Political Organization and Social Movements

50 posts / 0 new
Last post
Juan Conatz's picture
Juan Conatz
Offline
Joined: 29-04-08
Feb 1 2011 18:51
Political Organization and Social Movements

So I was looking at a thread in libcommunity and saw this interaction:

Quote:
Revolutionary groups need to respect the autonomy of social movements. Meeting up before hand to iron out political positions and voting as a block destroys movements as the other participants feel excluded and see such behavior as parasitic.

In response:

Quote:
that's a very nieve way of looking at things, do you really believe that most people in political organisations involved in social movements don't iron out their differences to work in a coordinated way in wider groups, what is the point of being in a revolutionary organisation within a wider grouping if you don't?

and

Quote:
Actually pretty much agree with VIB. The problem is *what* L&S members argue for and push, not that they do it in a coordinated manner.

I'd be pretty pissed off if there was a campaign SF had organisationally decided to be involved with something and we weren't pushing for a common strategy!

What do people think about this? The way I understood political organization and have always advocated is that there should be broad guidelines on activity within wider movements, but not predetermined 'mass lines' or voting in bloc. I somewhat agree with the original post, that it is destructive to those wider movements and viewed as parasitic. This matched with my experience as well, where people became disillusioned with an organization because of groups engaging in these activities.

I don't mean this in a mean or prejudiced way, but it is my understanding that those type of tactics are commonly associated with Trotskyist and Maoist groups and that anarchists and libertarians had a critique of this strategy. Granted, much of the writings from political organizations are vague enough, but was wondering.

LBird
Offline
Joined: 21-09-10
Feb 1 2011 21:25
Juan Conatz wrote:
What do people think about this? The way I understood political organization and have always advocated is that there should be broad guidelines on activity within wider movements, but not predetermined 'mass lines' or voting in bloc. I somewhat agree with the original post, that it is destructive to those wider movements and viewed as parasitic. This matched with my experience as well, where people became disillusioned with an organization because of groups engaging in these activities.

Juan, I think that really you're asking 'what is the relationship between Communists and the proletariat', or, to put it another way, '...between class conscious workers and other workers'. I'm interested in discussing this, because I think it is problematic, too.

I too agree that there should be 'broad guidlines', but not 'predetermined lines'. But what should these guidelines consist of, and how can we show that they are not 'predetermined'? In some sense, they appear to be tied together - that is, even a broad avenue is still a predetermined road.

Perhaps the answer is to provide questions and alternatives, rather than answers. Problems and discussion, rather than 'the party line'. After all, we are not only trying to develop workers into class conscious workers, but we ourselves are, at best, only partially conscious workers ourselves. We don't have a finished answer, and we need other workers to help us develop ourselves. That is, in the end, the social movement is the source of the answers, not the political organisation.

To put some substance into what I'm struggling to understand myself, take our previous discussion with Alexander and Nat Lib as a model.

If we were to enter a discussion with workers in a Third World country who were wanting to know what Nat Lib was, rather than present them with our policy (forgive my phraseology if you object, but you know what I'm getting at), of 'counter-propaganda' against the Nat Lib movement that they have heard of, instead we present them with both alternatives, ie. pro- and anti- arguments, and point out the strengths and weaknesses of both, together with our recommendation.

This not only gives them food for thought (including some issues they won't already have thought of) and allows them some space to decide for themselves, but shows that we too have thought about, discussed and understand the alternatives. This obviously means we won't be just parroting a party line, but each of us has to intimately know what we are rejecting. This willingness to oppose, at least theoretically, our own views, can only display that we have done what we are asking them to do: think critically.

I can see some dangers in this method, though. The position we oppose, but outline, may prove to be more attractive than our position, but this seems inescapable, especially if we really do believe that workers can think for themselves. If they democratically reject our position, it might be that we are wrong, and they are right. At the very least, we would have to re-assess our supposed 'greater class consciousness'.

This method would not be only a narrowly political act, but a class-based educational process for both workers and ourselves.

