What are we struggling towards? – A response to Tom Walker
A contribution to the discussion from Chris Strafford.
Tom Walker’s (International Socialist Network) article in defense of the Left Party Platform raised some important questions about the Socialist Platform that I support. I was not, however, convinced by the article and, whilst I enjoy Tom’s writing, his piece falls into the old arguments and the old mistakes that appear in every unity project. Which is a shame because there is much common ground between us and our organisations. This has led to the possibility of my organisation, the Anticapitalist Initiative, fusing with his. A fusion I wholeheartedly support and see as a reality in many areas of work already. This article is a contribution to the approach I believe socialists should take within Left Unity and the debate that is ongoing across our movement.
Trapped by its isolation, the British left outside of the Labour Party has staggered around for quick fixes or pious offerings of pure sects. Mine and Tom’s generation of socialists in Britain have watched from afar as real parties with growing links within the working class have been built abroad. On the Continent, new left parties have emerged through political breaks to the left (e.g. Parti de Gauche) or remnants of the official communist parties (e.g. Die Linke). This is not the case in Britain where no organised social democratic milieu exists outside of Labour. It is true that the Labour Party has largely abandoned its traditional base of skilled workers and the trade unionists, though that base has also diminished because of the changes within capitalism.
The neo-liberal offensive has altered the terrain of working class life in Britain: altered how capitalism is perceived, resisted and internalised. As a left, it is imperative that we try and take stock of the immense defeats which have been inflicted on our movement. We need to stop repeating schemes for political short cuts that have been tested and found wanting the world over.
The brief opening of the anti-war movement demonstrated the strength our movement has but also showed how weak it is at putting the case forward for fundamental social change. Left Unity offers us another chance to begin moving out of the margins, but it will take patient work over many years. It is worth drawing a lesson from the disaster of the Italian left who were organised within Partito della Rifondazione Comunista (PRC). This party came out of the collapse of official communism to take up a struggle to re-establish communism as a political force without the baggage of historical errors and mistakes. Yet moves towards the anticapitalist and ecological movements were superficial and short-termist. Eventually, the PRC found itself in the second Prodi government (2006-2008) which was waging war within Afghanistan. On leaving the PRC, a communist group called Sinistra Critica (the sister group of Socialist Resistance) released ‘Eleven points to face the crisis of the Italian left’, which is well worth a read and has a quote which neatly sums up the approach I think Left Unity should take:
“Rather than reconstruction, we think that nowadays one must speak of building an anticapitalist, class left on new bases. It has been impossible to put down roots because – in the context of globalisation and the disintegration of the 20th century workers’ movement – the emphasis on the institutional prospects alone and the bureaucratic legacy have made all these efforts vain. Taking root in a society involves long-term, tedious and invisible work that does not necessarily pay off in the short term in electoral terms.”
We should be thinking of Left Unity as a party of struggle not just something for the next round of elections. This means we must have a perspective of what kind of society we would like to see beyond vague commitments to “alternative economic policies” and the redistribution of wealth (an approach that could easily have been taken from the zombie ‘official communists’ who have been advocating an alternative economic strategy and wealth redistribution for over 60 years with little to show for it). The Left Party Platform almost grasps what such an alternative should be. The word socialism is even used within the Platform, yet it does not say what socialism is. Tom, just like many of the other signatories, knows very well what it should mean: that “society in which the wealth and the means of production are no longer in private hands but are owned in common. Everyone will have the right to participate in deciding how the wealth of society is used and how production is planned to meet the needs of all and to protect the natural world on which we depend.” Which is what we have put forward in the Socialist Platform. The basic idea that the means to exploit and enslave should be seized and transformed to fulfill the needs of all, not the profits of a few. A basic principle that in political terms has moved mountains and wrought asunder dictatorships on every continent but is somehow “narrow”.
Socialism for the many, not the few
Tom thinks that such an approach is patronising, but since when has treating people with the intelligence to weigh up an argument been patronising? If we hold to the view that we should limit our politics because our fellow workers need to be prodded, tricked and led by their stomachs into fighting for social change, then surely we will end up on the road to an enlightened minority that does the thinking, a membership that does the talking and a working class that does the marching.
