Purple Pingers: 'the Greens want to fix capitalism, we want to replace it'

Jordan van den Lamb, who ran as a Senate candidate for the Victorian Socialists, warns Australia's left risks being outflanked, in a Q&A with Deepcut

Jordan van den Lamb, aka Purple Pingers, says the Greens have failed to build a "real counterpower" to the political establishment and says their setbacks in the last federal election are a "wake-up call" for Australia's left.

In a Q&A with Deepcut, Lamb also discusses Democratic Socialist Zohran Mamdani's stunning primary victory in New York City, and whether socialists can make similar inroads here.

Thank you to the readers who submitted questions, four of which have been included below. This is probably a good time to point out some perks of being a paid subscriber:

1. submitting questions to our Q&As

2. commenting on our stories

3. joining the Deepcut chat where you can post threads. While we strive to keep our journalism free for all, we also hope to build a community and safe space for those interested in intellectual exchange. Be the first to start a thread!

Antoun: How do you assess the state of the left in Australia after the last federal election, particularly given the losses sustained by the Greens in the lower house?

Jordan: What this election demonstrated is the absence of a mass political force grounded in working class struggle. Without unions taking a fighting lead, and without an explicitly socialist voice organising on the ground in communities – or even in parliament using that position to organise outside of it – renters, workers and young people will either retreat from politics or look for false solutions peddled by the right.

So for me personally, the election confirms the strategic direction of the Socialists: we need to build political organisation outside parliament, not just inside it. That means tenant unions, worker campaigns, migrant and First Nations solidarity, and a serious national project that can speak to working class life beyond inner-city electorates.

The Greens' setbacks are not a cause for gloating, they’re a wake-up call. Without a bold, explicitly anti-capitalist movement, the left will keep being outflanked or ignored.

Antoun: It's been almost three decades since Bob Brown was elected into parliament, and three decades of the Greens hasn't exactly shifted the country in a progressive direction, despite their growth as a party. What hope is there in a political system that seems resistant to positive, progressive change for everyday Australians?

Jordan: I think that it’s important to separate two things here: resistance to progressive change by the political system and resistance to progressive change by ordinary people. Working class people aren’t the problem. We’re not innately conservative or resistant to big ideas. What we are, however, is disillusioned. We’ve spent decades watching both major parties hand the country over to landlords, bosses, and billionaires. We’ve also seen the Greens, despite good policies, fail to build a real counterpower to that.

You’re right to point out that three decades of the Greens in parliament hasn’t fundamentally shifted the balance of class forces in this country.

That’s not because people don’t want progressive change, it’s because the system is rigged to prevent it.

The parliamentary machine is designed to absorb and blunt dissent. You can have all the right policies on paper, but unless you’re organising outside parliament in unions, in communities, or on the streets you won’t have the social power to force real change.

We take hope not from what happens in parliament, but from what’s possible outside it. Every time workers go on strike, tenants fight evictions, or students march against war and climate destruction, you see the potential. The political system isn’t going to be transformed from within, it has to be confronted from the outside. That’s why we’re focused on building a political project that’s rooted in struggle, not just in speeches.

I do want to say that it is a net positive to have voices like Max Chandler-Mather and Lidia Thorpe in parliament. They certainly play an important role in parliament and we hope to have an explicitly socialist voice in that place sometime soon. The key difference would be that an explicitly socialist voice in parliament wouldn’t simply make speeches, they would focus their energy on building a movement outside of parliament, and using their time in parliament to amplify the struggle going on outside.

The fact of the matter is that in Australia, like the US, ordinary people pay attention to what happens during elections. If Zohran Mamdani had done the same mass organising of volunteers but wasn’t a candidate for the NYC mayoral election, the media and broader population would have likely paid less attention. Socialists believe that contesting elections is important, but not if all we do is contest elections.