Sorry if I'm talking bollocks - I'm already wincing at the prospect of being shot down in flames. But, hey, if I am, at least I'll have learned something.

Be gentle.

vanilla.ice.baby
Offline
Joined: 9-08-07
Feb 2 2011 00:59
Juan Conatz wrote:
So I was looking at a thread in libcommunity and saw this interaction:
Quote:
Revolutionary groups need to respect the autonomy of social movements. Meeting up before hand to iron out political positions and voting as a block destroys movements as the other participants feel excluded and see such behavior as parasitic.

In response:

Quote:
that's a very nieve way of looking at things, do you really believe that most people in political organisations involved in social movements don't iron out their differences to work in a coordinated way in wider groups, what is the point of being in a revolutionary organisation within a wider grouping if you don't?

and

Quote:
Actually pretty much agree with VIB. The problem is *what* L&S members argue for and push, not that they do it in a coordinated manner.

I'd be pretty pissed off if there was a campaign SF had organisationally decided to be involved with something and we weren't pushing for a common strategy!

What do people think about this? The way I understood political organization and have always advocated is that there should be broad guidelines on activity within wider movements, but not predetermined 'mass lines' or voting in bloc. I somewhat agree with the original post, that it is destructive to those wider movements and viewed as parasitic. This matched with my experience as well, where people became disillusioned with an organization because of groups engaging in these activities.

I don't mean this in a mean or prejudiced way, but it is my understanding that those type of tactics are commonly associated with Trotskyist and Maoist groups and that anarchists and libertarians had a critique of this strategy. Granted, much of the writings from political organizations are vague enough, but was wondering.

Look the fact is that anyone who is already politically committed and engaged in wider social movements while also being in any sort of political association will generally vote along the same lines as and argue for the things their comrades or mates will, even loose affinity groups tend to stick together in wider groups. Morals don't come into it, if me and my friends are involved in an anti cuts group and think it should go in a particular direction then why the sam hill would we not argue for that? Do you think people should not argue for what they believe so as not to hurt people's feelings?

Personally I think any revolutionary organisation worth it's salt should have three levels of agreement, on some issues they may well decide to agree that the org doesn't have a particular line, on others that is has a line, but that members are free to disagree publically, and thirdly that it has a line and that all members are expected to argue for it publically, even while disagreeing privately.

If there is not going to be political collaboration on important issues then why bother having a political organisation at all? Just work as individual members of a broader anti cuts group or whatever (which is legitimate, just don't pretend to be a rev org).

However I would disagree with revolutionary organisations flooding key meetings of social movements with people who vote a particular way and then vanish having no real involvement in the movement at all - a common SWP tactic.

There is also a tactical argument that a political organisation may choose to allow it's members a free vote, or to vote against what they really believe so as to keep a particular group or subset on board - also a common SWP tactic.

mK ultra
Offline
Joined: 7-11-07
Feb 2 2011 06:55

It's fine if members of a political group share a position because of a common political outlook, but if they stage a coordinated intervention in a struggle and vote in a block to control its direction they are acting vanguardist and should be excluded.

vanilla.ice.baby
Offline
Joined: 9-08-07
Feb 3 2011 15:11
mK ultra wrote:
It's fine if members of a political group share a position because of a common political outlook, but if they stage a coordinated intervention in a struggle and vote in a block to control its direction they are acting vanguardist and should be excluded.

What's your evidence that it's vanguardist? So far all you're saying is some people make you feel bad and should be excluded for upsetting you, it's hardly a sensible argument.

posi
Offline
Joined: 24-09-05
Feb 3 2011 15:42
Quote:
Personally I think any revolutionary organisation worth it's salt should have three levels of agreement, on some issues they may well decide to agree that the org doesn't have a particular line, on others that is has a line, but that members are free to disagree publically, and thirdly that it has a line and that all members are expected to argue for it publically, even while disagreeing privately.

