Development of Left Unity: Things to consider
Mike Scott of Nottingham Left Unity joins the debate about language and the left, and looks at how Left Unity can put its principles into practice.
Getting the message out
This paper has been written on the basis that our ultimate aim is to build a new mass party of the left, rather than an umbrella group for existing parties. As no-one has succeeded in anything similar for several generations, we will be starting from scratch and will therefore need to focus as much on the process as the desired outcome. This means doing things in a way that make success more likely, while avoiding the traps that would make it less so.
There will inevitably be a great deal of pressure to just get on with the task, rapidly laying down policy positions and spreading the word about the new party as best we can, but I believe this would be a serious mistake. If we don’t think carefully how best to go about this, we will make our task not just more difficult, but completely impossible.
As soon as it looks like we have even the slightest chance of success, the massed ranks of the national media will be marshalled to undermine us, so considering not only WHAT we want to do, but HOW best to do it is essential if we are to have any hope of neutralising such attacks. This will often mean developing new and different ways of expressing our message.
At this point, it needs to be said loudly and clearly that there is nothing wrong in this. We must ensure that we always focus firmly on the message itself and use whatever words are necessary to get this out and understood. There is a strand of left thinking that believes the medium is the message and consequently that any change in terminology is a sell-out – but there can be no doubt whatsoever that “traditional left language” is alienating, open to misinterpretation and/or completely incomprehensible to (very) many of the people we will be seeking to attract. These are not the sort of words or expressions that most people use or come across in their daily life.
Whether or not this should be so is not the point: it certainly is so and we therefore have to live with it and learn to adapt. The list of words and phrases we will need to avoid (or use only with the greatest care) is quite a long one. But this does not mean we are abandoning our ideas or principles, simply that we will need to express them in a different way.
In modern, post-Thatcher Britain, the large majority of people don’t see the connections between things and tend to support or oppose issues and campaigns on a one-off basis: road building, nuclear power, immigration, welfare reform, etc. Most reject the very existence of overarching concepts such as socialism and capitalism and have little understanding of what they stand for. Of course, that is not to say everyone thinks like this, but it is a good generalisation for both the apolitical majority and a large number of single-issue campaigners – both groups we will be seeking to recruit and/or influence.
So, we need to agree how to get our message out most effectively. We need to be clever with our words while staying absolutely true to our beliefs.
Initially, it may also be wise to concentrate on single-issue campaigns that people can easily understand and relate to, rather than wide-ranging and more woolly ones on things like “austerity”, “cuts” or “globalisation”. And we are in the wrong era to appeal to solidarity and class-consciousness, which mean little or nothing to most younger people especially. The very definition of “class” is far less clear than it was forty years ago: many people who we would unhesitatingly describe as working-class would self-describe as middle-class (or classless) and it’s no good trying to start a relationship by telling them they’re wrong! In addition, we will have to appeal to middle-class socialists as well as working-class ones. Many of the current group of LU activists are middle-class and this is, after all, more a description of economic status than an insult! Tony Benn was a hero to many on the left, but he certainly wasn’t working-class.
It may well be argued that this view is patronising and brands ordinary people as stupid or ignorant. It does neither: it simply recognises the reality of Britain in the 21st century and the changes that have taken place since 1979. We will need to make a rapid connection with people who think socialism equals China or North Korea, and we won’t do it by alienating them. If we fail to make this quick connection, we may not get a second chance so, like it or not, this debate is crucial to the future of Left Unity.
Principles and practice
In moving Left Unity forward, there are things to bear in mind and things to avoid. Here are some of them (in no particular order):
• We will need to avoid the Galloway syndrome, while electing leaders/spokespeople who are eloquent, have a sense of humour and are good with the media. This can to some extent be learned, but is absolutely essential if LU is to succeed. The recent change in the leadership – and subsequently the fortunes – of the Greens is a classic example of what happens when this is ignored.
• There must be a national profile, but with strong roots in towns and cities around the country – where the above will also apply to local spokespeople. This must always be a national rather than a London project.
• It is absolutely essential that LU is not seen as just being against things. The left has always been good at opposition, but has far too often failed to provide thought-through alternatives as well as snappy slogans. LU must be seen as a positive party, fighting for a new society, not just a negative one fighting against everything we don’t like. We will need detailed and costed policies before anyone is prepared to take us seriously.
