05.02.2026

Factions, nameswitching and unity

Communist Unity is the relaunched Revolutionary Communist Organisation, and as a bonus it has the Spartacist Tendency on board as a recognised faction. Mila Volkova reports on conference discussions, alignments and votes

The applause was proud, as we concluded the fourth general conference of the Revolutionary Communist Organisation - soon to be relaunched as Communist Unity. My comrades, Christina and Anthony, recently published a short analysis of the conference in the RCO’s magazine, Partisan! Though Christina is not a member of the growing faction to which I belong - ‘The Mountain’ - that article is a good abstract analysis of the events of the conference.

The conference, which took place on January 17-18 in Melbourne, signalled what comrade David Passerine termed “the end of the beginning”. With this conference, the RCO has begun to break out of the immaturity which has characterised it since its founding in 2022. We have achieved unity with the Spartacist League of Australia (now called the Spartacist Tendency of the RCO). Cliques are becoming factions. Assumptions about the future have been exchanged for concrete strategic plans. Our programme has been cut down from a cumbersome 60-plus pages to a more concise, but still effective, 17. We have transitioned from a rag-tag group with political aspirations to a serious political organisation with around 80 members across the country.

But poor discipline and disorganisation indicated that the new still has some parts of the old in it. Some younger conference attendees have not yet grasped the sober and serious attitude of a good conference. Chairing was somewhat chaotic, and members were not used to being in an organisation where they do not know every other member by face and name. Conference documents are currently being edited and will soon be made publicly available.

The RCO conference had a delegate structure, where ordinary members can attend, speak and move motions, but only elected delegates may vote. RCO members sent 16 delegates to conference, one for every three cadre members, to represent them. Delegates were elected like they were to the Paris Commune: they were recallable and bound to the mandate that they ran on. Normally, this means delegates express their factional affiliations and aspirations for conference, and members vote to elect delegates based on this.

Of these 16, eight were members of The Mountain. This faction was formed last-minute by members supporting the republican communist RCO orthodoxy. A further three delegates were members of the Spartacist Tendency. The remaining five were swing voters, and included two self-identified Left Communists. In addition to running on a factional platform, delegates are required to seek the views of their members on all motions and vote in line with any instructions given to them - in a proportional manner, if the views of members diverge.

Day one

The day began with political reports on the international situation and the class struggle in Australia. These reports fed into the ‘Communist perspectives 2026-2027’ - a document containing our major, non-programmatic, theoretical and political resolutions. Political disagreement over the content of these reports and the perspectives document was minimal. Surprisingly, the Spartacists did not directly contest the resolution that China is a semi-peripheral and sub-imperialist power. Instead, they criticised the documents for being too abstract and not directly linked with plans of action. It is unclear if this was a tactical decision made to avoid a theoretical debate on the nature of the Chinese social formation or if the Spartacists simply oppose the adoption of purely theoretical documents altogether.

During this session, several motions were brought forward on building ties with Indonesian and New Zealand communists, as well as developing a base of RCO cadres in Pasifika states and Papua New Guinea. Though no-one disagreed with the goals outlined in these motions, some comrades - me included - argued against them on the basis that they had no concrete plan to achieve them. These passed with some amendments. The Spartacists put forward a motion committing the RCO to a China defencist position. This motion made no mention of ‘multipolarity’ as a strategy nor of the political economy of China and was vague on what a ‘defence’ of China would mean and in which contexts it would apply.

It is possible that this vagueness was intentional. It only committed the RCO to opposition to American imperialism and attacks on the standards of living of Chinese workers. These alone are uncontroversial, and the motion passed without much fuss. If this is part of a strategy to ‘wedge’ the RCO’s membership towards what the Spartacists consider a more revolutionary position, watered-down motions such as this one will not succeed in doing so.

