Well Jan, you met me more than once, so you get to write a review of the work that I used to do trust pilot if you like to, while Aurelian doesn’t. :-)))
And I knew Frances (give her my best if you talk to her). One of the deciding factors in me breaking with what was left of the new left actually was when she and her fellow workers occup…
Well Jan, you met me more than once, so you get to write a review of the work that I used to do trust pilot if you like to, while Aurelian doesn’t. :-)))
And I knew Frances (give her my best if you talk to her). One of the deciding factors in me breaking with what was left of the new left actually was when she and her fellow workers occupied the factory. I was on the inside, of course writing about it but also trying to organise solidarity from the outside. It didn’t work because we could only scramble together a few grassroot trade unionists, most of them ex trots of the USFI brand. The left groups weren’t interested, but mind you: neither was the Social Forum crowd.
And speaking of the devils, Frances is the only one that I know that still claims to be a maoist, and that takes ‘serve the people’ seriously.
The trots suffer from the delusion that we live in a permanent revolutionary or pre revolutionary situation, quoting Lenins four thesis on the objective factors, forgetting his three points on the subjective factors, not even mentioning Trotskys theory of dual power… When the illusion brakes they then suffer from a confusion that they have no idea how to handle.
And they often suffer from vanguardism, not understanding that what marx and lenin referred to as the revolutionary vanguard was a crystallisation of the most politically advanced layer of the working class hardened in the class struggle, not a tiny group of people that had read a few books.
And you may well be right about the WSF today, but I was in Porto Alegre in 2003 and the forum had already been lost to the NGOs. Being there was a powerful emotional experience, but already by then it seemed clear to me that the process would not be a vanguard (if you pardon the expression) but a sideshow. That was confirmed by my travels through most of the continent meeting with people who were in real struggles: nobody referred to the WSF, it simply wasn’t a thing.
So I have no problem with people who criticise the new left, but it should be done from a position of first hand experience or second hand knowledge and with a clear understanding of what we were trying to do. And that’s where Aurelian fails when he goes on his reoccurring rants.
You are right about the WSF – but much of the blame goes to the leftists that can't permit others than parties to take on the whole society, so they have to keep the WSF a talkshop, or a buffet of good ideas. Well-funded NGOs must of course also take a lot of blame for that, but in this case it is just what one could expect from their interest in keeping their paid jobs.
It's just recently – last year – less well-funded, member-governed organizations escaped from the trap and could start discuss about priorities and common programs. Of course I don't know if it will last.
And you are dead right about the vanguardism, of course. I have nothing against vanguardism meaning "let's do this" (somebody must take the initiative, whoever it is, and if nobody else...) – but the posturing of "I know it all but you are an amateur because you are not a member of the Party" really makes me sick. It ruined the budding campaign against neoliberalism in Sweden about 1986 (according to Frances), and according to Marcela López Levy: We are millions, 2004, it also ruined the anti-neoliberal movement in Argentina in 2000. To most people it looks like freemasonry.
It's probably irritating to Aurelien also, that's why he writes as he does.
Well Jan, you met me more than once, so you get to write a review of the work that I used to do trust pilot if you like to, while Aurelian doesn’t. :-)))
And I knew Frances (give her my best if you talk to her). One of the deciding factors in me breaking with what was left of the new left actually was when she and her fellow workers occupied the factory. I was on the inside, of course writing about it but also trying to organise solidarity from the outside. It didn’t work because we could only scramble together a few grassroot trade unionists, most of them ex trots of the USFI brand. The left groups weren’t interested, but mind you: neither was the Social Forum crowd.
And speaking of the devils, Frances is the only one that I know that still claims to be a maoist, and that takes ‘serve the people’ seriously.
The trots suffer from the delusion that we live in a permanent revolutionary or pre revolutionary situation, quoting Lenins four thesis on the objective factors, forgetting his three points on the subjective factors, not even mentioning Trotskys theory of dual power… When the illusion brakes they then suffer from a confusion that they have no idea how to handle.
And they often suffer from vanguardism, not understanding that what marx and lenin referred to as the revolutionary vanguard was a crystallisation of the most politically advanced layer of the working class hardened in the class struggle, not a tiny group of people that had read a few books.
And you may well be right about the WSF today, but I was in Porto Alegre in 2003 and the forum had already been lost to the NGOs. Being there was a powerful emotional experience, but already by then it seemed clear to me that the process would not be a vanguard (if you pardon the expression) but a sideshow. That was confirmed by my travels through most of the continent meeting with people who were in real struggles: nobody referred to the WSF, it simply wasn’t a thing.
So I have no problem with people who criticise the new left, but it should be done from a position of first hand experience or second hand knowledge and with a clear understanding of what we were trying to do. And that’s where Aurelian fails when he goes on his reoccurring rants.
You are right about the WSF – but much of the blame goes to the leftists that can't permit others than parties to take on the whole society, so they have to keep the WSF a talkshop, or a buffet of good ideas. Well-funded NGOs must of course also take a lot of blame for that, but in this case it is just what one could expect from their interest in keeping their paid jobs.
It's just recently – last year – less well-funded, member-governed organizations escaped from the trap and could start discuss about priorities and common programs. Of course I don't know if it will last.
And you are dead right about the vanguardism, of course. I have nothing against vanguardism meaning "let's do this" (somebody must take the initiative, whoever it is, and if nobody else...) – but the posturing of "I know it all but you are an amateur because you are not a member of the Party" really makes me sick. It ruined the budding campaign against neoliberalism in Sweden about 1986 (according to Frances), and according to Marcela López Levy: We are millions, 2004, it also ruined the anti-neoliberal movement in Argentina in 2000. To most people it looks like freemasonry.
It's probably irritating to Aurelien also, that's why he writes as he does.
PS. For those who can read Swedish, or have access to DeepL, Frances' view can be seen at https://francesblogg.com/2011/08/13/kampen-och-ofarliggorandet/