by Alan Freeman
Alan Freeman (www.greenwich.ac.uk/~fa03) recently edited with Boris Kagarlitsky, The Politics of Empire: Globalisation in Crisis (Pluto, 2004). With Ernest Mandel, he co-edited Marx, Ricardo, Sraffa (Verso,1984) and with Guglielmo Carchedi, he co-edited Marx and Non-equilibrium Economics (Elgar, 1996). Freeman and Andrew Kliman co-organize the International Working Group on Value Theory (www.iwgvt.org).
In April 2005 Alan
Freeman was elected chair of the Greater London Authority branch of UNISON, the
main trade union representing local government employees in the
The following are excerpts from Freeman’s much longer letter. Please click here for the full text.
* * *
Dear New SPACE organisers,
Thank you for your invitation to contribute a think-piece to your pluralism page.
My first suggestion to anyone that wants to explore what pluralism means in practice, is go check out the IWGVT website. You will find not only the guidelines but papers from just about every conceivable viewpoint.
Amidst all the flak I’ve seen denouncing the New SPACE in general and Andrew Kliman in particular, not one person has found anything negative to say about the IWGVT. In fact, most of them haven’t found anything at all to say about the IWGVT which seems to me a useful indicator of where your critics are at. The IWGVT is after all the biggest thing Andrew has been doing for the last dozen years, so surely if your bent is to check out some kind of Kliman conspiracy, the IWGVT should be the first place to go look to see what the results might look like.
[I]n twelve years we have never witnessed a single conflict between the IWGVT’s pluralism and Andrew’s political views and affiliations. I should add that my own political views are completely distinct from Andrew’s, as are of course the views of each and every one of the other dozens of people involved in the IWGVT.
TWO VIEWS OF UNITY
The key thing which I think has to be assessed, in the light of these experiences, is the relation between two views of unity, one which conceives of it as based on personal loyalty and the other of which understands it is based necessarily on formal rules, which have to be respected in order for the unity to have a real existence.
[T]here are very clear guidelines for the
Social Forum (www.forumsocialmundial.org.br) movement which are called the
These rules are not ones that the traditional left is very used to. For example decision by consensus is a very different principle to decision by vote and caused enormous reflection on the traditional left. These rules may not be appropriate for every circumstance. Nevertheless, they are rules and without them the Social Forum movement certainly would not exist in anything like its present form.
With that in mind I will say a few words about what I’ve seen on your site and about the e-mails I have received relating to it.
A CLASH ABOUT RULES
First, I think it’s clear there has been a clash about rules – the Brecht Forum administration felt entitled to substantially edit your course description without your consent or even knowledge, while you wanted them to consult with you first. Basically as far as I can see, there was a disagreement between the Brecht Forum administration on the one hand, and the course presenters and students of the Capital class on the other. Instead of applying or evolving formal procedures to deal with this, respecting both the self-determination rights of the course participants and the integrity of the Brecht Forum as a whole, the Brecht Forum administration seems to have made a number of things up as they went along without consulting the course presenters, ending with denying them facilities.
Under these circumstances, evidently the Capital class had to be organised elsewhere and it was entirely right to do this by establishing a proper institutional framework for it, precisely in order to guarantee pluralism in the way you conduct your own business.
EXPULSION, NOT SPLIT
I don’t see that you had a choice about this. The events were provoked by the unilateral decision of the Brecht Forum administration not to provide facilities for self-determined classes. I’m not sure I agree with your characterisation of this as a “purge,” because “purge” refers to the expulsion of a whole group. In your case, the seminar leader was expelled. Nevertheless the whole class, as it conceived itself, could only continue doing what you were doing, outside the Brecht Forum, as a result of the Brecht Forum’s decision. You did not split; you were expelled.
I do agree that the issue of changing the title of a course presented within the Brecht Forum is a substantive one. It wasn’t the right thing to do, and it was not a minor inconvenience, nor was it an unconditional prerogative of the Brecht Forum administration, but was a matter of principle which interfered with and in fact violated the course presenters’ right to organise the discussion which their audience wanted to have.
In reading the reactions to you, one theme I do notice is a generalised fear that the New SPACE will be simply a forum for the promotion of the views of one political group. I’ve already explained, in talking about the IWGVT, why I think this fear is completely misplaced and I am sure in a relatively short time you will dispel this fear because it is simply not true.
Evangelising, of all types, whether by sects or by self-appointed organisers, doesn’t work any more. The problem is however that evangelical conduct is not a monopoly of small leftwing organisations.
‘SECTS’ vs. ‘SENSIBLE ORGANISERS’
To present this as a conflict between ‘sects’ on the one hand, and ‘sensible organisers’ on the other, is to misunderstand the problem. Organisers are just as capable of evangelical conduct as any sect. Tertullian first defined a sect as a group which puts its own judgement above that of the Church, or which deviates in its teaching from the doctrines received from Christ. That should give us pause for thought.
Evangelical conduct begins when anyone acts on the assumption that they necessarily have a better view of what people need to know than the people themselves and that on this basis they have a right to determine what the people should think about and discuss.
Again, this causes me considerable difficulty with the fact, as presented by the Brecht Forum’s administration, that they seemed to feel they had the unconditional right to change the presentation of your course and its aims.
PLURALISM IS ABOUT IDEAS, NOT PEOPLE
I’ll finish by considering an alternative approach to pluralism which emerges from the torrent of e-mails that I have been studying relating to this matter, which is for me profoundly wrong and a further indicator that the old left may be creating more problems for itself than it actually needs to.
A refrain emerges: the New SPACE is nothing more than ‘Kliman’s friends’, Kliman’s students, Kliman’s this, that, the other. In consequence, runs the refrain, it cannot be pluralist.
This view of what pluralism consists of is based, I think, on a misunderstanding, characteristic of the worst and most cliquish aspects of the Anglophone left. Pluralism is not about people. It is about Ideas. If two people are involved in a discussion about one topic, and in the course of that discussion they consider the full range of relevant ideas about that single topic, then that is a pluralistic forum. If ten thousand people sit in a room and discuss any number of topics, but on each topic they consider only one viewpoint, then the result is neither pluralistic nor scientific but amounts to a religious ceremonial, since it merely involves the repetition of what everyone already believes.
MASS MOVEMENTS DESERVE PLURALISM
The reason is quite straightforward. Science, bless it, is a process humans have evolved for getting at truth. It may not be perfect but it’s the best yet. What you do in Science is, you take a body of evidence and you confront it with theories that explain the evidence. Which theories? All theories. If you miss one out – to take a favourite of mine, if you try to understand planetary motion, but refuse to consider the idea that the Sun and not the Earth is the centre of the universe, then you cannot possibly arrive at truth, no matter how many learned people discuss it, no matter how many Universities they have been to and no matter how long they go at it.
Movements of the oppressed, liberation movements, movements of resistance, are among the most inventive and creative forces currently at humanity’s disposal, in particular for ideas that will allow us to understand how society really works. To harness this creativeness, it has to be able to express itself. Creativity cannot simply be Told What Is Good For It. Movements of opposition possess, in their experience of the world, insights and knowledge that are not in anybody else’s hands. That is why they are oppositional.
Pluralism has the job of making sure that the full range of ideas and views available to such movements, are given expression and also that this full range of ideas are considered by each part of that movement. The reason is not one of individual rights but of a responsibility to the whole movement to ensure it has the maximum information at its disposal to take the right courses of action when the moment arrives.