Perth Indy Guide
Editorial Policy
You Publish!
Search Us
Calendar
Library
Chat
Email Lists:
Perth-IMC General
Editorial Mob
RadioFreePerth
Techgeeks
RadioFreePerth:
Oceania
Oceania Indymedia
newswreal
email list
video list
tech list
chat
wiki
about indymedia
indymedia
www.indymedia.org
Projects
print
radio
satellite tv
video
Africa
ambazonia
canarias
estrecho / madiaq
kenya
nigeria
south africa
Canada
hamilton
london, ontario
maritimes
montreal
ontario
ottawa
quebec
thunder bay
vancouver
victoria
windsor
winnipeg
East Asia
burma
jakarta
japan
korea
manila
qc
Europe
abruzzo
alacant
andorra
antwerpen
armenia
athens
austria
barcelona
belarus
belgium
belgrade
bristol
bulgaria
calabria
croatia
cyprus
emilia-romagna
estrecho / madiaq
euskal herria
galiza
germany
grenoble
hungary
ireland
istanbul
italy
la plana
liege
liguria
lille
linksunten
lombardia
london
madrid
malta
marseille
nantes
napoli
netherlands
nice
norway
oost-vlaanderen
paris/île-de-france
patras
piemonte
poland
portugal
roma
romania
russia
saint-petersburg
scotland
sverige
switzerland
thessaloniki
torun
toscana
toulouse
ukraine
united kingdom
valencia
Latin America
argentina
bolivia
chiapas
chile
chile sur
cmi brasil
colombia
ecuador
mexico
peru
puerto rico
qollasuyu
rosario
santiago
tijuana
uruguay
valparaiso
venezuela
venezuela
Oceania
adelaide
aotearoa
brisbane
burma
darwin
jakarta
manila
melbourne
oceania
perth
qc
sydney
South Asia
india
mumbai
United States
arizona
arkansas
asheville
atlanta
austin
baltimore
big muddy
binghamton
boston
buffalo
charlottesville
chicago
cleveland
colorado
columbus
dc
hawaii
houston
hudson mohawk
kansas city
la
madison
maine
miami
michigan
milwaukee
minneapolis/st. paul
new hampshire
new jersey
new mexico
new orleans
north carolina
north texas
nyc
oklahoma
philadelphia
pittsburgh
portland
richmond
rochester
rogue valley
saint louis
san diego
san francisco
san francisco bay area
santa barbara
santa cruz, ca
sarasota
seattle
tampa bay
tennessee
united states
urbana-champaign
vermont
western mass
worcester
West Asia
armenia
beirut
israel
palestine
Topics
biotech
Process
fbi/legal updates
mailing lists
process & imc docs
tech
volunteer
|
email the perth indmedia mob...
Woody Guthrie; 'New Age' Politics |
| by Graham Milner |
2009-06-29 1:50 AM +0800 |
| From a message to a libertarian socialist friend in WA, discussing music and left politics; written several years ago. |
Dear M.,
As I write this message I am listening to a selection of Woody Guthrie's songs - 'The Very Best of Woody Guthrie: Legend of American Folk Blues'. At the moment the song playing is 'Pretty Boy Floyd'. I think that this would be my favourite among Guthrie's songs. I first heard Guthrie on record in 1981 in Sydney. I was sharing a house with other members and sympathisers of the Democratic Socialist Party, and one member of the household had a large collection of LPs, which he allowed the rest of us to play. One of the records was a wonderful 'Folkways' recording of Guthrie's songs. Guthrie I believe to be really expressive of the popular American folk tradition. I have read that Bob Dylan was heavily influenced by Guthrie, and that Dylan has always acknowledged the debt. Although I like quite a lot of Dylan's music, I believe that Guthrie is more authentically representative of the American people: ie. of the US poor farmers and workers of the era of the Depression, Dustbowl and New Deal. Dylan, I think, articulates the protest movements of the 1960s - at least in his earlier stuff. Guthrie represents to me the American labour movement, while Dylan is the voice of the student movement. 'Each in their own way...', I suppose. I sent a friend in Brisbane a dubbing of this Guthrie tape, in return for a CD she had sent me of an African-American blues singer called Big Bill Broonzy. I think that Woody Guthrie would have been aware of the contribution of blues artists like Broonzy, and there could well be a crossover.
