Alex Callinicos/SWP vs Laurie Penny/New Statesman Facebook handbags
- Thread starter Prince Rhyus
- Start date
- Status
chilango
Hypothetical Wanker
Simple answer.
Fewer meetings.
Smaller meetings.
Based around people who already know each other (friends, neighbours, workmates etc.)
Fewer self-identified activists.
Absolutely no need to artificially manufacture a "mass meeting" to create an "artist's impression" of "direct democracy".
...besides any movement that sees meetings (and their procedures) as key is fucked from the start. People hate meetings.
Fewer meetings.
Smaller meetings.
Based around people who already know each other (friends, neighbours, workmates etc.)
Fewer self-identified activists.
Absolutely no need to artificially manufacture a "mass meeting" to create an "artist's impression" of "direct democracy".
...besides any movement that sees meetings (and their procedures) as key is fucked from the start. People hate meetings.
Louis MacNeice
Autumn Journalist
There is a failure to create any radical change or even strike a sustained chord with a larger public.
The demand for progressive stacks et. al. addresses this failure in that it means that change can be affected, albeit not radical change and change confined to a very limited activist community.
At best it all looks like a mildly thought provoking exercise at worst it is a genuinely disruptive distraction from the content of discussions.
Cheers - Louis MacNeice
Louis MacNeice
Autumn Journalist
And subject yourself to the tyranny of chance?
Cheers - Louis MacNeice
p.s. Actually I think there's a lot to be said for lots.
ViolentPanda
Hardly getting over it.
Fuck 'em. Them and their privilege-checking stack-obeying bullshit can fuck right off from any politics I have anything to do with. What a total waste of time, effort and energy, all to make some privileged cocksuckers feel better about themselves by ceding 1% of ground to people less privileged than them, basically salving their consciences for not sharing the other 99% of ground.
Kill 'em all, but slowly, in a work-camp. Every single one of the privilege-abusing, discourse-controlling shitcunts.
Kill 'em all, but slowly, in a work-camp. Every single one of the privilege-abusing, discourse-controlling shitcunts.
ViolentPanda
Hardly getting over it.
Be simpler just to liquidate them, and drawing lots wouldn't give them the warm glow of smug liberal satisfaction that - oooh! - letting a black man or a lesbian talk before one of them does.
ViolentPanda
Hardly getting over it.
Totally about these liberal shits making themselves feel better.
"Oh baby, I checked my own privilege at the demo today, now suck it, bitch!"
DrRingDing
'anti-human wanker'
*jazz hands*
Lo Siento.
Second As Farce
The background to all this of course is that the reason these groups have to theorize participation in this way is precisely because they aren't predominantly led by the marginalized. Groups that coalesce around ideas rather than shared experience are inevitably going to be cross-class, and for a variety of reasons will tend towards dominance by the people who are more dominant in society as a whole. There's a reason why the Quakers are cited as the model here (religion is also a question of ideals that can be held by anyone), and not any other of the variety of forms of working-class direct democracy that have emerged over the past 2 centuries.
Since working-class democratic assemblies are based on the experience of marginalization, firstly the need for re-ordering everyone's privilege is less of an issue and secondly, the organic emergence of group leaders from within the marginalized group is not necessarily a bad thing (certainly not in the same way that middle class domination of socialist and protest groups is). That's why the Quakers are the example and not say trade union democracy or revolutionary democracy, both of which are generally variations of the elected chair/small assembly/vote by show of hands or ballot /mandated delegates model.
The whole thing just seems like yet another way of dealing with a fundamental contradiction. If you're middle class you should be peripheral in any important social movement, but no-one likes to be peripheral to something they feel strongly about. So you invent a way to make yourself central by being the guardian of the "inclusivity" rules.
Since working-class democratic assemblies are based on the experience of marginalization, firstly the need for re-ordering everyone's privilege is less of an issue and secondly, the organic emergence of group leaders from within the marginalized group is not necessarily a bad thing (certainly not in the same way that middle class domination of socialist and protest groups is). That's why the Quakers are the example and not say trade union democracy or revolutionary democracy, both of which are generally variations of the elected chair/small assembly/vote by show of hands or ballot /mandated delegates model.
The whole thing just seems like yet another way of dealing with a fundamental contradiction. If you're middle class you should be peripheral in any important social movement, but no-one likes to be peripheral to something they feel strongly about. So you invent a way to make yourself central by being the guardian of the "inclusivity" rules.
el-ahrairah
forward communism, forward gerbils!
this feels exactly right to me. london occupy, in my experience, used the hand signals malarky at their general assemblies. but it feel like a decision making process was going on. it was just the same arguments and the same dominance as before except with hand signals - though this was because of poor chairing often. what worked better was the working groups, and encouraging people to join them through a process of conversation - i.e. talking to everyone and trying to identify their skills and what they could offer to the groups. though i will say this, that after a week or so i stopped going to the general assemblies because they were bollocks. working groups have the ideas, GAs ratify them but are mostly white middle class men who don't care enough about an issue to join a working group arguing about what that group should be doing. fuck that.
sihhi
Tyranny, like hell, is not easily conquered
This should be the way, but every positive social movement has had middle-class dominance in some form or other... what were Emma Goldman's lectures to literati set? what was Wolfe Tone and his orientation towards merchants? what was the PCF's deep nesting by intellectuals throughout the 20s, 30s and beyond? i don't know the answer
it all gets chicken and egg ... failure to mobilise w/c people leads to m/c dominance which means harder to recruit w/c which means ...
sihhi
Tyranny, like hell, is not easily conquered
Jazz hands up or down?
