‘Some interesting thoughts’ from worldincommon discussion group by JP, 14 May 2005.

My personal take on this as follows:

As you know the primary reason World in Common was set up was to provide a conduit (if you like) for the various strands of the ‘thin red line’ of non-market, anti-state socialism and anarchism to emphasise commonalities and debate differences in a comradely environment. I suppose you could say we have been more or less successful at this although there are those who say we should be doing more, which I agree with by the way, at the same time recognising we are all human beings trying to live fulfilling lives despite capitalism.

Essentially we are a network of like-minded people, a network that exists predominantly in ‘cyberspace’ having met up as individuals on no more than one or two occasions. In this sense we are far removed from being (or indeed becoming) a political party or organisation in the traditional sense. As such it seems silly to try and invoke a ‘hostility clause’ against us, particularly as there are current SPGB members involved in WiC, but also because in essence what you would be doing is applying a hostility clause against individuals (existing in a loose network). This would probably produce some amusing scenarios!

Of course you have differences with some of Robin, Byron or Torgun’s ideas, some of which may be quite substantial. That’s fine and to be expected and I would hope that part of the purpose of this forum is to provide a healthy and constructive environment in which to air those differences.

The point is you (and many others) also have a hell of a lot in common with Robin, Byron and Torgun’s ideas. You reject the current market/profit system with its enormous wastage of human potential and talent, and its wanton destruction of the environment. You believe unequivocally that there is an alternative and better way of living that is both possible and desirable, based on the common ownership and democratic control of wealth and the meeting of people’s needs outside of the market and state. You hold that the only way to get there is by the majority of people organising collectively and democratically to seek out this alternative, not by putting their trust in leaders, capitalist politicians or parties which claim to be able to lead them to the ‘promised land.’ This seems to me to be a pretty bloody big area of agreement.

My argument is that if we spent just a small amount of our time and energy - even 5 or 10% of our political activity - on trying to build on our commonalities rather than simply emphasise our differences, then the ‘thin red line’ should become a little thicker, and the movement for common ownership that bit stronger. This is why I joined WiC and why I remain committed to it today, because I hope that as a network we can contribute to this process, even in a small way. I’m not an idealist - I don’t believe that the groups and individuals that make up the thin red line will suddenly throw up their arms, see the light and join together in one big happy family! Nor do I think this is desirable. What I do believe is that if we are to bring a speedy end to this ghastly system we have to spend more time working at what should come far more naturally in a post-capitalist society; co-operation.

I could be wrong about this. As ‘active supporters’ of WiC we only number around 20, many of us are involved in other political stuff which takes up much of our time and energy, and ‘cyberspace’ can be a pretty inefficient, de-humanising and demoralising way to make decisions and get things done. Who knows, we could fizzle out as a group in a year or so, or maybe, just maybe, we could have a bit more ‘presence’, have a few more people on board, and have the resources and the commitment to do more stuff, beyond the occasional online journal or leaflet. Either way at least we can hold our heads up and say we gave it a go.