Left Unity.org / People’s Assembly

[jondwhite]

Thanks for your reply, its the 'unity' aspect I'm interested in establishing.I feel the stale debate between your political party (whether Left Unity or the SPGB) and outsider political parties has been done.Marx said 'The Communists do not form a separate party opposed to the other working-class parties. They have no interests separate and apart from those of the proletariat 'William Morris' last public lecture was for unity.The question is how do we achieve it without going for substitutionism or size at any cost?

[stuartw2112]

I agree with you Jon, and with Marx and Morris. I don’t know of any answer to your question. We just keep trying.

[DJP]

jondwhite wrote:

Thanks for your reply, its the 'unity' aspect I'm interested in establishing.

But unity with whom and for what purpose?You don't even have to scratch below the surface to find that most of these 'left unity' people are not communists or socialists.Leftists are as much a part of the problem as those on the right.

[stuartw2112]

There's nothing to choose between the right and the left. I used to say things like that myself. But you do know, don't you, that it's terrible tripe? Go on an anti- fascist demo, then on an EDL one, and report back. Or ask someone who relies on disabled benefits whether they don't prefer the Tories over Blair.

[robbo203]

stuartw2112 wrote:

 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 think you are mixing up two quite separate things here, Stuart.  I certainly agree that Marx and Engels did call for the nationalisation of banks etc in the Communist Manifesto -even if they later poured cold water on the various state capitalist reforms (including that one) advocated in the Manifesto (see the later prefaces to the Manifesto). I certainly dont agree, however, that they would have equated this with socialism/communism, still less accept the nonsensical expression "common ownership oif the means of exchange".  The idea is ridiculous and I cannot for the life of me understand how you cannot see this.  An exchange economy  involves the existence of transactions between separate owners – obviously; an "exchange" amounts to a transfer of title in respect of the goods being exchanged.  That in turn presupposes that the means of producing them are not commonly owned – again, obviously.  In other words the absence of socialism/communism Contrary to what you claim, Marx was quite clear about this  (and so too is the SPGB as I recall). In the Critique of the Gotha Programme, he states quite firmly: Within the co-operative society based on common ownership of the means of production, the producers do not exchange their products What is the Marxist critique of commodity production, money. wage labour, exchange value etc etc if not a systematic assault on the whole notion of an exchange economy (of which these things are an organic expression) as a fundamental negation of common  ownership and the social nature of production.  Marx,  I suspect,  would have savagely ridiculed the argument put forward by Lenin (which you seem to have have some sympathy for). i.e.The big banks are the state apparatus which we need to bring about socialism, and which we take-ready made from capitalism; our task here is merely to lop off what capitalistically mutilates this excellent apparatus, to make it even bigger, even more democratic, even more comprehensive…A single State Bank the biggest of the big, with branches in every rural district, in every factory, will constitute as much as nine-tenths of the socialist apparatus. This will be country-wide book-keeping, country-wide accounting of the production and distribution of goods, this will be, so to speak, something in the nature of the skeleton of socialist society.” (Lenin, Collected Woirks, Vol.26) What you are doing is confusing the concept of the "dictatorship of the proletariat" with socialism/communism or, rather, reading into the latter something that pertains to the former. The DOTP is emphatically  not the negation of capitalist relations of production but rather  a particular expression of these (where the proletariat has – supposedly – captured political power).  Afterall the proletariat, at least in a generalised sense, is the primary class category (along with the capitalist class) pertaining to the sociogical make-up of capitalism.  As Charlie pointed out elsewhere , wage labour presupposes capital and vice versa – they "condition each other". I have serious reservations about the whole concept of the DOTP (and if that puts me at odds with Marxian thinking then fine!) but I dont think you can legitimately extrapolate from what Marx said about the DOTP to what would be the case in socialism/communism The same applies to your talk of "democratising the state".  My anarcho communist tendencies baulk at the very thought of it.  It seems absurd to suppose that the state  which as all Marxists understand is fundamentally a tool of  class oppression,  can be somehow made "democratic". The very existence of classes is a negation of democracy in its most fundamental  sense.  The point is not to hold on to the state but to get rid of it  ASAP along with class society that gives rise to the very need for the state.  Left Unity doesn't appear to me to be interested in getting rid of  either That said I agree that the institutionalisation of certain basic democratic rights are an essential preconditon for the growth of  a socialist movement and I have no quarrrel with the SPGB on the need to secure such rights.  But I dont think  we should be in the business of encouraging the illusion that the state can can be somehow "democratised" in any real substantive  sense . That is tantamount to suggesting that a class-based society can be run on democratic lines.  Frankly, it can't  

[ALB]

stuartw2112 wrote:

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.

