Shifting Priorities In Response To Changed Circumstances
In a recent blog on The New Left Project website, Michael Krog wrote:
To cut to the chase. I don’t believe capitalism is going to be challenged in any meaningful way anytime soon…. Although obviously it’s vital that we challenge the economic dogmas of the neo-liberal version, or cult, of capitalism, I’m not really optimistic that the ‘idea’ on its own, is a match for raw power…. If we lived in a healthy and functioning democracy, with a free debating climate, and a neutral mass media, I’d be more optimistic, only we don’t…. Given the multiple crises we face … a people’s revolution would seem to be our only chance of avoiding disaster or collapse. On the other hand I’m not sure that the revolution will happen quick enough.
I could easily agree with these sentiments. However, pondering how hopeless our situation may, or may not be will get us nowhere. The practical question is what to do. Here I have changed my views about some relative priorities regarding how we expend our limited energies and resources in response to what are some important changes in circumstances from a few years ago.
The dilemma the left faces remains the same: Nowhere in Europe or the US/Canada does the left have the trust and loyalty of anywhere approaching a third of the population. Worse still, we no longer have the ability to mobilize whatever percentage does agree with us. Until this changes our ability to affect outcomes in a global capitalist world will remain minimal. And until this changes our ability to move the agenda of replacing capitalism with a participatory democratic socialism forward will also remain minimal. The percentage who agree with us varies from country to country -- and that makes a big difference to what strategies should be most effective in different places. But the fact that the percentage is as small as it is everywhere remains the major obstacle we must overcome.
There is always a debate on the left about how much to prioritize electoral vs. non-electoral work, how much to prioritize working in mass reform campaigns vs. building what I call “imperfect experiments in equitable cooperation" but are generally called countercultural or prefigurative institutions, and between building social movements vs. agitation for socialism. I can speak only for the US, but at least here I believe that changed circumstances warrant a shift of priorities, at least to some extent.
(1) In light of the Citizens United Supreme Court decision which now permits unlimited and secret corporate money to pollute elections, it seems to me that working to elect decent candidates -- whether they be inside or outside the Democratic Party -- will prove even less productive than in the past. Those who work on electoral issues need to prioritize electoral reform more and getting particular people elected less. I also believe that until at least some headway is made on electoral reform, non-electoral work deserves somewhat greater emphasis because electoral work will become even less productive than it has been. I believe it is hard to make a case that Citizens United does not warrant less emphasis on electing progressive candidates.
(2) The center left has become the center right, and reform organizations have diminished in power at best, and abdicated leadership at worst in opposing the neoconservative onslaught. Because those are the forces the left must work with in reform campaigns, I believe reform work will also prove even less productive than in the past -- at least for the moment.
While I believe (1) and (2) are logical conclusions, I do not consider them good news. Electoral work and working in reform campaigns are the most productive ways to reach out to new recruits, which is what we need more than anything else. So the fact that these kinds of activities will prove less productive than in the past, at least for now, is no cause for rejoicing. However, because electoral and reform organizing will be less productive, and also because triumphant, disaster capitalism will continue to abandon many more people struggling to simply meet their basic needs, I believe that organizing counter institutions should receive greater priority than in the past. Again, this is problematic because often when the left concentrates on building counter institutions we do so in ways that further isolates us from those we need to reach out to most.
(3) I also believe that as disaster capitalism consolidates its power and realistic prospects for social democratic capitalism dim at least in the near term, it makes more sense to preach the ills of capitalism and sing the praises of socialism. So even if only a small minority right now are receptive to the message "capitalism is the problem and only socialism is the solution," I believe this message will resonate more than in the past among those whom disaster capitalism pushes out of the middle classes and whose life prospects dim. This means that making a compelling case for how and why participatory eco-socialism not only solves our economic problems – which will continue and worsen for at least another four years, and possibly many more – but would also unlock a way forward to reversing environmental degradation and preventing climate change, and why only participatory eco-socialism can deliver true economic justice and democracy, should be a higher priority than in the past.
ZNet Articles
ZMag Articles
ZCommentaries
ZAudios
ZVideos
Blog Posts
Books
Public Opinion
By Barkdull, John at Dec 27, 2010 16:58 PM
http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/general_politics/april_2009/just_53_say_capitalism_better_than_socialism
Reply this comment
grassroots organizing
By Wetzel, Tom at Dec 18, 2010 01:42 AM
What's needed are forms of grassroots counter-power so that working people can directly involve themselves in pushing back, learn, practice democratic decision-making.
