Terry Conway assesses the first national meeting of Left Unity, held in London on May 11
![Mike Scott and Liz Silver [Nottingham], Cetia Frietas [Surrey] and Iram Awan [High Wycombe] at the meeting yesterday](http://leftunity.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/05/lumeeting6-300x217.jpg)
Mike Scott and Liz Silver [Nottingham], Cetia Frietas [Surrey] and Iram Awan [High Wycombe] at the meeting yesterday
Over a hundred people from fifty five local groups, as well as members of the day-to-day organising group, met for the first national meeting of Left Unity in London on Saturday, May 12.
The first session, chaired by Bianca Todd from Northampton and Jake Whitby from the Manchester Youth Group, was opened by Kate Hudson from the organising group. Kate set out the fantastic response that there has been to the call for a discussion for a new party of the left since Ken Loach launched his appeal in the middle of March. She situated the response – with more than 8000 signatures and more than 90 local groups beginning to be set up – in the context of similar processes taking place in other parts of Europe: a point that was further underlined by the warm message of support the meeting received from the two MEPs of the Portuguese Left Bloc.
The first session was planned as feedback from local groups as to what they had been doing to get the word out about Left Unity in their communities; local views on the appeal for a new party; the issues they have been campaigning about and the questions that they wanted answered by the national meeting. A number of speakers in this session and the early part of the afternoon gave valuable reports of what was happening, from Brighton to Bristol, from Leeds to West London and many other places.
At the same time, a number of other contributions in these sessions also added, or in some cases exclusively focused on, making more general political points about how Left Unity needed to be constituted. It was no surprise that many sisters and brothers who had been through the experiences of the Socialist Alliance, Respect, the Campaign for a New Workers Party and/or TUSC, wanted to draw out what they saw as the lessons of those discussions.
The conclusions varied. Dave Church from Walsall, for example, made a powerful contribution as to why Left Unity needed to be based on individual membership, avoiding the power that federations handed over to larger organisations of the left and that allowed them to manipulate a broad party in their own sectarian interests. Pete McLaren from Rugby, on the other hand, while arguing against affiliates having the right of veto, argued that it was nevertheless important to allow other organisations to affiliate, suggesting that this way we could draw in community groups and trade unions, not just left groups.
Some comrades commented on what they had experienced as the negative role of left organisations – particularly, though not exclusively, the larger ones.
All of this is, of course, completely legitimate territory for an exchange, but it was frustrating that in some cases there was no sense of whether the person was speaking as a result of a collective discussion, or merely expressing their personal opinion. Further, it wasn’t clear to me whether aspects of this thread would have been comprehensible to those Left Unity representatives who hadn’t been through any of these previous attempts to create an organisation to the left of Labour.
What was clear from the discussion – and further underlined by several proposals the meeting went on to vote on later in the day – was that the majority was in favour of an organisation based, at least at this stage, on individual membership. Members of far left groups should be individually welcomed, but ways had to be found to protect the organisation and its members from the manipulation that has happened on previous occasions.
In my view, Left Unity can best do this by building itself in an outgoing way, reaching far beyond the members of existing radical left groups. It needs to adopt structures based on individual membership, rather than affiliations. At the same time we need, as Doug Thorpe from Haringey pointed out, to create a culture where we appear on the streets primarily as Left Unity, rather than as a plethora of different paper sellers.
After the conclusion of that discussion in the first part of the afternoon, Chris Hurley and Adam Roden in the chair turned out to have the hardest jobs of the day. This session had been planned to take procedure on electing the national co-ordinating group, plus a number of resolutions from local groups, on topics from the People’s Assembly to council housing (there were 11 motions and amendments tabled for the session).
In fact, late the night before the meeting, a procedural motion was submitted by Nick Wrack of the Independent Socialist Network and Simon Hardy of the Anticapitalist Initiative, which proposed the following:
“This meeting resolves not to take any votes on any of the statements, resolutions or amendments except for those, or those parts, which deal with: (1) the election of the new national coordinating group; (2) the process of debate and discussion; (3) the dates of the next national meeting and the founding conference.”
The motion was accompanied by a longer motivation which essentially said that the material before the conference had been inadequately discussed by the groups and therefore any decisions would be open to challenge.
In moving the motion, which was rightly the first – and in the end almost the only – matter voted on in the session, Nick Wrack made forceful reference to the fact that many present were shuffling through their pieces of paper, to see what they were being asked to decide on and that much of this had not been discussed by any local groups – and all of it by no groups.
It was not an inaccurate point to make and it was not surprising that, despite valiant attempts by IS Network’s Tom Walker and others to explain why passing this motion would create at least as many problems as it would solve, the meeting voted to support it, albeit with an amendment that we should also discuss the question of one member, one vote.
What soured the discussion a little was the very partial account, given by the supporters of the procedural motion, of why the statement circulated by the day-to-day organising group 8 days prior to the national meeting had not been discussed and therefore wasn’t endorsed the group. Worse, some commentators since have suggested that the supporters of the statement had sought to hide this non-endorsement from the meeting.
In fact the reality is much more complicated. The day-to-day organising group on April 18 had decided that such a statement should be drafted and delegated this to the conference organising group. Kate Hudson and Nick Wrack were asked by that group to write something up together following a political discussion. Wrack did not participate. The content of the draft statement was not discussed because the meeting spent all its time discussing procedure and Kate Hudson was subject to an unacceptable and inaccurate personal attack. The information that went to local groups asking them to discuss and amend the statement did not imply it had been endorsed by the day-to-day organising group. No one can know whether the group would have endorsed the statement if it had prioritised making that time.
I voted against the procedural motion at the national meeting, because I think that both local groups and the national co-ordinating group would be in a stronger position to move forward and build Left Unity with a political framework agreed by this meeting. For all its imperfections, the Nay 11th meeting reflected wider discussions and wider democracy than anything we had previously.
I would have supported a further motion from East London Left Unity, which argued that any decisions on any statement agreed would be provisional and that local groups then be asked to have further discussions on this. This, I think, would have best reflected where we are in this complex process of building a political alternative to the left of New Labour.
The national meeting didn’t agree with me, which is fair enough, but I think it’s important to continue discussions amongst Left Unity supporters about both politics and process.
