Int. Organization for a Participatory Society

[Tim Cornelis]

International Organization for a Participatory Society (IOPS).

The IOPS (http://www.iopsociety.org/)is an interim international organisation that aims at structuring a broad anticapitalist grassroots movement. In essence, it advocates socialism from below. Its interim committee consists of members such as anarchist Noam Chomksy, socialist and 'parecontist' Robin Hahnel, and Marxist David Harvey.
Essentially, anyone who advocates socialism from below—Trotskyists, anarchists, libertarian socialists, democratic socialists, left communists, etc—is welcome (market abolitionism is required, so no market socialists).
In my view, the IOPS should be a complementary organisation that co-exists with various ideology-based anarchist, Marxist, or left communist parties and movements. Currently, there generally isn't a non-sectarian socialist organisation that the common Joes and Janes--whom have no interest in detailing how to characterise the Soviet Union exactly, or who don't want to subscribe to either Marxism and its many subsets, or anarchism, but simply to socialism--can find a place in.

(In some countries, such non-ideology based parties do exist, such as the New Anticapitalist Party, which was formerly a Trotskyist party. Nevertheless multi-tendency socialist parties are unfortunately rare).

I imagine many socialists, including here on revleft, will not want to join such an organisation. Many comrades will get hung up on semantics (“it's not workers' democracy, since democracy implies popular cross-class participation”) or sectarianism (“I don't want to share an organisation with the left-wing of capital”). Indeed, we will find many Eurocommunist-seeming tendencies and what revleft likes to call “liberals” within its ranks, but keep in mind that the IOPS would be complementary, it would not replace current parties and organisations. Additionally, having an ideology-based organisation is no guarantee for preventing Eurocommunist-like tendencies from exerting influence.

Keep in mind also, that the people who have the intellectual capabilities to fully grasp the implications of, say, left-communism (proletarian internationalism, absolutely no support for national liberation, etc.) are rare. For communism to grow we cannot get hung up on overzealous sectarianism which drives people away from the revolutionary left.

Advantages of IOPS:
Currently: it is necessary to subscribe to Marxism, council communism, anarchism, Bordigism, Leninism, or whatever ideology, since virtually all parties are centred around such an ideology.
Improvement: people who are not too interested in these political differences can simply join a non-sectarian socialist organisation instead.

Currently: meeting and discussing with anticapitalist “liberals” is rare because they are wary of joining ideology-based organisations.
Improvement: continual dialogue, which is enabled by virtue of being in the same organisation, enhances the chance of these anticapitalists adopting a more revolutionary attitude significantly.

Currently: the limited resources we have are employed separately, which may be wasteful (diseconomies of scale).
Improvement: the limited resources can be employed towards more unified and common goals (economies of scale).

Possible disadvantages:

Cooperation between multiple ideologies may curb revolutionary politics somewhat.

Trotskyists hijack it (no offence).


In general however, I think the IOPS could serve as a welcome addition to the broad revolutionary, non-Stalinist left, and may unify us somewhat.

Presently, the IOPS is in debt to "parecon," an economic model most communists reject and rightly so. However, this is not formally established and will in all likeliness be changed. So you could become an interim member (gratis for now), and if this "parecon" shtick sticks, you could leave any time, as I said, it's free for now.

Opinions?

[The Douche]

Chomsky and parecon? Welp, see ya later.

Nah, but really, in addition to my issues with the politics of those who are apparently organizing/inspiring this organization, big tents never work out in my experience, and trying to combine people with such radically divergent views won't play out very successfully.

[Tim Cornelis]

Chomsky and parecon? Welp, see ya later.

The non-issue with "parecon" is that it is irrelevant and therefore harmless. They may detail how a future society may work, but since it will be built by future people, whom will have no concern for such details. Thus, even if parecon manages to attract a great appeal, it will in all likeliness not be implemented. And even if it is implemented it will work (in which case, there is nothing wrong with it--although I don't believe it'll work), or the people will soon find out it doesn't work and reform the system, presumably more towards conventional communism. Parecon is harmless, there is no reason to oppose cooperation with them, therefore.


