Left Unity.org / People’s Assembly

[ALB]

We know from our experience of the Greater London elections in 2012 that leftwingers did vote for us and say they did. Others, though, including one prominent SWPer and someone who chaired a TUSC meeting, said they had voted for the Green Party. Someone on Urban75 has said that SPGB or Green is the only real choice in the South East Region.

[stuartw2112]

Whatever you think of LU, you can't deny it's been remarkably successfu with the media. The guy responsible explains how it's done:http://www.theleftvote.org.uk/?p=666

[jondwhite]

gnome wrote:

Can someone explain the procedure for responding to the letters page.  Each time I click on 'respond to this letter' another window (labelled Account Wizard) appears requesting me to set-up an account.  What should I do next?

Send an e-mail to weeklyworker@cpgb.org.uk

[alanjjohnstone]

A 1938 reply to Left Unity that still has resonance today !http://socialiststandardmyspace.blogspot.com/2014/05/why-i-joined-spgb.html

[stuartw2112]

I've just seen your party election broadcast – it was very good indeed, well done to everyone involved. 

[alanjjohnstone]

I'm starting to treat Weekly Worker as some sort of lefty Private EyeSee this week's issue for two articles on LU ( Less Unity)http://www.cpgb.org.uk/home/weekly-worker/1010

[jondwhite]

gnome wrote:

Can someone explain the procedure for responding to the letters page.  Each time I click on 'respond to this letter' another window (labelled Account Wizard) appears requesting me to set-up an account.  What should I do next?

Did you send a letter? I didn't see any published in the last issue.

[Anonymous]

jondwhite wrote:

Did you send a letter? I didn't see any published in the last issue.

I didn't send one in the end; that's why you didn't see it published  

[ALB]

We promised to scrutinise Left Unity's local election results. They stood 7 for Wigan Council, 2 in Norwich, 1 in Exeter and 1 in the London Borough of Barnet. Here are the results:Wigan: 85, 88, 252, 85, 78, 79, 129Norwich: 52, 44Exeter: 39Barnet: 107Their best results were in Wigan where one of their candidates got 8.8%, with the others averaging 3-4%. Elsewhere it was the same as us.For comparison (and the comparison can only be rough as the wards outside London are smaller and elect a single rather than 3 councillors) our results were:Lambeth: 81, 49, 46Islington: 90.Clearly LU are not a new force making a breakthrough but yet another small party in the bottom league, alongside us and TUSC. And of course they canvassed votes on the basis of a wish list of unrealisable reforms while we stood just for socialism.

[stuartw2112]

Thanks Adam, was looking forward to your analysis. What your conclusion should have said, though, is something like this: "given that LU has been going for barely a year, it had made remarkable progress, polling the same vote as longer established left parties where it has stood, and in one place doing rather better, beating the Tory candidate. Left Unity has also had a remarkably successful press operation, and its success, as well as the good work of people like Owen Jones and Caroline Lucas, had made the overall climate more open to left ideas generally. We in the SPGB have benefited from this too, so we offer our thanks to our left comrades and congratulate LU on its rapid progress."

[robbo203]

stuartw2112 wrote:

Thanks Adam, was looking forward to your analysis. What your conclusion should have said, though, is something like this: "given that LU has been going for barely a year, it had made remarkable progress, polling the same vote as longer established left parties where it has stood, and in one place doing rather better, beating the Tory candidate. Left Unity has also had a remarkably successful press operation, and its success, as well as the good work of people like Owen Jones and Caroline Lucas, had made the overall climate more open to left ideas generally. We in the SPGB have benefited from this too, so we offer our thanks to our left comrades and congratulate LU on its rapid progress."

