Left Unity.org / People’s Assembly

[alanjjohnstone]

And, of course, we still have TUSC, RESPECT and the Green Party.  I think you are right with an earlier comment that all those now wishing to form a new party should join an existing one and the Greens would be the obvious choice. I would be interested to know their case against such membership.  Galloway's RESPECT and Scargill's  SLP have already been tried but the personality cult  within those thwarted any differing factions. SPEW in TUSC aren't going to yield their influence to permit any interlopers.

[Ed]

The comments section of this article should help.http://socialistunity.com/can-the-green-party-become-the-main-party-of-the-left/ 

Quote:

Every time the Greens have got into power anywhere in Europe they have turned out to be the same old right-wing anti working class bigots as the rest of the capitalist parties. Brighton is proving the rule. Last time I went to a Green Party hosted public meeting the were condemning people in multi storey flats for not growing their own fruit and veg. All their remedies for the environment are aimed at hammering ordinary people – not big business.

Quote:

Don’t see why not as when in power they act just like Labour: submit and cut (Bristol, Brighton). They then wring their hands, apologise, claiming that they are living in the ‘real world’ & their cuts are better than the Con-Dems ones.

I lol'd at them thinking that left unity would be any different

[ALB]

Here's the "Socialist Platform". Actually, parts of it are not too bad. At least it attempts to define socialism and they are talking the same language (using the same words) as us. It's unlikely to be adopted though. When it's not perhaps (perhaps!) some of them will realise that a socialist party already exists.

Quote:

Statement of Aims and Principles for the 

 Party The 

 Party is a socialist party. Its aim is to bring about the end of capitalism and its replacement by socialism.Under capitalism, production is carried out solely to make a profit for the few, regardless of the needs of society or damage to the environment.  Capitalism does not and cannot be made to work in the interests of the majority. Its state and institutions will have to be replaced by ones that act in the interests of the majority.Socialism means complete political, social and economic democracy. It requires a fundamental breach with capitalism. It means a society in which the wealth and the means of production are no longer in private hands but are owned in common. Everyone will have the right to participate in deciding how the wealth of society is used and how production is planned to meet the needs of all and to protect the natural world on which we depend. We reject the idea that the undemocratic regimes that existed in the former Soviet Union and other countries were socialist.The 

 Party opposes all oppression and discrimination, whether on the basis of gender, nationality, ethnicity, disability, religion or sexual orientation and aims to create a society in which such oppression and discrimination no longer exist. Socialism has to be international. The interests of the working class are the same everywhere. The 

 Party opposes all imperialist wars and military interventions. It rejects the idea that there is a national solution to the problems of capitalism. It stands for the maximum solidarity and cooperation between the working class in Britain and elsewhere. It will work with others across Europe to replace the European Union with a voluntary European federation of socialist societies.The 

 Party aims to win support from the working class and all those who want to bring about the socialist transformation of society, which can only be accomplished by the working class itself acting democratically as the majority in society.The 

 Party aims to win political power to end capitalism, not to manage it. It will not participate in governmental coalitions with capitalist parties at national or local level.So long as the working class is not able to win political power for itself the 

 Party will participate in working-class campaigns to defend all past gains and to improve living standards and democratic rights. But it recognises that any reforms will only be partial and temporary so long as capitalism continues.The 

Party will use both parliamentary and extra-parliamentary means to build support for its ultimate goal – the socialist transformation of society.All elected representatives will be accountable to the party membership and will receive no payment above the average wage of a skilled worker (the exact level to be determined by the party conference) plus legitimate expenses.

I recognise some of the names who have signed it, including contributors to the Weekly Worker.

[Ozymandias]

Does this document give anyone hope? Is the "Left" slowly evolving?

[alanjjohnstone]

I’ve been using Marxist archive a lot recently and when it comes to language the early 20th C up to the 20s certainly used a lot of language and phrases that overlap with our own. So much so that with some tinkering i can cut and paste passable SPGB posts for our blogs from various sources. i am also minded of the attitude Maxton of the ILP who was able to present himself as all things to all people with use of terminology – see the debate Hardy held with him.  I think it was Marx who once said, you don’t reach a judgement by what they say about themselves (or how they say it) but by what they actually do. The jury isn’t even still out on Left Unity, we still listening to the evidence, and so far we do recognise the names and groups and it is all the usual suspects.   i know it i possible and it is something we all hope will happen in the future because it is a necessary part of the revolutionary process, but i just don’t expect Rees, German, and a host of others to change their spots in a road to Damascus epiphamy. They still camoflage their real objective under the cover of unity, alliances with non-socialists and words. Stop the War Campaign is still their template and i very much doubt it can be easily transferable to an actual political party.   I hope i am wrong and you are right about an evolution of ideas. I have detected a shift in the Left jettisoning the baggage they used to carry, but still they talk of stepping stones and transition towards socialism which has not become an immediate demand.