Surely, it is worse to go to people one day saying you are for the redistribution of wealth and some more democracy, but then the next day, have to explain that you are actually for the overthrow of capitalism. Which is more patronising: presenting people with a set of watered-down politics you think they’ll understand whilst keeping the ideas of real change for an anointed few or stating from day one that we struggle today for reforms but we want a different world tomorrow? Ken Loach said at the first national Left Unity meeting to much applause:
“The way things are run now, this system will never provide a dignified life for us, never provide a safe future for our kids and will never take care of the environment. I could call this economic structure capitalism. We’ve talked about language earlier on and it’s a word that some of us might shrink from. But there have been two centuries of people fighting to refine our language so that we can talk precisely about the world we live in. So I hope you find that the word capitalism is acceptable in order to talk about the tasks ahead of us.
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 agree with Ken Loach and I think this is a principled basis, I don’t think this is patronising and I don’t think this is narrow. As a socialist who has read a bit of history, I know that socialism has never been narrow and for most of its history has drawn mass support from workers with all kinds of ideas. When comrades say that a platform that explains what socialism is would be too narrow, do they ever wonder what all those millions of workers have been doing for the last 150 years or more? I’m sure when the people marched in Portugal in April 1974, or fought on the streets of Paris in May 1968, or died in their thousands in Pinochet’s, Suharto’s and Khomeini’s prisons, or established working class power, however momentarily, in Russia, they didn’t consider the idea of socialism too narrow or too abstract.
Getting the facts straight
Tom makes some factual mistakes in his article which were no doubt down to the great speed with which it appeared after we published our statement. Firstly, Tom accuses us of “ignoring the question of agency”, which is, of course, not accurate because within our platform we say that the socialist transformation of society can ‘only be accomplished by the working class itself acting democratically as the majority in society.”
Secondly,Tom says that you must “agree” with all of the points in the platform in order to join Left Unity. If our platform is adopted by Left Unity we would ask comrades to accept the platform. The difference might not be obvious, but it is the difference between recognising that formulations can be added and amended to a political platform that would allow a political minority to become a majority or not. For example, I could accept to be in a party that adopts something like the platform Tom supports but I could not agree to it. Would this mean I would have to forego my membership and/or my arguments?
The third factual mistake is that Tom accuses us of not using the word feminism, ergo we are not interested in women’s liberation. This is unfortunately the kind of dog whistle politics that can distract from the real debate. We did not use the word feminism, but the kind of feminism I support would mean opposing “all oppression and discrimination … on the basis of gender”. Which is exactly what we wrote. In the supporting article ‘Resistance and Socialist Change’ that was put together by the drafting group we also wrote that “the Left Unity project will be committed to the emancipation of women”. But if the argument is to be like finding all the right words within a crossword or be damned, then where is the Left Party Platform’s explicit mention of opposing oppression based on “disability, religion or sexual orientation”? They are not mentioned. This is not because the signatories are ablist, homophobic or Islamophobes but because political platforms deal with general principles. That means we test platforms on whether they oppose oppression and fight for liberation, not on the exact formulation of words used to express those struggles.
Tom’s fourth and most frustrating accusation is that we are not interested in the immediate struggle. Tom’s writes that “[t]here is no acknowledgement that fighting for reforms in the short term is entirely compatible with aiming for socialism in the longer term.” This criticism is apparently gleaned from the Socialist Platform and the accompanying document ‘Resistance and Socialist Change’. But the facts are that the former document explicitly says:
“So long as the working class is not able to win political power for itself the [Left Unity] Party will participate in working-class campaigns to defend all past gains and to improve living standards and democratic rights. But it recognises that any reforms will only be partial and temporary so long as capitalism continues.”
And the latter document says:
“We can offer resistance today while also arguing for a new society in which things are organised differently. These things are not opposed but complementary. That is why we argue for the new party to be both a party that supports all campaigns and struggles to defend and extend our living standards and democratic rights and a party that fights to get rid of capitalism completely and create a new society.”
