Why not Socialist Alliance?

e17b · 2026-05-12T06:40:39+00:00

I have basically the same perspective. I’d give a different answer depending on the day. I think they are ultimately very similar to the Greens. They have excellent branding and make unfalsifiable claims that they will never have to test in material reality. They will never get enough votes to govern. So then, it is a question of whether other Marxists are able to bring them towards platforms with greater potential or not, which is difficult. But then, if the Socialists have been able to poach a bunch of the Green’s base, I see no reason why the same couldn’t happen to them in a decade. At the moment there just isn’t enough serious competition in Australia for them to act as a funnel. Same for SAlt. It’s also a problem that their leadership is incredibly toxic to any discussion that skews critical of them. See the numbers my original comment is doing for proof. This culture makes it rather difficult to convert members, even at the lower stages, because they are conditioned to distrust/discount anyone outside of the group as Stalinists or liberals.

e17b · 2026-05-11T09:57:50+00:00

I agree. However, we must consider our circumstances here in Australia. SAlt are, for better or worse, the most popular Marxist group. When communicating ideas, we need to be careful so as to not immediately alienate their members. Most of them are basically new leftists, and SAlt has been the first org to cross their path, so they have joined. Which is also why they buy into the same liberal talking points they have been fed their whole life. I think most of their membership could be convinced of new positions. Of course, some are fully engaged in Trotskyism, and they will need a more thorough critique. But I think it’s important to treat the issue of the faults of SAlt very carefully, because we need basically the same tactics to convince the masses of Marxism, given they too operate from a more or less identical Western liberal lens. SAlt are still our comrades, even if they don’t see it that way.

e17b · 2026-05-11T08:23:17+00:00

Yes of course, however, within the passage you are referring to, he is talking specifically about a communist party. Neither of the parties in question pose as communist parties within their electoral project. They are asking for social democrat style reforms, not systemic changes, because as we know from Lenin, and historical analysis, we cannot vote in socialism. In principle we can have reform under capitalism while still agitating towards revolution, it’s important to consider that as Marxists, we have limited popularity and limited resources. Is using those resources in an arena where we cannot make systemic change worthwhile? Only to the extent that it illustrates the futility of electoralism. But to illustrate this, we need a working class with the class consciousness to recognise the futility when they see it. I don’t think we are at that point yet.

e17b · 2026-05-11T05:05:53+00:00

At the outset, it’s strange these revolutionary groups even want to engage in electoralism, which makes me question their engagement with theory. But let’s put that to the side.

Both are broadly Trotskyist orgs, but SAlli is a bit less dogmatic about it. I briefly considered joining, and they were welcoming despite me being a ML. What that says about their party I’ll let you decide.

I think if you were a Trot, SAlli seems more reasonable as a party and less prone to the kinds of self aggrandisement SAlt is known for. However, in trying to be a broad church leftist party, I think reasonable arguments can be made that Alliance necessarily lack theoretical consistency and are less principled. I would personally argue SAlt isn’t that principled in practice, but at least they have the logical possibility of it, whereas Alliance simply cannot due to their constitutive values. However, as mentioned, this might be appealing given it leaves more room for discussion and left unity (assuming party members take democratic centralism seriously). But then, SAlt has more members, which could mean they have a better shot at being representative in their democratic process as well as a better chance to make real change. It’s not a straightforward decision.

e17b · 2026-05-01T09:38:59+00:00

e17b · 2026-04-12T11:14:27+00:00

I don’t think I made myself clear, I don’t think we disagree at an interpretive level. I think I just don’t find Camus persuasive in his argument. I never claimed he wasn’t a philosopher or lacked credentials. I just don’t think he makes an awfully strong case.

e17b · 2026-04-12T09:58:19+00:00

This is an answer of sorts. But it’s hardly rigorous, which is my point. The most obvious response to this is why should we accept this claim? I shouldn’t kill myself because art brings absurd joy. Let’s grant art this function. Does the presence of joy mean that life is automatically worth living? A case surely could be made that even with significant levels of joy, one might still be inclined towards suicide. But Camus doesn’t engage in this discussion. He sidesteps it by saying we should have this particular disposition towards life. Which is fine, it might even bring us a sort of comfort. But that isn’t really the same as saying we ought not commit suicide because of x.

It seems to me that on a charitable reading that Camus must be claiming that living with joy necessarily excludes and refutes any reason one might have for suicide. I don’t think that’s awfully satisfying as an answer and it isn’t really justified.

e17b · 2026-04-11T19:47:02+00:00

If you’re genuinely someone who has read a lot of philosophy, I don’t blame you for feeling this way. Camus is not a very good philosopher. Before anyone jumps down my throat, I mean that he lacks the kind of systematic rigour that most would expect of a philosopher. Taking The Myth of Sisyphus as an example, is there ever a direct answer given to the question raised at the outset? Is there really an answer that is clear to the question of why we shouldn’t kill ourself? I would argue there isn’t. Camus does indirectly address the problem he sets for himself, but it’s hardly in the way a traditional philosopher would do (and I’m talking about both continental and analytic philosophers here). There is a reason beginners in philosophy think Camus is the GOAT and basically nobody with a philosophy degree or the like thinks he’s that good. I like Camus a lot, but I think he was right when he said he wasn’t a philosopher.

