While a supermajority of this is a good blueprint; there seems to be some confusion of "socialist" with "social-democratic" parties as the article goes on. The character of such entities would be rather different.
For my part, in the US I would like to have such a party as well, with a couple essential differences:
1. It would not be "loud and brash"; at least not as a matter of official posture. On the contrary, I'd prefer it "speak softly and carry a Big Stick"; maybe even be a little bit boring. Our enemies are already loud and brash and abrasive, and the din they make frankly wears most ordinary 'normal' people out.
Plus the hysteria they spread about their strawman "left" can be more easily refuted by a relatively quiet, low-drama party.
Better to shout less and slam more weight on a struggle when it counts, than to shriek endlessly and have normal people tune you out.
2. My ideal workers' left party would be coalitional and somewhat loose; yet also organized not only by region or occupation, but down to "maniples" of not over 6 people. This develops a level of "direct affinity" that the left is sorely in need of, and makes inter-group politics a healthy and normal (+ effectual on the individual level) habit. This also helps dampen some of the worst "fratricidal" tendencies of the left in general; as a lot of our "lashing out" is due to atomization and the frustration we feel for not being able to "make something happen". With politics as a habit, with people whose faces we see and names we know, our method of engaging in conflict will change for the undoubted better.
3. All people elected into office on our backs should/must serve as instruments of the party's will, + not as "directors" of that will. The party's putative "leaders" should not be those who we elect into general office, but a rotating cast of proven, trustworthy mid-level commiteepeople from various interests within the party. Fame should not be the sole criteria of their selection. The Party comes first; the "personalities" rise from it and come later.
This, oddly enough, would be a radical departure from the way politics is conducted today.
The article makes it clear that we are to be democratic socialist, not social democrat.
The media here in the UK ignores anything coming from the Left. We have to be loud and brash for our message to get across. Being polite ands quiet will get us nowhere.
While "coalitional" would probably have been a stepping stone along the way, the party has become the major voice of the Left. Like the 19th Century Chartists we have a common program that everyone can unite behind whilst maintaining their individual identities ans parties. Over time, the best activists move across, leaving the husks of dying parties behind them.
The4 "maniple" concept is good,, but in most decent sized towns there will be dozens of activists who work together.
I like the concept of a team or teams of mid level people who rotate tasks.
Thanks Shaggy. As I said in introduction, I am preoccupied with moving home for next few days. And yes, would be a radical departure. Alan
While a supermajority of this is a good blueprint; there seems to be some confusion of "socialist" with "social-democratic" parties as the article goes on. The character of such entities would be rather different.
For my part, in the US I would like to have such a party as well, with a couple essential differences:
1. It would not be "loud and brash"; at least not as a matter of official posture. On the contrary, I'd prefer it "speak softly and carry a Big Stick"; maybe even be a little bit boring. Our enemies are already loud and brash and abrasive, and the din they make frankly wears most ordinary 'normal' people out.
Plus the hysteria they spread about their strawman "left" can be more easily refuted by a relatively quiet, low-drama party.
Better to shout less and slam more weight on a struggle when it counts, than to shriek endlessly and have normal people tune you out.
2. My ideal workers' left party would be coalitional and somewhat loose; yet also organized not only by region or occupation, but down to "maniples" of not over 6 people. This develops a level of "direct affinity" that the left is sorely in need of, and makes inter-group politics a healthy and normal (+ effectual on the individual level) habit. This also helps dampen some of the worst "fratricidal" tendencies of the left in general; as a lot of our "lashing out" is due to atomization and the frustration we feel for not being able to "make something happen". With politics as a habit, with people whose faces we see and names we know, our method of engaging in conflict will change for the undoubted better.
3. All people elected into office on our backs should/must serve as instruments of the party's will, + not as "directors" of that will. The party's putative "leaders" should not be those who we elect into general office, but a rotating cast of proven, trustworthy mid-level commiteepeople from various interests within the party. Fame should not be the sole criteria of their selection. The Party comes first; the "personalities" rise from it and come later.
This, oddly enough, would be a radical departure from the way politics is conducted today.
The article makes it clear that we are to be democratic socialist, not social democrat.
The media here in the UK ignores anything coming from the Left. We have to be loud and brash for our message to get across. Being polite ands quiet will get us nowhere.
While "coalitional" would probably have been a stepping stone along the way, the party has become the major voice of the Left. Like the 19th Century Chartists we have a common program that everyone can unite behind whilst maintaining their individual identities ans parties. Over time, the best activists move across, leaving the husks of dying parties behind them.
The4 "maniple" concept is good,, but in most decent sized towns there will be dozens of activists who work together.
I like the concept of a team or teams of mid level people who rotate tasks.