Nah, but really, in addition to my issues with the politics of those who are apparently organizing/inspiring this organization, big tents never work out in my experience, and trying to combine people with such radically divergent views won't play out very successfully.

It depends on what kind of anarchism you advocate, some anarchists are closer to autonomism and see loosely associated affinity groups as the ultimate form of organisation, in which case the IOPS is not for them. But there are plenty of anarchists who do favour extensive structure. These anarchists do not "radically diverge" all that much from Trotskyists or left communists.

Common requirement for membership is advocacy of:

Participatory democracy
Workers' control/workers' self-management
Market abolitionism


Most Trotskyists, anarchists, and left communists advocate this (although some, especially left communists, have semantical issues with the use of "self-management" or "democracy"). I don't see this as "radically diverging" at all. We have far more in common than than disagreements.

This will surely be difficult, but that is no reason not to do it. In future revolutions (and attempts thereof), all these tendencies have to cooperate as well, unless you wrongly believe only one tendency will dominate all and every future revolutions. This is possible under the common denominator of participatory democracy, workers' self-management, and participatory planning (not of the parecon variety, but generally speaking).

If we can't even unite ourselves now, how will we be able to do so in the future in revolutionary moments?

One example of a relatively successful multi-tendency party was the Pacifist Socialist Party (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pacifist_Socialist_Party) in the Netherlands.


In 1955 a group of "politically homeless" activists had formed. The group mainly consisted of former members of the Labour Party (PvdA) and the Communist Party of the Netherlands (CPN). They had left the PvdA over the military intervention against the Indonesian independence movement and the Labour party's support for NATO. Many of them had a background in the orthodox Marxist wing of the Social Democratic Workers' Party or the Christian Democratic Union (CDU), which had merged into the PvdA. The member of the CPN had left their party over the Stalinist course of the CPN. Some of these politically homeless had never been members of parties, while others had been member of pre-war parties such as the Independent Socialist Party.

These politically homeless individuals were a diverse group: progressive Christians, leftwing socialists, orthodox Marxists, anti-Stalinist Trotskyists, left communists, liberal pacifists and some anarchists. Many of them were active in the developing peace movement.

The party existed from 1957 till 1991, and in that time only had one split of some Trotskyists. So by no means can we say that multi-tendency parties never work.

If we merely stick to our very narrowly defined selves we will wallow and continue to wallow in our own irrelevancy.

[Red Banana]

Give it a shot. Joining as an interim member gives you significant influence over the shape this organization will take upon its founding, nothing is set in stone for now. Its free, you have absolutely nothing to lose.

Join and let your voice be heard.

[Domela Nieuwenhuis]

Haven't really had the time to look through the site but i joined immediately!

A great idea for a great cause!

[Domela Nieuwenhuis]

Haven't really had the time to look through the site but i joined immediately!

A great idea for a great cause!

[The Douche]

If your anarchism can be reconciled with trotskyism or democratic socialism, you're probably not an anarchist.

[Red Banana]

If your anarchism can be reconciled with trotskyism or democratic socialism, you're probably not an anarchist.

Participating with people of differing views to work for a common goal doesn't mean the differences between said people are reconciled.

Edit: Rejecting sectarianism does not amount to rejecting ones ideology.

[helot]

I don't see the point in joining an organisation for the sake of unity. There are practical differences between tendencies and a multi-tendency organisation such as IOPS would probably quickly lead to internal conflicts around these. Even further, as a complimentary organisation to one where there's practical and theoretical agreement there seems little point. I'm assuming IOPS would be doing the same things that these organisations do in the first place, such as propaganda etc. If i'm mistaken someone involved detailing the short and medium term aims and the strategy and tactics to achieve these would be welcome.