• No papers! If we have a weekly/monthly paper, not only will we look just like all the others, it will take up an enormous amount of time, money and effort as well. We can find better ways of communicating with members and the rest of the world.
• We must be careful to campaign rather than preach. It is quite true that many people are socialists without realising it, but there is nothing more likely to put them off than telling them what they think! The more rigid and precise the ideology, the more people will be put off – so it’s important to avoid having “no-go” areas and rigid party lines that can’t be questioned.
What is absolutely clear is that Left Unity must look and act differently from all existing parties if it is to have any chance of success. There is no benefit in founding one more set of initials in a left that is overcrowded with parties and groups but massively under-populated by the general public. If we are serious about becoming a mass party, we need to start by looking like one!
16 comments
16 responses to “Development of Left Unity: Things to consider”
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.
Excellent article. On the topic of language and differentiating from existing parties, I’d suggest starting with issues such as name-calling used as a smearing device during debates.
I’ve watched one the Manchester conference videos yesterday (the one about relationships with Europe, where motion 21 was deferred to the National Council) and I was appalled at how several participants freely used “Nationalist Left” as an umbrella insult to throw at anyone proposing withdrawal from the EU, while at the same time not offering one single, pragmatic reason to support their position (i.e. staying in no matter what), just fluff.
For starters, that is a ludicrous and untenable position: Tony Benn and Bob Crow, for instance, were both Eurosceptic. Would you call them nationalist?
On a more general note, debate should concentrate on the proposal per se, its pros and cons, and positions should be argued properly, not using slogans.
Hi Daniele,I have to agree with you.I personally don,t think we have discussed the E.U enough, especially the T.T.I.P.To be honest i have only read parts of it,but what I have read . It really concerns me.
Hi Bob, here’s an excellent analysis of the TTIP: http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2013/dec/02/transatlantic-free-trade-deal-regulation-by-lawyers-eu-us .
It doesn’t really come as a surprise since what the EU is all about is forcing liberism on countries which have at least partially resisted it so far, i.e. Southern Europe (which I have some direct experience of) using shock doctrine methods.
It can’t be reformed (because there is no political will to reform it in EU governments) and it’s actually getting worse.
Here here.
Great stuff Mike.
Totally agree that LU mustn’t just be against injustice, unemployment, poverty etc. For a new society, we must spell out in concrete terms how the new society will solve peoples’ problems and enrich their lives. We need flesh on the skeleton, not just a skeleton, which is often the error other left/socialist groups commit.
On another point, I do hope LU leadership & members actively support the 550+ TUSC candidates who are standing in the May local elections, as LU are not standing, Wigan being the exception. So far our site is mute on this issue. The long term goal must be to create a unity of democratic left forces and people, which will require alliances, support and local agreements. The clue is in our name!
Hi Rob, I am certainly out leafleting in support of the 4 TUSC candidates standing in my area which is Sunderland. I’ll also be helping the Green Party in the European election too.
Mike
Yes, we are landed with working in an era with probably the lowest levesl of political literacy since capitalism began. For me, that means that we have to be at least bi-lingual, possibly tri-lingual, in how we relate to people outside organised political activity and many within it. What I don’t want it to mean is that we stop thinking and talking conceptually.
Your article started promisingly but then tailed off and did not deliver, in my view. I am with you on the general thrust of what you say but we need to develop what his means. You’ve made a good start by moving this discussion beyond the narrow issue of language which the other thread on this has hit the sand with.
I think this is something we need a workshop on, with sessions on the how of operating and even some roleplay sessions, but it needs to be well-defined and well-prepared.
Sometimes, falling back on jargon is just staying in your comfort zone because of the risk of uncomfortable hostility; going out to leaflet workplaces and communities and engagaing with the uneven reality out there needs a rebuklding of individual and collective self-confidence. Some of the scars we carry on the Left and some of the things you despair about are because of decades of being derided, mocked and accused. Yes, let’s be fresh and differnt but let’s try to work out what the obstacles to this are and how we circumvent them.
