By Andrew Martin

Red Ant’s readers may not have received as many articles as usual. They will have noticed a new group, Red Spark (RS), that claims to be “formerly Red Ant”. This is because a minority grouping that had organised in secret decided to split from the organisation.

Essentially, a section of Red Ant’s leadership went to pieces over what was seemingly a tactical question: the frequency and regularity of stalls. This was extrapolated into a dispute over the conception of what sort of party to build, a question in which there was little or no disagreement. But it provided an opportunity to cast the incoming Political Committee (PC) elected at our December conference as being “anti-Leninist.” Extraordinarily, Red Spark left without seriously engaging in discussion and debate, which is, in essence, very un-Leninist.

But worse, they attempted to dissolve the organisation by seizing its assets¹ and declaring it defunct; they continue to claim they are “formerly Red Ant”.

Setting the Record Straight

It is not factual for Red Spark to claim they are formerly Red Ant. They cannot lay claim to the organisation unless Red Spark is a direct continuation of Red Ant (e.g. if Red Ant was officially dissolved and all its operations, branding, and assets were transferred to Red Spark). Since they split from Red Ant to form a new organisation, it is misleading to imply that Red Spark is simply a rebranded version of Red Ant.

They could’ve also parted ways amicably. No impositions were placed on them, and arrangements could’ve been made to prevent the entrenchment of hostilities. Instead, the two leaders of RS formed an inner circle of people (“a core”) they felt comfortable with and made political decisions based on personal loyalty, effectively excluding the rest of the membership. They met in secret and organised a separate chat on Whatsapp from the rest of the organisation.

The left has seen so many of these kinds of splits that it starts to become a terrible parody of itself. The last thing the left needs is more fragmentation. RS left in a cloud of hostility and breached the trust of all those who remained in Red Ant.

Clarity

As much as unity should be striven for, organisational splits do provide clarity. Issues or situations that may have appeared hazy or grey are brightly illuminated. When a split happens, the initiator makes choices about what matters most to them; in the case of RS, I believe it was an attempt to regain control of a situation they felt was out of their hands. The election of a PC with new members on it was a red light; they felt they could go no further with Red Ant.

Their statement² claims the differences were “significant” and “irreconcilable” but, tellingly, doesn’t state what they were. They could’ve waited for emotions to cool, regain their senses and laid out their political differences – perhaps even winning support for their perspectives. Instead, the two foremost leaders of the organisation left, absurdly giving themselves titles in the process of forming RS, “Chairman” and “Secretary”. They now lead a group that has little over a dozen members.

Here, the conflicting goals of the leadership come into question, and as much as it came as a terrible blow, it is better that they have split. Why? Because it is obvious they feel personally attached to leadership positions with terrible delusions of grandeur – why else would they immediately give titles to themselves? And why else would they not engage in debate or discussion before leaving? Such petty personal attitudes to leadership conflict with the goals of creating an organisation that functions collectively – which is one of the original aims of Red Ant (hence, we call ourselves the Red Ant Collective). Any adherence to such a leadership cannot be out of any sense of genuine loyalty but pragmatism based on personal connections, habit and expectation.

The ambiguity of the importance of leadership and what it means to be a leader is now removed. The unresolved personal tensions that inflamed relations within Red Ant are also now gone. It is easier to see what was working and what wasn’t. The march of Red Ant is no longer forced; we march forward, each guiding the other.

Leadership

Leninist leadership isn’t just about having a strong leader—it’s about having a disciplined body of committed organisers who can steer the organisation effectively. No leader can control every aspect of an organisation, but if they are effective, they can influence its development and build a leadership team that thinks collectively and supports them.

Singular leadership, the placing of responsibility of leadership onto one person’s shoulders, even if they have the best of intentions, always leads to disaster. It inevitably leads to a lack of centralisation and unity because no one person can embody all the tasks and perspectives of an organisation; thereby, it sows the seeds of splits. Even a dog owner’s club will fall apart if it is left to one person to run.

Leninist leadership is about a disciplined, centralised, and theoretically grounded party that guides the working class to revolution. This necessitates a division of labour in which each party member is a leader and accepts leadership, not for the sake of a title, but because it is necessary in the struggle against capitalism.

Consolidation

Red Ant is now taking crucial steps to prevent future instability and strengthen the organisation. It is already a more dynamic organisation that continues to attract youth. Over the last month, internal Red Ant structures have also been strengthened, including our election processes for local and national leadership bodies.

The immediate aftermath of the split has been a time rich in discussion and debate as to the next steps forward. We seek to raise our profile and build more constructive relationships with the social movements, particularly concerning refugee rights and Palestinian solidarity work.

We are continuing the work already undertaken by Red Ant, defining the core principles of Marxism-Leninism and what they mean to us. Red Ant will continue to be an anti-imperialist organisation. We will continue to analyse and assess contemporary theories of development and the dominance of rich countries at the beginning of the 21st century, knowing that nothing is fixed for all time.

Red Ant will continue to be a voice that opposes homegrown Australian imperialism in the Asia-Pacific region and the imperialism of the U.S. We look with keen interest to developments in China, its rapid technological advancement and its role as a growing counter-power to the hegemony of the global north. We continue to have an internationalist perspective on all worker’s struggles and against the wars of the U.S and its proxy powers, NATO, Israel and AUKUS.

A Positive Future

Although our world is in turmoil and, at times, looks bleak, there are tremendous opportunities for the left to organise and build a powerful socialist movement out of the current capitalist crisis. The people who have stayed in Red Ant have shown a genuine loyalty to such a project. The split has forced us into a period of intellectual stimulation and reflection, enabling Red Ant to have a greater level of objectivity. We have recently enjoyed some growth with an influx of new members which is increasing our diversity of experiences, adding richness to our discussions. We aren’t afraid of diversity, we are building the bonds of comradeship to enable the situation where differences of opinion make us stronger, not split us apart.

Red Ant has a greater sense of collective confidence that is felt throughout the organisation. There are now new opportunities for youth to develop as cadres within the organisation. Operating collectively, it is now a more focused and authentically socialist organisation that values each of its members, motivating and encouraging them to advance forward. We are not retreating; we are not hermits or Puritans who concoct divisions out of thin air.

In the period ahead, Red Ant will raise its profile on the streets, on campus, and in our respective workplaces. We’ll engage in social movements and continue to build relationships with the socialist movement internationally and here in Australia. We’ll continue to hold public meetings and deepen our analysis of Marxism.

While we’ve been busy consolidating how we function, we prioritise outreach work, which we are keen to jump into. We’ll even hold stalls!

Importantly, we’ll continue to publish anti-imperialist content. Nothing is permanent in this world; however, the many social crises we face are undeniable and resistance is sure to grow. We won’t defeat capitalism by giving long, boring speeches or sermons or by pretending we’re generals without an army. We aim to be a part of the proletarian resistance to imperialism and a chronicler of it, raising consciousness, vision, and hope.

Red Ant marches on. If you are reading this, we want you to join us in this struggle.

Andrew Martin is one of the founding members of Red Ant

1. Red Spark has agreed to reimburse individual members of Red Ant, but they do not recognise it as a collective. ↩︎
2. Our statement is here: Free from a dying spark. ↩︎