Left Unity.org / People’s Assembly
- This topic has 583 replies, 34 voices, and was last updated 8 years ago by
.
-
Posts
-
alanjjohnstone wrote:http://members5.boardhost.com/medialens/msg/1393844293.htmlIt condemns both nationalisms and any intervention by either sideWasn't sure whether to place this here or on the Ukraine thread but chose this one for the reason that they issued a press statement, have designated spokes-persons for interviews. i don't know whether the EC could have issued a statement on Ukraine on the Ist. We did have a speedy article to compensate if they didn't. But we do suffer from the lack of publicity for it. Although the new kid on the block, LU seem to have media savvy on their side.Sad to see one of the comments to it is that the Left wiing should get behind Russia, but another did say plague on both houses
The same old political language of the leftwingers, nothing new. The so called national determination of the nations is drafted within this article.They already have 1400 members withing a few months, it does show that workers still like to be followers of reformism, and capitalist reforms
LATEST NEWS: Left Unity to contest one seat in local elections this May:
Quote:During general discussions about the 2014 Council elections, a number of points were made, including: • Left unity is standing in Birmingham Ladywood • As this is the first time out for Left Unity, election campaigns will need careful c0-ordination to avoid low votes • There have already been discussions at local level between TUSC and LU to avoid clashes and co-ordinate campaigns In answer to a question raised by Toby Abse, Bianca Todd said she hoped Left Unity would be a registered party with the Electoral commission in time for the Council elections.They are still afraid of contesting elections because they know that they will get a low vote (not much more than us).From the rest of the same report, it is clear that they are shambles going nowhere. Admittedly they are trying to organise on a non-Leninist basis whichis something to their credit.
Ken Loach promoting Left Unity and their conference tomorrow. Shame we didn't organise a lit stall and leaflets for it. Here's hoping Manchester branch have organised something. http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/mar/27/ken-loach-labour-failed-left-new-party
Apparently the Left Unity party at it policy conference in Manchester this weekend again put off testing its real level of support by contesting elections. At least this is how I interpret this passage from an article by Salman Shaheen, its Principal Speaker:
Quote:Now that Left Unity has agreed a core set of policies, the hard work of campaigning can begin. The party has had an encouraging start for an organisation that emerged from nowhere to be built from the bottom-up by independent activists fed up with the political status quo. But for Left Unity to succeed, it will now have to turn outwards. It will need to campaign on the streets, in the workplaces and in the unions. It will have to support – not hijack – local campaigns across the country to save hospitals and libraries, to shut down fracking sites, to oppose the bedroom tax and to stop the racist EDL. Only when Left Unity has done all of these things, when it has actively tried to make a difference to the lives of poor, vulnerable and oppressed people, will it have the right to ask for their vote.Ukip may be making the headlines as we approach the European elections next month, threatening to steal thousands of votes from the Conservatives and forcing them to watch their right flank. But Labour will have to watch its left flank in the months and years to come. Because Left Unity is on the move.Labour won't be worried as long as they don't contest elections. And if they don't contest elections all they'll be is a loose coalition of existing single issue campaigns and various entryist Trot groups, not much different from the trade union and left Labour supported "People's Assemblies". Or maybe they think they can do all these things in time for the general election in May 2015. We'll see.This interview with Salman Shaheen on BBC is also very revealing with Andrew Neil raising all the relevant points:http://leftunity.org/video-salman-shaheen-on-bbc-daily-politics/
Weekly Worker has a report on the LU conference and one thing it cannot help but remark upon is the emergence of a "right" and "left" so now it can hardly be called Left Unity, but another Left Mish-mash.All this sectionalist/intersectionalist debate left me puzzled, obviously a debate that has passed me by.http://www.cpgb.org.uk/home/weekly-worker/1004/left-unity-moderate-party-takes-shapeIn the recent Guardian Q and A by Ken Loach, i was struck by the lack of answers from him. He appeared only to reply to questions that already contained the answers which he agreed with. Perhaps it was my mistaken perception but i don't think so. Like ALB i am no longer surprised that LU are reluctant to put their programme to the test in an election. The claimed 1500…or at least those not already aligned in other political organisations…what would that be ..1000?…would indeed have been better joining en masse the Green Party, as occasionally conceded in the sense that their next best choice was voting Green in certain parts of the country.
As an aside, WW has had two good articles on political freedom last week and this week on the banning of the SWP in a number of universities , with this week's article extended to include a discussion on the rights of the Right-wing to free association. Its particularly relevant to the recent criticism we face with debating UKIP from those on REVLEFT.I wonder where LU stands?
