What are the politics?

Whenever the problems in Sydney Uni Enviro Collective last year were brought up in the wider world, people kept asking “what are the politics?”  Supporters of the intervention into collective (by some members of the socialist organisation Solidarity) claimed that the implosion of collective was caused by the refusal of other collective participants to engage in “political discussion.” This claim spread beyond the collective, and various people who had never been to collective confidently explained that the “real issue” was this supposed absence of political debate. Paddy Gibson (who had not been to any of the relevant meetings, or in fact any meetings at all in 2009) claimed that “there has not been accountable and open debate about what the SRC should do about climate change” in collective.

But I think that this isn’t really true. And I think that this claim is symptomatic of the lack of respect with which Solidarity as an organisation has recently treated other groups and individuals in the left. There was a political debate, and the rest of collective had a political response to Solidaity’s positions. The fact that Solidarity members did not listen to or engage with this response in more than the most superficial manner is what I want to describe and discuss here.

The debate which Solidarity wanted to have centred around a couple of main demands. They demanded that collective concentrate all of its energy on one particular campaign. This campaign was, chronologically, against the Nuclear Institute (2007) against Energy privatisation (2008) and against the CPRS (2009). They argued that, generally, no other campaign should be organised through collective (because of the need to build a “mass movement”), and specifically, that a “On Campus Campaign” about renewable energy would be lifestylist, capitalist, and wrong. They argued that collective should give up its commitment to pluralism and consensus decision making.

Collective members made coherent, political arguments against each of these demands. They pointed out that a “mass-movement” need not be mobilised on a single issue (especially where that single issue is as narrowly constructed as a particular campaign tactic against a single piece of legislation). If you want a mass movement against capitalism, surely the different aspects of capitalism which people are oppressed by are together capable of building a mass, anti capitalist movement. Do Solidarity members expect that we can only have a campaign on CPRS, and that Indigenous Elders on Muckaty station have to be mobilised by CPRS and not be motivated by their long struggle for sovereignty and the right not to be exposed to  radioactive waste? Of course they don’t. It would be cool if we can extend to non-Solidarity members the right not to have to believe doggerel. They pointed out that the collective could help to build a “mass movement” through continuing to campaign on their preferred issues: anti coal campaigning, anti CPRS campaigning (2008 and 2009), renewable energy on campus campaigning, anti-nuclear campaigning, forest campaigning, and others (including each of the campaigns Solidarity put forward). They pointed out that it wasn’t a very strong argument to claim that increasing the number of people on a campaign from 7 to 20 would be the crucial step in showing our commitment to “mass movement” politics. They affirmed their political commitment to pluralism and diversity of tactics. They explained the political reasoning behind each of their campaigns, at length and ad nauseam, because Solidarity repeatedly asked them too.

As for the last two demands of Solidarity, lets look at some “political” arguments made by each side.

Consensus Organising:

Solidarity members argued that consensus organising was:

“Formalised consensus is, in real terms, enforced unanimous voting. Consensus puts people are put under bureaucratic pressure to alter their opinion. It is an ‘exclusion principle’ – i.e., reach consensus or block the decision or leave the collective.”

The briefest examination of any kind of explanation would have set the record straight, let alone the long and carefully explained thoughts written by various collective members. Consensus does not mean everybody agrees, it is a process to work through disagreement. As is voting. Collective members explained the political basis for consensus decision making (that individuals should have a say in decisions that will effect them, and that majority decision making silences dissent). They explained how dissent should be encouraged in a functioning collective space, and how dissent was a means of expressing how proposals could be amended and improved. They explained pragmatic ways of making consensus as democratic as possible: coming to meetings with a real commitment to working things out, suggesting amendments, self facilitating and helping to make collective a supportive and respectful space. They acknowledged that any system is imperfect, and that consensus requires constant work and that there are important discussions to be had about it. But not “majority rules = democracy” and “consensus is forced unanimity.” Because that’s really boring. However, various members of the Solidarity intervention continued to make 2-dimensional and uninformed claims about what consensus was. The fact that the majority of people wanted consensus organising to operate in the collective, seemed to completely go over the heads of those claiming “majority is democracy.”

“On Campus Campaign”

The key issue for non-Solidarity members of collective in this particular debate was a commitment to pluralism, and a belief that collective could support more than one campaign at once.  But they also engaged in the political debate about the merits of this campaign that Solidarity insisted on repeating in every meeting,

Solidarity argued that fitting the University with solar panels was equivalent to energy privatisation and lifestylism. For example, one Solidarity member argued that:

“This strikes to the heart of the political issue – whether what is needed to stop climate change is a mass movement which confronts the government’s ‘false solutions’ and demands structural change, or whether ‘empowering’ small scale projects that seek to get communities ‘off the grid’ should be our focus. The latter suggestion stems from lifestylism, which has been influential in the collective over the past few years.”

They went even further, claiming that the Sydney Energy Co-op was a capitalist agent of the worst kind:

“Also, inviting and promoting the Sydney Energy co-op, a group that installs solar panels (as well ass energy efficient light bulbs and green education), to speak at the forum, also indicates otherwise.  Why would you give them a platform to speak at a forum about campus sustainability if you didn’t seriously think that was possible way to ‘green the university’ or reduce carbon emissions?”

