Left Unity.org / People’s Assembly
- This topic has 583 replies, 34 voices, and was last updated 8 years ago by
.
-
Posts
-
PS I can't see that Robin's comments on reformism are anything other than a tortuous exercise in logic to define the things he disapproves of as "reformism" and the things he approves of not. Why should trade unions be allowed to push for higher wages on the economic field, but be barred from standing political candidates pledging structural economic reforms in the working class interest? Makes no sense whatever.
Because trade unions are sectional for the interests of their members. You are not going to get One Big Union.
Maybe not, but you might get, say, a Labour Party… Or somekind of trade union and socialist coalition…
stuartw2112 wrote:PS I can't see that Robin's comments on reformism are anything other than a tortuous exercise in logic to define the things he disapproves of as "reformism" and the things he approves of not. Why should trade unions be allowed to push for higher wages on the economic field, but be barred from standing political candidates pledging structural economic reforms in the working class interest? Makes no sense whatever.I have seen workers unions and trade unions supporting wars and the killing of their class brothers, and I have seen workers unions standing behind capitalist leaders and capitalist candidates.Workers unions are just spontaneous organizations of the working class to claim economicals reforms.n the past many leftist organizations used to send cadres to penetrate the workers unions with the sole purpose of taking their political lines, and every one had a different approach, and everything is pulling toward their own sides, and instead of helping the workers they used to create chaos inside and outside. They wanted to turn the workers unions into communist parties to obtain economical reforms only. There was not difference between a workers unions and a badly called communist party
Why are we talking about "reforms" and "reformism" when there haven't been any reforms for ages (he last I can remember is free bus travel for old age pensioners).Workers' struggles these days are about trying to stop things getting worse by existing reforms being taken away. So the classic reformist strategy of gradually advancing towards socialism by a series of reforms (as advocated for instance by Peter Tatchell in his debate against us the other day) doesn't have any credibility.Nobody is against people trying to stop their conditions getting worse, though it can be questioned whether this is helped by being linked to a political party (whichever, and LU is not the only one, just the latest) still wedded to a reformist strategy and still asking for reforms when none are to be had (why campaign, for example, for a citizens income when there's no chance at all of getting it, not that it would solve workers' problems anyway?).
stuartw2112 wrote: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?While you were away, Stuart, Robbo started a thread of how a socialist minded working class (not, incidentally, a "controlling party" separate from them) would act if it won control in just one part of the world. I can't remember the title but I'm sure Robbo will.Nobody in this discussion suggested they would impose capital controls or nationalise the banks. Everybody agreed that they would have to abolish capitalist private property rights and introduce production directly for use. I'd imagine them in this hypothetical situation declaring all property titles, all stocks and shares, all bills and bonds, all limited liability companies and corporations (which are just legal fictions) null and void. "Money capital" and "banks" would disappear. So, no, merely controlling them would not amount to "common ownership" (but, rather, to "state capitalism" — which, I freely admit, is what in effect the Communist League of Germany was advocating in, and for, 1848).
ALB wrote:Why are we talking about "reforms" and "reformism" when there haven't been any reforms for ages (he last I can remember is free bus travel for old age pensioners).Workers' struggles these days are about trying to stop things getting worse by existing reforms being taken away. So the classic reformist strategy of gradually advancing towards socialism by a series of reforms (as advocated for instance by Peter Tatchell in his debate against us the other day) doesn't have any credibility.Nobody is against people trying to stop their conditions getting worse, though it can be questioned whether this is helped by being linked to a political party (whichever, and LU is not the only one, just the latest) still wedded to a reformist strategy and still asking for reforms when none are to be had (why campaign, for example, for a citizens income when there's no chance at all of getting it, not that it would solve workers' problems anyway?).At the present time workers are losing reformist measures instead of obtaining any new reforms. It shows that the left wingers are not aware of the actual situation of the capitalist society, even more, in most countries taxation on the capitalist class have been drastically reduced.They should know that the state is financed with surplus value, the jump from one contradiction into another contradiction, from one political zig zag into another political zig-zag, all their tactic are based on conjuncturesSome workers have been brainwashed by the capitalist class with the concept of big government, and they do not even know the meaning of that, and many old reforms given by the capitalist class to the workers have been eliminated.Some workers have been also brainwashed with the idea that workers unions are destroying the economics, and many workers unions have vanished from the face of the earth.I wonder why the left wingers are talking about revolution and revolutionary situation when we are moving backwards and workers do not have any political consciousness
In what planet is he living in ? All those experimentation about nationalization of the banking system have been done in different countries and they have failed completely.The last experiment was done in Venezuela, and they even brought all their gold deposits from different banks ,and it has been a total failure, and rich peoples became richer.There is not difference between right or left wings government, both are birds born in the same nest, and both are not relevant to the case of socialism.This so called Left unity is just a rehearsal of the old left, it is like socialism of the XXI century ( a new left unity ) which is only a rehearsal of the old Leninist's state capitalism. The same dog wearing a different collar. I know them like the palm of my hands. They can fool Stewart, but they can not fool me
I suppose my dissatisfaction with the SPGB and the revolutionary left (even though you reject the term) in general stems from what I see as a fundamental disconnect between its ideas (or the way it expresses them) and the lived experience of the working-class. Sadly as I get older I get more pragmatic – I've come to the conclusion that I'll never see the SPGB's version of socialism in my lifetime and as Stuart says, we do what we can given the current conditions and try and draw a line in the sand and hope that others stand behind the line with us. What I like about Left Unity is (a) they are keeping alive the discourse of socialism, whether or not you agree with their definition of it and (b) It does seem to me to have a genuine connection to working-class people and their organisations/communities and seems to be far more representative of working-class interests in the here and now, rather than what we'd like them to be at some point in the future. I think LU have made a pretty good fist of it so far – 2000 members in a few months is nothing to be sniffed at. Its also nice to belong to an organisation on the left where a decent proportion of women play a key role, something that the revolutionary left has never achieved. No central committees in sight as far as I can see which has to be a good thing. Plenty of internal dissent and disagreement which is to be expected given its composition, but a real committment to openness and democracy as far as I can tell. Who knows, if they manage to get 10,000 members and 10-15% of the vote in the Euro elections next time around then they might bloody a few noses? p.s technical point – is it me or do forum posts take ages to load on this site?
