Yes to Caucuses – No to Platforms
A personal view from Micheline Mason from Wandsworth Left Unity.
I was a bit bemused when I first heard that LU had decided to allow ‘Platforms’ to put forward motions for debate at national meetings. I was alarmed when they first started appearing. Now I am really concerned. I cannot see how this is democratic.
In my view LU made a good beginning. Local groups of five or more could be represented and put forward motions. Many of the motions have been very thoughtful and useful. Anyone who wants to table such a motion has to win their argument first with their local members. As local groups are ‘random’, diverse and inclusive it means that ideas have already been held up to some broad based scrutiny before they are sent forward. Local group members feel their thinking matters, and that to me is democracy.
Platforms are, by definition, groups of people who must already know each other, or be previously connected in some other organisation or party, and who are outside of the local group framework. I think this is allowing the very thing I thought we had decided to prevent by being a one-person-one-vote party, i.e. the domination by a few well organised and opinionated ‘sects’ or ‘factions’ over the rest of us. I know the platforms still have to win the vote, but by taking up all the airspace they are already dominating the proceedings.
Practically, it just doesn’t make sense. There could be any number of platforms – hundreds! Are we seriously going to debate all of them? The latest one, the ‘Manifesto’ group, are asking us local group organisers to take their tract and ask our members to debate it at length. And there are already three others on the table. Well, I cannot think of a better way to make sure no one ever comes to local meetings again. Where is the time for us to put forward and explore our own ideas?
I did not think LU was simply trying to draw together all the existing parties of the left into one united whole (especially as so many hard core ‘lefties’ seem deeply wedded to arguing at great length about things in which they are in complete agreement). I thought we were trying to initiate a new political party to the left of Labour, and which is relevant to the many ‘ordinary’ people who are waking up to the increasing inequalities and dangers in our current system.
Many people are looking for a Government who could manage an economy which reduces inequality, answer human needs and is environmentally sustainable in the long term. Not everyone yet realises they are talking about socialism. Consequently our local groups include many people who are new to organised politics, or who have been put right off in the past. Some don’t even own computers can you believe! They are the people who need to discover their power to change things from the bottom up.
Caucuses could be different. I can imagine a structure in which members from minority or under-represented groups could call together others from their group, at meetings, or through the website and facebook groups. These groups could be actual, in the corner of a room, or virtual, using the internet. They could help formulate and put forward proposals which would help correct any unaware oppressive behaviours from comrades which are not in line with our principles or values. Because they help people to ‘speak up against oppression’ they would support democracy and inclusion.
So, yes to caucuses, no to platforms. What do others think? Could this be something to debate at the Founding Conference as it will certainly shape the culture of our party.
27 comments
27 responses to “Yes to Caucuses – No to Platforms”
Left Unity is active in movements and campaigns across the left, working to create an alternative to the main political parties.
About Left Unity
Read our manifesto
Left Unity is a member of the European Left Party. 
Read the European Left Manifesto
ACTIVIST CALENDAR
Events and protests from around the movement, and local Left Unity meetings.
ongoing
Just Stop Oil – Slow Marches
Slow marches are still legal (so LOW RISK of arrest), and are extremely effective. The plan is to keep up the pressure on this ecocidal government to stop all new fossil fuel licences.
Saturday 27th April: national march for Palestine
National demonstration.
Ceasefire NOW! Stop the Genocide in Gaza: Assemble 12 noon Central London
Full details to follow
More events »
GET UPDATES
Sign up to the Left Unity email newsletter.
CAMPAIGNING MATERIALS
Get the latest Left Unity resources.
I have a lot of sympathy with the sentiments expressed in Micheline’s article. Her second last paragraph (“Many people are looking…………They are the people who need to discover their power to change things from the bottom up.”)makes a very perceptive observation…..she is right, many people who would support a new political organisation on the left don’t think of themselves as “socialists” and may have other descriptions of their political views and personal beliefs. Someone I know who is not a political activist but cares about where our society is going remarked to me recently that my description of a new form of society really appealed to him but asked “isn’t that communism?” I think we need to appeal to a broader church than just people who clearly define themselves as “socialists” as many others share its values without adopting that label themselves.
Elsewhere John Tummon (in an article supporting one of the platforms) talked about the building of “dual power”….that is an alternative power to the dominant power, being built and co-existing with the dominant power before eventually developing the capacity to completely replace it. Dual power calls for change from the bottom up as Micheline describes, and will inevitably mean co-operation between people of all sorts who share similar beliefs but different “labels”.
