What I say about Hallam is highlighted, not just in his vagueness and his strange relationship regarding academia and a seeming anti-intellectualism embedded within his own intellectualismā¦which I find considerably thinā¦but within the section The Proposal, in his book.
After outlining a number of tactics with which I grant he is, as an activist organiser, well acquainted and that I have no reason or ground to doubt, he writes thisā¦
āFinally, there needs to be a post-revolutionary plan otherwise chaos will ensue. The plan I outline is for a national Citizensā Assembly to take over the sovereign role from a corrupted parliamentary system. Parliament would remain, but in an advisory role to this assembly of ordinary people, randomly selected from all around the country who will deliberate on the central question of our contemporary national life ā how do we avoid extinction?
They will decide what new structures and policies are necessary to maximise the chances of achieving our collective desire to live, now that the odds are stacked against us. We need to start acting now. We may need to act before governments come around. A transition movement has already started. This needs to be massively expanded and integrated with the Rebellion.ā
Thatās not a plan thatās a vague hope that a bunch of citizens randomly chosen can coherently present to a population a cogent set of new institutional structures, while, as Hallam seems to have decided, parliament remains under their (CA) control. Sounds like a guess to me.
Is he hoping that people like yourselves, Pareconistas, of which I am one still, or the Degrowthers, Next System Folk, Democracy Collaborative, or GND economists, or Yanis Varoufakis and Progressive International, RealUtopia, Global Tapestry Network, SolarPunks and the rest, will fill the visionary void? And it will be done efficiently and swiftly and with unity setting aside sectarian differences, something the āleftā has really yet to achieve over 200 yrs? Or does he suspect a random bunch of citizens will be knowledgeable enough themselves or as all the groups mentioned above are swept up by his rebellion informing said assemblies?
There is much about the āleftā losing the communicative battle with the working classes. As outlined much by Michael Albert, Tom Wetzel, and others, like Emma River-Robertsā concern the degrowth movement and its PMC/coordinator image doesnāt connect with the working classes sufficientlyā¦to put it nicelyā¦to get them involved. She even felt in Albertās podcast that XR had a kind of anti-working class attitude which sheās experienced herselfā¦if I heard right. Hallam seems oblivious to this problem really. The working classes are very used to working 24/7 for survival and dying unnecessarily (for all sorts of reasons). Do you really think Hallam is presenting something that they would flock to? To trust in some anonymous dude telling them theyāre all gonna die if they donāt and all heās got is an idea of citizens assembling to control parliament, slashing emissions and some geo-engineering? And to trust him enough and his message to give up jobs and join him in the streets with no mention about just transition and how difficult that is? But I suspect he thinks just transition is a reformist trope and we are beyond that now. His attitude to the rest of the left is somewhat antagonistic and critical but with little engagement and often very generally asserted without much good evidence and research. Most of his criticism seems anecdotal and emotionally basedā¦in my opinion.
And of course his add on thing on transcendence was as I expected, pretty woeful and empty of any real graspable content.
Ok, heās part of an overall awareness campaign. I get that. And heās across tactics and organising. But so are many others.
