Left Unity.org / People’s Assembly
- This topic has 583 replies, 34 voices, and was last updated 8 years ago by
.
-
Posts
-
stuartw2112 wrote:I think it would be safe to say that Left Unity would not stand a candidate where any other left candidate was standing. Which is more than can be said for the SPGB, sadly! (Not that it matters much at the moment.)
Hardly a valid observation considering that the SPGB doesn't stand "left" candidates; only socialist ones. And 14 will be doing just that in the Euroelections next month with 4 more in the local borough elections.http://www.worldsocialism.org/spgb/forum/world-socialist-movement/euroelections-2014-south-east-regionhttp://spgb.blogspot.co.uk/
Reminder: Rule 6. Do not make repeated postings of the same or similar messages to the same thread, or to multiple threads or forums (‘cross-posting’). Do not make multiple postings within a thread that could be consolidated into a single post (‘serial posting’). Do not post an excessive number of threads, posts, or private messages within a limited period of time (‘flooding’).
alanjjohnstone wrote:I had more understanding and sympathy of your support for Occupy, even if we differed on whether it should be uncritical or critical support because of this aspect of creating a much needed urgency and when LU began it seemed as if many in Occupy had learned the lesson of the necessity of political organisation but the crossing over has been disappointing overall, despite some positives. LU is not a new model political party but simply a revamped and rebranded old one. Same as the SSP turned out to be.I would agree with that. There is a distinction to be made between a social movement and a political party. With the establishment of LU as an actual political party with an openly reformist platfrom, the rubicon has been crossed. There is no prospect now whatsoever that LU could ever apply itself to pursuing the revolutionary overthrow of existing captalist society. The dynamics of a reformist strategy it has adopted will inevitably ensure that socialism as an objective, even if it something that is genuinely paid lip service to, will play second fiddle to the more immediate imperative of pressing for reforms. Socialism as a goal will disappear in time like the Cheshire Cats grin – as if the whole tragic history of Social Democracy in the 20th century is not evidence enough of the truth of that claim. In fact, I dont really see the rationale for the formation of LU at all. It occupies more or less the same basic ideological space as the Greens does it not? So why not simply join the Greens? On the other hand, we've had a taste of what green capitalism would be like in the case of Brighton and, plainly, it sucks. At least one thing can be said of the SPGB – that it is constitutionally prevented from crossing the rubicon and sliding into the mire of unending reform. As the expression goes, you can't both mend the system and end the system – it has to be one or the other. That is the bottom line. The problem with the SPGB is of quite a different order and Alan provides a faint hint of what this might be. If and when that is addressed, better times beckon but, in the meanwhile, the renunciation of reformism is the only way to go as far as revolutionary socialists are concerned. That is what LU has not done and that is what fately condemns it to fill, at best, a marginal niche in the spectrum of capitalist reform competing against other larger and better known entities occupying that same niche . That is, of course, if the inevitable disappointment and disillusionment does not drive it towards extinction once the novelty has worn off..
I know that for some people reformism is a term of abuse. But it is not so. All our great successes have been the product of reform. The revolutionary socialist groups confuse real reform with revolution. Their talk of revolution implies, and nobody believes it, that there is a short cut to the transfer of power in this country. What the socialist groups really do is to analyse, to support struggle, to criticise the Labour Party, to expand consciousness, to preach a better morality. These are all very desirable things to do. But they have very little to do with revolution. The socialist groups have to come to see that they too are part of the problem, and that the limits of their own practices, just like those of the left generally, could also be measured in the simple fact that we do not have a majority of support outside for any of our solutions.Argument nicked, with adjustments, from here:http://www.redpepper.org.uk/tony-benn-labours-lost-leader/
Or to make my own argument, Robin's words have nothing of substance behind them. What LU is doing and what the SPGB is doing are basically and to all intents and purposes indistinguishable. We're trying to get the working class interested in its own interests and in socialism. And largely failing.
stuartw2112 wrote:What LU is doing and what the SPGB is doing are basically and to all intents and purposes indistinguishable.If that was truly the case, Stuart, you wouldn't have left the SPGB since there'd be no point if what it does is indistinguishable from LU. But we all know that isn't the case. LU mistakenly thinks, in common with most other lefists, that by advocating a reform programme workers will somehow turn to socialism.
