Should Left Unity call itself ‘Socialist’?
The debate over whether Left Unity should consider itself to be socialist, and name the new party accordingly, continues. Andy Smith from Leeds Left Unity draws on Hannah Arendt to argue that socialism fails to address individual morality – the different ways in which individuals respond to situations – regardless of economic system. As such, defining ourselves as socialist could limit our potential for contributing to change.
Seen from a strictly moral viewpoint, Stalin’s crimes were, so to speak, old fashioned; like an ordinary criminal, he never admitted them but kept them surrounded in a cloud of hypocrisy and doubletalk while his followers justified them as temporary means in the pursuit of the “good” cause, or, if they happened to be a bit more sophisticated, by the laws of history to which the revolutionary has to submit and sacrifice himself if need be. Nothing in Marxism, moreover, despite all the talk about “bourgeois morality” announces a new set of moral values. If anything is characteristic of Lenin or Trotsky as the representatives of the professional revolutionary, it is the naïve belief that once the social circumstances are changed through revolution, mankind will follow automatically the few moral precepts that have been known and repeated since the dawn of history.’ P. 53 Hannah Arendt – ‘Responsibility and Judgment’
As Left Unity seeks to define itself, the old argument as to whether or not Left Unity should call itself socialist arises often. I would argue that it is simply not enough to call Left Unity socialist without doing a great disservice to the potential Left Unity holds. What Hannah Arendt potentially highlights in this quote is the start of that potential being realised and the Left moving beyond historicism, sectarianism and a cold response to capitalism. Marxism, however powerful, is far from a complete response to capitalism and theorists such as Arendt have helped move the argument way beyond the remit of socialism. The beginning of this argument is that morality is not included.
Hannah Arendt is suggesting in the above quote that firstly, Marxism is an economic response to material conditions. It does not explain personal responsibility, individual philosophy or anything other than an alternative economic model to capitalism. If this were enough on its own, then it would probably have already happened. However, it is not. If you need an example of how this degenerates a movement, consider the total inability of the SWP to respond morally to the comrade Delta issue. There are some issues that require far beyond a democratic solution, especially where the participants in this democracy have not engaged with a philosophy that permits morality for so long, they have no concept of the human cost of their actions. This, among many other examples on the traditional organised left serve as examples of why it is simply not enough to arm ourselves with a copy of Das Kapital and overthrow capitalism. Apart from anything else, if we did that, the very people involved in covering up sexual abuse and I am NOT just talking about the SWP, would seek to take positions of leadership when they have shown so often their own inability to lead in a decent way.
Left Unity has the opportunity to develop something new that considers individual morality at the same time as fighting for material equality. Since the Second World War there has been a massive body of work created that seeks to discuss individual responsibility in war, whether that be class war, imperialist war or any other kind of conflict. Let us not forget that the professional revolutionaries that Arendt refers to, Trotsky and Lenin did most of their writing in a time of revolution, which asked things of its activists that are simply not acceptable to ask in this day and age. The reason for this is that there is a pervasive understanding of the harm done by ‘just following orders’ in the period following WWII. This is more worrying when you consider the fact that most socialist material has not been updated since prior to this time and has not evolved to involve a morality beyond Marxism certainly. If you want evidence for this, consider democratic centralism, a sticking point in the extreme left discourse. The basic premise being that until conference, where the democracy takes place, each person is expected to go along with a party line, in the name of the party or the revolution or the sect or whatever it is that has decided this decision. This fundamentally asks activists to forfeit their right to act in a way that they determine to be moral, right or just in any situation that might seek to contradict a party line. In the case of the comrade Delta issue, this has unfolded into an utterly farcical abuse of activists’ individual rights to criticise anything that the central ctte do and the total moral collapse of women’s rights activists in the SWP. Again, this is far from an isolated case and you can find examples of every left group that use democratic centralism as a principle, doing the same and demanding obedience to democracy that subverts the individual’s ability to determine their own actions or their own response to each situation.
Once this individual response to each situation has been removed, there is the other dangerous precedent to which Arendt alludes, which has already been mentioned, that of just following orders. Centralism of any kind in a movement only motivated to create equality in material terms underestimates the need for each individual to respond to situations in a moral and individualistic way. Not only that but if each person acts because ‘democracy’ has decided that they will behave in a certain way, they are alienated from their own decision, a decision which is often highly influenced by a central ctte interested in maintaining their own positions through ‘democratic’ policies that in reality have very little democracy involved in them. They then must continue to act in this way to stay part of the movement, without a true grasp of the reasons for doing so and only hearing justifications born of an understanding that material equality, will result in moral equality, which there is no reason to assume whatsoever. To explain this, consider that in poor areas in England, some people commit crime to survive, some people starve, some people strive and some people organise. Material equality cannot explain this. Firstly, it is assumed that give or take small anomalies, each person in this community has roughly the same access to resources and yet they choose to respond to their material conditions in very different ways. If material conditions could explain all of this, it would. The only thing that can explain this is a moralistic investigation of the reasons people respond to each situation in certain ways.
If we expand the previous example to trying to understand governments or corporations actions, the same problem arises. Capitalists, rather unsurprisingly serve capital. However, they have a cloak surrounding them, that of economic justification. They can behave in any way they choose, so long as it permits a profit to be made. It is then alright for them to force down working conditions, push up prices and privatise basic human needs, without even considering the moral cost of what they are doing but capitalist discourse is centred around material conditions and does not consider the human cost, the moral cost or the emotional costs involved in ‘just doing business’ or ‘just following orders’ of capitalist demand. Marx, in responding to this offered an alternative that still does not offer a new moral philosophy. So, instead of serving profits with no morality, people are asked to serve equality, without morals. The result of this, in the ‘professional revolutionary’, is a system of protocols that demand an unthinking subservience, without moral content or even the ability to consider the moral costs of behaviour. Che Guevara’s wife has recently written a book called ‘Remembering Che’ and in it she highlights Che’s distrust of party manuals that only seek to explain one perspective. She quotes Che in a letter to the Minster for Education in December 1965 saying
‘I want to propose a few small ideas about developing the culture of our vanguard and our people in general.