This is from Occupy Eugene, Oregon - 12 gestures to follow
Occupy Boston is easier only has 8
sihhi
Tyranny, like hell, is not easily conquered
This was a feeling that some had about procedure and 'process not protest':
Does this kind of sign separate distance between street viewer and sign-holder?
"This is a process which uses direct action to protest'" BUT "not a protest"
Transcribed because I think it gives a glimpse of how the weird (to my eyes) hand gestures can give weight to those accustomed to using them - the activist core with years of uni or activism-as-leisure experience will win - 9 times out of 10:
Now the guy in the middle is going to say something that's unpopular with others but the chair doesn't allow that full thought to be communicated, that guy also doesn't use any hand signals, not one of the in crowd - looks more of a townie than others not a bad thing. His turn is interrupted by someone else and another male takes over to suggest that people who don't accept the progressive stack are not being respectful of anti-racism/anti-sexism/anti-classism.
Chair (W): Some people are new here, I just want some people to be aware of what's going on is that they [Occupy New York] do things by a consensus which means everyone gets to be heard (jazz hands) and um the way people speak at their general assemblies is there are facilitators that keep a stack - which means a list of people who would like to speak. In New York, in New York they use something called a progressive stack which means if you have your name on a list and you come from a traditionally marginalised background, race, gender, ethnicity um anything that is traditionally marginalised you get bumped up the list
Noise: Woo hoo (jazz hands)
Chair (W): This means we want to be able to hear what everyone has to say. Also one of the things stressed at Occupy Wall Street is the step up step back (heavy stress) this means people who have been privileged all (hand stress) their lives erm mainly white men white women even - people who have been privileged need to realise that they need to step up and step back (stress) if they have said what need to say (jazz hands)
Voice 1 (M): (in the middle of jazz hands) Isn't this supposed to be an egalitarian movement?
Floor Male: Yea I think it doesn't matter whether, you know what, what their general background is, because you know the majority of us are already, you know, part of the marginalised class of people so it wouldn't matter 'cos more people who are already under that marginalised group would get to speak anyways and I think... (No hand gestures at all)
Voice 2 (F): *That's such sh..*
Floor Male: What? (non-agressive)
Male Near Chair: Alright, something we need to identify off the bat is when we talk about privilege we're talking about access to educational power OK those are things that come from skin colour, your sex, your class OK (emphasising lectern-hitting gestures) - and these are things you need to be aware of that you have prvilege over other people at different levels or you may have less privilege than other people um depending on who you are, Yes we may all be marginalised but some of us are far (stress) more marginalised than others and we need to be respectful of that and realise that there are some people way before now have lost all we need to help restore that.
Jazz hands and applause.
Voice 2 (M) *Thank you.*
Is it worth doing a poll here to ask whether or not this stack system should be applied more widely in this country? I can see some advantages but also dangers.
LP is pretty convinced although only mentions it briefly:
I thought this was a pisstake. You mean it's not?
Radical change is completely overwhelming to even think about. I think a focus on checking one's privilege, the process, on the internal make-up of the group is a way of managing anxiety about what the fuck to do out there.
Idris2002
canadian girlfriend
sihhi
Tyranny, like hell, is not easily conquered
I thought this was a pisstake. You mean it's not?
No, it's not a piss-take - it was from Occupy Gainesville, all Occupy hand signals have a minimum of 6-8.
Sometimes ends up in odd places. Here it is in action on a celebrity TV interview with Michael Moore:
Woman on left is in agreement throughout increasing intensity of agreement with speed of hand movement.
Man behind uses more conventional mode of agreement hand movement at a short sharp burst with Michael Moore's point to the NBC news host.
Lo Siento.
Second As Farce
got to wonder what he thinks "liberation" is, don't you? What kind of "liberation" are we getting that leaves the questions of state and capitalism untouched?
J Ed
Follow Back Pro Expropriation
Sorry, an elected student officer - a full time student politician on 18,000 quid.
J Ed
Follow Back Pro Expropriation
Knowing the lad, I suspect he's in favour of whatever kind of liberation allows him to keep his inherited wealth and spend all day wanking over postmodernist literature while retaining vague left-wing credentials.
Check your privilege, anti-capitalists!
Lo Siento.
Second As Farce
bit bleak, isn't it? I mean there's working-class democracy to be found in all of those movements somewhere (even if it gets crushed/incorporated in the end, but that's history for you...)
Idris2002
canadian girlfriend
Fuck's sake, that's 4K more than I got paid in Birmingham.
- Status
Similar threads