Reply this comment
Re: grassroots organizing
By Grinder, Matt at Dec 18, 2010 04:49 AM
Reply this comment
Is working within the system possible in the United States?
By Petre, Bogdan at Dec 18, 2010 01:39 AM
Reply this comment
Re: Is working within the system possible in the United States?
By Grinder, Matt at Dec 18, 2010 04:38 AM
It's better than a coalition of left groups, or a large left group, because it's particpatory, democratic, and able to engage in mainstream politics without its message being diluted by elite members. A left group can't enter an election, a party can. Well, a left group can enter a candidate in an election, but I hope you get my meaning.
Historically, socialist parties were pretty powerful entities. So let's bring them back, but this time do them right, with no heirarchy and with participatory democracy. Make it impossible for leaders to take over,so we can grow into an organiation everyone trusts and is not corruptable.
Reply this comment
participatory political party
By Grinder, Matt at Dec 17, 2010 18:35 PM
Suppose you had a party that made decisions through nested councils, as in those suggested by Shalom's parpolity. The party runs a candidate, but that candidate is simply a puppet of the nested councils. If they are elected, they must do what the nested councils tell them to do. Their speech content must reflect the priorities set by the councils, any legislation they try to introduce must come from and be approved by the councils. If they are elected and go against the wishes of the coucils, then the councils can vote to remove them. They sign a legal contract , where, once they are booted out of the party, then they must also resign from their elected office, as the contract stipulates (I think (hope) this would work from a legal standpoint). Thus if they betray the councils, there is an immediate new election. Candidates for election will be selected by their ability to make good speeches, and that would basically be it. They don't lead the party, they are just one voice in the party.
So what's the benefit? First, you have a party with the long term goal of parecon and pasoc. If the party gets into power, you're very close to a parsoc, you just need to people to vote to take steps to implementing it. Second, the party is, by design, controlled by the "grassroots", very hard for elites to take it over. Third, people will get used to making decisions in a participatory manner in the nested councils. Fourth, the party will go a long way towards popularizing parecon, candidates can describe parecon during speeches, signs can be put up, etc. The fact that nobody knows about parecon is our biggest obstacle right now. Fifth, when there is no election immanent, you can use the party resources to help orgainize other activist activities, make it a center for organizing and campaigns. Activists can use it to pool their money to make more effective actions. Sixth, it is doable right now with a few people.
Finally, the way the organization would work is far more effective than just creating an organization of parecon enthusiasts. Having been involved with the Vancouver Parecon collective, I realized quite quickly that the only thing we could do was to give a talk on parecon or parsoc, hand out some leaflets. There was basically nothing else to do but to do some other activism and try to interst people in parecon. As a party, you are much more powerful, you get much more exposure, and there is always something to do which furthers the movement.
Reply this comment
Re: participatory political party
By Wetzel, Tom at Dec 18, 2010 19:36 PM
the most likely sort of political party outside the Dems at present would be something like the recently formed Oregon Working Families Party. but this type of party, formed by unions and community groups, will reflect the particular concrete priorities of these local working class-based organizations who are frustrated with the corporate-capitalist-neoliberal Dem party. it's not likely to reflect your favored ideology.
but for the practical purpose of electoral politics, this is the type of party that is most likely. and it is likely to suffer the sort of pattern that historically has limited broad based left political parties. for one thing, a problem with electoral politics is the focus on getting a candidate elected. so the people who are elected tend to end up dominating parties, because they have their followers....their clients...and they can form a kind of internal political machine. also there will be a tendency for an electoral political party to focus on statist programs because politicians get elected to run the state or create state programs. because of the tendency to hierarchy, power of political leaders, i don't tend to see political parties as an authentic mass organization.
i'm not here arguing against political organization. but political organizations with a radical viewpoint are going to be minoritarian organizations, especially in the current period. for that matter, if you look at revolutions that were mass based events, membership in the left parties and political organizations was always much smaller than participation in the mass organizations and mass struggles.
the development of working class unity and class consciousness only comes from people coming together in struggle and learning and developing as activists and so on. and mass struggles require some form of democratic mass organization if the members/participants are to control them. but a mass struggle and mass organization isn't formed on the basis of a narrower sort of ideological unity that is typical of radical political organizations. a labor union or tenants organization or some other type of mass organization is formed around the current aspirations and understanding of the people involved. they bring people together on the basis of their willingness to fight, against the employer, the landlords and so forth.