In this long vacation period I have had my nose buried in philosophy, something I have wanted to do for some time. I came across the first problem: nothing is published in Cuba, if we exclude the hefty Soviet manuals, which have the drawback of not allowing you to think for yourself, because the party has already done it for you, and you just have to digest it. In terms of methodology, it is as anti-Marxist as can be and, moreover, the books tend to be very bad.’ (p.140-141 Remembering Che)
I don’t think it is a surprise that Che said this as a reader of philosophy, ethics and as someone who was writing after WWII. Socialism has not moved on since before this time and is still justified in these amoral terms. So, when someone says that Left Unity should aspire to call itself Socialist, I would suggest that this is simply not enough. It should strive to be so much more.
50 comments
50 responses to “Should Left Unity call itself ‘Socialist’?”
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.
There’s both utopian & scientific socialism.
Utopians can present a vision of the world they would like & try & convince everyone. Scientific socialism, a.k.a. Marxism, is based upon the material conditions of society & Marx’s recognition that, “It is not the consciousness of men that determines their existence, but their social existence that determines their consciousness”. In otherwords, we are shaped by our environment. However, Marxism is more complicated than that as it recognises the interaction of human consciousness & action shaping society.
An assessment is required of what is possible, given the material conditions & so the consciousness of the majority. We can see that since the on-set of the crisis political consciousness has moved. Being anti-capitalist is much more common & acceptable. The name Marx is much more readily mentioned.
For those who believe that the problem is capitalism – people exploited & reduced to commodities by having to sell their labour power – see that socialism is the solution. And by socialism we simply mean the common ownership/control of the means of production. It is this that then gives humanity the freedom to determine collectively how they live rather than commodities, through money, wages, prices & profit dictating.
Just how people choose to collectively live together cannot be known now. There is no blueprint, no end of history. Human life is dynamic. It will constantly change.
That’s not to say we can’t have some core values, e.g. against discrimination & for solidarity, against a few making decisions for all & having as much equality in decision-making as possible, being for ecological balance, for internationalism, etc. All the things that are commonly accepted on the left but which are not possible under capitalism.
This also extends to how we organise. The more participatory democracy the better.
Being of the left is all about being socialist. It’s the one thing that unites us all. If you just want a more equal capitalism, you’re not a socialist, not of the left, but a liberal. There’s already a Liberal party, arguably two of them if you include the Labour party. We don’t need anymore of that nonsense.
“Being of the left is all about being socialist. It’s the one thing that unites us all.”
No, it’s what divides the left, and has lead to the repeated failures of left wing parties. For decades. It’s time to try an inclusive party, leading on policy and not dogma.
If you see me as “nonsense” simply because I refuse to accept a dogmatic label, that of Socialist… (I’m a mutualist, no friend whatsoever of capitalism)
Andrew,
You are either for the common ownership of the means of production in one form or another, or their private ownership. What else is there?
If you don’t regard this division as being socialist v capitalist, then you need to explain to me a third way.
If by mutualism you mean something like the Co-op movement, John Lewis or other worker-owned organisations, where the workers share out the profits, then you need to recognise that this is still a form of capitalism as there is still competition amongst themselves. They are their own bosses exploiting themselves.
That’s not to say that co-ops are not a big step forward & to be recognised as such. Workers control is vitally important. But workers control in a market economy is not actually workers control as the workers are still controlled by the things they produce.
We can disagree on the ultimate destination & hopefully still work together promoting mutualism as being better than working for shareholders though.
Regards.
Am I in favour of the common ownership of the means of production? Yes and No.
I believe that principles of democracy should be extended to control one of the most important factors in the happiness and life chances of most people – the economy.
Do I want every economic enterprise collectively owned – No.
Am I committed to equality of opportunity and massively greater equality of outcomes? – Yes
Am I in favour of the democratic ownership and control of energy utilities, transport, water, the banks and the largest strategic economic semi-monopoly enterprises that dominate economic life – Yes.
Do I want market mechanisms to be completely replaced by central/local planning in every case – No.
Do I believe that democratic institutions of government should regulate and control economic activities to minimise the dangers of exploitation – Yes.
Am I in favour of individual liberty to allow people to make their own economic choices, including setting up private economic enterprises – Yes.
Do I want to highlight or prioritise the word Socialism in our name, constitution or guiding principles – No.
So John Keeley – Do you mind if I stay in Left Unity?
The very huggable Ray G strikes again: diamond geezer!
Ray G
I could equally ask you if you mind if I stay in LU. It’s no more my organisation than yours on anyone else’s. We come together because we all regard ourselves of the left & want a better world & inevitably then debate just what we are against & what we are for.
It is my strong belief that unless you get rid of capitalism you will not be able to free humanity from the inequality & suffering we see around us today, nor be able to even attempt to resolve the ecological crisis that’s causing species to be wipe out of existence.
Why? Because all the time money & profit rules it controls our behaviour, even if we have workers owning their own businesses.
This does mean that we need to examine actual concrete ways of organising production & consumption. We probably cannot implement the principle of ‘from each according to his ability, to each according to his need’. We can examine visions such as Michael Albert’s Participatory Economics (http://www.zcommunications.org/topics/parecon/) which goes a long why to giving humanity control over its destiny without excessive centralism.
Whatever socialism or for that matter Left Unity means might it not be a time to question any assumptions based on scientism and too much deference to “revolutionary” thinkers of the past The best that can be done is to put ideas forward and the practice to achieve them, try to do them and correct them if needed and if they do not work to abandon them. Whatever political economy there will always be problems to solve, though the hope is that something congenial in regard to social fairness and good ecological practice is possible . Some might say this is moralizing weak beer but no amount of fretting will make anything well unless the practice is workable and does as generally intended.