alanjjohnstone wrote:Weekly Worker has a report on the LU conferencehttp://www.cpgb.org.uk/home/weekly-worker/1004/left-unity-moderate-party-takes-shapeHere's a couple of other reports to balance it:http://leftunity.org/a-raft-of-solid-left-wing-policy-conference-report/http://www.independentsocialistnetwork.org/2014/04/left-unity-policy-conference-a-further-small-step-forward-but-pete-mclaren-reports/I think we have to concede that they are at least trying to proceed on the basis of democratic decision-making, but of course, the members being reformists, the result will be (and was) a democratically-decided reformist strategy and demands with disagreements only over which reforms of capitalism to pursue.It is interesting that a majority did not support a "yes" vote for Scottish separation nor a "no" vote for withdrawal from the EU (even if this means in practice giving their members a free hand to vote either way). This at least puts them ahead of the likes of the SWP and Tariq Ali on Scotland and of Bob Crow, the CPB and Arthur Scargill on Europe.I see ex-comrade SW's motion for a basic citizens income fell, a bit surprising as I would have thought that was the sort of reform they would go for as the Green Party has done.It is still not clear whether or not they will ever contest an election or under what name. This from the leftunity.org document:
Quote:Left Unity is not standing in this year’s European elections, as it is generally considered too early in the party’s life to do so. A motion saying the party should not support any other candidates fell, though it was pointed out that there are currently no plans to do so apart from supporting the anti-fascist campaign in north west England.Electoral strategyA motion from West London set out Left Unity’s electoral strategy, saying that “Electoral support for a new left party will only advance to the extent that it is genuinely representative of working class communities, has no interests separate from theirs, and is an organic part of the campaigns and movements which they generate and support.” It calls for only fielding candidates where the political support and resources exist for a real campaign.Rugby’s motion saying we should move towards bringing in smaller left groups into ‘One Party of the Left’ narrowly fell. Pete McLaren, moving the motion, said, “The clue is in our name… we are about uniting the left.” However Joseph Kisolo from Manchester, speaking against, said we “shouldn’t be looking to unite the already existing left”, which is too white and male. Bianca Todd added that we should look to “the wider movement” while still working alongside other groups. An amendment from Rugby saying Left Unity candidates should be able to stand in elections under other electoral names also fell, but a further motion calling for the party to “avoid electoral clashes” with other left candidates passed.And this from the ISN (who, incidentally, have adopted the old "Socialist Platform" as theirs but who are still affiliated to TUSC):
Quote:There were two more motions on electoral strategy. Bristol moved Motion 26 calling for LU to campaign with prospective Green and Labour candidates on a number of issues including a ban on bank bonuses and above-national average pay hikes, a statutory right to work and a 7 hour working day. There was little debate and the motion was defeated. Pete McLaren moved Motion 27 on electoral clash avoidance and moves towards electoral pacts, with the initial aim of creating the largest ever challenge in the 2015 General Election. One speech was taken against, which John Penny used to suggest LU should go forward on its own, and that what was being suggested would lead to endless internal debate. Nick Wrack, speaking in favour, disagreed with that conclusion and argued that the working class wanted unity in campaigns, industrial disputes and elections. Motion 27 on clash avoidance was agreed overwhelmingly.Good to get links to other reports. I was hoping to get them . As they say, beauty is in the eye of the beholder. Two local election candidates in Barnet but the comment from Nick Wrack echoes what you say"Are they standing as Left Unity?" StuartW may well indeed be disappointed not by the defeat but by its association with Social Credit and right wingers and the implication that he as a proponent of Citizen;s Income "doesn't understand how capitalism works" !! as John Penney explained in his comment on LU website. Can't say i disagree too much with it except of course that a "socialist" welfare state is the alternative! "Comrades, come on now ; the Citizen’s Income/UBI project has been debated for many, many months by LU supporters and others online . There was a discussion/debate on the subject ALL morning at the special Economy Policy workshop in London on 2nd March – to which all LU members were invited to attend. Only 18 turned up to do so !Those of us on the Economy Commission who have indeed investigated the Citizen’s income/UBI concept in considerable depth, including its roots in the very politically dodgy, eccentric ,”Social Credit” Movement of the 1930′s, and its more current solid base amongst the most right wing neoliberal “abolish the provision of any state provision of welfare services – just give every citizen a small equal cash handout instead – regardless of either their personal wealth or personal needs” libertarian free marketers.We stand by what we said at Conference – Citizen’s Income, in its “leftish version” is an ideological con – a diversion from the struggle to create an all embracing Welfare State on a socialist basis. It would not protect disabled people in particular – but indeed, beyond the small Citizen’s Income “survival ration” leave them totally bereft of support from a gutted welfare state. In an all embracing Welfare State, a Citizen’s Income, is simply unnecessary – as support would be provided on the basis of NEED – regardless of the personal income of the individual requiring support.It is quite understandable in the present circumstances of vicious attacks on the poorest and most vulnerable in society , particularly the “capability assessment” ATOS assaults of recent years, the Bedroom tax, etc, that those most under attack, particularly the disabled, are attracted to concepts like Citizen’s Income. Looked at in depth however it should quickly become clear why this concept is most popular on the libertarian capitalist Far Right as a means to destroy universal unlimited welfare provision. When carried over into Left politics it is simply a distracting red herring to our task of rebuilding and deepening our Welfare State , and fighting for the wide raft of radical transformative policies detailed in our now adopted LU Economic Strategy.The Citizen’s Income concept WAS debated, investigated in depth, considered by the Conference – and rejected outright. And quite rightly. We should leave it as a dodgy project to the Lib Dems, Greens, Blue Labour ,Tories, and the neoliberal Far Right. It is a fundamentally non-socialist concept – and one which simply wouldn’t WORK in pure economic terms either." StuartW replies "I’m glad (in a way) to hear that the debate over the basic income was inadequate. I guess that means that people can think again and get it passed at a future conference. Disappointed to hear that yet again debates are being swung by the silly and offensive old left tactic of declaring the opposition in cahoots with fascists and Tories, as with the shameful women’s quota debate last time round. This is not in accord with our declared intention of doing things differently. It’s actually true that some on the right support a basic income – but then there are equally plenty of Tories who would be in full support of “full employment”, as would Stalinists. I hear gulags were working at their full economic potential…" Ah, well…disillusionment sinking in;…fellow "comrades" being old left and Stalinist by inclination…
I think it is unfair to dismiss the Citizens Income idea because it is similar to Social Credit's "social dividend". That's as unfair as dismissing the Zeitgeist Movement as anti-semitic for (at one time) blaming economic woes on international bankers just as fascists do.The other argument (which I hadn't come across before) that, within capitalism, it is no substitute for the Welfare State is more reasonable. In effect, it's giving people a wad of notes and saying "survive", which is a reflection of US libertarianism but also of the anarchistic individualism released by May 1968.The best argument against it is one put by the LU speaker:
Quote:one which simply wouldn’t WORK in pure economic termsWhich is the argument we have developed in more detail in our articles on the subject. For instance this one and this one.This looks like being one difference between them and the Green Party.