I think the current scenario within LU is the result of a desire to form a new political party far too quickly….party formation requires some sort of process for deciding what its overall platform and fundamental principles will be …. hence the competition now between rival platforms for the soul of an LU Party organisation.
Perhaps a “broad front” for co-operation would be a more appropriate aim at this stage…..with the objective of bringing together groups who are engaged in creating the basis for “dual power” in the communities where they have a presence. LU in this scenario would be a facilitator for the exchange of experience and learning which enables community based activists to become more effective in their efforts to create “dual power” at the grass roots level.
I expect that from such a longer term process a party political program will emerge out of the lessons learned from the struggles for “dual power”…and I am inclined to predict that a single commonly understood and agreed “platform” will emerge from this process of struggle.
What I describe here is LU as a facilitator….providing an enabling style of leadership which supports the development of people’s political consciousness and experience through practice….so LU would also be an environment for a learning style of leadership too, rather than adopting a dogmatic position dislocated from reality.
Micheline: The Manifesto Group is not proposing a platform but a programme. There is a difference if you have any interest in politics. One would have thought that asking local groups to discuss it is the height of inclusiveness but I suspect you are schilling for the Left Party crowd or perhaps the other one. Hard to tell. What are you discussing locally in your caucus? Do you have a caucus?
Do you know why TUSC never improve their vote. Because they have no message or programme to build support behind. It’s like starting afresh every time. Pointless apolitical posing.
Dear David Ellis:
Can we please have a serious and respectful debate about issues and not resort
to phrases such as “There is a difference if you have any interest in politics.” Passion is to be encouraged, making snide comments is not.
The UK already has one nasty party, we don’t need another one.
Alan Story, LU Supporter, Nottingham.
Sorry Alan but I was reacting to the initial snideness:
`The latest one, the ‘Manifesto’ group, are asking us local group organisers to take their tract and ask our members to debate it at length’
Tract indeed? Perhaps if you can be more even handed in future it would help? By the way the Nasti Party was so named because of the very real devastation it visited on the UK working class and the hatered of minorities and gays it promoted not for snideness.
Hi Micheline,
I think your view on platforms is completely wrong. You cite that local groups are democratic and inclusive but consider this. As a Communist many of the people in my local branch do not share my views, and as such my views will never be adopted by the local group as a motion to a conference. Thankfully the Socialist Platform is in existence, this platform empowers me and allows my opinions to be heard. I only became a subscription paying member of Left Unity when I saw the Socialist Platform had come into being. I’m not fighting for any sectional advantage, I just want to avoid a situation where there is a tyranny of the majority and I cannot express my views in debate or policy. In my mind the litmus test of whether a party is truly democratic is whether it has structures which would allow a minority to become a majority within the party. If a party is without this then it is not democratic, in my mind, thankfully Left Unity does allow for platforms and minorities to oragnise, and I think that perhaps your view on the platforms is a tad too negative.
fraternally,
Robert.
A point well made Robert. What is important in addition to the reality of different points of view needing representation; is that internally there is a culture that accepts differing views as something valuable, rather than is put forward in the media as ‘a sign of weakness and division’. Debate and differing views is both healthy and natural.
Hi Micheline.
I hope and believe once all debates are rigorously gone through and left unity as a whole moves forward. I Have to believe we as a whole use the best ides from whichever platform or an amalgamation of all the platforms that the majority can agree.
I subscribe to left unity and joined LPP as a non politically viewed naive individual. Trying to rake through google just to understand these debates and asking questions that to the initiate seems rather childish. Words like Trotsky Lenin and some other unearthly names involving Russia and other countries political failures and ways to improve these theories and idealogical religions.
Some like Jim Osborne have been patient others not so, but my point is if a man like myself who wants to stop the rot is willing to engage a process that is alien and a maze of exstreme views is scratching his head and using paracetamol more frequently than normal. What hope has left unity got with others like me who gave up on politics who can be arsed to argue like me.
I live in hope
Micheline wrote: “Platforms are, by definition, groups of people who must already know each other, or be previously connected in some other organisation or party, and who are outside of the local group framework.”
This is silly. Shock horror news break – Leftist activists network and communicate beyond their localities! I plead guilty I have known some members of the two main platforms for probably 30 years.
I can only speak for myself. I’m a supporter of the Socialist Platform but I suspect I actually know more people who are supporters of the Left Party Platform. I happen to disagree with them!
