Stuff we can unite around…?
An Agreement pf the People
This is a discussion document from Huddersfield Left Unity and is part of the preparations for the May 11th national meeting of Left Unity groups.
The basic values and insights of socialism are still relevant today
- Human beings are not naturally selfish, aggressive or ignorant – we are social beings who work best when co-operating with each other. We need to create a society that unleashes our positive potential, not one that encourages us to think only of ourselves
- Every human has rights. These include basic freedoms, like the right to free speech and belief, but also social rights. Indeed without these people will never be able to reach their full potential. But in return all must contribute fairly and willingly to help meet the needs of society
- The history of capitalism shows that economic competition and private ownership can drive growth and technical innovation, but the disadvantages of uncontrolled free markets outweigh the benefits for most people, leading to mass unemployment, poverty, environmental destruction and the chaos in the longer term
- Social equality is morally just and will lead to a happier, more fulfilled and harmonious individuals and society. Discrimination and oppression can be based on gender, sexuality, ethnicity and disabilty as well as class. But as socialists we understand there cannot be equal opportunity without greater economic and class equality, as elite groups will use their power to control and promote their own interests
- Narrow nationalism and racism have proven a disaster for ordinary people, leading to division, war and destruction. The economic and environmental challenges facing humanity today can only be solved by internationalism and cooperation.
- We have a duty to think not just of the present day, but look to the future by protecting our environment and creating a political, economic and social system that is sustainable, respects nature and builds for the long term. Green is the new Red!
Equality and social justice
- Tax justice is a key issue of our time. The tax system should be rebalanced to the needs of society, to redistribute wealth, close the growing divisions in society, fund public services and the reindustrialisation of the UK. Above all the wealthy and corporations must pay their fair share
- To achieve this all tax loop-holes must be closed and tax avoidance prevented. Income and corporation taxes must rise, but there must also be an emphasis on property and land taxes, where much of the wealth is now located
- The current system of tax credits effectively subsidises low paying employers and cannot be sustained.
Renew the welfare state
- The NHS is now facing privatisation and crippling cuts. Yet it remains overwhelmingly popular and when compared to any private/business operated alternative clearly superior. We must reverse the damaging internal market, privatisation and remove all public subsidies for private health care companies.
- 80% of the Coalition’s cuts to welfare and public services have not yet been introduced yet we already see a drastic reduction in benefit levels and rights to services of people from all sections of society. This has been justified by a conscious campaign to demonise the poor and shift the blame away from the corporations and banks whose feckless and irresponsible behaviour caused the crisis
- We reaffirm the right of all citizens to a decent standard of living and recognise that the vast majority of people claiming welfare do so because of circumstances outside their control, such as ill-health, old age, disability, unemployment or just being too young
Education
- We recognise that education is not just about preparing people for work but also is the key to encouraging personal growth and social skills as citizens. The curriculum should reflect this and aim to provide opportunities of people from all backgrounds, ages and aptitudes
- Free education is a basic human right: tuition fees should be abolished and a proper grant system created. All public subsidies to private and religious schools and colleges should be ended with a view to creating a single, but diverse, community system of education in the UK
- Therefore democratic control and oversight of educational providers at a local and regional is urgently needed
Housing
- The housing crisis is growing deeper because the preferred solution of all recent governments is to push private home ownership and renting as the only solution. Planning laws are allowing houses to be built in the wrong places, with inadequate environmental and energy efficiency standards.
