Left Unity.org / People’s Assembly

[stuartw2112]

Ed, you've not answered my points, but refused them. Left Unity is an attempt to form a new socialist party. So, that socialist party will not live up to all your expectations. Welcome to the real world. The spgb doesn't live up to mine. But, given the seriousness of the current situation, is there a way forward for socialists, and for the working class? That's what we're discussing. The 'Ukip of the left' thing was not invented by us and should not be taken too seriously or literally. But are we aiming to do what Ukip is aiming to do and drag the nation's common sense back to the left? Yes – that's the mimimum programme. Although, as I've pointed out before, these are just my views. LU as yet has no aims and no policy. It's in formation.

[stuartw2112]

Jools – hear hear

[alanjjohnstone]

 " It contains a definition of socialism and a commitment to attaining it that I can't see any socialist objecting to. "  Would this be the statement you are referring to? "That, in the very near term, we oppose austerity, the attacks on the working class, and the destruction of the welfare state, and will support efforts to halt or ameliorate or reverse these. In the medium term, we stand for the reversal of the privatisation of essential services and utilities, and to bring them back into public ownership. In the medium to long term, we stand for the democratisation of all the social, political and economic institutions of society. Is it, and are we, socialist? Well, all that is exactly what socialism means as far as I’m concerned, whether you choose to call it that or not."

[stuartw2112]

Ps Ed you've also misunderstood the whole thing. I am not a supporter of the 'socialist platform' and do not consider them at all the radical wing of the thing.

[stuartw2112]

Alan – no, I wrote that, didn't I? I didn't write any of the platform statements.

[stuartw2112]

For reasons beyond me, I can't paste a link to the relevant statement. Go to Leftunity.org, then platform statements menu, then Left Party Platforms Aims statement piece. 

[stuartw2112]

Ed, I've just realised that you must have got your opinion of LU from the recent Socialist Standard article on it. Sorry, but that is totally misleading. I have no problem with the socialist platform people being in LU – indeed I am friendly with a fair few of them – but to portray them as the bold socialist visionaries fighting a lone if misguided battle against the opportunists and reformists is just a joke – the kind of joke we Adam and I just agreed to leave behind. Cheers

[alanjjohnstone]

Another thing you wrote from your own view :-"What is socialism? Is there a core meaning in the term or in the history of its practice that could be said to unite all socialists? My answer is yes, and the clue’s in the title. The core meaning of socialism is the social (social-ist) or communal (commun-ist) ownership of the means of production and distribution. As the Left Party Platform puts it, it is a vision where “[t]he natural wealth, productive resources and social means of existence will be owned in common and democratically run by and for the people as a whole”. Or, as the Socialist Platform puts it, socialism “means a society in which the wealth and the means of production are no longer in private hands but are owned in common”. Or, as the Class Struggle Platform puts it, it is “a publicly-owned economy, democratically managed and planned by those who work and those who use its goods and services”. Or, as the proposal to replace the platforms with a set of principles puts it, the socialist aim is to “enlarge common ownership, co-operative models and public-sector provision and diversify their forms”. So, we’re agreed that we’re socialist, and we’re agreed what it means. So far, so good! The trouble is that, as surely everyone must also agree, this is an aim for the medium- to long-term.”Then you go on to argue for the citizens wage – the basic income – as a transition to socialism, then having raise some strawmen arguments against those opposing it you somehow ignored Marx's criticisms of such a scheme. In fact, you claim his authority for it. And i know you are far more informed on Marxian economics than myself so how else but as a purposeful omission can i interpret that as.Nobody has questioned that the unity project is part of a reaction to the recession but unity by who for what is the issue. We sought a meeting with one platform for this clarity to no avail. We are excluded from addressing the founding conference although i fully understand the reason, it is a founding conference and no-one wishes time wasted on any counter voices undermining it. I hope we will have a strong presence outside the door. I am all for escalating and intensifying the class war, using the weapons we have at hand, such as the trade unions, and perhaps adopting new strategies and adapting our present tactics as offered by Occupy and Uncut. But equally important is making socialism an immediate demand, not once more relegated it to some vague future and not one that has self-defeating so-called stepping stones towards it. On the long term to use your terms, making socialism an immediancy is imperative. You can crow about the failures of the past from those like us but you have to also concede that the reformists have also failed miserably – and there is one big difference – the reformists had power and tried to implement  their reforms and failed. …Our crime is that we have only failed to convince people through our inability to convey our message effectively when we have those calling themselves socialists offering up half-measures and who can blame workers for rejecting "socialism" when disillusionment sets in. As they say , who needs enemies when we have friends like the Leninist or Trot or wishy-washy Labour.  

