No to a vote on the platforms at conference
Is Left Unity heading towards a slow motion car crash at the founding conference? asks Mike Wayne. It could be if members fatalistically resign themselves to the idea that we must have a vote on the various platforms that have emerged.
The platforms are probably the stupidest idea to have emerged from Left Unity and yet they and the looming vote at the conference have shaped much of the debate within Left Unity. The platforms have entrenched divisions, promoted factionalist behaviour and political maneuvering, simplified the debate and have definitely, when things have gone public, e.g. on Facebook, been a turn-off to potentially interested individuals who see themselves as on the left. I think the main drivers of the platforms do not really appreciate the very deep hostility out there to political parties of all types. Some of the baggage or certain ways of doing things which come as second nature to people who have been involved in Left politics for a long time, needs to be jettisoned if Left Unity is going to break through the layers of skepticism about party politics. Unnecessary factionalism is definitely something that needs to go.
Apart from being underdeveloped as substantive statements, and orientated in quite different directions (some are statements concerning action, some are vague sentiments for a better society, others a mix of aims and party organizational principles) so that we are not even voting on like for like documents, the platform debate has concealed the extent to which people may be attracted to different elements from each of the statements. The debate at the conference, if it is a prelude to a vote, will reproduce the limiting aspects of the debate so far, the majority of speakers likely to be promoting one platform and criticizing others. Instead of having a debate followed by a vote which will damage the debate, we should have a debate about what kind of part Left Unity should be and that debate would be better if it was not a prelude to a vote. Should a vote on the platforms go ahead (and it is not clear what kind of voting system would be in operation) then the factionalism will become increasingly institutionalized, with people associated with different platforms being given positions within the nascent party structure in accordance with the strength of their vote. That is the best outcome and it is a bad one. At worst there could be an attempted power grab by the ‘winners’ leading to walk-outs and simmering discontent.
As a way forward the platforms have demonstrated the British Left’s remarkable capacity for self-destruction once again. It is far too premature to be consolidating into ‘positions’. Left Unity has to go on a journey and part of what everyone in it has to learn is being able to work within a single party with people who have different views on what we are fighting for and how. Indeed given the dire situation of British politics we have a political duty to do much better than we have done before.
As I understand it the numbers of people who have signed as signatories to the Platforms – myself included, before I realized how counter-productive they were – is still in the 100 + range for the most popular ones. This means that the vast majority of people who have shown an interest in Left Unity have not signed up to any Platform. For them and for everyone who has but now has reservations about the whole process, it is important to have the opportunity to row back from the damaging consequences of a premature trial of strength at the conference. That is why I would like to submit a motion to conference that rejects the need for a vote following any debate on values, aims and principles.
If you agree with this, please do email me with your name at: Michael.wayne@brunel.ac.uk
26 comments
26 responses to “No to a vote on the platforms at conference”
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.
I have much sympathy for this perspective. I too like the metaphor of the journey. There is a danger of schism between those who regard Left Unity as a broad Left alliance of many perspectives (like me and, I think, like you Michael), and those who believe that without a tightly drawn focus [usually a particular understanding of Marxism], the party will be too diffuse and willing to compromise. But this is a debate that I think is unavoidable – because it reflects a real situation in the party – and it may be better to have it at the start than simmering on in the background while we are trying to campaign. Can we structure and conduct this debate in such terms that it’s not all or nothing, that those whose perspectives are not accepted do not feel they have been left out? I hope so because the way we work and conduct ourselves should be part of the process of building a better society.
Hi Tim, I am all for having a debate – I just don’t think it is particularly useful to have a vote at the founding conference on the platforms. I think if we take the vote of the table, the debate will be better in substance (more wide ranging than simply arguing for this or that platform) and probably better conducted.
There will be no schism or bust up at the founding conference, there is a motion going forward to avoid that as well as yours Mike, so have no fear. Debate will be conducted in a mature way so once this conference is finished we can move on to more substantive issues such as the council tax, NHS, and rising prices of basic goods.
