Red-Dawn-Stopping-Socialist-Entryism-in-Enviro-Collectives

A zine by some folks of our experiences of ‘interventions’ by SocialistOrganisations in collective spaces working on environmental justice.

About the Red Dawn ZineWe are a bunch of environmental justice activists in Sydney, who have been involved in student andcommunity climate activism for a bunch of years.Some Socialist Organisations in Sydney have been very interested in some of our collective and movement/networkspaces and events: particularly Socialist Alliance and their youth wing Resistance, anda newer organisation, Solidarity. Some folks from these organisations have simply attended events wehave been part of organising; some folks act as a pressure group or ‘caucus’ within collectives; somegroups have been identified as a ‘focus’ for these organisations for their political work and recruitment,whilst some have experienced a more aggressive ‘intervention’ to change the processes and politics ofthe group, or explicitely to divide and damage the group. To be clear, it’s not commie ideas and idealsthat piss us off (we even share many of these), it’s destructive behaviour - as an organisation/faction- that is disrespectful, undermines collective organising, and wastes our time.Our experiences have been varied, and the impacts of these interventions on our collectives, movementsand us personally have been huge. We’re aware that our experiences aren’t new - but wehaven’t been able to find much support, resources or literature. We have tried to document some ofour experiences so we can learn from them, to share them with others, and to contribute to thinkingabout how we sustain struggles for justice over the long-term (in ways that don’t hurt us, too much),how we can defend spaces we organise in, and how we can build stronger movements.These are our accounts, and whilst we’ve discussed and debriefed ad nauseum, there are other interpretationsof what happened.The images in this zine are all from a1984 movie called ‘Red Dawn’ that depictsa Soviet Union invasion of the UnitedStates, starring a bunch of American highschool kids who resist the occupation withguerrilla warfare, and call themselves Wolverines,after their school mascot. Thefilm is probably really conservative andcrap - we haven’t seen it, we don’t know.But the images are apt, and serve a beautifulnarrative for this zine, which is a homageto the mega babe Patrick Swayze,recently deceased. Rest in peace.“I want you to be nice... until it’s time tonot be nice.”- Patrick Swayze in ‘Road House’.

tually those involved in coercive political practicemight stop. We maintain pluralism by declaring it,asserting the autonomy of the plural over the loudvoices. This has been the SEAC experience. Wedecided not to drop out, but to start again, to createa space where we did what we came to do, toact. We tried to reconcile, but that brought onlymore pain, people thought that maybe after beingso strong, we could negotiate on equal footing, butreally, if you reject the pluralist idea, you will alwaysreject autonomy, so why bother.Sydney University now has two functioning autonomousenvironment collectives. There was no split.Conventional wisdom says that splits sap away allour power as a group in the things that we did andthat all of a sudden we would all be useless. Well,both collectives have organised effectively, bothhave engaged new students. Everyone has got towork in a supportive space on things they want towork on, and the environment movement benefitsfrom that. We can only define our success by whatwe actually do, not what happens in meetings. Andif you have to bifurcate to do it, don’t be scared, theonly scary thing you have to lose, are your chains.

self defence for autonomous collectivestactics that socialists employ and counter-strategies to stop entryism…Entryism (wiki says!) ‘is a political tactic by which an organisation or state encourages its members oragents to infiltrate another organisation in an attempt to gain recruits, or take over entirely. (We say) itis controlling, arrogant, vanguardist and disrespectful to try to manipulate, and take control of, anothergroup against their will. It shows a lack of respect for the organising and ideas of others.If you have a sneaking suspicion that there are some reds weaseling their way into the criso clean sheetsof your autonomous bed… Here’s a handy checklist of common entryist behaviours.Behaviour Definition EffectsFactionalismPeople are working for the interestof other groups, and have no realcommitment to making the autonomouscollective work.- makes people work against eachother, so destroys trust- wastes time politicking instead ofactivising- inflexible positions rather than acommitment to learning, discussionand working with the groupVotingSome groups use voting. Other groupsuse consensus and these are bothpolitical decisions. When Socialistsconsistently argue agaist consensusdespite the decisions of the group,this is a problem- leads to weak agreements and lesscommitment to following through- lack of diversity- forces people to agree/act when theydon’t want toInsistence onunity at all costsPeople polarise debatesYou’re either with them or againstthem, e.g. solar panels are lifestylistand protests are radical.Everyone must agree to the position(which is their position).- leads to weak agreements and lesscommitment to following through- forces people to agree/act when theydon’t want to- less creativity because of lack ofdiversity- dogma blinds people to theirmistakesInsistence onpositioningrather thanactivismContinually pushing the group todecide their stance on issues- inefficient waste of time- a weak consensus on positionscreates a false sense of unity, whensome people don’t care or agree