- In most areas landlords in the private rented are subsidised through the housing benefit system, keeping rents high, while in some places where supply is limited cuts and caps in housing benefits will lead to evictions homelessness. Bedroom taxes and attempts to blame immigrants or single-mothers aim to hide the fact that community owned housing is either not being built or sold off. Meanwhile millions of private homes are empty. The inevitable result is shortage, over-crowding and unaffordable rents/mortgages
- The housing crisis in the UK shows that free market economics does not benefit the majority. The time to start planning and regulating the housing industry, rebuilding public housing stock to the highest environmental standards is now
Community ownership
- No more privatisation – it has clearly failed to benefit anyone but business
- Take the banks, key industries and services like transport and the utilities back into community ownership and create more democratic systems of management and oversight to make them work for the public good, not private profit
- Recognise that there are more ways of encouraging locally based sustainable economies and enterprises than old-style nationalisation, such as co-ops to encourage community involvement and choice at a grass-roots at all levels of society and government
Right to work for a decent wage
- Modern capitalism cannot provide full employment in useful, well-paid employment. It’s time for the state acting on behalf of the community to step up through job creation in a renewed public sector that includes new ‘green’ industries as well as traditional public services
- Renew trade union and workers rights that apply to all
Peace and internationalism
- Oppose racism and discrimination against asylum seekers and immigrants at all levels with a view to promoting community integration and respecting different cultures. Recognise that the current system promotes divisions as people compete for resources and wages and that this is often deliberately encouraged by the media and politicians. We believe that the only realistic way to address concerns about economic immigration is to ensure that all workers receive equal pay, conditions at work and access to public services
- It is in the interests of the people of the UK to work cooperatively with people of other nations to promote human rights, prosperity, peace and stability. But we recognise that international bodies like the EU and UN are dominated by a few powerful countries and serve largely to promote business interests. We therefore seek to democratise the EU and promote international cooperation and mutual aid
- Abolish Trident and all nuclear weapons immediately
Renew democracy
- Democracy is supposed to mean rule of the people. But most people recognise that the current political system of career politicians and big parties serve the needs of business and other elitist vested interests instead
- power is too centralised in London – renew democracy at the grass roots by empowering local councils and the regions. The key is to ensure that local and regional funding is not controlled by London and that local communities have meaningful powers to shape their own futures
- Introduce a written constitution, reform the undemocratic parts of the political system to limit the power of central government and change the voting system so that people’s votes count
For Left Unity…
- This government has to go, but all the evidence both past and present show the Labour Party as it currently stands will simply carry on with similar neo-liberal policies. Similarly, narrow ultra-left sectarianism has proved itself undemocratic and unappealing, rooted in small groups and the language and programmes of the past. This isn’t about individual leaders and parties or a search of ideological purity. It’s about fundamentally changing the economic and social system. Without that nothing much will change for long
- But way we organise ourselves should also reflect our values and kind of society we would like to see: politics should be about community service and not egoism, self-advantage or careerism. All these have prevented or hindered left unity in the past.
- We believe that policies must be agreed democratically by individual party members and not imposed from above or pushed through by narrow cliques or factions; that leaders are a bridge to the movement and don’t simply perpetuate themselves; that the culture of the party is friendly and tolerant of different views. To discourage careerism and unhealthy concentrations of power we therefore believe representatives should be selected democratically by the grass-roots, accept the average wage if elected to public positions, be subject to recall if they fail to authentically the views of members and that there are clear limits on the time people can serve as party representatives or officials.
So a real space exists for an alternative party of Left Unity that can move forward between the lines, embracing a genuinely radical vision and policies.
43 comments
43 responses to “Stuff we can unite around…?”
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.
Save money and lives by ending government subsidies to private “defence” companies. Specifically, close down UKTI DSO http://www.caat.org.uk/issues/ukti/ and the Export Credit Gurantee http://www.caat.org.uk/issues/ecgd/
Each job in the arms trade is subsidised by the taxpayer to the tune of around £10,000
On Democracy:
Right to Recall MPs. Byelection if %10 of constituents sign a petition calling for one.
State funding for political parties to end influence of rich donors. Amount of funding based on number of votes gained. Should include the BNP in my opinion but I’m sure that will be debated.
Proportional Representation. It’s fair, it’s good for us.
A discussion document. “The basic values and insights of socialism are still relevant today”. How? Which values? What insights? An almost infinite number of socialist creeds, all developed before IT, automation, climate change, and with no foresight into the situation we are in now are relevant today?
I know it has been the politicians job description to convince the electorate that they know more than all the experts, but this appears to call for more faith in the author than the King James Bible. I am greatful that you have done this. The authors are no doubt streets ahead of the ordinary people, but is trying to repeat a compromise 1948 NHS really realistic? I’d settle for “Social healthcare” and accept that there have been developments that need expert input. Education needs to accept advances in the understanding of human development – successive governments have deliberately with-held money from academia for studying education as the results may (will) thwart their narrow political ends. We need to stick to “What we want to be able to do”, and get experts to provide us with the options and costs (not just ££). Some of the statements aren’t factually correct eg We cannot vote a government out, we can’t even vote who to exclude. Lets start where we are and look forward, not try to go back to some imaginary fork in the road and try the other way. We are here. We have to accept what has changed, and deal with the changes. We need to move TO the left, this document suggests we’re starting FROM the left. We aren’t.
The purpose of this document wasn’t to set in stone policies nor ideals. It is to provide a general basis for unity – the values that we at the Huddersfield group felt were important to us and would act as a unifying point for a party.