It might also be an idea not just to be stuck in a protest/ oppositional mode and think how to become counter-positional and proactive in the world we live in, cooperative and mutual enterprise offer a means of doing this and will allow an opportunity test and develop more congenial democratic solutions, these can in the long run be factored into reconstructed public and municipal sectors.
Is a political party the solution? Might the same effect better be achieved by an economic movement, a campaign for economic democracy that cut across party identities.
Andy, you have concocted a grossly simplified caricature here of “socialism” (actually a very broad philosophical tradition with roots across many “schools” ), as equating only to a particularly reductionist materialist “Marxism”, and a Stalinist perversion of both “Leninism” and “Marxism at that !
Unfortunately you stop before suggesting from where “morality” independent of a social system or socialist political philosophy and action might spring,. From the individual heart of the “good person” perhaps ? I’m not knocking that completely actually, but I’m afraid both “morality” as a concept and the ability of the individual to decide what is “moral” or not, is a complex issue – not separable from the social, context in which each of us lives and socialises. The bullying, egotistical behaviour of SWP Central Committee members which you highlight in your piece has much more to do with the saturating influence of a lifetime immersed in capitalist ideology and mores on individual CC members than any failure in the moral values, or lack of moral values come to that, in the socialist tradition or philosophy.
Marx himself, for all his genius and challenging of so many bourgeois ideological concepts, was soiled by some profound racist and sexist attitudes. How could it be otherwise – we like everyone else are dominated by the hegemonic ideas of the age . “Being a socialist ” can’t rid each of us of this internalised ideological poison – it can only partially combat it, and hold out a route to a new society in which narcissistic individualism, greed, competition, scarcity and fear will not play such a massive role in dictating our behaviours and individual psychology.
The idea that “socialism” as a philosophy and form of political action can be boiled down to a blind belief in achieving “equality” – regardless of the social cost- is simply a crude travesty of the real situation. Using Stalinism’s crimes in particular to demonise the broad philosophy and practice of socialism is pretty rich ! Stalinism and its murderous practices represented the usurpation of the very temporary revolutionary gains of the October 1917 Revolution, by a self-serving bureaucratic dictatorship – draping itself in the superficial rhetoric and imagery of a profoundly mechanistic and warped version of Marxism – to justify a regime of barbarity and exploitation seldom equalled.
It is also extremely selective to solely equate “socialism” with Marxism . This is completely incorrect, particularly in the UK context – where the radical Methodist influenced socialist tradition – deeply imbued with an emphasis on Christian moral principles of brotherhood and caring for ones neighbours is a much greater historical influence than Marxism.
Why did Karl Marx as a man spend his life working in often very trying physical conditions to extend and develop the analytical and theoretical basis of the widespread existing philosophy and practice of socialism ? Because he CARED about the terrible poverty and exploitation he saw around him of course , particularly in Manchester , right at the heart of the Capitalist Industrial Revolution. But Marx, and other socialist theorists saw that the calls to capitalists to obey “Christian Moral” edicts in their dealings with the impoverished proletariat ,that influential reformers like ,”Utopian Socialist” Robert Owen, fell on completely deaf ears. Marx wanted to understand and explain how “morality” was not a free floating ahistorical quality which everybody was free to abide by or not. Marx (and many later sociologists) grasped that the overall social/economic conditions of a social system heavily constrained the freedom of personal choice individuals had to break free from “evil” moral choices which condemned their fellow being to suffer. Crudely put, each social system is dominated by a ruling ideology which justifies and reinforces the interests and modus operandi of the dominant social class in that society and mode of production.
To provide an extreme example: Nazi Germany was a special form of hyper oppressive capitalist system, of arbitrary and gross oppression and violence, visited on both political enemies of the regime, demonised scapegoat minorities like Jews, Gypsies, Gays, and the disabled. It was as it was, for a reason, to maintain under rigid control a population only shortly before in revolutionary socialist turmoil, and to prepare and undertake a vast military enterprise. To dragoon the majority of the population into either going along passively , or participating enthusiastically , an all enveloping blanket of both systematic terror, and all pervasive Nazi ideology was pumped out constantly to ensure ideological hegemony. Now the ordinary Germans who protected Jews, sabotaged war production, resisted generally, are very, very, few in number. Not because Germans are innately less “moral” than anybody else, but because “morality” is a very society-specific, fluid concept – and very few people are capable of stepping “outside” the ideological parameters of their society to reject the “moral” values of that system.
As another example the “Founding Fathers” of the USA, found it perfectly non-hypocritical to write all that “It is manifestly evident that all men are born equal… etc, etc, etc” stuff – even though they were almost all significant slave owners – and had no intention of giving a vote or freeing the black slaves. Their “moral” frame of reference was hopelessly constrained by their social class outlook – driven by their class self interest. So while it’s “manifestly obvious” that “all men are born free”, Black slaves aren’t “People”, but “property” – so ” things” can’t have “rights”. Not many White Americans managed to “step beyond” this ideological straightjacket .A few real heroes did, but so few as to be “freakish deviants” in social terms.
Marxism ( and by that I don’t mean the Stalinist travesty of it, which completely distorts the Marxist view of the state in a socialist society, and so much else in the marxist analysis) develops a historical analysis which sees “the good society” as one in which men and women can at last live a non-exploitive, equalitarian , materially abundant life , as only being achievable when the current social system, capitalism, which through unprecedented cruelty and exploitation has built the most productive economic society to date, driven by greed , exploitation and continuous competition, is superceded by a Socialist system, based on common ownership and democratic control by the working class. In other words “morality, particularly the profound morality recommended in The Sermon on The Mount and the Parables, can never be achieved by human will or individual choice alone – it can only be achieved in a society without grossly unequal social classes and economic scarcity.
