TZM UK Political Party ?

Having read the following comment by SPGB candidate Brian Johnson on our TZM UK Facebook page I thought it may be worth discussion :

"If by "political framework" you mean political system we do not engage within such a system. On the other hand we find the political process far more effective for engaging with the majority." Brian Johnson

Based on this methodology it seems like a good idea to me to run "Independent Pro RBE" or "TZM" candidates here in UK elections.
I'm initially inclined to support this, but will not table any motion without feedback from others on this subject.

Positives... Helps to raise awareness of TZM and, by association (hopefully!), the train of thought that TZM advocates.

Negatives... Seems a bit hypocritical for an apolitical movement to create a political party. It would be like PETA starting up a slaughterhouse.

All in all, I think a TZM-branded political party is a bad idea. And while I also don't see much use in engaging in the political system at all, I do see some potential good coming from a party who aligns itself with the train of thought that TZM advocates. But then, I don't really see the need to create a new party when there are other parties already out there (Green, MoneyFree, etc) that are closely aligned with TZM. Seems like we'd get more bang for our buck if we helped raise awareness of those other parties, but I'd like to hear what others have to say.

I like the idea.

I recently changed my mind about keeping out of politics and thought to myself, one day, when I have learned more, got more experience of the world, and know more folk, to go that route to change things from the town down, as well as working to change things from the bottom up.

But..

Will a RBE/TZM/etc. like group, ever agree on what their policies should be!

Especially if one is to focus on the best scientific answer, rather than ones idealistic view of how the world should be, as I reckon there is a now increasing gap between the two, and I fear that realistic policies that would change things, would instead be ignored.

It is another avenue for raising awareness and exposing the frauds in their own arena. Have a look back at Ben McLeish's TZM radio podcasts, he interviewed a New Zealand TZM/RBE candidate who stood for Mayor - an in teresting chat.

I think it would be a great idea to offer organized support to advocates who want to become local councillors, leafleting, research, newspaper articles etc. I'm sure we would all benefit from any insider knowledge of real world challenges. probably best if they run as independent's initially though, I'm sure they would get plenty of chances to advocate the RBE face to face in the community.

unsurprisingly - no. My position is that the process itself is distorting and the process cannot be sidestepped. It is the failure of the human condition currently that looks towards bureaucratic structures and hierarchy - driven by dominant political culture. No matter how it could be organised internally away from this - this is how it would present externally imho. To me what TZM is attempting is to function as a info hub - not 'win people over' as such - or even educate (from some elitist perspective) - but to build communities of those who can see merit is the ideas - slow and sure. In fact, to make the already redundant process of electoral party politics apparent by constructing collaborative and consensus driven networks as alternatives.

I can't help but take this position (I constantly look for ways to overcome it myself) and in a strange way I hope i'm wrong (and am proven so) as it is clearly has a huge potential for awareness raising and would deffo speed things up! - my fear is that orthodox political mechanisms result in orthodox political responses.

 "It is the failure of the human condition currently that looks towards bureaucratic structures and hierarchy"

I must say I do agree with above statement, even to the point where I would consider it to be relevant criticism if TZM were to run candidates.

However I am of the opinion (based on 5 yrs interaction) that TZM currently perpetuates this "human condition", in many of our current methods, particularly regarding the projection of hierarchy and quality control.

Though I agree with the statement I am unconvinced that the criticism is enough to outweigh the benefit suggested initially by Brian for any group that aims to reach as large a demographic as is possible.

I am undecided regarding the perception it would create about TZM - The SPGB seems to suffer a negative affect of receiving criticism for engaging with a system that it would render obsolete given a chance.

I agree with comments made by Steve here :
"To me what TZM is attempting is to function as a info hub - not ‘win people over’ as such - or even educate (from some elitist perspective) - but to build communities of those who can see merit is the ideas - slow and sure. In fact, to make the already redundant process of electoral party politics apparent by constructing collaborative and consensus driven networks as alternatives."
Would it be possible for a "TZM Candidate" to negate this by operating differently to SPGB.

As an advocate of Direct Participatory Democracy I would suggest running on this principle in order to set us apart from "conventional politics".
However I understand DPD itself has valid criticisms, could this be quickly explained and Socratic method quickly justified to citizens ?

The OP is suggesting that 'Independant Pro-RBE' candidates standing for election maybe "a good idea". The implication being that none of the candidates would be suffering from learning difficulties in understanding the case and train of thought for a RBE society. Indeed, it would be deemed that because these 'Independant' candidates are "Independant" they would be so trustworthy there would be no need to resort to accountability, transparancy, terms of reference, rules of conduct, recall, etc for supposedly the ballot itself would sort out the wheat from the chaff.

In short, Direct Participatory Democracy (DPD) would not be given elbow room! DPD starts before an election is even called and its not dependant on what people say but what they do after the event. Under DPD there is no such thing as an "Independant candidate" or delegate who is not subject to recall by those who have endorsed their candidature through the political process.

Its this very stricture and principle which ensures there's a unity of purpose under a common banner of class consciousness - an identifiable political organisation - with a registered list of membership with no leaders who decides who will represent them at the polls. Which in effect means the hollow choice of an "Independant candidate" is replaced by a political party.

 "Seems like we’d get more bang for our buck if we helped raise awareness of those other parties"

Not sure about above.

 "I reckon there is a now increasing gap between the two, and I fear that realistic policies that would change things, would instead be ignored."

Agree with above, but I hope data generated here could be presented for scientific scrutiny, with recipients on a qualified council carrying the responsibility to return a critical perspective for further development here.

"the ballot itself would sort out the wheat from the chaff."

That's how I see it - at least when it comes to any subsequent term, with chaff being dropped in due course.

Regarding above comments made by Brian :
This does not seem to rule out a TZM party, which would increase awareness if policy agreements could be reached in consensus.
I have little concern regarding misrepresentation as accurate information should remain at the QC controlled source of info. Even any "manifesto" would not be entered there without consensus and QC.

Bear in mind that the role of the RBE candidate would not be to necessarily win, but to create a platform for awareness raising that would have more credibility in the eyes of the public than the informal methods we currently use. Imagine the opportunities for our candidate to get radio and local paper interviews, and to give talks at local colleges and universities.
Our candidate could also challenge all the other candidates to a public debate and confront them with all the uncomfortable truths regarding limits to infinite growth, tech unemployment, structural violence - and also turn this into a media circus.