Just to stir things up and

Just to stir things up and fully aware that there is no real consensus i wrote the following:-First the boring history bit to remind ourselves of the origins of the SPGB,  the product of lessons its founding members had learned within the SDF from which they concluded that a socialist party had to be leader-less. A truly revolutionary position for its time and for today. The SPGB structure was designed to avoid the rise of leaders like Hyndman, and became an organisation that made individual leaders superfluous. It denied aspiring leaders any dominance by such means as private ownership of the party’s journal or executive powers of the offices elected to. They instituted a knowledge test to place all members on an level footing.Yet in many ways the SPGB remained tied to social democracy, the primary objective for the working class being the capture the state machine using the SPGB as a tool to exercise political power through elections and parliament. Thus it differed from other working class groups and possible allies by denying the economic direct action of the syndicalists/industrial unionists and, also from pre-SPGB experiences of  the negative influence of anarchism within the Socialist League, that  strand too was also rejected. However,  through the course of history events occurred that required the re-appraisal and re-accessment of the party position of its role and its function. Russia and soviets, the failure of the German Social Democrats and the rise of council communism cumulating with Otto Ruhl and the anti-political party/ trade union non-organisation organisation. Then later as an evolution of the anti-craft unionism of the Big One Union, became in the 30s the birth of the CIO and the strategy the sit-in strikes which in turn encouraged the wildcat non-union-controlled wildcat strike tactics, a  development promoted by Pannekoek which then became synthesised with class struggle anarchism to become a hybrid anarcho-marxism. In the 60s we had the counter-culture and the student movement, the New Left, high-lighted in Paris 68 by the Situationists, and elsewhere by the affinity and consciousness-raising groups. For a period  the party was beneficiaries of those processes since we could display our anti-authoritarianism and anti-bureaucratic credentials, demonstrate our no-compromise with the establishment and expouse our picture a future libertarian society. We experienced a growth of membership, the creation of new branches and the furthering of the World Socialist Movement concept. Sadly there has been gradual decline in the party’s fortunes.(but perhaps not its coffers!)In its beginning the early members of the Party had the confidence and optimism of being the vehicle for the working class to capture political power but when the over-estimation of the Party’s promise and influence failed to materialise the party proceeded to concentrate upon education  – acquiring the reputation of “the working class university” but as also seen with the WEA that role disappeared with the arrival of further and higher education opportunities for workers and the accompanying liberalisation of curriculum in the social sciences by “progressive” lecturers.Thus with no more education role that left the Party with just propaganda and we all understand how we are unable to maintain an effective voice since the loss of street meetings, and the  saturation of the mass media and nowadays the drowning-out noise of web. We are a political party in limbo, and in a sense have lost meaning and purpose which may account for the recurring obssession over HO house-keeping.  Some members remain true to the original social democracy aspiration of the party, that we must stand in elections to eventually gain propaganda exposure if not political power.But other members now question this political party role of contesting elections, doubting its practicality or fruitfullness, for at least the time being.If the attitude that we no longer engage in political activity prevails then the present branch/national structure of the party is no longer required, and we can transform it to be more like Zeitgeist or Z-net/ Parecon, an internet presence.Other members have expressed a wish for the party to gravitate around the Socialist Standard and then the outcome would that party branches become somewhat similar to readers groups and its members street-sellers. In the past there was the Clarion, and in the modern day, the Big Issue. The paper becomes the movement. Once again the result would be a redundant role for the party, but also it would raise the threat of elitism which we always guard against, due to the risk of the magazine becoming the vanity press for aspiring and accomplished writers if the editorial control becomes less constrained with an independence from a party’s collective ownership.As mentioned previously, actual events in the real world has confronted the party case in the past and it appears that the Occupy movement may be another, particularly since it echoes much of the party’s own criticisims of vanguard political activity and shares its demands for a peaceful democratic world revolution. Despite the criticism, or alleged skepticism  to the actions by a few members there is an acknowledgment by all of us that a protest is going on which could be a sign of a potential further political awakening. Nobody is born a socialist and people start protests with lots of the ruling ideologies in their heads. It is a learning process. So first let us be clear that we all stand in full solidarity with the protesters, their actions have inspired some much-needed debate. But each of us in the party differ on our expectations of its outcome.In many regards the Occupy Movement has fundamentally challenged the view that the party has any role whatsoever and that it is for the SPGB to