I think this is a superb starting point for a basic, “what we believe, what we are aiming for “position statement” for Left Unity. I have been thinking along very much the same lines myself. I don’t know why some of the posts are so quibbling – there is plenty of time for fine detail. I see no potential problem with anyone serious about seeking a real radical Left alternative to Labour signing up to this. If they can’t, maybe they aren’t really interested in what a radical political realignment, with mass appeal outside of the tiny existing radical Left, needs to look like. Well done indeed Huddersfield Left Unity for an important contribution !
John, its a discussion document, nothing wrong with people robustly interogating the document
”
But in return all must contribute fairly and willingly to help meet the needs of society”
My concern is this bit,(above) sounds very similar to Blairs ‘rights and responsibilities’ which led to the most brutal benefits regime since the 1930’s, would this lead to an LU led Govt (yes, I know)endorsing sanctions on those who didn’t ‘pull their weight’. Its also problematic in that it sounds coercive, etc. Of course, I may be completely on the wrong track here,reading too much into it, etc, it may be benign or even positive, but with today’s increasingly coercive and intrusive state particularly for those at the bottom, it may set off alarm bells…
This is not a superb document. Left Unity around this is impossible. We need a document around which socialists can galvanize all the victims of austerity whose logic is dictated by the capitalist system. What we have here does not do that. Our candidates and canvassers will be asked to justify a lot of what it says here and I doubt if anyone would be able to do that. They would be left floundering and made to look rediculous in the same way that the previous leader of UKIP exposed himself as not even having read his election manifesto. There are good things in the above but far too many bad things as well. If we want a lowest common denominator statement we need something much sharper and shorter. Within such a statement we can spell out how healthy we think it is that there are groups and individuals who will bring a variety of ideas, strategy and tactics. A thousand flowers can bloom so long as there is solid foundations in the garden of our broad church. What we have here is a mishmash of ideas that will collapse under scrutiny.
Tom, fair enough that you consider it to be a mish-mash, but I am not clear as to what you are actually objecting to in this document. Why not make some substantive points that people can agree or disagree with and actually discuss.
As far as I can see, this is one group’s first attempt at such a document, a rough draft, nothing more. Sure, if they were standing for parliament on the basis of this it would be woeful, but they are not. At this stage I would EXPECT a bit of a mish-mash, it needs to be examined, thought through and revised, point by point.
My concern is that if we start with all that LU would want to see develop as in the initial comment then we drown before we have started. Would it not be more effective to perhaps focus on a small no of key issues and , as the person above, Tom suggests build solid foundations.
I do have one other worry that I have voiced elsewhere. It is very important that the Tories do not win the next election. LU will not have the strength/numbers at that point to challenge the bigger political parties. Would it not be better to get Labour in and continue to build up and consolidate LU politics ensuring that these continue impact on local gov up to Whitehall?
‘Our candidates and canvassers will be asked to justify a lot of what it says here and I doubt if anyone would be able to do that.’
Tom said.
Hang on, you are a member of the SWP, a separate political party, are the SWP planning on joining what will ultimately be a membership led party?
Firstly thanks to the Huddersfield group for producing a document like this at all. All the groups will need to be discussing exactly what we want to see in a ‘what we stand for’ statement and soon as many people are raising precisely that question. John Rogers above, however, is right to criticise the bullet point about rights and personally I would drop or rewrite the whole opening section as it begs too many questions and we don’t need to get into a philosophical debate at this point. I certainly agree that protecting the environment, measures to prevent global warming and having a sustainable model of economic development should be central to our politics but phrases such as Green is the new Red are not the best way to make the point. Better to have a separate section on all that (and animal rights) and focus in the introduction on the central message of Ken’s appeal: opposition to austerity etc. as its around that that so many have signed up. I could comment in detail on some other points but will save that up as there will certainly need to be extensive debate around proposals like these in the groups and at our founding conference (whenever that will be).
Interesting that none of the critics of Huddersfield’s discussion document have offered very much in the way of alternative wordings – indeed anything concrete. But then I’m sure we are all politically streetwise enough to clearly hear the frantic sound of sundry self-interested political axes being ground in some of the responses – from the SWPers desperate that a new radical Left party doesn’t spring up on an attactive broad inclusive programme to compete with their, doomed to be eternally tiny, Trot sect, to the odd New Labourite or Tory Troll simply being mischievous with their ” socialist ideas ae just soooo out of date” nonsense.