So unlike you Andy I see no contradiction or inadequacy of analysis between pursuing a socialist society and a moral order of being. The root desire underlying the entire “Socialist Project” historically is a desire to achieve a society which allows its citizens to achieve the core moral invocations of all three great world “Religions of the Book”, Judaism, Christianity, and Islam, and many others too. Marxism often seems to be standing aside from this moral objective, in its careful often coldly academic, analysis of social and economic systems and dynamics, but actually it too , like Methodist Socialism, is trying to enable the great mass of humanity to free itself from both the intellectually suffocating fog of capitalist ideological hegemony, and understand the nature of the exploitative capitalist system which must be overthrown and replaced by a socialist one.
Thanks a really great contribution Andy, Hannah A is boss.
Again, the question of ‘what kind of socialism’ and ‘how do we define socialism’ as well as, should we begin with a loaded / contested word and seek to explain it, or should we begin with what we stand for and then work out how that can be simply expressed – probably not in one word.
WTF. Have any of you seen how un/mis informed the average person is on political theory? Are we expected to go through this on each doorstep?
The economy is an unknown, as neo-liberal auditors spin for cash. UK doesn’t produce enough “real stuff” for old political models to possibly work. How are we going to un-monetarise childcare (for example) within 30 years?
Just like the “Christian” cults in the USA, too many Lefties are too invested in old beliefs, and (subconsciously) not losing face. These are human traits, well understood and used by the Righht. If we don’t support our humanity over our vanity, how can we say we are better?
“Sanity” would be a good descriptive/aspirational name, but as the song says, “Call someplace Paradise, and kiss it goodbye”!
I just cannot understand how you can say that there is no morality in Socialism what about ‘From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs’ doesn’t this sum up the fact that socialism is about equality,common ownership and the equal distribution of wealth. Surely more moral than a system that leads to the premature death of millions and exploitation and oppression. I also think that it rather crass to assume that the SWP somehow represents a microcosm of socialism. Also, quite honestly, the majority of people who are in LU do not have either the time or the inclination to be involved in these long winded over verbose debates, based upon obscure or even irrelevant philosophy. I feel as if this article has been posted in order to set the cat amongst the pigeons in a very contrived and annoying way.
“The idea that “socialism” …can be boiled down to a blind belief in achieving “equality” – regardless of the social cost – is simply a crude travesty of the real situation.” John, if you’d said “common” instead of crude, I think you’d be more relevant. It’s a prejudice very many people carry (I constantly meet people with this received opinion when canvassing, at work and in family) – based on decades of information/history lessons re famines, secret police, programs and the like. We need to educate but we also need to work with the current consciousness. Starting our dialogue with prospective supporters using a loaded / contested word (left or socialist) will be very counter-productive.
The approach that Respect take – in this context only – is effective and impressive I think: a focus on current thoughts and issues and avoidance of coded, legacy ambiguities. And they are talking about feasible achievable objects (a transitional programme) everyone can readily understand.
But I also think we need to present a new challenge the philosophic basis of the prevailing consciousness (neo-liberal materialist individualism) and agree with Andy that legacy terms ‘socialism’ and ‘left’ aren’t enough for this. Here’s my view:
” The Community Party / Peoples Alliance/ People United / … / will use the best of the old and the best of new ideas and techniques to create and maintain a caring sharing community that strives toward a happy/fulfilling life for current and future generations – people and planet.
Community and democracy centric, supporting individual liberty, effort and enterprise while recognising that no man is an island, totally responsible for her or his own actions, successes or failures. Striving toward a secure and sustainable material habitat that enables a decent life for all, whatever gifts they inherit, without threat or harm from others. Let us make no war on anyone for material gain. Let us not suffer to know others suffer without making every effort to help and to remove the cause of that suffering. ”
A party that can may recruit ‘undefined newcomers’ as well as defined ‘socialists’, ‘liberals’, ‘communists’ , ‘conservatives’, to its ranks: all those who want to see a fairer, more equal and just society (rich or poor).
ATB, Ged Cavander
Indeed – If you look at groups like, say, Lewisham People Before Profit, while most of the people involved define themselves as left wing, most *don’t* define themselves as socialist.
LU defining themselves as such…would drive them off.
With New Labour desparately trying to eliminate class political consciousness i.e. socialist consciousness before it wins the next election by default then for Left Unity not to declare itself socialist would be buying into the New Labour narrative of the death of the working class.
Although I am not a particular fan of Hannah Ardent I do feel Andy Smith’s contribution to this discussion is valid and interesting – I love the reference to Che at the end of the post because at the level of humanist philosophy Che’s honest approach to the real problems confronted by the Cuban Revolution is a refreshing change to the somewhat dry and scholastic discussions that often occur on this website… an example of this would be the comments he made just before his ill fated intervention in the Congo in 1965
“In capitalist society individuals are controlled by a pitiless law usually beyond their comprehension. The alienated human specimen is tied to society as a whole by an invisible umbilical cord: the law of value.[37] This law acts upon all aspects of one’s life, shaping its course and destiny. The laws of capitalism, which are blind and are invisible to ordinary people, act upon the individual without he or she being aware of it. One sees only the vastness of a seemingly infinite horizon ahead. That is how it is painted by capitalist propagandists who purport to draw a lesson from the example of Rockefeller[38] — whether or not it is true — about the possibilities of individual success. The amount of poverty and suffering required for a Rockefeller to emerge, and the amount of depravity entailed in the accumulation of a fortune of such magnitude, are left out of the picture, and it is not always possible for the popular forces to expose this clearly. (A discussion of how the workers in the imperialist countries gradually lose the spirit of working-class internationalism due to a certain degree of complicity in the exploitation of the dependent countries, and how this at the same time weakens the combativity of the masses in the imperialist countries, would be appropriate here, but that is a theme that goes beyond the scope of these notes.)
In any case, the road to success is portrayed as beset with perils — perils that, it would seem, an individual with the proper qualities can overcome to attain the goal. The reward is seen in the distance; the way is lonely. Furthermore, it is a contest among wolves. One can win only at the cost of the failure of others.”