In Exeter I circulated the details of all the main platforms. My efforts resulted in a number of people signing up to the Left Party Platform despite the fact that I support the Socialist Platform. Did these people sign up because they previously knew people or was it because they agreed with them? I don’t know but I suspect the latter.
Yes, to get a ball rolling requires a small number of people to approach others and say “do you agree?”.
Basically what is being advocated here is the silencing of minorities. That is not the kind of party I want to see.
Caucuses are counter-posed to platforms. Hypothetically let’s say that Lesbian & Gay Rights activists within Left Unity feel they have something important and distinctive to say. Should we refuse them the right to get that on the agenda unless they can get it as motion from a particular branch? I want to hear what minorities have to say whether I agree with them or not.
The dictatorship of the majority and the silencing of minorities – that is not the kind of vibrant democracy I want to see in a new party.
Left a thousand flowers bloom!
something that will help avoid the difficulty that happened in May will be sending out the proposals up for discussion/vote at least two weeks before the conference rather than the night before! I have run my own organisation and because it’s whole focus was on inclusion, it was obvious that for people to feel included they needed information and enough time to think about it. Some people, particularly those with learning/reading difficulties had a ‘buddy’ to read, explain and help the person to articulate their response. I am going to be proposing something like this in the Birmingham meeting. Something we learned from making things accessible to people with so called ‘learning difficulties’, especially producing an ‘Easy Read’ version of the minutes etc, was that a) It was really hard to do because it required you to think clearly yourself, and b) When we did it successfully many people without so called learning difficulties understood things for the first time but hadn’t admitted it.
And yes, OPOMotion seems like the way forward to me, but only after discussion with others, somehow.
I’m not an uncritical supporter of any of the Platform statements as they stand , though I have to admit that if I have to choose, I’ll go for the Left Party Platform.
The advantage of the “platform” process is that it gets collections (factions ?) of LU supporters to summarise “where they’re coming from” politically in a reasonably graspable form – and hopefully makes the voting on our general “direction of political travel” an easier process to manage in a Conference situation.
As it is, November Conference will be a real test of our ability to make ANY coherent decisions – especially if we are bogged down in a million separate motions and amendments. Remember, at the May meeting we couldn’t even agree a basic outline LU Statement in the day available. At the November Conference n million motions and amendments, and Platform Statements, will simply have to be “boiled down” by a Conference Compositing Committee” to a few manageable proposals and counter-proposals – or we’ll agree nothing in the few hours available. I believe the “Platform” potentially process aids this clarification of broad political positions.
`The advantage of the “platform” process is that it gets collections (factions ?) of LU supporters to summarise “where they’re coming from” politically in a reasonably graspable form – and hopefully makes the voting on our general “direction of political travel” an easier process to manage in a Conference situation.’
There is no advantage to this process which is sectarian to its marrow. There is nothing in these platforms about how to get from A to B they are simply the platitudinous expressions of a handful of sectarian ideologues and your solution is to dilute them and make them even more pointless through a conference compositing committee! A composting committee would be more appropriate.
Policy is what matters and the policies that reflect objective necessity, speak to the immediate and transitional needs of our class and point to a way out of this crisis for the whole of society will be socialist so get over it. The real debate is between policy options: manifesto versus commissions; broad versus principled; inwardly coherent and logical versus eclectic opportunist mess. Let’s have that debate not this wretched agonising over pointless platforms.
I have a great deal of sympathy with Micheline and have argued in the past that there should be no affiliations or platforms in LU, on the grounds that this makes it more possible for LU to be either undermined or taken over, as has happened in similar situations in the past. However, I was on the losing side in that debate, so must move on within the framework agreed.
I spent some time considering what line I should now take and decided that I would identify with the Left Party Platform. As a lifetime independent socialist, I made that decision on the basis that it was the only “inclusive” platform, prepared to accept that people would (and should) have a range of ideas and ideological positions. I have thought from the beginning that LU must become a broad left party and frankly, if that doesn’t happen, we might as well pack up and go home now, as the chances of converting a majority of British people to Socialism with a capital S in the forseeable future are zero. And this isn’t pessimism, it’s reality.