We will have to brush this , and a LOT more to come, deliberate meddling aside if we are to move beyond small sect politics to reach a broad audience. Huddersfield’s excellent contribution lays the solid basis for a fine radical party basic manifesto of intent. Sorry SWPers but maybe Left Unity doesn’t want to just focus upon a narrow area of struggle like “resistance to the current austerity offensive”, ie the usual United/popular Front you can fish in – leaving the broad political agenda to yourselves and the good old eternal certainties of “Leninism”. We’ve all been there, bought the t shirt – but moved on !
I agree that Left Unity shouldn’t just ‘focus upon a narrow area of struggle’ like resistance to austerity. But the key point is to find common ground between socialists. From this point of view I think we need to focus on what unites us rather than what divides us. I think we should avoid hostile language like ‘SWPers desperate that a new radical Left party doesn’t spring up on an attactive broad inclusive programme to compete with their, doomed to be eternally tiny, Trot sect’. We need to respect each other’s differences within broad socialist principles.
Thanks Huddersfield LU for posting this doc…and kicking off this debate.
One question which might clarify a few things ( though I think the answer is far from simple or straight-forward):
Why does LU need ‘Stuff we can unite around…?/ a set of principles/ a platform /a programme…. what exactly is its purpose in general and its specific purpose at this time?
Alan Story
Nottingham
The answer to your question, Alan, (which I shall treat as faux naive),
“Why does LU need ‘Stuff we can unite around…? a set of principles/ a platform /a programme…. what exactly is its purpose in general and its specific purpose at this time?”
Is that this is a basic issue not even slightly difficult to grasp . When creating a new permanent political movement, not yet another loose single issue United or Popular Front campaign for the Trot Left to fish in; particularly one aimed to go far beyond the tiny group of old lags (of which I include myself)of the Left for activist amd supporting membership ,there is simply the need to set out a basic, explanatory “offer” of the party’s aims and objectives. In particular we can assume nothing about the levels of political understanding of what we mean by “radical Left” politics held by those masses of new members hopefully to be attracted from without the existing activist Left, eg, we don’t want people to be attracted in by vague “radical rhetoric”, only to be surprised that we are resolutely anti-racist, and aren’t anywhere near UKIP’s petty nationalist “radicalism” – or the BNP’s for that matter . We also need to position ourselves in the “political space” to the radical Left of New Labour, but quite clearly not in the same dead end sectarian, Leninist sect, mindset as the tiny groups of the current Far Left occupy.
But surely you really knew that , Alan ? Only a short term limited issue campaign DOESN’t need a set of basic “what we stand for” aims and objectives.
Dear John Penny:
No, my question was not meant at all to be ‘faux naïve’, I can assure you.
I do agree that some LU statement of unity is required; no debate on that.
I meant the question very directly to attempt to clarify the purpose of a Hudderfield-type of doc, which I will call a Where WE Stand (WWS) doc…but we could call a manifesto, programme, statement of principles, statement of unity, platform, or whatever.
A WWS doc could have one main purpose or several overlapping purposes and be issued at different moments and as a response to particular problems.
I won’t sketch out all of this —- this is not meant to a War and Peace doc — but questions we might ask:
1) Do we seek a WWS doc to unite the left at this moment? To do this, we MIGHT want to demarcate LU from other formations and from ‘The Left.’ (To be clear: while there are certainly numbers of socialists in the Labour Party, I do not think the LP is ‘left.’) And we might also want to develop our unity and our point of view to attract supporters.
For example, as it stands, the Huddersfield doc says this about the Labour Party:
‘This government has to go, but all the evidence both past and present show the Labour Party as it currently stands will simply carry on with similar neo-liberal policies.’
I think there are at least 2 problems with this:
a) This implies that a Labour Party of the future could be very different. Elephants can’t fly.
b) This sentence does not identify a number of more serious problems of the LP as a right social democratic party (on a good day!) and how it is appears to be different/ an answer to many good people.
2) Or is such a WWS doc meant to be also a possible election manifesto? This raises other questions.
3) Or is a WWS doc meant to both a statement of unity and a ‘political consciousness-raising’ doc (for want of a better word…)?
For example, I think the section on internationalism is one of the weakest sections in the Hudderfield doc. It contains too much of a mainstream view and I think we can unite on a higher level than this.
I would argue for a statement in a WWS doc that says words to the following effect:
No UK armed forces should be sent to fight outside the UK. [We would also need to include words that we would be against another ‘Falklands-type war’ and against drone-attacks launched from here….but you get the drift.]
Such a statement would be something we would have to argue for on the door steps of the UK; there is no question about that! And likely some current LU supporters would also not agree with it either.