Unsafe meetingprocedure,includinginterrupting andabuse- People from one group speak manytimes and dominate discussion- People from one group all take issuewith your group’s processes, e.g. theyhate consensus- People declare that the processesor participants agreement that theyare breaking is invalid becauses it isbeurocratic anyway…- inefficient meetings- discourages participation by makingmeetings awful, aggressive andfrustrating- members of the group may feel lessconfident to develop their own ideasand analyses if themselves or othersare attacked in meetingsCaucusingOther groups disuss your group intheir own meetings and don’t tell youwhat they talked about- inflexible positions rather than acommitment to learning, discussionand working with the group- working against others in the movementwastes time and destroys trustStackingPeople from one group come inincreasing numbers, who aren’tactively part of the collective. Forexample, ten new people show upto a meeting where a big decision isto be made; and you never see themagain. People from this group will votethe same way before celebrating asuccessful stacking!- weakens the strength and value ofconsensus. If decisions are made bypeople who have no long-term interestin the result, then there will be weakerfollow up- disempowering for those who do careIn our experiences, Solidarity and Socialist Alliance activists rarely disclose their involvement in theseorganisations in movement spaces, preferring instead to say they are from a garden-variety community orstudent group. Other common behaviours are less destructive (though often fairly boring) include puttingup motion after motion declaring positions; consistently nominating to be spokespeople for the groupand authors of political statements; recruiting from the group for their own organisation; and taking upall of the time in the group/event by ensuring their hands are up first and often, ensuring their comradesalso repeat their line. Certainly, it’s possible for folks in Socialist Organisations to also participate incollectives, networks and movements respectfully - many do.Wolverine kids HEART the riot dog in Greece! Solidarity against oppressive states!

So, it looks like you’ve got b(r)ed bugs…?Here’s a step by step self defence guide, based on some group work that happened in an anti-entryismworkshop that we (the compilers of charts and checklists!) designed and ran at an activist training day.Step 1: Building and maintaining strong foundationsHave strong and documented processes for decision making. For example, people might need tocome to two or three meetings before they can bock consensus. Run workshops on consensus andfacilitation, so that all of the people in your group have access to, and confidence with, these skills.Have a Participants’ Agreement [google ‘Bill Moyer Participants’ Agreement for a commonlyusedexample]. You could also have a grievance procedure, an appointed grievance officer, andtransparent processes for dealing with unacceptable and unsafe behaviour.Consider having a closed group: membership by invitation only, with a trial period for newcomers. Thisgoes against the ethos of openness but is quite appropriate when faced with overtly hostile infiltration,such as informers in repressive regimes.Less formally, new people could express interest in joining your group, and need to meet up withsomeone already in the group before they come along to a meeting. You could use this meeting toget to know them, explain how the group makes decisions, and see if they are interested in organisingin this way. Or, new members could be admitted with the agreement of the group. Other groupswe know of require new members to come along to two or three meetings BEFORE they can blockconsensus on an agenda item: this easy and reasonable tool can help avoid stacking, and facilitatebetter and more consistent decision-making.You could even rethink your methods of action so that they are less attractive to those who have otheragendas. Our guess is that rallies, for example, are more attractive to takeover tactics than boycotts orneighbourhood organising.Step 2: The follow throughUSE the processes you have put in place. If people object to the processes, then you can discussthem, but be warned against long conversations about processes that drive away people who don’tknow what’s going on. Also, the people objecting to your processes might be wasting your time bypretending the object to processes but actually just want to have their way in the group.So, if people refuse to stick to processes, you can talk to them outside of the group to see whattheir real concerns are, and to stress the importance of safe meeting spaces. Try to convince themindividually to stick to meeting procedures that the group has committed to because that’s how you can

work together best in a way that makes everybody feel safe.Following through on your safe meeting procedures might mean that the grievance officer bringsconcerns to people who break the rules and ask them to change their behaviour or else leave thegroup.Step 3: The enforcementIf talking to people individually doesn’t work, then you can try to talk to people as a group. Organise ameet up of people like you who want to have safe and fun meetings, and talk about they way forward.Don’t feel alone! There’s probably loads of others who feel the same way.As a group, you could write a document or letter outlining all the behaviours you find problematic inyour collective and the reasons why they need to change. Send this to your collective e-list, as well asto the organisation that is doing the entryism. Ask for behaviours to change and don’t feel that you arebeing imposing for demanding a safe space to organise in.Step 4: Declare autonomyIf things don’t get better, and the people who are making meetings awful refuse to leave the group,then don’t feel bound by history that ties your group together. Declare your own autonomy! Set up anew group and feel free to make new rules that exclude people who abuse your processes.Make it clear that the new group requires everyone to stick to the participants agreement orautomatically have to leave. Be explicit in your commitment to collective principles like consensus andnon-hierarchical organising. People who don’t agree with these principles should see that your groupis clearly about collective organising hence they willnot be welcome.Tell everyone else in your network about whathappened! You can ask for help earlier from thenetwork too if you are stuck for ideas on howto move forward. That’s what networks are for.Send out an email to the various groups that youare involved in to let them know that your grouphas changed and why. Ask for support for yourgroup and you can even ask them to disengagewith the old group because it was destructive anddominated by entryist groups with sinister motives.Step 5: Celebrate!Getting rid of entryist groups was probablystressful. So now sit back and enjoy your new andsafe space, do the campaigns that you want todo and celebrate your victory in creating a vibrantspace for strong activism.Remember to keep watch in case the samething happens again – stick to your participantsagreement and make the space great.These experiences are characteristically drainingand exhausting, and take a huge personal toll.Don’t give the conflict all your energy, and do whatyou can to support each other.

