Left Unity.org / People’s Assembly

[steve colborn]

Alan, you fuck a fairy if you want, long way or not, I want to FUCK Capitalism!!! Full stop. Reformism be damned.

[steve colborn]

Sorry Alan, late at night. Thought you said, itsalongwaytofuckafairy! My eyesight and sense must be failing.

[stuartw2112]

Hi again Alan,Actually yes of course socialists do bring out the broader implications of saving the NHS – that the NHS works on broadly socialist principles (to each according to need), that it should continue to do so, that if it's good enough for the NHS, why not for everything else? Etc.I've a busy few days and then a holiday so I'll leave it there. Perhaps we can resurrect our discussion after Easter? Not that I'm comparing myself to Jesus or anything…Cheers

[ALB]

stuartw2112 wrote:

Not that I'm comparing myself to Jesus or anything…

But Cameron does. So let's cricify him. Or maybe first let him try to multiply leftover loaves from Tesco's to supply 5000 food banks.

[stuartw2112]

What would Jesus do? Whip a banker…By the way, Adam, as you asked, Left Unity will after all be standing local election candidates in Norwich, Exeter, Barnet and Wigan. So either I was right – LU's election policy has been interpreted in a far looser way than I would have – or alternatively I have vastly underestimated what's going on in these places. Not that I'm particularly against it. LU seems to have a lot of momentum behind it, so got to be worth a stab. Although no doubt the vote will, as you predict, be derisory, so you'll get to be right about that!Cheers

[stuartw2112]

Left Unity’s first candidates

[ALB]

That's interesting. I see that's what happened is that the party registered since March 2013 as the "Left Party" has changed its name to "Left Unity".The other descriptions registered are revealing:

Quote:

fighting racism and warbuild hospitals and schoolsfor equality and no to discriminationLeft Unity PartyLeft PartyFree and inclusive education of ALLsocialist, feminist, environmentalistjobs not bombs

               Anyway, congratulations are in order. LU has finally decided to put its money where its mouth is. We will see (and scrutinise!) the results.

[stuartw2112]

You say "finally" but we're barely a year old! For me, and I'm not alone, we're moving too quickly. But no doubt there's a lot to be said for momentum and striking while the iron's hot.

[ALB]

Just noticed this on the TUSC site describing some of those standing under their banner:

Quote:

And candidates who are members of organisations not currently part of the TUSC coalition – a couple of Labour Party members (not for much longer!), and some who are members of Left Unity or Respect, who have taken up TUSC's offer to participate in the campaign with the same rights as other candidates to promote their organisations

I recognise one candidate in Barnet and another in Exeter who I know have dual membership of both LU and TUSC (as members of the Independent Socialist Network). I thought the recent LU conference voted against their members standing as TUSC or at least against endorsing this. (Incidentally, a SPEW member I met at local hustings meeting in Lambeth last Saturday ventured the opinion that LU wouldn't last a year because most of its members were members of other groups too).We'll know more when the lists of nominated candidates are published on 24 April (next Thursday).

[stuartw2112]

Contempt for reforms is anarchist, not socialist:http://www.marxists.org/archive/pannekoe/1908/reforms.htm

[alanjjohnstone]

A bit more on his reformist approach here to support you, Stuarthttp://www.marxists.org/archive/pannekoe/1912/hope-in-future.htmPancakes is, however,  less enamoured by a reform programme here http://libcom.org/library/communism-vs-reforms-sylvia-pankhurst-2Nor would he have been too keen on the creation of LU (or ourselves, for that matter)http://www.marxists.org/archive/pannekoe/1936/party-working-class.htmPaul Mattick i think tried to express an attitude to reformism which i think some radicals adhere to.."While it may still be necessary to fight for immediate demands, such struggles no longer radically question the entire order. In the fight for socialism more stress must be laid upon the qualitative rather than the quantitative needs of the workers: it is just the qualitative needs which capitalism cannot satisfy. What is required is the progressive conquest of power by the workers through “non-reformist reforms.”In which case, “non-reformist reforms” is only another expression for the proletarian revolution. A struggle for a meaningful “workers control of production” is clearly equivalent to the overthrow of the capitalist system. it leaves open the problem of how to bring this about when there are no pressing needs to do so. Capitalism exists because the workers do not have the control over the means of production and if they acquire such control capitalism will cease to exist. This objective cannot be realized within the capitalist system and its persistence is a sign that the illusion still exists that capitalism actually finds itself in a state of transition to socialism – a transition that must be accelerated by proletarian actions based on this general impulse.The problem still remains of what organizational means to use to attain this objective…."http://www.marxists.org/archive/mattick-paul/1976/new-capitalism.htm

[stuartw2112]

Thanks Alan, not read this kind of thing for a long time, but you've whetted my appetite. Cheers

[ALB]

It seems that some Trotskyist groups within LU are also uniting (wisely not having anything to do with the Weekly Worker/"CPGB" lot):http://www.cpgb.org.uk/home/weekly-worker/online-only/regroupment-conference-april-26-bulletin-no-1

[jondwhite]

Can't say I have much sympathy for the Trots. I'm not impressed with their strategy document either. I wonder if this is supposed to be a secret document Weekly Worker have uncovered and are responsible for having made public?

[alanjjohnstone]

I downloaded and read the re-groupment bulletin. First thing that struck me is that the re-groupment are fundamentally not in agreement, highlighted by the different attitude to Grangemouth and INEOS. I think it was the SR contribution that confirmed what i have been saying on the thread that they seek a SSP-equivalent party yet have not discussed  why that did not succeed. (no, it was not all Sheridan's fault, the SSP was already on the wane)i was pleasantly surprised by their Ukraine analysis despite the language Workers Power seem to use…(and they apply the same old lefty leniniist terminology in all their contributions , no matter the topic. I thought the SLL/WRP had been resurrected at one point.)LU may be up and running but i still don't think its components are actually ready to take up the baton from one another.One item of news i did not know is the TUC protest in October and its theme – "Britiain Needs  Payrise."Plenty of advance notice then for what i keep suggesting a newsletter or a series of leaflets covering several areas we want to criticise. With a title like they have proposed , its a sitting duck for us on various angles. Too often we just settle for one leaflet and expect a sentence or paragraph to be convincing enough to arouse interest. I keep saying that we need to treat those who participate on marches and protests as capable of absorbing much greater detail. 4 -page special edition of the Standard, more cheaper quality of paper though and lot more headlines and bigger fonts is what i always have in mind. More like a tabloid newspaper, lay-out. This along with a few different leaflets Giving someone two or three leaflets, laid out very differently to show they are not the same  is just as easy as handing out one.

[Author]

Posts