Outlook Jason Travis, Greater cronica Fagan addresses V her article 'Manifesto 8888 broad appeal" Outlook, March 2001) and I would like the fact that Socialist Outlook has joined in on the debate about the whether it should be a party and, if so, when and what sort of programmie we should nave Fagan argues against those who "confuse their own political ideas with what can be common ground in this alliance - those who argue favour of adopting reforms that can wider forces to the project of the This argument significant: whatever our different conclusions we should keep up the debate and indeed take up such arguments The two main questions then are whether we should argue post the clection for toe Allance to occome a party and whether revolutionaries inside the Alliance and any future party should argue for a revolutionary platform. In this article, I want to argue for bot & party and a rovo lutionary platform.
There are three reasons I want to highlight for this:
1) there are good reasons for believing that a revolutionary programme argued for correctly (i.c. following Trotsky's transitional much more effectively than rehash of Old Labour reformism;
i reformist politics is a dead end and many workers and youth can minority are self proclaimed revolutionaries;
(iii) the crisis of politics is still a crisis of working class leadershipreformism will lead us to more want to make clear straight off, however, that adopting a transitional programme, does maximum revolutionary set of policies.
On the eve of a revolution, we will be able to pose very different poliNow we need to go to signifi cant sections of the class struggle and argue for the next step ahead, for tae porcies and tacucs tual will win in strikes, protests, mobilisatons of youth. workers, asylum seckers etc.
We must not hide the fact that what we ultimately need is a revolution but neither should we isolate ourselves by slogans, posturing or language war sories us trow lac struggles: that would be ultra-leftseveral steps beyond the struggles Socialist Alliance gets rolling of the class without any significant resonance or connection with them. forward the argument that we need to return to on this question, not in an unthink ing manner but because an examination of its history will show that movement has faced such quesThere is a genuine danger of rer. olutionaries being ultra-left and therehy cut off from the class: but the way to avoid that danger is to engage in the struggles of workers and youth and respond to the needs of those struggles.
A revolutionary party could help co-ordinate the struggles of the international working class by sharing and reflecting ences and learning the lessons both tom history and present day struggles. A danger facing the self defined revolutionary at the put forward transitional demands and the lessons of previous revolutonary struggies for cal of being seen as ultra-left.
There has been a lot of confusion over this issuc with an arcapt to portray those in favour of a revolufionary program as being indeed ultra-left.
Fagan writes in the previously "We would not have won the breadth of support we are already getting on the basis of a revolutionary platform- the political base does So it will be not only.. from [some groups), those who put them forward why this is the wrong approach.
I am currently. political organisation and I think it should be noted that not all inde pendents' are necessarily support. ing the apparently more moderate ment is that many more 'independents' may be won to the socialist Policy Debate Alliance if we come our with better We need to connect with people in struggle, searching for answers and make programmatic demands that take that struggle on to the next step, through our pouncal expertence, of engaging in past struggles. and engaging with the history and That way we may avoid the terrible defeats of the past.
It is important that Socialist does not become a new version of an 'Old Labour' style left reformist party. Millions of people have dropped out of voting alto. geiner and occome uricry cynical about the ability of parliament to do anything signiticant What do we say to such people? Do we say, you're wrong to be so cynical arguing that parliament can actually do something? No, of COUTSC BUT The whole point ahout socialists calling for a vote is to test tbose illusions some people still have in parliament. abandoned illusions we should not attempt to resow them an this clection, we should say to such people we agree with you that parliament is Vote empty hollow sham • Socialist Alliance as a protest against this and help lead struggles to victory. people are not ready to join then we would say work alongside us in a united front.
Others have abandoned socialist ideas of equality and real power for working class people as dreams- as Polly Toynbee says 'where will the money come from? we, in the Socialist Alliance, of course answer, at the Kin However, if this is the only argument how will we answer those who point to the past crises of left reformist governments?
At the best, there is a flight of cap. ital so that reforms become increas ingly difficult to finance and ar conomic crisis is provoked. At the worst, as in Allende's Chile or Sandanista Nicaragua the economic crisis is accompanied by imperialist sponsored civil disturbance and In Chile workers were demanding arms to be able to defend the factories and ine gains reformist government but Allende, in the name of placating the bourgeoisie and not being too left, led them to catastrophic defeat.
In Nicaragua similarly the working class and arming, the bourgeois needed complete expropriation.
can be instructive because deformed its workers' HOWCYCH state (in my opinion right from the start) nevertheless workers and nestants were able to repei a Us invasion and hold on to some of the