On the ‘platform debate’ in Left Unity (and a note on the matter of ‘left reformism’)
A debate has opened up among Left Unity (LU) supporters in relation to the political and strategic orientation and organisational form of the new party of the left that those involved in the LU project aim to launch this November, says Ed Rooksby. Three competing ‘platforms’ have emerged, each proposing a distinct set of founding principles for the new party. The matter will be settled in a vote at LU’s November conference – which all of those who sign up to be ‘founding members’ of the new party can attend. As one of the signatories of the Left Party Platform (LPP),* I thought I would explain why I support this platform and why I’m not convinced by the others. I thought I’d also make a few remarks in relation to the ‘left reformism’ controversy that has arisen in relation to Left Unity – and, specifically, the SWP’s concerns about (what it sees as) the general orientation of Left Unity.
The first thing to say, here, is that the platform debate is very welcome. To some, no doubt, the emergence of competing factions in Left Unity looks worryingly – perhaps tediously – familiar. We’re all painfully aware, after all, of the left’s tendency to rip itself apart and self-destruct in fractious squabbling given half a chance. But while I wouldn’t say that there is absolutely no danger of this debate spiralling into yet another left group implosion (this time before the organisation has even officially established itself), the debate so far (!) has been relatively restrained and has been conducted (at least it looks this way to me) with patience and evident good will on all sides. Of course, a crunch point in this process will come when one of the platforms wins out over the others in the November vote. Conceivably, people in the unsuccessful platforms may walk out of the organisation. I hope this doesn’t happen – and one of the key responsibilities of those clustered around the victorious platform (whichever it is) will be to be as conciliatory as possible toward the defeated platforms and to stress that there is still a place for them. I have to say, here, however (and I’ll go on to spell this out a bit more below) that it’s much easier to see how those with the SP perspective could continue to organise as a distinct current within a broader party organised along the lines of the LPP vision than it would be if it were the other way round – precisely because the SP vision is not of a broad party capable of encompassing diverse currents.
Nevertheless, despite these real dangers, my overall feeling is that the current debate is a healthy one and, moreover, a necessary one. We do need to set down some fundamental principles and general programmatic and strategic parameters for the group before we start to build it as a party – we need to know, roughly at least, what kind of thing it is we are trying to build and what kind of things we are trying to do. Further, the current debate in LU (together with the policy commissions process in which any supporter can get involved in discussing future policy for the party) demonstrates in practice our commitment, right from the beginning, to building a thoroughly democratic organisation. This certainly isn’t an organisation in which everything has been stitched up from the start and it won’t be one in which decisions passed down from an elite at the top are rubber stamped by the membership.
As healthy, welcome and necessary as this process of debate may be, however, I’m not, of course, indifferent as to which platform wins out. Indeed, I think it’s absolutely essential for the success of the Left Unity project that the principles and statements set out in the LPP documents are adopted as the basis for the new party. Let me explain why.
Resistance
Our key task, it seems to me, is to provide a political organisation which could draw together and articulate a wide range of forces on the left. Labour’s almost total abandonment of what we might call traditional social democracy has opened up a political space in which a broad left party could flourish. We need to build an organisation which could appeal to the many many thousands of people who have been left feeling disenfranchised by Labour’s march to the right and which could bring this very large constituency together with various others, including forces further to the left. We need, in other words, a British version of the Front de Gauche, Die Linke and Syriza – all of them multi-tendency organisations in which a broad range of left forces cohere and which, crucially, are able to offer an attractive political home for refugees from established (ex-) social democratic parties. These are the sorts of parties making the running on the left at the moment. Unlike the other two platforms, the LPP is squarely in this sort of mould. It’s a platform which says quite clearly that we want Left Unity to be broad and inclusive and we want it to be these things because, above all, we want it to be big and thus a serious political force!