But such a statement would: a) potentially increase our unity; b) demarcate LU from the three mainstream parties; c) agitate against militarism (and the disgusting display we will see tomorrow at Thatcher’s funeral) d) be a decisive break from the Labour Party (Iraq, Afghanistan, and its past); e) allow us to get into questions about the British Empire, the UK’s links with the US, the collaborationist e role of the UN ….and so on.)
I personally would be very enthused if we had this statement in our WWS doc…. and I know some others who would be as well.
But again, some current LU supporters might not. So this again comes back to the question: what is the purpose of a WWS doc?
4) Or we might want a WWS doc to make some more developed statements on strategy.
I could go on, but will leave it at that for now.
To sum up- Actually I think it is far from simple question.
Alan Story Nottingham.
PS: I raise the question again – why are so few women writing on these blogs? I think we need to think about this issue in more detail and come up with some creative and structural solutions.
Jonno asks if I am a member of the SWP. I assume he is aware that I am not He asks me questions that I am unable to answer. Indeed, I suspect had he put them to the SWP today they couldn’t answer themselves. It is obvious that the SWP want engagement with Left Unity, as do I. I am sure that the SP will join the rest of their comrade in TUSC before too long. What is meant by a membership organisation? If the SWP and SP will be told to dissolve themselves, then this is a non-runner and all those asking for it realise that. Such comrades clearly want to stand candidates against TUSC, which will damage Left Unity. What we need is a broad workers party that can attract those who are being sucked into Miliband’s party as well as the SNP and Greens because our electoral system gives them the critical mass to get elected. We want to draw socialist activists out of all these parties, including the likes of Owen Jones, and decent MPs, such as John McDonnell. I have no problem with this document being proposed for examination, but it is not good enough, in my opinion, and would split the left. If we don’t want to stand against TUSC, then what about inviting them to propose alternatives? I do not believe it is beyond us to put something together that can take us all forward. Part of this document can be used. John Penney wants an alternative from me and other Marxist critics? I am loathe to do that on this thread for a few reasons. I would find it hard to know where to begin. I could start to take a few items but I don’t want to descend into sarcasm and I am tempted to that because my perspective is so far from that of those who have drafted this. Another reason why I don’t want to go down the road of nitpicking is because I don’t want 7,000 individuals all adding their ten cents. I would like TUSC as a whole to propose a document and for comrades to debate the pros and cons of alternatives. And I am sure we can all bring the best of the documents together, and we can then vote on amendments if the leaderships can up with a united document.
John Penney. I am not too sure where you have placed me in the self interested political axes. What do you mean ‘Sorry SWPers but maybe Left Unity doesn’t want to just focus upon a narrow area of struggle like “resistance to the current austerity offensive”, ie the usual United/popular Front you can fish in – leaving the broad political agenda to yourselves and the good old eternal certainties of “Leninism”. We’ve all been there, bought the t shirt – but moved on !’
Forgive me but it sounds quite patronising and not particularly in the spirit of LU. Individuals will probably have to ask themselves where they are politically, this is a big challenge and those who are part of LU need to feel they understand the ethos and what it is they are enabling to grow. In regards to my concern i do not want any of the current political parties to exert the power, they have done BUT what do we do to ensure that, whilst we continue to grow and develop strategies, (which won’t happen overnight), the Tories who are true self seeking b……s do not get back into government. If they do the damage will magnify.
I think Huddersfields discussion document was excellent and a wonderful starting point for other groups to begin to think more concretely about the ethos of UL. I take the point that is what it is and that the fine detail can be debated later is about but surely I can be allowed to ask my question? I cannot be the only person who is worried about this
Valerie. I’ll assume you have not lived through innumerable intended broadly based political initiatives over the years, destroyed by the entryist manoeuverings of the tiny Leninist Left sects, bogging real activity down in endless political dogfights whilst they fish for members . No ? You’ve been lucky ! The more vague and ill-defined the larger political body’s politics are – the easier it is for small groups to enter and endlessly bog everyone down in political debate – driving all the ordinary people away in despair.
I’m glad that you think Huddersfields document is a useful one, Valentine. So do I. You ask in your earlier post, and are perfectly free to do so, (as am I to reply surely ? That’s “debate”):
“It is very important that the Tories do not win the next election. LU will not have the strength/numbers at that point to challenge the bigger political parties. Would it not be better to get Labour in and continue to build up and consolidate LU politics ensuring that these continue impact on local gov up to Whitehall?
