policies given
an "official imprimatur", precisely so that these policies are clearly
separated from "membership criteria" and people who support some
policies but not others can feel comfortable working on those policies
they support.
If we do not have open discussion of policies we cannot function as an
organization and cannot defeat the two party state. If we can learn how
to handle disagreements about policy better
than others "on the left" we could become a VERY significant force.
If people want to be in an organization where they agree with every
policy they will find that such organizations are either mainstream or
very very small. (In my case there would probably only be 1 member).
[JPE]
A Final Thought on One Nation
Much is made of One Nation's racist positions on Asians and Aboriginals.
I can't help but think that what stands behind the spleen of the major
parties vented at one nation is a desparate desire to distinguish
themselves from a party whose fundamental politcs they share. Pauline
Hanson is right when she claims that she is only saying what the major
parties are thinking. All of the parties (including One Nation) share
the same views on the nature of Australia's polity - the assumption that
a mixed capitalist economy with some state contriols is the ideal for
Australia; that Australia must preserve strong military alliances
directed at restraining threats from the north; that there are ideal
levels of migration, ideal levels of tariff and non-tariff protection,
that eliminating welfare fraud among working people is an important
state objective,. One Nation merely follows through on the logical
extension of the bipartisan nationalism of the major parties -
disagreeing solely on what 'the Nation' really means - and then only on
semantic grounds. That's why One Nation steals votes from all the major
parties - because the supporters of those parties have never heard
anything different.
[AL]
The spleen vented at the Coalition by the ALP and the ALP by the
Coalition clearly results
from their desperate desire to distinguish themselves from each other.
Their hostility to One Nation arises as much from its populist
demagoguery as from its racism.
Part of the Democrats and Greens hostility towards One Nation arises
from the immense problem they face distinguishing their policies from
them on every issue except racism (including immigration where the
Democrats and Greens both supported zero net immigration and still both
support reduction of immigration levels well below the levels slashed by
the ALP and Coalition).
But I think Australia has moved a long way since the mainstream parties
supported a White Australia Policy right up to the early 1970s (except
for the clerical fascist DLP which did not).
There is genuine opposition to One Nation's racism right across the
spectrum (including many One Nation supporters).
[JPE]
Leftists are for NO NATION - we are for the unity of working people on a
world scale, regardless of birth. By that standard, all 'national
parties' have racist policies. - and that's why leftists are opposed to
all the parties including One Nation.
[AL]
Lenin, at the height of his struggle against the desertion of the second
international
to nationalism and imperialism during the first world war, described
"Leftists" who reject the slogan "defence of the fatherland" as
"Caricature Marxists", in an article with those words in the title. You
might find it an interesting read.
The view that all 'national parties' have racist policies simply removes
all content from the word 'racist'. That is not a political line,
leftist or otherwise, but just plain silly.
----------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe from this mailing list send an email to
[EMAIL PROTECTED] with unsubscribe as the subject.
For help with this mailing list, look at
http://www.neither.org/lists/public-list.htm