Antoun: Zohran Mamdani, a Democratic Socialist, stunned many with his Democratic Party primary win in New York City. Do you think there's appetite for a similar socialist breakthrough in Australian politics, given the Victorian Socialists only obtained a 0.97% swing in the Senate race at the May election? If so, where do you see this breakthrough happening?

Jordan: I think it’s misleading to treat the 0.97% Senate swing in isolation. At the last federal election (2022) we ran in 10 seats. This time, we ran in only four and still tripled our Senate vote. In places like Cooper, where we were able to run a serious ground campaign, we saw massive swings toward us indicated by results of up to 16.5% on individual booths in more working class areas of the electorate.

That’s a clear sign that where working class people are presented with a clear, credible socialist alternative, they respond.

The real problem in Australian politics isn’t that people don’t want radical change, it’s that we almost never see anyone actually offering it in a serious, organised way. For decades, the political conversation has been dominated by two parties managing a system in crisis, while the Greens have remained largely confined to inner city, wealthier electorates with a strategy focused on lobbying rather than movement-building.

So when someone like Zohran Mamdani breaks through in the US, it’s not just because he had the right message, it’s because he was part of an organised project with deep roots in a local community.

That’s what we’re trying to build here. We’re not trying to go viral or just win one-off seats, we’re trying to construct a base of working class support that can be mobilised around rent control, workers’ rights, public housing, climate justice and anti-racism. Our breakthrough won’t come from a media stunt or a lucky preference deal, it will come from concentrated, long-term organising in places like the western suburbs of Melbourne, regional centres with militant union traditions, and anywhere people are being squeezed by the system and are looking for someone who’ll stand up without compromise.

What we need now is support to scale that work nationally, because the appetite is there. Every time we run a proper campaign, it grows.

People are ready for socialist politics. We just have to meet them where they are, with courage, clarity and an organisation that can go the distance.

Reader question from Brunswick East, Victoria:

Obviously there have been many critiques of particular forms of socialist organising that centre class over First Nations sovereignty, justice and lore. The expansion of the Socialists around the continent will necessarily involve more people than are personally familiar to current VS members and associates. How will y’all approach the challenge of dealing with racism and formulating a clear position that addresses legitimate concerns around socialist politics and Blak sovereignty – while resisting the many pitfalls of identitarianism?

Jordan: This question could be taken to imply that there is a separation between being a socialist and being Indigenous. If that is the implication, I want to reject it for a number of reasons.

One of the reasons I joined the Victorian Socialists is because every time there was a rally or struggle against the oppression of First Nations people in this country, I saw the Victorian Socialists there, fighting for that same struggle.

As socialists, we take the question of First Nations liberation and opposing racism very seriously and see it as central to the struggle for socialism in this country.

Socialists have a long history, stretching back into the early 20th century, of standing in solidarity with First Nations people. These struggles gained the most ground when the broader working class recognised that fighting against Indigenous oppression was in all of our interests. Like socialists before us, we will and do stand alongside First Nations people wherever they’re fighting against injustice in the here and now – against deaths in custody, land rights and self-determination.

As socialists we recognise that Indigenous sovereignty has never been ceded. We support the call for a Treaty or series of Treaties which are based on just terms and give Indigenous people the right to veto what happens on their lands, including mining and other environmentally and culturally destructive activities.

⁠However, we also recognise that genuine and lasting sovereignty requires us to dismantle the source of Indigenous oppression – capitalism and the capitalist state. Under capitalism, genuine Indigenous sovereignty and self-determination is impossible.

Dismantling capitalism requires us to build a mass working class movement which unites the struggle for Indigenous sovereignty with the struggle of the working class. Building such a movement is something that, as socialists, we’re fighting to achieve.

I had the same question before I joined VS, and I’ve met with, learnt from and been challenged by First Nations members and leaders on questions like this, and I would encourage others to do the same. These discussions have clarified my views, and I know that these struggles are linked, they are not separate – though they may seem this way due to the ebb in class struggle present today. In reality, history demonstrates that when the workers’ movement is strong, workers themselves are quick to take up the key questions relating to Indigenous oppression and fight against it.