What are the politics?Whenever the problems in Sydney Uni Enviro Collectivelast year were brought up in the wider world,people kept asking “what are the politics?” Supportersof the intervention into collective (by somemembers of the socialist organisation Solidarity)claimed that the implosion of collective was causedby the refusal of other collective participants to engagein “political discussion.” This claim spread beyondthe collective, and various people who hadnever been to collective confidently explained thatthe “real issue” was this supposed absence of politicaldebate. Paddy Gibson (who had not been toany of the relevant meetings, or in fact any meetingsat all in 2009) claimed that “there has not beenaccountable and open debate about what the SRCshould do about climate change” in collective.But I think that this isn’t really true. And I think thatthis claim is symptomatic of the lack of respect withwhich Solidarity as an organisation has recentlytreated other groups and individuals in the left.There was a political debate, and the rest of collectivehad a political response to Solidaity’s positions.The fact that Solidarity members did not listen to orengage with this response in more than the mostsuperficial manner is what I want to describe anddiscuss here.The debate which Solidarity wanted to have centredaround a couple of main demands. They demandedthat collective concentrate all of its energyon one particular campaign. This campaign was,chronologically, against the Nuclear Institute (2007)against Energy privatisation (2008) and againstthe CPRS (2009). They argued that, generally,no other campaign should be organised throughcollective (because of the need to build a “massmovement”), and specifically, that a “On CampusCampaign” about renewable energy would be lifestylist,capitalist, and wrong. They argued that collectiveshould give up its commitment to pluralismand consensus decision making.Collective members made coherent, political argumentsagainst each of these demands. Theypointed out that a “mass-movement” need not bemobilised on a single issue (especially where thatsingle issue is as narrowly constructed as a particularcampaign tactic against a single piece oflegislation). If you want a mass movement againstcapitalism, surely the different aspects of capitalismwhich people are oppressed by are togethercapable of building a mass, anti capitalist movement.Do Solidarity members expect that we canonly have a campaign on CPRS, and that IndigenousElders on Muckaty station have to be mobilisedby CPRS and not be motivated by their longstruggle for sovereignty and the right not to be exposedto radioactive waste? Of course they don’t.It would be cool if we can extend to non-Solidaritymembers the right not to have to believe doggerel.They pointed out that the collective could help tobuild a “mass movement” through continuing tocampaign on their preferred issues: anti coal campaigning,anti CPRS campaigning (2008and 2009), renewable energy on campuscampaigning, anti-nuclear campaigning,forest campaigning, and others (includingeach of the campaigns Solidarity putforward). They pointed out that it wasn’ta very strong argument to claim that increasingthe number of people on acampaign from 7 to 20 would be the crucialstep in showing our commitment to“mass movement” politics. They affirmedtheir political commitment to pluralismand diversity of tactics. They explainedthe political reasoning behind each oftheir campaigns, at length and ad nauseam,because Solidarity repeatedly askedthem too.

As for the last two demands of Solidarity, lets lookat some “political” arguments made by each side.Consensus Organising:Solidarity members argued that consensus organisingwas:“Formalised consensus is, in real terms, enforcedunanimous voting. Consensus puts people are putunder bureaucratic pressure to alter their opinion. Itis an ‘exclusion principle’ – i.e., reach consensus orblock the decision or leave the collective.”The briefest examination of any kind of explanationwould have set the record straight, let alone the longand carefully explained thoughts written by variouscollective members. Consensus does not meaneverybody agrees, it is a process to work throughdisagreement. As is voting. Collective membersexplained the political basis for consensus decisionmaking (that individuals should have a sayin decisions that will effect them, and that majoritydecision making silences dissent). They explainedhow dissent should be encouraged in a functioningcollective space, and how dissent was a means ofexpressing how proposals could be amended andimproved. They explained pragmatic ways of makingconsensus as democratic as possible: comingto meetings with a real commitment to workingthings out, suggesting amendments, self facilitatingand helping to make collective a supportiveand respectful space. They acknowledged that anysystem is imperfect, and that consensus requiresconstant work and that there are important discussionsto be had about it. But not “majority rules =democracy” and “consensus is forced unanimity.”Because that’s really boring. However, variousmembers of the Solidarity intervention continued tomake 2-dimensional and uninformed claims aboutwhat consensus was. The fact that the majority ofpeople wanted consensus organising to operate inthe collective, seemed to completely go over theheads of those claiming “majority is democracy.”“On Campus Campaign”The key issue for non-Solidarity members of collectivein this particular debate was a commitmentto pluralism, and a belief that collective could supportmore than one campaign at once. But theyalso engaged in the political debate about themerits of this campaign that Solidarity insisted onrepeating in every meeting,Solidarity argued that fitting the University with solarpanels was equivalent to energy privatisationand lifestylism. For example, one Solidarity memberargued that:“This strikes to the heart of the political issue –whether what is needed to stop climate change is amass movement which confronts the government’s‘false solutions’ and demands structural change,or whether ‘empowering’ small scale projects thatseek to get communities ‘off the grid’ should be ourfocus. The latter suggestion stems from lifestylism,which has been influential in the collective over thepast few years.”They went even further, claiming that the SydneyEnergy Co-op was a capitalist agent of the worstkind:“Also, inviting and promoting the Sydney Energyco-op, a group that installs solar panels (as well asenergy efficient light bulbs and green education), tospeak at the forum, also indicates otherwise. Whywould you give them a platform to speak at a forumabout campus sustainability if you didn’t seriouslythink that was possible way to ‘green the university’or reduce carbon emissions?”And, “There is the issue of whether the renewablesare bought from private companies, rather thandemanding government installation of solar. I don’tthink that getting the uni to purchase solar from theco-op will go any way to exposing government inactionon climate change.”With everybody in collective for the past few yearsliberally stamped with big glaring “lifestylism” trademark,Solidarity supporters went on to argue thatONLY a campaign which LOBBIED the GOVERN-MENT could be successful. ONLY the GOVERN-MENT has any kind of power or could have anykind of power. For example, they wrote:“What are people meant to do with this power onceit is realised? If it is not to oppose governmentalpolicy, then what is it?”The ONLY POWER we have then is to oppose governmentpolicy. The only other conceivable actionis consumer power (“lifestylism”). WHAT ABOUTREVOLUTION, PEOPLE? Have Marxists movedon? Or did recruiting numbers in the war on collectivebecome more important than actually explainingMarxist politics?