I was interested in what you had to say about the environment movement down in the South-West of Western Australia. In some of my political involvement over the years I have come across 'New Age' concepts, as well as 'consensus decision making' notions with respect to meeting precedure, in various contexts, especially in the Green movement. I've always thought that democracy is a fairer and more efficient method of conducting the affairs of the left, the labour movement, and social movements. I've heard quite a few horror stories about the log-jams that go with the so-called 'consensus' approach. The early labour movement learned these lessons at considerable cost - at its best the left has always upheld democratic procedures, not necessarily as a matter of principle but because of their efficacy. The No War Alliance in Perth that was organised to oppose the recent invasion of Iraq was a good example of direct democracy at work, in my opinion. I attended some of the organisation meetings at Unity House in Stirling St. in Perth before the invasion, and was greatly impressed by what I saw there. I understand that the Anti-Vietnam War organising meetings in Sydney were run on similar lines in the late 1960s and early 1970s. Full voice and vote for all activists attending, with a fully democratic meeting procedure. The meetings I attended at Unity House were highly efficient and inclusive. I hate to think how things would have turned out there with 'consensus decision making' operating.
I have a fairly strong sense of contempt for 'New Age' politics, and 'New Age' ideology in general. I believe that even liberal theologians would regard 'New Age' spirituality as deeply reactionary. I did try to join the Greens (WA) myself in 1991, but the organisation knocked back my application, maintaining that I didn't share their philosophical commitment to non-violence. I have to acknowledge of course, that this is quite accurate - in fact I believe that the Greens' position on that question is quite absurd. While I certainly do advocate a preference for a peaceful transition to socialism, I would not rule out the use of defensive violence, and at a certain point offensive violence, in the struggle for political supremacy. To do otherwise is simply to court annihilation, and that is clearly a contemptible position.
All the best,
Graham
(May, 2003) |
|
|
|
|
Link here
|
huh |
| by sauron. |
2009-06-30 12:21 AM +0800 |
Where on earth did you get the idea that consensus decision making was new age? Its axiomatic to anarchism that the majority not stomp the minority.
Consensus decision making is only problematic when done poorly, but theres plenty of people in perth who've learned (yes sometimes by enduring the 'log jams') how to make it right.
Ultimately the majority stomps the minority is counter-revolutionary, because it replicates the conditions of power that make capitalism miserable and have made apparently socialist revolutions not much better.
Consensus decision making might be flawed, but until someone concocts a better method, its what we are stuck with.
Link here
|
The difficulties of consensus |
| by Mar Bucknell |
2009-06-30 3:11 AM +0800 |
Spot on, Sauron.
Consensus IS difficult. But it works because anarchists and lots of other 'ists' have worked very hard on making various models of it that work.
There simply IS NOT one simple working model of consensus.
I have seen really really crap anarchist versions of consensus (we argue until we all agree: a guarantee of a really fucked up collective) and really effective poly-ideological versions (we work together on stuff we agree on, and we take our ideological disagreements seriously, but we leave them outside the room when we are planning an action, and we also do not impede actions we dislike).
All these various versions are way better than majority rules. The question the majoritists ignore is that they might be a majority in an action or a student election, but they remain a tiny fragment of our current wealthy society.
And, to repeat, consensus of a large group, when it is working well, will never seek to limit the activities of dissidents. It just limits the right of the dissidents to speak on behalf of anyone other than themselves.
Link here
|
Four Cheers for Democracy! |
| by Graham Milner |
2009-06-30 11:59 PM +0800 |
'New Age' is just a tag, really. Of course there never was anything particularly 'new' about any aspect of 'New Age' ideology. It's like the word 'Light' in 'Festival of Light': both involve a recrudescence of the dimmest, darkest, most archaic recesses of the backward past.
With 'consensus decision making' what we see is a failure by sections of the left and the Green movement to take advantage of lessons learned in the very earliest stages of the labour movement. Trade unionists and socialist activists learned by the early 19th century to formalise their finances, elect their leaderships, and conduct their meetings according to democratic principles. I am quite convinced, both from my own experience as a socialist activist, and from having some knowledge of labour history (and for that matter, of more general history - for example the history of ancient Athens, where democracy according to Herodotus proved its value in contributing to the Greek victory over the Persian invaders) that democratic procedures are the most efficient and useful for conducting left meetings and other decision-making parlies. I have frankly never really understood why many anarchists seem to have such a fetish about 'consensus decision making' in meeting procedure. It is simply time-wasting and inefficient.
If there is no consensus about a question, then accept it. Have a vote, for goodness sake. Decide democratically.
Link here
|
|
| by sauron |
2009-07-02 12:29 AM +0800 |
Graham, it might surprise you, but there are many groups, including Leninist ones, that use it in perth, because whatever you might think, well done, it does actually work.
I've been doing this for 10+ years, and I know Mar has been at it for at least 20, so I think its abusive to suggest this is not taking advantage of lessons in the labor movement or broader movements.
Consensus as far as I'm aware started off with the Quakers, however long ago that was, in an attempt to subvert authoritarian tendencies they perceived in the big power churches of europe. It eventually became popular with anarchists for the same reason, and despite its religious origin (And lets face it, even Marxism has a religious origin in Hegelianism, marx just sliced out a logical method that appealed to him and ditched the metaphysical claptrap) its proven itself.