The reason to be against the third is not that "the Trots do it", but that it is dishonest, and systematically involves members of the organisation in being dishonest to those outside it. It necessarily involves a manipulative and patronising attitude toward the class in general: "we in this organisation are on one level; we can trust each other enough to voice our opinions amongst ourselves - but you lot are too thick to be trusted".

What's more, I don't see where this idea that this is how an org "worth its salt" should behave. Which organisations, historically, have had such rules? The Bolsheviks never had such a rule, for example. Where is the evidence that this approach has anything to do with a serious revolutionary practice?

Ed's picture
Ed
Offline
Joined: 1-10-03
Feb 3 2011 16:04

I agree with . Also, in terms of the problems of rev groups within campaigns, I think what anarchists do is take issue with two different, but related, issues (both of which 'Trots do' but only one is problematic).

In my opinion, the problem isn't with revolutionary groups having a strategy, but the level of Machievellianism and sectarianism of that strategy.. obviously Solfed or AF members will meet up beforehand to discuss what they think, but the problem would be if they began putting the needs of their groups before that of the campaign. This is the problem with 'what trots do'; taking positions within the campaign and attempting to run it for the benefit of their sect (bypassing democratic procedures, calling off events without discussion, making statements on behalf of the campaign which weren't agreed by the campaign itself etc)..

The problem is that many anarchists confuse the two and throw the baby out with the bathwater (or, in the case of some, keep both baby and bathwater whilst still claiming to be libertarians..)..

vanilla.ice.baby
Offline
Joined: 9-08-07
Feb 3 2011 16:21
Ed wrote:

In my opinion, the problem isn't with revolutionary groups having a strategy, but the level of Machievellianism and sectarianism of that strategy.. obviously Solfed or AF members will meet up beforehand to discuss what they think, but the problem would be if they began putting the needs of their groups before that of the campaign. This is the problem with 'what trots do'; taking positions within the campaign and attempting to run it for the benefit of their sect (bypassing democratic procedures, calling off events without discussion, making statements on behalf of the campaign which weren't agreed by the campaign itself etc).

I agree with all this.

Posi - and no, I don't have a problem with people voting for positions they don't actually agree with, as long as they are upfront about the fact they are in an organisation and that they're voting for a line that has been democratically agreed by that org before hand, and they are genuinely involved in the given campaign and not just turning up to meetings to vote one way or another.

MT
Offline
Joined: 29-03-07
Feb 3 2011 16:26
Ed wrote:
I agree with . Also, in terms of the problems of rev groups within campaigns, I think what anarchists do is take issue with two different, but related, issues (both of which 'Trots do' but only one is problematic).

In my opinion, the problem isn't with revolutionary groups having a strategy, but the level of Machievellianism and sectarianism of that strategy.. obviously Solfed or AF members will meet up beforehand to discuss what they think, but the problem would be if they began putting the needs of their groups before that of the campaign. This is the problem with 'what trots do'; taking positions within the campaign and attempting to run it for the benefit of their sect (bypassing democratic procedures, calling off events without discussion, making statements on behalf of the campaign which weren't agreed by the campaign itself etc)..

The problem is that many anarchists confuse the two and throw the baby out with the bathwater (or, in the case of some, keep both baby and bathwater whilst still claiming to be libertarians..)..

very well put indeed.

mK ultra
Offline
Joined: 7-11-07
Feb 3 2011 20:57
vanilla.ice.baby wrote:
What's your evidence that it's vanguardist?

A revolutionary group that attempts to steer a popular movement based on their line is trying to be a vanguard. As I see it we need to promote maximum participation in movements and participate as equals rather than plotting to control the direction of a movement through bureaucratic methods.

vanilla.ice.baby wrote:
So far all you're saying is some people make you feel bad and should be excluded for upsetting you, it's hardly a sensible argument.

Sorry, but I haven't said anything about my feelings. The problem is that such machinations exclude those not in political groups from participating as equals. This is what is counter-productive and hurts the development of the struggle. Political groups that hurt the struggle for their own benefit are acting like parasites.

