Left Unity.org / People’s Assembly

[alanjjohnstone]

Just to elaborate on how to approach the issue of reformism which i think will be a crucial difference in attitudes, i suggest support rather than committing to a party to participation since obviously as been pointed out on other threDS …what does support actually mean in practice? We are not against particular reforms and we permit members to engage in certain reformist activities through their trade unions and resident associations, PTAs or patient groups or whatever. Many of us refuse to put up with what capitalism imposes upon us without a fight. Thus,  we may be involved in organisations and campaigns of a predominantly reformist nature,  but as socialists our activity is guided by a set of priorities different from that of the majority of our fellow participants.  Many on the "Left" promote campaigns even when they know that the aims are unrealistic in present circumstances – for example, while we urge people to resist the present cuts in our living standards and in public services, it would be hopeless in a recession to demand reforms which would involve vast increases in public expenditure. The Left make such demands in order to either recruit, or with the idea that people will somehow acquire a increased consciousness have  hitting their heads against brick walls, rather than achieving the very obvious state of unconsciousness.   We only get involved if the objectives of a campaign are on the whole worthwhile and realistic and we have a genuine personal interest in them as individuals.  Since socialist ideas do not spring up from nowhere, but develop through a complex process of personal and learned experience, advances in the class struggle will inevitably be linked, to a greater or lesser degree, to demands for reforms. There can be no denying that major reforms and material improvements achieved have strengthened workers and widened their vision of what to expect from life.   Increasingly, we have witnessed groups of workers acting independently and directly to acquire change. "Demands" are no longer always made on bodies such as Parliament. We also see a  break down in the isolation of different struggles as they develop links between them, both theoretically and practically. So long as these struggles remain isolated, their victories will be very short-lived  so it is essential that their participants develop an awareness of the need to aim at a simultaneous transformation of the whole of society, and not simply chip away at its parts which is what we as socialists seek to convey.  Workers gained major reforms during capitalism's periods of expansion, precisely because these also helped in capitalism's own development and modernisation. Today, with the recession, even these basic reforms come under attack. Reforms to benefit workers are not impossible now, but they are certainly harder to come by. The old merry-go-round offers less and less and therefore revolution becomes more and more obviously the solution. 

[ALB]

Apparently, some of the signatories of the "Socialist Platform" are members of the "Alliance for Workers Liberty", a Trotskyoid group organised as a vanguard party. Others are in the party misleadingly calling itself the "Communist Party of Great Britain" (they've nothing to do with the defunct party of this name) who publish the Weekly Worker.  Both these organisations have on occasions called on workers to "Vote Labour". I can't believe that they would dissolve their organisations into a party formed on their Platform's principles, let alone into the proposed new Left Reformist Party.I'm still trying to work out what their game is, but the statement is still worth discussing at its face value.

[Ed]

alanjjohnstone wrote:

…what does support actually mean in practice?

To me support means to advocate something.

alanjjohnstone wrote:

Since socialist ideas do not spring up from nowhere, but develop through a complex process of personal and learned experience, advances in the class struggle will inevitably be linked, to a greater or lesser degree, to demands for reforms. There can be no denying that major reforms and material improvements achieved have strengthened workers and widened their vision of what to expect from life.

Actually I can deny it. In a time where trade unions have never been as weak since their early days and have become almost completely divorced from their membership, in a time where workers decreasingly see themselves as members of any class let alone the working class, where indivualism reigns supreme and people feel increasingly isolated from their communities. This has coincided with the major reforms instituted by the ruling class. The working class is in many ways weaker than they were 100 years ago. What is indisputable is that reforms pacify the desire for revolution. The ruling class itself acknowledges this in some rare moments of honesty.   

alanjjohnstone wrote:

Reforms to benefit workers are not impossible.

I can't disagree more strongly. There are no reforms in the interest of the working class. The only thing in the interest of the working class is revolution. No reform to capitalism is implemented unless it benefits and strengthens capital. To suggest otherwise is to labour under the same misconceptions as the Left Unity or SWP or the Labour Party or any other number of social democrats. To suggest that reforms are in the intersts of the working class is to suggest that capitalism is in the interests of the working class; just a slightly nicer one than we have now where perhaps we even get a little bit more of the value of our labour than we do now. This is lesser evilism, saying that one type of capitalism is better than another.  The only progression left for the working class is the abolition of capitalism; anything which sustains and strengthens capitalism is conservative.

