21 Principles for A Future Socialism
In this article Mike Wayne posts a revised version of an earlier draft of 21 Principles for guiding policy making for the new party. He also identifies the need to start thinking about the principles that would underpin the internal structure of the new party and the principles that would guide its outward facing political practice. No single Platform as they currently exist can or should expect to be the exclusive ‘winner’ from the forthcoming conference. Instead, he argues, we need to build consensus.
I recently posted 21 principles that could provide a framework for the policy making process that needs to evolve over the coming months and years. (The original contribution and preamble can be found here: http://leftunity.org/left-unity-principles-as-a-guide-for-policy-and-practice/) The response from people was very positive. The principles seemed to attract broad support and enthusiasm from people who have signed or aligned themselves with the different Platforms. It was my hope that they would because it is very important that we work towards the promise of Left Unity and build a consensus around which we can offer an alternative political agenda to the millions of people in this country who are desperate for a real political choice. Although there have been some very good think pieces on the Left Unity website, the debate so far around the various Platforms has been I think it is fair to say, rather poor and is now in danger of descending into acrimony before we have really started.
As a number of people are now beginning to say on the website, in Facebook discussions and so on, the Platforms are encouraging people to simplify the positions of others and block dialogue. One gets the impression that people are approaching the conference as a zero sum game in which the different Platforms transform initial signatories into oaths of fealty that will be publically demonstrated in votes at the conference. We can expect there to be little real debate or mutual learning in such a context. We should not approach the conference nor should the conference be organized in a way where one Platform or the other exclusively ‘wins’. Instead we need a conference process that allows us to debate, amend and agree principles that are being advocated across the different traditions and perspectives within the embryonic party. That way we can build a consensus and a unified Left party that hopefully begins with a starting membership base in the many thousands.
Many of the principles listed below can be found in one form or another in the existing Platforms. They are not original or unique to me but are part of the ideas in common circulation on the left. What is surprising to me is that people are focusing on the differences between the Platforms and not on the amount of common ground there is between them. For example, the Left Party Platform argues that the new party ‘advocates and fights for the democratisation of our society, economy, state and political institutions, transforming these arenas in the interests of the majority’. The Socialist Platform states that ‘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.’ Is there a huge gulf here? There are differences of emphasis, with the Left Party Platform stressing anti-capitalism and the Socialist Platform stressing socialism. But it does not seem to me that in terms of broad principles, there is no basis for uniting in a common project. If we can agree broad principles then perhaps we can approach specific policies and policy differences with a greater awareness of common ground. One of the problems though with the Platforms is that most of them mix up principles concerning what kind of changes we would like to see, with specific policies, particularly policies that say something about how the party would operate and where its priorities would lie. I think it would be helpful if we carefully separated out the different tasks that we have ahead.
To my mind there are two different types of principles that we need to discuss at the forthcoming conference and beyond. Firstly we need a set of principles that will provide the framework within which the evolving policies will emerge. My contribution to that is the list of principles I have published and which I have now amended slightly following feedback on the Left Unity website (thanks for the constructive feedback everyone). It has the advantage of not mixing in any policies but just identifying the values that subsequent policies would embody and implement. One can imagine policies that realize these principles according to a spectrum ranging from their minimal realization through to their maximum realization. The policies discussed agreed and evolved would no doubt be spread across the spectrum and would change as the circumstances demanded and permitted and indeed as our views as to what would maximize the realization of those principles also changed.