Either our politics are very different, or we are operating in different contexts. I imagine if NEFAC were in a coalition with other groups we would discuss questions beforehand and coordinate our involvement. Do you not see how it would be a problem if a few NEFACers, participating in a popular struggle as individuals did the same thing?

MT
Offline
Joined: 29-03-07
Feb 3 2011 21:04

what is hurtful on having a chat with your comrades on potential problems of the assembly which is going to take place. you prefer to get taken over by problems just at the spot?

Quote:
Do you not see how it would be a problem if a few NEFACers, participating in a popular struggle as individuals did the same thing?

I do not know what NEFAC does, but generally, I really see no problem unless you are some trots putting your organization above the assembly

Felix Frost's picture
Felix Frost
Offline
Joined: 30-12-05
Feb 3 2011 23:06
vanilla.ice.baby wrote:
Morals don't come into it, if me and my friends are involved in an anti cuts group and think it should go in a particular direction then why the sam hill would we not argue for that? Do you think people should not argue for what they believe so as not to hurt people's feelings?

This is putting things completely backwards. The question is rather what if me and my friends agree about what direction a group should go in, but we still have to go to the group meeting and argue for the opposite of what we believe in, because that's what the majority of our political organisation ordered us to do...

mK ultra
Offline
Joined: 7-11-07
Feb 3 2011 23:25
Felix Frost wrote:
This is putting things completely backwards. The question is rather what if me and my friends agree about what direction a group should go in, but we still have to the group meeting and argue for the opposite of what we believe in, because that's what the majority of our political organisation ordered us to do...

Thank you Felix for articulating this point. This is the crux of what I take issue with. I think if members of a political group have different opinions on a matter they should discuss this within the movement rather than have a vote before hand and be mandated to push the position of the majority of their political group.

JoeMaguire's picture
JoeMaguire
Offline
Joined: 26-09-03
Feb 3 2011 23:27

I have heard it been said that political lines for an organisation are useful, on the contrary I think the opposite is the case. If an organisation has a line, it means that alot of focus gets turned inwards with cliques trying to out do one another to form the organisations core body of ideas. The natural counter to this should be that good practices within an organisation spread more naturally than a well argued position handed around by a conference endorsed majority and that groups should be allowed to organise autonomously to represent their interests as long as they do not contradict the A's&P's of an organisation.

Its not far stretched to see that 'agreeing publicly and disagreeing privately' contains within it something quite stifling.

And the base line of our involvement with the class is there should be as few organisational hurdles as possible, separating us from them. It should be about pushing a tendency within the class, not trying to sell an ideological world view.

Spikymike
Offline
Joined: 6-01-07
Feb 4 2011 15:32

A couple of additional thoughts on this:

Firstly if a political group is going to put forward a previously agreed policy or strategy within any social movement then it should be open and honest about that to those it is addressing - I wasn't sure anyone had made that point explicit.

But, pro-revolutionary political groups are so tiny at present, with such limited representation within the varied sections of the working class and within actual social struggles, that they should be wary of assuming that any pre-determined policy or strategy they might come up with from time to time is necessarily going to be better than anyone elses. Thus sticking to any pre-determined policy or strategy in conferences or meetings for instance, might mean better policies or strategies being rejected to the disadvantage of the social movement in question. Perhaps better then, in most cases, to allow individual members to apply themselves as equal participants in any social movement operating however within a broadly shared analysis and set of political principles?

On a related point we should also perhaps distinguish here between a real social movement and various political campaign groups that may or may not be part of any social movement.

vanilla.ice.baby
Offline
Joined: 9-08-07
Feb 4 2011 17:57
Spikymike wrote:
A couple of additional thoughts on this:

Firstly if a political group is going to put forward a previously agreed policy or strategy within any social movement then it should be open and honest about that to those it is addressing - I wasn't sure anyone had made that point explicit.

But, pro-revolutionary political groups are so tiny at present, with such limited representation within the varied sections of the working class and within actual social struggles, that they should be wary of assuming that any pre-determined policy or strategy they might come up with from time to time is necessarily going to be better than anyone elses.