[ALB]

Ozymandias wrote:

Does this document give anyone hope? Is the "Left" slowly evolving?

Reading through the statement, if we could believe that those who drafted it were sincere (as opposed to applying Leninist "tactics"), it would represent an evolution of ideas on the "Left".  There are even some phrases that I can't believe weren't taken from us, even if unconsciously from having heard us over the years. For instance:

Quote:

Capitalism does not and cannot be made to work in the interests of the majority.

And

Quote:

… the socialist transformation of society … can only be accomplished by the working class itself acting democratically as the majority in society.

And

Quote:

Socialism … means a society in which the wealth and the means of production are no longer in private hands but are owned in common.

In the past they would have said "nationalised", i.e owned by the state. This may still be what they envisage but "owned in common" is what we've been saying all along as something distinct from state or government ownership.Of course there are things we dont agree with. For instance, Clause 1 suggests that the "State" will continue into socialism and Clause 2 does not spell out that socialism (common ownership) implies the complete disappearance of the market. I suspect that, if you scratch them, they will draw a distinction between "socialism" and "communism". It's good to see that they don't reject elections and from Clause 5 that they are not jumping on the "No To Europe" bandwagon, even if the alternative to the EU is world socialism rather than just a "European federation of socialist societies".But the big difference is Clause 8, which opens the way to a party organised on the basis they propose having a reform programme. And in fact, in answer to criticism that their "statement of aims and principles" is "too abstract" they have replied that of course the new Left Unity party should have a reform programme. When their statement is rejected (as it will be) when the LU party is formed in November as a openly reformist "broad" party they'll probably stay in and concentrate on campaigning for reforms (as well as recruiting for their own factions).I haven't worked out why the people behind it (the Independent Socialist Network, currently part of TUSC but seemingly in the process of defecting to the new LU party, and the neo-Leninists of Weekly Worker) have proposed this statement since their past and present practice shows that they don't really accept its implications, i.e to give priority to campaigning for socialism. That would be "abstract propagandism" like the SPGB !Even so, I wonder whether we shouldn't call their bluff and invite them to meet to compare their "statement of aims and principles" with our "object and declaration of principles"?

[alanjjohnstone]

 ' I wonder whether we shouldn't call their bluff and invite them to meet to compare their "statement of aims and principles" with our "object and declaration of principles"? ' Do it. Address an open letter to them to discuss unity with ourselves based upon our own Declaration of Principles and an amended version of their own one We can be pedantic in agreeing that the state will exist in a modified form as it withers away completely . In regards to reforms , their statement doesn't say they will advocate or propose reforms but rather participate in campaigns defending past gains and improving living standards …all our disagreement is that we leave much of this up to the trade unions responsibility and for our  members as individual in particular campaign organisations …save our school, hospital or fire station, for instance …its a tactically approach …of delegating the task to the appropriate and more qualified sections of our class. I suggest this open letter is agreed at the next EC and submitted to them in the name of the party by email to the Left Unity website and also left on their comments box and placed prominently on our own homepage and blogs. (cc-ed to WW, Workers Power et al) 

[stevead1966]

I agree we should address an open letter to the 'Socialist Platform' of the Left Unity.org  to discuss unity with ourselves based upon our own Declaration of Principles and an amended version of their own one and agree that this open letter is agreed at the next EC and submitted to them in the name of the party by email to the Left Unity website and also left on their comments box and placed prominently on our own homepage and blogs. (cc-ed to WW, Workers Power et al)

[alanjjohnstone]

I may have misrepresente our position against reformism…its not just a tactical issue but one of principle…we don't want those who desire only reforms to flood our party and water down our determination to place socialism in the forefront of our activities. When workers vot for the party it is a vote for socialism, not for this reform or that one. It is a mandate for revolution. 

[ALB]

Just been pointed out to me that one of the signatories of the "Socialist Platform" is Joseph Healy who was the Green Party candidate in Vauxhall in the 2010 general election at which we stood. Perhaps he was convinced of some of his current views by listening to our candidate Danny Lambert at the various hustings that took place ! Another of our opponents in this election has also joined (well, entered) LU, Jeremy Drinkall of Workers Power, but he hasn't learned anything as he's one of the signatories of the rival (and terrible) "Class Struggle Platform".

[J Surman]

Even so, I wonder whether we shouldn't call their bluff and invite them to meet to compare their "statement of aims and principles" with our "object and declaration of principles"?This sounds like a brilliant idea to me too – a great way for other interested individuals to hear it from the horse's mouth.  Is there a way of bringing these last few posts to a wider audience in order to get more feedback from members?