But there ARE lessons, some bitter, as to why people in perth seem to favor it. As a student hack, I saw one of the best actions, the nine day occupation of the murdoch university senate, nearly destroyed by malicious interference from Resistance , where a large number of activists who where not students started stacking the meetings and insisting on ludicrous demands that had no relevancy to the students. We just wanted to win our case and go on semester break, not overthrow capitalism. In the end we invoked a union rule that said only members of the union could vote on union matters (Ie, show your student card or your only allowed to observe). But the damage was enough done that the occupation ended up very messy with frayed tempers.
The second occupation, which lasted 40 days (The longest admin occupation in australian history) we where wise to this and from the outset ran on consensus. When the raiders turned up , they quickly realised that the meetings where non stackable (You cant stack consensus) and promptly fucked off. Although we didn't win all our demands, consensus made the environment peacable and efficient enough that we where able to hold in there for over a month.
I've also been in groups where entryist raider groups have taken off with the groups finances (Trust me, no leninist group is getting their grubby fingers on the funds of any consensus group I'm in. I'll block that shit every time. Bitter bitter experience.) and I've seen a world of bad behavior from bullying men effectively silencing minority opinions with the vote.
So please enough already with this shitty 'learn from history'. We have mate, thats why consensus is so popular in perth.
And seriously, when such abusive epithet's as "New Age" get hurled at comrades , do you guys still wonder why the DSP still sits on the outside of broader perth activist scene? The ISO earned their respect by treating comrades from outside their ideological sphere with dignity.
The DSP still haven't learned a god damn thing about cooperating with the left.
Link here
|
Democracy and the Left |
| by Graham Milner |
2009-07-02 2:22 AM +0800 |
Dear Sauron,
I cannot speak for the Democratic Socialist Perspective as I am not a member of that organisation. And I know little about the Murdoch University student occupations that you mention. I do respect the Resistance comrades, however, and I should think that they would have a different version of events. Perhaps they could write in and present an account of these events from their own perspective?
I've seen enough of 'consensus-decision-making' myself, however, to know that it is an inferior method to democracy of conducting the affairs of the left. This petty-bourgeois dislike for majoritarian democracy is typical of anarchists, and I don't see why the efficient conducting of business in left campaigns should be held up because of the prejudices and foibles of such people.
I had been out of left politics for a long time when I got reinvolved at the time of the invasion of Iraq in 2003. The meetings of the No War Alliance that I attended at Unity House in Stirling St. in Perth at that time impressed me very much. The meetings were conducted along the lines of direct democracy, and as I understand it, the model was based on the organising meetings of the anti-Vietnam War movement in Sydney in the late 1960s and early 1970s. Business was conducted efficiently and swiftly at the Perth anti-war meetings, and large, effective actions were organised as a result. Goodness knows what it would have been like if some anarchists with their fetish against 'the tyranny of the majority' had succeeded in inflicting their bizarre and wayward form of 'consensus-decision-making' procedure on the No-War Alliance meetings.
It can be claimed, with considerable justification I believe, that in the modern era the principles and methods of democracy have been promoted by the rising class - the working class, with its labour and socialist movements. Just as the bourgeoisie in its 'heroic age' championed democratic rights and the democratic programme, so in the 19th century and in the 20th and 21st centuries the proletariat has taken over the role of vanguard fighter for democratic freedoms. And in its internal approach to organisation, and to the conduct of meetings and other business, the left and the labour movement have based their traditions on the democratic methods that can be traced back to ancient Greece.
In solidarity,
Graham Milner
Link here
|
Image is everything in radical politics |
| by spoon |
2009-07-02 10:28 PM +0800 |
"The second occupation, which lasted 40 days (The longest admin occupation in australian history) we where wise to this and from the outset ran on consensus. When the raiders turned up , they quickly realised that the meetings where non stackable (You cant stack consensus) and promptly fucked off. Although we didn't win all our demands, consensus made the environment peacable and efficient enough that we where able to hold in there for over a month."
As far as I understand it none of the demands were won?
And besides Murdoch is now a conservative shit hole.
Yay for consensus and radical politics!
Link here
|
|
| by murdoch |
2009-07-02 11:52 PM +0800 |
"As far as I understand it none of the demands were won?"
No. Thats not true at all.
And yes maybe the place is a conservative shithole, we are talking about events some time ago here.
Link here
|
So..... |
| by spoon |
2009-07-03 11:12 PM +0800 |
What demands were won?
It was only a few years ago... If the current climate at Murdoch is anything to go by your demands must of been very short term if they were won?
Link here
|
|
ALLOWED:144551
|
|
