ZNet Articles
ZMag Articles
ZCommentaries
ZAudios
ZVideos
Blog Posts
Books
A New International, Resoc, and Parecon/Parsoc
By Michael Albert at Dec 02, 2009 |
|
In late November 2009 President Hugo Chavez of Venezuela indicated a desire to found a Fifth International in coming months. So far, there is very little information about either Chavez’s view of this effort, the Venezuelan view of this effort, or the view of others around the world. Still, some things seem predictable.
With Venezuela explicitly seeking a new type of 21st century socialism, a new International they champion is unlikely to adopt past instances of Soviet, Chinese or other 20th century socialist organization as its touchstone. Thus we can expect that the new International will not only reject capitalism and its defining features, but will advocate, instead, something broadly called socialism while at least at the outset, leaving the meaning of that label vague, not least to welcome diverse trends and perspectives to participate in a process that will seek unity but also welcome and even celebrate diversity.
A thorny problem will be who to include. The new International will certainly want to welcome anti capitalist parties, unions, projects, and movements - and perhaps even individuals, one might imagine. This would imply a very open call to join.
However, on the other hand, we can also confidently guess that the International will not want to be so broad and so welcoming that it loses all focus, and militance, or swamps innovative approaches with holdovers from the past. Rather than adopting a least common sum approach, which would define the International in terms of whatever limited points everyone in it could fully agree on, I think we can guess that a new International will take a more encompassing approach, seeing itself a bit more like a kind of society then like a focused organization. If that occurs, the International might opt to be the greatest inclusive sum of the views of all its members, contradictions and all - thereby embodying difference as part of its definition, including literally welcoming diverse trends and agendas, though also seeking to have each trend mutually respectful of and even, to the extent possible, supportive of the work of the rest.
This picture would entail some limits on the breadth of the membership, I suspect. All members would have to be revolutionary - not merely critical of capitalism even while taking its permanence for granted. All members would also presumably have to be anti imperialist, I would think, and anti war, and vigorously anti racist and anti sexist, and committed to the underlying values of participation and popular power and equity, and thus opposed to class as well as race and gender hierarchies that would disrupt such egalitarian and democratic aims.
Will this new International include social democratic projects, unions, parties, and movements who by a long history show no inclination to replace capitalism due to deciding that debate between these elements and more revolutionary members could be fruitful, or will the new International reject social democratic participation on the grounds that such debate would stall action and growth of the International to little gain?
Similarly, will the new International include projects, unions, parties, and movements that by their past and present practices evidence no inclination to fully overcome either race, gender, or class hierarchies while pursuing real participation, again, in the belief that engagement between partially oriented efforts and others who have more complete agendas would be fruitful, or would it reject such members on grounds they would distract from the most effective marshaling of efforts?
Presumably a new International would be very broad but would not bind its members to any kind of line but would, in certain instances, nonetheless call upon its members to relate positively to an overall agenda as well as to one another’s efforts. But how would decisions about agenda be made? How would members share lessons of their actions, pursue debate about contending views, and in both respects advance in their ideas and alliances?
Answering all the above questions, and many more as well, will have to wait, of course, for participants to determine their own wishes. But regardless of what resolutions occur, if there is a new International formed this Spring, a paramount question for all serious leftists and certainly for all participants in the Reimagining Society Project, or Resoc - as well as for all advocates of participatory economics and participatory society, or parecon and parsoc, such as myself - will be how do we relate to this endeavor?
For Resoc, the fit seems pretty clear. Resoc exists to try to discuss, debate, explore, and thus advance relevant ideas about vision, strategy, and program to attain a new, liberating, society. Where Resoc is a “gathering” of at large individuals, however, the International will include, I suspect, projects, unions, parties, and movements - and perhaps at large individuals too. Also, where Resoc has no activist program, the International certainly might issue calls for activism and apply its resources to joint tasks, etc. But, while different in those respects, regarding ideas, the two efforts are largely alike. Under a wide umbrella, while fostering mutual respect and welcoming diversity, both will prioritize moving forward our understanding of aims and methods. For this reason, it would seem that Resoc can easily and naturally assist the International. First, many Resoc participants will likely become part of the International via the membership of organizations they belong to. Second, the whole Resoc endeavor could easily be adapted to the International, becoming a part of or even perhaps a basis for the International’s explorations of vision and strategy, at least insofar as the International’s explorations have an online component.