None of this is to say that I (or, as far as I know, any of the other LPP signatories) intend to build a straightforwardly social democratic party or some sort of Labour Party Mk 2 as is sometimes suggested or implied by our opponents. I certainly don’t. My view is that the ‘space’ for substantial social democratic reforms within capitalism is much more constrained than it was a few decades ago (and of course that space has only narrowed further in current conditions of serious global crisis). The rightward drift of social democratic parties internationally (in fact, the decomposition and hollowing out of social democracy) should be interpreted with this context in mind – it’s not credible to suppose that this can be explained simply in terms of ideological defeat on the part of the left-wing of social democratic reformism. It’s structural. The point is, however, that not everyone who identifies with the left broadly and who is looking for a serious alternative to Labour is, consciously at least, anti-capitalist. The vast majority of people on the left are generally social democratic and reformist. This sort of political position (in my view) is often held in a rather inchoate, general, instinctive way – the expression of a sort of vague social democratic ‘common sense’ on things like welfare and social equality. We have to attract the large numbers of people like this and provide them with a political home, uniting them with forces further to the left. This means that we need a broad and relatively non-prescriptive set of principles and a general orientation which is equally acceptable as something to sign up to for Old Labour social democrats as it is for revolutionary socialists.
In calling for this sort of party, socialists in the LPP certainly aren’t diluting their own politics – or in the SP’s bizarre argument ‘hiding’ their views and pretending to be social democrats – we’re simply saying that in order to build something serious and worthwhile, rather than yet another pious but small and ineffective sect of the righteous, we have to put forward a broad platform in which several different political currents can co-exist, work together and combine their forces. Socialists in the LPP don’t have to disguise or keep quiet about their socialism. Why should we? It’s just that we feel that it’s perfectly possible to work together in the same organisation with people holding different views rather than demanding that all prospective members sign up to a highly prescriptive list of ‘correct positions’ which will effectively exclude huge numbers of people we could otherwise draw into an organisation providing a leftwing opposition and alternative to austerity.
Working in the same organisation as those with broadly social democratic reformist views, furthermore, provides socialists with the best opportunity to get our ideas across and to win people to our politics. Many of those in the LPP, indeed (far from diluting or ‘hiding’ their views) aim to organise a far left pole of attraction within the broader party with this sort of approach in mind. We believe that people are best won to socialist politics, not by confronting them with a schematic list of revealed truths which they have to sign up for before we’ll work with them, but by working and campaigning with them in political activity in an organic, pedagogical process built on trust and mutual respect. It’s important to point out, also, that socialists have to remember that they have just as much to learn in this process too – we have to avoid the all too common arrogance among the far left which tends to assume that we socialists are the bearers of enlightened, timeless and final truths and that those who don’t share our views are simply benighted naifs groping around in political darkness.
I’m sure I’m not alone among LPP signatories in that I probably agree with some 80 – 90% of what the SP statements say. It’s just – as indicated above – that I think that the SP approach will narrow the potential reach of Left Unity pretty drastically. It’s almost as if the SP has been designed deliberately to exclude large numbers of people and to restrict the new party to a small group of people who agree with each other on everything. There are plenty of those sorts of parties already in existence. If people wanted to join an explicitly and unambiguously Marxist party they would already have joined one of the existing 57 varieties. It would be a great shame (and in fact thoroughly irresponsible given the political opportunities that have opened up) to produce yet another small socialist sect that no one wants to join. We have to ask ourselves if we’re serious about building a powerful anti-austerity movement of the left or if we’re just posturing. If we’re interested in the former we need to take a leaf out of the European Left’s book and build a broad party of the Front de Gauche/ Syriza type.
I have to say that when I look at the documents and articles emanating from the SP (whatever the undoubted merits of the individuals involved) a lot of it does strike me as self-regarding political posturing. The emphasis in SP arguments is often on ‘being true’ to one’s own beliefs, saying what one ‘really believes’, openly declaring one’s socialist politics, being unwilling to ‘dilute’ one’s socialist or communist principles for grubby reasons of political manoeuvring, opportunism and so on. Now, as I’ve already pointed out, no one in LPP is asking anyone to hide or dilute their views – we’re just suggesting that it should be possible to work alongside people who don’t agree with you on absolutely everything and that this would be a good idea if we want to build something serious. But the main thing that grabs me about the SP’s arguments in this respect is that it’s all remarkably lifestylist – it’s about presenting and attending to a particular image of yourself and feeling good about it. It’s about staring at your reflection in the mirror and congratulating yourself on your ‘correct positions’. It’s purism, not politics.