It is therefore important that the internal structures of the party are radically democratic so that the party can respond to circumstances at the policymaking level in a way that matches the ambition to fully realize the principles as circumstances permit. This is the second type of principles we need to be discussing: the principles pertaining to the internal democratic structure of the new party. This seems to have been largely forgotten so far or have been mixed up with the general principles concerning what kind of society we are fighting for. We desperately need people to start putting ideas into the pot regarding the internal structures of the party and how they can be made as democratic and un-bureaucratic as possible. We can also say that as well as the constitution of the party we need some agreed principles pertaining to the new party’s political practice: how that is it will make political interventions. Both the Socialist Platform and the Class Struggle Platform do raise some important pointers in this regard. For example the Socialist Platform states that the new party will ‘not participate in governmental coalitions with capitalist parties at national or local level.’ Given the track record of radical parties betraying the principles on which they are founded by exactly that sort of participation, that seems to me to be a very important principle guiding the party vis-à-vis the realities of power. However, the main point I want to make, irrespective of what I think about that particular principle, is that we need to debate, amend and agree principles that will govern the internalstructure and outward facing practice of the party. Another example of the latter type of principle would be one which prioritises community-work. I know a number of people have been saying that we need to engage in community work, providing educational and cultural projects and other services such as legal aid or even food banks. This was discussed in our local branch initially – but unfortunately all the energy now seems to be going into this rather internal process of building the party. It is necessary but we need to establish a working organization as rapidly as possible so that we can actually start to engage with people, especially the stratas of working class people outside formal organizations such as trade unions and who have become thoroughly alienated from politics thanks to the neo-liberal consensus. Community work would in my view be an important part of doing that. But again, my main point is that these party principles need to be carefully separated out in the discussion from broader principles concerning a new social order. Of course they are linked because the means and the ends cannot be separated (see Principle 21 below) but in terms of trying to get a bunch of people together who have historically struggled to work with one another, then this way of proceeding may help.
To summarise, we need:
1) General Principles that govern policies designed for a new social order. These are our Vision principles.
2) Principles governing the internal political structure of the new party. These are our Internal principles and, as a sub-division of that:
2b) Principles which guide the political practice of the new party in its outward facing relationship to the world. These are our Engagement principles.
3) Policies developed according to the framework mapped out by 1. The goal, to my mind should always be the maximum realization of the principles through policies as circumstances permit. Of course there will always be a debate about what ‘circumstances permit’ but that is true of everyone – even the Bolshevik party debated long and hard as to whether the circumstances permitted the overthrow of the Kerensky government and the establishment of a revolutionary socialist one in 1917. There are always circumstances and political debate and practice is about engaging with those circumstances and making something different out of them. It should be noted that it would be perfectly possible to set up a new party that had 1) General Principles and the Principles identified with 2 and 2b without any Policies. The latter only become necessary really in relation to electoral politics. One could argue that the new party should bed itself down first engaging in community action rather than rush to develop an electoral programme.
The Principles listed below are not of course designed for wider public consumption – there are far too many of them for that. They are instead designed to identify the principles we can unite around in the first instance.
Now, here is my dilemma. What to do with these principles in the context of a debate that is becoming antagonistic rather than constructive and where Platforms are multiplying and fragmentation rather than consensus is looming. I welcome feedback on that thorny question if you think these are helpful.
*******
The Party aims for the Maximum Realization of the Following Principles as Circumstances Permit:
1. To make co-operation rather than competition a central value system.
2. To increase the opportunities for all people to participate in the decision making processes that effect their lives.
3. To secure equality among all citizens with respect to all basic necessities of a decent life and to ensure equality of access for all citizens to the resources necessary for the pursuit of the life they have reason to value.
4. To develop an economy that serves human beings, rather than producing human beings, that serve the economy.
5. To reconfigure the economy so that it is sustainable and does not destroy the natural basis on which human life depends.
6. To convert existing surpluses of capital back into socially useful initiatives
that meet the diverse needs of the majority of people.
7. To dismantle the coercion and disciplining of labour by its dependence on the
market trade in labour power.
8. To enlarge common ownership, co-operative models and public sector provision and diversify their forms.
9. To democratize the management and resource allocation mechanisms in the co-operative and public sectors for the benefit of both producers and consumers.
10. To help small businesses work for local communities and protect them against predatory big capital.
11. To progressively reduce the working day and expand leisure time for all without detriment to the standard of living.
12. To de-commodify access to social and cultural resources.
13. To develop democratic and accountable structures and practices within state institutions in preparation for diminishing the role of the state in society.
14. To dismantle the values, the concepts, the perspectives and the dogmas associated with legitimizing capitalism.
15. To develop society’s capacities to use reason to address social problems.
16. To strengthen the bonds of solidarity (social, intergenerational, across cultural and other differences).
17. To develop the critical capacities amongst all individuals necessary to bring
about genuine freedom and liberation by challenging sexist, racist, homophobic and other value systems (accumulated over centuries) associated with oppression.
18. To encourage the initiative, the capacities and talents of individuals rather than the egotism and acquisitiveness of individualism.
19 To democratize through mass participation all means of education, information, communication and cultural provision as well as artistic expression in order to provide the best possible resources of consciousness, to consciousness, for progressive change.