Both documents are quite clear that the struggles of today must be set within an understanding that there is a long-term struggle going on. It comes from the position, that Tom will no doubt agree with, expressed in the Communist Manifesto: “[t]he Communists fight for the attainment of the immediate aims, for the enforcement of the momentary interests of the working class; but in the movement of the present, they also represent and take care of the future of that movement.” Yet even if these weren’t in our documents, who really thinks that a working-class party would not be fighting to defend the NHS and the welfare state or opposing the racist police?
The uses and abuses of majorities
We all know how the disastrous Respect fell further and further into opportunism, with Galloway and co. extracting concessions from the socialist majority time after time: whether on abortion, LGBT rights, open borders or the idea that those who are elected to represent workers should not receive more than the average wage of a skilled worker. Yet, to me, the arguments in Left Unity for another broad programme where the majority promotes politics it knows to be insufficient is eerily like listening to ghosts of ten years ago. In an article written for Frontline in 2004, Alan Thornett (Socialist Resistance), who has also signed the Left Party Platform, wrote:
“There was controversy at the Convention over two points from the SA manifesto not included in the Declaration: a worker’s representative on a worker’s wage, and open borders – the abolition of all immigration controls. The ad-hoc group argued that since these were controversial issues they should be discussed over a longer period of time, rather than forced through at the point of foundation. We were bringing people together from different traditions and experiences and we needed to take this into account. And these points could have been forced through since there was a majority present which supported them. That majority to its credit, was prepared to vote against their own convictions in order to preserve unity at this stage. This was important, even if some of it was done in a ham-fisted way. The name of the game was to build a new coalition which would be broader than the audience at the Convention, and the audience at the Convention needed to take that into account.”
Such a majority deserves nothing but scorn: this “important” act of abstinence was the opening of the door for other principles to be chucked out in search of ever greater votes. To their credit, Alan and his comrades resisted Galloway, John Rees and Lindsey German when they tried to dump LGBT liberation. Of course, Respect never left the orbit of the existing left and, beyond one or two rare local political climates, remained the organisational creature of the Socialist Workers Party who provided the boots on the ground for Galloway’s peculiar brand of Labourism. The argument then as now is that raising socialist principles as a starting point would narrow the party. Such an approach comes from the frustration of isolation; it is another short cut to a dead end.
Our starting point must be that we will have an honest and frank exchange of views and a majority, if not a consensus, will arise. If the socialist majority within Left Unity (and we believe it is a majority) self-censor or put aside this or that principle at the beginning of our new project, what is to stop more principles going down the drain later on?
We’re all in it together
The debate so far within Left Unity has largely been healthy. But there is a toxic argument developing that I have seen used innumerable times and always with the same result. The argument goes that by raising a principle–be it the abolition of private property, working class independence, LGBT liberation or democratic demands like having all representatives earn the average wage of skilled worker–you might put people off and therefore narrow the party. There is a long history within our movement of such an argument, from the anti-communist rules of the Labour Party in the 1920s, to proscriptions against the left within the trade unions, to the witch hunt of the Militant Tendency, to the abolition of Clause 4 by Tony Blair, to the bans within Arthur Scargill’s Socialist Labour Party, to the watered-down politics of the the Socialist Alliance and, of course, Respect, the joker of the pack, where everything and anything was for sale for the possibility of a few extra votes.
Such an argument is toxic because it turns the discussion into a matter of life and death for the new party. Our critics argue that if we win, we would push people out and would not be able to gain support and therefore wither and die. This, of course, ends in not trying to win the debate but trying to stifle and take measures against the left. We are not there yet, and I hope that comrades will not go down this route, but any argument that starts with saying such a grouping wants to push people out, can only end up in further splits, demoralisation and more time spent on maneuvers than on the actual political discussion at hand. If all sides are committed to the project and understand that November’s minority can become 2014’s majority, then we do not need to be talking about pushing people out. There has to be space for many different answers to the same question within our new party, yet those who win a majority must prove each and every position in practice.
