Party policies: on education and programs

[Die Neue Zeit]

Original "aristoi" blog: http://equalitybylot.wordpress.com/2012/08/23/party-policies/



Without political programs there are no political movements.

I’m putting this very mildly with this article (though I may not be as mild with my comments), but this is a different spin on the Exclusions post by Yoram Gat (http://equalitybylot.wordpress.com/2012/08/09/exclusions/). Over there, I suggested that policy proposals be the exclusive domain of expert bodies filled by random selection, with the general body being left to vote up or down on each line of every policy proposal. In other words, I put forward stratified sampling.

Over [in my original blog], since Keith Sutherland said that electoral organizations that win the most votes should be able to convert so-called “manifesto pledges” into legislative bills, what about the whole range of political programs themselves?

They can range from electoral platforms to more medium- and long-term party programs, but it is generally acknowledged that a certain degree of expertise is required for any given policy proposal / plank / demand / etc. included in the final document (http://www.revleft.com/vb/educate-educate-agitate-t143439/index.html). Shouldn’t that expertise be recognized formally, in the form of program committees (preferably, of course, with randomly selected memberships) having the exclusive authority to suggest any policy proposal / plank / demand / etc. while some broader organizational congress / conference / convention having mere up and down votes?

This does not preclude the broader membership from participation in the brainstorming of what will be submitted to the congress / conference / convention, but again this is a recognition of the expertise needed for policy proposals / planks / demands.

[Avanti]

i would say: without political movements, there are no political programmes.

and programmes don't seem to matter. when was the last time you saw a politician or a political movement realise even half of their programmes?

political movements for me are inherently reactionary, since they aim to act within a reactionary society to make it more progressive. they are deliberate off-shots of bourgeois-do gooder culture and nurtured by the faint belief that society will affirm their programmes and that people are good and rational - the very foundations for liberal democracies and the entire idea of a civilized rational dialogue.

no political programme is far superior. the french riots when they burnt cars were wonderful. no demands. no programmes. just a rejection of society as a whole.

our programme should be the programme of looted shops. of burnt cars. of tagged hoods and asocial rejection of the established and reinforced norms which are the bars which prevent us from reaching real sensations and from being real people, not just programmed white-collared or blue-collared robots which are pre-programmed to edoctrucation to use the language the elite wants us to use...

[Q]

and programmes don't seem to matter. when was the last time you saw a politician or a political movement realise even half of their programmes?
You seem to confuse a typical election program with a communist political programme. The former is indeed a pretty worthless list overall. The latter however is a description, to put it succinctly, of our stated goal (communism/anarchism) and how we want to reach that (revolution, proletarian political collectivist rule).


political movements for me are inherently reactionary, since they aim to act within a reactionary society to make it more progressive.
As soon as that becomes an end in itself, I agree. But no one here argues this.


no political programme is far superior. the french riots when they burnt cars were wonderful. no demands. no programmes. just a rejection of society as a whole.

our programme should be the programme of looted shops. of burnt cars. of tagged hoods and asocial rejection of the established and reinforced norms which are the bars which prevent us from reaching real sensations and from being real people, not just programmed white-collared or blue-collared robots which are pre-programmed to edoctrucation to use the language the elite wants us to use...
So, if not outright nihilist, I suppose your 'programme' is that of trying to create a massive spectacle that let's everyone 'awake' from their indoctrinated minds. Fair enough, and not that I agree, but for the sake of discussion: Then what? Say that everyone has awoken, how do we actually overcome the capitalist forms? That's the very least a communist programme should comment on.

[Avanti]

i have a number of ideas, but i don't think a worldwide revolution is something which would take one year, let alone 10 years. it can take two or three generations. capitalism is already a rotting corpse, and soon the labour market will implode completely, leading to the implosion of the welfare state and of the artificial bourgeois "civil society".

the state will continue to exist, but it will just be one armed faction amongst the others, and its purpose will mostly be to support the gated communities of the sheltered upper middle class.

i believe that development is inevitable, and that we need to adapt to it. those who adapt the best will survive. adaption is the key word.

awareness doesn't change one bit. unawareness can become more powerful, if it is coupled with a lack of education and pro-liberal indoctrination.

[Die Neue Zeit]

awareness doesn't change one bit. unawareness can become more powerful, if it is coupled with a lack of education and pro-liberal indoctrination.

That sounds Bakuninist to me, but at least you're open about your apolitical or anti-political nihilism.

From another thread:


Or, how about - god forbid - we actually let the students themselves decide what they want to learn!!

You are just posing ideological propaganda as substitution for a full and wholesome education.

Education is only partly about the content - it is the teachers' ability to promote independence and intellectual/personal maturity and self-fulfillment in students that is also key.

Sadly, DNZ, you are too focused on your narrow political program to see that. What if someone doesn't give a shit about Kalecki et al.? You still gonna ram some heterdox institutions crap down their throats?


Agree in some respects, but just as the current curricula in most capitalist countries is the 'curriculum of the victors', so we must not make the same mistake ('mistake') by imposing our own propaganda on young students.

Education is best when students are allowed to think independently and choose their own path. That can't be done if overt propaganda is in the way. I say overt, because of course no curricula will be 'neutral', and I don't think it should be, but it should expose students to a variety of opinions without leading them to a 'correct' choice.

Why? Deciding to be ignorant on a necessary topic isn't good. Deciding to disagree on a topic taught is at least informed.