The whole point of a broad left approach is that everyone is able to put their views forward and no-one is excluded, so it’s the most democratic way of doing things. The other platforms would inevitably exclude those who disagree with their policies and approach from having any influence. They already know what they think and aren’t prepared to be converted, but just want to convert others. If I’d wanted to join an explicitly Marxist/revolutionary party, I would have done so years ago and I’ve always operated on the understanding that I’ll work with anyone who’ll work with me, which has served me well so far.
The platforms exist, whether we like them or not and the high probability is that one of the competing models will be chosen by the majority of supporters. If it isn’t the Left Party Platform, I fear that LU will have no realistic hope of success, on any measure.
Cheers, Mike
Really liked this piece Micheline, and I share your concerns. When I first heard the idea of “platforms” mooted, I was against, and for the reasons you mention. When I heard that they were going to happen anyway, I was reassured somewhat by the open and democratic way in which it all happened. Since then, as someone else put it recently, I decided that “if you can’t beat them, join one”. However, I think I’m right in saying that this decision to allow platforms was taken by an NCG meeting – not unreasonably, given the NCG’s democratic mandate, and I’m not against the decision. But I would support the decision being revisited at a national conference. All the best, Stuart
The Manifesto Group can’t be considered a platform. Platforms need ten supporters. The Manifesto Group has only one, although he apparently owns two hats. I propose people stop taking it in the slightest bit seriously unless David can actually rustle up nine other people to support him. (Preferably with different IP ranges. Just saying, like).
Away from that particular issue though, I sympathise with what the OP is saying, but not so much with the proposed solution. We should have OMOV at the core of how we operate. But, actually, going down the “local motions for local people” route moves away from that. It says that any two people have more of a say in LU if they live in the same place. Decentralisation is a good thing, LU branches running as if they were isolated islands isn’t.
I’d like to suggest another solution. Abolish all special privileges/rights for both platforms and caucuses. Work on massively improving the means for individual LU members to communicate with each other online. Allow any motion with a specific number of individual supporters to be put forward.
Hi all
At our local Huddersfield meeting this week all of us shared Micheline’s concerns which I think are widespread across LU.
To sum it up: there is a clear danger that the current Platforms will become in effect permanent, dominating the internal life of our new party, competing for positions, engaging in an endless round of polemics, resolution passing, hair-splitting debates conducted in the ‘special language codes’ of the far left, an unhealthy obsession with purist posturing and endless ‘interventions’. All aimed at furthering the position of the platform and not building LU (or whatever we end up being called).
Please also bear in mind that as far as I can see there are also already some small groups of what I (and I know many others would consider to be) ultra-left wannabe Lenininist Vanguard parties ‘intervening’ in an organised way. These are made up of disciplined, highly organised hyper-activists who will relentlessly concentrate on building their grouplets within LU if the internal constitution allows them to do so.
In other words our wholly reasonable and rational concern is that the direction of travel of the current Platforms will create the very sort of sectarian ultra-left politics that I hope and assume the vast majority of us have got involved with LU to avoid.
So I agree with Micheline that while in the longer term it is clearly right that groups with a common interest on say the ecological crisis, education, disability rights or whatever should have the right to form caucuses to positively change policy and the direction of the party, this is not the same as permanently competing factions/platforms.
That said, I think John Penney is right to say that in this peculiar, short-term phase of setting up the party at least the existence of platforms will allow supporters to know who and what they are voting for. Like Mike Scott I have after much thought decided to support the Left party Platform because it is closest to my personal vision of a pluralistic, broad-based, non-sectarian party of the radical left, rather than a more narrow ‘socialist party’.
But after the November conference the whole nature of our internal politics should surely be focussed on the real tasks that have brought us together, that is:
– build a party to the left of Labour with roots in our communities, trade unions, local cooperatives and radical campaign groups which stands in elections and voices the concerns of ordinary people
– help focus and voice the opposition to austerity, privatisation, poverty and inequality
– act as a place where a new programme of the left is debated and developed that is relevant to our times and not that of 1917 or the inter-war years (and yes, that may mean using a new language if necessary, being less concerned with utopian policy pronouncements and opposing everything, and instead drawing up innovative and practical policies that will inspire people.
– and eventually, gain a mandate to govern and put these words and ideas into action
The question to my mind is: will the current style of platform politics promote or hinder this?
Best
Richard
PS Micheline and others, I’m one of the convenors for the internal democracy commission and would urge you to look at the stuff on this website and comment.
When I first heard of the platforms proposal I was completely on board. The organisation needs to be pluralist and have, as part of its DNA, the idea that it contains a range of views and ideas – rather than the tired monotheism of some hard left organisations we’ve seen on the UK left.