In my view the SP would be much better off as an organised leftwing current (one among several others by the way) within a broader party organised along LPP lines. In fact (as Tom Walker has rightly suggested) it seems likely that some of those expressing support for the SP mistakenly assume that the platform debate is all about the setting up of permanent currents/factions within LU – but it’s not, it’s about setting the parameters for the new party as whole. The debate is about whether we have a broad party capable of encompassing several different currents and poles of attraction within it, or whether we have a narrow party without scope for significant differences of opinion. It’s worth making it plain that if the LPP win the vote in November, the SP can continue to exist and organise for their own politics within the new Left Party. If the SP win, however, LPP supporters will not be able to continue to organise as a current within a narrow party. Not because we’ll be forced out or deliberately excluded but because you can’t have a broad left current within a narrow party from which everyone who is not a Marxist is effectively barred.
I have to say that it is not quite clear to me what, precisely, the Class Struggle Platform (CSP) is arguing. They say that the LPP is insufficiently concrete (it’s broad and general for the reasons I’ve explained above) while the SP is too rigid and dogmatic (we agree about that). They seem to be saying that, instead, the new party’s focus should be on putting forward concrete plans for political engagement and struggle on specific issues which they then go on to list. Some of these proposals seem eminently sensible (I’m not sure about the proposal for a mass strike to bring down the government – don’t get me wrong I’m all for a general strike to bring down the government, I just don’t think it’s an immediately implementable demand in the way CSP seem to assume – which just seems like the same old rather abstract far left sloganeering to me), but I’m just not convinced this is an appropriate foundational basis for a new party. I don’t think that necessarily preliminary matters of organisational form and political orientation are settled by saying ‘here’s a list of campaigns, let’s do them’. It doesn’t adequately address the question driving the dispute between the LPP and SP – i.e. should we organise the new party as a broad left political formation or not.
A Note on the SWP and ‘Left Reformism’
In recent weeks there has been a small flurry of articles (and the matter has also come up in talks and event presentations) on the issue of ‘left reformism’ emanating from the SWP. The flurry is, in part, in response to the rise and rise of Syriza – but it also typically addresses the Left Unity initiative. My view is that this is all part of a necessary debate and I welcome it (not least because the SWP have generously given me space to put forward my views in their publications). Nevertheless the SWP’s attitude toward Left Unity does sometimes strike me as unnecessarily suspicious (sometimes veering toward hostility) and I’d like to say something about this briefly. I don’t want to go into the details here about the wider, more theoretical, political debate over the question of state power, ‘Left governments’, ‘centrism’/(left) reform vs revolution and so on. I’m currently preparing a piece on these questions for publication in the near future and there’s no way I can begin to cover all of this in a short note on a website. What I want to address is the way that the SWP seems to be relating to Left Unity – which is one which seems to oscillate (often in the same speech/article) between the suggestion that they’d like to be involved and mild denunciation.
[It’s worth pointing out in passing here that I (and I’m sure others in LU feel similarly) find the label ‘left reformism’ slightly irritating. It’s not just that it’s often used as a more less pejorative and slightly condescending term to categorise people within a left typology of various kinds of socialists who haven’t yet grasped Leninist principles, it’s that it’s a very blunt instrument. As suggested above, there are actually many different positions within Left Unity which I’m not sure are all adequately understood if grouped together within a catch-all term like ‘left reformism’.]
Simplifying slightly, the SWP postition on ‘left reformism’ (which is the label they apply to Syriza, Die Linke, Front de Gauche, the Left Bloc as well as Left Unity) is that it is, in general, to be welcomed by revolutionary socialists in the Leninist tradition but should be supported critically without any illusions in the capacity for such a strategy to ‘open the way for socialism’. Correspondingly, the SWP approach to specific ‘left reformist’ organisations is to seek to work with them where possible, but to remain critical of the strategy these parties espouse and, above all, to maintain organisational independence rather than seek to dissolve themselves into these formations.
This is all fine as far as I’m concerned. The mystifying thing, however, is that alongside the suggestions that the SWP would like to be involved in LU you also encounter comments about the ‘dangers of left reformism’. There’s nothing unreasonable about the SWP being critical of what it calls ‘left reformism’ – it’s just that these criticisms of Left Unity often seem remarkably and disproportionately vigorous. There’s an awkward duality to the muted polemicising on the one hand and the extended olive branches on the other. It’s also odd to hear, repeatedly, that the SWP refuses to compromise its political independence by dissolving itself into a broad left formation – it’s odd because, as far as I know, no one is asking the SWP to dissolve itself into anything.