And

“There is the issue of whether the renewables are bought from private companies, rather than demanding government installation of solar. I don’t think that getting the uni to purchase solar from the co-op will go any way to exposing government inaction on climate change.”

With everybody in collective for the past few years liberally stamped with big glaring “lifestylism” trademark, Solidarity supporters went on to argue that ONLY  a campaign which LOBBIED the GOVERNMENT could be successful. ONLY the GOVERNMENT has any kind of power or could have any kind of power. For example:

“what are people meant to do with this power once it is realised? If it is not to oppose governmental policy, then what is it?”

The ONLY POWER we have then is to oppose government policy. The only other conceivable action is consumer power (“lifestylism”). WHAT ABOUT REVOLUTION, PEOPLE? Have Marxists moved on? Or did recruiting numbers in the war on collective become more important than actually explaining Marxist politics?

Revolutionary Marxism circa 2009:

“I think the point is to work internally to change parts of the system, the point is that the voice of the working classes must be heard over the loud lobby of the big businesses- in direct unequivocal opposition. The point is not, on an individual level, to kid ourselves that by consciously abstaining from the system we are helping to change it.. It is desirable in our everyday lives and for our sanity- sure!“

“In response to taking direct action against the coal and other industries- Katherine [sic] you seem to have promoted this. We agree of course that this is a strong mean of action (climate camp etc), however I find it hard to believe that with the billions of dollars- and counting- proposed to be thrown into these industries under the CPRS, these businesses are going to pack up their stuff and leave! It is the policy itself that must be targeted! It is the policy itself that is targeted when we reach out to workers and students and tell them why, under the CPRS, they will be the ones affected.”

So, without a policy, there is NO WAY that change could ever be achieved through action of the people. Its gotta come from the government. The working classes no longer revolt, they simply talk loudly and the system changes from within. Is that what Marxism has become? Please government, revolutionise US.

Marx must be a grumpy grumpy dead white man. If only he had realized, all along, that it would be THIS EASY.

Ok, back to the historical debate. Did collective members quake before the strength of these arguments, panic, shut up, and run around in circles of distress? The e-list history suggests not. Collective members explained that they were not “lifestylists” – if this was taken to mean a political position which places personal, lifestyle choices at the heart of the struggle against climate change.  They explained that while for some people these actions could be empowering, they did not think that they would alone stop climate change. Instead they talked about the potential power of community action to disrupt polluting industries and demand renewable energy. They pointed out problems with using the term “lifestylism” so broadly that it seemed to include any action of personal choice. They gave long and thoughtful analyses of power in the modern world, and gave various reasons as to why government lobbying was not their chosen avenue of achieving social change and environmental justice. They explained, so so patiently, the difference between “lifestylism” and community direct action.

They pointed out that the university is funded by the government, and that forcing a large government funded institution to install solar panels would be a good step in the fight for government support of renewable energy. And that a Coop is hardly a “private company.” (One young solidarity member was concerned that Stuart Rosewarne “might not want to speak at a panel” with Maurice from the Energy Coop). They pointed out that really, at some stage renewable energy technologies do need to be built and put on buildings. And that, while the government should pay for this, it doesn’t make sense to suggest that it would be wrong for engineers to actually put them on  buildings. Cos probably, actual politicians would be pretty incompetent at this kind of caper.

Their main arguments, that solar power was privatisation, was even given up after a senior member of Solidarity pointed out that it was dross. Unfortunately, we cant all wait around for Paddy to get with it and let people know if their arguments make sense or not.

So, looking back, I don’t think its true to claim that collective refused to have a political debate. Collective members defended their campaigns and their politics thoughtfully, intelligently, and patiently. The same cannot be said for most of the arguments presented by the Solidarity intervention and its supporters. I don’t think that this was because Solidarity members are stupid, or because they aren’t committed to radical politics. I think that the lack of intellectual rigour in these arguments stems from a lack of respect for the people to whom they were being made. Solidarity said collective had to be political, but then when push came to shove they didn’t like the politics it had, and so went on to disrupt it with distinctly undemocratic tactics. Because those involved in the Solidarity intervention did not respect the politics of collective or its members, they did not listen to the arguments other collective members were making. Members of the intervention showed a similar lack of respect for dissenting voices with Solidarity itself. This intellectual snobbery is counterproductive. It didn’t make collective “more radical.” It didn’t build a mass movement. It reduced capacity in collective. It hampered real political discussion. It shut down space for constructive disagreement and creative, alternative solutions. It worsened Solidarity’s reputation amongst people who would have liked to be supportive of its goals.

Solidarity have always prided themselves on their sweet sweet analysis. And that’s cool. It’s cool to analyses things, to pick apart the universe and imagine how to put it back together again. It’s cool to understand the theoretical underpinnings of our daily oppressions. But its not cool to think that your analysis is so good that you literally stop listening to people that you haven’t already decided that you agree with. Is the left really that disparate that there is actually no point talking about politics with each other? If you listen, maybe we could have better debates.  If Solidarity wants to be a productive part of the left, then it is going to have to respect other people in it. It is going to have to deal with the fact that while people on the left have a lot in common, NOT EVERYONE AGREES ABOUT EVERYTHING. And that’s ok. It’s how you deal with that that matters, that’s political, that’s radical, that’s empowering. If we are gonna keep with the debating “winner takes all” model, that’s just not radical at all, frankly. That’s what we already have.