On a related point we should also perhaps distinguish here between a real social movement and various political campaign groups that may or may not be part of any social movement.

I agree with all this.

Quote:
Thus sticking to any pre-determined policy or strategy in conferences or meetings for instance, might mean better policies or strategies being rejected to the disadvantage of the social movement in question.

As long as the organisation is open minded and prepared to adopt strategies recomended by those outside the group if they honestly think they're better then this needent happen, and as long as the revolutionary organisation don't see themselves as the be all and end all, and as long as they're not in a struggle to control it rather than take part in, and add to it then this shouldn't happen.

vanilla.ice.baby
Offline
Joined: 9-08-07
Feb 4 2011 17:59
wrote:
If you're in an organisation and have a major problem with the strategic position the group has taken on an organisation you've collectively decided is worthwhile taking part in, then it kind of begs the question why you're in the group.

Yes, I think that once you've disagreed with more than a couple major decisions in a row by a tight revolutionary group, and it's clear an overwhelming majority disagree with you, it makes sense to reassess your membership.

vanilla.ice.baby
Offline
Joined: 9-08-07
Feb 4 2011 18:04
mK ultra wrote:

Thank you Felix for articulating this point. This is the crux of what I take issue with. I think if members of a political group have different opinions on a matter they should discuss this within the movement rather than have a vote before hand and be mandated to push the position of the majority of their political group.

Why? Why should tight knit revolutionary organisations wash their dirty laundry in public when the vast majority don't give a fuck and among those that do there will be an element who want to stir shit within that group?

Who the fuck am I to sit in judgement on some major internal disagreement in Solfed for example?

And anyway you can say people should do this and should do that until you're blue in the face, the vast majority of coherent political groups would rather thrash out their differences among themselves first, whether they should or not.

Juan Conatz's picture
Juan Conatz
Offline
Joined: 29-04-08
Feb 4 2011 18:22

I do think that a broad strategy is needed for involvement in wider groups. A strategy based on pushing independent direct action and fighting reformist elements. However, I do not agree that every single issue of the wider groups should be talked about privately amongst the political group and than voted in bloc. I don't agree with that at all and I think conducting yourselves that way alienates people and makes them disillusioned with the wider group. If the political group is not open about this it makes it even worse. One of the biggest criticisms (from non-anarchists) I've heard lobbed towards the Trots is that they do this. It makes individuals feel like their voice means less and that the group is subject to the whims of a political group.

Maybe we're talking about different contexts, but what if the political group is the only one in the wider grouping? What if its the biggest one? Do you conduct yourselves the same as if you were just one among many or one of the smaller ones?

vanilla.ice.baby
Offline
Joined: 9-08-07
Feb 5 2011 09:12
Juan Conatz wrote:
However, I do not agree that every single issue of the wider groups should be talked about privately amongst the political group and than voted in bloc.

Who is advocating that on this thread?

Quote:
Maybe we're talking about different contexts, but what if the political group is the only one in the wider grouping? What if its the biggest one? Do you conduct yourselves the same as if you were just one among many or one of the smaller ones?

It depends. For example Haringey Solidarity Group is the biggest and most influential political grouping within the Haringey Federation of Residents Associations, it simply acts as a broad libertarian tendency within the wider group, and members tend to represent their residents association rather than HSG however having larglely common politics does lead to making common arguments more often than not. In this kind of grouping that way of working does pay dividends more often than not - and I wouldn't advocate them changing their way of working.

However if there was an organised Labour party or SWP presence within the federation then yes I think that would nessecitate a different way of working. As it is there are Labour and SWP members involved but they're not formally organised within it either.

Awesome Dude's picture
Awesome Dude
Offline
Joined: 31-07-07
Feb 6 2011 08:49
Juan Conatz wrote:
What do people think about this? The way I understood political organization and have always advocated is that there should be broad guidelines on activity within wider movements, but not predetermined 'mass lines' or voting in bloc. I somewhat agree with the original post, that it is destructive to those wider movements and viewed as parasitic. This matched with my experience as well, where people became disillusioned with an organization because of groups engaging in these activities.

