Left Unity.org / People’s Assembly

[ALB]

ALB wrote:

I'd like to know the outcome of the discussion they had on electoral strategy in the afternoon.

According to this report (by the AWL) this point on the agenda was not reached:http://www.workersliberty.org/story/2013/11/30/left-unity-conference-rejects-socialist-platformIt also reveals that the "Socialist Platform" was rejected by 216 to 122 votes with 28 abstentions.Logically, in view of their criticism of the "Left Party Platform" [LPP] that was carried they should now leave a party that has committed itself to "managing capitalism, not getting rid of it". As they put it in one of the printed documents entitled "Support the Socialist Platform" they were still circulating at the conference:

Quote:

Neither of the LPP documents gives any clear indication of what sort of party the LPP wants to set up. Will it be a party that tries to manage capitalism? Or will it be a party that breaks with capitalism? At different places the documents seem to point in different directions. Whilst there are references to socialism, it is unclear from the context what exactly is meant by the use of the word. It is this lack of clarity that detracts from both documents.There are references to renationalisation of the privatised industries, but no mention of the abolition of private ownership of the means of production more generally. The only conclusion one can draw is that the documents are calling for a 'mixed economy', an economy in which industry remains primarily in private hands, with some in state hands. This remains capitalism. The profit system will remain, the nationalised industries will service big business. Overall, the impression is conveyed that the LPP aims at a return to some sort of social democratic golden age, when the Labour Party was more leftwing. In so far as any clear aim can be discerned, it aims at managing capitalism, not getting rid of it.

We could hardly put it better ourselves.

[jondwhite]

With the Socialist Platform rejected, I also await their supporters departure from Left Unity. Maybe 'Unity' with people you disagree with isn't all its cracked up to be!

[alanjjohnstone]

As ALB has pointed out the CPGB are quite adept at riding two horses at same time vis a vis the Labour Party front. I don't envisage mass resignations until at least after the election of party officers and editoral control of whatever journal and website they decide to produce …then perhaps the defections (and rancour) will begin. A principled stance is scarcely something of importance to many who engaged in LU . The outcome of the platforms may have been decided but control of the party is still up for grabs. 

[Young Master Smeet]

Well, according to this report:http://leftunityleamingtonspa.wordpress.com/2013/12/01/a-report-on-founding-conference/The following is in their aims section:

Dinner Unity wrote:

to win a mandate to govern and introduce radical and fundamental changes in British society based on our belief in the benefits of cooperation and community ownership instead of the chaotic competition of capitalism; universal human rights, internationalism and peace; social, political and economic equality for all in the fullest sense, without which true democracy and mutual respect cannot flourish; a democratically planned economy that is environmentally sustainable, within which all enterprises, whether privately owned, cooperatives or under public ownership operate in ways that promote the needs of the people and wider society; an inclusive welfare state which operates on the principle that each will contribute to society according to their ability to do so, and society will in return meet their needs.

Well, that's that.

[ALB]

Here's Trotskyist infiltrators into the new party up to their old trick of proposing "model resolutions" (and a particularly mad one in this case, calling for arms to be sent to the jihadists in Syria):http://www.workerspower.co.uk/2013/08/dont-attack-syria-model-resolution-for-left-unity-branches/I wonder how the new party is going to deal with such unscrupulous and underhand infiltrators.

[jondwhite]

The CPGB-PCC explained their requirements for membership in 2001http://www.cpgb.org.uk/home/weekly-worker/392/fighting-for-what-is-necessary

Quote:

comrade Fischer stated that genuine democratic centralism did not mean blindly following the ?party line? and keeping your criticisms to yourself. It required acceptance of, not agreement with, the party programme, and the right to fight openly to change it.

Using 'acceptance' as less than 'agreement' as the CPGB-PCC seem to suggest, then the CPGB-PCC either cannot 'accept' the 'Socialist Platform' (their articles on it only mention 'disagreement') despite its similarities to their 'Communist Platform', or do not regard Left Unity as a party. The CPGB-PCC have also been open that the CPGB-PCC will be voting en bloc.

[ALB]

Here's a couple more accounts of what happened at the founding conference.This from those behind the "Socialist Platform". They don't seemed to be prepared to put their money where their mouth is and are staying in a party then accept aims to manage capitalism:http://www.independentsocialistnetwork.org/?p=2636I noticed of couple of things:

Quote:

Tina Becker moved an amendment from Sheffield enabling caucuses (platforms) to organize public campaigns against the overall aims or policy of the party was clearly agreed, as was a Cardiff amendment for caucuses to be allowed to be permanent.  An amendment from Lambeth on replacing the words sections and caucuses with caucuses and tendencies was also agreed. [Their bold]

I think the new party might live to regret this which gives carte blanche to the rival Trotskyist sects to behave in the new party as they do in the trade unions.And this requires no comment (once again, their bold):

Quote:

Before the vote on the amended Constitution was taken, Richard Brenner moved against its adoption because of a reference in the IDCC Aims to win a mandate to govern based on “a democratically planned economy… within which all enterprises, whether privately owned, cooperatives, or under public ownership, operate in ways that promote the needs of the people”.  The objection, if that was what it was, was overruled, and the amended Constitution was overwhelmingly carried on a hand vote.

The other report is from the leader of the breakaway from the SWP:http://www.newleftproject.org/index.php/site/article_comments/left_unity_a_report_from_the_founding_conferenceHe makes this point:

Quote:

This is the problem that Left Unity faces.  The UK has no significant communist or far left parties equivalent to those in Greece, France or Portugal.  It is therefore impossible to do what Left Unity wants to do unless there is a realignment in which a sizeable chunk of the Labour Party, including MPs and councillors, splits.

