Marxism 2004

by Amused Mon Nov 15, 2004 10:57

"At Marxism2004 we will discuss how we can build this global movement and how we can start to build another world without war, poverty or greed ... a socialist world! "

Isn't this what you discussed at Marxism 2001, 2002 and 2003.
Not having much joy. Ah well, God loves a tryer.

by Donal Mon Nov 15, 2004 12:15

It will be interesting to see if attendences at this kind of left event suffer as a result of the postering ban in Dublin.

"Marxism 200X" has a bit of brand name and it has always been central to the SWP's year, so we can assume they will be pushing very hard to get people there.

If anyone not in the SWP is going maybe they could do a headcount (sorry but I have too much experience of how the SWP count attendences to place any trust in their figures). Do people in other left groups go to Marxism at all nowadays? Or left independents? Or is it just the SWP and people they are trying to recruit?

by Notgoingtosay - Amicus Mon Nov 15, 2004 18:16 Dublin

I attended Marxism last year, was particularly interested in debates about rank and file organisation, and it did seem fairly broad. There were certainly a good few people there (apart from myself) who are definitely NOT members of the SWP. It was hard to do a headcount as there were three or four meetings going on at any one time but there was a couple of hundred at the bigger meetings and 40-50 at the smaller ones.
It was good, actually, some really good discussions about the unions, global warming and women's liberation. In fact, I had planned only to go to Sat. afternoon and ended up going back on the Sunday. On the Sunday, there were far fewer in the morning, no more than 200 altogether, I'd say, but more were arriving for the Sunday afternoon session as I left at lunchtime.

I learnt a lot and was only asked to join about once an hour!! The zealots trying to recruit you are the biggest problem and would nearly put me off going again this year. But I've come up with a solution for those they don't already know - just pretend you're a visitor from France or Germany, or somewhere you can do the accent - that way they'll leave you alone!

by notgoingtosay - . Sat Nov 27, 2004 01:03

Just went tonight to see and there was a great meeting on about Iraq adn they had speaker from Iraq who spoke first hand about the situtaion there and a speaker on Palestine. There seemed to be a good crowd too about 100+, which is good for a Friday night. Anyway just thought I'd let people know. I enjoyed it.

by I was there Sun Nov 28, 2004 12:15

I'm not a member of the SWP and I don't plan on being one. My experience at the ESF simply confirmed that I absolutely despise party politics.

I've attended a debate or forum each session time available and have found them all interesting if slightly lopsided. There are a fair amount of SWP members there but the most interesting debate was the Laurence Cox, Kieran Allen debate on the need for political parties.

Laurence's presentation was subdued but excellent, hitting on the basic foundations of multiplicity and networking.

Allen's disappointed me first because it was sort of an advertisement for the SWP and he unneccessarily bashed autonomous organizing. It was later confirmed in his explanation about why we NEED leaders. He was talking about the May Day protest and that you NEED leaders to decide where to stop the protest, what methods, etc. He had assumed that the process for concensus building wasn't properly put in place (Laurence rebuked this, which made Allen look horribly ignorant) and admitted he wasn't even at the protest.

Otherwise a nice balance and the Iraqi speaker was excellent.

A word of note though - the same tired old debate between anarchists and Marxists is occuring too much at events like these. The SWP seems defensive because of constant attacks and the anarchists seem defensive because the SWP rips on them. Is this true organizing? Is this the left movement we want?

by I was there 2 Sun Nov 28, 2004 18:30

I was alos there and...
Correction:
1) "he unneccessarily bashed autonomous organizing". I thought this was a debate on polictical parties in the movement and methods of organising, so I think he was well within his right st same debate to question autonomous politics.

2) I was at the Mayday protest and I and many others did not get opportunity to rasie our concerns at GPO and when we reached Ashtown roundabout- there seemed to be no indication form anyone what we might do- me and my friends felt like the protest organisers had led us like lambs to the slaughter.

At the debate I was at Allen never posed an argument in saying that we NEED leaders- rather he simply pointed out that when you don't elect leadership- no one ends up accountable for decisions and in many cases an informal leadership exists which makes unaccountable decisions.

I really enjoyed the weekend and so did my friends and a lot of the comments on this site of the trots with 3 heads stereotype don't seem to match what I saw at the weekend.
Good to hear what others thought.

by vdu Sun Nov 28, 2004 21:32

>At the debate I was at Allen never posed an
>argument in saying that we NEED leaders- rather
he
>simply pointed out that when you don't elect
>leadership- no one ends up accountable for
>decisions and in many cases an informal leadership
> exists which makes unaccountable decisions.

I'm tired of this argument. The reason is because its not a case against the theory of network based/anarchist movements, its case again a bad implementation of that theory.

Anarchism isn't about saying "leaders are bad, lets not have them" and leaving it that. Its about recognizing that power and leadership left unchecked naturally coalesce around one person or small subset of a group, especially in a society which encourages this. It then sets as its purpose the setting up and vigilant maintenace of a structure and routines, which constantly monitor and manage the concentration of power.

A group in which an invisible (or visible) heirarchy emerges isn't a reflection on anarchism as a whole its a reflection on that specific groups poor ability to manage and monitor power. Too many people declare themselves anarchist or join consensus based groups, without ever brushing up on basic facilitation techniques or learning what consensus actually entails. Being an anarchist means constantly analysing power looking at those in your group, seeing who is being dominant and who is being marginalised, and making sure that the situation doesn't become permanent, and creating a culture of criticism where power issues can be raised without offense. Yep its all very touchy-feely but thats the point, it keeps everything a human level.

That said alot of the times external groups who work in a heirarchical manner will view non heirarchical groups through their own lens because thats how they think. Hence when the SWP look at DGN or the WSM they'll automatically start trying to fix on leaders, even when they're not there, because basically they can't conceive of how a group could function without these. (This isn't an meant as an insult to the SWP, no one can help seeing the world through their own filters, we all do it)

by autonomous Mon Nov 29, 2004 14:03

vdu:

"That said alot of the times external groups who work in a heirarchical manner will view non heirarchical groups through their own lens because thats how they think. Hence when the SWP look at DGN or the WSM they'll automatically start trying to fix on leaders, even when they're not there, because basically they can't conceive of how a group could function without these. (This isn't an meant as an insult to the SWP, no one can help seeing the world through their own filters, we all do it)"

I got that sense over the weekend as well when I interacted with SWP and other people who were directly involved in political parties (meaning its not just SWP) that there was a difficulty in:

1) explaining basic concepts of non-hiearchical structure
2) justifying not joining a political party in order to get anything done.

Simply because you organize, and hopefully keep organizing as the above poster pointed out, in a non-hiearchical way doesn't mean that nothing will get done and no one is "accountable."

Its also interesting to point out that terms like accountability, which linguistically derive from accounting and other bourgeois economic terms, are used to point out inherent problems with organizational structure. Just a small thought that people might not pick up on.