Left Unity.org / People’s Assembly

[alanjjohnstone]

Die Linke and the Pirate Party in Germany also demonstrates the problems Left Unity will face and need to overcome, both constantly hampered by internal dissension. 

[alanjjohnstone]

The Left Unity project has raised many issues that the Socialist Party of Great Britain have faced and answered before. Our critics accuse us of being out in the political desert. But the Socialist Party is not prepared to join with parties whose aims and methods are contrary to the interests of the working class and a hindrance to the achievement of socialism. The Labour and Trotskyist Parties are parties to which that condemnation applies. It is our experience that any other policy is fatal for a socialist organisation. We would require the Left Unity Party to first state exactly what is its objective. It ought, of course, to be unnecessary to ask such a question of a party which declares its aim to be socialism Unfortunately, the labour parties in all countries have misused the word socialism, and applied it to their aim of state capitalism, which leaves intact the division of society into a propertied class and a class of property-less wage-earners. It is argued that if we can get unity of the workers' forces, the strength gained thereby will attract more and more towards our movement. Activists want to create a new left party because those that exist appear inadequate.  There exists trap which the advocates of compromise always fall. They promise to solve certain urgent problems by entering into pacts and alliances hoping perhaps to gain strength later on to press forward. They forget that in taking on the administration of capitalism they do not gain strength, but lose it. They at once begin to earn the unpopularity and contempt which always centres on an administration which carries on capitalism. The effort to solve problems inside capitalism creates uncertainty, mistrust, apathy and despair among the workers who have cherished false hopes as the Green Party now fully realise in Brighton.  When it was decided to form the Socialist Party those who made that decision did so against the advice of many individuals and groups that claimed to know a better way of getting socialism. By joining the Labour Party our advisers said genuine socialists should get inside where they would have a wide and receptive audience for socialist propaganda.  The  justification to their view was that it was possible in those days to talk and write about socialism within the ranks of the Labour Party and to argue the socialist case with Labour supporters who were at least familiar with the works of the socialist pioneers. They didn't accept the socialist case but they were aware what that case was. Socialism maybe a worth-while aim but workers being what they were, the only practical policy was of making capitalism better through reforms and introducing nationalisation as an administrative stepping stone to socialism while  teaching socialist principles to raise the level of understanding among the workers.   We will let the readers judge the success or failure of its reforms and state-ownership but on the issue of those who advocated the unity strategy and membership of  the Labour Party where is the Socialist influence that was to permeate the ranks of the Labour Party?  Has it raised the level of knowledge in Labour Party? Sure with  accumulation of experience of political power  they know all about winning votes and influencing electors. They know all the intricacies of government and administration. They can can hold their own in the wire-pulling and double talk. It is full of ingenious schemes for settling capitalism's problems but never on any occasion do they put the socialist alternative to capitalism or show a socialist understanding of the nature of the problems. The socialist case is not heard in Labour Party and if  a person  put it forard she or he would be regarded as a crank or an oddity not to be taken seriously. Far from being influenced by socialist propaganda, the Labour Party has now forgotten what little it once knew. It cannot now even argue against socialism for it does not know what socialism is. There are some members of the Labour Party who can remember the days when strikers were people to support and when patriotism was something of a dirty word. What do they think now of their party, a fully fledged party of capitalism, with taking political office as the one and only object of its miserable life?  We now receive similar wisdom from those who desire that we merge with the future Left Unity Party when it comes into being. It too possesses the attractive quality of an aimless but enthusiastic spirit of revolt against the iniquities of capitalism.   The Socialist Party mission is simple. We have to proceed with our educational propaganda until the working class have understood the fundamental facts of their position—the facts that because they do not own the means by which they live they are commodities on the market, never bought unless the buyers (the owners of the means of life) can see a profit to themselves in the transaction, always sold when the opportunity offers because in that only can the necessaries of life be obtained.  