What are the politics? (continued)Revolutionary Marxism circa 2009:“I think the point is to work internally to changeparts of the system, the point is that the voice of theworking classes must be heard over the loud lobbyof the big businesses- in direct unequivocal opposition.The point is not, on an individual level, to kidourselves that by consciously abstaining from thesystem we are helping to change it.. It is desirablein our everyday lives and for our sanity- sure!““In response to taking direct action against the coaland other industries- Katherine [sic] you seem tohave promoted this. We agree of course that this isa strong mean of action (climate camp etc), howeverI find it hard to believe that with the billions ofdollars- and counting- proposed to be thrown intothese industries under the CPRS, these businessesare going to pack up their stuff and leave! It is thepolicy itself that must be targeted! It is the policyitself that is targeted when we reach out to workersand students and tell them why,under the CPRS, they will be theones affected.”So, without a policy, there is NOWAY that change could ever beachieved through action of thepeople. Its gotta come from thegovernment. The working classesno longer revolt, they simplytalk loudly and the systemchanges from within. Is that whatMarxism has become? Pleasegovernment, revolutionise US.Marx must be a grumpy grumpydead white man. If only he hadrealized, all along, that it wouldbe THIS EASY.Ok, back to the historical debate.Did collective members quakebefore the strength of these arguments,panic, shut up, andrun around in circles of distress?The e-list history suggests not.Collective members explainedthat they were not “lifestylists”– if this was taken to mean apolitical position which placespersonal, lifestyle choices at theheart of the struggle against climatechange. They explainedthat while for some people theseactions could be empowering,

they did not think that they would alone stop climatechange. Instead they talked about the potentialpower of community action to disrupt pollutingindustries and demand renewable energy. Theypointed out problems with using the term “lifestylism”so broadly that it seemed to include any actionof personal choice. They gave long and thoughtfulanalyses of power in the modern world, and gavevarious reasons as to why government lobbyingwas not their chosen avenue of achieving socialchange and environmental justice. They explained,so so patiently, the difference between “lifestylism”and community direct action.They pointed out that the university is funded by thegovernment, and that forcing a large governmentfunded institution to install solar panels would bea good step in the fight for government support ofrenewable energy. And that a Coop is hardly a “privatecompany.” (One young solidarity member wasconcerned that Stuart Rosewarne “might not wantto speak at a panel” with Maurice from the EnergyCoop). They pointed out that really, at some stagerenewable energy technologies do need to be builtand put on buildings. And that, while the governmentshould pay for this, it doesn’t make sense tosuggest that it would be wrong for engineers to actuallyput them on buildings. Cos probably, actualpoliticians would be pretty incompetent at this kindof caper.Their main arguments, that solar power was privatisation,was even given up after a senior memberof Solidarity pointed out that it was dross. Unfortunately,we cant all wait around for Paddy to getwith it and let people know if their arguments makesense or not.So, looking back, I don’t think its true to claim thatcollective refused to have a political debate. Collectivemembers defended their campaigns and theirpolitics thoughtfully, intelligently, and patiently. Thesame cannot be said for most of the argumentspresented by the Solidarity intervention and itssupporters. I don’t think that this was because Solidaritymembers are stupid, or because they aren’tcommitted to radical politics. I think that the lack ofintellectual rigour in these arguments stems from alack of respect for the people to whom they werebeing made. Solidarity said collective had to bepolitical, but then when push came to shove theydidn’t like the politics it had, and so went on to disruptit with distinctly undemocratic tactics. Becausethose involved in the Solidarity intervention did notrespect the politics of collective or its members,they did not listen to the arguments other collectivemembers were making. Members of the interventionshowed a similar lack of respect for dissentingvoices with Solidarity itself. This intellectual snobberyis counterproductive. It didn’t make collective“more radical.” It didn’t build a mass movement. Itreduced capacity in collective. It hampered real politicaldiscussion. It shut down space for constructivedisagreement and creative, alternative solutions.It worsened Solidarity’s reputation amongstpeople who would have liked to be supportive ofits goals.Solidarity have always prided themselves on theirsweet sweet analysis. And that’s cool. It’s coolto analyse things, to pick apart the universe andimagine how to put it back together again. It’s coolto understand the theoretical underpinnings of ourdaily oppressions. But its not cool to think that youranalysis is so good that you literally stop listeningto people that you haven’t already decided thatyou agree with. Is the Left really that disparate thatthere is actually no point talking about politics witheach other? If you listen, maybe we could have betterdebates. If Solidarity wants to be a productivepart of the left, then it is going to have to respectother people in it. It is going to have to deal with thefact that while people on the left have a lot in common,NOT EVERYONE AGREES ABOUT EVERY-THING. And that’s okay. It’s how you deal with thatthat matters, that’s political, that’s radical, that’sempowering. If we are gonna keep with the debating“winner takes all” model, that’s just not radicalat all, frankly. That’s what we already have.