20. To reject imperialism and work with others to develop an international framework for the cross border implementation of these values and practices and to support the struggles of people in other parts of the world against the damaging consequences of capitalism.
And
21. The party must embody the principles it wants to encourage more generally,
means and ends must be united.
19 comments
19 responses to “21 Principles for A Future Socialism”
Left Unity is active in movements and campaigns across the left, working to create an alternative to the main political parties.
About Left Unity
Read our manifesto
Left Unity is a member of the European Left Party. 
Read the European Left Manifesto
ACTIVIST CALENDAR
Events and protests from around the movement, and local Left Unity meetings.
ongoing
Just Stop Oil – Slow Marches
Slow marches are still legal (so LOW RISK of arrest), and are extremely effective. The plan is to keep up the pressure on this ecocidal government to stop all new fossil fuel licences.
Saturday 27th April: national march for Palestine
National demonstration.
Ceasefire NOW! Stop the Genocide in Gaza: Assemble 12 noon Central London
Full details to follow
More events »
GET UPDATES
Sign up to the Left Unity email newsletter.
CAMPAIGNING MATERIALS
Get the latest Left Unity resources.
Why do people waste their time on these general principles which are no more than wish lists. A genuine alternative to New Labour will offer a programmatic way out of the existential crisis facing the British working class and indeed the whole of society as capitalism implodes around us. All this PC crap (Left Party Platform, Socialist Platform, 21 Principles, etc) is a massive sectarian turn off at the moment. It is an alternative to New Labour we are supposed to be constructing not to the SWP. I am hoping that 8 policy Resolutions proposed by the Manifesto Group will be posted up today and that we can have a serious discussion about these rather than having our Clause 4 moment before we’ve even began.
Please clarify something for me, “Baton Rouge”. Is the “Manifesto group ” proposer , “David Ellis” and the “Manifesto group ” supporting poster, “Baton Rouge” one and the same person, ie YOU ? The Dave Spartish tone and content of the posts would certainly suggest so !
They are the same person. David forgot to switch his accounts in the comments in this thread- http://leftunity.org/yes-to-caucuses-no-to-platforms/
Obviously, I use a pseudonym, but using two accounts to agree with yourself is somewhat bad form.
On the more important issue of Mike’s principles, overall I think they’re a really useful contribution. My main criticism would be that they’re overly jargony at times. They could do with being put in more straightforward language. I agree with the sentiment behind “de-commodify access to social and cultural resources.” but couldn’t imagine actually trying to put it forward in those terms.
Ha – I knew it !!
No two people could have that same spiteful arrogant condescension!! What a loser.
As I far as I’m informed, the programme will be discussed separately from the principles, which are meant to outline our overall goals and, well… principles.
Before drawing up a road map you need to decide where you want to go, unless ‘the goal is nothing, the way is everything'(Bernstein). And I think there’s a variety of views where we want to be heading.
I really like everything you have to say in this and your previous post, but I’m not clear what is being proposed. Are you proposing that we agree something like this instead of or as well as the founding (platform) statements? That we have an alternative statement, or do away with statements entirely, and instead have these guiding principles? I would like to see (something like) the LPP passed as a broad statement of intent, but also that something like what you propose be agreed to guide the policy discussions. Is that allowed?(!)
Baton Rouge’s comments seem pretty silly to me….its like saying “why does evolution bother with DNA to create species when it could go to a warehouse of body parts and build something new with them”.
Of course principles are essential….how else are we supposed to navigate our way across an unknown landscape on a journey we dont have the full details of unless we have some sort of map, compass and vision of where we want to go?
I dont agree with all of Mikes 21 principles….21 is too many and can be condensed..I will post a set of 10 which I used to construct the manifesto ” Building a New Scotland” but redraft them for a UK wide political context.
Basically though I agree with the methodology and process propsed by Mike and I really do like the concept of “principles of engagement”.
Here are the 10 principles in a “Vision Document” from which a new social order can be described and from which a political program can be constructed. If anyone wants to see how this vision/principles has been translated into an outline of a new social order and political program e-mail me at jim.osborne@talk21.com and I will send you “Building a New Scotland” which is the resulting manifesto written as a contribution to the debate in Scotland about a possible future after independence.