This little snippet expresses the alienation of life under the domination of capital which also affects the way in which those who seek to resist often adopt the adversarial and individualistic ‘contest among wolves’ and end up fighting among each other.
Of course in the context of the Cuban Revolution we have to remember that the July 26th Movement never adopted a ‘Socialist Program’ and the Word Socialist did not appear in its Name or the name of the Rebel Army that was it’s motor force. It was only when buring martyrs who had died fighting the CIA organised Bay of Pigs invasion in April 1961 that led Fidel to declare explicitly the Socialist character of the revolution and even then the terms that resonated most profoundly with ordinary Cubans were expressions like
“Por esta Revolucion de los humildes, por los humildes, y para los humildes, estamos dispuestos a dar la vida.”
“For this Revolution of the humble, by the humble, and for the humble, we are prepared to give our lives.”
In my view Left Unity is going through a painful transition period [from an abstract idea towards a concrete existence as a living entity – and as with all such processes universal themes occur – as Che outlined in Socialism and Man [sic] in Cuba
“Furthermore, we must take into account, as I pointed out before, that we are not dealing with a period of pure transition, as Marx envisaged in his Critique of the Gotha Program, but rather with a new phase unforeseen by him: an initial period of the transition to communism, or of the construction of socialism. This transition is taking place in the midst of violent class struggles, and with elements of capitalism within it that obscure a complete understanding of its essence.[46]
If we add to this the scholasticism that has held back the development of Marxist philosophy and impeded a systematic treatment of the transition period, whose political economy has not yet been developed, we must agree that we are still in diapers and that it is necessary to devote ourselves to investigating all the principal characteristics of this period before elaborating an economic and political theory of greater scope.”
I am in favour of a constitutional commitment to ‘socialism’ in the form of a mention as the primary aim of our new party something along the lines of ‘Our Primary Aim is:
To win popular mass support for the creation of a Green and Pleasant Socialist Republic in England.’
Here Socialism is linked to Republicanism – which implies a serious challenge to the ‘unwritten’ constitution of the UK and is linked to the word Pleasant which of course no one can disagree with apart from people with profound BDSM proclivities Socialism in this sentence is linked with Green also.
But in terms of the ‘name’ of our new party we have no need to adopt ‘Socialist’ or ‘Left’ or ‘Communist’ or ‘Anarchist’ or any other political label.
On the occasion of the 40th Anniversary of the Defeat of the Chilean people at the hands of the CIA and Pinochet … why not form a new party which represents a continuity with their aspirations? People United.
The clear advantage with this is when we are being rounded up and shipped to the concentration camps we can proudly shout out ‘The People United Will Never Be Defeated’ …. which just has a snappier ring to it than ‘The Left Party Will Never Be Defeated’ or ‘The Trade Union and Socialist Coalition Will Never Be Defeated’…
Worth noting that even the Labour Party still proclaims itself a ‘democratic socialist party’ – it’s in Blair’s revised Clause IV, even if the LP is obviously nothing of the sort in practice. If the nascent Left Party isn’t prepared to state its socialist credentials unambiguously, it’s hard to see a point to it. Anyone looking for left-liberalism might as well join the Greens.
Dear Comrade Blackburn …. you raise a very interesting point about clause IV… in many ways even though this clause was drafted by Sydney Webb of the fabians… [hardly the most radical representative of our piss poor ‘socialist’ tradition in the islands to the North West of Europe] it did have a profound affect and effect upon the subsequent history of the Labour Movement. Of course it was drafted by Sydney in the immediate aftermath of the victory of the 2nd Russian Revolution when a wave of radicalisation was spreading across Europe.
In Facebook land….https://www.facebook.com/notes/left-unity-worcestershire/people-united-platform-statement/362995620492767
I have just launched a ‘Platform’ with a crude truncated list of Basic Principles and a proposed set of Aims and Objectives for our new party
Among the Objective I have included a Clause IV which is the same wording as Sydney Webbs 95 years ago… I did this because I thought it might have some resonance….
Perhaps you’d like to contribute to developing the ‘platform’ …. the proposed name for our new party is People United. but that is obviously up for grabs as well… If you don’t like that then there is the other ‘Left Party’ Platform which has the advantage of having more names than just one attached to it.
Except the minor issue that they’re only in the most nominal sense left-wing and their core policy is a strongly anti-scientific, anti-industry package of luddite thought.
They’re some way to the left of Labour, to give them their due. That probably says more about the state of Labour than anything else, but Caroline Lucas, for instance, is considerably more left-wing than the majority of Labour MPs. But the Greens aren’t a socialist party – as recent events in Brighton have made crystal clear – and never will be, so I think the left-liberal tag is an appropriate one.
That said, I don’t think we should be completely dismissive of green issues – it must surely be obvious to all and sundry that capitalism is inflicting severe and increasingly lethal environmental damage around the world, and that capitalist political and businesses elites have no serious desire or even the ability to rectify the dislocation and the destruction the system causes. Which is another reason why any new Left Party has to be prepared to confront and actively oppose capitalism and propose a socialist alternative in its place.
Sadly the debate goes round and round in ever decreasing circles, Left Unity is exactly that a united left front, which endeavours to be a broad alliance of Marxists, non-Marxists, Green-Left socialists and social-democrats and anyone who opposes the neo-liberal economic project enforced by a neo-conservative state, supra-state and global governance of the IMF, WTO and World Bank. If we cannot unite then they win and we, whether we be Marxists, non-Marxists, socialists or non-socialist lose.
The idea that being a ‘socialist’ implies being amoral seems as short-sighted as the notion that religious people often put forward – that you cannot be a good, moral person if you are an atheist. Surely we do not need to get hung up on this sort of thing?
Why worry ourselves with such issues? The substance to the party is FAR more important. A party which proves itself within communities will win elections, especially if we support a technically disenfranchised people.
