You can have all the reforms of the election system, the way parliament works, the expenses system, you can have recallable MPs and all the various gimmicks that have been thought of over the years, but if the people do not collectively and democratically control the economy, then they are powerless.

In some ways, some of Occupy’s general meetings etc. are an anticipation of the kind of working class democracy we need, and are very healthy even though as time goes on they will probably evolve and become more flexible and sophisticated. But they are also a bit of a premonition or anticipation of what could be done in terms of socialist democracy in society as a whole, how the economy could be democratically planned, etc.

There are many examples of this kind of thing in history, from the Paris Commune and the early days of the Russian revolution, to the Spanish Civil War (Orwell’s Homage to Catalonia is well worth reading, and Ken Loach’s film Land and Freedom is pretty good on that too).

But we have to aim at democratic control of the economy. And not just national economies, but also the global economy. A tall order you may think, but not if this kind of movement can go global. Its already showing signs of that!

Those are the kinds of issues that are worth thinking about when we discuss what kind of democracy we need.

I shall retract that, the bill which attempted to introduce it was eventually defeated in the Lords. My general point is not harmed, though.

I have said that fetishizing consensus and leaderlessness will be your movement’s ultimate undoing. In order for any peaceful political or social movement to move forward and be effective it has to be flexible and adapt, not just to events but in terms of the degree to which it is willing to accommodate processes familiar to its opponents. But cheap talk about ‘collective responsibility’ and ‘democratic sovereignty’ means very little in the end, because the ‘decisions’ arrived at through consensus are not owned by anybody. Nobody has any real stake in them. A General Assembly is no more a person than a corporation. In the end, though, only people make decisions. So ironically for a movement seeking lasting change this obsession with consensus makes for an extreme short-termism, with long-term strategy still confined mainly on the placards.

Some rambling thoughtlets…

Calling for ‘people’s assemblies’ around the country shows not only an astonishing level of naivety but also massive hubris, and ignorance about how communities are in fact already (and have been for centuries) organised on this ancient island.

Representative democracy evolved because for the most part people are relatively inarticulate, and are not skilled at negotiating their way around complex sets of ideas. One might make a comparison with fraud trials, many of which these days do not involve a jury as they are far too complex to be grasped by someone who does not have expertise in the field. A fully consensus-based system is possible, but only in a radically simplified version of the world. One which no-one would genuinely ever want to live in.

If your movement continues to fetishize the leaderless, consensus-based approach then unfortunately it is doomed.

When I was 12 I was reading Nietzsche. I studied philosophy for 4 years at university, then later did a Masters and a PhD. Ideas were my thing. I loved them. Unfortunately I discovered, as I grew older, that most people don’t like ideas. They are not interested in them. I still like ideas, but they no longer own me. What your movement in its present form implies is that people must like ideas, even if only for the moment, until the other side of the revolution. That’s a big ask.

Idealists generally end up as either:
1. Cynics.
2. Corpses.
3. Peter Hitchens (see 1 and 2, above).

1 The current system is unsustainable. It is undemocratic and unjust.We need alternatives; this is where we work towards them.
2. We are of all ethnicities, backgrounds, genders, generations,sexualities dis/abilities and faiths. We stand together withoccupations all over the world.
3. We refuse to pay for the banks’ crisis.
4. We do not accept the cuts as either necessary or inevitable. We demand an end to global tax injustice and our democracy representing corporations instead of the people.
5. We want regulators to be genuinely independent of the industries they regulate.
6. We support the strike on the 30th November and the student action on the 9th November, and actions to defend our health services, welfare, education and employment, and to stop wars and arms dealing.
7. We want structural change towards authentic global equality. The world’s resources must go towards caring for people and the planet, not the military, corporate profits or the rich.
8. The present unjust and exploitative economic system pollutes our land,sea and air, is causing massive loss of natural species and
environments, and is accelerating humanity towards irreversible global
climate change. We call upon individuals, organisations and governments to co-create a positive, sustainable economic system that benefits present
and future generations.

9.We stand in solidarity with the global oppressed and we call for an end to the actions of our government and others in causing this oppression.

10. This is what democracy looks like. Come and join us!

The GA agreed to update the Occupy London LSX statement on Friday with a tenth demand , put forward by the EEE group:

8. The present unjust and exploitative economic system pollutes our land,sea and air, is causing massive loss of natural species and
environments, and is accelerating humanity towards irreversible global
 climate change. We call upon individuals, organisations and governments to co-create a positive, sustainable economic system that benefits present
and future generations.