I’m familiar with several examples of this. Sarvodaya in Sri Lanka applies engaged Buddhism to the goal of community awakening with the political taget of gramswaraj– village sovereignty. DISAC in Thailand uses what is essentially Catholic liberation theology to help the poor find new economic advantages as well as awakening to their political potential. And Sarvodaya in India is a loose coalition of Gandhian (non-religious) organizations that share a common goal but have no single approach to it. All three of these have been quite successful, and all have avoided party politics.

Here’s an interesting question, noting that two of these examples are rooted in some form of religion: why is it that in much of the world, politicized religion leans left, but in this country it most often leans right? There are plenty of left-leaning religious people out there. The Unitarian victims of the TN church shooting are just one of many examples, and so are the Christian Peacemakers (Mennonites) who got kidnapped in Iraq last year. But they gain little political traction. Is it because the traditional Marxist Left considers religion anathema? Or is it that Americans as a whole, as the richest people in the world, have little use for leftist politics? Or is it something else?

As a past member of a Left grouplet where people said and believed that only organizing among the most oppressed is worthwhile because only they can lead a revolution, I did then and still find such inanities self-defeating. (But when they say, as some did, that Mugabe must be supported because he stands against imperialism, then it becomes toxic, not merely inane.)

The problem with the US Green Party as I’ve blogged about here, is mostly structural. A consensus-style can not and does not lead to quick action. And quick action is often needed in politics. So, yeah, group dynamics (and lack of being dynamic) get in the way.

Something Saul Alinsky once said might be applicable. Someone asked him, hey, Back of the Yards, that organization you started in the 30’s (and which was the first example of community organizing), their leaders can be reactionary now.

Alinsky said his goal was always to start the organization, help it along, then let them run it. So, if decades later the organization gets reactionary, then organize it again. But after he started it and turned over the reins, those people were standing tall for the first time in their lives and that was good enough for him.

Two things about this. 1) he was aiming for concrete change at a local level, not big pie-in-the-sky theory. 2) He let the people run their organization and didn’t try to continually steer and influence it.

The anti-war, womens, & environment movement for instance are , if you like or want to worry about the content, ‘multi class’. And no one — or at least very few — pass on organising in those movements.

However I happen to disagree with Andy on his formulation. I think his argument has developed out of the British far left context which has been somewhat workerist in its orientation buoyed up by sectarianism.

In effect he is arguing for a sort of Green Party approach. but with a broader platform. This would be the perspective of folk like Peter Camejo too. I think its valid up to a point because it doesn’t tick all the boxes in regard to what needs doing. And thats’ the conundrum because ‘what needs doing’ presumes that you also have in mind the means to do it.

I can say I’m all for a ‘multiclass party’ but that doesn’t mean I can then create one and even if I did — such as Camejo was part of in the GP — I’d need to be aware of some of the complications and problems I’d have to deal with en route. Because having a formation means diddlysquat unless you can also do something with it.

The German Greens did very well at the ballot box. So?

I’m not making light work of that achievement but perhaps you can see some of the problems that kicked in with the Greens in Germany? Today the Green Party there is being displaced on the left by Die Linke. And thats’ one very exciting template. But, as this piece suggests — Germany: Die Linke, one year on — the success of Die Linke creates its own set of political problems…and opportunities.

Elsewhere you have an example like the Dutch Socialist Party which has garnered significant success while still being loyal to a public class allegiance.

And there are many other examples especially across Europe of new party formationw many oif which could be described as ‘multi class’.. So what do we make of them?

My view — and I know its one shared by others here in Australia in the Socialist Alliance is that you do what you can given the options and opportunities and any one time. Any formation is going to be a product of many processes and different formats over time. But where the left stumbles is that it so often cannot address that question in the here and no. Instead there’s much talk of future parties and such but without the sense or substance to get there.

That’s the real problem: getting from ‘a’ to ‘b’ and then consciously navigating that journey. The history of New Zealand politics, for instance, over the past 15 years is littered with new party experiments with Residents Action Movement being the latest exciting development. I think RAM warrants study from a US POV. (See interview I did here:Tipping point in New Zealand politics at the grassroots: The Residents Action Movement) The Kiwis haver a sharp feel for the class ‘debate’ you raised.

The reality is that Andy’s Respect Renewal is ahead of what’s on offer in the US and in its traction it has been more succesful than our project here in Australia. There aint no quick panacea as any consideration of recent Scottish Socialist Party history suggests. But there’s one absolute rule I can vouch for: there’s no way forward except your own way and your own mistakes in your own indigenous political conditions.

As Jerry Rubin was want to say(before he joined the stock market!):”Do it!”