[Ed]

stuartw2112 wrote:

Ed, you've not answered my points, but refused them. Left Unity is an attempt to form a new socialist party. So, that socialist party will not live up to all your expectations. Welcome to the real world. The spgb doesn't live up to mine. But, given the seriousness of the current situation, is there a way forward for socialists, and for the working class? That's what we're discussing. The 'Ukip of the left' thing was not invented by us and should not be taken too seriously or literally. But are we aiming to do what Ukip is aiming to do and drag the nation's common sense back to the left? Yes – that's the mimimum programme. Although, as I've pointed out before, these are just my views. LU as yet has no aims and no policy. It's in formation.

I've answered the second point. That it cannot be compared in any way to the founding of the SPGB. One is a broad left party who has the intent of running capitalism the other is a group which split away from such a party having learned the futility of such a strategy.Perhaps you need to define socialist party. Cos from what I see you're just another capitalist party. In that your immediate aim is to take over a part of the management of capitalism.The statement you posted doesn't seem to be much different from labours clause 4. Was the labour party a socialist party at it's inception? Or perhaps in 1949? Was it Kinnock the renegade who ruined it all?

stuartw2112 wrote:

Ps Ed you've also misunderstood the whole thing. I am not a supporter of the 'socialist platform' and do not consider them at all the radical wing of the thing.

stuartw2112 wrote:

Ed, I've just realised that you must have got your opinion of LU from the recent Socialist Standard article on it. Sorry, but that is totally misleading. I have no problem with the socialist platform people being in LU – indeed I am friendly with a fair few of them – but to portray them as the bold socialist visionaries fighting a lone if misguided battle against the opportunists and reformists is just a joke – the kind of joke we Adam and I just agreed to leave behind. Cheers

My comment about that particular grouping was not to try to represent your opinion but the optimism shared by some members of this party. I would agree with you at least on this point. "do not consider them at all the radical wing of the thing." I have no sympathy for any of the left; the last refuge of the bourgeoisie.

[ALB]

jpodcaster wrote:

And there we have the real epitath of the SPGB: "Missing a trick since 1904." (copyright John Crump)

Bit of a cheek to try to use John Crump to back up Stuart's case (and yours?) for a new leftwing reformist party which rejects socialism (as a classless, stateless, moneyless, wageless society) as an impossible and irrelevant long-term dream and which wants to concentrate on trying to obtain or retain "possible" reforms of capitalism. He shared this aim and differed from us mainly in that he came to disagree with using parliament in the course of establishing it. See this:http://theoryandpractice.org.uk/library/thin-red-line-non-market-socialism-twentieth-century-john-crump-1987Also, the other articles by him on the same section of the same siteIn fact, I would have thought that he would have been just as opposed, if not more so, to the Left Unity project than us. Another ex-member, Mike Ballard, with whom he was associated in the group Subversion (which gave up the ghost some years ago now), told me at the Anarchist Bookfair last month that he (Mike) loved the front cover of the October Socialist Standard (even I had my doubts about describing the proposed new party as a "monster"!).We'll be there at that hotel in Bedford Square a week Saturday to hand free copies of it. Maybe see youse there.

[Anonymous]

Ed wrote:

  I have no sympathy for any of the left; the last refuge of the bourgeoisie.

 Me too, I have seen them in different colors, different tendencies, with different slogans, and in essence they are all the same.It is a very dangerous trend within the working class movement, they are not a threat to capital.The capitalists want them to call themselves socialists because it is a much better  way to confuse workers and to detain the development of real socialism.

