Launch of A World to Win
Presentation by Corinna Lotz
We have witnessed over the last two to three years, since the massive anti-war movement and the rise of mass movements, a search for solutions to the problems that have arisen. We can describe these movements as the discontents of globalisation. Over the past few weeks in London we've seen how dangerous things have become.
The key issue to resolving these questions is leadership. We've seen that the movements today are not the same as they were a few decades ago. They have developed their outlook and perspective. For example, when Bob Geldof first started to tackle poverty/starvation in Africa in 1985, he tried to solve starvation there by raising money. Now the focus has switched to political leaders. People are trying to solve these problems. There is progress but it is inadequate. In fact, it's terribly inadequate. And that's the question we must address.
The movement's perspective and horizon is too low. That's what we were saying at Edinburgh. We were saying this last week at Rise, the multicultural festival in south east London. Tens of thousands gathered there, in defiance of the horrors of the bombings.
The general attitude is, as we saw at the Make Poverty History protest, well, we've got a few crumbs, we've got that little bit, we must be satisfied to have achieved that. Well no, why should we be happy? Humanity has been proved to be capable of far more. The presentation that we have just seen proves that human beings over the millennia have developed means to solve their problems. And to say that we have to restrict ourselves to the existing political structure is to avoid the issues and not to see things as they really are.
At the G8 protest in Edinburgh, we saw people literally being made to go around in circles, a big white chain of people! We saw these brave people make long journeys to make the protest, but the focus was so limited and too small. It's this limitation which brings frustration that people know it doesn't work but they still do it and they will continue to try again.
But ours is a much more holistic and advanced perspective. It can succeed and will succeed. As we stressed in the book, there is a need for a concept of transition from the existing order of things to a more advanced, more socialised and humane and ecologically viable form of society and life on the planet.
The traumatic circumstances that we are living in do give us an enormous urgency. Because we now live in a new political climate, not just Post G8, a climate of terror and anti-terror. The "anti-terror" is as terrorising as terror. Someone being shot by a state-run death squad on the Underground is terror.
Since the book was published last November, we have had many discussions in different parts of the country - often people say we agree with what we've said. They think this is a good way forward, but they have asked "How do you do it, how do you make that change?" It seems to be a bit of a mystery. But it really isn't that difficult. We are talking about social change, and social change has to be made by human beings, people. And it's the social nature of human beings that we can do this thing. The nature of our species is that we reflect each other, we become human individually and socially by seeing our parents, seeing children around us, by growing up in social circles. That's what forms us. That's our nature, the essence of our nature, our human essence. It's that that makes it necessary and so vital that an organisation is formed. The existence and development of an organisation will inspire more people and it will show in practice not just in theory but the flesh and blood discussion, debate, interaction and internet contact. It's a simple answer but it does mean a new degree of commitment - it means going out there and putting their heads on the parapet. Most people are not immediately willing to do this. But they will do it when they see other people doing it. That is particularly the case in Britain. People do move in a more social way than any other country in the world. Engels said that only in Britain do people make social history, because people are so politically and socially interconnected that you don't get changes in this country in a small-time way.
The anti-war movement was so significant, it was historically unprecedented. And of course not only in Britain, it was a global event - hundreds of millions of people came out on the same day and opposed their governments.
The thesis is that there is a need for an organisation that can prove that it can be done and that there are people that have a strategy, a clear strategy and will act on it. And that others will see and that that very fact helps other people put their apathy and self interest aside and do things that they themselves would not normally see themselves doing.
Traumatic events are very relevant to change. At the Aldgate bombing the local vicar of St Botolph's church was taking sandwiches from the local Pret a Manger for the people that were badly hurt. Apparently the manager had agreed to this, but the vicar said that he felt it was like looting. It showed that people do extraordinary things in extraordinary circumstances.
And in answer to your question about how do you take over the transnational corporations, well on a massive scale the same as people did when they were taking from the Pret a Manger. And people will agree to it. If the owners do not agree to it, that will have to be dealt with.
To sum up what type of organisation is needed:
1. Has to have a clear methodology, a clear theoretical understanding of where it's going. It's got to keep its eyes on the main strategy, which is the question of power, the transfer of power, and not to be swept away from the perspectives
2. The structure has to be non-hierarchical, not a top-down structure, not leaders and led, but with the understanding that the new media technology makes this more possible, more easy and can be taken forward in a new direction that has never existed before
3. Instead of a top-down structure we envisage a group structure. Each group would specialise in a different area. The organisation is not limited to these groups. New groups can be formed as and when they are necessary. These groups are co-ordinated by a core group that links them all together and shows to each other what they are doing so that people aren't left in some corner isolated. It would also develop strategies to take the whole organisation forward. Each individual person sees her or himself as part of this group, which is part of the whole.
The organisation would have total transparency, that anybody could attend any of the meetings of the co-ordinating group. It wouldn't be some secret structure that nobody knows what it does.
Any member of the organisation is entitled to attend and discuss strategies and tactics for doing things. The whole should decide the strategies, not some elite that is not accountable.
There must be maximum discussion so that at all times any kind of dogmas, any fixed ways of thought that relate to yesterday, not today, will be challenged and ] discussed and that the whole organisation would be able to avoid bureaucracy and inertia by having this state of permanent discussion and interaction. That would then enable it to act quickly when things change and work with other organisations. The principle is that people can develop themselves and their particular skills, so that people can do the things they feel happy and most confident about making a contribution in that way.
A transition to this kind of organisation is also more complex. Can't just issue orders and decrees and ultimatums and wonderful statements - everybody has to take part in it, challenge it, criticise it and in that way, go forward.
It is more difficult; it is no accident that these people who write these books about management, techniques etc can charge £1000 per session to invite top businessmen to conferences. It is a very highly skilled science, very challenging and quite stressful because it challenges a lot of dogmas and preconceptions.
What they found in fact that if you do have this way of involving large numbers of people in decision making processes - you can have a much bigger result - that you have more trained people to go forth, not less. The more the organisation as a whole has the ability to develop knowledge, the more it can go out to others. None of us have all the answers but we will learn collectively and individually as an organisation.
We reject completely terrorism and violence as the way to achieving our aims. At the same time we support the right of those without a voice, those who have been disenfranchised, those who are underrepresented, whether it be here or anywhere else. And we know that it is the powerless masses, whether they be London workers on the Underground. or any other part of the world, who pay with their lives for the existing power structures. These same people, which includes us, have every right to remedy this situation. We are not conspiracy theorists. We don't have any secrets. We have our constitution. It is on our website and it lays down a very clear course: how to achieve democratic power. We have the right openly to campaign for this. We shouldn't feel intimidated. This is a legal open organisation and has totally politically justifiable aims. And we are going to be campaigning for this together.
The AWTW constitution was drawn up by many people. It was put together through an open discussion. We are asking people to support it as it stands, aware that it is provisional and is subject to change. We are planning from this discussion today to set up a group of people to develop the constitution further. I would ask you to express your support of this constitution. In doing so, you will become a founding member of this new organisation and we are all really privileged to be here on this day in this time in history.