[jpodcaster]

I'm not sure its fair to say there are splits within Left Unity (at least not yet). There are three discernible platforms but at this stage they are just that, not a split.(This article makes the case that the platfoms are a positive development and I think he's right: http://leftunity.org/on-the-platform-debate-in-left-unity-and-a-note-on-… ) It will be interesting to see what happens post-Nov 30th when one of the platforms (presumably) becomes adopted. The shit may indeed hit the fan but until then I think we should at least give them the benefit of the doubt.From what I've read to the untrained eye the 'socialist platform' is indistinguishable from something you might find in world socialist literature. There might be a few giveaways but on the whole I'd wager that the vast majority of the 9000 who signed up to the Left Unity pledge couldn't give two hoots about the any minor differences. I think you're right about it being unlikely that the socialist platform will be accepted, however, even though some have argued that Left Party Platform represents the better opportunity for bringing together the widest range of voices including libertarian socialists, anarchists, feminists, council communists etc:  So shoot me down in flames but here's a suggestion to WSM members, sympathisers and other libertarian socialists – sign up to the pledge and get involved in Left Unity. See if we can influence the direction the organisation takes. See if we can learn something from working in an organisation where there are a multitude of different voices all pulling in the same direction, even though things will undoubtedly get messy at times. We would have a captive audience of 9000+ working-class people who are looking for a genuine alternative to the failed politics of the left and to capitalism as an economic system. What's the worst that could happen? WSM members would presumably not be breaking any party rules … at least not until Nov 30th and then only if the organisation constitutes itself as a political party.http://leftunity.org/which-way-for-left-unity-the-case-for-the-left-party-platform/That's what I'll be doing. Imagine how brilliant it would be to be part of a genuinely open and democratic organisation that included libertarian socialists, anarchists, councillists, syndicalists, feminists and thousands of working people fighting against austerity and working towards a post-capitalist society?  

[alanjjohnstone]

To guage the content of LU i suggest a visit to their discussion list http://forum.leftunity.org/main/index.php Ex-member SW (i may be mistaken about identity) is arguing for a citizens income to free "everyone from the necessity and compulsion of work" Another poster is involved with Parecon I find that those who are members of the Left are strangely quiet as if deliberately not wishing to enter discussions, leaving dabates to the non-aligned and holding their fire for the battle of the platforms at the November 30 Convention. The Party should have something detailed and comprehensive prepared at least for this …we should go beyond simply a short leaflet and give the participants the respect  for being politically nuanced enough to be given an extensive response

[ALB]

jpodcaster wrote:

So shoot me down in flames but here's a suggestion to WSM members, sympathisers and other libertarian socialists – sign up to the pledge and get involved in Left Unity. See if we can influence the direction the organisation takes.

Tempting perhaps, but of course we've got principles which include being above board and so rule out "entryism" into other organisations. But you're not bound by these principles and can enter LU. Keep us informed of what happens !I'm a bit surprised, though, that you are prepared to go into the proposed new party to support, not a modified version of the "Socialist Platform", but  the wishy-washy, reformist and openly opportunist and vote-catching "Left Party Platform" as exemplified from this passage from the link you give:

Quote:

The space to the left of Labour is enormous – and as Labour moves further to the right, it gets bigger every day. In this moment of crisis and the rise of UKIP, even a moderately successful left party could pull the whole debate in society back towards the left, and win real defensive victories over the welfare state. The Socialist Platform, by contrast, takes the overthrow of capitalism and its replacement with socialism as its starting point. It is a far narrower statement – just about acceptable to a few different kinds of socialist, but distinctly unappealing to most people on the wider left. It is a recipe, I think, for narrowing the party to those who are already convinced socialists, plus a few more who we might be able to persuade as we went along.

That's the issue (as it always has been): a "narrow" party of convinced socialists or a "broad" rag-bag party of all sorts of reformists?

[alanjjohnstone]

In regards to the Socialist Platform, to engage first ourselves in debate i suggest the following "improvements" to the Socialist Platform. 1 tick= to our own object2  "Its state and institutions will have to be replaced by ones that act in the interests of the majority."Amendment, “Once captured and under the control of the working class the state will be appropriately modified and transformed for the interests of the majority until this role is redundant and it withers away”= D of P 63 tick= D of P 34 tick'= D of P 45 “The

Party opposes all imperialist wars and military interventions.” Amendment – delete "imperialist" so to read  “opposes all wars” "It will work with others across Europe to replace the European Union with a voluntary European federation of socialist societies."Amendment delete "Europe" and insert world  and delete " European federation" and substitute "world federation" 6 tick = D of P 5 7 tick = D of P 7  8 “…the

Party will participate in working-class campaigns to defend all past gains and to improve living standards and democratic rights.”Amendment delete "participation in" and substitute "support"  9 tick  10 tick

[Author]

Posts