Left Unity.org / People’s Assembly
- This topic has 583 replies, 34 voices, and was last updated 8 years ago by
.
-
Posts
-
Five of us were at the Royal National Hotel in central London to leaflet and talk to the delegates and observers at the founding conference of the new party. The three who turned up at 11am had to wait in the lobby for nearly two hours till the lunch break before we could do anything (one went home). Impressive turnout of 400 or so delegates and 50 or so observers. We didn't realise that we could have got in as observers and listened without joining. At least that's what a member of the Labour Party who did this told us afterwards.We met ex-comrade Stuart who was civil enough, even friendly. He told us that the "daleks" had been exterminated by which he meant that all the other platforms apart from the Left Unity one had been voted down. But they all still had their stalls at the back of the hall, at least Workers Power, "Socialist Resistance" and the "CPGB" did.The delegates voted to call the new party simply "Left Unity." (as opposed to "Left Party" and "Left Unity Party"). Good that they didn't include the word "socialist" in their name, not that, significantly, anyone was proposing this (too dalek-like for most delegates). Don't know yet what they decided their election strategy will be (that was discussed after we'd left), but they will be committed to registering as a party and contesting elections.Others giving out leaflets were the Alliance for Workers Liberty (who don't know whether or not to enter the new party; they seem to prefer Labour), a group advocating a breakaway Scottish Republic (I think they were one of Stuart's daleks), the "Economic & Philosophic Science Review" (not sure whether this is a Maoist sect or a Maoist cult), the Spartacists (of course and they're a cult if ever there was one) and 9/11 truthers. I don't think the hotel staff had seen anything like it before.
Wish I'd been there, lots of 'leftist train spotting' missed. I don't know the "Economic & Philosophic Science Review" though.
ALB wrote:the "Economic & Philosophic Science Review" (not sure whether this is a Maoist sect or a Maoist cult),….Père Duchêne wrote:Wish I'd been there, lots of 'leftist train spotting' missed. I don't know the "Economic & Philosophic Science Review" though.This lot originated from the WRP implosion. For many years they published a tatty 'cut and paste' paper full of quotes from the mainstream press and comments thereon. Their highpoint (sic) was to gain position within Scargill's fan club, where they acted with glee to help 'out' and oust known members of other groups, until the EPSR lot too fell by the way side after displeasing King Arthur. The EPSR loved to bash the Trots and assorted other 'fake left' revisionists.Here's Wiki – https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economic_and_Philosophic_Science_Review"The group, upon formally repudiating Trotskyism, renamed themselves the International Leninist Workers Party and later the Economic and Philosophic Science Review. The ILWP/EPSR are avowedly Marxist-Leninist and supportive of the Soviet Union but critical of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union's revisionism which they claimed was the result of Joseph Stalin's political errors. They are also very strongly supportive of the Irish Republican Army and many Third World national liberation movements.Bull also disapproved of the gay rights movement, saying homosexuality had "obvious disadvantages for any species in evolutionary terms" ,[1] a view which caused considerable controversy and raised accusations of homophobia against (Royston) Bull's movement .[2]Although Royston Bull died aged 69 on 2 January 2005, the EPSR continues to be published fortnightly, by its supporters."
This is how the leaflet they (or rather he, as there was only one of them) handed out today began (in bold large type):
Quote:"Safe space" PC censorship and Trotskyist hijacking "platforms" setting anti-Sovietism as a fundamental "principle" will ensure the new Left Unity is nothing but a sterile mule politically – or yet another of 57 varieties of fake-"leftism" which have poisoned the well of working class politics in the West for generations. Only opening up a total philosophical polemical examination of the Soviet Union's great triumphs and Stalinist mistakes will it tap the rising revolutionary sentiment driven by catastrophic crisis which Russell Brand's anarchist flurry has already demonstratedThe "Left Unity" launch will be as useless and as bankrupt as all other fake-"leftism" from ultra-Trotskyism, to Maoist mantras and Stalinist revisionism, unless it gives room for unrestrained revolutionary argument to be made and fought for.Got the drift or do you want me to continue?
So, they are full-on Stalinists, but they criticise Uncle Joe for some revisionism, would be interesting to know what that is. The Harpal Brar Stalinist Communist Party and their Stalin Society are the die-hards, marching on May Day beneath their Uncle Joe banner. Anything post 1953 is revisionism.No time for Trotskyites.Of the Leftist sects the 'Weekly Worker' Leninists are the most admirable.I am an 'Impossibilist' and agree with the DOP of the SPGB.
