Most on the radical left think that criticising others is a form of ‘sectarianism’. David Lockwood begs to differ, suggesting that groups that pretend they are the sole carriers of the Marxist torch are acting out real sect activity.
Some readers are surprised that here at Labor Tribune we not only acknowledge the existence of other groups on the left, we name them, criticise them and hope to engage them in debate. We are, I think, quite unusual in this respect in Australia. The rest of the left obeys the unwritten rule that you don’t mention groups other than your own.[1] They pretend that other groups don’t exist, lest mentioning them ‘confuses’ their target audience, whatever that actually is.
Transgressing this law can see you expelled from a group or earn you the accusation of ‘sectarianism.’ Actual public disagreements on the left are even more rare. Ignoring the competition is even waved about as a badge of honour. Tony Cliff, the godfather of both Solidarity and Socialist Alternative, was loudly reputed to steadfastly ignore the press of other Marxist groups. (Though later it was revealed that this was a story to encourage the members to do the same rather than the actual truth – a ‘do as I say, not as I do’ instruction to the acolytes.)[2]
Our forebears did not look at it that way. As evidence, we do not have to delve into the truly vicious polemics of the communist movement from the 1920s onwards, which were truly internecine and at times literally murderous. There was, perhaps, a more cultured age of debate when Marx and Engels were alive. However, reading their works you will see they found it perfectly natural to sharply contest ideas of other groups and thinkers in the public press.
The Manifesto of the Communist Party, written in 1848, it should noted, contained an entire section that not only points out the existence of different schools of socialism, but also sharply characterises what is wrong with them. Nearly a third of the Manifesto is taken up with a critique of those they considered their most significant rivals.
These included:
- ‘Feudal socialism’: ‘half lamentation, half lampoon; half an echo of the past, half menace of the future … always ludicrous in its effect through total incapacity to comprehend the march of modern history.’
- ‘German socialism’: ‘the role of speculative cobwebs embroidered with flowers of rhetoric, steeped in the dew of sickly sentiment … served to wonderfully increase the sale of their goods amongst [the] public.’
- ‘Utopian socialism’: ‘although the originators of these systems were, in many respects, revolutionary, their disciples have, in every case, formed mere reactionary sects.
As you can see, punches were not pulled.[3]
I am not making an argument here that the founders’ florid turn of phrase is justification for being rude and cruel to everyone with whom we disagree. The rhetoric is unimportant – the reason for it is not. The point is that Marx and Engels (and those who followed them) acknowledged the existence of other socialist schools and took them seriously enough to engage in debate with them. Not to do so would be the real ‘sectarianism’.
The Marxist left in Australia persists in the practice, however. One reason is that if you ignore the Marxist left outside your own group, you stand some chance of convincing the unwary (the new recruit) that the rest of the left doesn’t exist or is simply not worth bothering about. This increases recruitment prospects. Of course, the new recruit will eventually stumble across them, but hopefully by that time the required attitudes of indifference and disdain will be well established.
Another reason is that if the group’s membership can be insulated from competing ideas and analysis, they can spend more time on the really important tasks … like the next poster run, the next leaflet drop, the next demonstration, all devoted to narrowly building the grouplet. This is a recipe for isolation and stagnation rather than the development of serious revolutionary politics.
But we do not merely want a ‘thousand flowers to bloom’. We are democrats, but we also ruthlessly fight for unity. A united working class party should not be a kumbayah ‘non-aggression’ ideological pact. We fight for disciplined unity in action but around the best possible ideas.
Like any social science, this takes rigorous investigation, debate and polemic. Different trends should be free to produce their ideas in public, but debate should not freeze us into inaction. While minorities have rights, they also have duties – and majorities have the right to act.
Finally (though rather less common these days) is the idea that the differences between groups on the Marxist left are so great that they constitute bloodlines that cannot be crossed.
The result is that each group either refuses to take the rest of the Marxist left seriously or treats it as political lepers to be avoided at all costs. We see this in the imbroglio today between the Socialist Alliance and Socialist Alternative and the ‘Socialist Party’ project.
We beg to differ. It is precisely because we take the Marxist left seriously that we eschew ‘sectarianism’ and seek to engage it in critical debate. The future of the Marxist left lies through Marxist unity and eventually through a communist party. There will be different schools in that as well – constant debate, majorities and (importantly) minorities. Best to start getting ready now!
[1] The Revolutionary Communist Organisation and Red Spark are exceptions to this.
[2] See Ian Birchall, ‘Tony Cliff’s Lie,’ Weekly Worker 1554 25 September 2025.
[3] Karl Marx & Frederick Engels, ‘Socialist and Communist Literature,’ in The Communist Manifesto at www.marxists.org.