Is the Political as Personal new?

We used to call it party discipline. We would meet and the elders of the party would advise (strongly) as to correct conduct. World opinion would be based on sister-party understanding. Opinion would be formed at conference or from an executive, but this was primarily following.

This approach worked with smaller parties although individuals tended to dominate. For larger parties there was limited discipline, and in terms of a progressive movement it failed - until Occupy. Occupy demanded full accountable democracy - no executive, no following, just a General Assembly. Now General Assembly might have been considered cumbersome but all people contributed. And that was an improvement, all individuals contributed.

But our Labour organisations have failed as explained here. The movement is disparate, and we have people looking for leadership, a new narrative etc. That is not what is required. It is still the unity of the class that is needed - the unity of the 99%, but no more following. We have to demand of all members of the class an active understanding. Since Occupy the 1% have consolidated and divided the 99%. So much ignorance has been shown by the 99% that the movement is characterised by confrontational splits - left/right, snowflake/alt-right etc. And in the confusion and distraction, especially with Trump the 1% are stepping in and deregulating to enable profits to the detriment of Gaia.

Basically this has been done because the class are uneducated. They seek leadership esp. the Liberals. Liberals want to do their pleasant partly-caring jobs, moan a bit at parties over wine, and expect some form of social change. This tepid "activism" has played right into the hands of the money-backed alt-right whose internet strategy has focussed on the Liberals and created such division. Liberals respond with PC-authoritarianism and whining, further dividing the class. Instead of having a mass movement characterised by a solid compassionate majority but including a powerful minority of ignorant deplorables, we have a democratic upswell against the PC-brigade. Why? Because the PC whine, demand censorship and have no integrity to fight the divisions.

This is a lack of the conviction of path consolidation - even if the movement cannot recognise these as aspects of the path.

Instead of the occasional leader dominating and being a representative, we need far more people who have become aware of conditioning, for whom their compassion drives them, and whose creativity helps provide the personal strength that gives the 99% movement greater discipline.

We need to move away from collectives in which individuals dominate to collectives where all people are active.

Is what is required of comrades new? Absolutely not. This type of personal discipline is enshrined in movements such as anarchy, anarcho-syndicalism, socialist libertarianism. The principles of socialism are no different to an understanding of compassion. Marx's analysis was simply insight into the exploitation by the bourgeoisie (1%), an insight based in his compassion. Leninism was a strategy of Bolshevism (vanguard) leading to a falling away of the leaders. But these vanguards became trapped as the struggle against imperialism was so all-encompassing their egos could not accept falling away. In the Soviet Union when Gorbachev's clear analysis eventually showed the entrenchment of the egos, when they did fall away there was no movement left - and then worse Russian oligarchy.

Workers' education (WEA) has always been essential in the movement but this education has always focussed on the awareness of the struggles. But there has been no education in discipline, no education as to the dangers of egos - even though the disciplined have always seen ego as a problem. In general education has been deemed necessary because the movement knows that the movement doesn't learn the truth. The movement recognises this as part of conditioning but doesn't talk about the full extent of that conditioning - to include egos.

There is an unspoken reality in the movement, the 99% can never be fully aware and united; this is simply a fact of awareness and ability of all people. It is also not talked about that leaders are necessary to give the unaware someone to follow, and so the egos take on this unspoken mantle. Gradually the 99% reduces to a 1% of leadership egos, and they are no match for the power of the 1% and the "security" they can buy.

There is no shortage of compassion in the movement, people are working to end the suffering of others. Admittedly, however, this compassion is conditioned into the limited position of improving the slice of cake; in other words this compassion is not always guided by Gaia. This conditioning is not limited to money, it always leads to ego. Discipline is recognised as important but it is not integral to the movement, and this is shown by frequent splitting - the practice of ego.

All of this is covered by pathtivism, the strategies of pathtivism would produce the discipline and awareness required to overcome ego whilst at the same time providing the compassion that unites to help all. There is no shortage of good insight within the movement already, it is ego and ill-discipline that prevents sound application of that insight.

Pathtivists can step forward and bolster the failing labour institutions, and hopefully attract comrades into pathtivist understanding. There needs education in personal awareness (rather than hoping discipline will arise) as well as the established education in social awareness. The political has always been personal as well but there has been little recognition for the need to educate the personal. Pathtivism provides for that.