Please add the new trade agreements, the elephant in the room, we need to fight them now or we will be hamstrung later
Mike – I agree entirely with what you say. The way this process seems to be heading in looks to me like a good example of history repeating itself as farce.
Tim – I agree with your points as well, though would rather see it as a discussion than a debate – well chaired so that we end up with a good picture of what we have in common, and not who has won or lost on this or that issue.
Why are we – as a prospective force for righting the wrongs of this world – spending so much time on arguing the details of what are, when it comes down to it, very ordinary political-party-type proposals? Would it not be a better bet to concentrate at this stage on clarifying (a) what sort of opportunities there really are to make a timely difference to this headlong rush of lemmings over the cliff edge, which is what this global capitalist system has become; and then (b) what sort of organisation is needed to match the challenges?
We have thousands of people with a potential input to this process, but have yet to set up any effective mechanism whereby their insights and experience can be assembled, analysed and refined. Local LU branches are great, but are not designed for information gathering. Likewise this website in its present form is unlikely to be giving a balanced picture of LU supporters’ views. Yes, this sort of consultation takes time and effort, but isn’t it important? Even if there is no ‘right answer’, people will feel that they have had a say, in the sense of ‘one person one voice’, not just ‘one person one vote’.
Why rush to a vote anyway? What is so wonderful about voting? Is it just because we are so conditioned by a ‘representative democracy’ system that gives us almost no other opportunities for participation. Surely we can to better than don this straightjacket at the first opportunity. All the successful team situations that I have ever been involved in – from committees at work to school governors’ meetings – have taken it as read that voting is a last resort, to be used only when consensus could not be reached through amicable discussion. It would be a pity to have to admit that we had reached such an impasse already.
Nice point John about voting being a last resort when consensus cannot be agreed.
I agree, if finally having “left unity” is the goal, why do this? Pull everything that is deliverable, sensible and workable into one final platform, if you’re going to come together, you should already know you can’t get everything you want.
Left Unity is a long journey. Maybe 2% of the work needed will be at the destination, 98% of the work is actually on the journey itself, so we’ve got to make it a comfortable one. And anyway, if you took a helicopter to the peak of Everest and said you conquered the mountain, you’d be cheating and no-one would respect you.
Platforms are just the beginning, but what we really need to be doing is leaving the platform and getting on the train. Trains are better than platforms because thjey are going somewhere (also they can be really cool, like Leon Trotsky’s mobile printing train or Alec Trevelyan’s mobile ironclad HQ).
While the platform debate is serious, it shouldn’t be a fight. We shouldn’t stab fellow LUers with knives because we disagree on stuff – we should leave the knives in the kitchen. Personally I’m partial to the Left Party platform, but I have friends who prefer the Socialist Platform and we haven’t started crossing the road when we see each toher in the street.
Platform 9 3/4 – A Victory For One Is A Loss For All! http://leftunity.org/platform-9-34/
Hi Paul,
could yo email me at the address given at the end of the article for a ‘what is to be done’ exchange?
Do you not see the irony in voting aginst democracy Wayne?
Don’t be silly – it’s a question of whether consummating what has been a flawed process with a vote is the best way of seeking consensus when forums and processes for achieving a synthesis between platforms have not even been tried.
we need policies, not platforms
the political debate will still happen in that context
debate will have a real relevance, rather than self-indulgent point scoring and thinly veiled bids for leadership
whilst ever the left (those who call for a fairer and more egalitarian future society) remains mired in the marxist-leninist paradigm it will remain an irrelevance to the process of change and development and ultimately will devour itself. New thinking, new ideas, new imagery, new relationships and creativity are required – these are not born out of sterile debates about platforms but out of struggle and experimentation
I think the platforms debate is probably unclear as well as offputting to people who haven’t already been involved in Leftist politics (i.e. just the people Left Unity is hoping to attract). It simply isn’t obvious from the platform statements what the basic political differences are – if there are any. Behind the scenes, clearly, the debate between platforms is basically a debate between different leftist groupings that already exist, which have different political lines. But these actual political differences between these groups are not what is being offered in the platform statements, all of which offer vague and general statements with lots of differences of emphasis but few of substance. It is comparing ‘like for like,’ as Mike says. It takes a discussion by people ‘in the know’, like this one by the South London LU branch, http://leftunity.org/south-london-discusses-three-platforms/, to bring out some of the actual differences. But not everyone involved in LU is ‘in the know’. Even if they personally favour the line of one pre-existing group (and they might well not do), it just isn’t obvious from the platform statements who each platform is and what they stand for.