Quote:

It took experts to spell out “Separation of [...] schools from the church.” (http://www.archive.org/stream/EisenachProgram/725_socDemWorkersParty_230_djvu.txt)

It took experts to spell out “State support of the cooperative system and state loans for free producers’ cooperatives
subject to democratic guarantees.” (same)

It took experts to spell out “Suppression of the public debt.” (http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1880/05/parti-ouvrier.htm)

It took experts to spell out “Legal minimum wage, determined each year according to the local price of food, by a workers’ statistical commission.” (same)

It took experts to spell out “Taking over by the Imperial Government of the whole system of working people’s insurance, though giving the working people a controlling share in the administration” (http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/mod/1891erfurt.asp) or “Takeover by the Reich government of the entire system of workers’ insurance, with decisive participation by the workers in its administration.” (http://www.marxists.org/history/international/social-democracy/1891/erfurt-program.htm)

Further on, it took experts like Hyman Minsky and Rudolf Meidner to spell out other policies.

[Vladimir Innit Lenin]

Why? Deciding to be ignorant on a necessary topic isn't good. Deciding to disagree on a topic taught is at least informed.

Further on, it took experts like Hyman Minsky and Rudolf Meidner to spell out other policies.[/I]

Most people don't believe the subjects you're interested in are necessary topics though. You probably don't think the subjects they're interested in are necessary topics, either. So what?

Economies don't grow faster because people study Economics. Capitalist economists are numerous and well qualified, but they can't figure out what the fuck is going on.


The key question is thus: why would forcing everyone to study YOUR propaganda lead to a better society?

[Avanti]

That sounds Bakuninist to me, but at least you're open about your apolitical or anti-political nihilism.

politics aren't real, they are just a distraction from the futility of the masquerade.

the thing is, all formulas, all programmes and all politics are worthless if the people aren't activated. you are building sand castles or sim cities and thinking you'll fit real people there. we need to destroy all sand castles, not build new ones.

the real liberty lies in the destruction and creation of realities, not in the creation of artificial realities which we treat as unchanging realities.

[Grenzer]

The key question is thus: why would forcing everyone to study YOUR propaganda lead to a better society?

Maybe because, unlike yours, it actually involves doing things: raising awareness on the real problems capitalism causes, teaching workers how to remedy them, and organizing them to do just that.

[Jimmie Higgins]

Without political programs there are no political movements.Hmm, well I think in practice there can be and often are. But I do think without a "program" in the sense of a movement (or in the case of a working class upsurge of movements) that has an independant sense of what they want and how they might get it, in the long run they will become discouraged or adopt to another program (based in the interests of another class) i.e. become co-opted.

Upsurges and rebellions are due to material conditions, but often these same material conditions don't result in a riot all the time. So part of it is consiousness and organization, but also just rebelling all the time simply becomes unworkable for most people. At a certain point, constant rebellion actually begins to re-inforce the idea that nothing can change.

This happened in Occupy Oakland. Obviously there was the police repression, but the responce was always "Escalate!" - but to what ends? The ends of "escalation". And what happened is that it became moralism and people got worn out and other became discouraged because it just became a routine cat-and-mouse game with the cops. So rebellion all the time just becomes spinning wheels if there is not an independant sense of where to go, what we want, and how to get there.

But the program and the movement both have to be there and connected - a program that's not connected to a movement is just a list of things and ideas and might get some passive support among some people, but that's about it.


political movements for me are inherently reactionary, since they aim to act within a reactionary society to make it more progressive. they are deliberate off-shots of bourgeois-do gooder culture and nurtured by the faint belief that society will affirm their programmes and that people are good and rational - the very foundations for liberal democracies and the entire idea of a civilized rational dialogue.Yes there always are reformists, and often this is the default starting point for people as they begin to become politically active. But aside from the refom itself, movements do other things: they help people come together for common cause, help people learn how to work together, debate, develop their ideas; they help show people who is on what side; they help people break from bourgoise hegemony when class-realities collide with bourgoise myths. It's how we as workers learn about our own power in society after we have learned first-hand about our exploitation.

Of course it is never automatic, but without this no matter how much someone can theorize, it will largely fall on deaf ears.

[Q]

Hmm, well I think in practice there can be and often are. But I do think without a "program" in the sense of a movement (or in the case of a working class upsurge of movements) that has an independant sense of what they want and how they might get it, in the long run they will become discouraged or adopt to another program (based in the interests of another class) i.e. become co-opted.

Upsurges and rebellions are due to material conditions, but often these same material conditions don't result in a riot all the time. So part of it is consiousness and organization, but also just rebelling all the time simply becomes unworkable for most people. At a certain point, constant rebellion actually begins to re-inforce the idea that nothing can change.

This happened in Occupy Oakland. Obviously there was the police repression, but the responce was always "Escalate!" - but to what ends? The ends of "escalation". And what happened is that it became moralism and people got worn out and other became discouraged because it just became a routine cat-and-mouse game with the cops. So rebellion all the time just becomes spinning wheels if there is not an independant sense of where to go, what we want, and how to get there.

But the program and the movement both have to be there and connected - a program that's not connected to a movement is just a list of things and ideas and might get some passive support among some people, but that's about it.

A few themes run through this. I'll respond to each.

Confusion of movements with upsurges. I agree that upsurges and rebellions happen all the time. This is a simple observable fact. The point of a political movement however is that it is a durable entity. Organizing our class is a longterm task and therefore we need more than an upsurge or rebellion to do this.

Intervene in the existing state of our class. Yes, this is essential. You can't just proclaim a programme and expect the masses to flock behind it. You need to intervene in, say, the Occupy upsurge (note how I keep that distinct from movement here) and try to educate, agitate and organize from that base. For this we need a programme to guide our actions in a broad sense.

The connection between programme and movement. Yes, there is a connection. But I do think that programme has a primacy between the two. The reason is simple: You can intervene within the existing upsurges at any point, but to create something more durable, you need a programme and unity around the acceptance of one. On the other hand, without developing a programme, any upsurges (Occupy being a case in point) will eventually run out of steam and collapse.