Anti-SAlt Archive
This is a website to gather various statements and information regarding the harm that Socialist Alternative, or SAlt, has perpetrated and continues to perpetrate in the movement. See the directory to view statements from various groups.
Made by comrades. This website is a work in progress and we aim to be as accessible and inclusive as possible. Please feel free to get in contact if you are experiencing any accessibility issues with the site, or are a member of an affected group who has a critique. Additionally, if you represent a group or you alone would like to submit a statement on SAlt, or have any technical difficulties with this website please email [email protected] - any salties will be blocked.
What's the Deal with SAlt?
After the recent debacle at the DLF picket on Wednesday 11/09/24, many people are currently asking that question. However, many others are thinking 'this is just typical'. That's because SAlt, as an organisation, has many decades of controversies and incidents behind it, including a pattern of undermining direct actions in the exact same way they did on the 11th. This is not new: it is one in a long line of incidents that form a pattern of behaviour. Their continued presence in the left is the combined result of their strategic evasion of criticisms, and effective organising and recruitment strategies. They also form different subsidiaries including Students for Palestine, Victorian Socialists, School Students 4 Palestine (high school group), CARF (Campaign Against Racism & Fascism) and Tamil Refugee Council. They present themselves to many grassroots communities and organisers as the perfect collaborators, providing help organising and promoting rallies/events to over-worked, exhausted volunteers.This support and mobilisation comes at a price. SAlt are notorious for various patterns of behaviour: using actions and grassroots collectives as recruitment funnels for their own organisation, co-opting important movements to self-promote and sell, raising massive amounts of money with no clear explanation for where all the money is going, and distracting attendees at various events by continuing to recruit during speeches. This behaviour has led Warriors of the Aboriginal Resistance, Black Peoples Union, and Unimelb 4 Palestine (three Indigenous-led, explicitly de-colonial organising groups) to refuse to work with SAlt as an organisation. While individual SAlt members can attend any events they choose, these groups have chosen to set firm boundaries with them: no recruiting, no self-promotion, no selling.The typical SAlt playbook in responding to criticisms is to deflect, deny, and ignore. They rely on others' valid concerns about in-fighting, needing to present a united front to the media, and 'the more of us the better' mentality that emerges from our desperate need for numbers to make collective actions effective. Those who question, call out, or boycott them face a range of accusations: from playing sectarian politics to being secret fascists.However, the heart of SAlt's problems is not with its large body of membership. Ex-SAlt members have for some time been alleging that it is a predatory organisation that uses cult-like recruitment strategies and coercive control to financially exploit its members. Because they use vital movements like Free Palestine as a stomping ground for recruitment, many of the members are themselves deeply passionate about the organising and recruiting work they are doing. Members are people with the desire to get more involved in effective action, and SAlt uses that as a point of emotional connection, building relationships with newcomers to effectively convince them that providing SAlt with more funds and volunteers is the best way for them to support Palestine and/or any other movements they associate with.Socialists are understandably wary of criticisms levied towards socialist organisations that accuse us of being predatory and/or cult-like. A long and ongoing history of red-scare tactics makes it difficult to take any such criticisms at face-value. However, that doesn't mean that socialists (or people calling themselves socialists) should be above scrutiny, or that the personal accounts of former members should be dismissed as anti-socialist propaganda.This Instagram post by a dedicated account is an introduction to many of the issues discussed here, compiled by former SAlt members who have been speaking out against the organisation for its alleged abusive practices.
BPU Statements
This is the statement BPU made regarding Salt's actions at the May Day rally in 2023.Apologies for the poor quality, no higher resolution picture exists.
This is the statement BPU posted from an anonymous comrade regarding Salt's actions at the Wednesday 11/09/24 DLF picket.Captioned: "Submission from an anonymous comrade. We as Black, Brown and Indigenous peoples do not need you to speak for us. We need you to fuck off. All power to the autonomous groups standing staunch. Fuck the police."