The afternoon session ended with an address by Ken Loach who had joined the meeting after lunch, having made it clear to the conference organisers that he wanted to listen to some of the discussion before he spoke.
Ken argued that:
“The core idea that I hope that sits of the heart of this party is the fact that we need a planned economy to get out of this mess. Of course, you can’t plan what you don’t control, so it needs to be an economy held in common, a democratically controlled economy. And we call that socialism. I hope that is acceptable to everybody here. That is a society where we are our brothers’ keeper, where we do look after each other and where we look after the sick and the old and where we give our kids a good education. That central concept is absolutely crucial.
“The corollary of that is that this party is not a version of a social democratic party, this is not a party that thinks we should scramble around for the crumbs as they fall off the table and it’s not a version of a party that tries to pull Miliband a little bit to the left. In my mind, we are not here to build a social democratic party.”
Other than agreeing with whichever sister who shouted ‘what about women’ when he made the point about being his brother’s keeper, I agree with what Ken Loach said. I don’t think social democracy has ever been committed to making a fundamental challenge to the system based on profit under which we live – and I certainly don’t think that, given the depths of the economic crisis, there are going to be any crumbs falling off any tables.
But at the same time, I think that for Left Unity to blossom into its full potential it has to include people who may not agree with Ken or me, or those who may not have thought through their approach to these questions. People have signed up who have not had any involvement in organised politics before, while others, with decades of Labour Party membership, have joined Left Unity because we are standing firm against austerity.
I want to be in a political organisation with them, as well as with people who became politically active through Occupy; with those whose primary identification is as environmentalists, as feminists, as campaigners for civil liberties, as well as those who have a more far left analysis and practice. I want this because I think that, only by gathering together the energy and the experience of all of us, do we have the chance to really begin to win at least some small victories in the class struggle, after being battered by these decades of defeats.
I also think that by creating a party which has such political breadth, so long as it is one that not only fights elections but appears in community and trade union campaigns and has a vibrant internal life, that people will learn from each other. Certainly, I don’t go into the process thinking I have all the answers: I am sure that I have things to learn from other comrades in Left Unity. This is always my expectation and has often been my experience in the past, in previous attempts to build alternatives to the left of Labour, but also in trade union discussions, in the women’s liberation and LGBTQ movements, in single issue campaigns and within Socialist Resistance.
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
The statement circulated by the organising committee read as follows:
“Europe is plunging deeper and deeper into crisis. Its governments are continuing with their failed austerity policies which are destroying the social and economic gains working people have made over many decades. The economic crisis has increasingly become a social and political crisis as people face poverty, hunger and even death, as a result of the catastrophic and government-imposed failure of health systems and social services.
“A further manifestation of this crisis is the rapid development of fascism in Greece, in the shape of Golden Dawn.
“However the people of Europe are fighting back. In Greece, France, Germany and elsewhere, new political formations have emerged, drawing together a range of left forces, posing political, social and economic alternatives, and challenging the capitulation of social democracy to neo-liberalism.
“Here in Britain we face the savage onslaught of the coalition government, destroying our hard-won gains, but Labour is failing to pose a viable economic alternative. It embraces neo-liberalism and does not represent the interests and needs of ordinary people. A successful response to the rightwards move of Labour has not yet taken place, yet we have equal need of a new political formation which rejects austerity and war, advocates a greater democratisation of our society and institutions and transforms our economy in the interests of the majority.
“The strong support for Ken Loach’s appeal to discuss the need for a new left party shows that many share this view. Discussions are ongoing but there is a strong desire for a new party of the left which will present an alternative set of values of equality and justice: socialist, environmentalist and against all forms of discrimination. Its politics and policies would stand against capitalism, imperialism, war, racism and fascism. Its urgent tasks would be to oppose austerity, defend the welfare state, fight to restore workers’ rights and advance alternative social and economic policies, redistributing wealth to the working class.
“Its political practice would be democratic, diverse and inclusive, committed to open dialogue and new ways of working; the mutual respect and tolerance of differences of analysis; the rejection of the corruption of conventional political structures and their frequent reproduction of the gender domination of capitalist society.
“International solidarity is fundamental to the success of any resistance and the achievement of any political progress; such a new party will work with other left organisations and movements in Europe and internationally, to build coordination, strategic links and common actions.
“From this meeting today, we call on the national coordinating group to organise a conference of Left Unity groups and members this autumn to discuss the founding of a new Left Party, to facilitate commissions to outline the principles and policies of such a Left Party, and to outline a timetable for a Founding Conference in 2014.”
Looking at the different alternative statements, amendments and the individual resolutions which related to the general political approach Left Unity should take, they fall into two different categories (and sometimes an approach from one individual or group covers both). There were a series of discussions people wanted to raise about language: should we talk about “working class” or “working people”, should we name capitalism and so on. I don’t think we should shrink from using the term “working class”, though I would also defend a broad definition of what this means. It should encompass all those who have to sell their labour power to survive, rather than a narrow version, that only seems to include those in manual jobs. On the other hand, I think we need to be sensitive to the fact that people from different political traditions (and none) relate to language in a different way. I certainly don’t think that using the term “working people” is a sign of capitulation to social democracy!
Then there is a more fundamental discussion which I think is best crystallised around Nick Wrack’s and Will McMahon’s resolution, which read as follows:
“The working class in Britain and internationally is facing an immense economic crisis. It is a crisis of the profits system – capitalism. The capitalist class and its political representatives are intent on making the working class pay for this crisis. No party in Britain represents the interests of the working class. We agree to proceed to a founding conference of a new party in 2014, preceded by a period of discussion and debate involving all those who want to join the process.
“The fundamental principles underpinning this project are:
“1. The new party will be socialist. It aims to replace capitalism with a new society, based on the democratic, common ownership of the wealth, natural resources and means of production, with production for need not profit.
“2. It will fight tooth and nail to defend the gains we have won in the past and to extend these reforms.
“3. It will be internationalist.
“4. It will be democratic. A fuller party programme will be elaborated through the discussion and debate and agreed at the founding conference.”