A Vision of a New Social Order
1. An active, participatory democracy.
Political power residing with local communities who take responsibility for the well being of all their members, for economic development and for health, welfare, education, culture and the arts. Governance of all social, cultural, political and economic institutions incorporates the principles of participatory democracy.
2. The principle of subsidiarity is applied.
All decisions are made at the lowest possible level and where matters are beyond the capabilities of local communities they are delegated upwards, with accountability of the higher level to the lower.
3. A self reliant, resilient society,
which includes self sufficiency in our ability to provide for the basics of human well being….food, warmth, shelter and security…self sufficient in food production, energy, meeting the people’s housing needs and national self defence.
4. Environmentally sustainable,
including the development of green energy infrastructure and technology, enhanced materials efficiency, waste reduction, materials recycling and long product life spans. In agriculture the adoption of permaculture and “forest gardening” principles and practice, which use natural processes and cycles, thereby reducing reliance on oil for food production and land fertility.
5. An economy focused on improving resource efficiency
and productivity and not on labour productivity…producing goods and services which are of genuine social and cultural value and which use minimal natural resources.
6. An egalitarian society
creating equality of opportunity and a major reduction in the inequality of incomes and in the distribution of wealth, land and property
7. A learning society
in which curiosity, experimentation and risk taking are the norm and the basis for individual and collective development. The education system enables and supports people at all stages of their development to learn by exploring the unknown, promoting a questioning approach and by encouraging an acceptance and understanding of risk. Individual and collective learning is engendered by a free exchange of ideas and knowledge.
8. A new tax regime
with a focus on taxing wealth, property, land, speculative financial activities and carbon and other forms of pollution., with a shift away from taxation of income and a rebalancing of consumption taxes to promote forms of consumption that are sustainable and/or enhance health and well being and penalise those which are not.
9. A robust and stable financial system,
including new institutions, subject to democratic principles of governance and accountability, and prudent regulation.
10. The formation of new international alliances
and areas of co-operation, including a new relationship with the EU and member countries of the EU. Retain membership of global organisations promoting peace and sustainable development, but actively pursue reform of governance of these, including the UN, World Bank, IMF and WTO. Exit from NATO, including the dismantling of nuclear weapons and removal of all such weapons from UK soil. Co-operation with countries committed to non-aggression, whilst maintaining a commitment to supporting international humanitarian and peacekeeping interventions.
Ok Jim, your points are fine (apart from membership of the IMF and World Bank, maybe) but the ‘elephant in the room’ is your lack on any policy on democratising the ownership and/or control of the economy, the means of creating wealth (sustainably or not). Without addressing this massive imbalance of wealth and power all the other points are just wishful thinking.
HI Jim,
There’s a lot of overlap and convergence here with the 21 Principles which is good and really to be expected.
However, the 21 Principles include a clearer recognition of the capital-labour issue, specifically, number 7: To dismantle the coercion and disciplining of labour by its dependence on the market trade in labour power” and number 11: To progressively reduce the working day and expand leisure time for all without detriment to the standard of living.” I guess this is the point Ray G is making below. On a minor note, the 21 Principles uses less words than your own 10 principles! (although number 10 are not principles but policies) so in that sense it is not more ‘condensed’.
This sounds good to me, Jim. Much more ‘portable’ and easier to digest! (Not too ‘wordy’, and one doesn’t need to be an academic to interpret them). The ’10 (borrowed) Principles’ are concise, coherent, rational and achievable. In my opinion, the ’10 Principles’ would provide, for the Majority, a solid societal foundation.
Would you provide some latitude to ask one question? Are you a commited Socialist, Jim, or do you aspire to building a future Communist state?
The reason I ask, is that I consider Communism to be a 19th century extremist philosophy, (as is Capitalism). Communism is an utopion vision and it is, in the final analysis, unachievable. I am 66 years of age, and I do not believe in waisting my time! Neither are desireable, in a 21st century society.
Thanx Jim, and all the best!
Larry
I have found it interesting that LEFT Unity has no ‘Communist Platform’. Why would that be, if it is a broadly based coalition of the so-called Left? Are there no aspirants to Communism, within Left Unity? Could Communists, possibly, be hiding their agenda, and riding on the coat tails of Socialism?
On another matter, whether they realise it or not, the ‘Left Party Platform’ IS, in fact, descriptive of a Socialist Platform. It would appear that the ‘Class Struggle Platform’, although somewhat blurred and unclear, also supports a Socialist perspective.
