Left Unity.org / People’s Assembly
- This topic has 583 replies, 34 voices, and was last updated 8 years ago by
.
-
Posts
-
Your commitment to the party is touching mcolome, I hope you won't be driven to such extreme measures! For your information, however, I did not leave the SPGB to join a pro-capitalist party, but a socialist one. You can see that we are a socialist party standing for socialist measures by reading our founding policy statements:http://leftunity.org/founding-conference-decisions-1/http://leftunity.org/a-raft-of-solid-left-wing-policy-conference-report/I realise that this won't impress you as being nearly socialist enough, but you can hardly fly in the face of history and logic and say that it's not firmly in the tradition that most everyone on the planet calls "socialist".
stuartw2112 wrote:Your commitment to the party is touching mcolome, I hope you won't be driven to such extreme measures! For your information, however, I did not leave the SPGB to join a pro-capitalist party, but a socialist one. You can see that we are a socialist party standing for socialist measures by reading our founding policy statements:http://leftunity.org/founding-conference-decisions-1/http://leftunity.org/a-raft-of-solid-left-wing-policy-conference-report/I realise that this won't impress you as being nearly socialist enough, but you can hardly fly in the face of history and logic and say that it's not firmly in the tradition that most everyone on the planet calls "socialist".The same principles to the ones that I belonged in the past. I was a member of all the tendencies, I did not miss one. They are different birds from the same nest. You are not showing me anything new
stuartw2112 wrote: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.Our "notion of doing something now" is to help establish socialism as quickly as possible, not to prolong capitalism as LU is, perhaps unwittingly, intent on doing. Ffs, didn't you learn anything during your two stints in the SPGB?
stuartw2112 wrote:Your commitment to the party is touching mcolome, I hope you won't be driven to such extreme measures! For your information, however, I did not leave the SPGB to join a pro-capitalist party, but a socialist one. You can see that we are a socialist party standing for socialist measures by reading our founding policy statements:http://leftunity.org/founding-conference-decisions-1/http://leftunity.org/a-raft-of-solid-left-wing-policy-conference-report/I realise that this won't impress you as being nearly socialist enough, but you can hardly fly in the face of history and logic and say that it's not firmly in the tradition that most everyone on the planet calls "socialist".So, the WSM is not a socialist revolutionary organization ? You left an anti-socialist one, to join a real one, it means that the concept of socialism was established a few months ago, and the real meaning is reformism, and the 104 years of the Socialist Party trying to educate the working class, do not have any value at allIt is the opposite way of what you have said, most peoples in the planet called socialist those type of organizations, and their understanding of socialism/communism is the legacy left by the leftwingers and the bolsheviks, the WSM is a new type for them, even more, the so called socialists/communists have created more anti-communist workers than the capitalist themselves. The capitalist do not have to spend any money in advertising, the leftwingers have done that job for them
stuartw2112 wrote: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.Hi Stuart, Bear in mind that I'm rather cut off from political developments in the UK, living in sunny Spain, so it is quite possible that I may not be completely au fait with the finer nuances of what Left Unity stands for. However, if what you are saying above is that the LU does indeed stand for a moneyless wageless stateless alternative to capitalism then I would be interested in any link you can provide that can substantiate that claim. It would certainly prompt me to reconsider. My initial impression of LU was that it was just another well-meaning but woolly minded left reformist political outfit. That was why I could not see any point in setting up LU; you might just as well join, say, the Greens which after all is much bigger and better organised. So in what sense is the LU fundamentally different from the Greens? I ask this not as a rhetorical question but out of genuine curiosity To be honest, Stuart, what links you have provided thus far don't give me much reason to change my initial opinion of LU. The first statement passed at LU's founding conference which you provided a link for, states:We are socialist because our aim is to end capitalism. We will pursue a society where the meeting of human needs is paramount, not one which is driven by the quest for private profit and the enrichment of a few. The natural wealth, and the means of production, distribution and exchange will be owned in common and democratically run by and for the people as a whole, rather than being owned and controlled by a small minority to enrich themselves. The reversal of the gains made in this direction after 1945 has been catastrophic and underlines the urgency of halting and reversing the neo-liberal onslaught. This stands out like a sore thumb for being absolutely muddleheaded and confused. I am frankly surprised that you did not seem to have picked up on this. This is clearly not a statement of intent to "end capitalism"or, if it is, it shows no sign of understanding what is meant by "capitalism". At best, it expresses a desire to end the privatised version of capitalism but not state capitalism (LU does not even want to get rid of the state and only seeks its "full democratisation" – as if) . The problems faced by the working class in recent years are attributed to the "neo liberal onslaught". Nothing to do with the fact that the preceding era of Keynesian regulated capitalism proved a dismal failure , then? Or that that failure is what directly paved the way to neo-liberalism as a structural necessity for managing a crisis prone late 20th century capitalismThe statement also talks of the means of prpduction distribution and exchange being owned in common which as you know – or should know given your acquaintance with the SPGB – is hopelessly contradictory since the very existence of production for exchange is incompatible with common ownership. Thats basic Marxism or the ABC of Marxism. What LU seems to be advocating is no more than the old nonsensical Clause Four of the Labour Party. Old Labour instead of Nu labour.Am I wrong to be thoroughly sceptical as a revolutionary socialist? You tell meCheersRobin
