[…] Firstly, the campaign
(and I maintain that it is a campaign despite some arguments to the contrary) has
distinct nationalist overtones, and these are neither inclusive nor relevant to
the current struggle against the corporate and political classes . The “45” reference
is a clear association with the Jacobite campaigns of the 1700s, but these were
distinctly different in character and aims to what we are trying to achieve. Therefore
it simply isn’t clear how, under such a banner, non-indigenous or non-nationalist
Scots (etc) are supposed to be included in this solidarity movement.
Secondly, there are also
clear allusions to the style and rhetoric of the 99%. But this is ill-advised, is
divisive and I would argue dangerous: for example, are we to declare the Roundheaded
55% as our mortal enemy? The 45ers against the 55ers? How are we to ever reconcile
this fairly concretising figuration of our population? Such language and framing
is absolutely not progressive and will only serve to pointlessly isolate the No
voting population (the 55%), many of whom are in need of our solidarity and networking.
Thirdly, how exactly is
a movement based on representation of 45% of the population supposed to grow (ie
to 53%) without becoming a self-professing absurdity. It took an enormous referendum
to determine the number in the first place, how do we keep tabs on growth and confidently
assert that the 45% can win a majority? It would be ridiculed by our powerful media
owning opposition – the very forces which won the No campaign, and who are so expert
in derailing opposition campaigns.
Finally, and perhaps most
importantly; how exactly are the people across the rest of the British Isles supposed
to participate and collaborate in this? After all we share a common enemy, we always
have and always will until that almost mystical revolution comes round. Can our
friends in England, Ireland, and Wales be as comfortable participating in this as
they were in the Yes campaign? I don’t think so. I think this is too parochial and
insular a concept for that, and it is therefore backwards and unhelpful.
Scrap it. We need something
very different to this. We need what the broader Yes campaign was, but instead of
aiming for independence we should be building and enacting the revolution across
these islands. This itself needs to be done both as interest groups within a broader
campaign (a la Women for Indy, National Collective etc) as well as local neighbourhood
community forums and action groups all over the UK and the Republic.
As for the increase in
party membership, something the 45ers are actively promoting, I say this: Party
politics embodies everything that is wrong with our current system. We must reject
it. These institutions are the Party-Poopers because they sap all the useful energy
and of movements and campaigns to turn it into a televised parlour game for suit-wearing
career-driven bureaucrats. […]
joining the Labour party,
hoping to change it from the inside… This has never worked and Labour has never
been a socialist party. Labour are the Party-Pooper extraordinaire, utilising the
energy of socialists (or social-democrats if they have any energy?) and trade unionists
to form big pin-striped concrete blocks of fuck-all.
Joining the Greens or
the SSP (both parties I have been a member of at times in the past 15 years) is
certainly astute and potentially useful; but neither have or will ever be able to
effect real change in Holyrood (never mind Westminster where they are non existent),
and therefore cannot effect real and lasting change in society. I do not discount
the participation of Green and SSP members in campaigns that have been successful,
but these forms of direct action have always included coalitions of parties as well
as non-party groups and individuals. Thus the (radical) party per se hasn’t been
the effective mechanism for change.
Instead we should unanimously
seek to form local assemblies and in doing so begin to completely reject the traditional
political system […]
Instead: we must organise
neighbourhood-based community forums of activists which are autonomous and free
from local party and council interference (some of the Yes groups and RIC groups
were good bases for these). In these we want to hold discussions and debates and
demonstrations around global as well as local issues; network with neighbouring
communities and communities abroad; deal with our (and our neighbour’s) bad landlords,
bad employers, bad councils through pickets, strikes, and harassment; look after
our neighbourhood, our neighbours, and especially the vulnerable; attack all forms
of bigotry and oppression in our communities; build alternative centres for adult
education – skill share, knowledge share, run workshops and raise consciousness;
occupy land and buildings to meet needs as we see them, not as distant political
office clerks see them; grow food, share food, steal food from supermarkets – resist
and counter the growing cost of living against stagnant and declining wages; occupy
the NHS; occupy our transport systems; occupy our local services and facilities;
occupy everything we care about they want (or would want) to take away; and so on.
[…]
'PartyPooping and the Hangover Fear do not Help Us Get to Work', Nicky Paterson, Echocollective, 24 September 2014
https://echocollective.wordpress.com/2014/09/24/party-pooping-and-the-hangover-fear-do-not-help-us-get-to-work-nicky-patterson/
No comments:
Post a Comment