I presume you are referring to the 10 measures, outlined at the end of Section II of the Communist Manifesto, that the Communist League of Germany proposed should be implemented if the working class won control of political power in 1848-9 or soon after.By coincidence we've just started a Communist Manifesto reading group on this forum where these 10 immediate measures and what they meant and were meant to mean will no doubt be discussed and dissected. Why not join the reading group? Might be better to begin at the beginning rather than leap straighaway into Capital as many do. Here's the link:http://www.worldsocialism.org/spgb/forum/reading-groups/marx-and-engels-manifesto-communist-party

[jpodcaster]

Enjoying the debate on here and good to see Robin on here contributing, have always enjoyed your posts Robin and usually agree with most things you say. But I couldn't help chuckling to myself after reading your defence of the SPGB – an organisation that poured nothing but vitriol on your attempts to argue for some degree of unity for the non-leninist revolutionary left back in the day. You might forget easily but I don't – looking back on that period I think the treatment of people in the World in Common network by the majority of SPGB'ers that gave a fuck (most probably didn't) was frankly disgraceful and reinforced to me why they will never be a vehicle for revolutionary transformation – they are the ultimate sectarians. Although I met many good people in and around the SPGB as an organisation they seem (and still seem to me) stuck in the 19th century. Define a set of ossified truths around a concept of a post-capitalist society then label everyone who doesn't share the one true path 'reformists' and 'leftists.' And as for the working-class the reason they are joining the likes of Left Unity and not the SPGB – lack of class consciousness. Easy isn't it?The reason I mention this is that I think there are some parallels with Left Unity and World in Common in so much as both organisations contain people who are/were prepared to admit that they didn't have all the answers and, importantly, were prepared to put sectarianism to one side and work alongside others with similar yet different politics. That to me is ultimately the only way we'll get rid of this dreadful system and bring about change that benefits us all and is why I think that, despite the problems that will inevitably occur in the messy politics of Left Unity, in the absence of any other group or organisation that connects with people who want genuine change, it is worthy of support.As an aside I was talking to a colleague in the office today – she is not what you'd call 'political' in the traditional sense of the word but she was slagging off all the main parties and Maria Miller in particular. They're all corrupt, she said. Except that I was really impressed with a bloke speaking on the TV the other day – his name was Salman something or other and he was part of a new party called Left Unity. I think I'll check them out.No doubt the veil of false consciousness will lift from her sooner or later

[jondwhite]

DJP wrote:

jondwhite wrote:

Thanks for your reply, its the 'unity' aspect I'm interested in establishing.

But unity with whom and for what purpose?You don't even have to scratch below the surface to find that most of these 'left unity' people are not communists or socialists.Leftists are as much a part of the problem as those on the right.

Unity with socialists for socialism. I don't agree with the unortho-Trot rhetorical emotive outbursts about 'unity' and its flipside 'sectarianism', I think Engels warning about those that cry loudest for unity is most appropriate there. Nor do I agree with the left theorists like Weekly Worker that lack of unity is the elephant in the room and the overweening obstacle for socialists achieving socialism.However the way socialists organise is political. Why wouldn't an organisation be subject to a social science study like the rest of society? Simply saying we're correct and outsiders are wrong doesn't seem scientific or useful. I think the term 'sectarian', despite its misuse, has useful meaning about what approach to avoid. I also think the SPGB case has always been that workers can achieve socialist consciousness without the party, but the party is organised to hasten such consciousness. Its one thing to say Left Unity are not socialists and the SPGB are, its another to believe socialist consciousness cannot be achieved without the SPGB.

[robbo203]

jpodcaster wrote:

Enjoying the debate on here and good to see Robin on here contributing, have always enjoyed your posts Robin and usually agree with most things you say. But I couldn't help chuckling to myself after reading your defence of the SPGB – an organisation that poured nothing but vitriol on your attempts to argue for some degree of unity for the non-leninist revolutionary left back in the day.