What about the role of some of the “trends” that have surfaced within Resoc? For example, there are Resoc participants who strongly advocate the ideas of peer to peer production and allocation, others who strongly advocate an approach called Solidarity Economy, some who favor variants on market socialism, some with a strong anarchist leaning, and quite a few who favor parecon/parsoc - with much overlap as well as difference in these trends. So how will a “trend,” so to speak, relate to the International?
Of course I am guessing - but, a pretty good bet, I think, is that a broad perspective within the new International will be a trend in it, or a viewpoint in it, insofar as organizations in the International align together to collectively advocate such a viewpoint. Thus, various groups will likely be aligned within the International as solidarity economy, or peer to peer, or market socialist, or pareconist, etc., each constituting a kind of perspective or trend, each advocating its preferred views, and each trying to learn from those with other views.
Finally, we arrive at a parecon relevant implication of Venezuela’s call for a new International. Serious anti capitalists who have a broad perspective that they favor - in my case, participatory economics and participatory society or participatory socialism - will, if they want to be part of the International’s on-going discussion and exploration, need to be represented by members in the International.
For Parecon/parsoc, and this is my point in writing this essay, this implies that advocates need to move toward creating local, regional, or even national organizations and in time movements, which each have their own agendas and methods, of course, but which all align with one another working together or even federating as a perspective or trend in the International. If the International welcomes projects too, then that would be another means of participation for parecon/parsoc advocates.
On the one hand, one doesn’t want to prematurely and artificially create organizations where there is no real basis for doing so. On the other hand, it is my impression that parecon/parsoc organizations are now possible to announce and build, albeit they will be fledgling and difficult to sustain, in many places around the world.
Some places where there is already activity, or there could be activity rather soon, I suspect, include a good many cities in the U.S. and Canada, as well as Venezuela, Bolivia, Brazil, Argentina, Mexico, England, Ireland, Scotland, Spain, Italy, Germany, Sweden, Finland, Turkey, Greece, Poland, Bulgaria, Austria, South Africa, India, Korea, Japan, and Australia, among others. Of course any such parsocish organization would necessarily begin small, initially working on its own self definition, on popular education and outreach, and on communicating with other aligned organizations, as well as relating to political events and projects in its own country. Still, taken together, they could certainly constitute a serious trend inside a new International together by arguing the merits of their shared beliefs, further developing their mutual ties and connections, refining their views, etc.
Indeed, it seems to me it is time for people in position to do so and who share the parecon/parsoc viewpoint to begin creating such organizations, and I would love to hear from anyone who is already engaged, or wishes to become engaged in such work - leading toward events in April and thereafter.
Re: A New International, Resoc, and Parecon/Parsoc
By Kelly, Brian at Dec 15, 2009 17:49 PM
Very good questions Mike. I too was very excited when I heard Chavez's call. I hope we get answers to these questions as soon as possible.
One concern that democratic leftists should be raising to prominence is Chavez's recent and bizarre support for African and Middle Eastern dictators - dictators who have nothing to do with anything progressive, let alone undesirable forms of state coordinatorism.
I hope we can raise begin discussing these type of questions - what new international groupings will look like, how they will be organized, what they will be united around, what their strategy and vision will be, etc... - to high importance in our struggles.
Reply this comment
Re: A New International, Resoc, and Parecon/Parsoc
By Chrysostomou, Jason at Dec 10, 2009 09:25 AM
I’d like to see the development of a socialist international along the initial lines that have been mentioned, baring more information, and hope that socialists around the world are in a better position now to learn from experiments, struggles and mistakes in the last century to form an effective global movement that has unity, diversity and tolerance.