Do you realise what you are doing? You come out and appear as an alternative left-wing Party to the Neoliberal consensus that has plagued this country and its politics and then you start this bollocks with Communist Party platforms. I have supported you but do you think for one minute that you are going to “Overturn” Capitalism. You need to win votes and you need to get your message across, not about overturning capitalism. The people of this country need a viable Left-Wing alternative and one that has real objectives and achievable agendas. We need to begin re-nationalising the industries stolen from us. Can you imagine what that in itself will take? Yet here you are in this neoliberal zeitgeist controlled by media barons pumping garbage to an undereducated populace talking about an end to “capitalism”. You really don’t seem to know what the fuck is going on and you will remain a bunch of loser Marxists if you do not adapt and change and learn to hit the fuckers where it hurts and that is not becoming a New Labour Party…that is addressing the majority of people in this country and their ills at a level they can understand and educating them with regards to how this country is and how it could be. This country is screaming for social change…from the bottom up.
Well said.
I was fired up with optimism when I first heard of this initiative but since then have become disillusioned with the same-o same-o Marxist/trotsky/whatever bullshit. Out yhere is the real world where millions are suffering and some people have grasped this.
Others will be forever mired in pub corner left loonie conversations, winning no new cnverts and getting nthng done.
They are like religious zealots chained to their dogma, blinkered by ancient, mystical texts, forgetting the world has moved on.
What is happening in the here and now needs to be dealt with, one step at a time.
No one campaigns for an end to capitalism, money, the state, etc. people want the utilities renationalsed, the NHS saved from privatisation and a fair welfare system, just for starters.
Good points, we need to be a progressive party
I can understand the antagonism of Mike and some who have commented above, from the point of view of someone who is a revolutionary socialist, and did regard himself as a Marxist and Trotskyist when a member of the Socialist Party (and Militant Tendency before that) from 1990-98. However, not having platforms wouldn’t stop people with Marxist views from expressing them, or keep such people outside Left Unity. Some of the platform’s statements may not have been up for debate at the conference, due to not getting sufficient support in any branches; others would have support from at least one branch and it would be those “in the know” who are aware of what political organisation they come from.
Unlike many revolutionary socialists in LU, I want it to be a broad party, as expressed in my blog item http://thatcheroftheleft.wordpress.com/2013/10/14/arguing-that-left-unity-should-be-a-broad-socialist-party-that-reflects-revolutionary-as-well-as-reformist-views/
However, let me be clear – reformism wouldn’t work. Gareth argues “We need to begin re-nationalising the industries stolen from us.” We need a majority in parliament to do that, I suggest you mean! And if we do have that majority, why stop at the privatised industries? Why not implement a complete socialist revolution? And what about compensation for shareholders – none, just to pension schemes, on the basis of proven need?
I suggest that massive economic crisis (perhaps due to the current one in the USA or further developments in the Eurozone) could create something on the lines of a second credit crunch, which would present great opportunities for us to seize power (after which I’d argue we should call a general election held under proportional representation to provide legitimacy for the insurrection). And I’m arguing that revolutionary socialists within Left Unity should regroup in one platform to prepare for such an eventuality and cooperate around shared goals rather than compete with the main aim being to recruit to a particular far-left sect.
I’m not saying we shouldn’t argue and campaign for reforms – LU should indeed prove ourselves in practice as the best party fighting for reforms, and internal democracy (in stark contrast to the mess the SWP has got itself into) is part of that.
Writing the above in the early hours of the morning was perhaps not the best idea in the world, so some points of clarification would be useful.