WAR (Warriors of the Aboriginal Resistance) Statement
In 2016, WAR posted the following statement regarding SAlt:
Defending Paedophilia
TW: Non-graphic descriptions of paedophilia
Sandra Bloodworth, editor of Marxist Left Review and frequent contributor to both MLR and Red Flag, wrote a since-deleted article (available through the waybackmachine) calling for age of consent laws to be revoked. While arguing that children are capable of consenting relationships with adults, Bloodworth remains vague by what age group she considers to be “children”, at times pointing to an age gap between a 19-year-old and a 16-year-old as a “young person” and an adult, at other times refer to the age group of 12-16 years as “women”. She also points to a “consensual” relationship between an adult in their early thirties and her 15-year-old student as an example of unjust sentencing.In the first instance, the adult was a teacher who had lost his job as a teacher because of his former relationship, in the second the teacher was given a jail sentence. Both cases were followed by campaigns to have these decisions overturned, with the Andrew Phillips community, school principal and students joining together to have him reinstated and the Victorian Public Prosecutor appealing the sentence for Karen Ellis. Bloodworth describes the consequences suffered by these two individuals in terms evocative of a witch-hunt: “hysterical”, “panic” and “absurdity” are words she throws around, comparing their situations to gay panic.While pointing to this so-called social hysteria, Bloodworth does not acknowledge the ongoing stigma faced by victims of predatory age-gap relationships. It is not uncommon for teenagers to be blamed or dismissed when trying to seek justice, girls with the typical slut-shaming, and boys with the assumption that teenage boys/men cannot be the victim of sexual predation by women.Age of consent laws have in fact been heavily influenced by the personal advocacy of survivors over the years have bravely spoken out against a strong culture of victim-blaming and silencing. While it is not uncommon for teenagers to pursue adults, it is the responsibility of adults to set healthy boundaries with teenagers. Bloodworth points to the testimony of Ellis’ 15-year-old student, “he pursued Ellis, the relationship was at all times consensual and that [sic] he had not suffered any detrimental effects from it". This ignores the basic premise of age of consent laws, which is that an underage person is not necessarily well positioned to understand the necessity of those boundaries until later in life. Defending a teacher in their 30s for having a sexual relationship with their 15-year-old student is a disturbing stance, particularly coming from an organisation known for mainly targeting students.However, it is not surprising that a high-profile member of SAlt would be invested in advocating against the idea that teenagers are in many ways uniquely vulnerable to manipulation from adults, and therefore deserve some level of protection. The financial exploitation of SAlt members is well-documented, even by their own website which boasts $60 tickets for a weekend-long Marxist conference, and $30 for one day: a special discount just for high school students.Click here for her full article.
Anti-Sex-Worker Rhetoric and Assault
TW: Assault
The following is an excellent article written by Black Flags Sydney on SWERFs.From their site, "Black Flag Sydney is an autonomous collective of anarchist workers who organise mainly on unceded Gadigal land."I recommend reading the whole thing, but here's the SAlt-relevant section: In the past year, talks, conferences and workshops on sex work amongst some leftist groups have shown how revolutionaries can err on this question. One particular workshop presented by Socialist Alternative in April 2022 was critical of the "normalisation of the sex industry" and made arguments for why socialists should not support sex work. Socialist Alternative are not SWERFs, as they explicitly disagree with feminism and are not particularly obsessed with sex work in the way that SWERFs tend to be. Their mistake seems to be in confusing radical feminist discourses of abolishing sex work with communist discourse of abolishing all forms of exploitation, including sex work, by overthrowing the capitalist system entirely. This leads to a moralistic analysis where sex work abolition is a goal to achieve under capitalism, similar to the ways in which we might campaign for the end of the fossil fuel industry. Without an analytical perspective rooted in the principles of worker-led liberation from below, you end up with SWERF-like theoretical talks that moralise about the ills of the sex industry, courting controversy and encouraging abstention from campaigning in any direction. While Socialist Alternative itself has made no official statements to date on what happened at the workshop, independents and members of Victorian Socialists report that speakers compared the sex industry with working in fossil fuels, refugee concentration camps and pokies. They argued that the existence of sex work gave legitimacy to men's entitlement to women's bodies more broadly (an argument reminiscent of the early sex work abolitionists of the late 19th Century). They allegedly argued that while criminalisation wasn't supportable, recent decriminalisation reforms constituted a form of deregulation in favour of the free market. They proposed that regulating sex work would improve worker conditions, suggesting that this is supportable for the same reasons regulations are supportable in aged care. It seems this line is a questionable fudge at best and was proposed for the purpose of being controversial. Practically, the confused debate within Socialist Alternative on this question has led to their abstention from sex worker-led campaigns and initiatives. They were notably absent from the International Working Girls Day protest on March 8, which platformed the campaign for true decriminalisation and anti-discrimination rights for sex workers as well as highlighting the unionisation efforts of workers in various workplaces. Their sizeable voting bloc in the University of Sydney Student Representative Council also abstained from motions supporting this rally due to their organisation's failure to adopt a clear position. Historically, socialists have had a range of personal views on sex work, many of which were a product of the morals of their time. We should be clear that the abolition of sex work as we currently understand it is something that only occurs as a by-product of a truly classless communist society where wage slavery does not exist. The abolition of sex work is an impossible reform in class society, as it has never withered away despite the provision of social goods won in social democratic states, such as liveable welfare, universal early childhood education and aged care. Nor has policing and forced job reallocation been successful at doing anything but driving workers underground. This makes it both farcical and violent to support any form of criminalisation, and we should reject any fudged positions that come from pretending regulation and legalisation models can be anything but carceral. We should also be ruthlessly scientific in what a reform is expected to achieve and why comparisons are made. It is vexatious for socialists to compare sex work to sectors like coal mining, pokies or detention centres, not only because there are live debates about how to shut each of these institutions down, but also because the social outcomes of their abolition, such as the halting of global warming, letting people out of concentration camps, and the cessation of problem gambling that drives working class people into poverty are self-evident. The expected broader social good that is to come from shutting down sex work is unfalsifiable, and the only demonstrated pathways toward a shut-down under capitalism are inextricably linked with policing, which has always been harmful to workers.It's interesting that according to SAlt members, children should be allowed to decide to be in consensual relationships with adults, and denying that is an infringement of their rights, but adults in the sex industry should be talked over for their own good.