Concerning the relevance to Parsoc, I am involved with PPS-UK and from my own experience so far in the U.K my perception is that awareness of par-vision ideas, particularly Parecon has grown in the last few years. It’s hard to gauge at the moment what kind of support and interest there is in other places around the world other than reading blogs and so forth. As already mentioned there are websites that have been setup in U.S, Canada, Africa and Europe of Parsoc type groups but I’d be very interested to learn more about what these other groups are doing and to get a better idea of the level of interest.
Is it premature, or do others think that it would be worthwhile at this stage in sending out a message (getting contact details from websites, pps groups on Z, etc) and/or creating a space/forum/mailing-list to create initial dialogue between groups active in parsoc activities with the purpose being to get a better feel for the level of interest, activity and potential for creating an international PPS, even if it would be basic to begin with. I agree that it would be wrong to artificially force the establishment of an international PPS prematurely but I think it would be useful to begin by getting a better idea whether it is plausible at this stage and helpful if par-soc advocates are to have a presence at the April international talks.
Steve, I’m also sorry to hear that your group has dissolved. It seems to me that if the majority of the group do not feel comfortable taking a position of being against capitalism then I can understand that there would not be much point being a participatory society type organisation. Do you think an IPPS would help isolated advocates get involved, by being able to collaborate online with creating materials, presentations, projects, etc?
Reply this comment
Organizing 'Pluralistic Radicalism'
By D'Arcy, Steve at Dec 06, 2009 20:44 PM
These are difficult, but crucial questions.
One problem: the Left in South and Central America is so much stronger than the Left in places like North America or Europe that the 'International' will inevitably have a 'lopsided' quality, due to the much greater weight of the Left in places like Brazil, Bolivia, Venezuela, etc.
Another problem: pluralism can be very difficult, especially when big practical issues come up that people on the Left can't agree about, such as whether to support a political party in an election. For instance, some people on the Leftin the USA (including many associated with ZNet) supported the Democratic Party candidates in recent presidential elections. It can be hard to hold together a common political organization when some people regard that as support for the enemy (the ruling class) and some regard it as important to weaken the Right (or whatever). That's just one example, but there are others.
A third problem: people on the Left seem to find it hard to maintain a forward-looking perspective and set aside historical questions (about, say, the Spanish Civil War or the Russian Revolution, etc.), and this tendency becomes stronger the more people are removed from strong and dynamic practical-political social movements.
(I could go on listing problems like this, of course. But that wouldn't help anything.)
I have been reflecting on and working with these issues for some time, in part because I was involved in starting an organization called "London Project for a Participatory Society," in London, Ontario, Canada. Unfortunately, it has just in the past couple of weeks dissolved itself. However, it identified itself from the beginning as being committed to "pluralistic radicalism" and as "an anti-racist, pro-feminist, anti-capitalist organization." And we had a "Mission Statement" that tried to balance a shared commitment to egalitarian, democratic anti-capitalism with a willingness to organize with people who have their own politics (as opposed to politics narrowly associated with "parsoc" and related notions). In this respect we were different from other "PPS" groups, such as PPS-UK and others, which are specifically focussed on parecon advocacy and other parsoc-related projects. We did that, too, but as one part of a broader project of promoting egalitarian and democratic anti-capitalist radicalism, in a spirit of pluralism. Here's our Mission Statement:
"We strive to develop and promote the kind of analysis, vision, and strategy that activists need to work effectively for radical social change. Among the changes we seek are the elimination of all hierarchies and oppressions, including those based on race, gender, sexuality, ability, age and class. We also seek to promote both institutional innovation and grassroots popular mobilization in order to advance our goal of a radically egalitarian post-capitalist participatory economy, and a society founded upon political and economic democracy and social and environmental justice."
We usually didn't find the pluralism to be unworkable, at all. But that was partly because we were mainly focussed on discussing ideas. Most of us were activists involved in organizing. But the LPPS didn't itself do much organizing. So it was easier for us to "agree to disagree."