Reply this comment
Re: Re: participatory political party
By Grinder, Matt at Dec 19, 2010 00:29 AM
That's what you think. I say it can be, if it participatory and democratic and based on Shalom's nested councils..
>especially not if you're thinking of it being put together on agreement with an ideology that currently has few adherents.
Let's get more adherents then. Once it's big, it will kick ass. It can start small and grow. Remember, it can get big because it's structure allows newcomers a voice. It's logical that it should get big. Of course logic doesn't mean much for what will happen. he he.
>the most likely sort of political party outside the Dems at present would be something like the recently >formed Oregon Working Families Party. but this type of party, formed by unions and community >groups, will reflect the particular concrete priorities of these local working class-based organizations >who are frustrated with the corporate-capitalist-neoliberal Dem party. it's not likely to reflect your >favored ideology.
A participatory party might not reflect my favoured ideology either. Suppose it starts out with parecon as a long term goal in its constitution, then later the vast majority of many members vote to reject that in favor of market socialism. Suppose I don't agree. But I will abide by the decision because it's a participatory party and used the proper means to make the decision. I will argue my case and if people don't agree, I will accept their vote, maybe bring up my point later, when it's a proper time again. Just because people don't agree doesn' t mean I will leave, rather I should respect democracy.
>but for the practical purpose of electoral politics, this is the type of party that is most likely. and it is
>likely to suffer the sort of pattern that historically has limited broad based left political parties. for one
>thing, a problem with electoral politics is the focus on getting a candidate elected. so the people who >are elected tend to end up dominating parties, because they have their followers....their clients...and >they can form a kind of internal political machine.
Exactly, I agree. SO let's make a party where that can't happen. Where the candidate is just a puppet, just one voice on the council.
>i'm not here arguing against political organization. but political organizations with a radical viewpoint are going to be minoritarian organizations, especially in the current period.
Why does that mean we shouldn't try? If you build it, people might come later, and you can still do alot when it is small.
>but a mass struggle and mass organization isn't formed on the basis of a narrower sort of >ideological unity that is typical of radical political organizations. a labor union or tenants >organization or some other type of mass organization is formed around the current aspirations and >understanding of the people involved. they bring people together on the basis of their willingness >to fight, against the employer, the landlords and so forth.
Again, that is your opinion, not a fact. Why not try to agitate people for a new understanding and aspiration. A particiaptory party could help popularize parecon. Maybe help a great deal...
Reply this comment
Re: Re: Re: participatory political party
By Wetzel, Tom at Dec 19, 2010 00:39 AM
Given the way that electoral politics inevitably tends to focus power at the top...since its aim is to take over a hierarchical institution, the state...your proposal is not likely. Look at the history of Left poliitical parties and see what you find there.
This is where I think the idea of the primacy of "vision"...as Michael Albert would say...leads pareconistas to run off the rails. It's necessary to have some understanding of how the society can be changed, how the working class can build movements it controls, and then transform the society. In other words, it requires thinking about strategy. Wisdom a bout strategy does not flow automatically out of "vision".
Reply this comment
Re: Re: Re: Re: participatory political party
By Grinder, Matt at Dec 19, 2010 17:18 PM
I understand the history of left political parties, I take the same lessons you do from it, I agree with you that they focus power at the top - that's one of the reasons I propose this. If you explicitly make the candidate for election a puppet of nested councils, then it's basically impossible that they can take power for themselves. If they get out of line after election, then you can remove them easily through the legal contract.
>Wisdom a bout strategy does not flow automatically out of "vision".
No it doesn't. Nor is it a reason to dismiss my idea out of hand. Throughout our exchange, the only reason you have brought to reject the idea of a particpatory party is that past left parties have focused power at the top. To retierate, in this party it is very hard for that to happen. Please engage with the actual idea, which is different than what socialist parties have done in the past, rather than just claiming that it won't work. If you were to say that peopel would never attend the nested councils, you would be engaging with the idea, but you are not doing that. You are bringing up past examples about parties with a differnt structure. The structure hasn't been tried before.
To reiterate teh structure a bit. Suppose the party has a thousand members. You have nested councils. You have a bunch of neighborhood councils, of 20-40 members, maybe 30 councils, that can meet, debate policy for the party on issues, and send a delegate to the candiate council, which instructs the candidate what to say, what legislation to introduce, whatever. Delegates are people that have time and energy to do the minutae of this sort of thing. They go back to their sending councils, discuss what was decided there. The smaller councils can vote directly on matters if they wish, or leave uncontorversial things up to the candidate council. SO it functions alot like Shalom's Parpolity. The candidate must do what she or he is told, or they are voted out of the party. They sign a legal contract to resign their elected position if they are voted out of the party.