There is no question that Left Unity can become a party of struggle and can, with time, have deep links within the working class across the country. The real question in this debate is over what we are struggling towards: the end of capitalism or the management of capitalism?
—
If you wish to support the Socialist Platform please send an email to luspcontact@gmail.com
8 comments
8 responses to “What are we struggling towards? – A response to Tom Walker”
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 18th May: Nakba 76 national march for Palestine
National demonstration.
Nakba 76: End the Genocide! Stop Arming Israel: Assemble 12 noon BBC, Central London
Full details here
More events »
GET UPDATES
Sign up to the Left Unity email newsletter.
CAMPAIGNING MATERIALS
Get the latest Left Unity resources.
Here are a few responses to specific points.
First, briefly on feminism. I think your argument is evasive. I didn’t say not using the word feminism means you are “not interested in women’s liberation”, as you assert. In fact I simply stated: “Feminism goes unmentioned.” But it’s clear to me that it’s not in the Socialist Platform because a section of the platform do not want it there – that some of its initiators were the same people arguing against enforcing gender balance at the May 11 national meeting is no coincidence. I don’t think this is “dog whistle politics”, nor about either side being anti women’s liberation – I think it’s a genuine difference in our approach to feminism (not between you and I, I don’t think, but within the Socialist Platform) that you seem to want to duck.
Previous failures. I hardly think the lesson of Rifondazione Comunista is that it was insufficiently “explicit” in its socialist commitments – it has Comunista right there in the name! Nor was orientating on the anticapitalist movement an error. Mostly it tells us that participating in any coalition would be a disaster… but that’s not a dilemma we’re likely to face soon. The comparison to Respect is even less relevant. We do not have a Galloway stomping around demanding concessions on this and that. Let me reassure you that I have no intention of compromising on abortion, LGBT rights, etc, and I resent the implication that any attempt at building a broad party will collapse into such right wing nonsense, or more generally that I’m part of some right wing bloc that’s going to end up trying to stifle the “left”. (While we’re here, I think it’s a shame that some have responded to the spectacle of Respect with what is essentially a lurch back towards absolute “purity” at all costs.)
Incidentally, both your article and Nick Wrack’s interview with the AWL today suggest this problem goes back to the Socialist Alliance as well. Are you really suggesting the problem with the Socialist Alliance was a lack of “explicit socialism”? (Again, the name would suggest otherwise.) I have to confess to finding the idea deeply strange that if only we would commit to the correct, non “watered down” policies then the party would grow. If this is the case, why doesn’t one of the myriad small groups on the left perfect the formula – the full-proof, no water version – then go forward with this pristine programme, mushroom and put us all in the shade? Answer: because parties do not grow through political perfection, but through pluralism and inclusivity.
Onto agency. When I said you were missing agency, I didn’t mean you hadn’t said “the working class”. The point is that just saying the working class will run society democratically is insufficient (at least if we are critiquing it, for the moment, from the point of view of its deficiencies as a revolutionary statement). The plan presented, as far as I can tell, is:
1. Convince millions of people of socialism.
2. ???
3. Socialism.
How do we get from here to there – how do we win socialism? Through parliament, through insurrection? The phrase “use both parliamentary and extra-parliamentary means to build support for its ultimate goal” does nothing but dodge this question, while “aims to win political power to end capitalism, not to manage it” next to the mention of governmental coalitions would seem to imply that the “political power” here is of a parliamentary sort. Do you believe that socialism can come through parliament? (I know you don’t, but the platform would appear to.)
Reforms. I agree with the formulation “we struggle today for reforms but we want a different world tomorrow”, and your description of a “party of struggle”. Unfortunately I think the Socialist Platform does tend to downplay the struggle today element, and play up “all reforms are temporary under capitalism” type arguments, such as the one you quote. (It’s true, of course – but an emphasis that can easily lead to prioritising propagandism for socialism above throwing ourselves into struggles.)