 Hi Jools Well, my post  was not so much about the SPGB as about Left Unity.  While I am in agreement with most of what the SPGB says I have my differences with the SPGB as well, as you know. But that would be for another thread, this thread is about Left Unity. Im open to persuasion, as I indicated to Stuart but, up to now, Im not convinced that one can usefully draw any  parallels between Left Unity and World in Common.. World in Common has a clearly articulated vision of a genuinely post-capitalist society.  Here is what we say in our description: We are a network of people committed to inspiring a vision of an alternative way of living where all the world's resources are owned in common and democratically controlled by communities on an ecologically sustainable and socially harmonious basis. We believe such a society will no longer require money, markets, or states, and can only be established democratically from the bottom up without the intervention of politicians or leaders. We call on anyone broadly sympathetic with our aims to join with us to help build a strong, inclusive, and principled, movement for radical change in a spirit of cooperation, friendship and solidarity. Does Left Unity  share that vision? I dont think it does – not on the evidence Ive encountered thus far. Im quite willing, as I say, to acknowlege I have erred in my judgement if it can be shown that I have erred.  The statement passed at Left Unity's founding conference declares that "We are socialist because our aim is to end capitalism." But that frankly is just not good enough. Leninists too declare that they are socialists who seek to end capitalism and World in Common is unequivocally hostile to Leninism and Leninist ideology as you hint.  No doubt, Left Unity and Left Unity members have admirable features that set them apart from the Leninists but does that necessarily make them any closer to our point of view as far as the fundamantals are concerned? Like I say,  I just can't see it.  Their postion seems to be more akin to a kind of reevamped Old Labour with its nonsensical Clause 4 taking centre stage.  In other words, they are fundamentally a party of state capitalism laced with good intentions and user friendly soundbytes. Im all for unity but there has to be some fundamental commonalities around which to unite and, on the face of it, there are insufficient grounds for wanting to unite with Left Unity. – at least as far as I see it Maybe Ive misread them completely – I certainly cannot claim  to have read much of their literature – but if you can point me to evidence to the contrary that would be much appreciated 

[Anonymous]

ALB wrote:

stuartw2112 wrote:

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.

I presume you are referring to the 10 measures, outlined at the end of Section II of the Communist Manifesto, that the Communist League of Germany proposed should be implemented if the working class won control of political power in 1848-9 or soon after.By coincidence we've just started a Communist Manifesto reading group on this forum where these 10 immediate measures and what they meant and were meant to mean will no doubt be discussed and dissected. Why not join the reading group? Might be better to begin at the beginning rather than leap straighaway into Capital as many do. Here's the link:http://www.worldsocialism.org/spgb/forum/reading-groups/marx-and-engels-manifesto-communist-party

 In reality the Communist Manifesto, was not a communist declaration, it was a document writen by Marx and Engels for the communist league when they were very young, and it that moment it could have been considered a revolutionary declaration, but, it was a reformist document,Most of the measures indicated in that documents will only have conducted the society toward state capitalism. Later on, Marx and Engels themselves, they broke away from many of those conceptions, in the same manner that the dictatorship of the proletariat would have only established state capitalism, and it was a mistaken measure enarbolated by Marx The opportunist Lenin used those measure in order to justify the dicatorship of the party and to justify the existence of the so called workers state, as well, he used Marx support to certain bourgoise revolution in order to justify the nationalism of the bourgoise, and the so called national liberation.

[alanjjohnstone]

I'll leave it to the Manifesto stuudy group  to nit-pick chapter and verse of it but i always assumed , ""first of all settle matters with its own national bourgeoisie…" simply means that the  British workers, for instance,  cannot wage the class struggle against the French capitalists, nor can the French workers wage the class struggle against the British  employers, but that the British  bourgeoisie and the power of the UK State can be attacked and defeated only by the British working class. Nothing partiularly profound , just common sense, and in these days like the immediate demands, probably not 100% relevant since we now have more transnational companies, more international regulatory bodies like the IMF and of course the EU Parliament. Jools, one thing that can always be said about the SPGB members, despite the allegations, and that is we are not clones of one another and do disagree. But am i right that Glasgow branch comrade Gardner was involved as a moderator for a time in WIC and was it not that many members argued that WIC was not a political party and co-operation and collaboration was permissible. Whether they did or not is a completely different issue, and a question not just for the SPGB to answer.For sure, there were comradely disagreements between the SPGB and WIC just as they are within the SPGB and since we all pretty well known to one another as the saying going "familiarity breeds contempt", things are posted but frequently in language that is regretted. This forum itself has had its own history of such conflicts in communication but was eventually resolved because our object and reason for being were shared. As i have suggested, and time will tell who is right and who is wrong, LU may not share same aims and agree on same priorities of action and activities. Even reformists it seems fall out over what reforms to advocate. We shall wait and see how they are resolved when they become exacerbated by various possible scenarios. 