As Tom rightly said, Blair declared New Labour to be ‘Democratic Socialist’ in modifying Clause IV. It is a label without substance. The Soviet Union declared itself a democracy in its constitution, North Korea continues to do so.
This is the downfall of the Left: too much internal squabbling over labelling. I am a socialist; I will apply that label to myself. This will be a Leftist party, there is not disputing that.
So I say keep ‘Left Unity’, it does what it says on the tin.
Left Unity should be striving for a society which is egalitarian and democratic in everyday life.
It is beyond me that anyone should believe that this is possible without the confiscation of the property of the capitalist class and its transfer into public ownership, together with the breaking of the day to day power of capitalism’s bullying managers and the extension of the electoral principle throughout the workplace.
If Left Unity doesn’t want this, then what is its point?
We have a perfectly good word to describe our aims and values – socialism. Let’s use it.
It seems to me that LU, while it might be a ‘radical’ party, it might even turn into a ‘Left’ party, if its going to be so worried about frightening the horses and the neighbours by using the word “Socialism”, in the party’s earliest inception, will never be a “revolutionary” party. The way you win people round is through politcal dialogue, not through pandering to their predjudice (The LP Leadership is trying that and look how much their lead has dropped in the polls).
I don’t want to help the poor, I’m not a charity or a do gooder from an NGO, I want the low waged, the disabled, rhe unemployed, etched to be able to reach their full potential. The way to do that I believe is through socialism is the best hope for humanity, in that it can transcend the moral, artistic, philosophical, intellectual restraints that capitalism puts on humanity.
If people coming to LU are going to be put off by the word “Socialism”, then they’re not the sort of people with the gravel in the guts and the fire in the belly to really change the world. The question for me, as Rosa Luxembourg said is not “whether socialism or capitalism…it’s whether it’s socialism or barbarism”…
Floyd
A very quick response, just to try and clear something up. I will respond more fully later in the week and thank you for all the responses so far.
I am not suggesting in this article that we don’t use the word socialism because of the prejudice attached to it. I was merely stating that damage has been done to this word by it not being updated. I was also suggesting that due to socialism/ists refusal to update its philosophy through theorists such as Jacques Derrida (whose dialectics are far better than Marx’s) or Slavoj Zizek, in its general dialogues, the general presentation of socialism is not revolutionary enough.
It doesn’t even relate to most peoples struggles because individual morality has become a far greater narrative for freedom, equality and how society relates to itself. The left generally has been stuck in a rut that has failed to move beyond a hundred year old discussion, largely due to sectarian groups still arguing over the meaning of terms that barely mattered then and certainly don’t matter now. So, the accusations of being a liberal, less than a revolutionary, being afraid or not being revolutionary enough, or even a Blairite (which if you knew me would be absolutely hilarious), while being entertaining, don’t really respond to the article.
I am not suggesting that socialism is too scary. I am suggesting that alone, it is simply an economic response to material conditions and as such, it is not enough and doesn’t relate to peoples struggles enough to be able to recruit masses of people to the struggle when they realise how few answers are afforded by it. So, to call another movement socialist underestimates the potential of a new left party. It also hyper-inflates the remit of a sadly outmoded form of organising.
Exactly Andy, totally agree.
You would think that ‘post-Marxist’ and other positive critiques never happened! Or that better methodologies for organising, struggling, decision-making, handling disagreement, building new systems for the development of socialism, etc. had never been developed, by (I hesitate to say this, but will anyway, despite it being beside the point) ‘better socialists’ than many people castigating you here.
We actually need to do something to stop this Con-Dem government and the Capitalist Labour Party from pauperising the working class and privatising and destroying the services we rely on…..but instead we are having a discussion about what is socialism? should the new workers party be called socialist? is socialism moral? ……the ruling class have nothing to worry about have they?
Imo, there is nothing wrong with having debates about names, ideology, etc as long as there are other discussions going on about real life concrete issues such as the benefits cuts/reforms, etc. However, for some reason these issues are not really being addressed on this site though they are the concerns of millions.
Personally, I used to call myself a socialist, still do sometimes, just not that important to me what handle is used. I get the impression the posters demanding socialism as the central core of the new entity also want a ‘revolutionary’ party, just like all the other ‘successful’ ones over the years, how would it be different. For me, while not becoming a liberal party, LU to succeed here in the Uk must be a broad based campaigning organisation which see’s basic issues such as housing, especially in the PRS, benefits, unemployment, the NHS, etc as its central concerns.
What Jonno said. There are many people in the UK who have broadly “socialist” views and a visceral hatred of the Tories who don’t identify as socialists. We need to win those people over. And we do that through ideas and action, not through the use or disuse of one label or another.
Thatcher has indeed won if ‘Socialism’ has become a dirty word.
`Personally, I used to call myself a socialist’
Until I was defeated by Thatcher and buried by Blair. Class political consciousness is at stake here. Socialism is working class political consciousness. Without the political aim of socialising the currently private and monopolised means of production then we are talking opportunist sect trying to recruit either under false pretences (like a left version of the EDL) or which is simply an irrelevance.
Even bloody Respect has the word in its name and half the people involved in LU have had nothing good to say about Galloway and his `capitulation to hostile forces’ yet they cannot even bring themselves to describe themselves as socialists. What leaders are these? Not leaders. Followers of bourgeois public opinion. Opportunists with no commitment to anything the membership can hold them to account for. Not socialism and not a programme for socialism.
Andy keeps saying that socialism is “an economic response to material conditions”. I’m guessing he’s never read any Marx as it’s about so much more than that.
Some of the outraged responses here are hilarious.
Liverpool’s statement is I think relevant to this discussion
“We have need of a new political formation –
• Which organises amongst working class communities and others, reflecting the needs of the 99%, locally, regionally, nationally and internationally.
• Which rejects austerity, capitalism, war and environmental degradation.