Other articles from the Socialist Platform so far have hit a few other themes touched on in this piece:
1. Accusing us of arguing that “socialism is narrow”
2. Saying we want to hide socialism/water down our politics to avoid putting people off
3. Insinuating that we just want to “manage capitalism”
None of these are true. Socialism in itself is not “narrow” – limiting the party to *socialists only* is narrow. (And I don’t think people who aren’t so up on their revolutionary jargon will care much for your distinction between “agree” and “accept”!) We don’t want to hide our socialism – as you acknowledge, it’s right there in the Left Party Platform. It might not be defined in all the details, but then nor is the Socialist Platform’s rather fudged vision of socialism.
Lastly, we obviously have no interest in “managing capitalism”. But see my point about reforms above – I think it is a huge mistake that the Socialist Platform essentially writes off the winning of real reforms now, making a real difference to workers’ lives, as “managing capitalism”. This is the passage from the Socialist Platform background document I quoted in my original article, which ludicrously describes the LPP’s call for renationalisation of privatised industries as a call for a “mixed economy”, then from this somehow concludes: “In so far as any clear aim can be discerned it aims at managing capitalism, not getting rid of it.” Not to labour the point, but seriously – it literally equates an immediate demand to renationalise water, electricity, rail etc with “managing capitalism”! It also, of course, ignores the LPP’s explicit statement that it is “against capitalism”.
I believe that Left Unity needs to be fighting on two fronts: the short-term, ie. the immediate defence of the welfare state, and the long-term, raising the profile of left wing ideas generally in society, building itself as a party (and you are right to point out this will not be a fast process) and winning people to our ideas *through common organisation and common struggle* – not by expecting them to come in fully formed. A broad, open party could grow rapidly – one that demands agreement with various socialist specifics would be destined to grow only like a sect, in “ones and twos”. It’s not about the majority (though I wouldn’t be so sure we are even the majority) “self-censoring” – it’s about genuinely wanting to be in a party alongside others from across the left.
I want Left Unity to include the left that exists, not the left we wish existed. Then we can have the argument inside it.
The point on feminism in my article is not evasive. The question is not whether the word is used but whether we are for women’s liberation. As far as I can see both platforms are. I would happily support an amendment that inserted feminism into the platform but I do not think using other formulations to express that struggle is a problem either. We should not get this mixed up with the legitimate debate over whether we should enforce gender balances within Left Unity. My opinion is that it can be a good a thing especially at the beginning of a project but I also think the comments made by Soraya Lawrence at the first national meeting about them sometimes coming across as a bureaucratic fix to a cultural problem which can be patronising and sometimes tokenistic can also ring true. This however is not discussed in our platform because it is a statement of principles and therefore does not address organisational questions. We left that for the commissions, branches and conference to comment on.
You completely miss the point about Rifondazione which was not about whether it called itself communist or anticapitalist but that it had a short-term perspective of chasing votes which made its turns towards the anticapitalist and environmentalist movements superficial. Hence the Sinistra Critica quote on taking a patient and long-term view which doesn’t necessarily pay off at the ballot box immediately but will lay the basis for a much stronger project.
On Respect, you again miss the point. It doesn’t matter that there was a Galloway in Respect, what mattered is that the political majority that made up Respect was willing to be a self-denying majority (John Rees’ phrase I believe) in order to accommodate George Galloway and his allies. You can see where this led, from the beginning socialists allowed principles to be cast away and unsurprisingly as time went on more and more principles were cast away. My point is that the overwhelming socialist majority that makes up Left Unity not only have a right but a duty to place the new party on a principled footing from day one. This is also a question of democracy, as a democrat I think that at the end of a debate a majority should be able to test its approach and the minority should accept that whilst fighting to become the majority next time. If the Left Party Platform wins at conference then you will have to show how that approach works and if it doesn’t I expect you to come back to drawing board. I would do likewise if the Socialist Platform wins at conference but fails in practice.
The problems with the Socialist Alliance were its democratic deficit, the lack of commitment from constituent parties to form a single party and, despite the best efforts of some comrades, the weak politics. What is strange is not the idea that we should stick to socialist principles but the idea that there can’t be plurality of tendencies, analysis and thought within such a party. Please, show me an historical example of a real socialist party not having such plurality. What is also strange is the argument that you and others are using that if people want a pristine programme then go and join the sects. Well we haven’t put forward a pristine programme (we even say “[t]he fuller party programme will have to elaborate in more detail the steps we fight for now and in the future.”) we have put forward a set of principles which we think is the right start to building an open and plural party.