[alanjjohnstone]

Ed said “workers decreasingly see themselves as members of any class let alone the working class”  see this post  http://www.worldsocialism.org/spgb/forum/events-and-announcements/open-university-survey-class  Or this one  http://www.worldsocialism.org/spgb/forum/comments/now-there-are-seven-%E2%80%93-or-are-there If one has to detect the single most important cleavage in Britain today, it is not between ‘middle’ and ‘working’ class, but between a small corporate elite and everybody else…This distinctive elite has not been recently recognised in previous forms of sociological class analysis – though it is certainly manifest in the public imagination.” my emphasis Ed said “There are no reforms in the interest of the working class.”  No health and safety law, no environmental legislation ever protected the well-being of the working class? The vote was not a gain and once given couldn’t be so easily removed but insted extended? The NHS never gave the ordinary worker the expectation that his medical treatment should be free and available ?(despite NICE rationing) Ed said  “trade unions have never been as weak since their early days” 2012 increase in union membership of 59,000 was driven by a rise among private sector employees, taking total membership in the UK to 6.5m. However, this is still higher than pre-40s – the peak was 13m in 1979 Support means to me endorsing the actions of others if we view them positive but not necessarily offering any material assistance o intervening as a political party. i support workers on strike but it doesn’t mean i want to lead the strike, stand on the picket line and determine the course of it . If a local community want to take direct action to stop a particular closure i support them but i don’t instruct them to do it. Support for me means agreeing with a certain thing.  Old Solidarity always expressed it well, IMHO.   “Meaningful action, for revolutionaries, is whatever increases the confidence, the autonomy, the initiative, the participation, the solidarity, the equalitarian tendencies and the self -activity of the masses and whatever assists in their demystification. Sterile and harmful action is whatever reinforces the passivity of the masses, their apathy, their cynicism, their differentiation through hierarchy, their alienation, their reliance on others to do things for them and the degree to which they can therefore be manipulated by others – even by those allegedly acting on their behalf.”     

[Ed]

alanjjohnstone wrote:

Ed said “workers decreasingly see themselves as members of any class let alone the working class”  see this post:http://www.worldsocialism.org/spgb/forum/events-and-announcements/open-university-survey-class  Or this one: http://www.worldsocialism.org/spgb/forum/comments/now-there-are-seven-%E2%80%93-or-are-there If one has to detect the single most important cleavage in Britain today, it is not between ‘middle’ and ‘working’ class, but between a small corporate elite and everybody else…This distinctive elite has not been recently recognised in previous forms of sociological class analysis – though it is certainly manifest in the public imagination.” my emphasis

sigh, but do the working class themselves acknowledge their own class? You can post all the studies you like but they are divorced from reality. Since we're posting random shit check this out:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NXZ52-XgUjA 

alanjjohnstone wrote:

Ed said “There are no reforms in the interest of the working class.” No health and safety law, no environmental legislation ever protected the well-being of the working class? The vote was not a gain and once given couldn't be so easily removed but instead extended? The NHS never gave the ordinary worker the expectation that his medical treatment should be free and available ?(despite NICE rationing)

This bears no relation to what I said but whatever. Bah I've heard that crap about how we should be grateful for the NHS my whole life. From cradle to grave right?:http://www.worldsocialism.org/spgb/socialist-standard/1940s/1942/some-socialist-points-beveridge-reportLaborite bollocks, false consciousness talking. It's the advances in medical technology which have benefited workers more than any capitalist legislation. I suppose next you'll be saying that the soviet union was fantastic because they had low unemployment? Do you support syndicalism as well even though workers labour would still be being exploited? Where does the lesser evilism stop? Was Saddam Hussein better than the US led occupation because he gave good health care? The point remains if any capitalist reforms have some slight advantage to the working class it is merely a surprising by product of a reform tailored to strengthen and maintain capitalism. The advantages to the bourgeoisie far outweigh any to the proletariat 

alanjjohnstone wrote:

Ed said  "trade unions have never been as weak since their early days" 2012 increase in union membership of 59,000 was driven by a rise among private sector employees, taking total membership in the UK to 6.5m. However, this is still higher than pre-40s – the peak was 13m in 1979

Amazing seeing as how Britain's population has remained a stable 38,000,000 ……… oh wait besides which surely they should be judged by their actions rather than by their numbers? Their willingness and tendency to take strike action for example. Trade unions today are a joke, useless and as I said and most importantly divorced from their membership. 

alanjjohnstone wrote:

Support means to me endorsing the actions of others if we view them positive but not necessarily offering any material assistance o intervening as a political party. i support workers on strike but it doesn't mean i want to lead the strike, stand on the picket line and determine the course of it . If a local community want to take direct action to stop a particular closure i support them but i don't instruct them to do it. Support for me means agreeing with a certain thing.

sure agree/advocate same thing you agree with it you don't want to do it yourself but you advocate others doing it. I see no contradiction with what I said. But what you are saying is that you advocate/agree with/support reforms to capitalism. Whereas I am saying that we need a revolution. This may just be me but I save my support for things which I can have an influence over through my own actions. Reforming capitalism is something I can have no influence over.

