March for the Alternative
An audio series exploring the present and future of the UK anti-austerity movement...
“March for the Alternative” is a series produced by Harpreet K Paul of Project for a Participatory Society UK (PPS UK) and Chris Spannos of ZNet, reflecting on the anti-cuts movement in the UK by interviewing diverse participants, organizers, and thinkers including Alex Callinicos, Jason Chrysostomou, Bill Bowring, Andrew Burgin, Jonny Jones, Joe Henson, Liam Davies, and Mark Barrett. Each participant shares their views on the anti-cuts mobilizations and the massive “March for the Alternative” -- a demonstration that took place last Saturday March 26, and which brought out a high-end estimate of 500,000 people onto the streets of London.
Alex Callinicos, political theorist, Socialist Workers Party (SWP) member and its International Secretary, is interviewed by Chris Spannos. Alex is also Director of the Centre for European Studies at King's College London.
Length: 16:05
Andrew Burgin, Secretary Coalition of Resistance. Interviewed by Harpreet K Paul.
Liam Davies, UK Uncut Press contact. Interviewed by Harpreet K Paul.
Jonny Jones interviewed by Harpreet K Paul. Jonny is deputy editor of International Socialism, the SWP's theoretical journal.
Jason Chrysostomou and Joe Henson from Project for a Participatory Society UK (PPS UK). Interviewed by Chris Spannos.
Bill Bowring interviewed by Harpreet K Paul. Bill is Professor of Law at the University of London. He serves as the International Secretary of the Haldane Society of Socialist Lawyers, is President of the European Lawyers for Democracy and Human Rightsand founded the European Human Rights Advocacy Centre.
Mark Barrett, Peoples Assemblies. Interviewed by Harpreet K Paul.
ZNet Articles
ZAudios
ZVideos
Books
UK stand up!
By Sweetman, Joseph at Apr 07, 2011 09:21 AM
As for the other comments on the Peoples Assembles (PAs), I would think that it would be useful to concentrate on the similarities between PAs and PPS and Parpolity. I support the general idea of a PA. Basically, trying to get people together to organise for their own benefit. Although the people involved have yet to outline in detail what kinds of institutions a PA would have, the spirit is participatory and the basic action/idea would be a necessary precursor of any kind of Parpolity. That is, we need to have people organised in some kind of institution that encourages their participation in their lives and spreads a culture of democracy/participation. I think we need to be careful not to come across as "high jackers" in some self-professed "vanguard" in the meeting. That is, while I think we should give enough detail about the participatory institutions we are thinking about, developing, and advocating (e.g., parpolity/parecon) in order to encourage hope for alternative institutions, I don't think we should be there PRIMARILY to simply tell "them" what a participatory polity might look like. Or to point out the differences between Parpolity and what "they" are advocating so far. Rather, we should be there because we want to take part in any kind of movement/action that moves us towards a more participatory society. And because we have some exciting ideas to share with all those committed to such goals.
Reply this comment
Re: UK stand up!
By Evans, Mark at Apr 07, 2011 11:10 AM
All I was suggesting is that we might engage in a balanced assessment of the different approaches to organising. No doubt both approaches with have their pro’s and con’s and I think it would be interesting to clarify these.
Im not sure why that would come across as highjacking what they are doing - the PA people can listen to what we have to say and embrace or reject it. Having said that I have recently experiences hostile responses to such proposals. But I suspect that these people (the hostile responders) are generally opposed to the development of vision so we are going to get that from them regardless.
But serious organisers do need to be able to answer basic questions about decision-making processes and institutional features for their organisation. So the questions I suggest to Jason (here) seem to me to be perfectly reasonable.
Like Mark Barret and the other PA people I and PPS-UK members want to help establish a new participatory political system here in the UK by creating new participatory political institutions. It seems PA and PPS have a lot in common. But there are also important differences.
Clarifying these differences might be helpful and interesting. Most importantly we might be able to develop a working relationship together.
Reply this comment
Re: Re: UK stand up!
By Sweetman, Joseph at Apr 07, 2011 12:00 PM
While I agree that a balanced assessment, and basic questions about decision-making processes and institutions is important for serious organisers, I guess those like you (and me) who advocate participatory institution/systems like Parpolity and Parecon need to approach these things in a spirit of solidarity. I would be deeply worried if PPSUK were unable to develop a working relationship with the PAs... Given the values of the cuts movement and PAs. I am not saying that we don't approach things in a spirit of solidarity at the moment, just that it is easy for others to perceive the dangers I outlined above (and your experience seems similar). Also, they may rightful ask how we have implemented nested councils and other participatory institutions in our own organisation...