Your point on agency doesn’t make sense. We state that the working class is the only force that can bring about socialism. We did not comment on how that might come about as we did not mix up tactical questions with principles. There is also a debate, which is important to have more widely than just within the Socialist Platform, on what use (if any) parliament may be to our cause. Your comment on the “plan” presented again misses the point of the document, it is statement of principles not a roadmap to socialism. However, if you want to get to socialism then you might need to convince millions of people through word and and in struggle of why we need it and that requires being up front that we are for more than just a bit of wealth redistribution. That we don’t want the crumbs but the whole cake.
The Socialist Platform does not downplay the immediate struggle. It is very clearly in both our documents and the quotes I used in my article speak for themselves. What is interesting is that you’ve gone from saying that “[t]here is no acknowledgement” of immediate struggles to just that we “tend to downplay” immediate struggles. Well neither are true, especially if you think saying no gains are safe under capitalism is somehow downplaying them. Just look around at what is happening to the welfare state.
When the Left Party Platform talks about socialism and anticapitalism is that limiting the party to *socialists only* only? Or is it just that by explaining that socialism means democratic planning for need not profit that is limiting?
It is not obvious that Left Part Platform has no interest in managing capitalism because the way socialism and being against capitalism is explained lacks any real content beyond wealth redistribution and defending the welfare state which can imply support for managing not abolishing capitalism.
On fighting on two fronts we agree which is a very good start to building our party. The argument against the Socialist Platform and over whether our party will be broad or not if it explains what socialism is frustratingly reminiscent of unity projects of the past and lacks any sense of history. No socialist party ever has expected people to join with fully formed views, why ever would there have been reading circles, discussion meetings, congresses and tendencies in such parties if that was the case? What we are asking for is that we start from the principles the majority in Left Unity, included those who drafted the Left Party Platform, agree with.
I would also urge caution around the idea that a broad party could grow quickly. Without significant breaks from Labour or an upturn in struggle we may not grow as rapidly as we all hope. Which is what has given rise to SYRIZA in Greece and Die Linke in Germany. The conditions which we launch our new party will not necessarily be favourable and stating that it will grow quickly (so long as it is “broad”) can lead to demoralisation. Something we have seen in other campaigns and organisations many times.
You say that you want to base our new party on the left that exists and so do I but I think we should be aiming to overcome the left that currently exists that is organised within the small groups or within labourism. That means a political and organisational break from them and not repeating previous mistakes.
I don’t have the time to reply to all the points made by Tom and Chris suffice to say I have problems with both statements (LPP and SPP) and would prefer a ‘middle way’ that takes the best from both – a founding statement that can combine an explicit call for a socialist society with the desire to make Left Unity a party that reaches beyond the confines of the revolutionary Left.
I don’t think that great swathes of people to the left of Labour are automatically put off by the term ‘socialism’, though we do need to re-claim it by making it meaningful today, more inclusive and less abstract and this is an incredibly important task in itself.
I agree with Chris that there is a tendency to skirt around the difficulties that Left Unity will face in it’s bid to become anything close to a mass party, even if the LPP statement is adopted. We’re launching a party in less than ideal circumstances with limited opposition to austerity and a relatively low level of action in the form of protests, strikes, etc. The rightwards shift of New Labour means there is a space to it’s left for a significant minority but at the same time reflects the weakness of the labour movement in the face of the biggest attack on state provision and real wages in memory. Add to that the pressure that will grow to defeat the Tories at the ballot box in 2015 at any cost, i.e. Ed Miliband as prime minister. It’s going to take long and consistent work on behalf of Left Unity, unless there is a dramatic shift to more favourable circumstances.
We need socialist principles posed in a non-dogmatic way together with the practicalities of fighting austerity. Austerity will only be defeated by the actions of hundreds of thousands or millions of people. Socialism too will only come from ‘below’.