In the end, however, there were fundamental differences of opinion that did play a role in the disintegration of the group (in my opinion). Specifically, a majority (which didn't include me) eventually decided that we should cease to describe ourselves as "anti-capitalist." I won't re-hash the debates here. But, clearly, if some people in the group think that we shouldn't be "anti-capitalist" (but only "for post-capitalism," as one person put it), whereas others think that the whole point of the group is to be anti-capitalist, this creates a real problem in terms of holding together a shared sense of what we're trying to do.
In a context of exciting, dynamic social struggles, these differences can be papered over or put aside. But in a context when the level of struggle is very low, when the struggles that do take place often end in defeat for our side, and where the organization itself is becoming more stagnant due to a lack of 'new blood' to bolster enthusiasm, it becomes very difficult to maintain a viable group.
So, I guess what I'm saying is that I do think that some kind of pluralist organizing against capitalism is possible, but often difficult, and that if there is any "correct" forumula for making it happen, I certainly haven't discovered it yet (although I do think that I've learned a lot from trying).
Reply this comment
Re: Organizing 'Pluralistic Radicalism'
By Evans, Mark at Dec 07, 2009 14:24 PM
Hi Steve - I'm sorry to hear about LPPS.
I'm not sure that this is the right place to ask, but I was wondering if you could say more about why you think your group folded?
My feeling / guess is that, based on what you write, it has something to do with its complicated / contradictory identity ... but of course it is difficult to say from here.
Reply this comment
Re: Re: Organizing 'Pluralistic Radicalism'
By D'Arcy, Steve at Dec 07, 2009 20:56 PM
Hi Mark,
You ask, did the LPPS dissolve because of its "complicated / contradictory identity"? Well, first, I wouldn't quite agree that our identity was either complicated or contradictory. We had a clear, fairly straightforward mission statement and that was our basis of unity. I know what you mean, though. Our identity was such that people who disagreed about a great deal could still join, even though they had (within limits) diverging goals or strategies.
I would answer the question by saying, "yes and no."
On the one hand, I don't believe that the organization was particularly plagued by conflict over political differences, or that the decline and dissolution of the group was a direct result of political differences of vision or strategy. We all accepted, and even took for granted, that we disagreed about certain things, and nobody ever seemed troubled by that. It was partly a reflection of the fact that there just aren't that many anti-capitalists in London, especially anti-capitalists that want to be in an anti-capitalist organization.
On the other hand, I believe that there was a kind of hidden problem that didn't become clear until the end. We lacked a clear, shared understanding about what the role of an anti-capitalist organization was supposed to be. To tell you the truth, I always thought that we did have such a shared understanding, but it turned out not to be the case. In particular, at a certain point it became clear that by labeling ourselves as "anti-capitalist" we would effectively be turning away any left-wing activists who did not oppose capitalism (such as what one might call radical Keynesians, of which Naomi Klein might be a typical example). I thought that we all understood that this was part and parcel of what it means to have an anti-capitalist organization: it introduces some political differentiation on the Left, between people who oppose particular policies or practices within captialism and people who oppose capitalism itself, as a system. However, once it dawned on people that this would create a barrier between us and non-anti-capitalists on the Left, some members came to feel that the term "anti-capitalist" was too divisive, and that it unnecessarily precluded Left-Keynesians from joining the group.
We decided, by a 2/3 majority (as our Constitution required), to drop the description of our group as "anti-capitalist." I was in the minority in that vote.
That happened in our last meeting. The 'convening coordinator,' who is supposed to organize meetings, had actually moved the motion to drop 'anti-capitalist' from our idenity. But he didn't organize any further meetings, and neither myself nor any other member took any initiative to hold another meeting. After several months, I pointed out (via email) that our Constitution requires that we have an Annual General Meeting, and suggested that we should either hold an AGM soon or dissolve the group. I said that I could go either way: if others want an AGM, I'll be happy to participate, but if no one does, that's OK, too, and we can just dissolve the LPPS. No one replied expressing an interest in holding an AGM.