• Which does not discriminate against or oppress any person regardless of their gender, sexual orientation, marital status, race, colour, nationality, ethnic or national origin, religion, age, disability or union membership .
• Which advocates socialism; adopting again the original socialist demands ‘to secure for the workers by hand or by brain the full fruits of their industry based on the common ownership of the means of production, distribution and exchange’.
• In so doing, laying the foundations for a greater democratisation, greater equality of our society and our institution and transforms our economy in the interests of the majority.
This organisation should also recognise the shared interests of the workers across the world and offer solidarity to workers in struggle across the world”.
im a socialist. as stated it is central to make clear that capitalism can only be replaced through the struggle of the majority working class. because our class is always in tension and conflict, because it constantly suffers alienation and cyclically is made to pay for capitalisms decline it is forced to struggle.
the revolutionary class the working class will replace capitalism with a socialist system, a system that replaces economic activity for the profit of the few with production for the needs of the majority. there are many types of socialist, but all must agree that we need to replace capitalism with . . . socialism.
another empowering term that many see as important is “workers”. For me “people” in britain means everyone. in south america “people” is more seen as the “common people” ie workers and peasants.
i think left unity is ok. how about “united workers party”.
better than the united front of the judean peoples party ¿
For socialism to succeed it must embrace individual liberty as one of it’s core principle values and work towards reducing state coercion – a kind of inversion of neoliberalism. Liberty must become the new face of socialism if hearts and minds are to be won over to the left.
In the public mind socialism is stigmatised and will forever be associated with the monolithic authoritarian state. If new and original ideas are to emerge from the left we have to go right back to first principles and look anew at the philosophical concerns of the Enlightenment thinkers who influenced Marx, Engels and others in the formulation of socialism.
The principle disposition of Marx and Engels was the condition of happiness and suffering and how people sought to attain the one and avoid the other. To see how Marx originally conceived his ideas we have to go back to socialism’s roots and understand how he fundamentally addressed alienation and the human condition.
Enlightenment philosophers and economists saw human society as an evolving and ever progressing organism. The values at the core of this social organism were always embodied in the pursuit of liberty – the ever onwards march towards emancipation from all earthly shackles and encumbrances.
Marx’s conception of man, as a biological organism existing in a perpetual state of suffering, comes straight out of the Enlightenment. His view of man was utilitarian. He saw how man lived in perpetual conflict between civility and savagery, society and wild nature, and conceived how human beings could eventually emancipate themselves from their labour to attain liberty and freedom.
Socialism today must be seen to be a fight for liberty against the horrendous social injustices of capitalism. The myth that capitalism brings freedom to the individual, needs to be exposed for what it really is – just another form of authoritarian coercion. The left is now in a prime position to formulate arguments in favour of liberty against such tyranny. That is what we must now argue for, without even mentioning the ‘S’ word.
Interesting talk by Noam Chomsky in 1970 on Libertarian Socialism, addressing some of the issues above:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qRt4_FdMAjA
I think the real difficulty people are having is not with what constitutes or defines Socialism, or Left, or Capitalism, neoliberalism, or any of the other terms or constructs which so often make political discourse to the majority of people. It is not even a problem – little explored here, but pertinent – of the alienation most people whose income derives from selling their labour feel from describing themselves as Workers, let alone working class. The terminology of politics has not kept pace with the material, social, and social circumstances of the lives of the majority of people.However wise, prophetic, challenging and visionary, Marx, Angles, Keir Hardie, Sidney Webb, George Bernard Shaw……they wrote in the language of their time, of theories rooted in values and principles, but nevertheless shaped by the experience and observation of the circumstances and cultural norms of their time. The image which their very names call to ,Ind are of grey bearded icons of an age as distant and primitive as that of the Old Testament Prophets. Che is forever young, because he died young, but he is a T shirt icon of young revolution, not a contemporary thinker recognised and understood for an inspiring social philosophy.
Left Unity, it seems to me, has at its heart a paradox. It is born of a very acute and topical frustration that the parties of the broad left…specifically the Labour Party….have failed, and are failing dismally, to offer any credible or robust opposition to the dismantling of the Welfare State and the consolidation and expansion of Thatcherite privatisation and Us neo liberal transnational realist capitalism. Nor are they offering a vision of any kind of different future, any kind of alternative. ” There is no alternative, we will mitigate what we can, temper the wind to the shorn lamb, but try to change the system? Dear me, no…..this is the world order, and we must secure our place within it, as near to the top of the hierarch as we can.” In the face of this, Left Unity has to make a number of choices, some of which appear to have been made already. If it is a political party, it needs a constitution, a manifesto, and an election strategy. It needs to be an obvious and welcoming home for socialists who have either left, or been tempted to leave the Labour Party, but felt they had no other home. It needs to be broad enough to accommodate communists, socialists, co-operators, Greens, social liberal democrats. It needs to become what many claim the Labour Party was meant to be; a broad church in which socialist ideas are welcome, but which is not a social it Party. It needs to be fiercely pragmatic, and – as others have posted – base its agenda on policies and activities, not a catechism or analysis of any ism.Frankly, I think if people want to make a real difference, to shift the axis of UK politics in time to make a difference at the Next 2 UK general elections, this New Political Party approach will fail. I think Left Unity could have a better chance of contributing to long term change, and making short term improvements if it developed policies of its own, but encouraged anyone on the broad left to promote them in whichever existing Party for which they felt closest affinity. Meantime, I think Left Unity could simultaneously be considering what is most likely to replace party politics in a so called democracy in which fewer than half those eligible vote,how and whether socialism can be reconsidered, reworded, reformed and repramatised for the 21st century, and how people people without MSc’s in Politics, or aspirations to Parliamentary careers can be inspired to take part, and to take control
Nice one Mary:
“if people want to make a real difference, to shift the axis of UK politics in time to make a difference at the Next 2 UK general elections, this New Political Party approach will fail” – totally agree.