We have to emphasise the fact that no appreciable change is possible in the working-class condition while they remain commodities, and that the only method by which the alteration can be wrought is by the working class taking the means of life out of the hands of those who at present hold them, and whose private ownership is the cause of the trouble. Before this can occur the workers will have to understand the inevitable opposition of interests between them and the capitalist class, who, because of their ownership of the means of life, are able to exploit them, so that they will not make the mistake of voting into power, as they have always done previously, the representatives of the interests of those owning the means of life, because those who dominate political power dominate also the armed forces that keep the working class in subjection. This is our mission, and we shall conduct it with all the resources we have at hand. That is our position and if it contains flaws we shall be glad to hear of them and debate it. It is the mission of the Socialist Party by its educational propaganda, to clarify issues so that socialists will stand out us a political party distinct from and antagonistic to every other party to be a power in the land to-day. For the triumph of socialism, national and international, organisation is essential, but the organisation must be for socialism and based on socialist principles or such organisation can be nothing to the workers but a delusion and a snare. The new form of society is ready to take shape under its direction. Its consent is the only thing lacking.  The majority not want Socialism and do not understand it. That being so, it is mere illusion to imagine that working-class unity on a socialist basis is attainable at present. A socialist party cannot yet be more than a minority party. For unity:- The objective of common or social ownership, must be clearly understood.There must be no room for policies of minority action and armed revolt.There must be no collaboration with capitalist parties. (This would  rule out parties prepared to urge the workers to vote for the Labour Party and nationalists)  The Left Unity Party will gain membership partly on the basis of the failures of the Labour Party, but it has adopted exactly the same erroneous position. The Left Unity Party is committed to a gradualist, reformist strategy: seeking support on the basis of a programme of reforms. The case of the Labour Party is relevant here in that they too originally set out to impose on capitalism something—in their case, social measures in favour of the working class—that was contrary to its nature as a profit-driven system. The Left Unity Party are facing the same choice of strategy as did the first socialists in Britain at the end of the 19th century: to build up support on the basis of the maximum programme of fundamental social change and remain small till people have become convinced of the need for the change in question or to build up support on the basis of reforms within the system and grow faster but at the price of abandoning the maximum programme or relegating it to a vague remote, non-operational long-term objective. So much is this the case that we can already anticipate the weak excuses, the shifting of blame and apologies for their inevitable failures to come. There is no need to be Nostradamus in foretelling its future. The widespread rejection of the Labour Party by radically-minded people does provide the basis for the growth of a genuine socialist party on sound principles, but the Left Unity Party does not fill the bill. It has nothing to offer except the failed old policy of state intervention and state control to try to make things better for people. Despite the repeated demonstrations that this reformist policy does not work, the new party wants to have another go, flying in the face of the inescapable conclusion that capitalism just cannot be made to work in the interests of the majority. At the moment capitalism cannot even sustain the reforms it was able to afford at an earlier period. Since the post-war boom came to and end in the early 1970s, there have been no reforms – no improvements in housing, pensions, health care, social services or state benefits. Quite the reverse. Pre-existing reforms have been whittled away and things have got worse in all these fields. Nor is there any prospect of them getting any better; all the signs are that they will continue to get worse.  Nor can unemployment, poverty in old age, bad housing, inadequate health care, etc, etc, etc be solved within the capitalist system, not even by the most left-wing governments. Certainly, Left Unity says it wants to replace capitalism with a socialist society but this turns out to be, not real socialism, but the state capitalism that nationalisation represents. This is the past. We’ve seen it and it doesn’t work.  Knowing that socialism is the only solution and that it can be brought about only when the electors become socialists, it would be a dishonest political manoeuvre of seeking election on a programme of reforms of capitalism. It is dishonest because those who do it know that the reforms will not solve the problem.  The Socialist Party stands for the policy of independence. Unity is absolutely indispensable before socialism can be achieved, but it must be unity of socialists: on a socialist platform and in a socialist party. Socialist  politics is concerned with a materially realisable future, not with a mythical past, and is actively working towards a more equal and more humane society. A non-exploitative and non-hierarchical society is a practical goal not an ideal, one which necessitates a social order based on the common ownership of natural resources. 