How likely is that? It looks as if the new party may be reduced to acting as an external faction of the Labour Party just as UKIP is of the Tory Party. After all, Ken Loach did appeal for  a leftwing equivalent of UKIP to be formed. 

[admice]

My suspicion when I first scanned this post was it was an attempt by your Labour Party (the people in power behind it actually) to co-opt and diverting people's anger at being sold out and desire for real democracy and representation by giving them a false substitute. My suspicion was based on nothing other than it would be a stragegic move and done before. I still think that's what that party is about.What do you all think?

[ALB]

I think this applies more to the People's Assembly than to Left Unity. But I'd still expect LU members and maybe LU officially to say "Vote Labour" when there's no LU or other left-of-Labour candidate.  That will satisfy the Labour politicians as all they want is votes (however obtained and whatever the reason).Voting Labour is what most of them will have been doing up to now, thoughsome will have been voting for the Green Party.

[ALB]

There's a revealing explanation here as to how, contrary to the intention of those who presented LU's draft constitution, it came to be amended to allow permanent factions that are allowed to publicly campaign against the party's aims and policy. Scroll down to point 2 of Jara Handala's 2 December contribution:

Quote:

The draft (section 7b) allowed members to get together without the prior permission of anyone else, & it called them caucuses (Conference re-named them tendencies when the Lambeth amendment was passed). But the members weren’t to be totally free in how they chose to associate: the draft asked Conference to ban permanent factions; to restrict caucuses to promoting “certain specific concepts, ideas or policies”, thereby excluding contestation of LU’s aims; & forbad caucuses from publicly campaigning against LU policies or aims. http://leftunity.org/29248/  (draft Constitution, with proposed amendments)All these restrictions were rejected by Conference –  the Sheffield & Cardiff amendments. (The Commission, prior to Conference, had accepted the Hackney amendment to allow public campaigning against LU policy –  but not against aims.)Interestingly no amendment challenged the need for caucus meetings to be open to all LU members, something that Cardiff didn’t mention. However one speaker at Conference, Jack Conrad, did. He said “we” will have private meetings –  whatever the Constitution says. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Sa2xPJsh1HU  (vid #027, 7:15)He was ambiguous as to whether he meant either CPGB members of LU or the Communist Platform which they helped initiate but is also signed by non-members of CPGB. In either case a gauntlet.

No doubt the Sheffield and Cardiff branches are stuffed full of the various infiltrating Trotskyist groups.It looks like the revenge of the daleks. They now have a free hand to behave as they wish. It is clear that LU will be their second priority and that they will simply be using it as just another place to propagate their ideas and recruit new members. As usual.If I was a LU member I know who I'd expel first and which group to proscribe first: Jack Conrad and the "CPGB". His brazen declaration that he won't accept the constitution's requirement that faction meetings have to be open to all LU members can be found 6minutes 50 seconds into the video clip Handala links to.

[jondwhite]

A critical report on the founding conferencehttp://azvsas.blogspot.co.uk/2013/12/left-unity-conference.html

[ALB]

ALB wrote:

If I was a LU member I know who I'd expel first and which group to proscribe first: Jack Conrad and the "CPGB". His brazen declaration that he won't accept the constitution's requirement that faction meetings have to be open to all LU members can be found 6minutes 50 seconds into the video clip Handala links to.

It appears that they are going to appear to conform to the ban on factional meetings not open to all LU members, according to a recent circular:

Quote:

Comrades will be aware that we judged the founding conference of Left Unity as a partial success in that some anti-democratic proposals were pushed back and as a consequence – we wrote with tongue in cheek – LU was now a “safe space for left ideas”. (See our critique of the ludicrous ‘safe spaces’ proposals of a group of LU comrades from last September). The LU policy conference is happening this spring and the CPGB is looking to step up its work with other comrades in the Communist Platform to make an impact on the debates.We plan to organise the first meeting of the platform either in late January or early February (see above for Xmas disruption moans …). We are proposing to comrades that this meeting:1. Is advertised openly – including on the LU site – but it is made clear that participation is on the basis of acceptance of the text of the initial Communist Platform that went to the founding conference. We don’t want to be diverted on the day by silly arguments with people who have turned up precisely because they don’t agree with our general approach. (This may actually run counter to some of the policy agreed at the founding conference – so be it, frankly).2. Takes amendments to the existing platform – or comprehensive alternatives – from platform comrades.3. Elects a five person provisional steering committee at the meeting – comrades should be able to suggest people before or on the day, we think.

Advertising their faction meeting must be a new experience for them which their infiltrators into the Labour Party, SWP, SPEW, etc don't have to go through.

[ALB]

To give him his due, Jack Conrad (or whatever he's called) did say at the founding conference of LU that the ultimate aim should be

Quote:

a moneyless, classless, stateless society.

This of course is the precise description, word for word, of socialism we came up with years ago and have popularised. Who says we have had no impact?.

[alanjjohnstone]

ALB wrote:

To give him his due, Jack Conrad (or whatever he's called) did say at the founding conference of LU that the ultimate aim should be

Quote:

a moneyless, classless, stateless society.

This of course is the precise description, word for word, of socialism we came up with years ago and have popularised. Who says we have had no impact?.

But not to forget, it is our immediate aim. 

[ALB]

Of course, but it's still getting the idea into circulation.

[Author]

Posts