I've no problem working with people with different politics but because my politics (anarcho-syndicalism specifically) infer what activities i engage in i don't see the point in being in a broad organisation other than in engaging in direct struggle in the workplace and the community (e.g. being in a trade union in an already unionised workplace) in which case i don't look to teaming up with other tendencies but look to developing struggle, confidence and initiative within the wider class.

[Domela Nieuwenhuis]

Working together with people with different opinions isn't wrong, it's life!
It's the common enemy that is important.
Even Stalin and Hitler cooperated at one point to get Poland!

[The Douche]

Participating with people of differing views to work for a common goal doesn't mean the differences between said people are reconciled.

Edit: Rejecting sectarianism does not amount to rejecting ones ideology.

I don't believe that trotskyists and democratic socialists have the same goal as I do. I am not a sectarian, I am willing to work with people who I believe are communists, I will not work with those who want to reorganize capital.

For instance, I disagree with many leftcoms on the question of parties and organizations, but I will still work with them.

[Red Banana]

I don't see the point in joining an organisation for the sake of unity.

Just to be clear, the whole point of IOPS is not leftist unity. Non-sectarianism is just one aspect of the organization, and compared to other aspects, a rather insignificant one at that.

The mission of IOPS can be found here: http://www.iopsociety.org/mission

The principles of IOPS don't seem to clash with anarcho-syndicalism as far as I know. Besides, by joining you can represent and further your views with other people in an open, critical atmosphere.

[Red Banana]

I don't believe that trotskyists and democratic socialists have the same goal as I do. I am not a sectarian, I am willing to work with people who I believe are communists, I will not work with those who want to reorganize capital.

For instance, I disagree with many leftcoms on the question of parties and organizations, but I will still work with them.

Though I wouldn't be surprised if I found some trotskyists and democratic socialists in IOPS, those views aren't at all representative of it. IOPS is an openly revolutionary organization though so I doubt many dem socs would be attracted to it.

I agree that those who simply want to reorganize capital should not be worked with, and if you join you can help organize a no state capitalist, reformist etc. membership policy (which is already a de facto aspect of the organization).

There are a lot of people there that I think you would agree with. Anyway it's worth the time to check out the mission, vision, and structure/program on the site. As said in an earlier post: join and let your voice be heard.

[Tim Cornelis]

Trotskyists and democratic (in this context: parliamentary) socialists would be least likely to join.

By democratic socialists I do not mean social-democrats, I mean socialists whom do not subscribe to any theoretical underpinning such as anarchism or Marxism: simply socialists who seek to attain it through democracy. In this particular context, those who which to attain socialism through grassroots democracy, not via parliament. Additionally, left communists can democratic socialists as well. After all, the Socialist Party of Great Britain advocates attaining socialism via the ballot box. Quite arbitrary to exclude some democratic socialists while embracing others.

I don't think Trotskyists, unlike Stalinists, seek to reorganise capital. That would certainly reflect the reality of Bolshevism, and Trotskyists have a wrong analysis in that regard, but forgetting the past and looking at the future, Trotskyists advocate workers' self-management, participatory democracy, and the abolition of money and markets.

On the other hand, I've never heard Marxist-Leninists actually advocate communism. When inquiring into their demands, they prove themselves bourgeois socialists. I don't think this is the case for most Trotsyists. Your experience with Trotskyists may differ from mine.


Even Stalin and Hitler cooperated at one point to get Poland!

That's the worst example you could come up with.

[helot]

Just to be clear, the whole point of IOPS is not leftist unity. Non-sectarianism is just one aspect of the organization, and compared to other aspects, a rather insignificant one at that.

The mission of IOPS can be found here: http://www.iopsociety.org/mission

The principles of IOPS don't seem to clash with anarcho-syndicalism as far as I know. Besides, by joining you can represent and further your views with other people in an open, critical atmosphere.

I think it's obvious that in this thread it's being sold as a matter of non-sectarianism. That sentence you quoted was a throwaway comment. What IOPS is looking at for its immediate future is intense debates and inevitably one tendency winning out.