 Hmm.  I dunno, Stuart, but I think there is something amiss with your analysis. As things stand at present any party advocating a "minimum" programme (which lets face it the LU is doing) ought to be inherently better positioned to garner more votes than a party relying solely on a maximum or revolutionary  programme to attract votes. That is because the general population or the working class as a whole is still currently thinking overwhelmingly  in a reformist mode.  That factor alone should more than wipe out any advantage the SPGB enjoys in terms of the longevity factor – i.e. the fact that the LU ought by rights to attract far more voters than the SPGB at the moment because of the predominance of reformist thinking within the working class to which LU essentially appeals despite its lip service to socialism. You know, Ive heard this argument before about how the "climate of opinion" is rendered  more "receptive" to socialist ideas by campagining reformist political parties and groups making political inroads. Its what they said about the Labour government in the immediate post war years.  That was a time when the membership of the SPGB was at its highest – in four figures.  The facile inference that might be drawn is that by voting for or supporting the Labour party the prospects of the SPGB making advances would improve.  But it doesnt work out that way. Quite the opposite .  The SPGB would sign its own death warrent if it tied its fortunes to that of the Labour Pasrty even if it were apparently true that the SPGB does better under a Labour government than a Tory governement. I refer you again to my analogy of the plate of soup and the ingredients it contains.  As individuals we all make an influence. We all add to the overall flavour of the soup,  however microscopic our contribition is to the overall climate of opinion.  The members of the SPGB are not making any  less of an influence because they happen to be members of the SPGB and not members of the Labour party, if you see what I mean.  So even if the hypothesis that "Labour governments are better for the SPGB than Tory governments" were true,  that is not an argument for supporting a labour government. The main problem with the SPGB and what holds it back is what I call the "small party syndrome".  Its a self perpetuating condition that affects all small parties . Smallness tends to reproduce smallness.  Small parties lack credibility simply by virtue of being small and therefore fail to attract people that would make them bigger. So they remain small.  It is only once they start to reach a certain critical threshold in terms of numbers that they can begin to overcome this factor.  Then when they pass that threshold we find the opposite factor coming into play. Increasing size attracts more support and makes for more credibility  so that  the organisation becomes even bigger and more and more quickly.  That is why it is reasonable to assume that the growth of a revolutionary socialist political party will take an exponential form beyond a certain point What the small party  syndrome does is to enormously magnify the effect of any obstable to party growth  in  the meantime.  For example, I consider, as some  people here know, that the SPGB's policy on refusing to admit individuals with religious views is totally absurd amnd represenmts a serious (and unnecessary) obstacle to its growth .  Religious minded socialists who totally agree with everything the SPGB  stands for except for the fact that they happen to hold some religious view , pose absolutely no threat to the socialist intergity of the SPGB. After all, the purpose of the SPGB is not to advance atheistic ideas but to help establish socialism. 99% of atheists are pro capitalist but I would consider it equally absurd to ban atheiosts from joining the SPGB because of that. If they or their religious counterparts did  in any way pose a threat to the socialist integrity of the SPGB there are more than adequate mechanisms already  in place to deal with this. In other towards the religious ban is totally redundant or superfluous.  Yet it holds back party growth The point that I'm making is that, at this stage of the game,  the significance of gaining every new member to the party is vastly greater than when the party has overcome the small party syndrome and is growing exponentially. That is, when it has past that critical threshold.   I venture the opinion that had the SPGB right back in 1904 when it kicked off, took Marx's advice to the IWA and decided not to rule out religious applicants  from membership, we would probably by now be talking of the SPGB being a party of several thousands of members if  you take into account the cumulative or incremental effect over such a long period of time. Most people who learn about the party's position on religion dont bother to apply  so it only appears that this is only a small problem but I suggest it is much bigger than people think.  Put in a historical or cumulative context of 110 years of negligible growth it could be a positively enormous Its a great pity that the SPGB does seem so set in its ways on this subject and I hope one day it will change its mind and at least soften its entry requirement as far as religion is concerned, perhaps only banning applicants who fromally belong to some religious organisation. Thats a good compromise position since it undermines organised religion and the reactionary policies endorsed by many organised religions which is the real problem as far as socialists are concerned – not some abstract metaphysical  concept of whether or not there is a god or an afterlife which is a totally irrelevant debate for socialists to be engaging in On other aspects, however,  I think the formula the SPGB has adopted of admitting only confirmed socialists is broadly correct and the problem with LU, as I see it,  is that it has bought into the same basic reformist paradigm that is shared by supporters of the Labour party.  If you go along with that paradigm then it doesnt really make much sense to join LU. Far better to join Labour and work from within that party precisely because the later at least stands a realistic chance of becoming a government whereas  with all due respect, Stuart, LU stands no chance at all. The niche has already been filled

[stuartw2112]

Left Unity has stood on a (currently) "unrealisable" set of socialist reforms, the SPGB stood on a platform of one big unrealisable socialist reform. I don't see the difference. I'd be interests to know what constituted a big breakthrough. Have the Greens made one? Have Ukip? That's where we're gunning for.

[alanjjohnstone]

What we need is a hate campaign against ourselves with all the rest of the poitical parties plus most of the media ganging up daily to expose our "idiotic" proposals. Certainy didn't do Farage much damage electorally. The more the establishment ranged against UKIP, the more voters thought there might be something to what they say that they don't want us to hear or know. Oscar Wilde: "The only thing worse than being talked about is not being talked about."Despite more publicity than we even expected, we lacked the hook  to catch peoples full attention. We need a punchier election manifesto and perhaps stop playing the nice guys. We have to include a sense of urgency and immediancy to our message…Some may criticise the catastrophists but , Hell…either vote for us or die a slow lingering and probably painful death seems a sufficient soundbite to make me sit up and question what is being communicated.Rather than simply thanking Caroline Lucas, imagine what a thousand new enthusiastic members campaigning on the streets rather simply voting for the Green Party could have done, Stuart.Official opposition in Liverpool and Solihull. Plus they have your social wage as policy, too. And renationalisation as well…a dream ticket !! Time to put your money where  your mouth is, time for real unity and for LU to merge. As Robin said the niche is already filled…by the Greens.

[stuartw2112]

LU members supported and voted for the Greens. So did I. 

[ALB]

stuartw2112 wrote:

Left Unity has stood on a (currently) "unrealisable" set of socialist reforms, the SPGB stood on a platform of one big unrealisable socialist reform. I don't see the difference..

The difference is that socialism is unrealisable at the moment because people don't want it but will be realisable when a sufficient majority do, while the wish list of attractive reforms to capitalism put forward by the likes of LU and TUSC are mostly inherently unrealisable because of the nature of capitalism and wouldn't become realisable even if a majority wanted them (in fact strict Trotskyist strategy is based on this being so).And of course it was the workings of capitalism itself that opened the way for heightened anti-capitalist criticism not Owen Jones or Caroline Lucas. Anyway, why should we thank them when what both of them are proposing (state capitalism in the one case, small-scale capitalism in the other) is not the way-out?

[Author]

Posts