The socialist left assumes if enough people can brought to agree on the essentials of a correct political program then it will gain a following and become the basis of a mass organisation.
I would argue that is putting the cart before the horse. Life does not work that way. The organisation must come first. It will be hard for most socialists to accept that precisely because they are ideologists who value nothing more highly than intellectual rectitude. They are fixated on being correct, and when that is the main goal in politics you will inevitably have division and fragmentation.
I am not denying that it is necessary to have a consistent and rational ideology. I am not arguing in favour of intellectual slackness, opportunism, or moral compromise. I am just saying that if you put the ideology first, if you put doctrine before kinship and fellowship, then you will be divided and ineffective. Hold fast to your beliefs, but do not put them before love of neighbour.
The working class needs organisation. We all do. Right policies emerge naturally from the right kind of organisation. For ordinary folk the right kind of organisation is very different to the so-called "democratic centralism" which failed the socialist movement in the twentieth century, creating new autocratic elites and paving the way for the reversion to capitalism, or the social democratic party model which has delivered a professional political class dedicated to the cause of capitalism.
Working class organisation must deliver what capitalist forms of political organisation manifestly cannot: a genuine egalitarian democracy. What would it look like? It would look like rangatiratanga. A completely open and transparent system of governance with self-constituting groups working in harmony with other such groups to a common end. Eventually that would become the model of governance for te motu katoa.
So set up your whakaminenga of left wing groups. It should not be hard. You don't have to agree on anything except the principle of mutual respect between real persons.
Christ mate, get out there and start organising then of everyone else is doing a poor job. Writing these replies seems like an extremely poor use your your time.
You are suggesting that I refrain from offering comment. I in turn suggest that you respond with constructive criticism. Telling others to shut up is not a good way to build a social movement.
Given you have many answers on how to build a group I assume you’re speaking from experience - we will keep this in mind for next time we solicit these sorts of articles so you can let people know your prescriptions.
In the mean time, telling socialists what they think, invoking democratic centralism to declare it bunk (something the author hasn’t mentioned at all), and then declare your own framework as the solution is… well… “ideologist”.
I don't call democratic centralism bunk. I say it failed, which most people accept as an empirical fact based on the experiences of Communist parties around the world. If you read what I said carefully you will also see that I am not opposed to ideology. On the contrary I think it is necessary. I am just arguing that differences in ideology should not be allowed to bury our common human interest or indeed our class interest.
"My own framework" is not my own at all of course, but the framework our people have worked under for centuries and on that basis I know that it works. That is not to say that it would work for you. I just think that it might. If you think differently you could explain to me why not.
I'd be happy to direct the author of the article to any of your comments, if they engage with the article in future.
Until then, I am not quite sure how to proceed with a conversation with you that seems to be unrelated, or at best tangentially related to - well - anything we publish. I am unsure what you believe the basis of unity is for the Socialist Society, and whether it is broad enough and based on human interest enough to be okay.
You keep talking about democratic centralism. I've checked the last few posts and it seems who you might want to talk to is the ISO as they're the only ones who've mentioned it at all.
One of the main themes of the article was about methods of organisation. Another was political programmes.
The article was not dogmatic on the question of organisational structures or for that matter programmes. Therefore it seemed to be inviting comment and suggestions which I have offered in the same undogmatic spirit.
Clearly there can be a tension between the desire for sound logic with respect to specific programmes and the desire for broad organisational unity.
I am suggesting that the first concern should be the forms of organisation and that programme should be secondary even though the ultimate objective may be stated in terms of a programme and the organisation is only a means to that end.
Think of the programme as a destination and the organisation as the vehicle that gets you there. The form of the vehicle will determine the nature of the terrain it can navigate, how far it can travel, and ultimately whether it can reach the chosen destination. Therefore getting the form of the vehicle right should be the primary concern.
"System Change Aotearoa is seeking to re-energise the conversation about the need for a new socialist party. We are not declaring ourselves to be this party; we are not interested in being another small sect which thinks it holds all the answers yet is unable to grow to anything like the scale needed in this time of crisis. We wish to talk to and work with other organisations and activists across the country to create something serious and lasting.
We acknowledge that multiple different political projects in tension with one another is not necessarily a bad thing in a period where the left is grappling with strategy. We can and must work together in solidarity across different parties and projects; we can be honest about political disagreements while respecting each other’s commitment to the kaupapa".
I agree with all of that, and I personally approve of the evident spirit of openness and humility. I would take it a step further however, by avoiding the concept of "party" with all its presumptions, connotations and limitations
If I understand your thesis statement, you support the theoretical existence of an umbrella organisation but don’t want to be one. It seems to be mostly an argument for political unity across the Left and that is definitely something we all agree on, ka pai.
I did think it was a bit weird to spend a paragraph on how entryism into the Labour Party is a bad strategy only to immediately follow it with a paragraph saying you still want to “work alongside activists who are pursuing a different overall strategy to us”. Especially when you have a big ol thumbnail of the exact person you are referring to on your most recent post. It’s ok though, we all do weird shit sometimes.
Based on that I’m gonna give System Change Aotearoa a hard pass, but good luck in your future endeavours.
The socialist left assumes if enough people can brought to agree on the essentials of a correct political program then it will gain a following and become the basis of a mass organisation.