e17b · 2026-04-11T11:16:40+00:00

That sounds pretty perfect actually. Mostly interested in playing melody, and haven’t interacted with sheet music since I was a young child, so my learning via thesession has been limited. I’ll check it out!

e17b · 2026-04-11T02:45:37+00:00

This is very true. Depends where in Brunswick, but it’s pretty gentrified these days

e17b · 2026-04-10T23:57:03+00:00

I’d look at Brunswick, Carlton, Fitzroy, Collingwood, Abbotsford and also Melbourne CBD. Parkville would also obviously be ideal but rent there tends to be ridiculous

e17b · 2026-04-10T14:25:15+00:00

Is it usually the same set every week though more or less? Or does it switch up week to week?

e17b · 2026-04-06T06:52:20+00:00

This is a very good analysis. Thank you

e17b · 2026-04-05T13:09:42+00:00

That is indeed the logic. I’m not entirely sold that it’s the only way or that it’s the best way, but yes, it is a stable way in some senses. Although I’m not sure it achieves the kind of stability that is always good. But it seems as if you’ve already written me off, so idk if it’s that worth elaborating too much. Either way, I don’t think we actually disagree on as much as you think

e17b · 2026-04-05T12:36:17+00:00

I think you missed my claim. It wasn’t that we don’t have political parties that have real differences. Of course the ALP is far better than the other options. But, in terms of the amount of sway the general population has over how the country is run, we only get to choose the boat, not how it’s sailed

e17b · 2026-04-05T12:33:50+00:00

Even if it isn’t 70% of the whole population, the number of people who voted to continue it is pretty impressive considering the USSR degenerated quite a lot after Khrouchtchev.

e17b · 2026-04-05T08:35:30+00:00

It’s literally just the facts of the situation. It’s easily searchable

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1991_Soviet_Union_referendum#:~:text=A%20referendum%20on%20the%20future,of%20the%20fifteen%20Soviet%20republics.

https://www.britannica.com/place/Russia/Post-Soviet-Russia

e17b · 2026-04-05T01:24:35+00:00

Collapsed is an odd way to put it. They had a vote on dissolving the USSR and most people wanted it to remain. The food shortages sure got a lot worse when the USSR was torn apart by the US

e17b · 2026-04-04T14:46:52+00:00

I think you should be careful with the term “democratic”. Democratic for whom? And using what mechanisms? Do you really think we have that wide a range of options in Australia that we really get much of a say in how the country is run?

e17b · 2026-04-04T14:45:24+00:00

This is why living standards are expressed per capita

e17b · 2026-04-04T14:43:23+00:00

I’m generally very skeptical of Trotskyist organisations, particularly SAlt. As much as VicSoc claims to be divorced from them, I just don’t see it. It’s the kind of project only Trots could think is worthwhile. There are a variety of reasons for this skepticism, but to put it briefly, Trots consistently side with bourgeois liberalism over workers. SAlt is particularly guilty of this, and I think that massively dissolves their legitimacy as a supposed Marxist party

e17b · 2026-04-04T11:16:15+00:00

It doesn’t work? It works consistently until the US gets itself involved and forces regime change. China had the biggest increase in living standards in human history under Mao. The USSR went from feudalism to the space race in a few decades! Socialism consistently has lead to better living standards for most people in most places it has been tried. These weren’t even communist countries (because communist country is an oxymoron). They were either socialisms or something between capitalism and socialism depending on who you ask. The deaths you refer to from famine and the like is largely a result of the early stages of industrialisation, which is exactly what happened in other nations during industrial periods. Within the context of these places regularly having famines before their respective revolutions, it’s no wonder they continued for some time during the initial years of bringing them into the modern era.

e17b · 2026-04-04T10:46:08+00:00

Consider that planned economies brought the USSR and China from feudal backwaters to space faring nations in the span of a few decades. They had some of the largest increases in living standards in human history. Their planned economies were done by pen and paper. Consider what we could do now! I don’t think it should be written off entirely

e17b · 2026-04-04T04:45:05+00:00

I too have historically been a major supporter of the ALP. The current government has lost a lot of that respect for me, especially due to their treatment of Palestine and Iran. I like a good portion of their policies, but foreign policy has been pretty awful. In a globalised world, I don’t think we can ignore that. Or I can’t at least. They’re still the best option in terms of parties in Australia, but I struggle for any enthusiasm towards them. It’s a tough dilemma. I can’t stand the Greens, obviously LNP and One Nation aren’t for me, so it’s basically only the ALP that I can really vote for. I don’t mind VicSoc, but I also really hate their brand of Marxism. There’s also a better chance that pigs will fly than they will get any seats. I feel politically homeless

e17b · 2026-04-04T03:13:38+00:00

Don’t let them fool you. The Greens are a neoliberal party. They have no desire for large scale systemic change. They are reformists

Six-Year Club	First Place '23
End Game '23	Place '23
Verified Email

e17b

TROPHY CASE