The force that can fight oppression in this country and globally, is the working class – and it’s in the interests of the working class to fight against Indigenous oppression. Any separation of these struggles is artificial, and the purpose of that artificial separation is to confuse and limit struggle against oppression.

Reader question from Reservoir, Victoria:

Can you make the empty properties database public to really force the government's hand to take action on the issue?

Jordan: This is something that I’ve thought a lot about. At the moment the database is more useful when it is not publicly available, because it is being used to provide housing for those who need it most. If this database was public, it would have a couple of downsides. Most importantly, it would alert the landlords, hoarders and violent police to the fact that we know exactly where their land banked properties are, which might prompt them to kick people out.

Reader question from Surry Hills, NSW:

I'm a Greens voter in Sydney where it's already hard for the left to win. Won't voting for the socialists split the progressive vote and make it even harder to get genuine left voices in parliament?'

Jordan: Firstly, we have a preferential voting system in Australia. You can vote 1 for the Socialists and 2 for the Greens and your vote will still help elect a Green if we don’t get in. So there’s no such thing as “splitting the progressive vote” under this system. You’re not risking a worse outcome, you’re just putting the strongest, most radical option first.

But the deeper point here is about politics, not just preferences.

We have a lot of respect for Greens voters and activist members. We want you in our movement, but there’s a big difference between the Greens and the Socialists.

The Greens want to fix capitalism, we want to replace it. They want nicer landlords and fairer bosses. We want to abolish landlordism and we want workers’ control. That’s not a minor difference, it’s about whether you believe the system that created the housing crisis, climate collapse, and wage suppression can be tweaked to serve ordinary people, or whether it has to be overturned altogether.

So if you want to vote Green, that’s fine, but if you’re angry, if you’re fed up with crumbs, if you want to fight for a world where housing, healthcare and energy aren’t treated as profit machines but basic rights, then put Socialists first. Because we’re not trying to manage this broken system, we’re trying to take what’s ours.

Reader question from Marrickville, NSW:

With the housing crisis worsening and the cost of living soaring, what do you see as a credible alternative to relying on private developers – one that meets housing needs without deepening inequality or environmental degradation?

Jordan: Relying on private developers to fix the housing crisis is like asking oil companies to fix climate change. Developers exist to make profit, not to house people. The current system produces empty apartments, luxury builds, and urban sprawl, while millions are locked out of secure, affordable housing. This housing system is not broken, it’s working exactly as designed.

The credible alternative is mass public housing, built and run for people, not profit.

We’re talking about building hundreds of thousands of high quality, environmentally sustainable homes that are permanently publicly owned and available to everyone who needs them, not just the most desperate. Think Vienna, not 1950s slums. That means mixed-income, dense, well-connected developments with community infrastructure, not “sink estates” or privatised social housing managed by dodgy NGOs.

We have the money to do this. The federal government will hand out over $33 billion this year in tax breaks to landlords through negative gearing and the capital gains discount. Redirect just a portion of that, and you could fund a serious public housing program that lowers rents across the board, creates jobs, and reduces emissions through better design and reduced urban sprawl.

What we don’t need is more gimmicks like shared equity, first homebuyer grants, or “build-to-rent” schemes that just funnel public money to property developers and real estate trusts. The only way to guarantee housing as a right is to take it out of the market.

So yes, there is a credible alternative. It’s public housing, and it’s ours if we organise to fight for it.

In other news, things that caught my eye in West Asia:

Gaza:

• More than 500 desperate Palestinians have been slaughtered by Israeli forces trying to seek aid ever since the Israeli- and US-backed Gaza Humanitarian Foundation (GHF) began operations a month ago. The scheme is little more than a death trap, as expressed in this harrowing video by a Palestinian man grieving over the bodies of slain children. Haaretz reported late last week that Israeli soldiers had been ordered to fire at unarmed Palestinians seeking aid

• UNRWA head, Philippe Lazzarini, called for the joint Israel/American scheme to end, saying it "provides nothing but starvation and gunfire to the people of #Gaza". More than 130 global NGOs issued a joint statement demanding "an immediate end to Israel's deadly distribution scheme, a return to UN-led coordination, and the lifting of the brutal blockade on Gaza".

