Advice for a study group
Apr 7 2008
Ok, this is not much of a big deal, but I'm starting a political study group at my high school and I was wondering if anyone has any advice.
Topics:
We're going to cover a variety of topics for study. They include economics, labor history, immigration, war, prison, class conflict, international relations, human nature/game theory, globalization, environmental crisis, emerging financial crisis, and so on from a broadly "radical" perspective, as well as develop our understanding of theory. Any advice in this area would be appreciated.
Organization:
We will have a participatory structure for the administration of the group. I'm taking a more or less "organizing" role but am working hard to get other people making decisions. The idea of a "radical" study group began with one of my friends after we took a course in environmental history together. She thought it would be a good idea to for the anarchist/socialist/radical tendencies at our school to have an organized group to facilitate discussion. However this will be a study group only and not engaged in activism in any way. We are filling the vacuum of a "radical" group since the Anarchist Social Club, which sometimes tended towards cultishness and stupid, alienating stunts. I am also using facebook as an organizational tool. Is this a good idea?
Members:
Political labels are optional for entry although members must agree to be interested in a generally "ultra-left" perspective. I consider myself a libertarian communist/anarchist, but there are going to be some anarchists, some socialists, and some merely undecided and "radical" group members. We are a mostly student organization, however we have two faculty members as well. I am a junior and my friend is a senior, so we need to prepare the group if we want it to last longer then our graduation, (although obviously the group should not exist if the interest is not there.) Members are mostly going to be upper-middle class kids since I go to an upper-middle class school, but I don't think this will effect its politics much.
I would definitely appreciate any advice on organizing or books/articles to read, as well as criticism.
Apr 7 2008
#2
David UK wrote:
My advice would be, if you want it to have a focus and to attract people to "libertarian communism", make it so that it actually adresses issues in your school.
I don't know, to be honest there aren't that many "issues" (I assume you mean class-related) at my school. Obviously we have the maintanence staff, kitchen workers, and the lower scale teachers, and their pay/holidays/benefits, etc. There is also the issue of financial aid to working class kids.
David UK wrote:
That might mean changing it from a discussion group somewhat, but to be honest a discussion group isn't the most worthwhile endeavour. Surely people discuss things all the time anyway?
I wish. Why is a discussion group not worthwhile? Surely intellectual/theoretical development is just as important as day-to-day struggle. Part of the point of this group is to rekindle the spirit of popular intellectual discourse among the students. Yes, people discuss things all the time, but not on a level that is neccisarily useful.
David UK wrote:
You should also try to organise ways of practically adressing these issues and not just discussing them.
There is certainly a place for this type of group at my school, but we are living in very reactionary times and the intellectual culture of my school is not strong enough to support such a struggle oriented group. I think we need to influence the student body, foster more of a radical conciousness in them, and get them away from all this "Obama 08" bullshit that is going around before they are ready to have such groups, IMO. Right now the radicals are scattered and disorganized and the school has been drifiting rightward, although about sixty percent of the history department are communists/anarchists of one stripe or another. (As pathetic as it is the teachers are often more radical then the students
).
I think when we get to certain point we could evolve into a propoganda group that distributes literature debunking liberal nonsense, reformism, and all the other shit that reigns supreme at my school, but we're not even there yet.
David UK wrote:
Evolution vs Creationism
I live in the liberal mecca of Massachusetts and half my school is Jewish. This is the land of MIT, yuppies, and Z Magazine. 
David UK wrote:
Rather than say you have to be an "ultra leftist" to join, perhaps say that you have to agree to operate in a democratic manner... that way you'll get working class people in, an not intellectuals.
I didn't mean to imply that everyone had to identify as an ultra-leftist (I think I made it clear that there were no ideological requirements), only that we would be analyzing things through the lense of class and/or Marx, with a healthy dose of anarchism thrown in. Maybe this isn't such a big distinction, but we need some kind of requirment for entry or it will rapidly degenerate into reactionary liberalism (if, that is, it's controlled by its own members which is what I'm aiming for). I have a choice between a democratic group with an open membership that degenerates into liberalism, a democratic group with some requirments for members that has a solid class struggle perspective, or a group controlled informally by myself which is still radical but whose ideas reflect only my own and not the intellectual development of its members.