There are two fundamental problems with this motion. I personally agree with the fundamental principle of the first bullet point. I have defined myself as a revolutionary socialist for almost four decades. But Left Unity can’t succeed if it only involves the revolutionary left. We can’t do this on our own and we haven’t made such a good job so far, neither of getting rid of capitalism nor even of preventing the devastating defeats the ruling class in Britain, in Europe and internationally, have inflicted on working people.
Further, their statement of principles does not mention that 52% of the population of the planet, and of the working class, are women, or that women suffer disproportionately from all blows of austerity and often spearhead resistance. This makes it a very narrow vision and one not likely to win support from those we need to involve to make another world possible. A statement of principle that ignores the existence of racism, in the weeks after UKIP’s successes in the local elections across Britain, is not likely to persuade black people that they are welcome in Left Unity. A statement that makes no reference to the fact that the left itself has often not been welcoming to LGBTQ people, to disabled people as well as to women and black people, is not one that tries to develop a vision of socialism for the 21st century. Finally, a statement that ignores the reality of climate change, and the challenge that poses for building a society built on need not greed, won’t be likely to involve the thousands who have come into political activity because they have understood that a real defence of the environment is incompatible with a society so wedded to the profits of the energy corporations and the governments who kowtow to them.
I think the statement drafted by Kate Hudson, on the other hand, is much more inclusive. I wasn’t convinced that it should have started from the situation in Europe: although I am a committed internationalist, I think it should have started from the attacks the coalition is meeting out on people in Britain. But I think what it says about the European dimension is important and, in particular, I think the reference to other left parties in other parts of the continent is a welcome break from British isolationism. I think there is lots we can learn, for better and for worse, from the attempts comrades in other parts of Europe have made to build to the left of social democracy.
I would like the draft statement to say more about the environmental crisis and to say more about the position of different oppressed groups. I would certainly have supported including a reference to the rise of UKIP.
But fundamentally I refute the idea which Wrack makes central to his written motivation for his short statement (see http://www.independentsocialistnetwork.org/?p=2118) that Hudson’s draft ‘ attempts to go further than is necessary at this moment’ while his ‘would cause little controversy’, for the reasons I have argued above
Wrack also characterises the draft statement as ‘a call for the formation of a social democratic party, which seeks to reform capitalism’ which again I think is incorrect. He doesn’t even cite which parts of the statement he believes make such an error. He talks about needing our own Clause 4, but ignores the fact that Hudson’s draft talks about ‘redistributing wealth to the working class’ and ‘transforming our economy in the interests of the majority’.
When it meets, the national co-ordinating group of Left Unity will need to discuss how best to continue these discussions. One of my pleas will be that we concentrate on explaining positively what we think and why we think other formulas are wrong, rather than making generalised characterisations which can fall into caricature, in order to undermine those with whom we disagree.
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
By the time the final session of the May 11 meeting started, chaired by Tom Walker and myself, the meeting had given itself a very difficult task. Despite deciding not to vote on a whole series of things, we hadn’t agreed not to discuss them. Further, we had decided to discuss and vote on how the national co-ordinating group should be elected, what the timetable should be for future national meetings and on the question of one member, one vote – all in one and a half hours.
First, we addressed the question of the national co-ordinating group. On the table was a 3-part resolution from the day to day organising group, of which the last part, that the seats elected nationally should be at least 50% women, was controversial on that body. Louise from Bristol ably moved the resolution, concentrating on the final clause. In the debate from the floor, Soraya Lawrence from Southwark argued that she found such provision patronising, while Merry Cross from Reading made the contrary argument: that working class women were less likely to put themselves forward without such reserved seats. The meeting voted overwhelmingly to support the clause (10 votes against 11 abstentions?).
In the subsequent elections, the meeting voted for 6 women and 4 men. Some have drawn the conclusion that this meant reserved seats weren’t necessary. I’m not sure this is right. On the one hand, we had a good gender balance in the room, because most local groups had respected the request from the day-to-day organising group, that at least one of two delegates should be women. Second, having the discussion on gender balance just before people completed their ballot papers meant that the issue was at the front of people’s minds. I don’t think redressing discrimination inside our organisations should be left to chance. We need conscious measures to redress the impediments capitalism puts in the way of the most oppressed.
There was then an amendment from Tina Becker of the Communist Party of Great Britain (who also described herself as a ‘volunteer’ from Sheffield Left Unity) which said we should ‘invite political organisations that are interested in building left unity to send one observer each to the newly set up national coordinating committee’. After debate this was overwhelmingly defeated with 17 votes in favour.
Andrew Burgin then motivated the draft statement making some of the points I have outlined above and the session went on to discuss, with the clock ticking rather rapidly, the timetable for a launch conference for Left Unity. The proposal was for a further national meeting in September, which would set up policy groups and move to a launch conference in February. The motivation for what might seem, on the face of it, rather a long timetable was the need to involve the maximum number of people in such a discussion, given the current unevenness of different local groups. The meeting, however, voted to hold a launch conference in November 2013, something which I think poses a real challenge for the incoming national co-ordinating group, but one which I think it will be able to rise to. I think this decision, which I opposed, represented a healthy wish on the part of those present to get on with the job of creating a real living national political alternative: a sentiment which I completely share. My difference is rather one about what we actually need to put in place first, to create the best possible conditions for doing this.
Finally in less than 15 minutes, the meeting attempted to return to the question of one member, one vote.
Huddersfield Left Unity had submitted the following resolution
“Significant decisions regarding the structure and policy of a new party should be made by party members on a one member, one vote basis. This could be through a majority ratifying a particular proposal, or most popular choice from a series of options. In the current situation where, due to the party not yet being established, there are no members, these decisions should be made by signatories to the Left Unity appeal”.
There was a a longer motivation which talked worryingly about what I would describe as plebiscite methods: that is, people voting in the isolation of their own homes.
My longstanding concern about such an approach had been heightened in the days leading up to the meeting by the intervention of Mark Perryman on the national organising group elist. There, he not only argued against the May 11 meeting voting on any statement but even discussing it. His alternative proposal was as follows: ‘The very first stage should be a survey both quantitative (ie demographics, etc) and qualitative (opinions on a number of key issues including political self-definition) of all 8000 signatories. It is on that basis which we should then proceed’.
