No subject

basis is our continuity with the program of revolutionary Marxism. But if
that is meant in a sort of all-encompassing way, then it really doesn't
explain it, for if it justifies the existence of the one group, it negates
any basis for the existence of the others. 

If meant in a looser, "within the ballpark" sort of way, then it would
certainly justify the existence of a Socialist Alliance just as much as of
these narrower groups. I would say it justifies the united group EVEN MORE
than the narrow ones, for it is largely what they have in common that keeps
them going, not what differentiates one from the other.

Now it may seem odd to be referring to an international programmatic or
ideological heritage as a material basis. But that's certainly what is going
on -- revolutionary socialists are not just the expression of what workers
in, say, Adelaide may have been up to as a class in the last few weeks: we
stand on a whole history and tradition of struggles and movements.

That said, no one really joins a group because it adheres to the state
capitalist theses as opposed to the deformed/degenerated workers state
explanation. In most cases most people join the first or one of the first
groups they come across and that most often because of a combination of
being impressed by the activists or activities the group is involved with
AND fairly general socialist conclusions that really would fit in any group.

At any rate, whatever basis there might be for the existence of the
full-program groups, is also the material basis for the existence of a
less-than-full-program group that reflects the actual level of unity that
socialists in Australia have achieved. 

Thus the real question becomes not whether there is a sufficient material
basis for a united group, but whether there is a sufficient material basis
to maintain both a united socialist organization AND the fuller-program
groups. 

If there isn't a basis for a union of all revolutionary socialists, what
possible justification and basis can there be for EACH trend to be building
ITS OWN narrow qualitatively narrower formation? That in such messianic
groups, it is easier to whip people up into making greater financial
contributions and investments of energy and time? That may well NOT be a
good thing!

It is true that a well-organized homogeneous and highly motivated group can
have a political impact tremendously disproportionate to its numbers. It
seems you can "bluff" to having a political weight much greater than your
numbers. You can, in effect, cheat. But you do so at a heavy price, of
creating an organization that is simply unlivable for regular working
people, and therefore can never really be organically rooted in the class. 

So, to wind up, I will just ask the question -- why does it seem to us that
a narrow sect needs no material explanation or justification for being,
whereas the unity of revolutionary socialists is said to require much
weightier forces in motion? Why do we privilege the narrow form of
organization over the broader?

Joaquin