I realise that there’s a lot of bad blood between the ISN and SWP and this may be where a lot of the hostility and suspicion comes from. But as far as I’m concerned there’s absolutely no reason why the SWP and LU shouldn’t cooperate in campaigns and struggles (pretty sure we already do). Furthermore, for me (I can’t speak for the organisation as a whole – and I imagine we’ll need to wait until the founding conference when we decide what sort of organisation we’ll be), there’s no reason why the SWP shouldn’t be more directly involved in the party that emerges from LU. Indeed, individual SWP members already are involved in certain LU branches. The only caveat here is that the party that emerges from LU will be an individual member-based party rather than one to which other parties and groups can affiliate as organisations. Our politics are likely to be substantially different from those of the SWP of course, and we (like them) will not want to jeopardise our organisational independence. Furthermore we will reserve the right to be critical of the SWP (just as they refuse to abandon their criticisms of ‘left reformism’) even if we work closely together as I suspect we will.
* God, I’m sorry about all the acronyms.
16 comments
16 responses to “On the ‘platform debate’ in Left Unity (and a note on the matter of ‘left reformism’)”
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 would like to comment on one key point in this article, namely the need to unite around whichever platform holds a majority for its approach at the conference. The recent history of the Left has been one of widespread and increasingly farcical splits and disintegration. While it is common for the papal leaderships of the proliferating groups to demand obedience around the victors and demonise the losers, the credibility of these groups declines. I have committed myself to Left Unity in the hope that we can reverse this lamentable recent history around a set of political views which will attract a substantial audience. In order to achieve this we need to demonstrate a sense of political responsibility and to conduct our discussions with generosity and mutual respect. I am keen to see unity in action emerge from the conference, but that does not mean demanding any minority views to remain silence. We have seen enough inappropriate models of ‘democratic centralism.’ I am looking forward to the conference and a significantly healthier approach to debate and differences of opinion than has been evidenced by some groups on the Left. It is the only way we will make ourselves relevant and credible.
i think you need to agree on what sort of organisation your going to be and what your constituition is. thats not quite the same thing as saying that no one is allowed to have differing opinions which is what alan gibbons seems to have read. indeed it would make sense to join something that already exists ie tusc, respect, greens, communist, if you dont have a clear and unique basis for starting up an electoral organisation. by the way its only dawned on me recently that there are too different meanings of the word electoralist a,one that means its an organisation that stands in elections in addition to anyother work it does and b,one that makes elections its only priority. i always mean a i guess academic marxists always mean b.
Alan, I totally agree with you! I think we are witnessing something actually quite exciting, the formation of a new party built from the grassroots upwards. I don’t think this has really happened before. Debating different perspectives and moving forward together is in a way a real revolutionary change – whatever the outcome in November I suspect we will all be celebrating a major breakthrough. The historic birth of a new party that is here to fight and here to stay!
Whilst the enthusiasm for building Left Unity is excellent, I don’t agree that the formation is currently being built “from the grassroots upwards”.
I agree with Rachel Archer and Josh Davies in their piece on discussions when they say: “Unfortunately [the platforms’] main similarity is the same bad habit of all Left groups and labour organisations of the past: they are all pre-written documents, created by seasoned activists … given to a delegation to vote on, then to be wheeled out to the working class. This is a fundamental bad habit we have to break.” (I’ve removed their bit about “good intentions” partly because stating that the USSR was not socialist in the SP statement without even bothering to explain it is a bad sign.)
The conference is looking more like a process to approve, amend or vote down the competing pre-written platforms rather than providing an open forum for ordinary members to discuss and debate their own ideas and positions. It stifles rather than encourages grassroots discussion, and shows a lack of faith in the working class.
The danger is that there is a move towards “setting up of permanent currents/factions within LU”, as Ed mentions. Permanent platforms or “organised currents” do not “protect minority rights” as some suggest. They can quickly become a “party within a party” that has the potential to disrupt the healthy development of the party if they lose the argument (the opposite to the party democracy that “minority rights” are said to protect): organising boycotts and pickets of official conferences and party publications, holding alternative unofficial conferences, etc, as experienced by the Socialist Labour Party, for example.
This is not to rule out a future possibility that the party may need to allow temporary platforms to sort out a particular philosophical problem.