learn, not the other way around. “What was inspiring and encouraging to me was that the group’s efforts to ‘reach out’ to the wider community in which they work is not focused exclusively on propaganda (“you’re wrong, here’s why, come join our weird little group”).” as one Party blogger has described his experience of similar groups.The protesters may be asking all the right questions, but have they discovered the right answers and if not, should we decline to supply the answers in fear that we would do not have the right to intervene as an outside organisation,  and hence abdicate the educational component of the SPGB’s purpose.New people and new generations, have to re-learn old lessons but do they necessarily require to re-invent the wheel? Should the priority for our party be to facilitate a proper understanding of the system we live in, to offer people a proper understanding of capitalism/socialism or leave it to ther own self-discovery?Or do we simply place faith in the protesters as does BillM who holds the view that the Occupy movement’s generalised slogans will lead to socialist conclusions. As BillM posted  “We don’t need to waste time on discussing what socialism will be — if we’re right the logic of their anti-capitalism will drive any movement towards socialism…”StuartW goes to the ulitimate, to provocatively declare we should disband the party and fund OWS (maybe his over-reaction to what he read on SOYMB) but he demonstrates the resurgence or revival of the Ruhl position that is now reflected in some measure by likes of Chomsky and Greiber. We read of the latter  “…Soon after the magazine Adbusters published an appeal to set up a “peaceful barricade” on Wall Street, Mr. Graeber spent six weeks in New York helping to plan the demonstrations before an initial march by protesters on September 17, which culminated in the occupation… Three days after the protests began, Mr. Graeber left. Since then, he has kept a low profile because he wants to avoid what he calls an “intellectual vanguard model” of leadership. “We don’t want to create a leadership structure,” he says. “The fact I was being promoted as a celebrity is a danger. It’s the kids who made this happen.” “http://chronicle.com/article/Intellectual-Roots-of-Wall/129428/That we could and would alienate ourselves by advocating the old trinity of “Education, Agitation and Organisation”. So why exist? Stuart’s slogan on his blog “The socialist parties are dead. Long live socialism! ” is the obvious conclusion .Yet could the whole phenomena it all be just a style of populist Bernsteinism, the movement is everything, the objective nothing.”…the way they organize and act and treat each other is the ideology. It is the building of the new society in the shell of the old…You won’t need to worry over much about the future society (what it will be like after ‘the’ revolution) because you will be building the future society in the shell of the old.”  from StuartW blog once more paraphrasing GraeberAre we to remain uncritical to the Occupy movement? It will not be the first time that socialists have been confronted by  the fetish of the “revolutionary” forms of decision-making or tactics such as the soviets and workers councils of the past, factory occupations and and what-not. We have been accused of being outside the workers struggles for not participating in reform struggles or involving ourselves as a party in trade union actions. Is our sympathy with the Occupy phenonomen discouraging us to challenge the content and the consequences of its weaknesses?Without spokespersons authority the who speaks for the movement and who stops usurpers from talking for it?Again from BillM “without some sort of organisation you can’t repudiate idiots. In its dealings with the media, the Occupy X movement suffers from the media being able to select the spokespeople.” Already it is a problem for the movement, as the OWS website warnings have revealed. The human mic public meeting style is praised but it is forgetten  that it is simply a localised way of getting around one city’s by-laws, not a universal requirement when a PA system is available. We also begin to wonder if this comment has any truth in it  that it only works when the speaker expresses a message that the audience wants to hear.”He started by saying that the occupation was great and we should all be proud (lots of happy twinkle fingers). Then he began to question the assumptions and strategy of the protest in very comradely terms. All he got off was, “We need to recognize the limitations of this kind of struggle and seek to expand it,” but his full sentence died midway through as the ‘people’s mic’ trailed off after the word ‘limitations’ as downward facing fingers rose up throughout the crowd. Therefore more than half the audience was unable to hear his critique and he was immediately shuttled off so the next speaker could address the crowd. This speaker spouted some self-congratulatory platitudes and his every word was duly repeated by the occupied Greek chorus with twinkle fingers flashing everywhere.”http://libcom.org/news/wall-street-occupation-discussion-updates?page=7″I’ve generally seen veteran activists dominating the discourse little time given to critical voices or people who are unsure of the majority course of action–in other words the consensus has supressed disagreements, rather than allowed them to be debated and discussed.”  