See the reason why I wanted to start a group with a more intellectual/academic orienation as opposed to one of practical struggle is that, again, I go to a very upper-middle class school and the majority of my friends and probably the people in the group are going to be middle class or higher on the economic ladder. The working class (or at least what most people consider working class) are a very small minority at my school, so I am resigned to the fact that this will be a group of privilaged kids. Surely "working class" and "intellectual" are not mutually exclusive? I am appalled at your anti-intellectualism! 
There are already enough middle class activist groups, so I thought a focus on study would be one of the few areas where people would be able to overcome their class backgrounds. Marx was more or less middle class at the beginning of his life and he came up with a few decent notions 
. Not that we're going to produce the next Marx or anything...
David UK wrote:
Hope this helps a bit! and good luck whatever you decide to do.
Thanks for your comments and criticisms, and I hope I've clarified the situation a little bit. I'll definately share the results of all of this with the group. Perhaps we should draft some sort of constitution to figure what exactly we are?
I was little hesitant to post this on Libcom becuase everyone at my shcool is like the son of a brain surgeon or a physics proffesor and people are going to scream "that's not a working class issue, comrade!" but I hope to at least develop my own understanding and that of my fellow members to the point where we can contribute to the struggle intellectually.
Apr 7 2008
#3
Oh, I should also mention this: if it wasn't already clear, I go to a private high school with f****** high tuition. I know, I lose all my prole points. Again, this is why the only place class struggle exists (for the students) is in the abstract/academic realm.
Apr 7 2008
#4
I see, thank you for your clarifications.
I'm not anti-intellectual, but I feel people often get the horse before the cart. In depth debate will result (naturally) from hightened class struggle, not the other way round. But my own personal prejudices certainly come into this. If I saw an advert for an anarchist/left/whatever discussion group, i'd think it was self-riteouss bellends wanking over marxism. I wouldn't be atall interested in it, and it would actually give me negative opinions of the organsiers and their politics.
If I saw an advert for a meetin on how to get me more pay, more time off, or something similar, I would be interested, and I'd go along, and if it turned out it was organised by anarchists, I'd think higher of the organisers and their politics, and be a lot more sympathetic.
These are of course my conclusions based on where I used to go to school ( i work now) but also as an Anarchist I believe we should be organising against capitalism in our lives everywhere, not shying away into the reletive safety of debate clubs, which are generally only useful for Anarchists to meet other anarchists and form odd friendship cliques.
I'd be VERY surpised if people in your school were not pissed off about a specific issue, you have to find out what issues concern them, ask them or do a census, then think about a practical solution, and call a meeting about it. What have you got to loose ? 
That's my honest advice, but whatever you decide to do I wish you good luck as always!
Apr 7 2008
#5
David UK wrote:
My advice would be, if you want it to have a focus and to attract people to "libertarian communism", make it so that it actually adresses issues in your school. That might mean changing it from a discussion group somewhat, but to be honest a discussion group isn't the most worthwhile endeavour. Surely people discuss things all the time anyway?Issues affecting students and teachers if possible, that could include; pay, holidays, conduct, or as you're american; Evolution vs Creationism (which is more of an issue there than here). You should also try to organise ways of practically adressing these issues and not just discussing them.
Rather than say you have to be an "ultra leftist" to join, perhaps say that you have to agree to operate in a democratic manner, we will not cooperate with the authorities, we will not tollerate racism, sexism, religious fundementalism etc, and believe in a confrontational attitude. That way you'll get working class people in, an not intellectuals.
As for facebook - can be very useful, certainly a good idea.
Hope this helps a bit! and good luck whatever you decide to do.
Yeah I'd agree.
Evolution vs Creationism is a good example of an issue directly facing students and teachers day to day in the classroom.
There's a wealth of literature on a topic like that and groups like NCSE (National Center for Science Education) in the State, for all their faults (well they're basically secular liberals) have a whole load of stuff on grassroots organising against moves by conservative christians to get their shit in US public schools.
The practical lessons learned from confronting issues like that (an it's a good place to start because it's always an issue in the US and everyone has an opinion on it) could be used in a variety of oither issues directly facing students and teachers.
While much of what happens in terms of decisions is at state/county-board level or decided in courts, it has been grassroots action that resisted creationist movement in public schools.
So while the Dover case in 2005 was a big court case, it basically came about because rank and file classroom teachers refused to read out some shit* in the classroom that they thought misrepresented science.
* they'd been asked to read a disclaimer before teaching evolution saying it was "just a theory" and that students should consider other "scientific" theories "including, but not limited to, intelligent design".