“Left Unity could have a better chance of contributing to long term change, and making short term improvements if it developed policies of its own, but encouraged anyone on the broad left to promote them in whichever existing Party for which they felt closest affinity” – exactly, but don’t you think it is as if not more important to agitate and organise non-party, ‘non-political’ people to influence, by popular demand, all politics.
“I think Left Unity could simultaneously be considering what is most likely to replace party politics in a so called democracy in which fewer than half those eligible vote,how and whether socialism can be reconsidered, reworded, reformed and repramatised for the 21st century” – say it loud!
great posts, Mark and Mary
Freedom and liberty were key ideals of the left far before Hayek Thatcher and the neo-liberals hijacked them and distorted their meaning.
for a modern take on how one kind of freedom is packaged and sold back to us, read ‘The Rebel Sell’, its quite accessible.
I wonder if Hannah Arendt’s key insight in this context concerns the way in which ideals, theories and the stories we tell ourselves become frozen into ideologies and dogmas. We need ideals, stories and theories, but will LU be able to avoid the pitfalls of dogmatism (and the sectarianism and in HA’s view the ‘totalitarian’ practices) that follows? Hannah was pessimistic republican and not a little elitist – but believed fundamentally in the need for thinking rather than parroting cliches. There is a challenge for LU here, whether or not it goes for the epithet socialist. Will its internal culture be one of open, reflective, honest, respectful but critical dialogue? And will these qualities guide its relationships with people (activists or otherwise), movements and struggles outside? Or will LU go the way so many left organisations have, the ‘we know best’ management-in-waiting? Hope not.
Well said Rob.
“The left is now in a prime position to formulate arguments in favour of liberty against such tyranny. That is what we must now argue for, without even mentioning the ‘S’ word.”
No, much better to argue in favour of liberty against such tyranny always using the word “Socialism” and showing in our actions and deeds day by day at local, regional and national level what that word “Socialism” really means. And it means defending and extending and developing what is “social”, our NHS, our Libraries, our Youth Clubs and local schools accountable to the local communities and local authorities elected by the people, our day care centres, our nurseries and play groups and all those things that matter to ordinary people that make up a civilised world where people come before profit. You see this is Socialism but its just a small taste of what it may be under our current capitalist system. I really don’t see any sign of working people being afraid of the word “Socialism” – none at all – its some on the Left who appear to be afraid of it using this as an excuse to try to create some sort of new Green type Party. Well if that what’s wanted we have it already and its going nowhere fast. We do need a united Socialist Party similar to Syriza in Greece that can within in ranks include many different view points on Socialism and that means sooner or later TUSC and Left Unity being prepared to from one united Socialist Party (both TUSC and Left Unit are talking together this month).
I see, top talking to top? Ta Neil.
Hi Neil, I didn’t think LU existed as such yet, but was a project in the making. Could you explain how LU are ‘talking to’ TUSC later this month? Cheers
hi,reading about what name shall we call our new party.my thinking is the name isnt has important as the policies and aims.we need to realise that in order to build a mass party, we need to take the majority of the ordinary people with us.I am afraid to say most people haven,t read Marxism, so try talking to them.in depth about socialism is a no go.socialist even left have become trigger words to a lot of people.I think the name UNITY would be more accepable.
“For socialism to succeed it must embrace individual liberty as one of it’s core principle values and work towards reducing state coercion – a kind of inversion of neoliberalism. Liberty must become the new face of socialism if hearts and minds are to be won over to the left.” (Mark)
Mark I’m totally with you. Are we the only ones thinking about how to win over those not already active on the left? Those already
on the left are not enough.
Will you send me your addy so we can discuss a possibe platform around this issue – I’m gedcavander@hotmail.co.uk. Andy, Ben, the rep from Hampstead who spoke at the first national meeting could you mail me also?
ATB, Gerry
Andy,
Good Che quote. It usefully criticises Stalinism’s wooden non-Leninist approach to working class education that imparts knowledge through diktat rather than encourage high-level theoretical discussion and debate that draws in as much of the working class as possible.
Despite correctly pointing to these limitations, Guevara failed to pin down what the problems in the Soviet Union were and the reasons why Stalinism ended up in this philosophical cul-de-sac.
Far from being evidence that all Marxism ultimately amounts to is “unthinking subservience”, the Che quote is a call for more Marxist discussion and more Marxist debate to understand the world.
This does not mean that a soupy swamp of endlessly discussed ideas should be allowed to persist, but it does mean a struggle to reach conclusions or lines that can then be tested in practice and re-assessed, in front of the working class, should living experiences prove them to be wrong.
Dear Gerry,
Look at the works of G d H Cole. Also look at to our current USA comrades, who in the anvil of a hostile environment have come up with suggested solutions conducive to a democratic economy and in line with a humane socialism and informed by american pragmatism. Notable are David Scheirkart, Richard Wolff and Gar Alperovitz, they all imply differently some form of market socialism, where capital, and labour are socialized by democratic governance while allowing some form of market choice.
best AW
Thanks for those references AW will have a look.
As well as embracing individual liberty I think we are at a point in history where structuralism and education have done so much work that a majority of people will understand something like the following as a new era in terms of how the individual, the community politics and the economy relate to each other
A new party that is “Community and democracy centric, supporting individual liberty, effort and enterprise while recognising that no man is an island, totally responsible for her or his own actions, successes or failures. Striving toward a secure and sustainable material habitat that enables a decent life for all, whatever gifts they inherit, without threat or harm from others. Let us make no war on anyone for material gain. Let us not suffer to know others suffer without making every effort to help and to remove the cause of that suffering.
Use the best old and the best new ideas and techniques to create and maintain a caring sharing community that strives toward a happy/fulfilling life for current and future generations – people and planet.”
I’m in LU because I think this view of the place of the individual is now very widespread in western europe and north america but not yet translated into a party politics people can vote for.
ATB, Gerry Cavander