After lunch, the conference discussed two proposals for the RCO’s programme. First, we discussed the Spartacists’ seven-page document, which contained a short description of the world conjuncture and three slogans: ‘Break the working class from liberalism’, ‘Merge the socialist and workers’ movements’ and ‘International unity against imperialism’. This is the crux of the Spartacists’ strategic proposal. A defensive struggle of workers against imperialism and against further attacks on its conditions - led and agitated by militant cadres inside strategic industries, such as industrial production and infrastructure - can galvanise the proletariat against its poor leadership and develop international class consciousness. From this, the vanguard can expand its ranks and develop a base in the proletariat. Out of this, a party becomes possible. It is the lack of this base - ie, the focus of the current socialist movement on the “petty bourgeois” (the Sparts refer to professionals and students here) - that is the cause of sectarianism and the movement’s isolation.

The non-Spartacist delegates did not necessarily disagree with this strategy. But the proposal was voted down in favour of the ‘Docklands programme’ (which is only a shortened version of the previous programme) because most RCO members do not consider the Sparts’ proposal to be a programmatic one. For us, the programme does not set out a plan of action to take the RCO forward from where it is now to the creation of a communist party. Rather, it is a proposal to the entire Australian socialist movement for a programme that we can all collectively accept and work under. As a plan of action for the RCO specifically, the Spartacists’ programme is myopic. As a primarily tactical and rhetorical document, it contains no vision for the dictatorship of the proletariat (the minimum) nor for communism itself (the maximum).

Too narrow

I echo comrade David Passerine’s criticism of this form of unity as simultaneously too broad (in the sense that one does not need to be a communist to agree with these tactics as the best form of struggle) and too narrow (in the sense that many communists do not agree that these tactics are the best form of struggle). Such unity is prone to collapse in the face of political shocks or to opportunistic and self-interested participation by sectarian groupings - participation which can easily be withdrawn if it becomes inconvenient. This is not to say that we reject tactical unity. Insofar as a political organisation needs to be united in action, we accept tactical unity. But this is only achievable in the context of unity around comprehensive political goals: ie, unity around a programme.

Day one ended with the presentation of three major ‘theses’ documents: one on the Labor Party, one on reactionary politics, and one on the Socialist Party. The third passed without any major disagreement. The second outlined the controversial perspective that Australia does not currently have the conditions for a reactionary political turn like that which the USA, UK and European countries have experienced. This was justified by pointing out that Australia avoided the immediate fallout of the great financial crisis, that the regional and rural population is much smaller in Australia than elsewhere, and that the proportion of the Australian middling classes employed in, or with class interests aligned with, the liberal, democratic, imperialist and corporatist state is larger elsewhere. Many conference attendees did not disagree with these claims on the face of them, but cautioned against adopting a strong position which could be proven wrong, should circumstances change. The motion passed, despite Spartacist delegates voting against it on the grounds that the international liberal political order is collapsing and that reactionary politics would ‘spread’ from country to country. How this spread might concretely occur was not explained.

The theses on Labor led to the only disagreement at conference which was not ‘had out’ in an explicit manner. On this topic, there were essentially three positions: we should explicitly aim to split the Labor Party (this was the Spartacists’ position), we should pursue a ‘sacred lie’, in which we work inside the Labor Party on a purely agitational basis, but expect a split (this was the Left Communist position), or we should aim to transform the Labor party into a democratically organised united front of the entire working class (The Mountain’s position). After amendments, the theses on Labor adopted the third position aspirationally, while acknowledging the need to prepare for a split. But whether the hypothetical communist party should aim to split the Labor Party was not explicitly resolved for or against. This is disappointing and this issue is likely to be the ‘hot topic’ in the lead-up to next conference.

Day Two

Day two was dominated by lengthy discussion of the RCO’s organisational reports, the ‘three-year plan’ and ‘organisational proposals’. The press, education and organisational building reports were passed without much contention. Though there was some discussion around the organisational building report - as some local sections contested the description of their successes and failures, as laid out by the outgoing CC - most amendments were relatively minor and the document passed without major rewriting.