Recent interventions in theCommunity Climate NetworkI have not been extensively involved in the CommunityClimate Action Network, and there areprobably many others who have more to say abouttheir experiences of socialist interventions in thatnetwork. However, from reading a report writtenby one of the organisers of the network, WennyTheresia (who has not been involved in writing thispiece), it is clear that there are many parallels betweenthe entryism and interventions experiencedin the Community network, and my own and others’experiences in the student environment movement.The Community Climate Action Network- the networkof local Climate Action Groups (CAGs), firstmet on a national level at the Australia’s Climate ActionSummit (ACAS) in early 2009. Wenny Theresiaexpressed concerns that the Network FacilitationGroup (NFG), conceived as a mechanism for communicationand sharing support, would become adecision-making space used to exert control overthe grassroots climate movement. She states:“I have particular concerns that specific groups inthe climate movement, namely the Socialist Allianceand Solidarity, may come to dominate representationon the NFG, and then informally use itas a vehicle to wield influence over the rest of themovement.”She also states:“[I}n my experience, I have not found people ingroups like Socialist Alliance and Solidarity to becompletely honest and transparent about internalorganisational decisions that may impact groupmembers’ involvement in the rest of the movement.”The report points out that larger organisations suchas the Socialist Alliance have the ability to ‘assignresources’ in the movement, as the organisationsees fit. Dishonesty about internal organisationaldecisions that affect participation in the movement,and dominating spaces that “are or are may be promotedas ‘authoritative’ or influential’” are behaviourswe have seen in many other groups includingstudent movements, not just the grassroots climatemovement.Another behavior common to student and communityclimate movements was acting as a bloc tostack out a meeting and get the group to decideon the position of the bloc. An example from thecommunity vlimate movement is that of the SocialistAlliance in the organising of the 2009 ClimateEmergency rallies:“[M]embers of Socialist Alliance, in favour of including[a demand for 100% renewable energy by 2020]were very vocal in arguing for this position, includingin the national rally coordinating space whereSocialist Alliance members comprised the majorityof representatives to this space. Indeed in SimonButler’s report, it is mentioned that ‘we (the SocialistAlliance) waged a successful campaign to keep[100% renewables by 2020] as the chief demandfor the June 13 rallies.’”As a solution to the domination of Socialist (or other)groups in the community climate movement,the report advocates self-facilitation, for individualsand groups, as a way to ensure that no one interestdominates a movement. This is a particularly relevantpoint for the Climate Action Network, which islargely comprised of Climate Action Groups, as themembers of these groups are mostly not involvedin other groups. Their involvement in the CAGs andthe network is their main way of being involved inthe climate movement. This is also the case formany members of campus environment collectives.Often, the environment collective is the onlypolitical group members are involved in, apart fromstate and national level student environment organising.Members may not have an outside spaceto debate, discuss and agree on policy and tacticsbefore attending meetings - in fact, members maythink that the meetings of these groups themselvesare the space for this! But members of socialist or-

ganisations have participated quite differently, precaucasingand deciding on positions before attendingmeetings.Autonomists, anarchists, unidentified lefties and allpeople who want to fight for climate justice shouldcontinue to participate in the environment movementand in open campaigning coalitions such asthe Climate Action Network in good faith and withopen minds (if we are not bloody exhausted byworking with people who show a fundamental lackof respect for your ideas and ways of organising– ifthis is the case, good on you.) But we should beaware of socialist (and other) organisations’ superiorresources- in terms of time and money- andtheir ability to ‘assign’ them to certain campaigns.There have been cases of senior activists in socialistgroups being paid for their work, the maincomponent of which appears to be intervening inand recruiting from social movements. This is particularlyproblematic in university environment collectiveswhere full- and part-time students, who areoften also workers, have to compete with full-timeactivists in a dictatorship of the most committed.We should be aware of pre-caucasing and decision-makingin outside organisations that affectmovements we are involved in, and call for greateraccountability and transparency. We shouldbe aware of, and develop mechanisms to guardagainst, the stacking of meetings- such as strongmembership processes. We should be aware of thecentralisation of decision-making and power in ourmovements such as the example of the NetworkFacilitation Group in the Climate Action Network.

.... and it’s all just a little bit ofhistory repeating.They say the next big thing is hereThat the revolution’s nearBut to me it seems quite clearThat it’s all just a little bit of history repeatingAnd I’ve seen it beforeAnd I’ll see it againYes I’ve seen it beforeJust little bits of history repeating- Sung by Shirley Bassey and The PropellerheadsI have been active in social movements for about adecade – in student groups and community climatejustice networks – and have faced a variety ofstrategies from Socialist organisations. Sometimeswe have been able to work together, and somemembers have been our friends and allies; but I havefound their behaviour as a faction in collectives – oras an organisation at conferences, summits and largeactions – to be difficult, disruptive and destructive.Sometimes it’s hard to pinpoint exactly what it is, orunderstand why they might be interested in our groups.It’s been helpful for me to talk to people in Socialistorganisations/factions about their organisationalstructure, and understand how they think changehappens. [Mostly, the response is: ‘building therevolutionary workers’ party that can get masses ofworkers onto the streets’].It’s also been helpful to know these tactics andinterventions have been happening for decades(and longer!): there are lessons to be learnt. [In fact,resistance to organised “entryism” has been aroundsince Trotsky’s first proposed the strategy in hisessays on “The French Turn” in 1934. The interveningFrench Trotskyists faced some resistance as theyattempted to dissolve their organisation into theFrench Socialist Party, however they still managedto significantly raise their group’s membership. But,soon after, the French Socialist Party began to expelthe Trotskyists. Hooray! …Or not? Anyhoo, I thinkthe take home message here is, “You are not alone.This has been happening since forever.”]Currently, the strongest ‘entryist’ organisations inthe burgeoning climate movement in Sydney areSolidarity and Socialist Alliance (which is mostlymade up of people from the Democratic SocialistPerspective (DSP) and their youth wing, Resistance).So far, Socialist Alternative have participated verylittle in Sydney-based climate organising.But interventionist or ‘entryist’ strategies are notnew to these organisations and political tendencies.Sourcewatch describes entryism as “a political tacticin which an organisation or group enters a largerorganisation in an attempt to gain recruits, gaininfluence or to take control of the larger organisations’structure. Characteristically, these groups intervenein single-issue campaign groups, and sometimescause folks to spend more time on dealing withinternal wrangling, than with organising work itself.Beyond individual groups, both organisationscurrently prioritise participation in ‘peak’ decisionmakingspaces, in which many groups participate(campaign alliances, national network committees,committees to organise major rallies or largemovement events like Climate Camp). They alsoprioritise student spaces, which they identify as the