In my opinion, such an approach would be a disaster. We need collective discussion, within which people can respond to new proposals, to nuances of approach, can listen to each other and learn from a shared discussion.
We need to explore ways of using technology to compliment face-to-face meetings and to offer real inclusiveness for those disabled people who might find the challenge of travelling to a meeting (never mind going through it) too much at this point in their fluctuating condition. The same applies to shift workers starting at 9pm every night, who can’t make a meeting which finishes after that miles from their workplace, or to those with caring responsibilities or people who are the only Left Unity supporter (currently) in their areas. There are probably others who have attendance difficulties for reasons I haven’t thought of.
Thinking about it, perhaps we should set up a virtual branch – or several – where people in these sort of positions can talk to each other. Local groups should think about skyping from their meetings so that those who can’t physically get there can still participate…
I’m absolutely in favour of creativity, but I refuse to give up the principle of collective organising to attain it.
It would have been impossible to make any of these points on May 11, even had I not been in the chair, given the serious lack of time. In the closing minutes of the meeting, Kate Hudson moved an amendment to delete all but the first sentence of the motion. This was accepted by Huddersfield, while Nick Wrack explained that he was still opposed to the motion because of what was implied. The meeting voted in favour, I think because what people wanted to express was the idea that Left Unity should be an organisation of its members. I abstained, both because of the concerns I have expressed above, and because I thought that sentence on its own either didn’t mean anything, without qualifying that this should be through participation in local branches, or was taking us in a dangerous direction.
So. with the clock some minutes past five the meeting had to close, after what had been a chaotic, sometimes contradictory but overwhelmingly positive day. I agree with those who have made their written assessments faster than me that real democracy, especially when put together by people without the experience of working together, is going to be messy. Inchoate but exhilarating.
I think we were wrong to agree the sentence from Huddersfield, to fix the launch conference for November and to decide not to vote on a political statement (and in practice not to even discuss it). I was very enthusiastic that we agreed to a national co-ordinating group where the 10 places elected nationally should be at least 50% women with the rest comprising elected local group reps. I enjoyed listening to Ken Loach, but most of all, I enjoyed hearing from – and getting to meet – so many sisters and brothers from across Britain with so much enthusiasm to build Left Unity.
The task before us is an enormous challenge – together I think we can meet it.
Postscript
Terry Conway was one of the successful candidates for the new co-ordinating group. She stood as a supporter of Socialist Resistance, as an ecosocialist feminist and activist in the LGBTQ movement (despite the fact that the ISN’s Pete McClaren claims Tom Walker was the only member of a left group elected!) You can see the full results at http://leftunity.org/left-unity-election-results/
35 comments
35 responses to “Terry Conway assesses the first national meeting of Left Unity, held in London on May 11”
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.
Hi Terry
I’m not sure the reason why you choose to pick on me but as you do I will respond with the fuller picture.
I wasn’t at the meeting. I am the self-appointed ‘Lewes Left Unity’ contact but to date we are 6 names on an email list, one of whom has already been in touch to say she’s too busy to be involved. Nobody could make meeting up, we are yet to meet. If I’d attended and voted at the meeing I would have been representing nobody but myself. I am in favour of maximising one member one vote at all levels of decision making where feasible in any new Left party, but this isn’t to be confused with one unelectd delegate per vote. We involve everyone, or no one as far as possible and in as many ways as possible. A so-called ‘representative’ meeting voting on statements that would define Left Unity’s philosophy was the wrong way to start. For what it’s worth I thought Kate Hudson’s statement aws immeasurably better than Nick Wrack’s.
I was therefore against the 11 May meeting taking any votes. But what Terry doesn’t mention was that I was proposing an alternative agenda. A day of local group organisers sharing experiences so far of developing local groups and ideas to further and deepen the process towards establishing a new Left Party, sharing invaluable skills. That seemed to me the most productive purpose of geting all the local groups together not voting on spurious motions of whatever complexion.
As to the motivation behind the signatoris’ survey idea. Left Unity’s ‘claim to fame’ is in attracting 8000 signatories. We already know only a small % are involved in local groups. I don’t have a problem with this, I am entirely opposed to a single, old model of what it means to be ‘politically active’, we can be active, believe in a cause in a great variety of ways, many of which don’t fit old fashioned Left models. But at the same time we need to have some idea of what these 8000 signatories represent. It is our single biggest achievement and resource yet we know next to nothing who these people are, what they believe in, what backgrounds they have. Failing even to try to find that out seems to me the very oppsite of participative democracy and displays all the dangers of traditional left prctice of voluntarism, ‘they signed the appeal therefore they must belive in Left Unity’.
I believe in Left Unity. But I also believe in facing facts. The internet, assuming all signatories signed up online, enables direct communication with every signatory to find out what they want now they’ve signed up. Why don’t we ask them? Its called democracy. And if the numbers replying are embarassingly low we should face that reality too.
Mark P
I did not pick on Mark.
I tried to set out what happened at the meeting and engage with those ideas that were put forward – underlining those I thought were particularly useful but also those with which I strongly disagreed. In doing so I mentioned quite a few individuals (because ideas are expressed by people).
I stand by what I said about collective democracy – I think thats fundamental – while examining ways of better involving those who cant get to local meetings for a variety of reasons.
I didnt mention Marks ‘alternative’ agenda because about 50% of the national meeting was spent doing precisely that. As I also say there were some difficulties with how it panned out – and I also suggest that perhaps some of it would have benefited from happening in smaller groups.
Things seem to be getting very complicated.This is no surprise as democratic decision making can be chaotic but this is not to be feared. I think Ken Loach is right. The core of Left Unity should be socialist – maybe as in the old Clause 4 from the Labour Party. Many of the other issues are covered by this and the notion of equality. This sets an expectation that women and people from minority groups are included and expected to take a full part.
With a simple socialist statement at its core Left Unity can reach out to other groups with its policies. For example many people in the UK would support nationalisation in some form of the railways and probably the banks. Socialism develops in an incremental way rather than by revolutionary change.
Just one other thought – it would be good to try to avoid jargon from marxist and other left wing groups and also from the Unions.