So how is that going to lead to a heirarchy? Are there not enough safegaurds? If you are goignto respond, respond to that.
Reply this comment
par-partyism?
By D'Arcy, Steve at Dec 19, 2010 01:14 AM
To me, and I think to many people, actually, it seems obvious: popular assemblies are open to participation by people regardless of their particular political convictions (within certain limits, at least). One does not have to be a Bolshevik or a Pareconista or a Maoist or an Anarchist or a Socialist-Feminist or an Eco-socialist to participate in a popular assembly (including the councils discussed by Shalom). One could even be a conservative, or be committed to an incoherent mix of progressive and reactionary ideas. But a political party united by a programmatic commitment to parecon and parpolity would, presumably, not be open to participation by people who oppose parecon or parpolity, even if they were in favour of some other conception of an egalitarian post-capitalist economic democracy.
So, these two kinds of instituitons -- parties and popular assemblies/councils -- cannot be seen as interchangeable, as if the party could somehow substitute itself for the assemblies/councils. That is exactly where the Bolsheviks went so terribly wrong: they embraced the political project of displacing multi-party, multi-current councils by a programmatically defined political party, on the grounds that their party was the only one with an adequate 'vision' and 'strategy.' Their mid-1917 slogan, "All power to the councils," turned into their practice (starting in 1918) of "all power to the Majority-party."
If participatory socialism were a mass movement, which it most certainly is not right now (obviously), then this conflation of party and popular assemblies would be a sign of impending doom for the movement. Hopefully, this set of politics will not catch on. (I don't mean parecon/parpolity, which I hope will catch on; I mean the view among some significant number of parecon advocates that a pareconist party can and should aspire to play the role that Shalom proposes for popular councils).
Reply this comment
Re: par-partyism?
By Grinder, Matt at Dec 19, 2010 17:38 PM
It is interesting to see how stupid you think I am. I suppose I can't write well and explain what my point is. I can distinguish between them just fine, thank you.
>To me, and I think to many people, actually, it seems obvious: popular assemblies are open to >participation by people regardless of their particular political convictions (within certain limits, at >least). One does not have to be a Bolshevik or a Pareconista or a Maoist or an Anarchist or a Socialist-Feminist or an Eco-socialist to participate in a popular assembly (including the councils discussed by Shalom). One could even be a conservative, or be committed to an incoherent mix of progressive and reactionary ideas. But a political party united by a programmatic commitment to parecon and parpolity would, presumably, not be open to participation by people who oppose parecon or parpolity, even if they were in favour of some other conception of an egalitarian post-capitalist economic democracy.
It would be open to participation by a mix of political ideologies, actually. Why not? It makes little sense to have two competing nested councils in the same riding. Suppose you have a market socialist particiaptory party and a parecon particiaptory party, both using nested councils as I describe. Both would be trying to engage all people in debate, hear a mix of ideas and implement what is voted. Why have two? All you do is agree to put it up for vote what the final goal should be. IF you are in the minority, your chance will come again to argue for you vision. Or maybe the vote will be to have no final goal as yet until more peopel can be heard from. Any of this should be acceptable to the membership. It makes sense to have all progressives engaged in one nested council party. We must all debate our ideas and form a coherent strategy if we are ever goign to win, obviously. Which means comprimise. At least activists will have a democratic institution to do it in.
The power of a political party, the ability to engage in elections, makes it more powerful than any left assembly, and must be done in some way eventually. Why not this?
Again, please look at my actual proposal, rather than what you seem to think the proposal is. See http://www.zcommunications.org/why-its-a-good-idea-to-form-a-political-party-for-a-participatory-society-by-matt-grinder
Reply this comment
Re: Re: par-partyism?
By Hahnel, Robin at Dec 19, 2010 21:02 PM
It is interesting that both Tom W. and Matt G. -- both of whom I know and respect -- have responded to my posting suggesting that new circumstances would seem to warrant a SHIFT IN ORGANIZING PRIORITIES by suggesting that we do more of their favorite kind of organizing!
Tom and Matt differ as to what their favorite kind of organizing is.
Apparently Matt favors a particular kind of political party that would participate in elections. My article suggested that new circumstances indicate that ALL attempts to elect progressive candidates would prove less productive than they have been in the past. Since electing progressive candidates in the past has not been very successful, that would mean even less successful than the very unsuccessful past! I suggested this would be true whether the effort was to elect progressives as Democrats OR as members of a new, progressive, third party OF WHATEVER KIND.