[alanjjohnstone]

Stuart, who am i to defend Caroline Lucas but the link you gave doesn't really say too much. Here is Lucas at Occupy defending her reformism and promoting her choice of reforms. http://wembleymatters.blogspot.com/2011/11/caroline-lucas-speaks-at-st-pauls-anti.html As a person who just earlier confessed to have been giving consideration to joining the Labour Party to dismiss the Green Party as an option ….well what is there to say…not much at all. 

[robbo203]

I forgot – there was one other point I wanted to make, Julian, in response to your earlier post .  I refer to your comment  thusDefine a set of ossified truths around a concept of a post-capitalist society then label everyone who doesn't share the one true path 'reformists' and 'leftists.' There is some truth in this but it can also be very misleading. The bottom line  is that you have to have some basic definition of a post capitalist society in order to even begin talking about establishing such a  society. This is why Stuart's colourful analogy of the "map reader" with the map, fails. Yes we can dispense with the map reader (along with the "flying spittle") but  the presumption is that we all want to go somewhere.  That is to say, we have some definite destination in mind.  To that extent , I would say a degree of "ossification" -or as I prefer to call it , clarification – must be involved in any serious  attempt to move forward. A body without a supporting internal skeleton would just be a lump of flesh. Even Stuart's "woolly minded folk cutting a path through the wood" must have some concrete concept of where they want to be heading .  This debate is about whether Left Unity's concept  of where they ultimately want to head is compatible with ours. But I will get to the point.  Your use of the term " reformist" above is, of course, a pejorative one. It is the sense in which organisations like the SPGB use the term.  Stuart on the other hand does not see things this way at all.  He is quite open and refreshingly frank about it: 

stuartw2112 wrote:

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.

 My criticism of Stuart (and this is also a criticism I have levelled at the SPGB in the past) is that there is a lack of clarity here about what precisely is meant "by reformism".  He is lumping together all sorts of things under the rubric of reformism  which are strictly not refromist at all.  Many of these things are indeed good and even vital from the standpoint of working class emancipation  and by collaring them under the catch-all category of reformism he is able to wield this particular big stick in his argument  with the SPGB.  And here, I agree, the SPGB is on weak grounds in not being able to effectively respond to such a challenge except to say that its members are active in things like PTAs or whatever which is a bit of an anaemic response in my view I can vaguely remember quite a few years ago, when I was member of Islington Branch, writing up a circular for the branch on the subject of "What is Reformism?" I think it might have been an item for discussion at conference or ADM. At any rate, it was an attempt to provide a sort of useful taxonomy of the range of activities which workers engage in,  which woulkd separate out the wheat from the chaff, so to speak.  Reformism as I recall, was tightly defined as meaning measures enacted by the state operating within the political  field and having as its focus the economic basis of capitalism.  These concepts of "field" and " focus" provide the kind of operational tools upon which a more realistic taxanomy can be constructed.  On this basis, trade union struggles, for instance, or the struggle to obtain elementary democratic rights would not be considered reformist at all.  Nor would efforts at "consciousness raising" or attempts by workers to meet their own needs in the here and now.  Further, not only are all of these things NOT reformist but they can definitely help also  to supplement the revolutionary political objective of establishing socialism. The problem with Stuart's whole approach is that, with the formation of Left Unity as a political party operating in the political filed, we have clearly moved towards a situation where the epithet "reformist" does indeed become applicable.  This is something that Alan hinted at in one of his posts but I dont think Stuart has picked up on this at all. In his transition from supporting a social movement  like Occupy to a distinct political party like LU, Stuart has ventured onto the trecherous terrain of reformism in my viewHe stated earlierI 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.  Yes all these things are indeed very desirable things to do  but why he imagines they have very little to do with revolution I do not know. I would argue, to the contrary, that they  help to supplement and support revolutionary activity.  Paradoxically , Stuart is here being more SPGBish than even the SPGB in this admitted caricature of the SPGB I have presented. His casual use of the term "reform" allows him to make some pretty  sweeping claims  that seem to me to be not quite warranted.  How have all our great sucesses been the product of reform – at least in the strict reformist sense of reform I outlined above.  Our great successes, such as they are, have not been the product of reformist struggles but of struggles outside the ambit of strictly reformist activity  – trade unionism, democratic rights etc.  The one outstanding exception seems to be the establishment of the welfare state but this was a struggle in which the capitalists class itself was a leading protagonist (see the Beveridge Report on that.  The welfare state would not have materialised had the capitalists not seen it was in their interest to set it up.  Those same interests under the altered circumstances of contemporary capitalism, demand retrenchment, austerity and a whittling away to some degree  of the so called welfare state. Above all, and this really is the point  that Stuart completely misses – how does reformism in the strict sense aid the transformation of society in any fundamental way? How does it promote the movement towards a post capitalist world?  Quite simply, it doesnt.  What it does is the very opposite -it serves to entrench and solidify capitalism. We have the absolutely decisive example of the entire history of social democratic parties to go by here.  Social Democratic Parties like the German SDP which had the support of literally millions of  woirkers, not a few thousand perhaps in the case of LU, also had clearly articulated maximum and minimum programmes. Revolutionary intentions existing alongside reformist intewntions.  Inevitably the formier won out against the latter and the whole argument for backing two horses failed miserably.  You cannot seek to both mend capitalism and end capitalism,  it has to be one or  the other.  At least that is a mistake the SPGB has avoided even if it has made other mistakes in the process. And like I said Left Unity does not even appear to have what might be called a half=decent maximum programme in the revolutionary sense. Its long term objective does appear to me to be nothing more ambitious than a kind of benign paternalistic Old Labour version of state run capitalism . I admit I could be quite mistaken about this but I wait to hear contrary evidence  from Stuart that LU does indeed pay lip service to a genuinely post capitalist non-market and  non-statist communist commnonwealth