I'm not up for representing anarcho-snydicalism amongst people who already identify as revolutionary socialists and it does not have a goal of developing an anarcho-syndicalist union. I'm not up for entryism and I'm not up for being in an organisation to debate tendencies. I'd rather you know? being on the ground side by side in struggle with the wider class. I couldn't really give a toss about developing what'll inevitably be a propaganda outlet after the dust has settled. In all honesty, i fail to see any advantage in joining IOPS and i fail to see how it could benefit my short, medium or long term goals.

If you get to the point where you're engaging in actions i may join you in solidarity but i'm not going to join

[ed miliband]

I don't think Trotskyists, unlike Stalinists, seek to reorganise capital. That would certainly reflect the reality of Bolshevism, and Trotskyists have a wrong analysis in that regard, but forgetting the past and looking at the future, Trotskyists advocate workers' self-management, participatory democracy, and the abolition of money and markets.



workers' self-management and participatory democracy are perfectly compatible with the management of capital, and for what it's worth i have never heard a trotskyist advocate the abolition of money. going from the propaganda i have encountered and various conversations i have had, i sense their conception of socialism is much closer to post-ww2 social-democracy than anything else.

[Domela Nieuwenhuis]

That's the worst example you could come up with.

I know, but it's the best example in a revleft-context i could come up with that descibes the common goal.

[blake 3:17]

Thanks! I'm very curious. I'd seen the acronym here & there but didn't know what it was.

I haven't studied the ParEcon model in any depth. I have been impressed by a bunch of stuff associated with Albert. His recent memoirs have been the best and most honest evaluation of the Anglo-American Left for the past 30 years.

Harvey's formulations in The Enigmas of Capital for a 21st century socialist subject/actor seem to me to be in the right direction.

Thanks again!

[Ravachol]

One example of a relatively successful multi-tendency party was the Pacifist Socialist Party (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pacifist_Socialist_Party) in the Netherlands.

The party existed from 1957 till 1991, and in that time only had one split of some Trotskyists. So by no means can we say that multi-tendency parties never work.

Don't forget to mention that the PSP virulently opposed the radical segments of the squatting movement, the autonomen,etc. and is the party to merge with the Stalinist CPN into GroenLinks (GreenLeft), a neoliberal shithole for has-been oldtimers and carreerist 30-somethings if there ever was one.



If we merely stick to our very narrowly defined selves we will wallow and continue to wallow in our own irrelevancy.


I have never, ever seen a 'Big lefty get together' project that sweeps serious differences (ie. actual communists working together with capital's left-wing) work and develop in a direction that's anything else than inertia, defeat and opportunist irrelevance. Not in my own practice nor throughout history.

If you think a forced attempt at 'unity' constructed through voluntarist regrouping, getting you 100 people tops (who then proceed to seek a lowest common denominator so low it becomes virtually unworkable), will have any significant positive impact, then you have a very weird understanding of revolutionary dynamics.

[Domela Nieuwenhuis]

The party existed from 1957 till 1991, and in that time only had one split of some Trotskyists. So by no means can we say that multi-tendency parties never work.


Ah, i was only ten when they quit! No wonder i've never heard of them!
(Lambert Meertens bid me welcome at IOPS, so i googled him)

[GerrardWinstanley]

I like the sound of it at face value and I prefer the democratic organisational structure than your standard revolutionary party bureaucracy, but I'm not so sure about its policy of admitting only established party political tendencies and not a broader category of social movements (indigenous peoples, peasants' movements, antifascists, LGBT, womens' groups), unless I've got the wrong idea there.

'Parecon' seems to be an article of faith for the group too which I think has the potential to undermine the movement's scope.

[Ostrinski]

To The Douche and ed milliband: I don't think what this org is trying to achieve is programmatic unity with Trotskyist organizations and parties. That would indeed be much more difficult and indeed most likely impossible. I am sure there is a wealth of instances of Trotskyist organizations doing anarchists dirty.