There was a time when I did not understand Marxist Jargon, but guess what? I worked out by myself. The implication of avoiding jargon David is that us working class people are too thick to understand it, thanks a lot.
Incremental change is reformism, it doesn’t work. If it did, the Labour party would have achieved its aims by now.
No Darren, “Marxist Jargon” is death to real political ACTION – the “special language code” of small sects, adhering religiously to the “true faith”, steeped in the unreconsidered “true view” of past political history. It closes the sects off to radical new approaches to political practice which might just unblock the current Left political logjam – leaving us organisationally defenceless in the face of the Austerity Offensive.
When I first joined the International Socialists as a young revolutionery socialist in 1971 I just wanted to fight the blatant unfairness of capitalism. I didn’t know I would have to learn a new language ! Imagine my dismay when I discovered that most IS branch meetings were at first literally impossible to understand to the “uninitiated” new potential anti capitalist fighter. There were two ways to go – out the door to the Student Union Bar and a life of typical student excess – or slowly learn the jargonised lingo, ie, become a full sect adherent – along with acquiring the long list of “political positions” one was required to hold on all issues. So… I emerged a year or two later – completely au fait with the entire gamut of IS historiography, special theories, cutting critiques of all other Left groups. Yep, a Sect Political Hack – pretty incapable of actually talking convincingly about socialism to any ordinary person. Bloody brilliant, if I do say so myself, though, at ideologiocally hacking off at the political knees any “Labourite Bernsteinist Reformists”, “Pabloites”, or “Stalinist” CPers I came across in pub debate. Great fun – but of course ultimately pointless – the tiny groups of the Left endlessly trapped in mutual conflict amongst themselves – whilst the rest of humankind looks on in bemusement at the arcane, inpenetrable jargon and historical minutiae of our rabid arguments.
The often shambolic 11th May meeting had all of those elements occasionally to the fore I’m afraid. For a perfect example of the debating style of the “forever lost to the outside world, true Far Left believer” just have a read of the incessant hostile posts of “Tom” , and a few other Trots, spread like a rash over this website. Are we REALLY going to convince ordinary people tempted to enter radical Left political activity to fight the Con/Lib Dem attacks on the NHS and Welfare State generally, by references to Eduard Bernstein, Karl Kautsky , Rosa Luxemburg, “The Dialectic”, and recommendations that we have a lot to learn from the factional structures of early 20th century German Social Democracy !
Now I’m not anti theory, or against trying to learn the lessons of political history – but there are better ways to present arguments than bunging in what to most people are totally obscure historical or political theory references all the time. This form of “debate” is really intended to reinforce the “doctrinal authority” of the “select” as against the non-ordained “laity” (ie, almost everybody outside each tiny Left sect).
If we want to build a mass radical Left party to really take on the Austerity Offensive, and supplant the utterly corrupt Labour Party as THE party of the Left, we really have to break decisively from the mindset and special language codes of the “trapped in political amber” Far left.
And , Darren, if you think shouting “General Strike NOW !” and “Any attempt to oppose the Austerity Offensive” short of full-on armed revolutionery socialist insurrection against the capitalist state, is futile” will help build a mass movement of ordinary people with the muscle to actually oppose the most pressing, vicious aspects of the currenty offensive, then you are not only deluding yourself – but also strangely unfamiliar with the basic Trotskyist tactic of the “Transitional Demand”. ie, in a world capitalist crisis it is revolutioneries who can “be the best reformists” – by pressing for what in more normal times are merely reforms or maintenance of existing gains (eg, the NHS), with a vigour and determination which can turn the defensive, limited struggle, WITHIN CAPITALISM, into a struggleeventually to challenge the continued existence of Capitalism itself.
Left Unity has to be viewed as a “long game” political project, with different phases, , starting where most ” radical Left of Centre ” people are today, ie, wanting to simply oppose the worst aspects of the capitalist offensive against our living standards – but with the potential to open up much more radical avenues of struggle as this initially essentially defensive fight develops.
Working people being thick could not be further from my thoughts. People in the UK have a very rich understanding of politics and the current political situation but are largely excluded from political debate. My thought would be to draw on this understanding to guide the development of Left Unity.
David – With a socialist identity Left Unity will be alienating itself from the broad appeal it needs to be successful. There is a huge space to the left of Labour and for me the key task is filling this void rather than identifying as socialist which will most likely restrict us to becoming ‘just another sect’ on the left… we need to pull in all those in opposition to neo-liberal austerity in order to be succesful.
Guy, I think you need to be careful about the idea that there is “huge space to the left of Labour”. Firstly, it will only take a rhetorical shift by the Labour Party for it to occupy the anti-austerity space to its left. Secondly, that space has been talked about for decades yet come election time most workers, who bother to vote, will vote Labour. This is regardless of whether there is a left challenge slightly to the left. Thirdly, being against austerity or for some warmed over version of the Alternative Economic Strategy doesn’t actually provide a long term project for building a working class party. Which is what we need and not a party which only looks to combat one tactic and one facet of capitalism.
If Left Unity is to be successful then it has to offer a comprehensive alternative to capitalism and that alternative should be the democratic control and collectivisation of production for need not profit. Which we can sum up in one word. Socialism. An exceptionally simple yet powerful idea.
Socialists also need to be patient and honest in winning the argument within the broad movement and the working class. One lesson we have learnt over the last two decades is that watering down our politics only offer the illusion of a short cut to a mass audience.
Is this endless navel gazing about the “perfect” left party really of any use to the working class???
When are real world developments going to be argued and debated???
The initial enthusiasm for building a party of the working class and the deep suspicion of fake-“left” motivations towards Left Unity is entirely healthy, despite the worrying “throwing the baby out with the bathwater” rejection revolutionary perspectives frequently expressed.
(Loach’s sour distortions of history in his portrayal of the Irish nationalist revolutionary struggle and the Soviet Union in his films, and his lauding of the post 1945 anti-communist Labour government (support towards Greek fascism, Malayan anti-communist head-hunters etc.) is also deeply problematic.)