I largely agree with the above. The problem with organisational lines is that they almost always end up as the the prime objective of the organisation at the expense of it's missionary goals. The Bolshevik experience in Russia speaks volumes, i.e. it is the Bolshevik party line that the organisation is the most consciously advanced in the class (and will remain so due to the wider classes inability to exceed trade union/social democratic party consciousness) and is therefore indispensable to it's self emancipation. Preservation of the party is then tantamount to a defence of the revolution. Outside of open discussion within the class predetermined 'political lines' are vanguardist no matter how you put it.

The experience of 'syndicalists' in the recent NSSN affair comes to mind. I find it hilarious that members of a particular 'deep entryist' anarcho-trotsyist outfit cry foul at the socialist party's self serving manipulative vote packing, when they practically do the same thing inside the IWW and other libertarian open membership orgs.

vanilla.ice.baby
Offline
Joined: 9-08-07
Feb 6 2011 10:23
blackrainbow wrote:
when they practically do the same thing inside the IWW and other libertarian open membership orgs.

Do they or don't they do the same thing?

Ed's picture
Ed
Offline
Joined: 1-10-03
Feb 6 2011 10:59

Do you remember when L&Sers called off a Cleaners Defence Committee action on behalf of the London IWW and the IWW south-east regional organiser put out a statement condemning them (not in name but those who know, know)?

And do you remember how the leaflet for the CDC action said it was organised by the IWW even though it had been organised by the CDC as an umbrella for loads of other groups?

Edit: link

Awesome Dude's picture
Awesome Dude
Offline
Joined: 31-07-07
Feb 6 2011 15:11
vanilla.ice.baby wrote:
Do they or don't they do the same thing?

Meeting the night before a London IWW general membership branch secretary election to to decide to vote en mass a L&S member who had only recently come down from Glasgow and only ever attended 3 or 4 meetings. Appointing a hench man, who had recently fucked up the Berns cleaners solidarity, to act as the party whip to rally the membership (one of who had never turned up to a london IWW branch meeting) to vote for the FW in question. Since losing the election, not a single london L&S member has bothered to turn up to London IWW meetings despite the fact that the eventual winner is someone we can all live under. Happy to nakedly pursue power, but not happy to live with the consequences of defeat.

If you're not content with one story, a similar thing happened in london coalition against poverty (LCAP). The same Glaswegian ran for the privileges of the office of LCAP secretary (after attending how many meetings?) and was backed up the same cohort of london L&Sers. Having lost that one as well, have any of them bothered turning up to any LCAP meetings since?

I used to be a card carrying member of the Socialist Party of England & Wales, a respectable deep entryist Trot outfit. The strategy pursued in the NSSN was to try and get a non-SP majority on the steering committee. This it was reasoned would insure a balance of forces. How can you try to out-trot a well honed and seasoned trot org? Chances are you will lose. I'd like to think what separates libertarian communists from all other varieties are pre-figurative tactical and strategic methods

georgestapleton's picture
georgestapleton
Offline
Joined: 4-08-05
Feb 7 2011 14:49
Ed wrote:
Do you remember when L&Sers called off a Cleaners Defence Committee action on behalf of the London IWW and the IWW south-east regional organiser put out a statement condemning them (not in name but those who know, know)?

In fairness, as far as i know, that was because the L&Ser was asked to do most of the organising of the action. But then his granny died and because of that he didn't do anything for the demo so then called it off. I mean I don't think it was the right thing to do and I think L&S have devolved into a pretty awful organisation for other reasons but I think in this instance... well his granny died.

EdmontonWobbly's picture
EdmontonWobbly
Offline
Joined: 25-03-06
Feb 7 2011 15:22

This is really interesting. In CUPW we use rank and file groups to pack our local general membership meetings and then vote through actions that are opposed by union bureaucrats (like picketing the homes of senior management, job sharks that farm out postal work to the private sector etc). We also have packed meetings to hold direct action trainings on the union dime. Every time this happens we are met with the accusation that this is 'undemocratic'.