So, why did things take this course? Not because of the pluralism, at least not directly because of that, but because we didn't have a shared understanding of what the project was trying to do. We dropped the idea that our 'niche' was to be the city's only anti-capitalist organization, putting forward an anti-capitalist radicalism that was lacking in other organizations. But we didn't replace it with some other conception of what our role was to be. I, for one, lost a lot of my motivation to participate. In Canada, after all, we have a mass party with dozens of Members of Parliament devoted to social-democratic reformism, so why do we need a non-anti-capitalist Left organization with about a dozen members?
Sorry for the overly long reply, but the full, detailed story would have been several times longer!
Reply this comment
Re: Re: Re: Organizing 'Pluralistic Radicalism'
By Evans, Mark at Dec 08, 2009 08:34 AM
Steve - What I was trying to get at is that your group seems to have had two identities - one inspired by participatory vision and strategy and another informed by pluralistic radicalism.
Now I grant you that these are not necessarily contradictory but I would have thought that combined they did create quite a burden - trying to ballance one off against the other or juggle both sets of demands at the same time.
Why make things so hard for your selves?
Reply this comment
Re: Organizing 'Pluralistic Radicalism'
By D'Arcy, Steve at Dec 07, 2009 09:47 AM
One other thought occurs to me, now. In Venezuela, the PSUV -- the party to which Chavez belongs -- is itself a fusion of several other parties of the Left that had previously worked together as separate organizations. So, it would be interesting to know more about how that is working out. Presumably, there are different currents within it. In the past, at least, that was also true of the Workers' Party in Brazil, although I don't know much about its current state (especially since it has moved toward a pro-neoliberal position in recent years, to some extent switching sides in the class struggle, arguably).
In the 'advanced-capitalist' countries, such as in North America, Western Europe and Australia (for instance), there have been several 'socialist alliances' with varying levels of success: the New Anti-capitalist Party in France, Quebec Solidaire in Canada, the Socialist Alliance in Australia, die Linke in Germany, and so on. In the USA, there is a process (not an organization) called "Revolutionary Work in Our TImes" (RWIOT), involving several organizations from a range of political backgrounds (neo-trotskyist, post-maoist, revolutionary black nationalist, etc.), which seems potentially headed in the direction of creating a pluralist revolutionary organization of some sort. It includes Solidarity, Freedom Socialist Organization, Left Turn, Malcolm X Grassroots Movement, and others.
But it may be that the effectiveness of these alliances depends on scale. I know from experience that, the more there is to lose (like a large, effective organization), the more people are willing to seek a reasonable compromise when disagreements arise. Conversely, a weak, relatively ineffective $organization offers less of an incentive to seek compromise and accommodation. This would likely create special challenges for efforts in places like Canada and the U.S.
It may be that, in some countries, it is more practical to create multi-organization networks at the country-level, and have members of the 'national' network seek affiliation with the 'International' one by one. Over time, as cooperation and trust grows, separte organizations in the 'national' networks could merge or formally align with each other in one or more ways.
Reply this comment
Re: A New International, Resoc, and Parecon/Parsoc
By Evans, Mark at Dec 04, 2009 10:25 AM
As a member of a UK based project for a participatory society (www.ppsuk.org.uk) I see the necessity for this organisation to be part of an international organisation for a participtory society made-up of other National chapters. But I also very much like the idea of such organisations belonging to a broader radical-progressive international organisation as described above.
The basic reason I like this idea of belonging to a broader organisation is because it would create an organising framework for radical-progressives to come together to work-out / celebrate our differences as well as identify common ground for activism. It is this kind of broad radical culture on an international scale that I so much want to be part of - but as a member of an organisation with its own ideas on vision and strategy that would alow me to participate in a meaningful and constructive way.
Having said that, I also have some concerns. I know from experience (and I know that I am not alone here) that broad based radical organisations are not easy to maintain. One of the reasons there are seperate and isolated radical organisations not belonging to the same international is because we can't agree on basic things like how to make decisions (ie. what democracy means). For example those who organise around democratic centralism have one answer and those who organise around self-management have another answer, and these notions of democracy are completely at odds with eachother. How we get around this problem whilst maintaining a broad and diverse orgaisation is difficult for me to imagine.