I suspect another failed leftist strategy. I also suspect those that turned up today will be the nucleus of this "new" gathering and it would be interesting to know what the makeup wasof those who attended in terms of age, gender and ethnicity. Were they people who had been around the block many times beofre.This time next year LU will be still a tiny insignificant organisation. When will the left wake up and see that the working class is still not militant enough not yet conscious enough to see the need for socialism. There's still a hell of a long way to go before they are.
Père Duchêne wrote:So, they are full-on Stalinists, but they criticise Uncle Joe for some revisionism, would be interesting to know what that is. The Harpal Brar Stalinist Communist Party and their Stalin Society are the die-hards, marching on May Day beneath their Uncle Joe banner. Anything post 1953 is revisionism.No time for Trotskyites.Of the Leftist sects the 'Weekly Worker' Leninists are the most admirable.I am an 'Impossibilist' and agree with the DOP of the SPGB.Sometimes Trotskyist and Stalinist wear both hats, it is interchangeable. Celia Hart, a famous Trostkyist theoretician associates of Tony Cliff, was a member and leader of the Communist Party of Cuba, which was built by Stalinists. The founder of the Communist Party of Cuba was a Trotsky-Stalinist. Hugo Chavez declared that he was a Trotskyists, and he was associated with the Stalinist of Venezuela and Cuba. It is just an indication that there is not essential differences between both political currents, they are Leninist
Just wait a few months. Pretty soon they are going to be filing for divorce, they are already disunited before forming the union.
Trotskyites and Stalinists have their origin in Leninism.I agree with Rosa Luxemburg's critique in response to Lenin's What Is To Be Done? Rosa Luxemburg wrote Organisational Questions of Russian Social Democracy (1904) which later became known as Leninism or Marxism? where she criticised his concept of revolutionary organisation and identified Lenin as a 'Blanquist' socialist revolutionist. Luxemburg wrote that 'Blanquism did not count on the direct action of the working class. It, therefore, did not need to organize the people for the revolution. The people were expected to play their part only at the moment of revolution. Preparation for the revolution concerned only the little group of revolutionists armed for the coup.' This is the Bolshevik strategy in its essence. Luxemburg identifies 'the two principles on which Lenin’s centralism rests are precisely these: the blind subordination, in the smallest detail, of all party organs to the party centre which alone thinks, guides, and decides for all. The rigorous separation of the organized nucleus of revolutionaries from its social-revolutionary surroundings.' This is Blanquist organisation although Lenin himself 'defined his 'revolutionary Social Democrat' as the ' Jacobin indissolubly connected with the organisation of the class-conscious proletariat.'But not everything Lenin wrote is worthless; for example, his article entitled The Three Sources and Three Component Parts of Marxism (1913), contains a concise exposition of Marxism.As a socialist I have major criticism of bolshevism, Leninism but need to point out there are some good things in 'Imperialism: the highest stage of capitalism' where he gives a prescient description of globalisation.Lenin opposed the First World War which we applaud, he promised to take Russia out of the war and he did. What he did 1917-24 is another matter.
I tried to watch the live streaming but my limited broadband width kept stalling it to permit easy watching but it did demonstrate how useful it could be for ourselves.http://www.ustream.tv/I suppose Stuart thinks LU is now the equivalent of Dr Who's UNIT which stands for "UNified Intelligence Taskforce" out to fight the evil Daleks (i wonder who he thinks is Davros). He himself has probably gone through as many political regenerations as Dr WHO has changed. And just to continue the metaphor…the SPGB is like the Tardis…a small box from the outside but enormous in the inside
)As Dave implies the Vassall election and others show, the working class are not ready to jettison the Labour Party yet . I personally expect to see the rise in consciousness not to appear in the Left but from union militancy but i hold no great hope for that either in the immediate future. With TUSC not engaging in next years EU elections to let the NO2EU to once again stand, it will be interesting to see if LU forms an election pact or opposes them or they themselves stand down and don't participate. Perhaps they will concentrate on local elections to begin with as the relatively successful an earlier reincarnation of LU, the Independent Working Class Association.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Independent_Working_Class_AssociationLeft Unity – I identified 5 platforms before the Founding Congress:The Left Party – Kate Hudson/Andrew Burgin – standard green/feminist/reformismThe Class Struggle Platform – Trotskyite Workers PowerThe Socialist Platform – disgruntled ISN/TUSC, Declaration of Principles had elements of similarity to SPGB DOPThe Communist Platform – Weekly Worker Leninists who had failed to take over Socialist PlatformThe Republican Socialist Platform – repositioning ?