“One member one vote” with the party uniting around agreed conference decisions is all that is required. The party should be built enthusiastically around those decisions for as long as there is the freedom for members to argue for Leninist revolutionary perspectives whilst doing so. If that freedom of discussion is not present, the party will not be a centrist movement. It will just be another fake-‘left’ lash up and not worth supporting at all. It remains to be seen which way it will go.
I’m in LPP but Ed, I wish after you wrote “broadly social democratic reformist views” you had added ‘left of Labour’.
I have to say, an awful lot of common sense spoken in this article. If LU is to become anything significant it has to take a broad church approach, to include people from a wide range of persuasions. From left leaning social democrats, to Greens, to the hard left.
We desperately need a new party to fill the massive void on the left, abandoned by the main parties. I became interested in the LU project because it appeared to be an attempt to create such a broad based party.
If it restricts itself to following one particular dogma that prospective members must sign up to, then its appeal will be strictly limited, and it will soon disappear into the same irrelevance as all the other dozens of attempts to create left wing parties over the years.
I absolutely agree with this. A great article!
Brilliant! Fractured, introspective and completely navel-gazing, even before it is launched. It’s like the 1980s, 1990s and 2000s never happened. I have more chance of holidaying on the moon than this party does of getting one single MP elected. Utterly hilarious – keep it going, and keep me laughing.
I too will be supporting the Left Party Platform come the Conference – unless another Platform emerges in the meantime, which manages to combine the rather bland , but easy to agree to for any radical socialist, statements of the LPP, with some rather more focussed POLICY suggestions for the future Left Unity Party. “Leftie right on bland” general statements are probably OK at this stage , but we’ll pretty soon have to move beyond that and get down to some serious policy formation.
I’m sorry to say I don’t think the loose “Policy Commissions” discussions have taken us forward very much on that front so far. Partly because , in my opinion, the ideological and political spread of the contributors is at present far too broad to be contained within a genuinely radical Left party with a SOCIALIST core philosophy.
Unlike some commentators, I welcome the “political platforms” , as a concrete way to encapsulate key political positions in a manageable form. Without the Political Platforms approach there is a danger the “broad church” approach of Left Unity – which is a great strength at this stage, will simply bog down in endless irreconcilable debate and argument. The Platform approach, if it doesn’t also bog down in endless “disagreement for the factional sake of it”, provides the potential for the presentation of clear political/policy options on which the membership can vote – and hence move forward as a cohesive party. If on the basis of losing a vote on key approaches or issues some people can no longer commit themselves to the new Party, fair enough . Better that than an “all things to all people” shapeless swamp of a party “( eg, the Green Party). And we know from the Brighton and Bristol Council experiences where that ends up.
Ed you write that “[i]f the SP win, however, LPP supporters will not be able to continue to organise as a current within a narrow party. Not because we’ll be forced out or deliberately excluded but because you can’t have a broad left current within a narrow party from which everyone who is not a Marxist is effectively barred.”
Lots of currents and tendencies have existed within socialist and worker parties that are committed to a democratically planned economy that serves the needs of all not the profits of a few. You would need to have a substantial misreading of history to keep making the argument that such politics are narrow. Mass parties across the world have been built on similar politics that the Socialist Platform expresses. Even in Britain, the only serious organisational challenge to Labour (the Communist Party) was based on the overthrow of existing capitalist relations. We have tried the vague politics to build something to the left of Labour over the last thirty years. Let’s try something more principled and long lasting.
The argument you make also implies a lack of commitment to democracy come November conference. Which ever platform, or whatever documents, we pass all sides of the debate must be committed to building the new Left Unity party. If the Socialist Platform passes there will be plenty of space and time for those on the right of this debate to try and win the argument next time. The same should also be the case if the Left Party Platform passes. It is a basic issue of democratic commitment to the project or not.
Let’s leave aside your strange expectation that non-Marxists will persist inside an avowedly Marxist party (what, then, is the point of getting it to declare itself Marxist in any case?) To simply assert “Mass parties across the world have been built on similar politics” (to the Socialist Platform) is a fundamentally *ahistorical* approach. It’s an assertion that because something was possible in history, it is possible again without modification. As if there were no difference between the political situations of 1813, 1913 and 2013. Where is the analysis of the rise of neoliberalism and the decline of social democracy, for example? Why is there not a mass Communist Party in Britain today? You have to look at the circumstances we’re in, not just put it down to a lack of will. (And I have no idea what similar project you could be referring to 30 years ago either.)