The following is a fantastic blog post written by Treason in (faux) Furs, "An anti-authoritarian/ anti- capitalist blog dedicated to disrupting the whore-archy and reflecting radical sex worker culture !" It alleges a violent response of SAlt to a sex worker protest against SAlt's whorephobia. This interaction exemplifies the reaction of SAlt when met with opposition from within the left: to shut it down at all costs. On 17 April 2022, (sacrosanct ‘man on stick’ day), sex workers protesting Marxism Conference 2022 were met with violence from Socialist Alternative. Meanwhile, fascist Proud Boys were allowed to heckle attendees outside the venue just a day before. In addition to protesting a session featuring Louise O’Shea, ‘Why the normalisation of the sex industry should be opposed’, sex workers carrying anti-work and pro-whore signs called out the whorephobic dog-whistling and sexist hypocrisy of Socialist Alternative, supporters of sexist and drug-userphobic scumbag political opportunist Stephen Jolly. Sex workers handed out the flyers pictured below. Sex workers arriving at the ostentatious ‘Seaworks’ venue in Williamstown (aka Toorak of the West), were met by a line of Socialist Alternative members blocking our entry. These so-called anti-capitalists cried “This is a private event and you will have to buy a ticket! All the other workers here have bought a ticket. What makes you so special?!”. Sex workers handed out the flyer pictured below, as SAlt demanded sex workers “engage in debate” (while also changing the session times to avoid sex workers actually taking them up on the offer). Unsurprisingly, sex workers did not take kindly to the demand that we debate our basic human rights with strangers who have no skin in the game. Sex workers made it clear: there will be Nothing About Us Without Us! The situation escalated quickly as SAlt members aggressively pushed sex workers attempting to enter the venue, even stooping to violently attack Black and disabled sex workers. Shamefully SALt kicked a mobility aid out from beneath one sex worker, broke a microphone we were using to broadcast our collective rage, snatched placards and personal items, and attempted to destroy the phone of a sex worker who was filming their aggro tactics. Sex workers found it telling that the ‘vanguard’ cowered inside their very comfortable venue as actual fascist Proud Boys taunted attendees. “Militant Marxists” turned the other cheek on fascists at their door, but felt empowered to use violence against sex workers. Do not be fooled by their concern trolling, Socialist Alternative believe that sex workers are disposable murder-worthy victims who can be beaten into submission by a more respectable class. So much for “rebuilding the left”. The hypocrisy of these clowns doesn’t end there. Sex workers were enraged by Louise O’Shea’s claim that there is a push to “legitimise the sex industry” and that the “welfare of sex workers is being used as an excuse to expand the market for and reduce the operating costs of a predatory and sexist industry”. O’Shea calls on socialists to “oppose this industry, not be cheering it on”. Sex workers were amused and disgusted by socialists who told one protester that she “lacks the intellectual integrity to understand the concepts being discussed”. One socialist even pondered aloud whether sex worker protesters were high on drugs. Maybe we were! Yet we still have a better grasp on sexual politics and labour rights than these bourgeois feminists, lost in a sea of hyperbole and hypothesis. These bourgeois socialists LARPing as revolutionary workers are obsessed with the sacred institution of work, and the attainment of one’s ‘dream job’. Sex workers do not dream of work. We dream of revolution. We will do the least work possible for the most money so that we may further dedicate ourselves to the destruction of oppression in all its forms, and to the building of stronger communities, outside the kyriarchy. What the white middle-class self-appointed SAlt vanguardists fail to realize is that none of us are ‘just’ whores. We are multidimensional politically engaged people, whose political praxis extends well beyond the sex industry. SAlt’s SWERF dog-whistling must end. Abolitionism is incompatible with sex worker rights. Opposition to the sex industry limits the ability of sex workers to organise our workplaces, to uphold our workplace health and safety strategies, and perpetuates stigma against us. You call us the ‘foot soldiers of patriarchy’ and claim that fucking for money gives men a green light to use violence against “nice” women. The violence that is used against sex workers is not hypothetical or theoretical. It is real and we live it every day. How dare you blame us for the actions of men who do far worse to us than they ever would to you. You contribute to the normalisation of victim narratives that result in the systemic state violence and capitalist oppression of sex workers. You claim to be anti-capitalist but you directly oppose workers’ self-organising to take control of our own industry, working conditions and safety. We are grateful to attendees who joined protesting sex workers in calling out SAlt’s violence and bigotry. Unfortunately, there were too few willing to stand with us, and the few who voiced their solidarity were subject to intimidation tactics by veteran Trot cadres. Sex workers have had enough of the