An ex-comrade travels and his travails “The result is that we now have a new party of the left worthy of the name. We established it in an honourable and comradely and highly organised and well disciplined way, without all the usual lefty infighting and mudslinging and ranting and factionalising.” December 3, 2013 “Disappointed to hear that yet again debates are being swung by the silly and offensive old left tactic of declaring the opposition in cahoots with fascists and Tories” April 3, 2014 “I would warn anyone interested in the citizens income idea to ignore Mr Penney. He’s just a loudmouth spraying abuse and dogma.” April 5, 2014
Consistency and sticking to my guns was never my strong point. Last time I passed this way I swore never to say another word here ever again. But boredom with wage-slavery is a stronger force than a resolution made in anger.And just imagine how delighted I was when, driven here by sheer boredom, I find that I'm being quoted and talked about. What a boost to my flagging ego! Thank you very much comrades. The only thing worse than being talked about is not being talked about, as they say.I see logic is still not Alan's strong point however. My early (and continuing) enthusiasm for the Left Unity project is in no way contradicted by my intemperate and rude comments about certain members (I was not calling them Stalinist – simply pointing out that calling them Stalinist is every bit as ridiculous as labelling everything they disagree with "Tory"). Alan may remember that I combined enthusiasm and support for the SPGB with extremely rude comments about him….Ho hum, all water under the bridge. I was disappointed that the motion for citizen's income failed, but it was not "mine" as Adam claimed – it was moved by another member of my local branch. But since there is as Adam said a democratic structure, it may well pass yet. That's if the whole thing doesn't ossify into yet another boring old left party. Which it may yet do – a great opportunity for all the stopped clocks in the world to yet again declare what the time is.All the bestStuart
I had a long theoretical spiel drafted but what's the point, – a Jehovah Witness arguing with Mormon ? I will only quote two bits from it …..I myself made this comment “ i hoped that LU succeeds since we are in urgent need to resist the present capitalist offensive and engage more people in that resistance. I hope the trade unions can make their own contribution in this mobilisation. i hope against expectation…” I argued for more engagement with LU “Why i am keen that we actually attend and address LU directly is that they should have the full possible alternatives to choose from. The choice of political strategy should always be up to the working class, they make their own bed and must sleep in it, and suffer the consequences of wrong decisions but we cannot allot blame to them if they are not given the option of accepting or rejecting our case. Once again it will be our own lapse in not providing the necessary information and propaganda and engaging more fully in discussions and debates.” Of course, i was being partisan but that is not shameful when done openly and we don’t disdain to conceal our views and aims as someone once said. I shared your disappointment…simply earlier. But yes i was sceptical of its possibility of success, not because i possessed the powers of Nostradamus but because i recognised something that you failed to because you didn’t have the same personal experience or political encounters – LU’s similarity with the Scottish Socialist Party, which had a more significant impact than LU has had so far……….“the atmosphere in Left Unity is far less poisonous than it is in the SPGB. If everyone hates each other, they're remarkably good at hiding it.” [SW] …. Not capable of hiding it for very long, were we…..
Thanks for sparing me the spiel, but your points don't seem to address anything I've said. I'm a bit disappointed that a motion I supported didn't pass at Conference, but that's an experience common to anyone in any democratic organisation who has ever moved or supported a motion, surely? I've not changed my mind about anything over the past year or so. You say you're sceptical of the possibility of Left Unity's success… but who isn't? You quote my previous comment about the atmosphere in LU being less poisonous than that in the SPGB – but that's still true, the odd row notwithstanding. You say you've recognised something that I've failed to, but I'm still at a loss to understand what it is…Cheers
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.