Therefore, while I think that your questions are good ones, I wonder whether this Saturdays meeting is the right place to raise them? For example, it takes (me at least) 45 minutes to outline Parecon and about 30mins for (the less developed) Parpolity. It seems a little difficult for PA folks to answer (in an informed way at least) whether they like some of the features of these systems, and even harder for them to propose alternatives if they are not convinced then and there, particularly if there is not adequate time to present and think about these issues. Maybe there will be time and maybe the folks there wont mind PPS taking up half the meeting time, I don't know... but I think we should be prepared for that not to be the case.
I suggested that we briefly/superficially outline Parpolity and (maybe parecon) say that we don't expect people to be convinced right there and then, and don't expect them to come up with plausible alternatives there and then either. Rather give them food (and a good leaflet/links) for thought. So that the next PA meeting we might begin a sensible discussion on long/short term "vision". This shows that we are there in solidarity and that we will be sticking around whether or not they "subscribe" to our vision.
That's how I feel, at least - can't speak for anybody else.
Reply this comment
Re: Re: Re: UK stand up!
By Evans, Mark at Apr 07, 2011 17:54 PM
“I am not saying that we don't approach things in a spirit of solidarity at the moment, just that it is easy for others to perceive the dangers I outlined above (and your experience seems similar).”
I agree. But I don’t think that the hostility I have experienced is in response to a lack of solidarity on my part but rather was in response to ideas that I presented for organising that are informed by vision. It is asserting clear ideas about how to organise in accordance with our values / vision that seems to piss some people off. They seem to think that it is elitist in some way.
“Also, they may rightful ask how we have implemented nested councils and other participatory institutions in our own organisation...”
And the answer would be - with very limited success but for obvious reasons. More committed people who understand the vision, and its strategic implications, is what we need to move beyond these limitations - but I guess that is initially true of all such organisations.
“Therefore, while I think that your questions are good ones, I wonder whether this Saturdays meeting is the right place to raise them?”
I dont know - obviously that is up to the people who attend to decide. But the point is that all organisations need institutional features that are in-keeping with their values / vision so the question will need to be addressed at some point. It will be interesting to see what the PA people comes up with and how - if at all - they differ from PPS-UK local chapters.
Maybe they will come up with some new innovations that we will want to adopt. I hope so!
Anyway, Id be interested to hear how things pan out.
Hope to catch-up with you soon.
Reply this comment
Re: March for the Alternative
By Evans, Mark at Apr 05, 2011 11:25 AM
However, despite this apparent similarity in long-term objectives, It seems that the starting point for the Peoples Assembles is different to that of the starting point for PPS-UK's local chapters.
Maybe Ive got this wrong but it seems to me that whereas PPS-UK chapters are inspired by a specific vision for an alternative political system (parpolity) the Peoples Assembles are intended as a space that can attract and accommodate people with an interest in participatory democracy but initially without any specific ideas of what these new institutions look like or how this new democracy will function.
If that is correct then it might be interesting to explore the pro's and con's of both approaches?
Reply this comment
Re: Re: March for the Alternative
By Chrysostomou, Jason at Apr 07, 2011 08:36 AM
Latest ideas put forward about peoples assemblies: http://www.peoplesassemblies.org/2011/01/ideas-on-peoples-assemblies/
There is a peoples assemblies event this saturday that I believe a few of us are going to attend. If you have any questions or thoughts you'd like me to pass on let me know.
Reply this comment
Re: Re: Re: March for the Alternative
By Evans, Mark at Apr 07, 2011 11:08 AM
My basic question would be - what is the difference between PA and PPS local chapters?
It seems the answer is that we have a set of institutional features that inform how we organise - self-management, balanced job complexes, etc.
So the question becomes - do the PA people like these features?
If they answer no then ask them - what their alternatives to these features are?
If they answer yes then ask them - how does their organisation differ from what we are doing? What are the benefits of having two organisation with the same features and objectives?
Just the obvious questions really...
Another issue is that of organising on an international scale. We all know - or should know - the importance of organising internationally if we want a successful revolution. If PA aren’t organising as part of an international effort I would raise that as a serious issue.
If the PA people address these issue / questions then I suspect they will be very close to where we are at and maybe we could join forces.
Reply this comment
Apathy is Dead Photo
By Paul, Harpreet at Mar 30, 2011 13:42 PM
Reply this comment