[alanjjohnstone]

Perhaps you are rght …PTA a very poor example, very middle classish !! and showed my age too, Robin…. But the point i was trying to put across was people like John Bisset combined his socialist propaganda and being active in his community on local issues. Brian Johnson too is deeply involved in claimants and welfare issues. I could go on. Neither presents it as an either or question , working for reforms to improve your or another persons life is not an anathema for socialists. In the letter column of the Weekly Worker in the past weeks  i have been disputing those who seek their "reforms" (reforms are a double-edged blade) to keep out foreign workers and i have been arguing for  open borders for all peoples because immigration controls are not liberatory and only brings grief. I should know, i have been intimately affected by them.  You make a point on how we classify reforms. The party had an early debate about unions being reformist but that approach was overwhemingly rejected. So we do support such things as legal right to picket  and to  take secondary solidarity action. An early Standard issue explains:"Although the bettering of the conditions of existence by way of political reform is impossible, it is not the same as regards the conditions of fighting, and it appears to us to be possible to make easier the struggle of the proletariat against the capitalist middle-class.To distinguish between the conditions of fighting and the conditions of existence is not to split a hair. The difference is real……By the very fact of capitalist production the proletariat is at war with the bourgeoisie. This struggle is sometimes hidden, at other times visible to the eyes of all, but it is without truce. Far from becoming less evident, conflicts increase daily. Some reforms would render the attacks of the proletariat more powerful, those of its adversary weaker, and would make the effort easier and more efficient…"Another article quotes approvingly Bebel: "we avail ourselves of all means for bettering the condition of our comrades the workers. We do not spurn reforms; but what we do refuse, and that in the most explicit manner, is the coming to an agreement with any faction whatsoever of the middle-class [read capitalist class], no matter by what name it may go. An agreement of this kind cannot be of any other consequence than to make Socialism responsible for the oppression which the capitalists exercise over the masses of the working-class…" 

[stuartw2112]

Thanks everyone for the discussion, which I have enjoyed very much, but I can't help but note that no one has answered the question I wanted answering, despite Robin's attempt. (Thanks Adam for pointing out the reading group, I will check it out next week). I can't help but think it hasn't been answered because I'm on to something, so I'll try asking it again. (I'm genuinely interested in this question, I'm not trying to get one over on anyone.)1. Doesn't the SPGB (classical Marxist) position hold that the working class should organise politically to seize control of the state? If it did this, wouldn't this mean that the state had been democratised? If not, why not?2. Doesn't it follow as a matter of common Marxist sense that, once having seized control of the state, one of the things that the controlling party would have to do would be to impose capital controls and nationalise the banks? Given that this is almost certainly what would have to happen, isn't it reasonable to call this the "common ownership" or "democratic control" of the means of exchange? If not, why not?

[Author]

Posts