Reply this comment
International...Issues...
By Albert, Michael at Dec 05, 2009 09:07 AM
Mark,
Suppose some Leninists or some Leninist organizations, as but one possible example, says we want a new society that has self management for all citizens - but, to get from here to there, we believe we will need to combat such incredibly violent and hypocritical forces, and also self destructive bad habits, that we will have to adopt interim approaches that move toward what we seek, of course, but that are certainly not there yet - including organizational structures that are democratic but for now also centralist, and so on.
These Leninist persons or organizations add that they believe that for revolutionaries to instead opt for replicating desired future relations in the present moment as closely as we possibly can is a recipe for total defeat and thus, implicitly, supports the status quo and not the change we all say we want.
In contrast, you, I, and some pareconist or libertarian organizations and others say, we want a new society that has self management for all citizens - and - to get there from here we believe that to combat all the obstacles, including the familiar slip slide into structures that we don't in fact want, we will have to adopt interim approaches that move toward what we seek and that are as close to what we seek as we can sensibly manage at every stage - including organizational structures that are self managing and horizontal from the outset.
You - or I, etc. - add that we believe that to fall short of this standard and particularly to settle for having any centrally important top down social relations is a recipe either for total defeat - due to not being inspiring - or, if it succeeds, a recipe for winning that which we reject and becoming unable to attain that which we seek, to that the approach implicitly supports the status quo or distasteful change.
Clearly no matter how one feels about the contending views, you are correct that even in this toned down picture, the two positions are at odds. That said, it is also true that both positions should want to discover which is correct and to pursue it - and therefore should want a fair and reasoned and careful face off of views, so to speak, with each trying to do its best, and being evaluated, and seeking refinements, etc. The key thing is to have agreement over the sustaining and sought goal, on the one hand, and over openness to working together and testing contending views, as well as debating and trying to resolve or further explore differences.
I not only think that that stance is possible, I think anything short of that stance - on either side - is, in our current situation, a major obstacle to progress.
Assuming, for the moment, a future Fifth International with pareconish components, among many others, you would presumably be in UKPPS, and perhaps in a federation of PPS chapters and organizations inside an international that would also include anti capitalist, anti racist, anti sexist, and anti authoritarian, advocates of popular power - etc. - of quite different viewpoints than your own, including, I would think, various marxist and marxist leninist, and other projects and organizations. Can we respect one another enough to make headway together?
There are two broad attitudes to this central issue that you raise.
One - some leninist, or some anarchist or pareconist for that matter, could say, well, my way is the only right way, in my view, in the end - so I think the best thing to do is for me and folks like me to work hard to advance our way, and to prove its worth, so that then all others who are serious will come aboard. In the meantime, however, the differences are so great we will have to operate completely separately rather than in some overarching umbrella structure where we talk together, work together, etc.
Two - some leninist, or some anarchist, or pareconist for that matter, could say, well, like you I also think my way is going to prove essential, in the end - but I admit that I could be wrong, and I also know that my way is not going to get anywhere worthy if it can't communicate with people as close to me as others who are seeking essentially the same long run goal, so I think the best thing to do is to have each trend or tendency exist and develop its views in its own ways, but also to have all of them work together in a large umbrella relationship - an International - where the level of mutual respect and shared aims are sufficient, as defined by that structure, to benefit each component and especially prospects for growing unity.
In Asia, for example,, as we consider the possibility of such an endeavor, one could easily imagine some people feeling, well, our leninist operations are by far the most plentiful and effective among people who are serious about overcoming and replacing capitalism, and there is simply no need for us to have overarching ties with others. In Latin America, for example, one could easily imagine some people feeling, well, our approach to 21st century socialism is by far the most plentiful and effective among people who are serious about overcoming and replacing capitalism, and there is simply no need for us to have ties with others. In perhaps the U.S., or the UK, among others, not too far in the future, one could imagine someone thinking, well, our pareconist/libertarian operations are by far the most plentiful and effective among people who are serious about overcoming and replacing capitalism, and there is simply no need for us to have ties with others.
