Responses and structures, was: [fc-uk-discuss] fc-uk meeting on saturday 10th of december in london

[MJ Ray]

This response starts with practicalities and moves on to organisation.

"David M. Berry" <d.berry at sussex.ac.uk>
["Treasury committee" "has called for papers"]
> MJ Ray:
> > Where have they called for this? [...]
> 
> Sorry I meant this too:
> All Party Parliamentary Internet Group (APIG) is to hold a public  
> inquiry into the issues surrounding Digital Rights Management (DRM).  
> Closing date 21/12/2005
> 
> http://www.apig.org.uk/current-activities/inquiry-into-digital-rights-management.html

That's not a Treasury committee, is it?

I have outlined my APIG response in three groups I'm involved with,
including this one.  If anyone else is interested in co-signing
my response, please email me today or early tomorrow. I don't think
an FCUK signature is possible or helpful yet.

> You are right that the submissions for the Gower review is not until  
> 2006, but it would still be a good idea for a collective (i.e. FCUK)  
> response.

Being proactive is good if we have time, but otherwise please wait
for something to respond to, before condemning our lack of response.

> > I asked you for information about select committee enquiries, but
> > you ignored my request to date. Why won't you share information?
> > Hacktivism has one thing right: priests mean problems.
> 
> I do not have any. When I do I forward to relevant lists and people.

So you discovered those enquiries by the details popping
fully-formed into your consciousness, or what?

[next quote taken out of order]
> > Why would you hold such a bizarre belief? It's no wonder that
> > you're getting disenchanted with it. Those things are nothing
> > more than organisational aids that can help with real work.
> > Use them, but please help with the action too.
> 
> Please point out any real action that FCUK has been involved in and  
> I'll stand corrected.

FCUK is not an entity (yet?) and does not act outside its members.
Its members have been active directly (remix reading) and
lobbying (BBC) and more and continue to be so. I don't know
whether you consider those actions "real" but I do.

Returning to my question: why do you hold any belief in
"the power of web-pages and email lists to change the world"
and then criticise this list for it? I really don't recall
any member of this list advocating that belief.  Those things
are tools, albeit better ones IMO than a gen-sec and policy group.

> > I think calling "real political change only takes place under
> > collective organisation" a "fact" shows either an astonishing
> > ignorance of English politics, or a desire to use "real" as a
> > weasel word: would we share the same view of what change is real?
> 
> Please point out the historical examples of single individuals or  
> anarchist groups achieving *any* progressive political change.

Are Zapatistas anarchist? Do one-man assassinations cause progress?
All highly debatable and there seems little benefit doing so.

Most recently and directly, I have been part of a non-violent
disorganisation which successfully preserved over 200 trees in my
area, despite the lottery-funded government plans to fell them.
To me, that's real progress, changing the political landscape a bit,
not romantic artistry. I'm really not romantic about it: we need
to continue working to make that change take hold.

OTTOMH, that's my third or fourth success in autonomous groups,
while collectives have been pain without progress for me.
It may be that I don't work well in a collective, rather than
collectives don't work well, but that still means that FCUK has
at least some support that doesn't work well in a collective...

For comparison, what collective organisations have you been part of,
that have brought about real political change?

> > Is such destructive criticism meant to rally us all to form soviets?
> 
> To work together yes.

Is forming soviets the only way you see people working together?

> > It just makes David sound like an old red knocker to me.
> 
> I am interested in the political pragmatics of fighting the ceaseless  
> expansion of intellectual property rights. I believe it is only when  
> co-ordinated and collective organisations are formed to struggle  
> together will anything be noticed by central government. [...]

I feel you are insisting that that unrelated and unshared belief
is the only viable way to act on a shared interest, and trying to
prove its truth by hindering any other working methods.

> > I think this needs to be far more constructive.  If anyone
> > wants to build a collective organisation for those who believe
> > such structures benefit them, go ahead.  Show us how it's done.
> 
> Look at the history of suffragette, working class politics, welfare  
> rights, civil liberties, gay and lesbian rights, racial and ethic  
> minority rights, sexual discrimination. I think you will find that  
> they are successful when they work as collectives, not as loosely  
> organised individuals who happen to subscribe to the same lifestyle  
> politics.

Surely one must acknowledge that most of those interests had
both collective and autonomous supporters, and it's not always
possible to identify which element caused more success?

[...]
> > I feel any group would still
> > benefit from participating in wider voluntary campaigns.
> 
> Campaigns organised by whom? Fiat of the individual?

By whoever. Not Invented Here is a bug, not a feature.

Please do not remove attributions from quotes. It gets confusing.

Thanks,
-- 
MJ Ray - personal email, see http://mjr.towers.org.uk/email.html
Work: http://www.ttllp.co.uk/  irc.oftc.net/slef  Jabber/SIP ask