Here I think we have a key point of separation between those who will go down the “get labour reelected at all costs and work to steer it Leftwards” – a la Owen Jones current campaigning, and those who, like me, now see New Labour as in no way any different to the Tories or the Lib Dems, in pursuing the objectives of capitalism and the superrich.
In many ways, as with the election of the Wilson government and its Social Contract con trick in 1974 at the height of the eve rising huge anti Tory and militant industrial struggles of that era , the reelection of a Labour Government will for a time simply demobilize a hopefully by then massively rising tide of popular resistance – leading to a slackening of struggle that the New Labour collaborators will undoubtedly use to QUICKEN and ACCELERATE the process of austerity for their capitalist paymasters.
Labour today offers no respite from the capitalist offensive. It makes no difference at all if Labour is in office or the Tories – both are wedded to the same neoliberalist ruling class agenda. That is why we desperately need a new radical socialist party . That was the entire point of Ken Loach’s statement and appeal .
Valentine Scarlett: “It is very important that the Tories do not win the next election. LU will not have the strength/numbers at that point to challenge the bigger political parties. Would it not be better to get Labour in and continue to build up and consolidate LU politics ensuring that these continue impact on local gov up to Whitehall?”
John Penney: “Here I think we have a key point of separation between those who will go down the “get labour reelected at all costs and work to steer it Leftwards” – a la Owen Jones current campaigning, and those who, like me, now see New Labour as in no way any different to the Tories or the Lib Dems, in pursuing the objectives of capitalism and the superrich.
[…] the reelection of a Labour Government will for a time simply demobilize a hopefully by then massively rising tide of popular resistance – leading to a slackening of struggle that the New Labour collaborators will undoubtedly use to QUICKEN and ACCELERATE the process of austerity for their capitalist paymasters.
[…] That is why we desperately need a new radical socialist party. That was the entire point of Ken Loach’s statement and appeal.”
I completely agree with John’s analysis and conclusions here. This IS surely the crux of why we are. What worries me is that, judging from quite a few comments on this website, not enough people seem to understand this, or do not want to accept this because either they remain (perhaps unconsciously) wedded to the TINA to Labour (a la Owen Jones et al), or to their far left sect, and as a result see LU more as the possible means to create a broader, more united anti-austerity pressure group to influence the main parties. I partly blame LU’s organisers for this – I don’t think they have done enough yet to explain why it is necessary to create a new Left party and movement, and that this means turning one’s back once and for all on the Labour Party.
Huddersfield have done a good job getting the ball rolling. I’m sure they know its not perfect and people will want to add and take away, but we have to start somewhere. I do think the issue of housing is a major one. In my view LU should look to start a major campaign on this, for example calling for rent controls/maximum rents to be brought back, which is a way to take on the housing benefit argument – the problem with housing benefit is not that it goes to the poor – it goes to landlords! its in effect a subsidy for landlords. A national housebuilding programme is a key way to create jobs as well as provide homes, but also undercuts the arguments about immigrants “taking” houses.
Anything new that intends to fill a political void on the radical left will at its outset attempt to lay down core basic principles & values that will embrace & indeed sometimes overlap with other viewpoints from other people/organisations .
Where i believe Left Unity can map out a vision/strategy is by rooting itself distinctly as radical decentralist movement that empowers its membership with bottom up power base that works with tenants groups.community groups,youth organisations ,womens groups etc . Sets its politics in & around its respective local people welcoming those who join LU & working alongside those who choose not to take that political step ,which will give a true sense of localism .
Stemming & flowing from the LU community politics comes a clear starting point getting the trust of local people & the political dimension is attempting to get LU a political voice on local,parish,town councils & as the local community begins to see LU working locally trust & credibility builds & voter appeal gets a foothold.
As a consequence of LU working locally various common threads will become clear on bigger picture political issues such as education,economy, equality ,social justice.employment etc .
I (personally) believe a local based political approach should be the starting point of course such an approach can develop links with local trade union branches ,many of whom will live & work locally as well ,so a community based approach will embrace a sense of local unity between LU & their membership .
I do not & would not be critical of anyones positive input to building core principles & values that people can embrace & proud to build upon .
Huddersfield have stepped up to the plate set down a viewpoint that becomes part of strategy /vision which can only help to develop LU moving forward.