Was the debate with Tatchell recorded Adam? Would like to hear it if it was – have a lot of time for him as an activist. Is he still in the Green Party?
ALB wrote:Why are we talking about "reforms" and "reformism" when there haven't been any reforms for ages (he last I can remember is free bus travel for old age pensioners).Workers' struggles these days are about trying to stop things getting worse by existing reforms being taken away. So the classic reformist strategy of gradually advancing towards socialism by a series of reforms (as advocated for instance by Peter Tatchell in his debate against us the other day) doesn't have any credibility.Nobody is against people trying to stop their conditions getting worse, though it can be questioned whether this is helped by being linked to a political party (whichever, and LU is not the only one, just the latest) still wedded to a reformist strategy and still asking for reforms when none are to be had (why campaign, for example, for a citizens income when there's no chance at all of getting it, not that it would solve workers' problems anyway?).jpodcaster wrote:Was the debate with Tatchell recorded Adam? Would like to hear it if it was – have a lot of time for him as an activist. Is he still in the Green Party?Yes, it's here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VJJ2tJXnq-8And yes, Tatchell does appear to still be in the Green Party.
jpodcaster wrote:"(a) they are keeping alive the discourse of socialism, whether or not you agree with their definition of it and (b) It does seem to me to have a genuine connection to working-class people and their organisations/communities and seems to be far more representative of working-class interests in the here and now, rather than what we'd like them to be at some point in the future. "These are personal observations and Stuart made earlier anecdotal evidence for it. But actually where is the empirical evidence for (b) Which community/labour orgnisations have thrown in their hat…other than as individuals…vis a vis the criticism that we should go beyond encouraging our individual members to be active in the community and unions and somehow inject ourselves as an orgainisation into reform campaigns. As an organisation we do just as much as others in highlighting the flaws and problems of capitalism for particular sections of it, but we go further than Oxfam for example – we link these to a general critique of capital. As for (a) to take an extreme example national socialism keeps the discourse on socialism alive if we disregard its definition but a more approprite example would be state socialism (state capitalism). The definition of socialism is crucial. It is not incidental. Again back to (b) and LU being more representative of working class interests in the "here and now". As i said …it possesses a wish list of reforms, with no chance of achieving them, no chance of pushing the Labour Party to a more left position to achieve them as a proxy, the reality is that it is the "Right Unity" that is forcing Labour to adopt more right wing policies in regard to immigration. And here in Scotland , the vacant left space you desired by LU was swiftly filled by the SNP, who did possess the practical political power to implement change and that is why electors opted for them. Reformism is supported because it is "realistic in the "here and now"…and that means voting realistically for the body to gain them and forget how watered down they become in the process. So there is no better "here and now" stance for LU, no more than all those people who say…socialism is a great idea and i agree but you'll never get it so i'll stick with the status quo and keep on hoping…and every time i am disappointed , i'll switch to another better, more improved with nicer packaging brand of reform. Once more to break the chained reliance on reformism that the people have in their heads won't be solved by making the reforms more radical, adding a bit more honey to the sweet and sour mix of the daily grind …or acquiescing to their prejudices as the right wing and some other leftists do. I recall you being at Make Poverty History and the G8 in Scotland, you want real example of connection with communities?..then you will recall the number of churches turned into sleeping quarters, the mobilisation of the churches in transport and logistics in getting half a million people to a provincial city. Using your and Stuart arguments, i say go and join your local church. The fight is indeed the discourse of socialism as you say…and the different definitions cannot be swept so easily under the rug. In the 20s and the 30s would keeping the discourse alive mean support for Russia and Stalin and ignoring that the unemployed Minority Movement was CP front, despite its worthy object. Or were we right to take a stand against the CP despite their popularity and public endorsements by cultural icons of their time? Rant over, apologies for picking on you
