Left Unity.org / People’s Assembly

[stuartw2112]

Thanks everyone for the discussion. Most interesting point I think was Adam's about reforms, but of course this applies to revolution too. I'm only using the language of "reformism" and so on because it's the language used here. Actually my position is that the words don't refer to anything much – revolutionaries and reformists, so called by a small number of far left geeks, actually do much the same thing. As I said before, we just do what we can. At the moment I am giving my limited energies to LU, for much the reasons Jools says, but the work I'm doing isn't all that much different from when I was in the SPGB (except having more success because what we're working towards seems more plausible to people, including to me. Cheers

[jondwhite]

I don't think Left Unity, the ILP or WIC stand for what the SPGB stands for, but also don't believe in one true party and I do believe ideas can overlap in some respects.

[Lew]

Robin wrote:"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."This isn't the first time Robin has attempted to re-write history, nor is it the first time I have had to clarify what happened.Robin resigned from the SPGB and created WIC late in 2002. WIC was to be communist but "not the SPGB" on the subjects of religion and the "big bang" notion of revolution (see posts on the WSM Forum at this time). Thus WIC was conceived as being communist but against the SPGB/WSM on those issues. The next year Robin began to post suggestions on the WIC forum as to what they were specifically *for*. He argued that WIC should seek "common ground" with like-minded individuals and organisations, and eventually this became the informally accepted rationale for WIC. However, the WIC forum group description makes the false assertion that they were "specifically set up" to "strengthen ties within this sector". The Wikipedia article on WIC alleges that they were established to "overcome the sectarian divisions" – by creating yet another sect.Robin again claims above that WIC seeks "commonalities" "rather than what divides". That may be their attitude now but it wasn't always the case. Aside from re-writing history, the basic charge still stands. There is someting rather hypocritcal in people claiming to seek commonalities, being opposed to what divides, and spectacularly failing to do so by creating yet another grouping.– Lew

[Anonymous]

Lew wrote:

Robin wrote:"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."This isn't the first time Robin has attempted to re-write history, nor is it the first time I have had to clarify what happened.Robin resigned from the SPGB and created WIC late in 2002. WIC was to be communist but "not the SPGB" on the subjects of religion and the "big bang" notion of revolution (see posts on the WSM Forum at this time). Thus WIC was conceived as being communist but against the SPGB/WSM on those issues. The next year Robin began to post suggestions on the WIC forum as to what they were specifically *for*. He argued that WIC should seek "common ground" with like-minded individuals and organisations, and eventually this became the informally accepted rationale for WIC. However, the WIC forum group description makes the false assertion that they were "specifically set up" to "strengthen ties within this sector". The Wikipedia article on WIC alleges that they were established to "overcome the sectarian divisions" – by creating yet another sect.Robin again claims above that WIC seeks "commonalities" "rather than what divides". That may be their attitude now but it wasn't always the case. Aside from re-writing history, the basic charge still stands. There is someting rather hypocritcal in people claiming to seek commonalities, being opposed to what divides, and spectacularly failing to do so by creating yet another grouping.– Lew

 The WIC is only a group of anti-SPGB. One time I was told not to use the expression proletarian or bourgeois because they are outdated. I do not understand how some so called communists or socialists can say that both expressions are outdated. They are  just a bunch of intellectuals thinking that they know everything

[Brian]

alanjjohnstone wrote:

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.

Not wishing to go off topic but to keep the record straight.  Currently, I'm a member of the local PTA; a tenant board member of RCT Homes the largest housing association in Wales; a board director of Homeforce who are a subsidary of RCT Homes and service their gas and electricity requirements; and the Project Coordinator for a Community Garden & Art Project at my local welsh speaking primary.Throughout, my entire experience of working with the people in these entities I have never come across the so called 'middle class' attitude/expression that they are not members of the working class.  Indeed, whenever I've brought up the subject of wage slavery even the head teacher and the CEO grudgingly admit that the penalty for a comfortable salary is becoming a slave to their occupation.  Which means like the rest of us they are locked into the system of capitalist exploitation.

[robbo203]

mcolome1 wrote:

The WIC is only a group of anti-SPGB. One time I was told not to use the expression proletarian or bourgeois because they are outdated. I do not understand how some so called communists or socialists can say that both expressions are outdated. They are  just a bunch of intellectuals thinking that they know everything

 What on earth are you talking about? Do you even know who WIC are? I dont recognise anything you say in relation to WIC of which I have been a member since its inception.  You forget that WIC consists of individuals from a variety of different traditions within the non market anti statist sector and whatever view a particular individual may express this does not necessarily reflect the view of the organisation as a whole.  We are not clones, you know

[robbo203]

Lew wrote:

Robin wrote:"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."This isn't the first time Robin has attempted to re-write history, nor is it the first time I have had to clarify what happened.Robin resigned from the SPGB and created WIC late in 2002. WIC was to be communist but "not the SPGB" on the subjects of religion and the "big bang" notion of revolution (see posts on the WSM Forum at this time). Thus WIC was conceived as being communist but against the SPGB/WSM on those issues. The next year Robin began to post suggestions on the WIC forum as to what they were specifically *for*. He argued that WIC should seek "common ground" with like-minded individuals and organisations, and eventually this became the informally accepted rationale for WIC. However, the WIC forum group description makes the false assertion that they were "specifically set up" to "strengthen ties within this sector". The Wikipedia article on WIC alleges that they were established to "overcome the sectarian divisions" – by creating yet another sect.Robin again claims above that WIC seeks "commonalities" "rather than what divides". That may be their attitude now but it wasn't always the case. Aside from re-writing history, the basic charge still stands. There is someting rather hypocritcal in people claiming to seek commonalities, being opposed to what divides, and spectacularly failing to do so by creating yet another grouping.– Lew

 Sorry but this is nonsense, Lew. Either you are  misunderstanding or misconstruing what I am saying but in any event it is you who is rewriting history here First off – "I" did not "create WIC". WIC was the joint creation of,  if I recall correctly, about 18 individuals who signed up to a "core statement"  which was thrashed out mainly via email corresondence in late 2002.  Some of these individuals had no connection with the SPGB or WSM.  You are trying to suggest that WIC was set up as some kind of rival to the SPGB/WSM and out of some sort of animus towards the later.  Thats simply not true. How could it be true when there were active members of the SPGB/WSM who were involved in  WIC at the time?   Think about it..  You also dont  seem to understand that WIC has never asked individuals to forsake or leave the groups in which they are currently active so  so your charge of "hypocrisy" is absolutely absurd and illogical. There is nothing remotely divisive in the stance WIC has adopted. I dont deny that at the time  feelings were running high in my case as regards the SPGB/WSM but I am not WIC . I am just another member of WIC, no more and no less, but you completely misread my motives if you think I helped to found WIC out of some burning dislike for the SPGB. As for your assertion "Robin again claims above that WIC seeks "commonalities" "rather than what divides". That may be their attitude now but it wasn't always the case" , this is rubbish.  Here is a copy of  a statement that was put out in January 2003 just after WIC was formed.  Readers can judge for themselves who is telling the truth in this case  January 2003Why Support World in Common? The World in Common group was formed in November 2002. It is firmly rooted in what we call the "non-market anti-statist sector", a small but highly diverse sector within the spectrum of political opinion. Indeed, the membership of this group reflects this diversity which is likely to grow as we grow. The purpose of the group is to help inspire 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". Of course, other groups and political parties in our sector have much the same objective which raises the question as to why it should be considered necessary to form yet another such organisation. The answer to that has to do with the role that we envisage for ourselves in this sector. One of the most important reasons why the non-market anti-statist sector remains relatively small and ineffectual, in our opinion, has to do with the extent to which groups remain isolated from each other and regard each other with mutual suspicion and even sectarian hostility. This is regrettable. We are certainly not suggesting that everyone in our sector sink their differences and join together in one big organisation – which would be quite unrealistic – but there is clearly an intermediate position that one can adopt between that extreme and what we have now .This is one of the reasons why "World in Common" was set up: to provide a meeting ground for different groups and individuals within our sector as well as a means of facilitating practical collaboration between them at some level. We recognise that there are sharp differences of opinion on many different subjects within our sector but what we do not feel has been sufficiently recognised – and celebrated – is just how much we have in common with each other. It is these commonalities which are, in fact, rather more significant than the issues that divide us which the World in Common wishes to bring to the fore and highlight.  Oh and just to ram home the point once and for all here is an excerpt from my contribution to the email correspondence  referred to above leading up to the drafting of the core statement. The email is dated  27 Oct 2002 – before WIC was even officially launched!  I would be happy to provide further evidence on request though I dont wish to bore this forum with the nitty gritty details…STAGE THREE:  Defining the project itself.  Once wehave a definite group of supporters and a Corestatement over which we can agree, the next big thingwe need to do is decide what the project is about.The feeling I get already is that we dont want toconstitute ourselves as some kind of political party;we are not in competition with the WSM!  That beingthe case what do we want to be? I have suggestedsomething along the lines of Discussion Bulletin butwith greater emphasis being given to what we have incommon  – rather than our disagreements- within thenon market, non statist sector. LEW , you  haven't got a leg to stand on.  Give up on this ridiculous obsession of yours of knocking WIC for crimes it simply has not committed. Please.

[robbo203]

jondwhite wrote:

I don't think Left Unity, the ILP or WIC stand for what the SPGB stands for, but also don't believe in one true party and I do believe ideas can overlap in some respects.

 In what way does what the SPGB stands for differ from this description of what  WIC stands for 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.

[jpodcaster]

Sadly there's only one person re-writing history here Lew and that's you. But then of course it has always benefited you and other SPGB'ers to see WiC as Robin's creation. Still, nice of you to clarify the facts for everyone. Seeing as you obviously have a huge chip on your shoulder regarding the formation of WiC perhaps you'd like to start another thread rather than hijack this one?