Peter………….
fantastic post Pete, the Independent Working Class Association(IWCA) tried something like this with some success, you just can’t parachute into an area and expect local people to support/vote for you…
I’m getting really pissed off with the “radical left” stuff (undefined Jargon). Many decades of “Radical left” groups/parties/movements got nowhere (save become a poisonous “brand”). OK, so the “radical left” may have moved due to the “Overton window” effect, but who’s going to explain that on a doorstep? The Huddersfield document starts with an act of faith – which must be accepted to understand the rest. As the neo-liberals have got more brazen over the years, a LeftUnity with a future needs to convince the ordinary people that moving Left is a valid and desirable thing to do. A core principle should be based on achievable objectives – our aims are too disparate at the moment to be uniting. Swinging the pendulum too far the other way can only be unsettling for all but the most radical. I;m also concerned that some feel that the right to criticise is conditional. Not a good start for Unity!
I love you LLoyd. That is all.
Just heard that the breakaway from the SWP, the Internationalist Socialist Network,ISN (still a rev soc org) has voted to work with/maybe join LU. This could be very problematic if an org with such politics joins en masse and with their politics skewing debates, votes, etc, they seem to have a major interest in identity politics, most of them are young and will have the time and energy to attend meetings, etc, possibly pack meetings(though they left the SWP maybe to get away from that) this isn’t what many of us envisaged, we thought it was going to be a new party with new, often non Marxist ideas.
it could work the other way though, pushing LU to the left, bringing more autonomous ideas(SWP accuse some of that) and bringing energy and dynamism to the emerging party, etc..
They can pass as many votes as they want ,its not a matter of LU being used as some bodies political vechicle ,those who have instigated the LU idea/concept will (i hope) ensure its nobodies cliche powerbase & LU is not anyones clone of another organisation /party .
LU needs to be free from such nonsense & allowed to set its own distinct political agenda .
Peter……….
Do we want a hundred or so energetic and dynamic socialists with time and energy on their side to join us? Of course we do!
I have followed the struggle in the SWP very closely- this group around Richard Seymour and China Mieville, who fought tooth and nail against the dead hand of the SWP leadership, are heroes in my book and should be made very welcome.
Politically they have made a huge leap in the direction of open-ness, democracy and pluralism, they are explicitly feminist. A breath of fresh air and exactly what we need.
I see you don’t mention class, the majority of these people are middle class students, again not a problem as individuals but as a culture, lets hope they are just as concerned about poverty, inequality, cuts, etc as identity politics…
“It was pointed out that there was a danger of us becoming just another splinter group. However, what makes this different is that there is an opportunity which has come out of the crisis in the SWP and the Left Unity initiative. Left Unity is not yet a fully formed organisation with a programme. It is open, and up for grabs. It is far from being just an electoralist front. We need to get involved now.”
This was posted on their site, I’m not sure if the comment LU is up for grabs was an individuals view and sentiment and again, one is not clear what they mean, but going on past history one can surmise they mean ‘shaping the new organisation’ winning it to their ideas…
One of the them is on the LU organising committee, Tom Walker, it would be great if he joined the discussion on here, especially in the light of their new openness to debate,etc..
Jonno – I really don’t get your point. We are Left UNITY. The key word being unity. It goes completely against the idea of a united left to exclude people on the left. We should provide a home for revolutionary socialists AND reformist socialists. We should be a space where Marxists and non-Marxist left-wingers can come together and unite over what we agree about rather than constantly argue abd bicker about what we disagree about. There are plenty of SWP members who left the SWP in the period 2007-2013 (I dropped out in the summer of 2010) who are looking for a political home where we can work in a comradely way with others on the left.
By the way, you really have nothing to worry about re ISN – their membership is about 100 and it will never go over 200. If the LU web-site is correct then 8000 people have signed up. The ISN will therefore be a tiny minority within LU.
Furthermore if the LU really is a successful project it will at some point get interest from left parties like the SWP and SP. If LU isn’t willing to accept members from those parties then the name Left Unity is a complete joke.
There is balance between those who embrace the ethos & core principles being established in its formation of LU & those who see the pending structure as merely a power base.
Others in this discussion have raised the matter of people coming over from other organisations/parties ,of course good radicals who see the need to develop & formulate a broad church movement with its roots steeped firmly in the community are of course to be welcomed .
The political welcome mat is their for many from the many & varied strands of the left ,socialists,greens,labour, or indeed those who are on the left but have know political home or roots & may see LU as something worthy of debate and maybe to join or support .
LU must be a vehicle for radical political change & nobodies personal vehicle ,if the former remains the sole focus ,then embracing a broad church is both healthy & will be exciting as things move forward.
Peter…………
i am a middle class art student with experience of the green party and cnd plus housing issues. i am proud of that and my middle class status is due to tragedy. why would i want to join an organisation that get bogged down in narrow debates between former trots. They are welcome to join but not to dominate it.