NOTE:
Political ideologies are ranged on a horizontal continuum.
Moving from Left to Right: Anarchism, (No recognition, nor respect, for governmental Social Order); Totalitarianism (Stalin); Liberal Theism; Communism; Socialism.
Moving from right to left: Anarchism, (No recognition, nor respect, for governmental Social Order); Totalitarianism (Hitler); Conservative Theism; Capitalism; Socialism.
Socialism always has, and always will, command the middle, or if you prefer, the moderate ground on the Continuum
The only reason for Socialism being refered to as a Leftist Ideology is that we have allowed the Capitalist to define Socialism. It is, in fact, positioned to the left of Capitalism, but this does not make Socialism Left Wing. From the perspective of the Communist, Socialism is Right Wing. Interesting, isn’t it?
The Socialist, reserves the unequivical right to define herself/himself!!
I read Mikes brilliant principles and my heart leaped. Yes, brilliant, short, understandable (mostly). If we could get a few thousand people to agree to these, even just to the first one, then we would have acheived something amazing.
How we communicate these ideas, turn them into policies etc is the real big issue for us over the next few years. I would be very happy to sign up to that pieceof work.
I think I know many others who would be happy to sign up to that too.
I also like your minimum and maximum realisation thing. This makes so much sense when we have such big ideals but which need working towards step by step if people are to see we are credible.
My only question is about our job being engaging in social work, because I am sure most LU members are already involved in campaigns and projects which further our aims even though our aims are still mostly in our dreams. Most have been initiated by other people, food banks for example,and they need our support, not our competition. Unless we think of completely new things which can be done with no resources other than ourselves, surely our job is to support other activists, and to do the work we are doing here to create a visible political structure which spells out an alternative economic and cultural system which people can mobilise around so they don’t feel so alone and discouraged and confused? This is a huge task, not a little distraction. Any way, thanks for your wonderful piece of thinking.
Hi Micheline,
I do not intend the following feedback to sound petty or confrontational, Micheline, as this is not my intent.
Allow me to suggest that it might be more appropriate to refrain from using the term ‘social work’, as it is a recognized profession. Social Work, Micheline, requires that a person be in possession of a BSW degree, in order to practice professionally. (In addition, the term ‘Social Worker’ is a protected title).
My view point is sustainable, as I am a registered and fully qualified Social Worker.
I trust that this sits well with you, Micheline, and does not offend.
I agree. I was using the term “social work” as in Mike’s original piece, but of course he and I meant something more like ‘community organising’ and not professional Social Work. I am not offended and will use clearer language in future.
Well done Mike. Enough said
Really, Paul? The tone sounds kind’a Totalitarian to me!
Totalitarian!?” Really? To me it sounds like an invitation to build a society that is without economic dictatorship and violence and that requires critical thinking,personal initiative, collective solidarity, and lots and lots of ongoing and continuous debate,discussion and participation. You must have read a different document my friend.
Ray…there is no lack of policy or vision as regards the democratisation of of the economy….it is embedded in the notion of participatory democracy as that is not conceived as belonging solely to the “political” sphere….if communities do not control the creation of wealth they control nothing. Combine it with the subsidiarity principle and these are the 2 most important of the 10 principles, which is why they appear first…..if you remain unconvinced I suggest you have a look at the detailed manifesto derived from the principles as it is clearer in that context….I’ll email it to you if you want to see it.
Michael…I think the manifesto derived from the principles would answer your points as well. Also if the 10 principles are set out without the explanatory notes all you have is 10 lines…its pretty compact as a set but I don’t have any fundamental problem with your own proposed set.
Lawrence….socialism is a transitional stage between capitalism and communism. It is not a 19th century extremist philosophy…..it has an element of utopianism to it as it is visionary but it is highly relevant now in the 21st century and is the ultimate goal of a long term revolutionary process. A friend who would not describe himself as a “socialist” told me he was very attracted to the vision set out in my manifesto which he said he thought was a good description of what communism would be. He is right….it is…so yes I consider myself a communist. The world has yet to see the first ever communist society but it is possible to achieve it eventually in my opinion. One thing is absolutely certain in my mind and that is communism is not a centralised society…it is fundamentally decentralised with power lying at community level.