I think all these folks would be making a mistake and I think this would be so even if one trend was far and away largest and most effective, at the moment, everywhere. Diversity is precisely about preserving room for difference even when most folks think it is not needed. Thus my suggesting the desirability of a trend, indeed of many trends, and also of an international encompassing all those trends that do seriously share enough about vision to see themselves as partners with one another in one very variegated project.
Do I know that the above route of solidarity with autonomy will generate the largest most effective left - rather than each trend going off entirely on its own and one doing so well that way, that it grows and refines, to finally encompass most other efforts in one large. movement? No, I don't. But I think it would, and I think it would be a process worthy in its own right in contributing to the kind of open and respectful attitudes we will need, so I would certainly like to try the approach, rather than rule it out by assuming it cannot work. I can't tell you it won't fail, over the concerns you raise, but I think I can tell you it is worth trying, even as folks in different trends also work to refine and improve their particular efforts.
Reply this comment
Re: International...Issues...
By Evans, Mark at Dec 07, 2009 06:58 AM
Michael – I definitely agree with you that a diverse international organisation would require an "open and respectful attitude" from all its member organisations. I also share your view that the alternative attitude that you spell out is "a major obstacle to progress".
Like I said, I would like PPS-UK to be part of an international organisation for a participatory society, but I would also like this international to belong to a more diverse international - on condition that all member organisations adopted a suitable attitude. The question is, is this possible? Well, of course we don’t know, but I am more than willing to try, and with someone like Chavez behind it I think the possibility of it working are far higher.
It seems to me, however, that a practical problem still remains. Let’s imagine that this new international has been founded. And let’s say that here in the UK there are three organisations signed-up to this diverse international – the SWP, IWW and PPS-UK. Now let’s imagine that these three (in some ways very different) organisations have a National gathering to develop strategy for the UK. Okay, so far so good. But what happens when it comes to decision-making? All three organisations have very different ideas about democracy. Even with an open and respectful attitude how can they even begin to organise?
So, it seems to me that we have –
Reply this comment
Re: Re: International...Issues...
By Administrator2, Site2 at Dec 07, 2009 12:43 PM
> Michael - I definitely agree with you that a diverse international organisation would require an "open and respectful attitude" from all its member organisations. I also share your view that the alternative attitude that you spell out is "a major obstacle to progress".
I knew we agreed on this...good.
> Like I said, I would like PPS-UK to be part of an international organisation for a participatory society, but I would also like this international to belong to a more diverse international - on condition that all member organisations adopted a suitable attitude. The question is, is this possible? Well, of course we don't know, but I am more than willing to try, and with someone like Chavez behind it I think the possibility of it working are far higher.
> Again, we agree....
> It seems to me, however, that a practical problem still remains. Let's imagine that this new international has been founded. And let's say that here in the UK there are three organisations signed-up to this diverse international - the SWP, IWW and PPS-UK.
I think there will be more, but those three are very likely, yes, I agree...
> Now let's imagine that these three (in some ways very different) organisations have a National gathering to develop strategy for the UK. Okay, so far so good. But what happens when it comes to decision-making? All three organisations have very different ideas about democracy. Even with an open and respectful attitude how can they even begin to organise?
That is one difference, but far from the only one. But just because these organizations are in an international together, that doesn't imply that they have the same agenda for what is most important or even worth doing in the UK, or internationally. Being in the international together means only that they share some agenda items, which the international arrives at - not that they share all, or or nearly all, or even most agenda items. They each have their own agendas, methods, etc. But they talk - they sometimes work together - they hopefully have in mind the same ultiamte goals, broadly...and so on.
So, it seems to me that we have -
The former, yes - but honestly I don't think it is all that different organization to organization, than person to person within an organization...in fact, in some ways, the former ought to be easier...
I am not sure what the practical problem is. The international needs a set of procedures and structure that is members respect and are willing to abide - or not be members. That doesn't mean each can't make a case, at times, for altering them, and hope to prevail.