Chris this is a good response to Tom, and you raise the most important point about the danger of this debate becoming a toxic kind of do-or-die thing. You know I’m not in LU, so I dunno how much my opinion matters here, but obviously I am still supportive of the project from a general left unity perspective, and would be no means like to see it fail.
Personally I’d be inclined to agree with most of the Class Struggle Platform, except that it is obviously a Workers Power propaganda stunt and will naturally go down like a lead balloon. With that in mind I was concerned that there are a couple of features of the Socialist Platform that come across to me as a bit amateurish and that made me think that if I were in the hypothetical position to be voting here, lol, I might be inclined to vote for the Left Party platform as a kind of ‘lesser evil’. Anyway here’s my reasons why, for whatever it’s worth.
Point 3 should just drop the bit about the Soviet Union. A) Because it isn’t relevant. B) Because you already make it quite clear in point 2 what socialism is gonnae look like, why not let the reader just figure the rest out for themselves? C) Well this is maybe a bit more of a personal gripe – I think the whole ‘the USSR isn’t socialist, really!’ line was just one of the massive tactical errors of Trotskyism. It was great for recruiting a load of liberal ‘not in my name’ types, but considering that most people who lived at that time understood ‘socialism’ to be a really existing thing in the USSR and/or the Western welfare states, good or bad, love it or hate it, the academic argument was always gonnae come across as a bit weird and sectarian, like ‘they’re not the real socialists, we are!’ And now it just sounds like some kind of pathetic, apologetic denial, when everyone who knows anything about history must know that when socialist revolutions ever occur again they are bound to be every bit as bloody and messy as before. There’s no shortcut to winning that argument, which is probably the major obstacle to socialism. And you can still be just as critical (and defensive) of Stalinism and the USSR without entering into these pointless and anachronistic semantic battles.
Point 4 needs to argue why you oppose discrimination, i.e. because it’s just used as a means of dividing the working class. LU’s already big enough to be thinking about recruiting from the working class in general and not just the left, and the truth is that the best most militant folk you tend to run into in the working class are often a bit sexist this way, maybe a bit homophobic here or a bit racist there but good on most other things. You need to argue concretely why you are opposed to discrimination because we don’t need another party of the kind of people who take this question for granted (Guardian readers) who recoil in shock every time they encounter a bit of run-of-the-mill prejudice. We need a party where people understand that their prejudices might hinder working class unity, perhaps even where they won’t feel scared to talk about them if they decide to commit to overcoming them.
Thanks Billy and I would say your opinion does matter as there are probably many comrades watching from afar seeing how it will turn out before engaging with the project on the ground.
The Class Struggle Platform has some good points but suffers from Workers Power ticks on tactical questions and focuses. What I would say is that the kind of campaigns and movement building stuff that is included within their platform is largely supportable but it is not a statement of principles and is far too period specific so we are not comparing like for like. With a few amendments there would be no issue passing both the Class Struggle Platform alongside the Socialist Platform, in many ways they could complement each other.
I have to disagree with you on the USSR as my experience, which is probably not too different from yours, is that people ask you all the time “what about the Soviet Union?” I think we should give them an answer and it could be expressed in a better way than what we have written within the Socialist Platform but we should say at the very least that we do not aspire to what the Soviet Union became.
I agree with your comment on point 4 as we do need to say that such oppression divides the class. As we approach the European elections it will be really important for the left to be out on the streets saying that the xenophobic and racist debate that is taking place is about dividing us.
Please explain how, if at all, Democracy fits in.
We currently cannot agree between us where “here” is, yet you propose to define the destination, allowing no detours or deviations to be democratically decided. At the most, all LU can currently decide is the Direction (Left of where we are – Easy bit) and what the initial priorities will be (harder – but Openness & Accountability I hope).
I would hope, that as society moved Left, the factions can put their cases to the electorat. In a country where a metal comb is a weapon, armed struggle may be a bit fanciful and discussion of it a time wasting (150 years and counting) headfuck.
hi, yeh, i think this discussion is the crux of how revolutionary socialists should intervene in the current stage of development of left unity.