The three-year plan and the Spartacists’ alternative proposal for a “50% proletarian RCO” led to a lengthy back-and-forth in which the three-year plan ultimately passed. The plan committed the RCO to quadrupling its cadre membership within two years and for pressuring the entire Australian ‘left’ into the Socialist Party in the third year.

This is to be accomplished by developing a ‘recruitment conveyor belt’ - made up primarily of reading groups - which can bring potential recruits at all levels of political development into the RCO’s orbit and transform them into sympathisers or members - as well as building cadre members into effective organisers, writers and theoreticians. These potential recruits are to be gathered by deepening and broadening the RCO’s burgeoning socialist social activities, such as drinks, barbecues, public lectures and panel discussion events. Through setting up local cross-sect newspapers on local politics in all cities, the RCO plans to develop a proto-party infrastructure and connections between the RCO, other sects and the proletariat. The plan explicitly avoids organising in workers’ economic struggles at the point of their workplace until the third year at the earliest. This is on the grounds that sectarian division in the movement and the RCO’s small size and resources make us unable to engage in such struggles as communists, as opposed to militant left Laborites.

It is this that the Spartacists took issue with, arguing against the plan. They advocated instead a full turn to industry, arguing that “the struggle is the best teacher”. They stated, repeatedly, that the plan did not consider sufficiently the breakdown of the liberal international order. They did not explain how an analysis of this would have changed the plan. The Spartacists’ motion, had it passed, would have committed the RCO to ensuring that at least 50% of its members worked in ‘blue- or pink-collar’ jobs, or ‘unionised industries’. There was no timeline given to attaining this goal. The delegates were split down the middle on this issue, with seven voting against it and seven voting in favour (with two abstentions), leading to the motion losing by default. The following is a more detailed and thought-out reconstruction of The Mountain’s arguments against the Spartacists’ motion and for the three-year plan.

Survive and grow

The Spartacists’ purely agitational strategy (ie, lacking in mass theoretical education), alongside their proposal for a purely oppositional programme (ie, without a vision for communism), will not succeed in reconstructing the socialist movement and the workers’ movement. The Spartacists’ application of Trotsky’s transitional programme method will not produce the cadre-ised mass base that is necessary for a communist party to survive and grow in the long term. It instead produces a constituency within the working class that is motivated by emotional or moral resentment and kept together only by the activism of a small militant sect. Of course, all communist militants arrive at their politics for personal reasons like this. But if the resentment of the working class is not tempered with a comprehensive programme and clear and realistic theoretical analysis, then it is vulnerable to ideological manipulation, prone to activist misadventures, and likely to demobilise following political defeats.

There is a link here with a difference in opinion regarding the definition of ‘proletariat’ between The Mountain and the Spartacists, which became clear during informal conversations beyond the conference floor. Whereas The Mountain defines it in the broad sense of all those lacking property of their own and thus reliant on the wage fund,¹ the Spartacists define the proletariat only as those employed in large workplaces under ‘industrial’ conditions. Though this, hypothetically, may be the most advanced section of the proletariat,² this definition is narrow and unscientific. It is unclear why they have adopted this definition, which excludes houseworkers and the reserve army of labour, considering that it is nowhere defined this way by Marx. Some Spartacists have claimed that baristas are petty bourgeois!

The Spartacists - perhaps implicitly - believe that it is possible for a defensive struggle by workers in a key industry to spread spontaneously to other sections of the class. This is a ‘lead by example’ approach. There are two problems with this. First, a defensive struggle simply will not galvanise a full class struggle except where there is broad and pre-existing penetration of the class by communist militants. Without this, such a struggle will be outmanoeuvred and defeated by the state apparatuses. Second, the Spartacists’ strategy places too much emphasis on agitation and not enough on the achievement of concrete goals. In the current conjuncture, it is not possible for a meaningful defensive struggle to be won except on a national level at least. More likely, it requires coordinated international action. Communist cadres will lose the support of workers if we organise them towards a struggle which fails. The difference in definitions of the proletariat is important here. If you take the Spartacists’ narrow definition of the proletariat, this is more conceivable. A strike by meat packers could potentially extend spontaneously into a strike by steel workers, but not a strike by hospitality staff or houseworkers.