• Adding to concerns that the GHF is potentially complicit in war crimes, Palestinians in Gaza discovered oxycodone pills – an addictive opioid – inside bags of flour.

• Israel is not only killing Palestinians at aid distribution sites; an airstrike on Monday massacred at least 39 people who gathered at a beachfront cafe in Gaza City popular with journalists and artists. Among the killed included photojournalist Ismail Abu Hatab and artist Frans al-Salmi. Israel has killed more than 230 Palestinian journalists since the genocide began in October 2023.

• Donald Trump is talking up the chances of a ceasefire, saying on Truth Social that Israel had agreed to "the necessary conditions to finalize the 60 Day CEASEFIRE". Trump didn't share what those conditions were, but Israeli media reports that the proposal includes a prisoner exchange – 10 Israeli captives held by Hamas for "ratios from past deals" of Palestinian captives held by Israel, and "only a minimal pullback" of Israeli forces. Hamas has yet to respond to the proposal, but has previously insisted on a permanent end to the war. Ahead of Benjamin Netanyahu's visit to Washington next week, the Trump administration approved another major arms sale to Israel worth US$510m.

• Francesca Albanese, the UN special rapporteur on the situation of human rights in the occupied Palestinian territory, released a report Monday focusing on "the role of corporate entities in sustaining the illegal Israeli occupation and its ongoing genocidal campaign in Gaza". The report listed numerous corporations, from Big Tech (Microsoft, Amazon, Google and IBM) to the world's big banks, highlighting their complicity in Israel's actions. While no Australian companies were listed, the report included foreign companies that operate in Australia such as insurer Allianz, which invests "large sums in shares and bonds implicated in the occupation and genocide", the report says.

Iran:

• While Trump and Netanyahu boast of a successful end to the Israel-Iran war, leaks continue to suggest otherwise. John Hudson at the Washington Post (one of the few US mainstream journalists I rate) reported that the US intercepted communications between Iranian officials who said "the attack was less devastating than they had expected". Ali Larijani, a close advisor to Iran's supreme leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, dismissed assertions the US strikes destroyed the uranium-enrichment facility of Fordow, saying, "Let them be happy for themselves. I won't say anything more."

• Netanyahu's victory declaration is also undermined by the high cost sustained by Israel from Iranian missile barrages. Israel estimates the cost of damages at US$3 billion, with the far-right finance minister, Bezalel Smotrich, saying it could be as high as US$12 billion. "There has never been this amount of damage in Israel’s history,” Shay Aharonovich, the director general of Israel’s Tax Authority, said.

Syria/Lebanon:

• It remains unclear whether the new radical regime under Ahmad al-Sharaa will surrender the occupied Golan Heights in a normalisation deal with Israel. Lebanese media reported as such, while Israeli columnist Ben Caspit wrote, citing Israeli officials, that the Golan Heights were not part of current discussions. Instead, an idea of US troops occupying current positions taken by Israeli forces – such as Mount Hermon, which is beyond the Golan Heights – has been floated.

• Trump lifted sanctions on Syria, signalling the new regime's shifting alignment to the US-Israeli axis in the region. Meanwhile, the Trump administration is demanding Lebanon disarm Hezbollah and move towards normalisation with Israel. The Lebanese government has yet to respond to the demands, concerned that moving against Hezbollah would provoke internal unrest.

• Reuters revealed in a major investigation the new regime's complicity in the massacre of Alawites in March. The investigation also found that "killings continue to this day", while Nanar Hawach, a senior analyst at the International Crisis Group, told Reuters the killings eroded the new government’s legitimacy among Syrians, especially minorities.