«Regardless of what theoretical tradition we choose to inform our approach to revolutionary organisation today, it might be possible to agree on the following: (1) The starting point for the formulation of an effective policy should be discussion amongst as many of the membership as is conceivably possible in the circumstances we are facing (taking into account conditions of legality, and so on). A membership that is involved in the active formulation of the policy will be more inclined to implement it energetically. Creative experiments in ‘referendum’ of the type practiced by the autonomist IOPS might be used, so long as they do not encourage the development of an atomised membership of passive individuals. (2) An effective organisation should aspire to unity in action around collectively agreed points. But sometimes that unity in action might not be possible. Rather than splitting and forming a different organisation to operate a line free of the constraints of central discipline, it is surely better to allow both currents to put their position to the test of practice yet still remain in a common organisation. Discipline, in this sense, would be voluntary, rather than coercive – a view more complementary to the cultural ethos of the twenty-first century that Paul Mason has emphasised. (3) Bureaucracies are necessary evils of the modern world. Professional administration, effective communication, and the organisation of participatory democracy, all become harder without central organisation in any form. The danger that arises lies in how material interests become invested in a position within the central organisation. For the radical left the awards are not monetary but nonetheless confer privileges; a less alienated, more self-directed and intellectual form of work and a position of authority and power over the membership as a whole. If a bureaucracy feels itself under attack then tribalism can result, compounding the disparity in power relations between the lay members and the centre. The measures that might be taken to overcome these dangers foreshadow the type of anti-bureaucratic policies that would be needed in a working class state, such as regular competitive elections for office-holders and/or a policy of rotation in position. But there is also a cultural question of encouraging members to take on responsibilities for the group’s work and thus avoiding the substitution of the membership by the apparatus. (4) Freedom to dissent can be tackled culturally as well as procedurally. A heterodox tendency will encourage difference and freethinking, creating a culture of challenging debate and argument. The freedom to form opposition groupings (‘factions’) should be total, even if the danger of drawing permanent fixed lines of disagreement is recognised. (5) An active orientation to the working class has to involve – as Paul has emphasised in relation to the post-Occupy conjuncture – trying to build durable organisations in the class that are not subject to the passive bureaucratism of the reformist labour movement. The British left in particular is prone to a ‘cult of the next big thing’, which tends to eschew the long-term orientation necessary for the left to accumulate trust and authority in working class. This is particularly important to recreate a sense of community that has been undermined, but not entirely eroded, by the cultural impact of neoliberalism on mass social consciousness (a point emphasised by Richard Seymour in his speech to Crisis and Unity).»
Posted on: Sat, 22 Jun 2013 18:56:02 +0000
Trending Topics
Recently Viewed Topics
© 2015