[jpodcaster]

"We are socialist because our vision of society is one where the meeting of human needs is paramount, not one which is driven by the quest for private profit and the enrichment of a few. The natural wealth, productive resources and social means of existence will be owned in common and democratically run by and for the people as a whole, rather than being owned and controlled by a small minority to enrich themselves." http://leftunity.org/towards-a-new-left-party/ Doesn't sound like 'wishy-washy left reformism' to me. Indeed I think its possible that Left Unity could (could) become the kind of organisation that Max Rubel was alluding to in Non-Market Socialism when he spoke of revolutionary reformism. Yes, there are Trotskyists in Left Unity but I trust the democratic organisational structure of LU enough to prevent any serious entryism.JP

[Ed]

So I thought with all this excitment about the proposed platform of left unity I'd take a look at some other party's platforms. Ten internet points if you can tell who it is. 

Quote:

For socialism The present system cannot be patched up - it has to be completely transformed. The structures of the parliament, army, police and judiciary cannot be taken over and used by the working people. Elections can be used to agitate for real improvements in people's lives and to expose the system we live under, but only the mass action of workers themselves can change the system.Workers create all the wealth under capitalism. A new society can only be constructed when they collectively seize control of that wealth and plan its production and distribution according to need.For internationalism We live in a world economy dominated by huge corporations. Only by fighting together across national boundaries can we challenge the rich and powerful who dominate the globe. The struggle for socialism can only be successful if it is a worldwide struggle.Against racism, imperialism and oppression We oppose everything which turns workers from one country against those from another. We oppose all immigration controls and campaign for solidarity with workers in other countries. We support the right of black people and other oppressed groups to organise their own defence. We campaign for real social, political and economic equality for woman and for an end to all forms of discrimination against lesbians, gay men, bisexual and transgender people.Revolutionary party Those who rule our society are powerful because they are organised – they control the wealth, media, courts and the military. They use their power to limit and contain opposition. To combat that power, working people have to be organised as well. The *********** Party aims to bring together activists from the movement and working class. A revolutionary party is necessary to strengthen the movement, organise people within it and aid them in developing the ideas and strategies that can overthrow capitalism entirely.We are committed to fight for peace, equality, justice and socialism.

Fellow travellers? 

[ALB]

It's the SWP. The bit about the "revolutionary party" is a bit of a give away.

[alanjjohnstone]

 I find it surprising that Stop The War Coalition apart from some web statements has been fairly inactive in opposing the build up to the war. Of course, i fully expect the BBC and the yellow press not to seek contrary opinions to the prevailing war-mongering. But an appeal to 1945 nostaligia brings many thousands of activists to a conference hall. A Left Unity project creates dozens of new local groups of activists. But where is the anti-war movement? Will we see a million march again in a show of real unity demanding no war but class war? 

[ALB]

alanjjohnstone wrote:

i fully expect the BBC and the yellow press not to seek contrary opinions to the prevailing war-mongering.

This is an exaggeration. The BBC has been regularly interviewing Tory MPs who are opposed to British intervention in the Syrian civil war. Two in particular are John Baron and Adam Holloway. Both have a military background and could well be unofficial spokespersons for a section of the military establishment that is opposed to intervention (though in the end the military will do what the government tells them). But the ruling class seem to be split on this one.Just listened to Holloway on Radio 4. Here's some of what what he said (he was actually more forcefully anti-intervention):

Quote:

Conservative MP Adam Holloway said Parliament must be consulted but he doubted whether MPs would sanction any military action, since intervention was not in the UK's national security interest and would be "pure foolishness".

It appears that a "No" vote in parliament would be much more effective than any anti-war march. Which, after all, is what we'd expect, isn't it?.(Of course this should be a separate thread)

[alanjjohnstone]

Where will the LibDems stand on this occasion?  Will all Labour members oppose the war? Regardless, Cameron can still go ahead without Parliamentary approval using his Royal Perogative as can Obama without Congress consent with his presidential executive powers. If Cameron's whips do not foresee a majority, don't expect a vote. 

[Ed]

ALB wrote:

It's the SWP. The bit about the "revolutionary party" is a bit of a give away.

Of course it is , my point though is that many groups who call themselves revolutionary socialists will use the same language as us. It's their actions which will determine whether or not they are socialists or liberals not their rhetoric. The excitement over this proposed platform is not something that I share and I completely agree with Stuart when he says this. A silly notion from the start. 

stuartw2112 wrote:

, on the other hand, proposing a link up, even though secretly (not put in the letter, though not that secretly if you're going to be daft enough to admit to it on a public forum) you have no hope for it at all and disparage everyone involved in it, but think what the hell, we might make a point and pick up some members. Who're the opportunists, again, I'm confused?

[alanjjohnstone]

There won't be a million but the STWC has organised a protest at Downing St Downing Street, 5—7pm, Wednesday 28th August

[ALB]

jpodcaster wrote:

Indeed I think its possible that Left Unity could (could) become the kind of organisation that Max Rubel was alluding to in Non-Market Socialism when he spoke of revolutionary reformism.

Checking up on what Rubel might or might not have said on this I came across this:http://worldincommonblog.wordpress.com/2008/04/24/ecosocialist-manifesto-2nd-draft/So you (and us) have been there before ! Only then those you though might be regarded as "revolutionary reformists" were a tendency within …. the Green Party. There were hints at the time that some Trotskyists were behind this too. In fact the "Socialist Resistance" lot, who later migrated to Respect and have now moved into the new Left Unity Party. Talk about history repeating itself."Socialist Resistance" ( "The Fourth International in Britain")  supports the "Left Party platform" criticising the "Socialist platform" as …. "impossibilist":

Quote:

There is no acknowledgement that fighting for reforms in the short term is entirely compatible with aiming for socialism in the longer term. Absent is any idea that a fight for reforms can raise people’s self-activity and point towards escalating demands; instead we are offered something approaching impossibilism. Current struggles are played down in favour of visions of a utopian future. [Their link]

That's an accusation that must send their Trotskyist rivals behind the "Socialist Platform" reeling. So, Ed, how can we avoid getting in on this debate (even if not in the form suggested so far)? There's an open invitation here.Incidentally, JP,  I've just re-read Rubel's contribution to the Non-Market Socialism book and the term he uses is "reformist-revolutionary transition" (it's on page 31). By which I think he meant what happens after a socialist majority has won control of political power: he envisaged a longer "transition period" between capitalism and socialism/communism than us in which society would be gradually ("reformist") transformed from one into the other. He was not talking about a "revolutionary reformist" strategy to win control of political power as you seem to be thinking.

