Left Unity.org / People’s Assembly
- This topic has 583 replies, 34 voices, and was last updated 8 years, 1 month ago by
.
-
Posts
-
LBird wrote:Without mass class consciousness, we cannot build for socialism, Vin.
Really? I didn't know that!!I Wonder why the only party that believes that:"the emancipation of the working class must be the work of the working class itself"let me join and become an accredited speaker for them?I have had enough of your bollocks LBird. I am wasting no more time on you.
Vin wrote:I have had enough of your bollocks LBird. I am wasting no more time on you.Don't worry, Vin, you'll come round to my way of thinking, eventually.I'll persevere with you. Democratic workers' power is the answer, although you oppose any democracy in knowledge production.You have got a nasty temper, though!
Not sure if this should be on this thread or on the one about electoral activity but here goes…This from yesterday's Morning Star:
Quote:Socialist Alliance gets £100k boost to election prospectsThe tiny Socialist Alliance received one of the largest single donations given to any political party in the final quarter of 2014.Electoral Commission figures on party funding released yesterday included a six-figure sum which was received by Socialist Alliance in August, but only registered several months later.The party was gifted £101,166 as part of a legacy from a Mr Archie James Dilloway.The amount is more than the SNP or Plaid Cymru registered in the last three months of 2014.At the alliance’s 2014 AGM last September, members agreed to hand the money to the Trades Union and Socialist Coalition (Tusc) to pay for the deposits of its general election candidates.Socialist Alliance was formed amid disaffection with Labour in 1992 but collapsed in 2005 without having made major electoral victories.The group re-registered with the Electoral Commission in 2007 and is now part of the Alliance for Green Socialism.LBird wrote:Don't worry, Vin, you'll come round to my way of thinking, eventually.Don't think so. This is the only srgument you have: http://www.quickanddirtytips.com/education/grammar/what-is-a-straw-man-argumentMakes you feel important and is a true definition of how tto disrupt every thread.
gnome wrote:Not sure if this should be on this thread or on the one about electoral activity but here goes…This from yesterday's Morning Star:It should probably be on the TUSC threadactually, as here's how they've decided to use the £100,000 donation (see: http://www.socialistalliance.org.uk/?linkId=1&storyId=124 )
Quote:In practical terms, the Socialist Alliance will donate:§£500 each to the first 100 candidates who are selected and endorsed by a left coalition, such as TUSC, which will help create the largest possible left challenge and thus contribute towards there being national media coverage. The Socialist Alliance National Executive, meeting subsequently on Sunday, decided that it would be TUSC that was identified as that left coalition to receive such donations§£500, if funds allow, for additional candidates to the 100 on that same basis.§£500 to any candidate not part such a left coalition, but who has demonstrated that her/his organisation is willing to work co-operatively at a local level. This could be by simply engaging in discussions to avoid electoral clashes, although we would hope it would be more.§An additional £500 to any such candidate who can demonstrate to the SA NEC, in writing, before the end of February 2015, that they are, or have been, a member of the Socialist Alliance and are committed to its principles§£500 towards any other socialist party/organization/campaign group standing which clearly demonstrates a commitment to unity on the left§If the necessary number of candidates are fielded by a Left coalition such as TUSC, the cost of a fully-professional Party Election Broadcast, up to a maximum of £5,000.What this means is that it is the old "Socialist Alliance", not the RMT, that is bankrolling TUSC candidates election deposits. I suppose we could have blown our legacy in the same way but wiser counsels prevailed !Anyway, LU missed the boat again. They could have had a slice of the pie too.
Out of curiosity I looked up LU's recently agreed 2015 Manifesto and straightaway was quite surprised to come across the following under the section entitled "The Economy": "We need an economy run democratically, not controlled by the few in the interests of 1% of the population. This means the principle of common ownership of all natural resources and means of producing wealth, and an end to the dominance of private financial interests such as the City of London over the economy. We stand for ‘from each according to their ability, to each according to their needs"(http://leftunity.org/manifesto-2015-the-economy/ This in a Manifesto that blatantly calls for full employment, taking over the banks, taxing corporations and a whole host of other capitalism-tinkering reforms. I cannot believe that the authors of the Manifesto would be so unfamiliar with the argument that the very concept of "common ownership" logically precludes economic exchange (and hence any kind of exchange-related phenomena such as wages, taxes or indeed banks) or that the expression "from each according to their ability to each according to their need" specifically rules out wage labour or even labour vouchers and refers instead to a system of voluntaristic labour and free access to goods and services (Marx's higher phase of communism) Why is LU cleaving to – or hijacking – a form of wording that clearly has nothing whatsoever to do with what their Manifesto is actually proposing? Whats going on here?