It seemed a, dare I say it, “normal” way of doing things comparable to other parties, like Labour, who have Progress, Compass, the LRC et al.
However, I hadn’t real thought about the consequence of giving these platforms a privileged voice in the organisation and I think we’re lucky to have tried this experiment before the launch rather than at it.
Echoing what others have said here I’m not convinced the platform debate (which as a shorthand I’ll charactature as broad left vs socialist party) reflects the discussion most members are having which, roughly, appears to be “what should we be doing to be most effective”. I’m worried that the mechanism we’ve invented will result in a national level debate dominated by platforms which is fairly far removed from those who have joined in their local areas.
Yes, we should have the freedom to form affinity groups, platforms, whatever you want to call them – but in hindsight I don’t think they should have the right to move motions etc. except in the way that every other member has. I don’t want to see a situation where members of platforms have more access to our democracy than those who choose not to be.
Good clarifying post Richard. This is indeed a special period in our party formation. A period in which we can either fail to achieve political liftoff because interminable political posturing/infighting amongst the initial founding grouplets simply leaves us stillborn , or we achieve a sizeable enough consensus to build something radical and new.
I suspect that if the November Conference overwhelmingly sets us on a path to building a broadly-based radical Left party (as opposed to yet another “revolutionery socialist party” )with the key short and medium term objectives you correctly outline in your post, that our future growth path – towards recruiting lots of ordinary working people outside of the tiny revolutionary sect “hothouse bubble” , will become much easier.
At present it is inevitably “open house” for every sect ,and individual (with sometimes very marginal theoretical/political views) to “strut their stuff” in the at present highly competitive ideological market place for Left Unity’s “soul”.
Hi Richard
I find your comments a bit removed from reality.
>To sum it up: there is a clear danger that the current Platforms will become in effect permanent, dominating the internal life of our new party
Is this Professor Alex Callinicos speaking?
Seriously, though: the problem of far left are its monolithic, bureaucratic, anti-democratic organisational norms. Most of them follow the model of the Russian Communist Party of 1921, when a ban on factions was imposed and stifled democratic life in the party.
More recently, we’ve seen the war that the SWP leadership has been waging on dissenters in the party following rape allegations against ‘Comrade Delta’ Martin Smith. This event brought all the very serious democratic deficits of the SWP to the fore – including the question of permanent factions.
Without factions that enjoy full democratic rights (their own literature, etc), those who chose to remain in the SWP have few means of openly rebelling against the leadership clique and replacing it.
Now you’re trying to tell us that you want to do better than the ‘ultra-left Leninist Vanguard’ by banning platforms? You must be joking.
You say,
“Please also bear in mind that as far as I can see there are also already some small groups of what I (and I know many others would consider to be) ultra-left wannabe Lenininist Vanguard parties ‘intervening’ in an organised way.”
There is nothing sinister about this. People caucus and organise around shared ideas and try to advocate these ideas to others – it’s human and it’s called politics. This organisation is called Left Unity, a name that – you would have thought – attract the existing left before attracting the masses.
We have a “one member, one vote” system – this means that no organisations receive automatic privileges. I consider this a good thing. But this doesn’t mean that people are not allowed to advocate their ideas collectively. What are you suggesting to enforce your policy? Gatekeepers? Neo-McCarthyism?
“In other words our wholly reasonable and rational concern is that the direction of travel of the current Platforms will create the very sort of sectarian ultra-left politics that I hope and assume the vast majority of us have got involved with LU to avoid.”
If what you call “sectarian ultra-left politics” wins the majority, it will dominate the party. If it doesn’t, it won’t. Simple.
Everything else you write – your list of what the party ‘should’ be like – is your personal opinion. For what it’s worth, I remember the initiator, Ken Loach, arguing that Left Unity should be explicitly socialist – and I agree with him.
While I appreciate that ‘ultra-left politics’ might not suit you personally, Richard, I don’t think you’ll ever find the monolithic party you’re looking for. If you don’t allow platforms to argue openly, they will still exist, but they will operate in secret. Is that what you want?
Hi Maciej
Who is Professor Alex Callinicos? – is he a stand up comedian? or to get the joke do you need to know a special language code?