Matt did not respond to my argument that Citizens United and other negative changes in the electoral arena warranted puting less emphasis on electing progressive candidates. He ignored that point and suggested a particular kind of political party designed to remain principled and hold its elected officials accountable. In other words, he proposes more electoral activity and a way to solve a different problem from the one I raised -- namely that we have less chance than ever of getting progressives elected at all.
Tom doesn't agree with Matt's ideas about what kind of mass organization can and should be organized, and argues that too many "pareconistas" are confused about the difference between what are appropriate post revolutionary organizatios and what are appropriate pre-revolutionary organizations. That is probably a worthy discussion/debate, but it has nothing to do with the points I was trying to raise in my original posting, and I don't want to get into that debate now when I have limited access to the internet.
Meahwhile, Tom proposed instead of organizing a parecon-parpolity political party for electoral participation that we focus on "grassrootso organizing in workplaces and communities." I have two questions about this proposal -- because I find it vague. (1) Grassroots is like apple pie and motherhood for the left. All one has to do to get a positive reaction out of leftists is to put the word "grassroots" in front of it. So I don't know what Tom's suggestion really amounts to. We should organize in workplaces and communities. Yes... of course. But organize how, and for what? My original posting was suggesting shifting our priorities in how and what we organized for "in workplaces and communities" in light of new conditions -- even though I did not like some of the implications of my own conclusions. (2) Is Tom's suggestion any different from what Tom has been proposing for years? Because from my correspondence with Tom over the years, it doesn't strike me as any different, or at least if it is, I don't know exactly how it is different. If it is not different, then does that mean that Tom does not think that there has been any change in the circumstances we face? Or does it mean that while circumstances have changed, they do not warrant any change in our organizing priorities? Either is possible I suppose... but the entire purpose of my original posting was to suggest that neither conclusion was likely.
Reply this comment
Re: Re: Re: par-partyism?
By Grinder, Matt at Dec 20, 2010 04:08 AM
Nice to hear from you! I am happy to realize that you receive Znet discussions of your articles, and have some time to respond. :)
>Tom and Matt differ as to what their favorite kind of organizing is.
Fair enough, but it's not my "favorite" per say, but it's what I think is a good idea.
>Apparently Matt favors a particular kind of political party that would participate in elections. My article suggested that new circumstances indicate that ALL attempts to elect progressive candidates would prove less productive than they have been in the past. Since electing progressive candidates in the past has not been very successful, that would mean even less successful than the very unsuccessful past! I suggested this would be true whether the effort was to elect progressives as Democrats OR as members of a new, progressive, third party OF WHATEVER KIND.
Electing candidates (puppets of nested councils) is one goal of having a participatory party, true. But a far off one, for the future. The immediate goal would be to popularize parecon (which you advocate for in priority number 3 in your essay) and to create a nested council activist structure through which people can prioritize and use the resouces they have to do what they see fit, to learn how to work in a participatory democratic structure, to set up a few balanced job complexes as the party can afford, etc.
>Matt did not respond to my argument that Citizens United and other negative changes in the electoral >arena warranted puting less emphasis on electing progressive candidates.
Damn right, I'm a Canadian and I don't follow American politics too much (though maybe I should). I've never even heard of Citizen's United. But I take your point for sure, there's not much of a point in trying too hard at the moment in the USA (it seems), but there is a point in starting a participatory party, as above. And running a candidate for a participatory party helps to popularize it, and if it garners a bunch of votes, puts pressure on "democrats" (to use a US term) to be more progressive to attract votes (hopefully).
>He ignored that point and suggested a particular kind of political party designed to remain >principled and hold its elected officials accountable. In other words, he proposes more electoral >activity and a way to solve a different problem from the one I raised -- namely that we have less >chance than ever of getting progressives elected at all.
You are astute, of course, the problem I immediately want to adress is you priority number 3 (at the moment).
Now I you would like to answer a question, if you have the time: Do you think a participatory party (with a strucuture similar to what I describe) deserves a try? It's something new, and nothing we do ever seems to work...
Reply this comment
Re: Re: Re: Re: par-partyism?
By Hahnel, Robin at Dec 20, 2010 20:21 PM
Reply this comment
building social movements vs. agitation for socialism
By Escobar, Pumpkin at Dec 17, 2010 14:25 PM
Reply this comment
Re: building social movements vs. agitation for socialism
By Hahnel, Robin at Dec 19, 2010 21:17 PM
Reply this comment