Apr 9 2008
#6
Though I'm normally a partisan of organising based in day to day experience (and preferrably widely distributed and structurally determined at that), I think that David UK is wrong here. Fact is, plenty of people do get sucked into activity by 'ideas', especially at low points of the class struggle, and this is probably particularly true of students who don't have any pressing problems of their own. Theory (as in, the collected lessons of history) is tremendously important, because it stops us running down blind alleys. And developing a critique of capitalist society as a whole, not merely aspects of it, involves educating yourself.
I think tastybrain's original proposal is pretty good - though I'd lose the 'ultra-left' condition for entry, partly because the meaning you give to it is not what many people will (e.g. Marx...). Come up with something general that'll allow people who are not confident but interested to come, but still allow you to get rid of anyone who's pushing a particular line incompatible with your general direction.
That said, I think tastybrain is clearly wrong to go so far as "intellectual/theoretical development is just as important as day-to-day struggle." The point of the former is to produce the latter, even if at a long range. Therefore, I would reccomending focussing on the study of struggles - histories, etc. This might be difficult to encourage, because people often prefer their ideal critique to the serious examination of attempts to do anything about it. But it is the most useful thing in the long run.
Though on the issue thing, have you talked with any of the building services/catering staff at your school? How're they paid/treated?
Apr 11 2008
#7
Dear tastybrain,
Since I participated in something like this in high school (my high school was a top Catholic college prep school in Chicago), the first thing I have to ask is: are you doing this on your school grounds? We had to do word of mouth, strictly underground, and meet at the nearby public university, and the high school administration constantly threatened us even then. If you are doing this at the school, how much protection do you have and do you have a fall back location if the school decides it made a terrible mistake?
I don't see any justification for making this about some pretend concrete issues. This is a study/discussion group for young people in the school, not for surly workerist politicos who live in a fantasy world where you are going to have substantive discussions with the cafeteria workers, teachers, and maintenance crew. Not that that wouldn't be great, but as students of that privileged school, frankly, its not likely, and it could end very poorly for no good reason. However, even though none of you are old enough to vote, the elections might be fair game. Combine a discussion of the state with the attitude towards the elections.
Being a Catholic school, we of course found ways to be a pole of attraction outside the study group. We didn't stand for or say the Pledge of Allegiance, we didn't stand during mass, and we presented our ideas in class, no matter who the teacher was, and we tried to do so by being thoughtful and making good arguments, not by acting out. In other words, we stood up for our ideas day in and day out as high school students. Other than that, however, we made no pretense of being 'activists' or 'labor organizers' in the school.
So on to some things to think about...
1 Choose topics (with the others you are involved with, obviously) that you think will make for interesting discussion. Ideas are really exciting, and discussing them with people you know from a lot of different backgrounds and perspectives can be great. You can even sustain the occasional conservative or die-hard liberal, as long as they are in no position to be terribly disruptive. I started going to the discussion group at my school when I was interested in everything from Taoism to John Dewey to Ayn Rand. I wasn't a communist, I hated this society, this legal system, my school. I was a mish-mash of ideas and anger and an urge to change the world, and enough cockiness to believe that I could make an impact, which is to say I was not some crusty Leftist with an agenda, a fixed ideology, and a great deal of personal arrogance. And I wasn't too different from the others who came, though some of them were from working class backgrounds, others were already activists and political, and others still were just rebellious and enjoyed hearing ideas that pissed all over what they got in classes and from their parents. Even though the discussion group was run by a Trotskyist outfit, they had enough respect for that to do serious presentations, and to respect conversations. Also, they never had anyone other than their student recruits do the classes, so you never got intellectually bullied by some older jerk.
2. Kick-starting the conversations. Do you read something short together or do you have someone each week do a presentation on the topic? It is valuable to be informed in advance and get the conversation going.
a. Everyone reading something short has the advantage that no one is the main repository of knowledge. However, something short is also short of facts and theory, in most cases. For more theoretical pieces, you can take these ideas up more succinctly, but for historical stuff it really is less satisfying. Problems: some people don't read the article, which hurts the conversation; the material is too thin for the topic; finding good, short material to make it more likely that everyone will have read in advance.