[jondwhite]

Did someone say impossibilist?!?!

[ALB]

Some interesting stuff on this in today's Weekly Worker. First a speech by Nick Wrack at the "CPGB's" summer school  a week or so ago, of which here are some extracts:

Quote:

What is our ultimate goal? It is a classless society. It is a society of abundance. It is a society without a state. This is our vision of a new society, in which everyone can develop to their fullest potential and where Marx’s aphorism, “From each according to their ability; to each according to their need”, can be put into practice.

Quote:

… so long as capitalism remains in place, any reforms, any gains will be constantly under threat and will eventually be taken away if we do not act to prevent that. We want to live in a society where we do not have to get up in the morning facing another campaign to save another hospital. Strange as it may seem, we want a society where there are hospitals and medicine for everybody.

Quote:

Is a revolution a conscious act of the majority of the working class who have been won to socialist ideas? Or is it the act of a minority in society, a putschist or a Blanquist approach to change? I am not in favour of that. I do not think it can work.

But also a speech by Jack Conrad of the CPGB in which he introduces a distinction between "socialism" and "communism":

Quote:

Crucially, socialism is the transition to communism – a globally organised society, which knows no money, no state, no country, no women’s oppression, no limit to human achievement. Only communism can realise the principle, “From each according to their abilities; to each according to their needs”. In that sense socialism is not an end to be fought for in its own right. Socialism is the means towards the goal of human freedom.

The CPGB also proposes some amendments to the "Socialist Platform" which would make it worse by introducing this distinction and other Leninisms.

Quote:

1. The

party is a socialist party. Its aim is to bring about the end of capitalism and its replacement by socialism.CPGB amendmentDelete second sentence and insert: “It seeks to bring about the end of capitalism and its replacement by the rule of the working class. Our ultimate aim is a society based on the principle of ‘from each according to their abilities; to each according to their needs’. A moneyless, classless, stateless society, within which each individual can develop their fullest individuality.”2. 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.CPGB amendmentsFirst sentence: delete “solely” and substitute “predominantly”.Delete the last two sentences and insert: “Neither capitalism nor its state apparatus can be made to work in the interests of the mass of the population. The rule of the working class requires a state to defend itself, but a state that is withering away, a semi-state.”

Most of the other proposed amendments go in the same Leninist sense. It will be interesting to see whether or not Nick Wrack (who I suspect drafted the original Platform) will agree to these amendments. I suspect not as they would change the Platform's whole character.

[alanjjohnstone]

Socialist Platform meetingSaturday September 14, 1pm. The Meeting Place, 2 Langley Lane, London SW8.Will we have an open letter or leaflet available to circulate at it. Something a bit meatier than ALB's WW letter, which was short and to the point,  but we are dealing with Leftists quite accustomed to polemical writing and we should give them that respect of full explaining our position.  

[ALB]

jondwhite wrote:

Another podcast from CPGB, this time specifically about the Socialist Platformhttp://cpgb.org.uk/home/podcasts/september-8-2013-left-unity

Interesting but oh dear. It shows that the so-called CPGB (they've no right to the name which they usurped when the old CP gave up) has no interest in the Socialist Platform let alone the proposed new Left Party. Their signing it is clearly part of a smash and grab raid to win over some of its other signatories. Conrad says at one point that if his group's amendments (to turn it into an explicitly Leninist statement) are not accepted the Platform will be useless, which presumably means they will stage a walk-out hoping to take some others with them..This sort of thing is why the Left Party is not going to succeed. It's going to get bogged down in dealing with other groups who'll have the same aim and tactics with regard to it as the "CPGB" does with regard to the Socialist Platform. In this podcast Conrad threatens a procedural row and even calls for the expulsion from the Platform of supporters of the Trotskyoid AWL for its position on the Middle East.  In other words, student politics and cats fighting in a bag yet again.Conrad also gets the wording of the Platform wrong on a couple of points. It does not say that capitalism is based on production for "private gain" and it does not call for a European "confederation". Admittedly what it does call for — "a voluntary European Federation of socialist socities" — is one of its weakest points, but Conrad's proposed alternative of a centralised Europe State with its own army is even worse. In a revealing echo of his group's origins (Stalinist rather than Trotskyist) he says that such an army would be needed to stand up to the US.

[Author]

Posts