The broadest debate possible on all issues, national and international (and towards a conclusion that is as close as humanly possible to a true understanding of all developments as they emerge), is required if Left Unity is to assist the working class in bringing an end to capitalism and usher in a socialist society: on Ireland, Palestine, the Soviet Union and the remaining worker states, the fake-“left” capitulation to Nazi-NATO slaughter in Syria and Libya, and a thousand and one other issues.
Without such a no-holds barred struggle for revolutionary theory, the working class is going to be forced to experience the worst deprivations imaginable as the crisis forces Slump and war conditions everywhere.
The fake-“lefts” are happy to persist with these circular arguments because they distract the working class from real world developments and a revolutionary understanding of the world.
Reality is their greatest enemy. A Leninist open polemical struggle for revolutionary theory is the only way forward.
Phil Waincliffe (supporter of the Economic and Philosophical Science Review)
And the ‘remaining worker states’ are where, exactly???
I am afraid, using Phil’s definition that I must be one of the ‘fake left’, being opposed, as I am, to monstrous Stalinist tyranny, hypocrisy, the crushing of working class democracy and dissent, and the starvation of the peasantry. Silly me.
I am an enthusiastic proponent of unity on the left at almost all costs, but if that means cheerleading the Stalinist butchers, then I might just have to walk away. Luckily, however, Phil’s views are a tiny minority in today’s left.
If Guy wants a capitalist party he is spoilt for choice. The left want to unite socialists. Left Unity is socialist or it is nothing. I am glad that Ken Loach agrees with me on that.
In the UK thousands of people die each winter because they can not afford to heat their homes. Disabled people are suffering as a result of ATOS asssessments, the unemployed are demonised as workshy scroungers. What can Left Unity offer these people NOW? I think here is a need for constructive direct action. Thousands of Left Unity people could make a difference. This could help mark out Left Unity as different from other political parties and help to build a powerful political base.
Does Left Unity need charismatic leaders like George Galloway or Arthur Scargill? If by that we mean leaders who are unaccountable, then no. Left Unity will build nothing with a gang of brain-dead yes-men and women. However, neither can we make any progress if the members express zero respect for any of our leaders. I will be addressing Ken Loach as Ken, not as Loach. While I have no doubt I will take issue with him on many things, I would not be posting here if I didn’t think he was bringing anything to the table of left unity. Clearly he is, as are many others and we need to adopt a tone when dealing with each other than makes it clear that this is not a smash and grab raid. That does not seem to be what Phil Waincliffe has in mind. Phil’s contemptuous attitude towards Ken’s so-called ‘sour distortions of history’ is not going to win him any friends in Left Unity. Left Unity can only go forward if we all accept that we will all lose votes and we cannot dismiss the majority as traitors and sour distorters of history. If you go into debates with that attitude no one will ever listen to anything you say.
Well said Tom, good post totally agree. I don’t post much, but has a supporter of left unity, I do read every post. Some of them I partly agree with, some of them I fully agree with, and others I don’t agree with at all. We are all entitled to are different opinions. But as you say we must treat each other with respect, Well said.
Harry Watts.
Left unity supporter Merseyside.
David says “In the UK thousands of people die each winter because they cannot afford to heat their homes. Disabled people are suffering as a result of ATOS asssessments, the unemployed are demonised as workshy scroungers. What can Left Unity offer these people NOW? I think here is a need for constructive direct action. Thousands of Left Unity people could make a difference. This could help mark out Left Unity as different from other political parties and help to build a powerful political base.”
As one on the demonised scroungers and a long-time member of the one of the established Left political parties that is demonised by certain contributors on the pages of this Left Unity website I would like to know how and what can Left Unity offer the working class, disabled, unemployed and the poor that say the Trade Union and Socialist Coalition, and my own party, the Socialist Party which was the old Militant Tendency of past, is not already offering. While it is welcome that a new Left project is starting to discuss ways of fighting the capitalist system, but there has to be a point when the hyperbolic rhetoric needs to stop and ideas about policy and a programme needs to be put forward and discussed both by new ‘activists’ and by older established ‘activists’.
For example the Trade Unionist and Socialist Coalition offers these policies and programme:
Opposition All cuts to council jobs, services, pay and conditions – we reject the claim that ‘some cuts’ are necessary to our services. Opposition to the bedroom tax and no evictions of council and housing association tenants. Support all workers’ struggles against the cuts, privatisation and the government’s policy of making ordinary people pay for the crisis caused by the bankers and the bosses. Stop all privatisation, including the Private Finance Initiative (PFI) and Public-Private Partnerships (PPP). Bring privatised public services and utilities back into public ownership under democratic control; Keep Royal Mail as a publicly-owned service, not a privatised cash cow; No cuts – for quality public services; take rail back into public ownership and build an integrated, low-pollution public transport system; for a high-quality, free National Health Service under democratic public ownership and control; stop council estate sell-offs and build eco-friendly, affordable public housing; Good, free education for all, under democratic local authority control; student grants not fees; Jobs, not hand-outs to the bankers and billionaires.
Along with bringing the banks and finance institutions into genuine public ownership under democratic control, instead of giving huge hand-outs to the very capitalists who caused the economic crisis; tax the rich. For progressive tax on rich corporations and individuals, with a crackdown on tax avoidance; for massive investment in environmental projects; repeal the anti-trade union laws; a minimum wage set at half average adult male earnings, with no exemptions; invest to create and protect jobs, including for young people; solidarity with workers taking action to defend jobs, conditions, pensions, public services and trade unions; reinstate full trade union rights to prison officers; deep cuts in greenhouse gas emissions – otherwise climate change, caused by capitalism, will destroy us; invest in publicly-owned and controlled renewable energy; move to sustainable, low-pollution industry and farming – stop the pollution that is destroying our environment; recognise that many of our planet’s resources are limited and that capitalism fritters them away for profit; Produce for need, not profit, and design goods for reuse and recycling. Restore the pre-Thatcher real value of pensions. Reinstate the link with average earnings; protect entitlement to benefits; for living benefits; end child poverty; democracy, diversity and justice; welcome diversity and oppose racism, fascism and discrimination. Defend the right to asylum; ensure women have genuinely equal rights and pay; defend our liberties and make police and security democratically accountable; bring home all British troops from Afghanistan immediately – no more wars for resources.
