A Good Comrade

Many good comrades will scoff at the idea of pathtivism so if pathtivism is to have any meaning then the distinction as to why good comrades and pathtivists are different needs to be clear.

A good comrade has discipline. They are analytical and knowledgeable having discerned political truth through political insight. They are committed and hard-working struggling for compassionate goals. Their discipline tends to make them ego-less. As far as these go these are all attributes of someone following the path, and someone following the path and being politically active is what I describe as a pathtivist.

It would be reasonable to say that the path of a good comrade is the struggle so we need to consider what the difference between struggle and path is. In practical terms, very little, the compassionate aims of the path and the struggle are the same. A good comrade recognises that there can be no change in our 1%-society without a revolution, and the path is clearly non-violent. A pathtivist would not have supported the communist revolution in Russia because so many people were not calling for revolution - they got caught up in it. But many communists would argue that according to Marx the people were not ready and it was a vanguard revolution in name only. If the people were ready then the path and revolution would be the same, the path accepts violence if necessary. I would argue that in general the struggle and the social objectives of the path are the same because the path is compassion.

However truth is important in terms of party discipline. There were two issues that brought me into conflict with the party (NCP) I was in. The first was the paternalist attitude towards women, typically a policy that did not support women soldiers or miners etc. because the women were being exploited. Men had already been exploited but they would fight so women would not be exploited; this was paternalistic and there were few women in the party. The decision was not for men to make.

The second issue was part of a fight that had grown up over years in the movement - Commies vs Trots. This conflict was based on alienation caused by Trot extremist strategies. I always saw my role in the movement as "mixed ability", you worked with where people were at and tried to move them towards compassionate socialist objectives; the Trots were all or nothing on the objectives and so caused alienation amongst the less committed. And the less committed were members of the movement, were 99%, and were needed in the struggle. Commies then allied themselves with the mainstream in organisations such as trade unions to avoid splitting, and in my union I was asked to ally myself with a leadership that was corrupt and had no intention of working for its membership nor socialist objectives. I was supposed to work in a broad coalition whose objectives were not socialist - not compassionate.

In the NCP my practice had to be a lie, supporting the party line when I believed the truth was elsewhere. A pathtivist holds true to truth whatever, so a pathtivist can only work with organisations and not be in one.

But the biggest issue is Gaia. Traditional Labour organisations fight for money irrespective of the consequences to Gaia. Marxism-Leninism is only concerned with materialism, and even though the movement has begun to encompass issues connected with Gaia the movement is not committed to Gaia as a priority. But they should be so in this case pathtivism is a political vanguard.

Marxism describes religion as the opiate of the masses, and many religious people in the movement have justification issues - feel they need to justify their religion. But this position on religious institutions has no connection with the spiritual path. Many religious people following the path have struggles with religious institutions, but these struggles are just the conflicts that arise because institutions require to protect the institutions. Such conflicts exist with regards to Labour institutions as well - the compromise and often corruption that comes from putting the institution first.

So there is no conflict between path and struggle but in daily life the political activist and the spiritual activist (active in promoting a spiritual life) are miles apart; there are many in the movement who dismiss the spiritual. This is conditioning. In indigenous communities there is no conflict between the "spiritual warrior", the pathtivist and the activist. The problem lies with the commitment of many parts of the Labour movement to material gain, "unions are just for wages". I have already spoken of the need to prioritise Gaia, and it is a legitimate point to make this a primary demand; it is a failure of the Labour movement not to do so. The failure is in the Labour movements and not in pathtivism, good comrades would fight for Gaia.

A pathtivist puts truth before party discipline so whist working in the struggle pathtivists cannot be committed to a party. A pathtivist prioritises Gaia in the struggle, the Labour movement fails to do this - this is a weakness of the Labour movement. Pathtivism brings strength to that weakness. So ultimately there is little difference between a good comrade and a pathtivist.

And the next blog "what does the pathtivist bring to the movement?"