Lew wrote:

Robin wrote:This isn't the first time Robin has attempted to re-write history, nor is it the first time I have had to clarify what happened.Robin resigned from the SPGB and created WIC late in 2002. WIC was to be communist but "not the SPGB" on the subjects of religion and the "big bang" notion of revolution (see posts on the WSM Forum at this time). Thus WIC was conceived as being communist but against the SPGB/WSM on those issues. The next year Robin began to post suggestions on the WIC forum as to what they were specifically *for*. He argued that WIC should seek "common ground" with like-minded individuals and organisations, and eventually this became the informally accepted rationale for WIC. However, the WIC forum group description makes the false assertion that they were "specifically set up" to "strengthen ties within this sector". The Wikipedia article on WIC alleges that they were established to "overcome the sectarian divisions" – by creating yet another sect.Robin again claims above that WIC seeks "commonalities" "rather than what divides". That may be their attitude now but it wasn't always the case. Aside from re-writing history, the basic charge still stands. There is someting rather hypocritcal in people claiming to seek commonalities, being opposed to what divides, and spectacularly failing to do so by creating yet another grouping.– Lew

[Anonymous]

robbo203 wrote:

mcolome1 wrote:

The WIC is only a group of anti-SPGB. One time I was told not to use the expression proletarian or bourgeois because they are outdated. I do not understand how some so called communists or socialists can say that both expressions are outdated. They are  just a bunch of intellectuals thinking that they know everything

 What on earth are you talking about? Do you even know who WIC are? I dont recognise anything you say in relation to WIC of which I have been a member since its inception.  You forget that WIC consists of individuals from a variety of different traditions within the non market anti statist sector and whatever view a particular individual may express this does not necessarily reflect the view of the organisation as a whole.  We are not clones, you know

 I do know what I am talking about because I have been in that forum, and I do participate in a lot of forums with different point of view, probably more than you. It proves what I said that most of you think that you know everything

[robbo203]

jpodcaster wrote:

Sadly there's only one person re-writing history here Lew and that's you. But then of course it has always benefited you and other SPGB'ers to see WiC as Robin's creation. 

Yes exactly, Jools. But the thing that really gets up my nose personally about all this nonsense about WIC being set up as some kind of hostile  rival to the SPGB – and here I am only  obviously speaking for  myself and not as a member of WIC – is that, as an ex member of the SPGB, I have quite possibly done more work than most members ever do to support the SPGB, or aspects of its case, in its arguments against its left wing (and indeed also right wing) opponents.  I have contributed literally hundreds of posts on various forums to that end. Most recently, I have been fiercely supportive on Revleft  of  the SPGB's opposition to the anti democratic , vanguardist (in my opinion) "no platform" policy of  some on the Left towards far right groups.  Gnome, the Idler, Reddeathy  and others will bear me out on this. And this is the thanks I get  This is not a dig  at the SPGB, only certain members within it.  I remain outside the SPGB for reasons that I have made abundantly clear in the past but despite our differences I continue to regard the SPGB as comrades in the same struggle.  It would be nice to think that that sentiment could finally come to be reciprocated in  the case of some members in the SPGB itself… 

[alanjjohnstone]

i have witnessed your exchanges on various forums, Robin, and you have my appreciation for what you do and the flack you receive on those discussion lists defending the SPGB positions. I am sure other members share my sentiments. I have always considered that the SPGB are part of the thin red line as it is sometimes called and our disagreements with the other components of it are comradely disagreements. But those can become heated and occasionally requires to be cooled down and time usually does that. One old member with personal bonds with individuals in the expelled Socialist Studies group i recall could never come to express the same sort of acrimony as some others could. I referred earlier to a position where when the protagonists know one another so well, we tend to over-step the mark in civility whih we are most generous with regards other visitors and guests. As i once said on Libcom, we can all sit and share a pint and discuss where we differ…(okay …i did add i'm not going to be the one buying the round). And on this discussion list on another thread i also said i would probably change pubs !!

[moderator1]

Reminder:  Rule 1. The general topic of each forum is given by the posted forum description. Do not start a thread in a forum unless it matches the given topic, and do not derail existing threads with off-topic posts.

[stuartw2112]

There's been a certain amount of schadenfreude on this forum at the prospect of silly sectarian rowing within Left Unity. I hope the people who were rubbing their hands in glee at the prospect have appreciated the irony of this discussion.

[Anonymous]

stuartw2112 wrote:

There's been a certain amount of schadenfreude on this forum at the prospect of silly sectarian rowing within Left Unity. I hope the people who were rubbing their hands in glee at the prospect have appreciated the irony of this discussion.

Far from "rubbing their hands in glee" I detect that the overarching feeling towards Left Unity is one of dismay inasmuch as those involved do not appear to have learnt any lessons from history.As far as Robin's contribution to the cause of socialism is concerned I can only reiterate the comments made by Alan.  If only we had ten, nay, even fewer, members like him.

[Author]

Posts