key grounds for recruitment to their organisation.Student environment collectives – some of the onlyactive networks to survive the Howard Government’sgutting of student unionism – are seen as the largestand strongest student movement, and have facedsustained and sometimes aggressive entryism.Recently, Wenny Theresia wrote of participationin the growing community climate movement, “Anorganisational philosophy of groups like SocialistAlliance and Solidarity seems to be seeing highlycharged,lengthy and (deliberately) polarised debates– dominated by a few, pre-caucused positions ofthese organisations – as ‘politicising’ and beneficialfor the movement. Personally I’ve generally foundthese methods patronising, counter-effective,frustrating and often predictable: not a method thatsupports critical, grassroots discussion of ideas andconsensus decision-making.”To be fair, I know many ordinary, new or youngermembers are completely unaware of the entryisttactics and strategies their organisations employ,while others don’t take issue with manipulatingother groups for their own agendas (but see this asuseful work to ‘politicise’ or ‘radicalise’ what theysee as ‘liberal’ groups). I acknowledge members ofthese organisations have a right to put forward theirviews, act around their beliefs and join social changegroups. But such groups also have the right to defendthemselves – and defend consensus-based and nonhierarchicalorganising structures – against thosewho undermine them by participating with ulteriormotives and hidden agendas.I tracked down a handful of people’s stories of a rangeof entryist strategies. I called folks who were involvedin the group at the time for a conversation. All of themare still grassroots activists. I’ve not doubt there areother interpretations of history and I haven’t done indepth historical research – these are just snippets ofpeople’s experiences.Nuclear Disarmament Party 1985In the 1984 federal elections, 642,435 people hadcast their primary vote for the Nuclear DisarmamentParty: it was a new political party, hastily put togetherand fast gaining thousands of members. They wonone Senate seat (Western Australia’s Jo Valentine,with Peter Garrett almost winning their second).Before the Conference – defending the NDPThe March 1985 Newsletter of the Sydney branchof the Nuclear Disarmament Party reported thatmembers of the Socialist Workers Party (later calledthe Democratic Socialist Perspective, and todayforming the Socialist Alliance) were trying to takeover the NDP by entryism and block-voting. TheNovember 21 issue of the newspaper of the SWPand Resistance announced its entire staff had joinedthe NDP.The letter (available here: http://mailstar.net/NDP-March85-p8.jpg and here http://mailstar.net/NDP-March85-p9.jpg) said:…SWP members organise themselves tightlyoutside NDP circles to ensure their interestsas a group are pushed with maximum effectwithin the NDP. Many members in Sydneyand in other cities have become aware of a“block” which always argues and votes thesame way. Of course, there is nothing wrong inprinciple with NDP members getting togetherto advance their views on what’s best for theNDP. It happens all the time. It’s a legitimatepart of any democratic organisation. But whenthose people organise tightly to pursue theinterests of an outside group, whose interestsare separate from those of NDP, that is anothermatter!! For example, the SWP stands itsown candidates in elections, and one of itsprimary purposes in working within the NDP isto recruit members to the SWP. Flowing fromtheir view of the need to work within othergroups, the SWP has a history of “takeovers”of other organisations. SWP members portraythemselves as loyal members with no desireother than the well being of the host group.However, whenever it becomes possible theSWP assumes control of the host group anduses it for it’s own ends.…The Nuclear Disarmament Party is and mustremain a broadly based popular movementwhich will not be viable if it polarises to the leftor the right.If we were to allow members of the SWP tobecome, or to remain, leading members ofthe NDP, we should lose, or fail ever to gain,the support of the great body of the Australianpublic. Of that there can be no doubt.There are compelling reasons for the viewthat members of other political parties shouldeither be proscribed from joining or remainingas ordinary members of the NDP; or at leastshould be proscribed from being appointedor elected as spokespersons, office-bearers,delegates or committee members of the NDP.