I can see why you might think that an organisation such as the SWP would need organised factions with “full democratic rights”. In these vanguard democratic centralist parties (with the emphasis on the centralist) members need to feel that they can organise in order to challenge the policies set by the unchanging leadership. I would hope that LU will have structures that facilitate actual democracy in a less polarised manner, where every member has equal voting rights with every other. Perhaps we could say that if a group of people, a caucus if you like, have formulated a motion or position and want it considered by the party then it could be put up on the LU website and local branches could be asked to consider it at their meeting. I would have thought that if not one branch passes it, then the position would be unlikely to be passed by LU as a whole, but at least the issue would have been raised and discussed. Like Jim, I am unhappy about groups having any special privileges.
On your other points:
As for Ken Loach saying he thinks it should be an explicitly socialist party – so what? I’ve met Ken, he’s a great bloke and when he gave his personal opinion of the sort of party he wants he did this as an ordinary member, and also said he didn’t want to be a guru.
You seem to suggest the people who are concerned about the effect of factional politics within LU want to stifle debate but I think the concern is to encourage a different more positive sort of debate. Debate is important but what we don’t want to see is permanent factions developing in LU which mean that people behave as if they are in different left parties, point scoring and arguing about the Russian Communist Party of 1921 instead of looking at important issues, the best way to develop policy and take the party forward to win victories against capitalism.
The problems I can see with needing motions to be supported by individual branches, as opposed to a certain number of members, are as follows.
1. It can lead to disenfranchisement of people who are out of step with the local branch. Let’s say that there’s a branch where the majority are supporters of the Socialist Platform, but a handful of individuals are supporters of the Left Party Platform. (Or the other way around). Assuming that the majority mostly vote the same way on issues, that individual is entirely left out of any possibility of proposing motions, even if there’s a lot of support in LU as a whole.
2. It positively encourages groups to split. Say there’s a hypothetical group with twenty members. Eight want to put forward a specific motion, twelve are against it. The minority are best off forming a new branch, which means they can then put their motion up to vote.
3. There will be problems with certain places having more branches then others and hence a disproportionate say. London is the obvious example, but it’s not the only one.
By moving from platforms having special rights to branches having special rights, we’re just repeating the same pattern. No special rights for any collective grouping, whether caucuses, platforms or branches. OMOV for everything, starting from the individual member and moving upwards. And look properly into how to make decisions online.
Can we please get away from the ridiculous assumption that some people have made that the choice in November will be between a “broad left party” and a “socialist party”? In fact, it will be between a “broad left socialist party” and a “sectarian socialist party”. In BOTH cases, it will be socialist!
Also, while I’m having a moan, can those who disagree with observations – mine and others – please say what they disagree with and why, rather than ignoring the point completely and hoping no-one will notice! If they can’t/won’t do that, it’s pretty clear that they haven’t actually got any logical justification.
Cheers, Mike
Mike, agree totally with this and your previous post.
I understand the need for debate but the worry for me in the way the platform debate has been going so far is that it seems to be in danger of polarising people and is presenting a false choice. Are you a socialist or not? Which faction are you in? But is it not true that most of us who are involved in LU want a party that has policies that will challenge privatisation, austerity, big business etc. Surely in the end it will be our policies and actions that will win people over to socialist ideas and that’s what we should be concentrating on.
I completely understand Michelline’s very reasonable concerns but I don’t think she needs to worry too much.
Platforms are a way that members with a particular point of view can organise themselves so as to put forward that view in what they think is the most effective within the organisation. Such platforms may be temporary, as the current Left Party and Socialist Party platforms are, concerned with a particular issue for debate at a specific conference (I’d be surprised if we don’t have platforms arguing for different positions on the EU in the run up to a referendum, for example), or longer term – a pro pacifict or pro nuclear or explicitely revolutionary grouping, say. But there is always one permanent organised faction in the organisation – in any organisation – and that is the national leadership which operates the machinery of the party. Members must always have the right, within the limits or probity and comradely behaviour, to organise within the party to promote their views as they see fit, and for the time they feel appropriate, to make their voice heard on any aspect of the party’s policies or activities. Free debate is the lifeblood of a socialist organisation and ordinary members must always be able to challenge the views and actions of their leaders.
Unfortunately, the price we have to pay to ensure such free debate is that we are likely to have to put up with a few of purveyors of the old internecine sniping and abuse which has characterised and discredited the marginalised world of the far left sects over the years. But on the whole, as long as the rest of us keep reminding ourselves that we are comrades and that we are – this or that relatively minor disagreement apart – all on the same side, it’s a small price to pay
Re Prof Callinicos: how about using google or wikipedia?