Stuart, i did not read that Gnome disavowed union action to protect and improve wages and just as important working conditions. Or that the disabled or homeless or any other particular section of the working class should not organise to improve their situation. Nor did i read into his comment that people in communities should not get together and do something now for ameliorating particular problems with their environment. He as you know full well was critical of reformISM as a political solution, not to reforms to protect living standards and perhaps improve the quality of life for the disadvantagd in the world. Many individuals within the SPGB participate in such groups as tenant associations and PTAs. My earlier point was that at this moment in time the SPGB is not a mass socialist party and that we realistically and honestly know and accept our limitations. I often refer to a different situation such as the Socialist Party of Canada and their relationship with the One Big Union as something that may well be part of our own future strategy but i am fully aware that it may well not be because UK these days is not Canada in the early 20th C and the unions are not the same. My point is simply our connection and our interaction with the broader working class movement changes and adapts when we ourselve grow into a bigger organisation and our influence spreads and socialist aspirations go beyond "something nice to think about " to "something we can get now".Despite your belief that the LU is doing something now, which all evidence says manifestly it isn't , they join the ranks such as ourselves who will find frustration at our lack of progress in persuading workers to even vote for us much less join and take part in activities. There may be some truth in what you say about LU bringing a bit more public awareness of the possibility revolutionary change (and Adam keeps reminding us of this in regards to Occupy and Brand) but i have seen much more media coverage concentrating on the SSP and the much bigger fears of local Labour Party mandarins of its possible effect on their vote. But these are simply not enough. The SSP probably had a more "radical" and appealing agenda than the LU but their vote was just a percentage or few above our own miserable showing. As i said, the problem is within the consciousness – or more accurately the absence of such – of the working class. They remain chained to the idea of beneficial reforms and support the party which can realistically deliver them. By supporting a plethora of reforms , you simply reinforce the working class shackles. LU simply offers a different menu that they believe will be more appetising to the taste of the working class but the workers look at the Dish of the Day and the price it has to pay.You have added just one more extra task to your efforts as a socialist…to convince your co-members in LU of actually what it is and forget that the focus of the debate should be on how to achieve it – (such are the differences of myself and Gnome in arguing against eachother on approach, perhaps ) But more happily, i don't require to propagandise for socialsm inside the SPGB and can devote my energies to concentrate on using what knowledge and experience i may possess to try and persuade workers outside of the SPGB of the necessity of dumping the whole edifice of capitalism, and not just bits of it. As you now know, instead you are side-tracked into justifying just one aspect of a reform programme within your own group. And if you publically promote it contrary to its now official policy, you expose the much proclaimed Unity as a mere chimera. The more such disputes arise, the more disunity and eventually disintegration. Come home, Stuart….struggle for socialism not half-measures of snake-oil medicines
I forgot to add, Stuart, regards LU reformism and offering a platform of the reforms, and our case to break free from conventional political partyism and parliamentarianism , you'll find we were all in agreement with Occupy's reluctance to provide one and critical of those who later came along to impose their pet programme upon it. Along with its no leaders principle, this absence of a call for reforms and the drawing in of all the single issue groups under one banner , was one of the aspects that we all admired and saw as a step forward. These foundations were something we could have (and should have) built upon. I sadly see no grounds to support any collaboration or cooperation with LU.
stuartw2112 wrote:the Labour party is watching us nervously.Why should they be? They are only concerned with vote-catching not ideas, so as long as LU doesn't contest elections they have nothing to be worried about. And the chances are that when and if LU does put up candidates this will be in safe Labour seats for fear of being accused of splitting the vote and letting the Tories in (and in fact from a genuine belief that Labour is better than the Tories). So nothing for them to fear there either. Most LU members will probably be in favour of voting Labour where there is no LU candidate, won't they? Moving more in LU circles you'd know better than me.