.... and it’s all just a little…Our cause is peace, and it cannot goforward if we are constantly at war withthose who choose to use the NDP to pursuetheir own political ends and recruit from ourmembership.Gillian Fisher Wentworth ElectorateRob Britten North Sydney ElectorateEdward St John Warringah ElectorateSean Flood Sydney ElectorateLater, the Peace Studies journal, Edward St Johnwrote, “Once it became apparent that the SWP wasmaking a major and moderately successful effort toassert itself prominently in the affairs of the NDP,some sort of split became inevitable. Internally, theSWP was an organised, parasitic minority bent ongaining factional advantage, the better to pursue itsobjectives.”At the Nuclear Disarmament Party InauguralConferenceAnyone with an NDP membership card issued freelyfor a nominal charge, could attend the conference. Ofthe 170 people present, it was estimated that 70 wereSWP or Resistance members.There were three proposals at the conference thatthe Socialist Workers’ Party in particular, objected to:1. Proscription: a standard clause that membersof the NDP could not be members of anotherpolitical party. The SWP objected: they wantedto be members of the Socialist Workers Partyand the Nuclear Disarmament Party, as theyplanned to build the SWP through the NDP.2. Ratification of conference decisions: it wasproposed to send the conference decisions toa postal ballot of members. SWP preferredthat the meeting of members had the final say– meetings they were already ‘stacking’ withSWP members.3. A proposal that the NDP call for nucleardisarmament in the “East and West” – ie.the Nuclear Disarmament Party call forworldwide nuclear disarmament. The SWPhad a relationship with Socialist parties inthe ‘East’ / Soviet leadership; and wished toonly call for the United States of America todisarm. Socialist Alliance’s newspaper GreenLeft Weekly claimed the proposal “equatedSoviet and US responsibility for the nucleararms race” and was “unnecessary concessionto the US war machine.”The Socialist Workers Party created an untenablesituation: the Nuclear Disarmament Party wasunable to call for global nuclear disarmament.At the conference, the Socialist Workers Party blockedvoting on any resolutions proposed, particularly thosemost in dispute. Out of frustration, people moved thatproposals not voted on be submitted to a referendumof NDP members. This was opposed by the SWP,and defeated 87 votes to 86.NDP Senator Jo Vallentine, Peter Garrett and around80 members then walked out of the conference, andsplit from the party.After the conference - what people said aboutentryism in the NDPWestern Australian NDP Senator (later Greens Senatorand lifelong and ongoing grassroots nuclear-freeactivist) told media: “The conference was dominatedby members of SWP, who attended in order to blocka proposal that would have barred members of otherparties from membership of the NDP.”Another member, Ms Melzer said, “We wanted aparty that was not dominated by anybody. The SWPmembers are cuckoos. They wait until an organisationis formed, and then they plonk themselves in thatorganisation’s nest.”Jabiluka Uranium Mine campaign 1997Thousands of people, in scores of groups acrossAustralia, were part of a huge and successfulcampaign to support Mirrar Traditional owners to stopthe Jabiluka uranium mine in the Kakadu NationalPark.As actions began to take place in cities, the MirrarTraditional Owners, and their organisation, theGundjemi Corporation, created a framework forpeople to act in solidarity with indigenous people.This protocol was set up specifically to managethe emerging situation of Socialist organisationsbeginning to intervene and direct the campaign.The Mirrar’s protocol applied to groups wishing to

it of history repeating (cont’d)One member says, “Since then, our strategy hasbeen to not have an argument with them and not getinto bed with them - and keep our distance. To becourteous and respectful, without getting too close.I guess our strategy is to side-step them, politely,and to never be part of alliances in which they candominate.”Some Lessons LearnedOne member says, “Socialist Alliance are quitetenacious – they real tenacity and commitment, theywork quite hard. It sounds like they have their teethnow in the community climate movement to a similarextent that that they did with NSW Greens in the early1990s.“[Socialist Alliance’s] strategy is, if there’s anorganisation that’s on the move in terms of rapidlygrowing membership, or getting media, or growingassets, they try to move in to control and capitalise.But it has the opposite effect: the broader membershipgets annoyed at the domination and unethicalbehaviour and practice, and they leave.”“When they’re moving in on your group, it’s verydifficult, you might need to develop some rules aboutwho can and can’t be office holders. Because, oncethey’re in there as full members, it’s very difficult. Youcould confront them and the issue directly, put it asan agenda item at meetings, and talk about how it isaffecting the group. If people start speaking openlyabout it, maybe they will need to pull back.”Climate Camp 2008A broad collective mostly from Sydney and Newcastle(but also Brisbane, Melbourne, Adelaide and Perth)faced disruptive tactics from various members ofSolidarity (who were also simultaneously disruptingthe Sydney University Environment Collective).as a coal port. By labelling this as the number onepriority of the Camp and the climate campaign, theCamp has taken the focus off the domestic polluters.”Solidarity preferred “the action… targeted stategovernment offices or power stations, as well ascorporate vandals in Newcastle.” (Not sure who thatwould be, aside from say, the companies runningworld’s largest coal port?)At Climate Camp 2008, Solidarity attempted toorganise against the Climate Camp decision-makingspace (spokescouncils), arguing ad nauseum overthe meeting process, and taking up a lot of time (therewere only a handful of hours available for the entirecamp to meet – Solidarity forced much of this time tobe wasted debating the merits of mass voting versusspokescouncils).Solidarity also pushed hard for groups to approve theirstatement/demands at Climate Camp, which restatedexisting event propaganda (but eventually people justapproved it to be able to move on). Solidarity claimedtheir statement “injected a much-needed connectionbetween the tactics of the day, and the inaction ofthe Rudd Government,” [because, uh, maybe peoplehadn’t made that connection themselves?]The behaviour of Solidarity was strongly resisted andcondemned by most at Climate Camp. Facilitatorsof the spokescouncils had a very difficult time (whichin the Climate Camp 2008 evaluation, participantsoverwhelming complimented facilitators on a goodjob under difficult circumstances).One spokescouncil facilitator and long-termcommunity activist wrote to the organising collectiveafter the camp:“Socialists were difficult to deal with. We need toWhilst invited consistently, Solidarity members failedto attend a single organising or working group meetingin the nine-month organising period.Solidarity took issue with the target – the largest coalport on earth, set to triple in size. They wrote, “Ratherthan focus on concrete demands that could mobiliselarge numbers on an ongoing basis, the focus of theCamp is once again on coal exports and Newcastle