The SPGB is like the Tardis – a small box from the outside but enormous on the inside. We like that.
Père Duchêne wrote:Trotskyites and Stalinists have their origin in Leninism.I agree with Rosa Luxemburg's critique in response to Lenin's What Is To Be Done? Rosa Luxemburg wrote Organisational Questions of Russian Social Democracy (1904) which later became known as Leninism or Marxism? where she criticised his concept of revolutionary organisation and identified Lenin as a 'Blanquist' socialist revolutionist. Luxemburg wrote that 'Blanquism did not count on the direct action of the working class. It, therefore, did not need to organize the people for the revolution. The people were expected to play their part only at the moment of revolution. Preparation for the revolution concerned only the little group of revolutionists armed for the coup.' This is the Bolshevik strategy in its essence. Luxemburg identifies 'the two principles on which Lenin’s centralism rests are precisely these: the blind subordination, in the smallest detail, of all party organs to the party centre which alone thinks, guides, and decides for all. The rigorous separation of the organized nucleus of revolutionaries from its social-revolutionary surroundings.' This is Blanquist organisation although Lenin himself 'defined his 'revolutionary Social Democrat' as the ' Jacobin indissolubly connected with the organisation of the class-conscious proletariat.'But not everything Lenin wrote is worthless; for example, his article entitled The Three Sources and Three Component Parts of Marxism (1913), contains a concise exposition of Marxism.As a socialist I have major criticism of bolshevism, Leninism but need to point out there are some good things in 'Imperialism: the highest stage of capitalism' where he gives a prescient description of globalisation.Lenin opposed the First World War which we applaud, he promised to take Russia out of the war and he did. What he did 1917-24 is another matter.The founder of Marxism-Leninism was Joseph Stalin. Vladimir Lenin was more a Engelsian than a Marxist. Probably, the only thing that can be applaud from the Bolsheviks is their opposition to WWI , Lenin Imperialism has brought many negatives consequences, probably, Nikolai Bukharin did a much better job on that too. He was one of the most apt of all the Bolsheviks.
Dave wrote:it would be interesting to know what the makeup wasof those who attended in terms of age, gender and ethnicity. Were they people who had been around the block many times beofre.From what I saw there was a disproportionate number of men near or after retirement age who had presumably been through the Labour Party or the Communist Party or the mill of one of the last century's Trotskyist groups. But there were also plenty of women (after all, it's got a militant feminist wing, not that all women are militant feminists, just ordinary ones like most men these days) and a number of younger people. I didn't see many black faces.
alanjjohnstone wrote:With TUSC not engaging in next years EU elections to let the NO2EU to once again stand, it will be interesting to see if LU forms an election pact or opposes them or they themselves stand down and don't participate. Perhaps they will concentrate on local elections to begin with as the relatively successful an earlier reincarnation of LU, the Independent Working Class Association.I think that how they do electorally will be the key to the success (or, more likely, the failure) of the new party. If they want to be taken seriously as a party they've got to contest elections and do at least as well as the Green Party.I'd like to know the outcome of the discussion they had on electoral strategy in the afternoon. There was a motion calling for:
Quote:opening discussions with the major players on the left, including the Trade Unionist and Socialist Coalition (TUSC), the CPB, Respect and the Alliance for Green Socialism to avoid electoral clashes and move towards electoral pacts.My guess is that this won't have been carried (it was proposed by one of the "dalerk" groups linked to TUSC). I like the description of TUSC, the CPB and the AGS as "major players". If they are, we must be too. Actually, they are in the same division as us, i.e. the Third Division. In the Croydon North by-election last year the CPB got 119 votes (or 0.5%) and in the 2010 General Election the AGS got 1.1% and 1.3% in two Leeds constituencies it contested.I don't know of any area where the new party would be able to get a decent vote in local elections, let alone get a councillor elected. It's rumoured that the new party's founders have a grander scheme in mind: to be like the Left Party in France and the Lefts in Germany and to form an electoral alliance with them for the Euroelections next year.As Dave has said, rendez-vous this time next year or even in June after May's local and Euroelections.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.