I think it’s merely, in the context of a comments on a blog where regular readers will surely have read and digested my every wise utterance, that I didn’t bother with an inserted paragraph along the lines of:

‘While it is appropriate to continue to combat the power of the capitalist media and its associated instituitions, such work should always be undertaken in a way which determinedly avoids the self referentiality of such engagement, and specific attempts shoud me made to reverse the commentator-listener flow, at an aspirational level through public engagement in the ‘Left New Media’ ideas, should be encouraged as simultaneous to worker struggle, but in advance of that existing leftist organisational norms should move away from the hegemomic norm, for example in the practical way set out at http://www.bickerstafferecord.org.uk/?p=515 in relation to Labour Representation Committee meetings.’

For a start, the professionalisation of politics – which such a route requires – necessarily insulates the people transacting political influence from the rest of us. We see this in trades unions certainly, what makes you think that lobbyists are any different?

In fact all of it, from the big-name conferences to the academic journals, is a way for a particular sub-set to speak to itself, rather than engaging with the millions of people who don#t/can’t attend conferences, or write counter-articles for fancy journals. The whole thing becomes self-referential, rather than relating to the people who are meant to be the centre of politics.

Even when such groups makes direct appeals to ‘the people’, their appeals are grounded in that self-referentiality and are thus ignorable.

As for placidly marching around outside, Tom, I might just as easily characterize Compass as “placidly talking its members into somnolence” or refer to the utter pretentiousness of “think-pieces” and the Fabian-style indignant self-righteousness / passionless zombification of politics they are a symptom of. What’s your point?

I agree that we have to ‘influence’ the institutions of power, but as all the hot air expended in the direction of the Labour leadership by your lot will attest, it makes no difference unless you also have them by the (materialist) balls.

In what way is being on strike to ‘placidly march around outside’?

I take your point, but think it’s question of emphasis and (can’t believe I’m stressing this again) opportunity cost. There’s nothing fundamnetally wrong in setting up think-tanks and media operations, as with Compass, but if it’s not appropriately supported by the material weight of the working class blah de blah, then it doesn’t get us too far, in the same way as Power 2010 (see previous comments streams) is not i itself misguided, just overly resoured to the detriment of campaign which will actually extract proper concessions from capital.

“This is why our political activism must take a different angle. We will never be able to ape the political methods of our betters, their Westminster lobbyists and group love-in conferences. Instead we can dominate the shop floor, and through that our immediate managers. We can control our communities, and through that our elected representatives.”

Why can’t we? Why is it (ostensibly) not worth trying? Why is this an either/or?

Will we continue to placidly march around outside? Of course you have to lobby, get on the telly, influence institutions of power. They’re part of what plays a key roll in keeping strikes and demos small in the first place.