Perhaps its the agitators raising the standards of socialist politics whilst the battalions are as quitely as possible forming a majority bloc with those to our right.
The comments are spot on that the opportunities of the groups in Left Unity to court influence seem related to them getting a piece of the leadership pie. Left unity can become an embryonic new left party of several hundred people. The unity vibe has been successfull. If left unity can get a hearing in the peoples assembleys then it can grow further.
On the one hand it would be false for left unity to at its founding conference to pass a rounded revolutionary socialist platform.
As pointed out though, democracy is hard for principled revolutionary socialists. In order to consistantly put our political positions, I like author think it is wrong to vote against what i agree with. Aspects of a revolutionary programme have to be supported.
The socialist platform constitutes a part of the programme needed to be won in the labour and working class movements. I would have to vote for it over the wishy washy statement of the leadership. i see this as a principled position. Its important that the founding conference shows where people are at. everyone in left unity should know, how many of us in left unity are socialist and for the overthrow of capitalism.
I can hear the sophisticated (organised)comrades objecting to this but I think this is primary.
there are a number of people in left unity who have said that left unity should include liberals and radicals and undecided. Thats fine but we have to debate democracy clearly with you all and hope that you can accept the idea that the majority decide.
Not sure how we can build left unity through concencus politics, lets not say anything too left wing because it will alienate the liberals and the radicals, the co-operators and the community activists. Lots of people will say what they think, they will put foreward revolutionary political ideas.
its not really true that the far left is monolithic, its actually full of competing interpretations and debate, i geuss this is as true of the radical and green “left”.
We all need to quickly decide that its worth it to actually engage with each others positions. Moving to zip up the debate by forming a leadership block of the groups with the leaders, is bureacratic manoevere.
as an ex-member I say keep left! There is a big question mark as to whether forming such majority blocs is in a way a pact of conveniance. If you are revolutionaries and have not become weathered reformists – I want you to put a revolutionary line.
If the socialist platform was voted for by all socialists that agree with it in left unity (or who may join left unity)then it doesnt mean everyone else has to leave. as said it would mean that principled socialists were openly in the majority.
this is probably the truth.
Principled socialists would then argue for left unity to be a broader left and its majority would seek to win others to principled socialist politics.
Despite its unfashionable and recently right wing existance, I still think that socialists have to get involved in the labour movement. I don’t hear so much of this in the common discussion on the left unity site.
Left unity should be looking to build a base for itself in the unions for example. A non sectarian left re-alignment in the unions to make the unions fight! a real connect with activists in the unions who we should welcome into our branches.
pete b
Here is a suggestion – Why don’t Tom and Chris, who are obviously very close in nearly all their opinions, go to the pub and draw up ONE platform that they, and the vast majority of all the other LU members I have met so far, can support rather than each criticising the equally imperfect competing platforms that they have unfortunately found themselves in. Then all the talk about majorities and minorities and ‘agree’ and ‘accept’ will not be so important and we can get on with the exciting stuff of building ONE left party.
However, I DO have one vital question for Tom. Talk of the immediate nationalisation (by a Left Unity government??) of the privatised industries need not, of course, imply support for a ‘mixed-economy’ or ‘managing capitalism’ (which I would not support). But if this demand is not raised in a bigger paragraph or a connected demand calling for a much wider democratic control and ownership of the economy (the banks and the biggest or strategic industries) then it CAN suggest that a Left Unity government could exist that would nationalise a few sectors but leave the essence of capitalism untouched. Do you see the problem? How long could you envisage a government in such a situation before it was forced by the brutal logic of capitalism to increase profitability at the expense of the ordinary people. What happened to Attlee? Why did even Harold Wilson (God help us!) resign from the Attlee government in protest? What would the mass of ordinary people mobilised by such a party be doing while this was going on?
There is a, possibly unintentional, crack in the door in the Left Party Platform which envisages a Left government running capitalism for an extended period which raises all sorts of difficulties and which prevents me from signing up to the LPP, even though I do not support the SP. I am genuinely interested in your thoughts on this issue.