“In addition, we will have to appeal to middle-class socialists as well as working-class ones.”
We would also need to think whether it is smart to define middle class and working class as two separate classes or not. What role does it play that one is a middle class person? Does it mean anything else than that one has a little bit more money for spending and perhaps a little higher education? Even so one doesn’t have more power to decide about how the society is run. Only a large capital will bring that power to a person. And it’s this unequality between people that is the evil we should be fighting.
I think it would be better to think that middle class actually is a part of working class, working class being all the people who don’t get their earnings as the profit of the capital that they own.
It seems that the middle class concept as such is dividing the working class people and blurring the class consciousness. Class consciousness is important. If people don’t have that, they can hardly understand the mechanism by which they are exploited. (I guess this is exactly the language we should not use? Well, this is just between us who understand this language…)
To my mind comes a comment from another thread: “We are not trying to sell a product.” The goal is not that people are with us, the goal is that people are with themselves and understand their own interests. But of course, in order to achieve this it is necessary to use a language that will be understood.
“Class consciousness is important. If people don’t have that, they can hardly understand the mechanism by which they are exploited.”
The relation between those two things here is meant to be a logical one rather than causal, the causality going the other way round: If people understand the mechanism by which they are exploited, they can hardly avoid developing a class consciousness.
How will Left Unity appeal to middle-class socialists with this strategy?
‘Electoral support for a new left party will only advance to the extent that it is genuinely representative of working class communities, has no interests separate from theirs, and is an organic part of the campaigns and movements which they generate and support.’
I agree. Even in this sentence we could pick at words like ‘genuinely’ and ‘organic’ if we were wishing to cater to middle class intellectualism. One might say, for instance, that they show a penchant for the kind of purity and naturalism which forgets their resemblances to the worst collectivist ideologies in the past. But don’t we really need to get past this kind of pedantry. Context, of course, is vital. But again, most people know when and where things are appropriate. And even if we do say things out of place, or are simply wrong on some points, we will be forgiven if we are trusted, believed to represent values which seek real change for all subjugated people.
Of course none of this is anything without grass-roots organization, daily actions to undo the lies, distortions of the corporate media. However, once challenged, and ultimately by-passed, I think a certain environmentalist-driven socialism is an unstoppable political force if it also means people having more control over their own lives through greater opportunities for sharing.
While I think this is true–common sense dictates no unnecessary jargon–I’m a little concerned about the priority given to language. There has been a preoccupation at least since late 20thC–substituting it for basic meaning and truth–and look where it has got most people. And their so-called representatives have been ones who were the most articulate, not the ones with good character, who really mean what they say. This is politics, so language-style is important, but attracting candidates with genuine integrity without any sort of bigotry, who don’t have to rely on charismatic tics might actually offer hope, reduce cynicism. I think going back to basics about fairness, equality, justice is a pretty radical message these days. Of course we don’t want to be anti-intellectual, candidates should do their homework, understand how common sense beliefs can and have been distorted in the past, but an emphasis on the facts and practical solutions behind our radical demands is what I feel we need to stress.
I think one of the biggest problems Left Unity will encounter is how to keep growing. Sooner or later (probably sooner), inertia will set in. Those who are available and willing for recruitment will join. But, this will not, by any means, constitute a ‘mass’. How does Left Unity then continue to build?
One means, I think, might be to keep working away at building links with unions.
Another is to fight some campaigns we can win – in the process of struggling, alliances will be built, people will join, publicity will be had. These might be local or national.
Yet another is to consciously and actively seek publicity on national TV, radio and in newspapers. That means organising events/interventions that will be publicisable, and having good teams of people working to ring up reporters, get press releases out, etc etc. Similarly, LU could actually take to producing materials itself: e.g. a youtube channel releasing short films.
All of these things should be pursued. And more! But, whether or not they will sufficient, I’m not sure.
Best wishes
CW
This is talking absolute sense. The left is not taken seriously in Britain at the moment. We need to make Left Unity a party that fights for a new society and actually connects with working people who have been left behind by the main parties.
I have a friend who is keen to become more active politically, but is a bit confused as to whether he should align himself to TUSC, The Peoples Assembly or Left Unity, what should I tell him?