http://libcom.org/news/wall-street-occupation-discussion-updates?page=4SOYMB has already posted upon the substitution for democratic structures by the advocacy of structurelessness of the Occupy movement and it seems confirmed by the following remarks from the Libcom Forum”…I’m still not sure how decisions are actually made at all, honestly…” Occupy Pittsburg IWWerhttp://libcom.org/news/wall-street-occupation-discussion-updates?page=6″At the planning meetings they’ve been having here it’s unclear so far how the facilitators are chosen, but surely once the thing gets going, someone could propose a different structure (which the facilitators did emphasize, to their credit) or electing a chair / rotating tasks. Committees are also kinda just done by volunteers at this point (which makes some sense) but it would be good to see them given a mandate by the group”http://libcom.org/news/wall-street-occupation-discussion-updates?page=5Are those expressions of doubts and the airing of criticisms counter-productive?  That the protests should be helped along and not dismissed out of hand, but neither should it be acclaimed uncritically?  It may be that we are at a moment of re-configuration and re-allignment of class power.  It seems so. Starting with the miners defeat then the postal workers and so many other unions, organised labour has become weakened to ineffectiveness (even though there are encouraging recent signs of a resurgence of struggle, particularly to defend pension rights.)The workers “sop” or “social wage” – the welfare state – NHS, education, public housing and the benefits system is being dismantled. The capitalist class has been successfully reversing workers gains. At one stage it looked like that social protest could re-oriented around the environment, a collective concern since it had an effect for the whole of the working class, but now it is the Occupy Movement that it appears to be growing world-wide.  No-one can deny that it possesses a nebulous content of non-demand demands and the inclusive slogan we are the 99% that is resulting in the involvement of a heterogeneous section of the population. Something positive may indeed crystalise from the contradictions that the protest movement experience in its own radical practices of democracy and the demands made upon it by the conventional Left and mainstream political parties.But are they demanding socialism? What the party should not do is to attribute to the Occupiers beliefs and values they don’t actually have and then criticise them for that failing to act on them.It is early days still and class struggle develops from experience and workers engage in new means of resistance when the old and previously tried and trusted methods begin to fail as pointed out by Pannekoek and Mattick and Bookchin – there is an adaptation and evolution of the the class struggle into new forms when the old ways are in the way.Can it transform into something more? Time will tell. Our question is where are we? Do we debate tactics and theory after each person actually understands what socialism is?  If so, this isn’t going to happen overnight and it not likely to arise from one single protest.Perhaps there is an element of truth when Nathan J. Jun, assistant professor of philosophy at Midwestern State University, in Texas, and author of the forthcoming Anarchism and Political Modernity says that anarchism itself has had the greater influence on Occupy Wall Street because, he says, many activists there “regard anarchy as an ideal to be realized.”What i think our aspiration should be is the same, to make the idea of socialism as an immediancy to be achieved and move from occupation to expropriation.Post script”These are exciting times” or “it’s payback time.”This months Standard has 3 relevant articles.One voicing its sympathy for OWS, begun by the likes of the web-savvy Adbusters yet which from all the statements of its participants is confused and contradictory protest. Then there is the London riot article less supportive,  for the violence the rioters engaged in, but which actully shares its main failing with OWS protesters.”They showed no understanding of why they led impoverished, disempowered lives in a world full of rich folk, expenses-grabbing politicians, greedy bankers and glitzy consumer goods. They were seeking payback and a means, individually, to survive.  They were not fomenting revolution.  But at the same time, they understood enough to know that their interests were not being served by the world in which they lived, and felt strongly that they were entitled to something more.”The 3rd article asks “Should we go down the route of fetishising every struggle going as, according to many on the left, struggle in itself is going to magically transform the consciousness of those involved into hardened revolutionaries? But if struggle alone is supposed to incrementally revolutionise us all then what’s the reason why so many workers who’ve gone through a lot of struggle, the miners, construction workers and others, have not reached radical conclusions but sometimes very reactionary ones such as “British jobs for British workers”? [echoed by those involved with OWS about the outsourcing of American jobs to Asia].As the issue’s editorial states “In addition to trade union action socialist political action is needed on the basis of a clear understanding and awareness of our class interests. Unions cannot make revolutions. Only the working class themselves can do that, through clear, democratic, determined political action.”What does the party do when such action is not forthcoming? But more importantly what happens to the struggles when such action is not embarked upon and stagnates at its current level?Don’t we have to take into consideration that possibility and make allowances for it in our approach? It is not being doom and gloom cynical Cassandras and Nostradamuses foretelling the future but being prudent and creating a policy from what we actually witness from what are the protesters present and current positions, not in a faith of what they might or possibly or potentially be.  BrianJ talks about the protesters programme being a hidden message with a subtle content, but does that mean we need to follow suit, instead of,as Marx wrote that socialists must,  being open about our communism.