jpodcaster wrote:I suppose my dissatisfaction with the SPGB and the revolutionary left (even though you reject the term) in general stems from what I see as a fundamental disconnect between its ideas (or the way it expresses them) and the lived experience of the working-class. Sadly as I get older I get more pragmatic – I've come to the conclusion that I'll never see the SPGB's version of socialism in my lifetime and as Stuart says, we do what we can given the current conditions and try and draw a line in the sand and hope that others stand behind the line with us. What I like about Left Unity is (a) they are keeping alive the discourse of socialism, whether or not you agree with their definition of it and (b) It does seem to me to have a genuine connection to working-class people and their organisations/communities and seems to be far more representative of working-class interests in the here and now, rather than what we'd like them to be at some point in the future. I think LU have made a pretty good fist of it so far – 2000 members in a few months is nothing to be sniffed at. Its also nice to belong to an organisation on the left where a decent proportion of women play a key role, something that the revolutionary left has never achieved. No central committees in sight as far as I can see which has to be a good thing. Plenty of internal dissent and disagreement which is to be expected given its composition, but a real committment to openness and democracy as far as I can tell. Who knows, if they manage to get 10,000 members and 10-15% of the vote in the Euro elections next time around then they might bloody a few noses? p.s technical point – is it me or do forum posts take ages to load on this site?The Unified Socialist Party of Venezuela has a better fist, they were able to obtain millions of members in a few months, and they also brought the word socialism again, and they ask the workers to study the works of Lenin, Trotsky and Marx. The question is, what socialist principles are they propagating ? They created a confusion bigger than the Bolsheviks
jpodcaster wrote:It does seem to me to have a genuine connection to working-class people and their organisations/communities and seems to be far more representative of working-class interests in the here and now, rather than what we'd like them to be at some point in the future.This amounts to a claim that LU is a genuine expression of "trade union consciousness", but this is open to serious challenge. Someone once described the Labour Party as an alliance between trade unions and the "progressive middle class". In the possible (but pointless) emergence of a Labour Party Mark 2 I'd suggest that LU represents the latter. There is no evidence that LU possesses any significant degree of trade union support, but plenty that it is concerned with issues such as "intersectionality" and "safe spaces" which are of marginal concern to trade unionists but a high priority for some women of the "progressive middle class". The claim to be the trade union element in any future Labour Party Mark 2 would be more justifiable in the case of TUSC.
alanjjohnstone wrote: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.That is correct, Alan. And there are several other members of the SPGB or WSM that have been involved in WIC as well. WIC is not a political party, more an umbrella set-up or meeting point where different tendencies within the non-market anti-statist political sector can come together. It seeks to emphasise the commonalities that exist between these tendencies rather than what divides them. WIC has no collective opinion on SPGB policy and what Jools says about the SPGB is Jool's opinion, not WICs. Its the same with me. I am not writing in my capacity as a member of WiC; I write simply in my own personal capacity. WIC is strictly neutral in its relationship to any entity belonging to the above mentioned sector and rightly so. There is no reason whatsoever for any member of the SPGB not to join WIC as well – not from the SPGB's point of view, nor from WIC's – and I would encourage folk here to do so. My problem with Left Unity is that I dont really believe it belongs to the non market anti-statist political sector at all. I dont believe it is a socialist organisation that seeks to get rid of capitalism as its founding statement claims. On closer inspection, it appears to want to simply replace one version of capitalism with another – "Old Labour" style, paternalistic state capitalism complete with its own revamped Clause Four. Like I said. I might be quite mistaken in this belief but I have yet to be persuaded. I am still waiting to hear the evidence from Stuart to the contrary. If I am correct in my intitial assessment of LU – that it is fundamentally a pro-capitalist outfit albeit decked out in the rhetoric of socialist emancipation then, Im afraid to say, it is all going to end in tears. You can't operate capitalism in the interests of the working class no matter how much "in tune" Left Unity may appear to be with working class interests in the here and now, no matter how congenial the membership of LU is and openminded in its acknowlegement that LU does not have all the answers and is seeking to be "inclusive" and "non sectarian". Yes, those are all admirable and attractive qualities and one can kind of understand the attraction that LU might exert on some. Here we have a fresh-faced spanking new political party, refreshing free of the sectarian back-biting that plagues other political parties. But we are still in the honeymoon period and, if LU were ever to take off politically, the familiar old pattern will inevitably reassert itself. Except that Im not convinced the LU will take off. The political niche that it belongs to is already occupied by other more powerful rivals that will disproportionately benefit from any shifts of the pattern of working class ideology. But thats just my opinion
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.