prepare for more belligerent tactics as the climatemovement grows. Their version of democracy doesn’tintegrate the idea of action teams and the autonomousorganising (that, in my view was extremely effective atthe camp), and that was an important part of climatecamp.“We need to be prepared for tactics that will try andimpose their mode of operating, as well as beingcompletely accountable and clear about decisionmakingprocesses.“[Also, as facilitators], we should have calledthem on trying to send multiple representativesfor the spokescouncil for what was essentiallythe same action teams.” [Solidarity scatteredthemselves around a meeting of hundredsof people so they could speak more often.]Climate Camp 2009In 2009, Solidarity again did not participate in anyorganising, but did criticise Climate Camp before theevent: “As a focus for climate activism it is somewhatdisorienting… Lots of the coal mining in Australia isfor export to China and India. Opposing these exportscan play into the common argument that China andIndia’s development needs to be held back... Chinaand India have a right to better living standards andwe should not shut off their steel supply.” After theevent, Paddy Gibson wrote on Solidarity’s website,“Targeting coking coal mines digging for export shootsyourself in the foot.”Socialist Alliance was involved and supported, tosome extent, the organising of the camp, particularlybecause of the location near Wollongong, andthe ‘strength’ of the party there. Activists (some ofwhom were paid) attended monthly all-in organisingmeetings. Disappointingly, no Socialist Alliance folkshelped with the multiple days of work setting up andpacking down the camp; nor the maintenance of thesite throughout the camp. At the camp, they prioritisedattending workshops to dominate workshop spaces,and put forward their proposals/resolutions/analysis.Some tensions stemmed from Socialist Alliancefolks acting as a bloc in meeting spaces, and a greatdeal of time and energy was wasted with attemptsto create ‘debates’ around the core messages andprinciples of Climate Camp. One organiser wrote,“It took 2 months plus to decide one sentence for thefront of an invitation... I felt frustrated. Rather thanmoving on and working on things we could agree on,we were just continually presented again and again[with the same proposal]. That is the antithesis ofgood consensus process.”Some organisers were concerned when SocialistAlliance identified Climate Camp as the lead ‘priority’for the latter half of 2009 to ‘assign resources’. Oneorganiser wrote, “I assume this is the time of paid staffand core activists, as there have been no financialdonations… Climate Camp - last year and this -has been committed to grassroots, non-hierarchicaldecision-making. Strategic interventions from nationalpolitical parties, with demands/resolutions formulatedweeks before Climate Camp, will undermine this, andhas done so in the past.”In response, Socialist Alliance claimed they had nopaid staff. However, some people participating inClimate Camp were paid full-time by Resistance andGreen Left Weekly – respectively, the youth wing andnewspaper of Socialist Alliance.Climate Emergency Rallies 2009[See the previous article.] A heated dispute arosearound a particular demand of the rallies, to beheld across Australia in June 2009. At the NSWrally organising committee meeting to decide theirposition, more than 7 members of Socialist Alliance,most of whom had not been to an organising meetingpreviously, attended to ‘stack’ and subsequently ‘won’the vote. Socialist Alliance activists also secured themajority of representatives to in the national rallycoordinating committee. Simon Butler’s report toSocialist Alliance (see www.dsp.org.au/node/227)celebrated that, ‘we [the Socialist Alliance] waged asuccessful campaign to keep [100% renewables by2020] as the chief demand for the June 13 rallies.’Reflecting on the rallies, the DSP congratulatedResistance activists for their “significant commitment”to the climate movement, noting “[t]his is alreadybearing fruit for the movement and winning new youthactivists to the socialist movement” (see http://www.dsp.org.au/node/233).Simon Butler on behalf of the Democratic SocialistPerspective (DSP) National Executive asserted, “Weneed to relate to local groups where we can, but assignresources to city-wide committees and organising forclimate camps and the pre-Copenhagen protests.”

Socialist Party BingoInstructions:PREPARE: Before the mass meeting / conference / forum, print out differentcards for each participant. Distribute cards to participants.DECIDE: Collectively decide your pattern for winning: full card filled? Oneline straight/diagonal filled? T-shape filled? U-shaped filled? Hammer orsickle-shaped?LISTEN: Listen to speakers / participants / audience members.MARK: the square with a red cross (or a sickle) when you hear/see thedescribed action.WIN: Once the pattern is made, call out “BINGO” or sing the Internationale.We need to getpeople on thestreets…Mass movement Crisis [Hand gesture: onehand is a choppingboard, the other is themeat cleaver.]This approachlets polluters/capitalists offthe hook.We are at acrossroads.Workers Struggle Do you want to buya magazine? OR if inforum [gesture] holdsmagazine toward skyThe majority ofpeople think…We need tonationalise X(bonus if withreference to Cubaor Venezuela)Ordinary people Lifestylist We need to makedemands…This isoutrageousBuild allianceswith workersBring people intothe movement[Hand gesturesof “socialist spritfingers”]Political clarityWe need tomake this thefocus of struggleThe classWe need to senda message to theLabor Party …We need to builda movement…XX is bureaucratic.Draw in widerlayers of people

In this zine you’ll find some reflections on our experiences of ‘interventions’ bySocialist Organisations in collective spaces working on environmental justice.You’ll also find some ideas on dealing with ‘entryism’, some common behaviours, picturesof Patrick Swayze, and an incomplete history of ‘entryism’ in the Sydney Left.Don’t miss the tongue-in-cheek ‘Socialist Bingo’: those boring forums and meetingswill never be the same again!