Adam: Of course the intention is exactly to stand candidates and split the Labour vote (or rather present a left alternative where there isn't one) when or if we are powerful enough to do so. In the meantime, we (and others) have already started a bonfire on their left, which makes them look nervously in that direction. I'm sure you're right that they're not all that worried yet, but they would be complacent if they weren't at least aware. And, as I said, I have experience locally that this is true. They want to know what we're up to, and what they do and say is influenced by what we're up to. Our local Labour candidate nicked all our bedroom tax campaigning material, for example, and pretended she gives a shit and come up with it herself.Robin/Alan: Yes of course LU is a left reformist party. I am a reformist and proud of it. I think it is morally shameful not to be a reformist, especially in the current climate, but probably in all conceivable ones. My view is that if socialism is ever to be a real possibility, it will be on the basis of developments in this direction – perhaps partly on the basis of the activity of groups like LU, perhaps partly on the basis of electing a more left Labour government, almost certainly involving all kinds of other things (Occupy, pop-up unions, Russell Brand's "spiritual revolution" and related things being the most interesting developments in my view). My view is Chomsky's: we just do whatever we can, and mostly, and certainly for the foreseeable future, that is going to look more like reform than revolution.All socialists are standing on the same terrain, and the "revolutionary" groups are like the guy with the map. The map's all very well, it may be useful, but still we do actually have to find a way forward, and actually do the walk. Except it's not really like that at all because there is no map, and there is no certainty that the destination even exists. In this context, the guy with the map is really more like a mad religious preacher. Stop and listen by all means – there's bound to be at least some sense and vision and inspiration in what they say. But when the spittle has stopped flying, the journey remains. The ones with the clear vision and the answers are unlikely to prove more helpful in the journey than the muddle-headed, wooly minded folk cutting a path through the forest.PS Why not join the Greens? Well, for something like these reasons I guess:http://williammorrisunbound.blogspot.co.uk/2012/11/caroline-lucas-in-coach-house.html
As a thought experiment, to take your word, and assume Left Unity is standing for the same things as the SPGB, except Left Unity are more focused on unity than the SPGB, then why aren't Left Unity backing SPGB candidates standing in the forthcoming elections? Or do Left Unity require agreement with their own Left Unity project in order to be supported? In which case, how is this different, or any more focused on unity, from any party? Except for the fact that it may claim to be composed of more members? So is the formulation, more 'unity' can be defined as 'more members' subscribing? In a leadership organisation, I know who benefits from more subscriptions.
OK, that's the polemical stuff, I guess we'll never convince each other either way, but here's a genuine question I would really like to hear the answer to.Robin, following standard SPGB logic, pours scorn on the idea that you can democratise the state, and says that common ownership of the means of exchange is a contradiction in terms and can only be proposed by muddle-headed wallies. But this is not a Marxist position, nor is it really the SPGB's as far as I can make out. The classical Marxist position is that the communist party, or the working class organised politically, should first of all settle matters with its own national bourgeoisie, by seizing state power and establishing a "dictatorship of the proletariat", ie, rule by the majority class, democratically organised. Marx and Engels, at least, were clear that a necessary step in this process would be the immediate nationalisation and centralisation of the means of credit, the banks, and the establishment of currency and capital controls. In other words, the SPGB position must logically be, even if it won't admit it, the democratisation of the state and the nationalisation of the banks – and that this would constited a first step in establishing "common ownership of the means of exchange".I say all this partly because I'm interested in the answer, but also to back up what I've said before about nothing of substance being behind all the thousands of words of polemic exchanged on these subjects. Look at the words of what we in LU stand for, and the words of what the SPGB stands for, and no doubt pedants could argue all night over who had got the dogma right. But in reality, in practice, aren't we all aiming for more or less the same thing (admitting that, really, none of us has the slightest idea how it will all pan out, if it ever does pan out?). In modern terms, doesn't a "reformist" party saying it would nationalise the Bank of England, and a "revolutionary" party sticking to its Marxist guns, be saying more or less the same thing?
Hi Jon,I'm not quite sure what you're getting at. Left Unity is now an independent political party, based on individual membership, and one member, one vote. It is not an umbrella group or unity project aiming to bring together other left parties, like TUSC is, say. LU has just elected a "national council", which some people refer to as our "leadership", but it has no decision-making powers beyond what we have delegated it at Conference (it doesn't make policy, for example).LU has, at the moment, no policy on standing in elections beyond the one I've already stated: that we're in favour in principle, that we don't plan to do it till we have a reasonable chance of staging a good campaign. My impression, from talking to members, is that we would not stand candidates where other left candidates were standing (left Labour MPs, for example, TUSC candidates, and perhaps left Greens and SPGB too, though I've not heard that discussed). That said, my guess about what will be the majority opinion has been proved wrong at Conference (which is a good thing – genuine democratic deliberation and decisions are made, it's not just some farcical stitch-up). Hope that answers your questions.CheersStuart
My mistake: I've just checked and at our last conference we did indeed decide as a matter of policy to "avoid electoral clashes" with other left candidats. My assumption would be that "other left candidates" would include SPGB candidates, even if that generosity of spirit has no chance of being reciprocated.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.