I would argue that is putting the cart before the horse. Life does not work that way. The organisation must come first. It will be hard for most socialists to accept that precisely because they are ideologists who value nothing more highly than intellectual rectitude. They are fixated on being correct, and when that is the main goal in politics you will inevitably have division and fragmentation.
I am not denying that it is necessary to have a consistent and rational ideology. I am not arguing in favour of intellectual slackness, opportunism, or moral compromise. I am just saying that if you put the ideology first, if you put doctrine before kinship and fellowship, then you will be divided and ineffective. Hold fast to your beliefs, but do not put them before love of neighbour.
The working class needs organisation. We all do. Right policies emerge naturally from the right kind of organisation. For ordinary folk the right kind of organisation is very different to the so-called "democratic centralism" which failed the socialist movement in the twentieth century, creating new autocratic elites and paving the way for the reversion to capitalism, or the social democratic party model which has delivered a professional political class dedicated to the cause of capitalism.
Working class organisation must deliver what capitalist forms of political organisation manifestly cannot: a genuine egalitarian democracy. What would it look like? It would look like rangatiratanga. A completely open and transparent system of governance with self-constituting groups working in harmony with other such groups to a common end. Eventually that would become the model of governance for te motu katoa.
So set up your whakaminenga of left wing groups. It should not be hard. You don't have to agree on anything except the principle of mutual respect between real persons.
Christ mate, get out there and start organising then of everyone else is doing a poor job. Writing these replies seems like an extremely poor use your your time.
You are suggesting that I refrain from offering comment. I in turn suggest that you respond with constructive criticism. Telling others to shut up is not a good way to build a social movement.
Hi Geoff,
Given you have many answers on how to build a group I assume you’re speaking from experience - we will keep this in mind for next time we solicit these sorts of articles so you can let people know your prescriptions.
In the mean time, telling socialists what they think, invoking democratic centralism to declare it bunk (something the author hasn’t mentioned at all), and then declare your own framework as the solution is… well… “ideologist”.
Cheers
Tom
Kia ora Tom
I don't call democratic centralism bunk. I say it failed, which most people accept as an empirical fact based on the experiences of Communist parties around the world. If you read what I said carefully you will also see that I am not opposed to ideology. On the contrary I think it is necessary. I am just arguing that differences in ideology should not be allowed to bury our common human interest or indeed our class interest.
"My own framework" is not my own at all of course, but the framework our people have worked under for centuries and on that basis I know that it works. That is not to say that it would work for you. I just think that it might. If you think differently you could explain to me why not.
Nga mihi
Geoff
Kia ora Geoff
I'd be happy to direct the author of the article to any of your comments, if they engage with the article in future.
Until then, I am not quite sure how to proceed with a conversation with you that seems to be unrelated, or at best tangentially related to - well - anything we publish. I am unsure what you believe the basis of unity is for the Socialist Society, and whether it is broad enough and based on human interest enough to be okay.
You keep talking about democratic centralism. I've checked the last few posts and it seems who you might want to talk to is the ISO as they're the only ones who've mentioned it at all.
Tom
One of the main themes of the article was about methods of organisation. Another was political programmes.
The article was not dogmatic on the question of organisational structures or for that matter programmes. Therefore it seemed to be inviting comment and suggestions which I have offered in the same undogmatic spirit.
Clearly there can be a tension between the desire for sound logic with respect to specific programmes and the desire for broad organisational unity.
I am suggesting that the first concern should be the forms of organisation and that programme should be secondary even though the ultimate objective may be stated in terms of a programme and the organisation is only a means to that end.
Think of the programme as a destination and the organisation as the vehicle that gets you there. The form of the vehicle will determine the nature of the terrain it can navigate, how far it can travel, and ultimately whether it can reach the chosen destination. Therefore getting the form of the vehicle right should be the primary concern.
"System Change Aotearoa is seeking to re-energise the conversation about the need for a new socialist party. We are not declaring ourselves to be this party; we are not interested in being another small sect which thinks it holds all the answers yet is unable to grow to anything like the scale needed in this time of crisis. We wish to talk to and work with other organisations and activists across the country to create something serious and lasting.
We acknowledge that multiple different political projects in tension with one another is not necessarily a bad thing in a period where the left is grappling with strategy. We can and must work together in solidarity across different parties and projects; we can be honest about political disagreements while respecting each other’s commitment to the kaupapa".
I agree with all of that, and I personally approve of the evident spirit of openness and humility. I would take it a step further however, by avoiding the concept of "party" with all its presumptions, connotations and limitations
Nga mihi
Geoff
If I understand your thesis statement, you support the theoretical existence of an umbrella organisation but don’t want to be one. It seems to be mostly an argument for political unity across the Left and that is definitely something we all agree on, ka pai.
I did think it was a bit weird to spend a paragraph on how entryism into the Labour Party is a bad strategy only to immediately follow it with a paragraph saying you still want to “work alongside activists who are pursuing a different overall strategy to us”. Especially when you have a big ol thumbnail of the exact person you are referring to on your most recent post. It’s ok though, we all do weird shit sometimes.
Based on that I’m gonna give System Change Aotearoa a hard pass, but good luck in your future endeavours.