As well as the foundation that all the above will sit on and that is for a democratic socialist society run in the interests of people not millionaires. For bringing into democratic public ownership the major companies and banks that dominate the economy, so that production and services can be planned to meet the needs of all and to protect the environment.
But all that has to be taken out to the British public and that is where the “cult of activism” comes in where supporters of Left Unity have to do the public stalls on the high street, on the housing estates, carry out the public meetings and the leafleting and collecting money for funds and build their organisation with members; and not rely on the internet and small meetings to propagate their work.
It’s good to get down to the brass tacks of exactly what our policies should be, so thanks for the list.
While I can’t be sure, I think that the list of demands outlined by you, Jimmy, would be accepted by the vast majority of Left Unity supporters. We have to wait and see but I am quietly confident. Of course, we have to do stuff and actually win the respect and support of new layers of ordinary people (the 99%), otherwise we will remain a tiny discussion group. I do feel that we should also have a cultural dimension, and try to be part of people’s daily lives, and have some fun. Try googling ‘b*gger the bankers’ for example.
The added bonus of LU is that we do not have to carry out the demands of a centralised, all but irremovable leadership clique who prioritise control and building their own little power base at the expense of the movement as a whole. Nor do we have the ‘revolutionary’ method of recruiting young people, burning them up and throwing them away. I say this as an ex-member of your party, who was in it for eleven years (1974-1985). I hope that eventually members of the Socialist Party will take part in LU and then realise that one meeting is enough and become LU members first and foremost.
@comrade John Perry.
Ok, I see there is some assumptions in your post. By the way, I have no dispute with you regarding the problems of the far-left.
‘If we want to build a mass radical Left party to really take on the Austerity Offensive, and supplant the utterly corrupt Labour Party as THE party of the Left, we really have to break decisively from the mindset and special language codes of the “trapped in political amber” Far left.’
Labour party mark II? ‘The party of the left’ is vague, and why do you feel the need to capitalise ‘the’? I’m curious.
‘And , Darren, if you think shouting “General Strike NOW !” and “Any attempt to oppose the Austerity Offensive” short of full-on armed revolutionery socialist insurrection against the capitalist state, is futile” will help build a mass movement of ordinary people with the muscle to actually oppose the most pressing, vicious aspects of the currenty offensive, then you are not only deluding yourself – but also strangely unfamiliar with the basic Trotskyist tactic of the “Transitional Demand”. ie, in a world capitalist crisis it is revolutioneries who can “be the best reformists” – by pressing for what in more normal times are merely reforms or maintenance of existing gains (eg, the NHS), with a vigour and determination which can turn the defensive, limited struggle, WITHIN CAPITALISM, into a struggleeventually to challenge the continued existence of Capitalism itself.’
I don’t think along the lines of ‘General strike now’. However, the timing is right to crank up the pressure two years before an election, but it is more likely that Len Mcluskey will wind the activity down, as Jerry Hicks has warned, I have no such illusions of what is likely to happen.
Onto the Transitional demand: Actually, I see the ‘Transitional method’ as a step backwards, to be a Marxist and only 1. defend what already exists, 2.Only press for reforms is in effect, dishonest, as is arguing for the general strike road to socialism, “well done, after striking, do you see what you’ve done? You’re socialists like us now.”(incidentally, is that what you meant by vigour and determination)? No, we must be open from the start, even if that means revealing our Marxism, even if it means a certain language, just like engineering or sciences have a certain language. A decent educating group can help with that, so can google. And I’m sure most people have an idea what Nick Wrack means when he says, ‘the superseding of capitalism with socialism.’
Lastly, I agree with you that it is a ‘long game’ to and we need to fight cuts, but we can also prepare for the offensive in the long-term by telling the truth about our task, making radical demands, socialism. I take it you believe this too.
@Darren,
“…even if it means a certain language, just like engineering or sciences have a certain language.”
As an engineer that engages regularly with the press, I make a point of describing my work in ways that anyone can understand. While I agree that Left Unity needs to be open an honest with its policies, it needs to do so in the political language of the 21st century.
Frankly to the vast majority of the public, socialism is something that died with communism in the 1990’s. Thus to utilise vocabulary and Jargon from the 19th and early 20th centuries will be an incredible turnoff.
ps.. Can I suggest that people posting try to keep contributions concise.
Terry Conway refers to Socialist Resistance as one of her past experiences. Does this mean she’s no longer a member?
As far as I can see, “Left Unity” wants to exclude members of “existing”
left of Labour, “far left” organisations, as well as members of the Labour Party. This doesn’t seem like a recipe for success to me.
Terry Conway doesn’t refer to SR as one of her past experiences: she says that in the past she has learned from other people.
There has been no indication that LU “wants to exclude” either existing members of far-left organisations or of the Labour Party.
Terry seems to imply that Nick Wrack’s suggested statement that “the new party will be socialist.. [and] aims to replace capitalism with a new society, based on the democratic, common ownership of the wealth, natural resources and means of production, with production for need not profit” is a revolutionary socialist position. I think that is over-stating it: there is no indication there that the state serves the interests of the capitalist class and needs to be overthrown.
I’m not suggesting LU adopts such a position: that would be political suicide and is completely unnecessary at this juncture. So, as far as I’m concerned, the debate about the contesting statements by Nick Wrack and Kate Hudson has the character bit bit like the one about how many angels you can get on a pin head. (Which makes one wonder how it came to be so fractious).
It’s going to be pretty obvious that LU’s members will be almost entirely socialists (if they define their politics at all), the party will be socialist – and will be seen as such. There will be no harm is saying as much and having something in its aims using Nick Wrack’s formulation, or Kate Hudson’s (it barely matters which) and leaving it at that for the time being. But what we really need at the founding conference is the discussion of an action programme of policies that the party will fight around NOW, are relevant to issues facing the working class in Britain and internationally now, not an endless debate picking over our (at the moment) far-off ultimate objectives with a fine-toothed comb.
One thing I do think, though, is that the term “working people” should no longer be used, as it is too close to Cameron’s vile phrase “hard-working people”. “Working class” is therefore preferable.