What is strange about thinking non-Marxists could sign up to the idea that production should be democratically planned for the interests of the majority not the few? Lots of non-Marxists on the left already believe that.
A lot of your questions could easily be turned around back at you Tom. For example: Why is there not a mass party to the left of Labour? Is it because revolutionaries haven’t built one or may there be something else at work like the material conditions you hint at.
You are right that there is no transhistorical party form but saying that in this current debate is meaningless and who said nothing should be modified? The key thing about the Socialist Platform is that it tries to express a political current that has, and in some places, is a mass force for struggle and social change. What the Socialist Platform is saying is that these are the principles (women’s liberation, internationalism etc.) that can not only can win mass support but can also navigate a political world where working class independence from capital and its state is important if we are serious about bring around a different society.
Is socialism a mass participatory project or something for the history books and small left-wing groups?
The platforms are only divisive if we want them to be. Let’s recognise them for what they are. Honest reflections of differences, put forward in good faith. Whichever one gets passed at conference doesn’t change that.
Yes, I accept that a minority of people may have ‘red lines’ and will feel unable to carry on participating in LU if those are crossed. That’s sad, but unavoidable. For everyone else though, let’s start from a position of respecting democracy even if the decision goes against our personal preferences. And accept that there is more to keep us working together then there is tearing us apart.
I may not be versed in all this factional mumbo jumbo. Also I may not understand their philosophical or core beliefs and policies. However, I do know that an undesirable disabled scrounger like myself a father and in the last week a grandfather stroke unimportant person that I am. Would and have joined left unity in the belief, that the more important people of the separate factions would grow a pair and bring forward a united strong party. One that cares for the young the sick and the elderly, but it is also proud of the roots that can give strength to this unity. Stop playing childish games like the conservative and the copy cat Labour Party. Is it not time for all to find commonalities and bring democracy back to us all? Do not waste the opportunity we have all been given.
There seems to be a misunderstanding about the nature of the Socialist Platform. In my opinion, it is deliberately broader than a Marxist (or even revolutionary socialist but not specifically Marxist) platform. Point 1 (see http://leftunity.org/socialist-platform-statement-of-aims-and-principles/) states “The [Left Unity] Party is a socialist party. Its aim is to bring about the end of capitalism and its replacement by socialism.” This does not specify whether capitalism can be replaced by socialism gradually, by a series of reforms, or whether some sort of revolution with a more sudden thorough change is required. If ending capitalism and introducing socialism is not our aim, what is the point of LU?
This ambiguity is fine in my opinion. I want Left Unity to be a broad party, but not one where revolutionary views are excluded totally to leave a bland series of demands, which the LPP is in danger of doing. Even if the LPP is passed at the November conference, there would still be scope for amendments and other policy decisions (arising from the commissions and discussions in branches) to avoid LU going down the road that failed for the Socialist Alliance, Scottish Socialist Party and Respect. It should also be said that facilitating internet debates on the official LU website, where both reformist and revolutionary views can be put forward, is a far better situation than with publications like the SSP newspaper (Scottish Socialist Voice) in which (nearly always) lowest common denominator politics were put forward, even when the SWP and CWI Scotland (the equivalent of the Socialist Party of England and Wales) participated. As long as this inclusive approach continues, a victory for the LPP shouldn’t be a disaster.
Due to minor deficiencies with the Socialist Platform, I have put out a call for a truly Revolutionary Platform. I’ve included the text below and you can also find it on http://www.revolutionaryplatformofleftunity.org – I’ve also created a public discussion group (unmoderated except for spammers) at https://groups.google.com/d/forum/revolutionary-platform-of-left-unity-public-discussion recognising that some revolutionary socialists may have disagreements with aspects of the text and want to suggest modifications before committing themselves to supporting it (as well as facilitating debate about the need for a Revolutionary Platform or even Left Unity). Note point 8 below about the possibility of an imminent massive economic crisis, which some may disagree with, but in my opinion justifies revolutionaries collaborating (even though I recognise that we will not be in a majority at the 30 November conference).
CALL FOR A REVOLUTIONARY PLATFORM OF LEFT UNITY
I am putting out a draft statement of a proposed new platform of Left Unity, called the Revolutionary Platform (RP). The idea is to unite as many genuine revolutionary socialists as possible within LU in a single platform, to try to overcome the problem which occurred with other broad socialist organisations (including the Scottish Socialist Party) of rival revolutionary organisations competing with each other within it rather than cooperating around shared goals.
