A better suggestion is for people to go read Rules for Radicals by Saul Alinsky…

Does not the fact that it is 2009 and you are facing exactly the same issues that you faced decades ago tell you that it is an inherent problem with left-wingers rather than something you can ever overcome? It is political darwinism in action.

Aye- politics & most activity in the country as a whole is ridiculously London-centric. Many’s the time I’ve been unable to attend some event because it’s been held only where the people the organisers deem worthwhile are, in the capital. Only rarely will they deign to have a series of events in different places.

@ Leon

I recently read Rules for Radicals and its a brilliant book that makes fantastic sense. Now if we could just convince ‘activists’ that achieving something on a smaller scale is worth more than a glorious and honourable defeat then we might get somewhere.

@ The Admiral

In some senses I agree, the left does have a tremendous problem in forming big tent political movements that can stand together in the medium to long term. Their seems to be a greater desire for ideological purity in a movement advocating change than one opposing it. However it isn’t inevitable; movements have succeeded before when their has been a cause strong enough to unite them.

Splitter!

Most radical activists exhibit certain qualities that produce problems:

1. Conviction

Activists believe very strongly in certain things, much more so than the average person or even the average member of a standard variety political party. These convictions form their backbone and tend to lead to an intolerant disposition toward those persons who don’t share them. Which makes for communication problems. This unshakable faith allows activists to do more but it also leads to a lack of flexibility which makes for problems with groups where everyone doesn’t sing from the same hymn sheet. Every activist wants everyone else to acknowledge the supremacy and rightness of their conviction and doesn’t like it when others have a different view. The convictions are non-negotiable – if you want the activist on board you’ve got to endorse his faith. Activists hate conventional politicians because they compromise their supposedly profoundly held beliefs all the time. Don’t ask them to do it too.

2. Passion

Activists care, they care deeply. They get angry, very angry. Touch roughly on the aforementioned convictions (by failing to show them the right respect) and watch the temperature rise. If others don’t express the same degree of passion about the issues or the cause they immediately fall under suspicion.

3. Impatience

All of which leads to impatience – the reason most activists started in the first place. When other people don’t share your convictions and your passion you face an uphill battle getting them to do the right thing. Any signs of disagreement loom large in the minds of the activist because it reminds them of all the times they’ve failed to elicit more than boredom, disinterest or alarm when expounding their faith. The activist wants to hear an answering echo not dissonant reverberation. He showed up at your meeting in the hope of finding people who think and feel and believe the same way he does.

4. Resentment

Impatience quickly turns to resentment: if other people just don’t get it, there must be something wrong with them. The accusations of bad faith fly.

So you face a big problem: the very qualities that make someone an activist tend to drive them away from one another. Mainstream political parties get around this by composing themselves out of

i) A small number of activists
ii) A small number of leaders
iii) a small number of operators (political mechanics)
iv) a large number of ordinary people who hold no strong views and will docilely follow the leaders.

Most radical campaigns only have group i and perhaps a few from ii and I guess with the advent of the Internet we see more of iii these days – people who like to run web sites like this one for example and who obsess over the means, the form or the structure and not so much over the content or the ends. What every campaign needs more of is iv – the ordinary people who will turn up, keep their mouths shut, wave placards, make contributions to the fund and basically follow orders and abide by the decisions made on policy by the activists and the leaders. Your army is all high command staff officers without a General in charge of them and no infantry.

As insightful as this post is I am actually getting a bit sick of the *number* of blog posts explaining where the left has gone wrong/is going wrong. Its a bit too easy to make broad, generalistic points about what the left needs to do better. As someone who, in the past, has spent substantial time within the organised left, I know things are not nearly as easy as i sometimes make out when speaking as an independent left wing critic.

I really do think we need to stop referencing the life of Brian. It has become an utter cliche when discussing the problems of the left – and is more suited to tory red bating than serious introspection. Often ’sectarianism’ is presented as some kind of bizarre abstraction, the great ‘x’ factor stopping us from making great leaps forward. Certainly there is a lot of sectarianism for sectarianisms sake. But as you imply, there is also a certain level of friction that necessarily arises out of the heterogenity of the left.

LP: ‘The people on whose behalf you are planning action and getting organised, those people come first, and their needs and wants come before your personal political qualia. Your politics, your individual, most deeply held political and spiritual beliefs, are supremely important – to you – and you can discuss and debate them in groups or in private as much as you want. But as soon as you let personal ideological quibbles counteract the progress of positive action, you’re doing it wrong.’

I don’t actually believe this makes sense. Facts only have meaning within a theoretical framework. it is impossible to determine what the needs and interests of particular groups and individuals are without reference to a certain theoretical/ideological framework. Put another way a neo-classical economist would have a different conception of what served the wants and needs of the working class from a socialist. The idea that we can somehow just concentrate on serving the interests of theose we are fighting for in abstraction from all that ideology is appealing but false.

You seem very dismissive of the fourth group you identify, FT. I don’t think that’s fair – many people make a decision to turn up, abide by decisions etc despite having strongly held convictions that differ from the platforms of their party, because they believe that’s the most constructive way to act and because they believe there’s a greater good at stake. It’s easy to sneeze at that kind of behaviour, but actually I find the selflessness in it worthy of respect.

LP ‘If anyone at all starts advocating physical violence… it’s time for them to leave your group and it’s time for you to warn the next group along from you of their motives.’

Well here is a case in point. Vast swathes of the left have – at certain points over the past 30 years – advocated physical violence either in relation to the state or to keep fascists off the street. Needless to say, our own sectarianism seems inherently reasonable and unsectarian – and thus ’sectarianism’ is made to a ppear as some kind of malaise upon our politics, as a cancer which can simply be cut out.

Physical violence, except in the aid of somebody under immediate threat of violence is an absolute no-no. I don’t have an issue with using violence against those already engaged in violence themselves though, whether the are BNP protestors assaulting a counter-protestor or police involved in Barton charges.

I like to think that I’d also aid a BNP supporter being physically assaulted by members of the Left too, even if my gut is telling me to walk away. That would be a real test.

Bollocks to predictive text! Meant batton charges, obviously.

Good list Laurie – only wish more people listened to this stuff.

The radical right does have some similar problems – consider the antipathy between UKIPers, Tories and LPUK supporters.

@Leon & Christopher

Speaking of Alinsky, there was an article a few months back on the difference between activists, the moaning do-nothings of the far-middle left, and organisers, the more centre-left but actually much more radical due to the fact they actually achieve something: written by Al Giordano, from The Field, if I remember correctly. Sunny might still have it,

Hi Rayyan,

Giordano’s article (which is highly recommended) at http://don-paskini.blogspot.com/2009/03/organising-good-activism-bad.html

Thanks for that Don – was trying to find it on the net for a while, it really is essential reading for every UK progressive!

tim f wrote: You seem very dismissive of the fourth group you identify…

I described them as essential to any political party so I don’t understand how that would seem ‘dismissive’ in the sense of failing to recognize their importance. Activists can’t meekly follow the party line and suppress their dissent – they want to drive the process (but lack the leadership to get the others to obey them) hence the problem described by Ms. Pennie at her recent meeting.

Yeah thanks Don.

Of course I’m a moaning do nothing of the centre left, but that’s more of a personality flaw than a political characteristic.

@ Don: I do disagree with one thing. That the internet can’t be used for organising. I agree that largely it isn’t, but there’s no reason that it can’t be used as a low level engagement tool that hopefully brings people in for more practical work later on.