Explicit political promotion, yeah, baby.
Dec. 3rd, 2007 10:49 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
I don't write a lot in here about the socialist group I am in. But I am going to right now. I am in Solidarity, a socialist feminist organization (we could use -- and are trying to do -- some work on the latter) founded by a regroupment (rather than a split!) in 1986. I think. I should know; I was the youngest founding member, at the time.
We're a good group, as American socialist groups go. We try to walk the tightrope in between the abyss of sectarian nuttiness and the vast swamp of reformism. Or some metaphor like that. We're small -- who isn't, these days? Except the ISO. I'm glad the ISO is big; no dog in the mangerhood here. We put out a fairly well respected journal, Against the Current, but it is not a line magazine, meaning that our elected leadership does not vote on political positions and then tell ATC to write articles supporting those positions. Sometimes we publish stuff we strongly disagree about. Our organization, in fact, was founded agreeing to disagree on a few things -- most especially (back in the day) the question of the USSR, and (still relevant) Cuba.
I think we're probably known on the American Left for being pragmatic and realistic, almost pessimistic. Sort of optimism of the will, pessimism of the intellect style. We emphatically do NOT look at situations and trumpet triumphalist analyses of them. Sometimes that is a fucking downer, to be honest. But it's also ... well, realistic.
The organizations which formed Solidarity were all sort of refugees from extremely centralized democratic-centralist, Leninist, vanguard organizations. Therefore, the people who founded Solidarity bent the stick pretty far in the opposite direction, to the point that we don't really have "unity in action". If people don't agree on a political question or an orientation, it's a bit like herding cats to get Solidarity members to act in common. They're (we're) more likely to vote with our feet. Anyway, here's the exciting thing: Solidarity is entering the New World of teh internets! I mean, obviously, we've had a webpage for ages. It was redesigned a while ago, and is nicer looking than it used to be. But the really new thing is that we have launched a blog. I am on the webzine editorial committee, and so far it's been the most fun I've had in ages. Somehow it doesn't seem like an effort to write for a webzine, where it DOES seem like an effort to write for ATC... I am one of a bajillion editors for ATC, too, but I hella don't deserve it, of late.
I am very hopeful that the Solidarity Webzine will have live, interesting, and more informal discussion. I also am hopeful that there will be at least some amount of semi-frivolous, pop-cultural posts. I will do my best to ensure that.
Please, drop by and take a look. Comment if you feel so moved.
Solidarity's new Webzine, Click Here

We're a good group, as American socialist groups go. We try to walk the tightrope in between the abyss of sectarian nuttiness and the vast swamp of reformism. Or some metaphor like that. We're small -- who isn't, these days? Except the ISO. I'm glad the ISO is big; no dog in the mangerhood here. We put out a fairly well respected journal, Against the Current, but it is not a line magazine, meaning that our elected leadership does not vote on political positions and then tell ATC to write articles supporting those positions. Sometimes we publish stuff we strongly disagree about. Our organization, in fact, was founded agreeing to disagree on a few things -- most especially (back in the day) the question of the USSR, and (still relevant) Cuba.
I think we're probably known on the American Left for being pragmatic and realistic, almost pessimistic. Sort of optimism of the will, pessimism of the intellect style. We emphatically do NOT look at situations and trumpet triumphalist analyses of them. Sometimes that is a fucking downer, to be honest. But it's also ... well, realistic.
The organizations which formed Solidarity were all sort of refugees from extremely centralized democratic-centralist, Leninist, vanguard organizations. Therefore, the people who founded Solidarity bent the stick pretty far in the opposite direction, to the point that we don't really have "unity in action". If people don't agree on a political question or an orientation, it's a bit like herding cats to get Solidarity members to act in common. They're (we're) more likely to vote with our feet. Anyway, here's the exciting thing: Solidarity is entering the New World of teh internets! I mean, obviously, we've had a webpage for ages. It was redesigned a while ago, and is nicer looking than it used to be. But the really new thing is that we have launched a blog. I am on the webzine editorial committee, and so far it's been the most fun I've had in ages. Somehow it doesn't seem like an effort to write for a webzine, where it DOES seem like an effort to write for ATC... I am one of a bajillion editors for ATC, too, but I hella don't deserve it, of late.
I am very hopeful that the Solidarity Webzine will have live, interesting, and more informal discussion. I also am hopeful that there will be at least some amount of semi-frivolous, pop-cultural posts. I will do my best to ensure that.
Please, drop by and take a look. Comment if you feel so moved.
Solidarity's new Webzine, Click Here

no subject
Date: 2007-12-04 07:21 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2007-12-04 07:35 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2007-12-04 12:02 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2007-12-04 03:21 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2007-12-04 03:27 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2007-12-04 04:18 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2007-12-05 03:08 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2007-12-06 07:41 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2007-12-04 02:49 pm (UTC)Excellent phrase. Excellent ethos.
no subject
Date: 2007-12-04 04:04 pm (UTC)However, I can't find an RSS feed for the articles. Does it have one? If not, maybe you all should look into setting one up as that really helps keep people involved and reading articles as they come out.
no subject
Date: 2007-12-04 04:12 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2007-12-04 05:24 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2007-12-04 08:30 pm (UTC)The non-vanguardist socialist left tends to have this problem in general, and is really the main problem I have with it. Something I've oft heard from outsiders commenting on Solidarity (and the SP-USA too) is that the whole is less than the sum of its parts. This type of "reverse synergy" can be a problem.
Relatedly, someone on an SP list sometimes started his e-mails with "Comrades, slackers, and cats to be herded!"
no subject
Date: 2007-12-04 09:42 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2007-12-04 10:37 pm (UTC)I mean, I agree. I don't think the linear recruitment model can work -- Solidarity was founded on a rejection of it, that any one sect has The Truth (tm.) In our current conjuncture, I don't think that a vanguard party is appropriate, though, as
no subject
Date: 2007-12-05 09:06 pm (UTC)Regroupment on the Soli model isn't going to get us there either. The socialist left in the U.S. is comprised of small groups of varying sizes with more or less tangential relations to the working class and, for the most part, confused or contradictory politics. Even if one managed to pull all those groups together, one would only end up with a slightly larger small group with a tangential relationship to the working class and confused or contradictory politics. The problem with both linear recruitment and left regroupment is that they persist in regarding the crisis of working-class leadership as an organizational problem ("if only we had more members" or "if only there weren't such a confusing welter of groups") rather than a political problem, of what the left's relationship to the working class is and how Marxist theory, such as it is presented by the left, has been rendered near useless as a guide to action.