In practice, the Spartacists minimise the role of theory in developing cadre and reject completely its role in mass-facing work. The Mountain agrees that theory and practice must be linked. There will come a time - as outlined in the three-year plan - when the RCO is larger and able to seriously engage in immediate economic struggle. But historical materialism is a science with a method and practice that is distinct from other forms of struggle.³ It cannot be grasped purely through organising industrial action: it must be taught and practised within its own distinct parameters. Yes, it must be linked to other forms of struggle, or else it is blind. But avoiding theoretical education in favour of committing to more intense struggle and agitation is similarly short-sighted. The Mountain believes it is possible for a mass communist party to exist which has hundreds of thousands of members in Australia, and in which each of these members is meaningfully engaged in scientific practice.

The conference ended with some changes to the organisational rules and the election of the new central committee. The arbitration and support committee, the organisation’s internal disciplinary body and grievance manager, was re-formed to be selected by the CC directly, rather than elected by conference but subordinated to CC oversight. This was supported by the outgoing members of the ASC and, despite some reservations from delegates (me included), they spoke convincingly and the change was passed. The new CC contains four members of The Mountain (of which I am one), one Left Communist and one Spartacist.

Communist unity

Beyond the implementation of the three-year plan, the most important development in the RCO following this conference will be the growth of its internal factionalism. Now that there are clear lines of political demarcation, thanks to the Spartacists, it is possible for RCO orthodoxy to grow - from an informal clique leading a sect without challenge, into a political faction of the multi-tendency socialist movement. Comrade Miki - a member of the outgoing CC and of The Mountain - pointed out to me that this will require that The Mountain develops a proposal for what the entire socialist movement should be doing right now - rather than just what the RCO should be doing.

This will require time and discussion. Nonetheless, and drawing on comrade Mike Macnair’s Revolutionary strategy, I believe that this proposal should be: build a real opposition!

Before communists can meaningfully engage in a struggle that rebuilds the workers’ movement and wins it to communist politics, we must cohere ourselves as a real opposition to capitalist civilisation. This does not mean a Maoist-style proposal to ‘oppose everything the enemy supports and support everything the enemy opposes’, as this would still be a form of politics dictated by the capitalists. Rather, it means to oppose capitalism at its core and comprehensively in its structure, and to work doggedly against it everywhere.

What the actionists - such as the Spartacists, Socialist Alternative, the Anarchist-Communist Federation and Solidarity - all get wrong is that they think of opposition to capitalist civilisation only in the forms of economic struggle and oppositional agitation. This is activism.⁴ They fail to recognise that activism is itself a product of the intellectual division of labour in capitalist society,⁵ which works to keep the proletariat dumb and obedient. Activism therefore maintains capitalist civilisation. For all the Spartacists’ rhetoric against liberalism, they leave the ideological apparatuses of the capitalist state - embodied by social and mass media, the schooling system and the institution of the family⁶ - intact. They surrender one of our most important struggles to the bourgeoisie.

The Mountain’s proposal must say to the whole Australian socialist movement: unite under our programme, oppose the ideological hegemony of the capitalists and organise the proletariat as it actually exists - not as sect dogma, imported from the mid-20th century, imagines it to be.

F Engels Principles of communism Mumbai 2021.↩︎
K Kautsky The class struggle (Erfurt Program) New York 1971.↩︎
L Althusser Philosophy and the Spontaneous Philosophy of the Scientists and other essays London 1990.↩︎
A Bordiga, ‘Dizionarietto dei chiodi revisionisti: Attivismo’ Battaglia Comunista 1952; P Freire Pedagogy of the oppressed London 2017.↩︎
A Nikos State, power, socialism London 2000.↩︎
L Althusser et al, On the reproduction of capitalism: ideology and ideological state apparatuses London 2014.↩︎