robbo, its probably the "all things to all men" approach! They are after all a bunch of using, two faced Aholes!!!
steve colborn wrote:robbo, its probably the "all things to all men" approach! They are after all a bunch of using, two faced Aholes!!!Well, the thought crossed my mind, Steve, that maybe LU had both a maximum and a minimum programme along the lines of the old Social Democratic parties of the last century in which case I would be interested to read the former. But I dont think they have even that. (although I could be wrong)In fact, how many Left parties, one wonders, do explicitly publish a maximum programme which clearly outlines the communist objective. That would be something at least – even if such parties maybe irredeemably compromised by pursuing a minimum programme as well. I dont think many if any such parties exist. For most if not all of them, socialism/communism boils down to some form of state administered capitalism under pseudo "public ownership"
The left has always been the left, I have known them for many years. it is an incurable disease. In order for the left to change, they would be forced to dismantle themselves, and form a new organizations based on real socialist principles.Their manifests are poetical, and full of contradictions, sometimes they sounds like socialists principles, but at the end it is just pure capitalist reforms and capitalist principles, like this one mentioned by Robbo : Common possession of the means of productions, and the conservation of wage slavery, that is a total contradiction.The left is one of the best allied of the capitalist class, and the best one to continue the existence of capitalism, and the best one to create illusions in the minds of the workersThey can acquire different names, wear different masks, and in the essence they are all the same. Who ever leaves the WSM in order to join the left, it would be like stepping backward, instead of moving forward.
For the record, here's the election result for Vauxhall, the one constituency where there was a head-on clash between us and Left Unity:http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/politics/constituencies/E14001008As can be seen, we got 82 and they only got 188. Further confirmation of Stuart's view (and reason for resigning from them) that they are just another small leftwing party.More speculation on this particular result here.
alanjjohnstone wrote:Then let us see what Left Unity have discussed. http://weeklyworker.co.uk/worker/1062/standing-in-londons-elections/Interesting discussion by them on the last election and the coming London elections next year. I see that they are aware of the People's Front of Judea question too.
Quote:Ken Loach decided to enter the discussion. Whereas he usually takes more of a back seat in LU, now the gloves came off. He thought the Hackney motion was “madness” and that it would lead people to invoke the Monty Python ‘People’s Front of Judea’ sketch – especially with LU’s name being what it is. We would be “laughed out of the room” if we adopted the Hackney motion, he said.The Hackney resolution was in fact carried. It's that of the first group described here:
Quote:In the discussion which followed it seemed that LU in London had split into three broad camps. There were those who supported LU standing on its own on a pro-migrant and pro-European basis. This group was made up of the leadership in the form of Kate Hudson and Andrew Burgin, as well as Socialist Resistance speakers like Terry Conway. The CP lent its support to this grouping. Then there were the ISN speakers, who promoted Tusc on the basis of “socialist unity”. Finally there was a quite backward grouping, around Simon Hardy and the Workers Power and ex-WP milieu, which also had on board the likes of Ruth Cashman of the Alliance for Workers’ Liberty and some ex-SWP speakers, who felt that elections were a waste of money and what LU should really be doing is “building the movement”.Maybe, at last, LU will stand on its own in elections, independent of TUSC, so we can see how much support they have (or have not) got. We'll see.Simon Hardy, by the way, stood against us in Vauxhall, one of the few who stood as LU not TUSC:
Quote:He jokingly started by giving his name and “188 votes for socialism” in reference to his campaign to become MP for Vauxhall.Compared to our 82. So, they're still in the same league as us, which "building the movement " instead of contesting elections won't disguise.
It will be interesting to see what they decide this weekend. We know what, logically, they should decide to do, i.e join (or rejoin) Labou runder Corbyn as many of them seem to have already done:http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2015/nov/19/left-unity-party-ken-loach-to-consider-joining-labour-jeremy-corbynWhether a majority will vote for this remains to be seen. But if they don't another mass exit towards the Labour Party can be expected.
This has been on the cards since Corbyn was elected leader. I'm surprised it's taken them this long to even consider it.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.