Quote:We're trying to get the working class interested in its own interests and in socialism.Aren't the two objectives synonymous?
Good point Gnome. You're right that I don't think they are really exactly the same, just more or less the same. I think LU's work is less harmful than the SPGB's since it doesn't propagate the idea that doing something now is somehow not worth the hassle.
stuartw2112 wrote:I think LU's work is less harmful than the SPGB's since it doesn't propagate the idea that doing something now is somehow not worth the hassle.Where has the SPGB ever said that class struggle was not worth the hassle? On the contrary, we invariably urge resistance to the government and employers. Stop the caricatures, its not worthy. What we have done (candidly admitting our own present weakness) has been to leave it up to those who can actually do something such as trade unions and offer them our support, (granted, for all that is worth) and with all honesty, adding that it will not be suffice to solve workers problems so don't get too carried away and never stop doing something. LU on the other hand simply post what adds up to a tokenistic wish list of demands, some shared, some not shared by others, on a website that has not got the remotest chance of being implemented through any political efforts of LU since they like ourselves are very unlikely to be elected when they eventually decide they will put up a candidate and like us have no deep connection with the labour movement and can only offer similar moral support as ourselves. We share the same impotence. Stuart, if you really want to do something now, either work though existing organisations such as the unions or the Green Party, both in better position to more effectively campaign and lobby for those demands you think necessary on the short term to defend or advance workers' interests.
I’ll even add, engage with the voluntary sector such as Oxfam if you really want to do something now.
It's true that LU candidates are highly unlikely to get elected any time soon, but not true that it is quite impotent. LU has already edged itself into the national conversation, and the Labour party is watching us nervously. (That's not entirely wishful thinking, I've had plenty of personal experience of it locally, despite our present weakness.) The idea that it's better to work in the presently existing organisations I do have a great deal of sympathy for – before I joined LU, I was considering joining the Labour party. But the LU thing seemed open and interesting enough to be worth a shot. It still is, to my mind.As for the caricature, I'm happy to stop it. But you should all stop it too in your own propaganda and articles (a complaint I made while a loyal member).Cheers
stuartw2112 wrote:I think LU's work is less harmful than the SPGB's since it doesn't propagate the idea that doing something now is somehow not worth the hassle.Less harmful to what? Attempting to channel workers' energies into supporting unrealisable reforms of capitalism is indubitably less harmful to capitalist interests than revolution. If "doing something now" means prolonging this rotten system then that is not only "not worth the hassle" but is positively against working class interests.
It's interesting, Gnome, that you can still make that argument in the present era. Most Marxists would rather argue, following the logic of Marx in Capital, that the defeat of the working class struggle for reform has rather led to and exacerbated our present crisis situation, with its historically unprecedented levels of inequality, attacks on real wages and the social wage, attacks on access to public services, and so on. I'm interested: how do you judge whether any particular reform is "realisable" or not?
PS Note to Alan: some of your comrades, at least, really are hostile to the notion of doing something now. See Gnome's comment. I hope you'll take him to task and urge him to donate to Oxfam and vote for the Greens.
All the left wingers and Leninists political parties are just the same dog wearing different collars.There is a great distinction between the WSM/SPGB and all the others left wingers organizations. None, but none will conduct the working class toward socialism,They are not a threat to capitalism, on the contrary, the capitalist class would be happy and grateful with their existence in the whole world, their history has shown that they have contributed to the continuation of the capitalist system To leave the Socialist Party in order to join a pro-capitalist political party is a step backward, I would prefer to kill myself. Where can we find anything better than the Socialist Party ? Probably, in another planet
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.