At the risk of returning to questions of what we can agree on, there is a lot in this text that I’d think pretty much anyone wanting a united left would agree on. I would like to add to the list a little.
1. I think that a genuine left unity should not be afraid to use words like sexism and to recognise feminist concerns. The article mentions racism by name but only nods to “social inequality” based on “gender” among a slew of other things. Given the ratio of women to men in the world, the fact that austerity measures like the bedroom tax disproportionately effect single mothers, and recent events around issues of sexual equality in another party, Left Unity ought to be seen to be making a stand for and with women.
2. Related to the above, but not limited to it, I think we ought to be making a case for- or at least be talking about- domestic labour and informal carers. By the first term I mean people who undergo shadow work in the home; I think there is room for us to be talking about the necessary contribution this makes and how the receipt of proper social welfare could be considered as a recognition of this work.
3. As a registered mental health nurse I feel it is my duty to agitate for people with mental health conditions. On this we ought to be including those who fall into one of the most consistently marginalised groups in society within our discussions.
Arran:
Very important points….and well made.
I do worry that LU is perhaps concentrating a bit too much on economic questions and not emphasising enough various social and political issues related to gender and race….and the type of issues you have raised.
Colleagues,
I think Huddersfield’s humanity may be jumping the gun (yes I know Huddersfield was the birthplace of the rugby league ha ha) but perhaps a vision will emerge as LU develops. Perhaps a new left party which gives the working class a voice should: 1. Be honest. 2. Be non-sectarian. 3. Be grassroots-led, bottom up, democratic, peaceful, socialist. 4. Have a simple name. 5. Use simple language. 6. Be w class led but appeal to the working class black and white, disabled, gay & lesbian etc plus the progressive middle class. 7. Ideally have trade union links. As a w class socialist I believe we need to communicate in simple language and perhaps as in as few words as possible to really communicate with the working billions alongside international partners.
Yours in hope! X.
I liked Bazza’s comment above.
I think that there is a lot of time to develop a comprehensive programme for Left Unity. But I don’t think that can be rushed. There needs to be a discussion that everyone can participate in.
I would argue, however, that there are some elementary principles that could be agreed as cornerstones for the structure we hope to build:
1. The new party should defend all the gains won by the working class in the past and oppose all the so-called ‘austerity’ policies that aim to make the working class pay for the capitalist crisis.
2. The new party should fight to extend working/living conditions and democratic rights as much as possible. 1 & 2 mean that the new party will have to be an active party, involved in day to day struggles.
3. The new party should be socialist, aiming to get rid of capitalism and to replace it with a new society based on the democratic and collective ownership of society’s wealth and the means of production.
4. The new party should be democratic, based on individual membership.
I would add to those those key points, that the new party should be a working-class organisation. It should be welcoming to all who want to help build it. It should be fun to be a member.
Dull technical point
I’m not sure the comments section is the correct place for this (so, my apologies) but I didn’t know where else to mention it. I expect I’ll sound picky to many but, this page needs to be proof read. It is indeed a dull technical point, but I think it’s crucial in the bid to be taken seriously.
I love this site and this project and am excited to have found a place where fellow socialists are re-evaluating and engaging proactively in the political process. I’d like to get involved – even just proof reading!
Thanks.
This is a great statement – and I am sure it will resonate with many people in the UK who are feeling totally alienated by the current political parties. Its compelling, easy to understand and tells me what you do stand for.
Looking forwards to seeing it distilled into a few core points that are relevant for all the people who care – regardless of class…
Under renewal of democracy could we have something about a move towards a republic? Surely any system which keeps a royal family and unelected head of state is not a true democracy.
UKIP and others have adopted some far-right ideologies but are much more right-centrist in other areas, so it is wrong to suggest that LU should be alienating and ignoring those that are ‘perceived’ as ‘far left’. Whilst some of the ideologies of the far-left are not vote winners, some carefully selected aspects of it probably are.
I have only just read this post from Huddersfield and I really like it as a starting point for a good debate. I was amazed at how much it reflected my own thinking. I guess the point is that we need to create a Manifesto, and this only happens when someone sets out a starting point which people can think about, ammend, expand, delete and so on. I will circulate it to my local group, when we have met a few times. I don’t want to stop people sharing their own thinking first and this may help the concern that it is not connected enough to the personal horrors happening in the name of austerity. It will be the details of our policies which address these issues in an accessible way I think. Thanks Huddersfield.