[alanjjohnstone]

We know Stuart's voice (and vote) is just only one in the LUP as is Ken Loach's. Like Stuart,  Loach talks the walk with our sort of language "Loach wants to see instead a party that will propose structural changes in terms of common ownership and democratic control and an economy that works in the interests of everyone, not just the few."http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/salman-shaheen/ken-loach-left-unity_b_4302871.html He goes on to explain that he wants from  a LU party. "Loach acknowledges that clear mistakes were made in both the Socialist Alliance and Respect. Despite the attention the media has paid to him as a prominent supporter of Left Unity, he is keen to point out that it is not the Ken Loach party. Nor should a party be built around one or two people, however occasionally brilliant they are."It's got to be really accountable, really democratic," Loach says. "We can't have parties within parties. We have to make certain all elements within Left Unity are represented in the central grouping. They've got to be there from the beginning, we can't have it controlled by one platform…. We need a party that has a thought-through programme, that uses language which is attractive to everyone who is against the austerity programme, who is against the imperialist wars, who wants to defend the environment…so that everyone emerges feeling we made the best use of the time, we've got the best result we can, and no one has been defeated, we're all part of something we can all share and believe in even if we didn't get everything we want into the statement [of aims], that our opinions are respected."Summed up as the broad church and which the LUP means something despite to everyone, regardless of their differences "so that everyone's inside the tent pissing out, no one's outside the tent pissing in".He too defines his socialism much as Stuart has  – "the core principles from which everything else spreads are socialist ones: common ownership, democratic control, a planned economy, no discrimination."Feasible? Achievable? Realistic? Stuart and Ken says yes. If they are right, we have not committed any serious transgression from a wait and see strategy and if such an open organisation comes into existence and our ideas and contribution will be welcomed with comradely open arms and without rancour. Our well-justified scepticism of any possibility of success, our well-placed reluctance to immeditely participate, will all be forgotten as fully understandable considering the history of failed unity ventures in the past and our well-known predictions for their demise. No need for us to turn on Stuart or Ken Loach and the other LU supporters. It is they in the words of Carl Sagan who make the extraordinary claims which require their extraordinary evidence. The proof will eventually be in the pudding. And for ourselves, we do what we always do, because again as a saying goes first, our actions do no harm and are an exercise in the precautionary principle of politics.    

[alanjjohnstone]

But just to warm the cockles of Stuart's heart and how revolution is often expressed in various ways, if he hasn't read it , Noam's latest interview.http://www.counterpunch.org/2013/11/20/media-control-and-indoctrination-in-the-united-states/ Then Noam as the song  goes he spoils it by saying something stupid like endorsing Mondragon as some sort of alternative worth struggling for even when he fully understands the futility.  "And it’s grown and developed. It’s now a number of productive enterprises: banks, housing, schools, hospitals. It’s quite an elaborate affair. And it seems to be with standing the financial crisis, while everything else in Spain is collapsing. I don’t know the details, but that’s what it looks like. It’s not worker-managed. Workers select management, who then act on their own. And, of course, it’s part of an international capitalist economy which means that you can argue the ethics of it, since they do things like exploit labor abroad and so on. They say that they have to do it to compete and survive—maybe—that you can’t extricate yourself from the world you’re in." 

[jpodcaster]

ALB wrote:

jpodcaster wrote:

And there we have the real epitath of the SPGB: "Missing a trick since 1904." (copyright John Crump)

Bit of a cheek to try to use John Crump to back up Stuart's case (and yours?) for a new leftwing reformist party which rejects socialism (as a classless, stateless, moneyless, wageless society) as an impossible and irrelevant long-term dream and which wants to concentrate on trying to obtain or retain "possible" reforms of capitalism. He shared this aim and differed from us mainly in that he came to disagree with using parliament in the course of establishing it. 

You knew him much better than I but I wouldn't necessarily agree that he would have rejected LU. For example in his resignation letter he talked of the likelihood of a working-class socialist party being formed outside of the SPGB. Also let's not forget that, whatever your views on the "wishy-washy reformism" of LU, the organisation contains a significant minority of men and women with a commitment to a socialism virtually indistinguishable from that envisaged by the SPGB, including ex-members and sympathisers. What will happen to them post-Nov 30th is anybody's guess but if the Left Party Platform is adopted I hope they will stay part of the organisation and make it a genuinely pluralist party to the left of Labour.

ALB wrote:

We'll be there at that hotel in Bedford Square a week Saturday to hand free copies of it. Maybe see youse there.

I hope to be there – would be good to catch up after all these years!

[ALB]

mcolome1 wrote:

I think it is a very sad situation to leave the Socialist Party to join a Trotskyist organization

This is a misunderstanding, mcolome. Stuart left the Socialist Party because we wouldn't give all our money to the Occupy movement not to become a Trotskyist. And the new party he is now interested in is not a Trotskyist or Leninist outfit, but another wishy-washy reformist party of whose policy and tactics he is a prominent and eloquent defender. It is a pity when a member goes off the rails but at least he hasn't become a Trotskyist.

[Author]

Posts