The abstract issues are straightforward. We know what the attitude of each to all ought to be, as well, broadly. What is hard, though I am not always sure why - but honestly it seems mostly difficult due to ego, I guess one might call it - is to do it.
Reply this comment
Re: Re: Re: International...Issues...
By Evans, Mark at Dec 08, 2009 08:37 AM
Michael – thanks for the clarification, that is a different conceptualisation of the international than I had in mind.
You write "I am not sure what the practical problem is" and continue adding "We know what the attitude of each to all ought to be…"
I agree and I think the power of reason ought to have an impact on the not so helpful attitudes that dominate the revolutionary left at the moment.
For example Lindsey German of the SWP writes "all those who want fundamental change in society have to be part of a Leninist organisation". Drawing on Trotsky’s notion of the "united front" she also states how such an organisation will grow –
"By using the united front, revolutionaries can work with those in non-revolutionary parties over single issues whilst maintaining their political principles and clarity. In the process – because they have much more idea about how to fight over these issues than the leaders of the reformist parties like Labour – they win significant numbers of workers towards their politics."
Anarchists, of course, have their version of this argument and both factions of the revolutionary left help maintain the division which you rightly identify as "a major obstacle to progress".
Unfortunately, however, in my experience a call to reason is not sufficient to break this deadlock – and I don’t think it is ego, I suspect that it is ideology overriding common sense.
Anyway, perhaps the combined forces of the power of reason and the power of the Chavez Government will be enough to break this deadlock. I think that will be the key … I certainly hope so.
Reply this comment
Re: Re: Re: Re: International...Issues...
By Administrator2, Site2 at Dec 08, 2009 11:15 AM
Mark,
Nothing about a good International, or anyone in it - would by itself cause me to wnat to operate as the SWP does, or vice versa - but why is that a problem?
Over time, some members will go one way in their thinking, some another way - maybe even all winding up close, which is also not a problem.
The problem that emerges from the quote you offer is different. It is that she is saying, and maybe meaning, not just that people have very diffferent views - which is okay - but that people with views she doesn't agree with aren't serious and aren't revolutionary - and if she says that, then there is no mutual respect. That view will be deemed, I would hope, not a worthy, or even a permitted, stance for a member of a worthy international to have toward other members.
On the other hand, if she said I think that the way you go about trying to create a better society is dysfunctional or counter productive, despite your being serious and having intentions like we all do, that is not a problem - I think. We can both be in an International even with that much difference adn view of each other....if we both accept the other's existence, we both are eager that some path proves workable - not ONLY that that our path does, and so on.
Reply this comment
in DFW
By McGehee, Michael at Dec 03, 2009 07:16 AM
i started the Dallas/Fort Worth Project for a Participatory Society
there is an anarchist warehouse in FW that provides meeting spaces for groups, puts on punk shows, etc. IWW meets there, a friend hosts Conscientious Projector (he does monthly free screenings of social, political and economic documentaries, movies, etc).
started it last March, was on hiatus for a bit due to a new addition to my family, but resumed last month with a screening of a Z video by Grubacic, then held a discussion.
a week from this sunday I am showing Shalom's Z video and discussing participatory polity.
Next month I plan to do Cynthia's and discuss daycare services in a parsoc.
Interest is building, and more are coming out. Right now I focus on liberating consciousness and how to conceptualize society - mostly aimed at anarchists who overemphasize class and state at the expense of gender, race, ethnicity, culture, sexuality, ecology, ableism, etc.
Reply this comment
Re: in DFW
By Albert, Michael at Dec 05, 2009 09:04 AM
Michael,
What do you think of the overall picture - an International, on the one hand - and trends within it, working with one anotherr, while also, of course, pursuing their own agendas as well - including, for example, one favoring parsoc/parecon.
Reply this comment
Re: Re: in DFW
By McGehee, Michael at Dec 07, 2009 06:39 AM
i am for it.
with dfwpps i usually encounter people already in groups or dedicated to certain causes. so i try not to "steal" their members, but focus on how we see ourselves and what we do, what tools we feel are best to achieve our goals and so on.
Reply this comment