[alanjjohnstone]

I'm not sure you read the class anaysis right. ".This distinctive elite has not been recently recognised in previous forms of sociological class analysis- THOUGH IT IS CERTAINLY MANIFEST IN THE PUBLIC IMAGINATION"  So indeed it is the workers who recognise the class difference , something the academics failed to previously to discover.    The population of Great Britain, 44,634,000 in 1930. Union membership in Great Britain was, in 1930, 10.5 per cent of population.  Of those actually in work,  1937 may be estimated as slightly more than 25% in Great Britain. 1910 it was 14% 1920 was a high-point , almost 43% but 1930 20%   I believe the figure is now 23%. Ups and downs with the changes of types of occupations and,  of course, the recessions. http://www.nber.org/chapters/c5410.pdf Apart from the peaks such as the General Strike  or  the Miners Strike, the number of strike days has been fairly consistent since 1900 http://www.parliament.uk/business/publications/research/olympic-britain/employment/picket-up/ "I save my support for things which I can have an influence over through my own actions. Reforming capitalism is something I can have no influence over."  "I am saying that we need a revolution"…and just how much influence do you exercise over supporting  revolution!    

[stuartw2112]

jpodcaster wrote:

"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?"

Hi Jools, sorry for the tardy reply, but I don't come by here that often. I totally agree with what you say (and with your reservations and questions – bring those with you too). And you're right, Left Unity is open to all individuals, regardless of what else they are a member of, but not to organisations, and the democratic basis of the organisation is "one member, one vote". The group's "EC", or National Coordinating Committee, is arguably even more democratic than the SPGB's EC, in that it consists of a ten-member directly elected portion, but also one delegate from every national group. This means that even the "EC" meetings are essentially conferences of the whole "party" (party in formation).I am a signatory to the Left Party Platform not the Socialist one, roughly for these reasons:http://leftunity.org/for-what-its-worth-my-thoughts-on-left-unity-and-the-platform-debate/Look forward to seeing you in Left Unity!All the best,Stuart 

[stuartw2112]

I meant, of course, a delegate from every local group.

[Anonymous]

Advance notice of this meeting taking place in West London on Tuesday, 17th September at 8.00pmhttp://www.worldsocialism.org/spgb/event/left-unity-impossible-dream-chiswick-800pm 

[stuartw2112]

One minute Comrade Nosradamus is telling us what is and isn't possible, the next he's penning a letter to the Trotskist platform to see if he can't tie up with them … Or cadge some members out of the ploy, as he doesn't really believe in it. Talk about people in glass houses!

[jpodcaster]

Alan – I haven't been to any Left Unity meetings yet but I'm not sure you're correct in saying that members of the Left have been quiet. In the website forum, yes, but the vast majority of debate seems to be happening via the comments section of the various articles on the main LU website. And it all seems to be relatively good natured, up front and comradely, despite Adam wanting to portray the imminent demise of LU due to "squabbling Trotskyist sects."Adam – although the Socialist Platform for me should be a lot more tempting ideologically, I think Stuart is absolutely right to support the Left Party Platform. For me now – ten years ago I'd have been fully behind the socialist platform – its a question of pragmatism. If the socialist platform is adopted it is highly likely that the vast majority that signed up to the LU pledge would be alienated and likely walk away from the organisation, particularly if there was a power struggle between socialist groups. What we'd end up with is a tiny party with revolutionary socialist principles. And there's already one of those, right?On the other hand the Left Party Platform is far broader in scope and potentially brings together a much wider collection of individuals with different interests and views including, but not limited to, revolutionary socialists. Why is that appealing to me? Because I think if real social change is going to happen we have to learn to work alongside people with different ideas and interests and backgrounds than us but who are still united by a belief in core principles such as solidarity, co-operation, common ownership and democratisation. Is the Left Party Platform perfect? No, of course not – I would personally like to see a more strongly worded anti-capitalist thread running through it and a stronger committment to deepen and extend 'the commons' in all its forms. But at the moment I think its the best of the three platforms in terms of the future of Left Unity as an organisation that is likely to make a real difference on the political stage.I guess we'll see what happens?Julian

[stuartw2112]

Nice comments Jools and I agree with you. You can always, of course, propose amendments to the statements – or even put forward your own if you can find support for it! As ever, the best of the debates are actually going on in the local groups around the country and in the national meetings. The Internet, as ever, gives a somewhat false and more poisonous impression! Cheers

[Young Master Smeet]

Stuart,After the dismal failure of Occupy, because it was a formless idea-less movement, left unity based on a like formlessness around a sort of possiblism will go the same way: you don't have to be Nostradamus to see that.  The "Socialist Platform" will be asked to subsume themselves to that possiblism, so there's no harm in saying to them that a separate explicitly Socialist Party already exists if they wanted to put the effort in.

[alanjjohnstone]

LU have invited people to have their say at the founding conference on the 30th Nov where you require to register and be a founding member of Left Unity. Will the EC if prepared to issue an open letter to LU also be asked to authorise a member or members to attend and make known the party view. I am assuming since the party is not yet a formal political party an SPGB member can join it to make a contribution…then once it is formally declared a political party rather than an exploratory collection of individuals and existing parties at the conference, be the first to resign I would suggest that it is an opportunity to address an audience on our socialist principles and our own democratic structure but hopefully not with a long harangue. 

[jondwhite]

The ideas of the Occupy Movement (especially Occupy Wall Street's refusal to engage with possibilist demands) engaged more people than the left has done in the last few decades.

[Author]

Posts