I recognise that there have already been steps towards revolutionary regroupment, including discussions between the AntiCapitalist Initiative, International Socialist Network and Socialist Resistance (http://anticapitalists.org/2013/07/10/taking-steps-towards-revolutionary-unity/), but note that SR are lukewarm about LU. The Socialist Platform of LU is almost a revolutionary platform, but where it says (in point 1) “Its aim is to bring about the end of capitalism and its replacement by socialism”, it fails to specify whether that can or should be achieved by revolutionary or reformist means.
I’ve kept the statement deliberately short, avoiding stating the obvious – such as opposition to discrimination, sexual assault and harassment, attacks on welfare (such as the bedroom tax and council tax bills for the unemployed, dubbed “the new poll tax” by some) and organisations like the BNP and EDL. I’ve set up a Google Group to which I will add anyone who contacts me to sign the platform – this group can be used to flesh out other policies and decide on strategies for action within LU (particularly at the 28 September policy workshop conference and the 30 November founding conference in London) and on the internet and in the outside world.
If you want to sign this statement, please email me (steve.wallis2460@gmail.com) with your name and location (branch/city/town/village). We need 10 members to become an official platform with the ability to put forward motions at the November conference.
The draft statement of the Revolutionary Platform is as follows:
1. By revolutionary, we mean sudden thorough change, preferably through peaceful means like a general strike. Gradual reformist (e.g. Keynesian) change won’t lead to socialism because gains that can be won during a boom are taken back in a slump or recession.
2. We know that we won’t be in a majority within Left Unity in the short or probably even medium term, but think it useful for revolutionary socialists to unite together in a single platform to discuss how to ensure that a socialist revolution happens.
3. Involvement in the Revolutionary Platform would not preclude involvement in other platforms – we recognise that there are many things we would agree with in the Socialist Platform (http://leftunity.org/socialist-platform-statement-of-aims-and-principles/) and Class Struggle Platform (http://leftunity.org/the-class-struggle-platform/).
4. The Left Party Platform (http://leftunity.org/left-party-platform-statement/) says little that is contentious, and is based on lowest common denominator politics, which has already been tried in the Socialist Alliance and Respect with unspectacular results – except in areas where well-known candidates, particularly Dave Nellist and George Galloway, have stood, and we believe they could have done equally well on a more revolutionary programme.
5. Adopting a radical programme, such as that proposed by the RP, SP or CSP, should not exclude less radical left-wing activists (particularly if they identify themselves as socialists) from involvement in LU. A broad socialist organisation like LU already does welcome debate and different points of view on its website and forum, and will (surely) continue to do so.
6. Socialism must be democratic – we reject the idea that the regimes in the USSR, Eastern Europe and China were socialist, but we believe in unity between revolutionaries who called such regimes “deformed workers’ states”, “state capitalist”, “bureaucratic collectivist” or simply “Stalinist”.
7. Socialism has to be international, particularly in this globalised world. We reject the idea that there is a national solution to the problems of capitalism.
8. A second credit crunch, which this time would mean that capitalist governments would be literally unable to bail out the banks even if they wanted to, could happen at any time, and we need to be more prepared than at the time of the first credit crunch and use such an opportunity to seize power via an international socialist revolution.
I Agree with the democratic principles put forward. robert supposes that many members of left unity will walk if it declares itself socialist. That would be sad. as stated the socialist platform does not say that everyone must be revolutionary socialist. IF passed by the majority it will say, the majority in left unity are socialist so left unity should identify this. WE wont fool anyone otherwise, and we shouldnt want to. IT will show through anyway unless socialists in left unity want to do a respect manoevere of allowing the new party to not have a pro-choice policy and remain vague about being pro-lgbt equality.
that happened in respect.
ISnt this similar when socialists wont vote for a basic socialist platform because its not what the masses think, or, we dont want to put off our partners by arguing for what we believe in.
we can only break the mold by democratic practice and openess. leave the manoevers to the bourgeois politicians. we can only break the mold of left disorganisation by showing the class that open discussion and democracy is being embraced in left unity. Thats what will make it different. vote and argue for what you believe in. THeres no need to form a block!
PETE B