In contrast, I think it is meant as an umbrella group for all leftist tendencies that have an interest in the concepts of participatory governance, direct democracy etc. This encompasses (some of) Trotskyism. It is much different to have a loose organization of anarchists, left communists, syndicalists, and maybe some folks that identify historically with the Trotskyist tradition that don't dominate the decision making process than to have an anarchist organization try to collaborate with a Leninist organization (which would be as undreamable as it would be futile)

I like the idea myself.

[Tim Cornelis]

It is said big-tent/multi-tendency far-left groups have never managed to make large social change, but examples of this is scarce anyway. I'd say look at the Zapatistas, the IWW, Abahlali baseMjondolo, these organisations do not specify which ideology they belong to, yet many of different persuasions, from Marxists to anarchists, rally behind it. Yet you all say it somehow can't work?

The IOPS would be committed to similar principles as an IWW, an EZLN, or an Abahlali baseMjondolo, namely democracy from below, socialism/communism, egalitarianism, and this would consequently attract libertarian socialists, left communists, anarchists as well as, say, democratic socialists.


I like the sound of it at face value and I prefer the democratic organisational structure than your standard revolutionary party bureaucracy, but I'm not so sure about its policy of admitting only established party political tendencies and not a broader category of social movements (indigenous peoples, peasants' movements, antifascists, LGBT, womens' groups), unless I've got the wrong idea there.

I think you got the wrong idea. "Party political tendencies" was my expectation of the people it would attract.

[Jimmie Higgins]

I'm empathetic to the desires behind this and if it is able to help organize some radicals who are right now just independant and maybe not all that active aside from maybe some small thing here and there, then that will be positive.

When working with other radicals - in occupy or whatnot - I certaintly do see things from a perspective of "revolution from below" as opposed to strategies and politics related to "revolution from above" and see other anarchists and marxists with these same views as allies and I think as class struggle picks up there will be many reshufflings of how the radical left operates and relates to eachother - and I hope that this viewpoint is the dominant one among a variety of radicals form different tradditions and that they begin to work together organically.

However, for this specific attempt, I wish it luck, but really it seems to be a rearranging of the furnature so to speak. When the IWW was formed, by contrast, there was already an established working class left with decades of experience in struggle, with people who were "organic leaders" through these struggles and so the groups that got together represented some real class forces: the left wing of the SP, the SLP, various anarchists and militant revolutionary unionists and socialist-oriented unions themselves. It came out of people with these various backgrounds comming (not always gracefully) to a more united vision and recognition of the problems of reform-oriented socialism (the right-socialists) and the AFL beurocracy.

So I guess I think it would be good if more radicals were organized and oriented towards grassroots struggle, but I think until there is a worker's movement with an organic radical component, a convergence of like-minded revolutionaries, probably won't do too much beyond what existing radical groups and circles are able to do.

[ed miliband]

idk why some people are saying this would appeal to left communists; maybe some people who are influenced by the german / dutch left, but i can't see the icc or ict suddenly signing up as affiliate organisations. with very good reason*.

*what ravachol said, basically.

[Ravachol]

I'm looking for strategical models that could be applied today.


Why is it you think what's 'lacking' today is some philosopher's stone of revolutionary strategic blueprints? What is your explanation for its absence?


for example, if you can explain how the CNT in Spain got up to 500,000 members, please do


I get the feeling you're idealizing the CNT (which has more like 10k members) way too much. I've had relatively good contacts with members of the CNT in the past, esp. when I was still a member of the ASB, and its not like its a huge revolutionary machine with only full-time active militants. I mean they're doing their thing (despite all my misgivings about syndicalism) and that's fine but it's not like they're causing a revolutionary whirlwind in Spain or anything.


It is said big-tent/multi-tendency far-left groups have never managed to make large social change, but examples of this is scarce anyway.


No, they're plenty. Pick a random list of the countless 'left unity' projects that have sprung up in, say, the past 40 years and you'll see for yourself.