I didn’t fully explain why (left) reformism wouldn’t work. There are multiple reasons for this: Reforms in the interest of the masses that can be afforded during booms cannot be afforded during booms or recessions. Trying to implement such reforms in one country would be frustrated with the ability of capitalists to use overseas tax havens and move their assets overseas (their assets must be seized and the revolution spread internationally so capitalists have nowhere to run to). The state is not neutral and would furiously act in the interests of capital if a left reformist government came to power.
I’ve just read a very well-argued article by Ed Rooksby (a member of Left Unity despite the article’s publication in the SWP’s theoretical journal International Socialism which came in the post today) in favour of “left governments” at http://www.isj.org.uk/index.php4?id=913. The SWP has (prematurely) written off Left Unity as “left reformist” and (in my opinion as well as Ed’s) we should definitely aim for election victories, even though they are difficult under the misnamed first-past-the-post electoral system in the UK. Ed points out that even in countries in which socialism appears particularly credible, there is no sign of the workers’ councils (soviets) the SWP argues for, whereas Syriza’s call for a left government achieved mass support and nearly led them to being the biggest party in parliament. Although there are big pitfalls in the parliamentary road (in particular joining coalitions and making cuts) but our enemies won’t just roll over and let us take power by some sort of insurrection either! My main argument against achieving change by parliament is that elections may not come at precisely the best time to launch a bid for power – particularly with 5-year “fixed term parliaments”.
In my above post, I mentioned “great opportunities for us to seize power” – maybe I should have argued for the masses to take power (or primarily the working class through a general strike), with Left Unity in the leadership, rather than implying our party should launch some sort of coup/insurrection on our own. I particularly approve of the Occupy movement’s 99% versus 1% formulation, as well as recognising the working class has the power to change society by withdrawing its labour. However, as the revised aims of the Left Party Platform argue for, “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 society being controlled just by the working class, in soviets (as Marxists call for).
I agree with you. Platforms are a form of factionalising by a range of existing “left” groups aiming at hijacking the more general sentiment expressed at the beginning of Left Unity that there is a need for something different.
That came about because existing politics has failed. If these “left” positions and philosophies were the way forwards then why would they not have had any success already – or be confident that they will succeed. They are just riding the back of LU to recruit for their own sterile enterprises.
That does not mean I subscribe to some mushy “no politics, let’s all get along and forget the differences” line. Just the opposite – I strongly think that there is a world view that needs to be argued for, an objective truth – it is a revolutionary view that capitalism is collapsing and needs to be ended. That needs to look at all the experiences of the twentieth century and most of all that the Soviet Union was a major historical stride forwards, which ended not through “collapse and failure” but through disastrous revisionist philosophy rotting the leadership (beginning with Stalin) and ending with Gorbachev abandoning the workers state and giving up on the struggle against capitalism. But much of the USSR’s 70 year history was one of fantastic achievement – not the horror story painted by Western propaganda. It built a major economy with no capitalists and stimulated and aided world anti-imperialism. But it did also make mistakes (and not small ones) which have to be analysed and understood (neither painting over the mistakes Stalinist CP-syle, nor declaring it the disaster the Trotskyist line would have).
That is my argument to make, not impose. Left Unity is not the revolutionary party – it MIGHT be a new phenomenon coalescing a discontent which is initially attracting a much wider range of people being pushed into politics by the crisis. It might be nothing more than just the same old “left” suspects getting together again “socialist alliance” style; but if it IS tapping a wider field than it is drawing in many who have not formulated their views yet. They will want to hear the arguments and counter-arguments – not settle on a position before it (LU) is off the ground. Without platforms LU could provide a forum where people can hear as many views as possible – and more importantly work them through to a conclusion about things. A permanent stew of different opinions will not be a good thing – a clear understanding about the world is vital. Clear leadership is vital too, not the failed “no leaders” anarchy of the Occupy movement or the Egyptian revolution.
But that needs time and debate – issue by issue – not a constraining framework of platforms (to which essentially you HAVE to agree).
The no platforms position is the one that allows the fullest debate in my view – and the best way to formulate policy decisions. So I support the No Platforms platform.