SWERF apologism from so-called ‘allies’ in the left who continue to defend reactionary feminism in their movement. We call on you to stand in solidarity with sex workers and stamp out whorephobia and anti-worker ideology in all its forms. As sex workers, we are not new to violence. We gleefully defend ourselves against those who try to silence and marginalise us. We will not lend legitimacy to dehumanising demands to debate our lives. Systemic violence and our struggles against it are not mere abstractions, they are a part of our everyday lived reality. When you speak over us and attempt to stifle our righteous rage, it is you who becomes the foot soldier of patriarchy. We will fight back against all who stand in the way of our liberation, even those who masquerade as comrades. As sex workers made our proud departure from the shameful event, we at least had the ‘intellectual fortitude’ to leave an upcycled calling card for our SAlty hosts. Let this be a warning to all SWERF scum, wherever you gather, we will CUM and stop you!
Ableism
While ableism is a pervasive issue amongst many leftist groups, SAlt are particularly notorious for rejecting or undermining accessibility requirements, talking (or screaming) over disabled people, and discouraging their own members from engaging in any of the self/community-care that is generally encouraged by those who want to avoid activist burnout.There have been similar experiences in previous years, including a speaker being told that “if they were 'unwilling to chain [their] wheelchair in front of a bus', they were unfit to partake in activism” and shutting down the suggestion to limit extended speaking time for accessibility reasons.At the 2023 National Union of Students Conference (NUS NatCon), SAlt reportedly ignored accessibility requirements that were put in place. This involved actively yelling and heckling disabled people during the section of the conference on Disability rights, which discussed the NDIS and how the cost of living crisis affects disabled people. There are many issues with the NDIS that are worth discussing, but SAlt are notoriously unwilling to allow people with lived experience to lead the conversation on their own oppression — even when they themselves have little to no understanding on the topic. Instead of engaging with disabled speakers as they discussed their experiences with the NDIS, SAlt members yelled over them and accused the NDIS of being a push towards privatisation and a Labor money-saving scheme. One member tried to explain that the NDIS came from Disabled people and is a result of extended Disability rights activism in this country. SAlt's behaviour allegedly nearly escalated to the point of physical altercations, and led to many delegates leaving, pulling quorum and thereby ending the meeting. Many delegates were shaken to the point of tears. University of Sydney student journal, Honi Soit, describes this shameful incident, including alleged transphobia, in an article titled, Our First and Final Time At NatCon: Four Days We’ll Never Forget.At this event, most of the yelling was supposedly about the National Labor Students' failures to adequately show support to Palestine, and their continued allegiance with the Labor party despite the “growing divergence between Labor and Labor Youth on the topic of Palestine”(NUS Votes To Support A Free Palestine). Given SAlt’s decision to align with the Labor right as part of their student election run, it feels somewhat hypocritical.It’s possible that SAlt’s aggressive rejection of accessibility requirements and personal boundaries links to their alleged abusive practices, which encourage members to isolate themselves and burn themselves out physically and mentally. The following description is from a comprehensive article in the form of a Google doc which is titled, The relationship between Socialist organising, high-control organisations and first steps to recovery & autonomy. (TW for article: sexual abuse, harrassment, cults). “Multiple accounts from would-be and ex-members are of being told that their personal business, and mental health needs are “prioritising the individual over the collective”, and are a weaponisation of identity politics, rather than an authentic expression of their needs. Another student says in relation to attending a protest, "I told one of them that I had to leave for mental health reasons, and he told me that I was "engaging in identity politics, which is what the right does", trying to use my mental health "as a shield".It is clear that disability-led activism undermines SAlt's two core ideologies: that these self-destructive methods are necessary for creating change, and that the working class are the ones who make change happen. While there is both overlap and solidarity between disability and working-class activists, including many disabled socialists, a simplistic view of socialism necessarily excludes those who are unable to work. Disability itself emerged as a category for those who were unable to work, and the social services and support offered is disproportionately focused on remoulding disabled people so they can enter or return to the workforce as soon as possible, often at the cost of their physical and emotional well-being. SAlt's vision for class revolution fails to address the Disabled non-working class, and their organisational practices are antithetical to Disabled activism.