Re Ken Loach: The reason I brought this up because people tend to present the Left Party platform argument for a ‘broad party’ as the real, original and only legitimate LU model, while depicting those who argue for an explicitly socialist party as wreckers, intruders, and sectarians out to subvert LU’s true essence. In truth, even those who initiated LU have expressed opposing ideas as to what party we need.
Re SWP: it isn’t apparent what you’re arguing here. The fact that the SWP does not allow permanent factions is part and parcel of its bureaucratic-centralist, unchanging leadership regime. If it permitted permanent factions with full democratic rights, i.e a real possibility for minorities to become majorities, it would cease to be a bureaucratic-centralist regime.
Left Unity needs such democratic practices no less than the SWP or any other party. Do you really believe that a pious verbal commitment to ‘democracy in a less polarised manner’, ‘a more positive sort of debate’, etc – which, by the way, are stock phrases of the SWP leadership – can substitute for these?
SWP members are only granted three months a year to get together in temporary factions and discuss perspectives – that’s three months more than you would grant them, but, as experience has shown, not enough to work out coherent alternatives to the leadership ‘line’. Professor Callinicos is well aware of this.
It’s not as if Left Unity is somehow immune to all the undemocratic pitfalls that beset other parties, including ‘Leninist’ ones, and I think you’re drawing an unfounded line of separation between LU and others. Individual SWP members do have ‘equal voting rights’, and branches have the right to put forward motions about this and that issue – but minorities have no real possibility to collectively argue for a more comprehensive change of perspective. What you’re advocating is a slightly less democratic centre-left version of the SWP.
We may be in agreement about not granting groups ‘special privileges’, though could you tell me what you mean precisely? As I already mentioned, I support ‘one member, one vote’.
Re: Russian Communist party in 1921 etc – I know that calls for collective memory loss are very popular these days, and it’s up to you whether you want to learn from history or not. The capitalist class you wish to win victories against knows its history – and ours – very well.
I believe Prof Alexi Callinicos aspires to be some kind of sit down comedian,definitely not stand up but sadly or thankfully has one few infact no awards for his comedy acts and routines.
I once went to a swp COMEDY NIGHT…mmmmmm………….the less said about that the better.
Has the Socialist Platform decided that it will cease to exist after the November conference? I have signed up to it, but have had no emails apart from one thanking me from joining. It has a meeting in London on Saturday 14 September (which clashes with a Left Unity meeting to discuss platforms of all things in Manchester) so I don’t know whether I’ll be able to make it.
I’ve also put out a Call for a Revolutionary Platform of Left Unity (http://www.revolutionaryplatformofleftunity.org) – we’re not yet an official platform but we have 2 more LU supporters than the Manifesto Group (I’ll soon promote the platform a lot more on Facebook) so I’d argue that we have as much right to be discussed. Some of the comments made above would be answered if revolutionary organisations got together within one platform (such as mine) and cooperated around shared goals rather than competed with each other with the main aim to recruit – which has plagued earlier broad socialist organisations (such as the Socialist Alliance, Respect and the Scottish Socialist Party before the split). Ironically for those arguing for lowest common denominator politics (essentially the Left Party Platform), that was the basis of those broad organisations.
The Revolutionary Platform has two advantages over the Socialist Platform (or three if the SP will be temporary) from my point of view, though it is similar in many ways. The RP is explicitly revolutionary (not just saying that capitalism has to be replaced by socialism without saying that that can’t be achieved by gradual reforms) and the RP also points to the possibility of a massive economic crisis (suggesting a second credit crunch) in the fairly near future, which would make the necessity of arguing for socialist revolution essential (rather than letting capitalist governments find some way out like with the 2007-8 credit crunch). Unlike the existing platforms, I don’t want us to be in a majority at the November conference, even if we could be, but being able to put forward motions and amendments would be useful.
There are 2 things I fundamentally disagree with in Micheline’s article. One is that she suggests that platforms are for people who already know each other. I can vouch for not knowing all of the people who initiated the Left Party platform and for hundreds more who have now signed up to it. the other is about caucuses. I think they are invaluable – and indeed have started to get one set up for disabled people, but they do not perform the role that platforms do. I didn’t know what platforms were initially, but now understand them to be a way of collecting around the principles one believes the party should stand for and operate from. Caucuses are ‘places of safety’ for people who share identity or experience, to develop their thinking around how the party and society might be improved to be more inclusive of them.