This is an experiment conducted on the psychology of the movement that is, in this country, the campaigning manifestation, of the revolution.Further than that it is a study of the campaigning left as our theory stands in practice; and an experiment studying our role within the setup that is capitalism...


This experiment draws from the practice of the mass movement that is the campaigning left.It examines the nature of this mass (that we see as being one thing: the 'revolutionary left'), and asks questions as to how this mass as one organisation, interact.

The hypothesis behind this experiment starts with the assumption that, if one part of the left aim to draw together our resources in a manner that would involve a pooling of resources that would mean solidarity amongst the revolutionary left as one mass, then it would earn support.Further than that, this experiment goes beyond psychology, to draw conclusions about the nature of capitalism and the role of the left / our expectations, within it.

To explain the methods used, we had better refer you to other sections of this experiment.In short, the purpose of this experiment was to use a survey to try to set up a 'register' of left wing campaigning groups, in order to set up a solid organisation opposing the State.

As an explanation; this experiment exactly followed the philosophy of the great mass of the extra parliamentary left in the philosophy of how a revolutionary body should be set up, and how the State should be overturned.


We feel that this experiment would be difficult to replicate.

The project was an independent and autonomous left wing group set up to pool the resources of the left on a mass scale.The Radical Presses Register.The R.P.R.

The 'Register' identified two main points:i) that the revolutionary left all share in common that they are based around publishing, and ii) that in line and structure they are sectarian.

Therefore the project of the experiment was to set up one left wing group to support the scene of left wing publishing in campaign.In that we even published our own manifesto.

So the first part of the experiment, was to find a libertarian political line that would support all left wing political publishing organisations.This line, once established, was printed on a number of different leaflets (see Appendix: available in the main manuscript), and circulated exactly according to the procedure of an active left wing political organisation.

This eventually led to the actual information gathering part of the study - a questionnaire circulated in order to collate a database of 'alternative' publishing groups in practice.


As our leaflets were circulated using a political Box Address, support for the project grew until we were an established faction of the revolutionary left; which was what we set up as.However, we have for a long time, through campaigns that were not of an experimental nature, that people very often do not reply to our mail.

This being the reason for our experiment, this led to us sending out a mass number of information gathering "information forms", in order to collate a database of publishing groups.

This being the main part of our survey experiment, the results of this experiment draw interesting conclusions for the left.

The result was, although we were buying copies of publications registered, from 300 campaigning groups contacted, only 6 replied and got involved.


This experiment essentially makes observations:

i) about peoples acceptance of capitalism, and

ii) about the nature of the revolutionary left.

The first point is defined in the nature of the icons of capitalism that are so widely accepted by the left.These would primarily bei) the established means of selling books through shops,ii) the acceptance of new organisations which may be seen as being 'controversial' and,iii) the established means of beaurocracy that left wing publishers accept as a matter of course, as opposed to equivalents set up to positively benefit the revolutionary left, as we have defined them.This, I feel, identifies an integral problem with the revolutionary left, and this experiment has been conducted with a view towards examining the weaknesses the revolutionary left in building an alternative that can actively challenge capitalist authority.

The points mentioned above are covered as follows:

i)That the revolutionary left seem to be more comfortable with established means of distribution through book shops.

The Register Experiment continues now in the sale of books we have purchased as a part of this survey.This will be monitored in consideration of this experiment having been published.

As said, this experiment has been conducted in the context of the foundation of one genuinely revolutionary group. Therefore we see it as being alarming that such a small number of groups actually contacted us in order for us to buy their publications.This experiment continues to ask if this report will serve to help us sell these publications.

That said, the experiment has proven that the revolutionary left have not been willing to be involved in a system of distribution that examines the means of distribution that examines these means, and that in a revolutionary context, set up within the framework of the revolutionary left in itself.There are two theories as to why this may be:

i) the first is that the left simply didn't trust our system and the way it was set up, or:

ii) that the revolutionary left are too sectarian against one anothers groups to allow a centralisation that would rely on co-operation.

It is beyond the scope of the experiment conducted to actually examine these theories, indeed if they can be examined, but it could easily be a factor of both.

ii) New organisations involve a degree of acceptance, and new groups may be seen as being "controversial" amongst established groups.

Whilst the above may easily be the case, the project involved an assumption that revolutionary groups may arise spontaneously.In that we would question whether the revolutionary left were actually ready to support such a movement as the R.P.R.

We feel that this is also beyond the scope of the experiment conducted here to examine exactly why we had such a small number of people involved.That would involve a wider sociological study.However it would be interesting to know the reasons for this, if such a study was ever conducted.This leads us to the last point:

iii) Despite there being a revolutionary group set up to both register revolutionary publications, and centralise the left; established beaureocracies were preferred to a new revolutionary alternative.

We feel that this also comes down to the inherent trust in capitalism held by the vast number of people on a completely subconscious level.

It was surprising that the subjects in this experiment (300+ radical publishing groups), unanimously trusted the system of I.S.B.N.s as opposed to the R.P.R. as an alternative system for librarians set up on the internet.And as the author, I really feel that this is the most important issue that this experiment has addressed.The blind conformity to authority demonstrated in this experiment really shows that there is still a lot of work to do in challenging authority; even amongst the revolutionary left.


This experiment continues leading us to a new hypothesis.That is, if the R.P.R. are really justified in challenging capitalist authority, then will people be more inclined to buy pamphlets through the same box number, knowing now that they are part of research in challenging authority?Our hypothesis says that they will.This, however, does raise more questions in psychology as well as in left wing politics; such as how far can the authority of capitalism be successfully challenged? In this I intend to further my understanding of psychology, in order to continue my research...

Workers Experiment Organisation.

Full list of titles + Workers Baked Bean Project available on request...

Manifesto of the W.E.O. soon to be available on spoken word format (£2.00 from Little Sister Recording - address above)