Then we can all see where it is going and make decisions – and if those go against us then there should be the chance to come back at congresses and so forth.
NO PLATFORMS FOR SECTARIANISM
Was very pleased to see launch of left unity- but on turning to the website my heart dropped into my bootsconcerning the debate on contending platforms. Agree wholeheatedly to have divisive debate and vote on platforms at this stage would be a huge mistake. The differences of platform to anybody living in the real world are so esoteric as to be meaningless.
I write as someone, who still remembers the endless debates on the left on the class nature of the Soviet Union(which fell apart while we were debating it), between solidarity with and victory to the IRA(now defunct/in government), between workers control and management and how many monopolies we should nationalise(precious little progree on any of these). Having spent my whole working life inthe TU and Labour Movement, I have no desire to revisit my sectarian past.
We should unite around key principle- the obvious ones such as opposition to austerity, for redistribution of wealth,in favour of public ownership, equality, opposition to british intervention/ invasion anywhere etc, which will of course be backed up by detailed discussion and agreement on specific policy coming from commissions etc. To those who cricitise that principles are broad enough to get erstwhile labour and liberal supporters on broad and that I am advocating building a centrist bloc(vacillating between reform and revolution)- I say good as long as its large. Don,t forget that Trotsky in the Transitional Programme pointed out the importance of starting from today,s conditions and today,s consciousness in raising demands.
Time is short, we must start engaging with the mass of people, rather than ourselves, suffering under the present system, many of whom can see no way out and alternative to the austerity peddled by all the major parties. A smallbut important point on this,is that the name Left Unity is a barrier to this, being inward looking and should be replaced by something else e.g. People,s Party (unfortunate right wing connotations in some countries) or People,s Democracy etc.
Yours more in sorrow than anger, see you at the conference.
In Solidarity Jim Hoyle
Well said
Heather Downs (above, October 11, 2013 at 5:00 pm) Absolutely!, Heather. Very well put, roysyboy@hotmail.com.
we need policies, not platforms
the political debate will still happen in that context
debate will have a real relevance, rather than self-indulgent point scoring and thinly veiled bids for leadership
Nothing had me so excited as the concept of Left Unity when I first read about it. At last, (it seemed) we were going to stand up to the prevailing neo-liberalist paradigm, and its mantra that no other way was possible. So imagine my near total disillusionment when I read the nonsense in these platform statements, and I realised that this is going to be yet another group masturbation exercise of the Left. I believe that many members of these various Leftist parties have no real interest in exercising power to improve people’s lives at all. They are happier in their meaningless, ineffective pseudo-intellectual talking shops where they can accuse each other of ‘Panekoekism’, or ‘Zonovievism’ or what ever the latest ism-du-jour is.
[As an aside, better group masturbation than the SWP’s group rape program. I understand there have now been nine accusations of rape against senior SWP henchmen. There’s an old Mafia saying that goes “Once is happenstance, twice is coincidence, three times is enemy action.” So what does NINE represent? Anyway, I digress.]
Can you imagine how boring and irrelevant all this petty factional infighting is to an unemployed family that has just discovered the tiny box room in the corner is one bedroom too many? How many unemployed young men hanging on street corners care about the differences between Marxism, Trotskyism or Autonomism – I’ll tell you – none at all.
What the UK needed from Left Unity was a party that demonstrated that there is another way – neo-Liberalism and capitalism is failing us. We needed to put forward policies about subjects that people care about, unemployment, low pay, health care, child care and the environment expressed in a language that they understand and can relate to. Instead we are going to get the same old bollocks in new bottles. (If you’ll excuse the gruesome imagery.)
I’m going to spend the weaken to think about it, but I think I’m out of here.
‘Weekend’ I meant to say, not ‘weaken’.
Freudian slip.
Sham democracy
I live in Cumbria along with 16 others who have signed the initial appeal. We do not yet know of each other’s existence, and we generally live many miles apart. The idea that, for instance, anyone in so-called Left Unity Cumbria could conspire with 11 others to put forward a platform, is laughable. In other words, those LU supporters who do not live in densly-populated areas are being discriminated against.