I'd say look at the Zapatistas, the IWW, Abahlali baseMjondolo, these organisations do not specify which ideology they belong to, yet many of different persuasions, from Marxists to anarchists, rally behind it. Yet you all say it somehow can't work?


This is a really weird way to frame things. First of all, the Zapatistas and Abahlali aren't political groupings seeking 'left unity' or the imposition of some program but expressions of particular struggles. Secondly, none of what you mentioned has managed to make some kind of 'magic breakthrough' using that much sought after philosophers stone of 'big tent orgs' and 'left unity' or whatever.



The IOPS would be committed to similar principles as an IWW, an EZLN, or an Abahlali baseMjondolo, namely democracy from below, socialism/communism, egalitarianism, and this would consequently attract libertarian socialists, left communists, anarchists as well as, say, democratic socialists.


Be honest with yourself. Do you believe, in your heart of hearts or whatever, that somehow a blossoming mass organisation will come out of this which will have a significant, measurable impact upon the course of proletarian struggles worldwide (or on a national level, even)? If so, why is this gonna work and why haven't all the previous attempts at similar projects worked? If so, how come the regroupment of political minorities is so inherently crucial to the movements of the class, to the rumblings of history? Do you think the course of proletarian struggle depends on programmes or interventions set out by minoritarian groups, who are bound by their time and position to be minoritarian?

I'm not saying this stuff to demoralize people but to prevent people from falling into the trap of "build the party, sell the paper" (and its thousands of permutations) time and again, burning themselves out doing stuff that has 0 impact and getting a weird conception of the relationship of pro-revs vis-a-vis the proletariat at large and of the proletariat vis-a-vis communism.


It's for the same reason as that party that the OP didn't want to discuss: They became more than merely a trade union. They became a politicized movement, with their own alternative culture, support networks, etc.

In addition to what Devrim said, the post-Franco CNT was largely pulled together from recuperated elements of the assamblea movement and their symbiotic relationship with 'alternative culture' is more due to their symbiotic relationship with what you lot'd call "lifestylism" and their squats and subcultures in the spanish anarchist milieu than any conscious strategy. Whatever facilities the Spanish CNT has nowadays has little to do with the ateneos and institutions they had in the run up to the civil war.

[black magick hustla]

idk why participatory democracy is "desirable". it obviously has it's place but seems really inefficient in some situations. it's just a shallow, organizational question imho. i for one don't want to be sitting in a fuckin stadium discussing the budget of how many chalk pieces are provided for each teacher

[Ravachol]

idk why participatory democracy is "desirable". it obviously has it's place but seems really inefficient in some situations. it's just a shallow, organizational question imho. i for one don't want to be sitting in a fuckin stadium discussing the budget of how many chalk pieces are provided for each teacher

I think 'participatory/real/direct/etc. democracy' is often and increasingly, these times, thrown up as a pure form without content as if it were a substitute for what is truly lacking, ie. the material human community that is to form the content of communism. Sure, not all forms are suitable for this content, but it doesn't mean divining some form will make the content spring up magically.

If you look at the discourse of the Indignados movements, Occupy, etc. you can see this at work too:



The democratic discourse of the movement was an inter-class response to a major political crisis, against a state which is becoming authoritarian. This democratic discourse is very much associated with the penetration of the middle strata (mostly the young generation, the would-be middle strata) and the petit-bourgeois into the class struggle, but it can only be transitory because of the severity of the crisis. This was also the case, shaped obviously by different particularities, both in Spain and the Arab world. This democratic discourse is not, however, the radical democratism of the ‘90s and early 2000s, the radical democratism of the antiglobalisation movement. The difference is that no visions of an alternative society, of a capitalism with a human face, exist anymore. This makes of this democratic discourse a mere form which is missing the content of an alternative way of living and reproducing oneself. This is manifested in the absence of any questioning of the established social roles, in the absence of wage demands, in the all too easy abstract condemnation of financial capital, in the fact that the ‘lifestyle of the squares’ cannot be appealing outside them. Radical democratism is well and truly dead.