Tom, no personal slight against Ken Loach was implied or made. Why would there be, I’ve never met him? I was describing the distortions in his films, not the person. And I didn’t call him a ‘traitor’ either. If anyone accused or implied anyone of betrayal, it was Loach in his films. The idea that the Irish liberation struggle was ‘betrayed’ by Irish nationaist wreckers of a socialist movement as implied in ‘the Wind that Shakes the Barley’ was a fantasy. It was a bourgeois nationalist liberation struggle from the start.
Tom, no personal slight against Ken Loach was implied or made. Why would there be?I’ve never met him?.I was describing the distortions in his films, not the person. If his appeal results in a party that allows fair and open discussions aimed at building a revolutionary understanding to take place, then good.
If anyone has any history of ‘smash and grab’ its the plethera of groups now dissecting the national meetinf in great detail. Some of them entered the SLP precisely to poach members and sabotage it, under the slogans of ‘workers democracy’, ‘rights for factions’, ‘down with leaders’, etc. Some of the stunts I witnessed as a member were disgusting. The use of OMOV to avoid this, whilst saying that peopke can join as individuals even if they are members of other individuals seems to be a healtht pre-emptive move to me.
And I didn’t call him a ‘traitor’ either. If anyone accused or implied anyone of betrayal, it was Loach in his films. The idea that the Irish liberation struggle was ‘betrayed’ by Irish nationaist wreckers of a socialist movement as implied in ‘the Wind that Shakes the Barley’ was a fantasy. It was a bourgeois nationalist liberation struggle from the start. The Soviet Union did not ‘betray’ socialism in Spain, it povided the anti-Franco struggle with 99% of its arms, for example, despite the huge risks it was facing internationally. Stalin’s philosophical weaknesses was the problem.
Sorry. I meant “The use of OMOV to avoid this, whilst saying that people can join as individuals even if they are members of other groups seems to be a healtht pre-emptive move to me.” – the perils of using a Smartphone to post comments!
Stalin’s ‘philosophical weaknesses’?!! What were those then, Phil?
Ray,
Stalinism was a retreat from Lenin’s revolutionary perspective which failed to understand imperialism as an incurable system of boom and bust crisis, which can only ever be surmounted by a revolution to bring an end to capitalism once and for all.
Stalin’s ‘theory’ was a revision of this Marxist-Leninist scientific understanding, arguing that there was no need for any ‘revolutionary adventurism’ because capitalism’s demise post-1945 was inevitable and would eventually give way to socialism, once it had been “abolished” (how, he didn’t say).
All that was required was to avoid rocking the boat, build peace campaigns to “stop war”, and continue to develop the Soviet economy. Lenin’s theory of peaceful co-existence as a temporary tactic became permanent. This retreat led ultimately to Gorbachev’s idiotic liquidation of the still viable and growing Soviet socialist system.
The USSR under Stalin was the only country to provide serious support to the Spanish republicans, with huge levels of generosity and self-sacrifice. However, his pacifist perspective could already be seen in the illusions given in the Spanish popular front, as opposed to a Leninist united front that would have fought alongside the republicans whilst pointing out that bourgeois democracy was no solution either.
If Left Unity is to build a party capable of bringing an end to capitalism, the broadest discussion possible on the disastrous legacy of Stalinism, alongside Trotskyism’s foul non-stop anti-communist slurs on the Soviet Uinion (and every other revolution that has happened). Only such an open debate to a conclusion will remove the dead wood that has been preventing the working class for seeing it’s revolutionary role in world history.
Phil
“As an engineer that engages regularly with the press, I make a point of describing my work in ways that anyone can understand. While I agree that Left Unity needs to be open an honest with its policies, it needs to do so in the political language of the 21st century.”
Look Patrick, if I was interested and a student of engineering I would want to know the actual language. If you were a teacher would you only use lay language? Did your teachers only use lay language to teach you engineering? If not, how did you learn the lingo? I don’t think we should talk to people like they’re stupid, that’s same approach the ‘Daily Moron’*,(Daily Mirror) uses, that’s the same approach Socialist Worker actually uses too!
Would an engineering magazine for engineers only use lay language? No, for those who have taken an interest in socialism, we shouldn’t just dismiss the language as old and outdated. Are you suggesting a new language or just defeatism? To say socialism is outdated is a non sequitur, capitalism is older than socialism and it is clearly on the decline, which is why we need to replace it with socialism. We need organisation for that to happen. This is where the existing revolutionary left, for all their faults can help out.
Notes:
* The Daily Mirror was first described as the ‘Daily Moron’ by Private Eye.
If you *define* it as socialist, you’ve already excluded left wingers like myself who are Mutualist. Please do bear that in mind – you then Socialist Unity, not Left Unity.
“If you were a teacher would you only use lay language?”
Actually as much as possible. It takes time for students to comprehend jargon, so even quantum theory should be explained in normal human language
“Are you suggesting a new language or just defeatism?”
Absolutely a new language. Since the early 20th century, we have a new form of finance (hedge funds, CDS’s etc) capitalism, and now the emergence of the dark shadow (bitcoin etc) economy. We have had the development of robotics, personal/cloud computing, and the emergence of 3D printing and personalised medicine. These developments must be reflected in our language if we are to convince others that Socialism can innovate more efficiently than capitalism.
Thanks Patrick D. I accept your answer.
Phil
Very illuminating. I am not actually a Trotskyist. Can you let me know what the ‘Trotskyist slurs’ against the Soviet union are, please, and why you think they are mistaken.
Thanks.
Ray,
Much better if you let me know what you think may be a Trotskyist slur, and then say what I think of them. I don’t really want to be compiling lists of slurs and responses.
Steve
Are you Steve or Phil? Who am I discussing with here?
I am not a Trotskyist but I have to come clean and admit that the accusations by Trotskyists against the Soviet Union probably don’t go far enough, in my opinion. I have given my own opinion of the monstrous tyranny of such regimes elsewhere in this blog.
I have written a response to Terry’s accusation that I presented a ‘partial account’ of what led to Kate Hudson’s statement being circulated prior to the 11 May and to her unsubstantiated and false allegation that Kate was subjected to a personal attack.
http://www.independentsocialistnetwork.org/?p=2199
When I have time I will write a further article that deals with Terry’s political criticisms of my resolution.