b. One person giving a presentation is great if the person doing the presentation really puts in the effort. We used to read 2-4 books (usually 4), plus some articles/essays in preparation and write out completely a talk ranging from 10-20 minutes (never more than 20 if you can avoid it.) The key is to rotate the presentation schedule. I did 1 every two weeks, which with a full course load in a tough school and a job on the weekends, was really hard to maintain. If you can get enough people committed to presenting to do 1 a month, that's pretty excellent. If you read enough, however, you will have a wide range of knowledge about the details of a discussion, which can really be great. As long as no one person is the guru, no problem. Plus, having to write for other people is a great experience in communicating your ideas clearly. Problems: reading and writing a 10-20 minute talk is a lot of hard work; even harder is deciding what the political/theoretical point is and making it accessible; not enough people to maintain a reasonable schedule.
c. Of course, you can mix and match. Sometimes read a smaller piece, sometimes have someone prepare a bigger presentation. Always let people know what materials you are using, even if it is several books, that way, the more adventurous can tag along with the reading, or they can read some things you won't have the time to read. With many topics, a wealth of detail will make the conversations more interesting, even if only a couple of people have them, as long as they share them, other people will riff off of them.
3. Managing the topic list. How will you decide topics and in what order to do them? Everyone may have some ideas, but some of them you might want to say no to, just because they won't seem like you could have a whole conversation about them. Others might seem a bit trivial. And this goes for all parties: trivial to you is not trivial to your friend, and vice versa. The best solution IMO is to find ways to combine things in those cases. Someone wants to have a discussion about the environment and global warming, but another want to have a discussion of the illegalization of marijuana, and another wants to have a discussion of prisons and the police. You could have a discussion of ecological problems where one key section was the illegalization of marijuana which serves as a good raw material for sustainable paper production, against logging and deforrestation, while the piece on prisons talks about the criminalization of huge numbers of people through the illegalization of marijuana and other drugs. Everyone gets to have their topics met, but in two talks with meat, instead of three that might not be as interesting. Anyway, it seems to me that for a group of engaged high school students, the problem will be having a manageable list, not padding it with extra things to discuss.
4. Deciding on a minimum politics. This is not a free-for-all for the Young Democrats or the Young Republicans. This is not the "Go Obama!" discussion group. You want to go beyond Z-Magazine, yes? So how do you define yourselves, without excluding participation? The study groups I was in in high school and college, the ones that worked, had an explicit political line, but they were open to discussion, disagreement, and unless someone was offensive, we didn't disallow any point of view in the discussions. The presentations and the reading material, however, was explicitly oriented to their (eventually 'our') brand of Trotskyist politics. The main thing is that we never stacked a meeting. In college, it was common for me to be the only one from the group, or for there to be one other person, except when we recruited successfully (in high school, there were about 6 of us at one point in the same group.) Even though it was politically defined, it nonetheless acted as a forum for all kinds of radical politics to emerge and develop. You have the advantage of not trying to recruit anyone, so you can really allow the discussions to develop. Even so, I think that a clear political/intellectual orientation is crucial to give it some coherence. Is the club a political forum for the discussion of anarchist and communist ideas and the history of the struggles of the exploited and oppressed? Is it a discussion of the history of libertarian communist ideas and workers struggles? Is it an anti-capitalist study group? Find something you think works well enough, have a paragraph explaining what the group does and what some of the upcoming topics are, and go from there. I only recommend this level of formality since it is proposing to be a formal student organization.
When you get to topics, I always toot my own horn and recommend my Revolutionary Reading Guide, posted here, http://libcom.org/library/revolutionary-reading-chris-wright . I'll add in that you might find it helpful to look over this http://libcom.org/library/reading-theoretical-works-chris-wright
Ok, enough wind.
I hope it goes well, feel free to contact me if I can be of any help.
Cheers,
Chris
My advice would be, if you want it to have a focus and to attract people to "libertarian communism", make it so that it actually adresses issues in your school. That might mean changing it from a discussion group somewhat, but to be honest a discussion group isn't the most worthwhile endeavour. Surely people discuss things all the time anyway?
Issues affecting students and teachers if possible, that could include; pay, holidays, conduct, or as you're american; Evolution vs Creationism (which is more of an issue there than here). You should also try to organise ways of practically adressing these issues and not just discussing them.
Rather than say you have to be an "ultra leftist" to join, perhaps say that you have to agree to operate in a democratic manner, we will not cooperate with the authorities, we will not tollerate racism, sexism, religious fundementalism etc, and believe in a confrontational attitude. That way you'll get working class people in, an not intellectuals.
As for facebook - can be very useful, certainly a good idea.
Hope this helps a bit! and good luck whatever you decide to do.