1:05:05 or so. "On Authority" wasn't to say that revolutions are "authoritarian," but to differentiate between types of authority. The authority of the bourgeoisie or the State is one of top-down authority, whereas the authority of the mass revolution is one of bottom-up, democratic authority. Who the authority is and how they exercise that authority (dictate or democracy) is the thing that sets left apart from right, socialism from capitalism, etc. This is why the socialist revolution needs to be a popular revolution; you can't just assert it by a minority, or else it will inevitably become just a replacement for the bourgeois State that rules from above, but with an iron fist that will visit horrors on anyone who doesn't toe the line...making it not a socialists or even a leftist movement, but a right wing one masking itself with socialist/leftist phrases. One of the big conspiracies of socialist movements/thinking is that there needs to be a central leadership, a party pushing everyone forward from above, even though they are "informed" by the people below. That line of thought is merely a continuation of the arguments of Aristotle and all absolutists (feudal and capital) since, which is that "the best should rule." If you look at the claimed future of communism, where we're all free to pursue our interests, where the State is gone, where there is no money or class, and you look at that line of Aristocratic thinking, you can't deny that the one can't flow from the other. You can't create that future from above, even if you are "informed" by the masses. You can only create that future from below, but to be cohesive, you do need someone above...giving advice to those below for those below to either accept, reject, or accept in part, through democracy, and for them to democratically come to the position on how to enforce themselves. People who insist on the more rapid "from above" approach fall victim to that conspiracy and end up creating a Stalin or Mao or Pol Pot, when that is anathema to socialism. And then they act surprised at the outcome, because they think "we should have done this policy instead of that one," rather than "we should have focused on normalizing bottom-up democracy from the very beginning, and never let it come to us deciding policy from above such that the opening for an authoritarian was ever a possibility." That's not to say that there should be no leadership, but that the role of the leaders isn't to tell everyone what to do. Rather, the role of the leadership is to educate the proletariat so that class consciousness, solidarity and democracy are learned and normalized. The leadership should be teachers and advisors to avoid the pitfalls of every other movement. You can still have a strong organized movement without a strong leadership when the movement is towards a cooperative democratic society. Tarek (I think he was the one talking about the Egyptian movement) sounds like he's really got his stuff together in that regard.
When Platypus plans events, the relevant organizations are always extended invitations to speak to an audience, but they don't always accept the invitations.
1:05:05 or so. "On Authority" wasn't to say that revolutions are "authoritarian," but to differentiate between types of authority. The authority of the bourgeoisie or the State is one of top-down authority, whereas the authority of the mass revolution is one of bottom-up, democratic authority. Who the authority is and how they exercise that authority (dictate or democracy) is the thing that sets left apart from right, socialism from capitalism, etc. This is why the socialist revolution needs to be a popular revolution; you can't just assert it by a minority, or else it will inevitably become just a replacement for the bourgeois State that rules from above, but with an iron fist that will visit horrors on anyone who doesn't toe the line...making it not a socialists or even a leftist movement, but a right wing one masking itself with socialist/leftist phrases.
One of the big conspiracies of socialist movements/thinking is that there needs to be a central leadership, a party pushing everyone forward from above, even though they are "informed" by the people below. That line of thought is merely a continuation of the arguments of Aristotle and all absolutists (feudal and capital) since, which is that "the best should rule." If you look at the claimed future of communism, where we're all free to pursue our interests, where the State is gone, where there is no money or class, and you look at that line of Aristocratic thinking, you can't deny that the one can't flow from the other. You can't create that future from above, even if you are "informed" by the masses. You can only create that future from below, but to be cohesive, you do need someone above...giving advice to those below for those below to either accept, reject, or accept in part, through democracy, and for them to democratically come to the position on how to enforce themselves.
People who insist on the more rapid "from above" approach fall victim to that conspiracy and end up creating a Stalin or Mao or Pol Pot, when that is anathema to socialism. And then they act surprised at the outcome, because they think "we should have done this policy instead of that one," rather than "we should have focused on normalizing bottom-up democracy from the very beginning, and never let it come to us deciding policy from above such that the opening for an authoritarian was ever a possibility." That's not to say that there should be no leadership, but that the role of the leaders isn't to tell everyone what to do. Rather, the role of the leadership is to educate the proletariat so that class consciousness, solidarity and democracy are learned and normalized. The leadership should be teachers and advisors to avoid the pitfalls of every other movement. You can still have a strong organized movement without a strong leadership when the movement is towards a cooperative democratic society.
Tarek (I think he was the one talking about the Egyptian movement) sounds like he's really got his stuff together in that regard.
Always good to hear the sober rationalisation of James
Why didn’t you have a rep from the SWP on platform?
When Platypus plans events, the relevant organizations are always extended invitations to speak to an audience, but they don't always accept the invitations.