I understand that at least one IWW group is talking about having bylaws against packing meetings in their branch charter application down in the USA. I think alongside publishing and education having group accountability is important in a political organisation but where do we draw the line? On what tasks, I hate to say it but I love it when we use it to push an anarchist line but I hate it when others do it and I don't have a lot of compelling evidence that anyone on this thread is going any deeper on this than I am. That's all very cynical isn't it?

Awesome Dude's picture
Awesome Dude
Offline
Joined: 31-07-07
Feb 7 2011 16:11

admin - come on, leave it!

JoeMaguire's picture
JoeMaguire
Offline
Joined: 26-09-03
Feb 7 2011 22:42
georgestapleton wrote:
Ed wrote:
Do you remember when L&Sers called off a Cleaners Defence Committee action on behalf of the London IWW and the IWW south-east regional organiser put out a statement condemning them (not in name but those who know, know)?

In fairness, as far as i know, that was because the L&Ser was asked to do most of the organising of the action. But then his granny died and because of that he didn't do anything for the demo so then called it off. I mean I don't think it was the right thing to do and I think L&S have devolved into a pretty awful organisation for other reasons but I think in this instance... well his granny died.

George, this as been discussed at length. It has nothing to do with the demo being called off and everything to do with the gerrymandering of the actual demo.

georgestapleton's picture
georgestapleton
Offline
Joined: 4-08-05
Feb 10 2011 05:09
october_lost wrote:
georgestapleton wrote:
Ed wrote:
Do you remember when L&Sers called off a Cleaners Defence Committee action on behalf of the London IWW and the IWW south-east regional organiser put out a statement condemning them (not in name but those who know, know)?

In fairness, as far as i know, that was because the L&Ser was asked to do most of the organising of the action. But then his granny died and because of that he didn't do anything for the demo so then called it off. I mean I don't think it was the right thing to do and I think L&S have devolved into a pretty awful organisation for other reasons but I think in this instance... well his granny died.

George, this as been discussed at length. It has nothing to do with the demo being called off and everything to do with the gerrymandering of the actual demo.

Ok. For me its just laying into L&S over calling off the demo makes me feel icky. But if calling off the demo isn't the problem.... well, erm, I honestly don't know what it means to 'gerrymander' a demo....

Awesome Dude's picture
Awesome Dude
Offline
Joined: 31-07-07
Feb 10 2011 19:56
georgestapleton wrote:
Ok. For me its just laying into L&S over calling off the demo makes me feel icky. But if calling off the demo isn't the problem.... well, erm, I honestly don't know what it means to 'gerrymander' a demo....

In all fairness blaming the political entity L&S for the Berns demo cock up is unfair because this was largely down to one particular member. But there is a problem with regards to communicating with L&S. Most of it's membership is deeply embedded in libertarian communist initiatives, but we have no way of determining how they operate as a group. There are no publications about the way they operate internally and their policy on outside groups and comrades (unlike other established groups). Do they hold public meetings or hold closed workshops to close non L&S comrades to at least explain their puzzling methods? All we have to go on is whats on their website, but without a clear explanation of their operative methods the rest of us are left to second guess the motivations of this group from their public behaviour. Hence the intense frustration.

EdmontonWobbly's picture
EdmontonWobbly
Offline
Joined: 25-03-06
Feb 10 2011 23:31

Surely this goes deeper than just L&S though, I mean sometimes I agree with L&S members in the IWW (like the push to delegate convention) sometimes I disagree with them (like in their legalistic approach to organising). I think there is something to Fallback's point about it being more about the politics they are advocating, but I do think the organisational dualism opens to the door to a lot shady stuff.

I mean this isn't just about L&S, and I don't think political groups have to operate this way but how do we see the political group operating inside the mass group if we have decided this is the way to go?