Socialism – or something less
The national meeting of supporters of the Left Unity project on Saturday 11 May 2013 was a significant step towards the formation of a new party, says Nick Wrack. Exactly what sort of party it will be still has to be decided.
Will it be an explicit socialist party, as Ken Loach clearly wants it to be, setting out its aim to create a new form of society based on the democratic, collective ownership of the wealth, natural resources and the means of production – factories, machinery, technology, transport? Or will it be some more vaguely defined ‘party of the left’, a social democratic party that limits its goals to fighting austerity and neo-liberalism but not fundamentally challenging capitalism, as others appear to want?
Will it accept the private ownership of the means of production, with production for profit, or will it fight for a society in which we can all participate in drawing up a democratic plan of production for need?
Now begins a serious period of debate and discussion, which is exactly what Ken Loach called for. So far, over 8,000 have responded to that call.
Such a debate, carried out in a rigorous but comradely manner would show those watching that we are serious about challenging the political status quo.
A serious debate on the nature of our society and how we want to change it would draw in many who are fed up with the existing way of things. Pointing the way forward to a society without exploitation, without rich and poor, in other words, without classes, could attract all those who want to fight for something different.
What is the party for?
Our new party cannot just be against things: against the cuts, against unemployment, against the destruction of the NHS, against tuition fees. It is very difficult to inspire people with a negative. It has to be for something.
A new party starts out with inevitable difficulties. It is small, weak, unknown. It has no purchase in the minds of the nation’s citizens. To begin to change that, the new party will have to be bold and confident in its ideas. In the first instance it will have to organise those who want to build a party against the odds; those with a vision that this new party can become a mass party, with the adherence of millions.
To inspire the pioneers, the party must have some clear guiding principles. Firstly, it must see its task as assisting the working-class in resisting the unprecedented attacks we see on every front. No other party is prepared to do this. Secondly, it must link the daily battles to the overall struggle for a new society, where there is no longer the need for such never-ending defensive battles.
The need for a new party that fights on behalf of and alongside working-class people, who face attacks on every front, is obvious. None of the existing parties represent the interests of the working class. Labour has abandoned any attempt to defend its traditional supporters. The working class is ignored, forgotten or taken for granted.
Perhaps the second point – the struggle for a new society – is less obvious. But so long as we have capitalism – the rule of the minority owning class – we will have exploitation and class division; we will have rich and poor, them and us. So long as we have capitalism we will have to defend what we have previously won. We will have to labour for others’ profit. That struggle will go on until we are able to change things fundamentally.
The Greek king Sisyphus was condemned by the gods to roll a huge boulder up a hill every day, only for it to roll back down when he neared the top, forcing him to begin again each sunrise. Our task is to push the boulder over the top; to build a party that is an integral part of the working class and which aims to assist the working class to become the ruling class, in getting rid of capitalism and of laying the basis for a new stage in human existence, where every individual can develop to their fullest potential.
So, those of us who have taken up the challenge have our work cut out. Our goal is nothing less than the transformation of the way the world is run. It will not be easy or quick. It will take patience and hard work. But the rewards will be wonderful. There is no short-term quick-fix.
Our ideas may be a minority at the moment, but with confidence we can persuade a majority. By being involved in every aspect of working-class life and struggle – at work, in the community, at college, in retirement, in culture and sports – we can show that our party is worthy of support. Linking that daily struggle to the cause of socialism can only strengthen its appeal.
The 11 May meeting
With a sense of history, Pete Green from Hackney made the first intervention from the floor of the meeting to insist that the minutes of the event were taken. He was right. Hopefully we can look back at this meeting as being the first of many steps in the right direction.
The meeting itself was a lively, if at times chaotic, affair. The excitement and expectation of the hundred or so people who attended was palpable from the start. It was very encouraging to see people from all over the country, determined to help bring a new party into being.
The meeting had been billed as a ‘get-together’, giving people from the new local groups an opportunity to meet one another and begin the discussion. The first session showed how important this was, with people giving reports of their own group and what they wanted to see.
Understandably, some expressed concerns or fears about the involvement of the various existing left-wing groups. Many bear the scars of previous attempts to forge an alternative to Labour that have been undermined or wrecked by the actions of one or other of the socialist organisations. However, with only a few exceptions, no one suggested that the socialist groups should be barred from joining. It was clear that the overwhelming feeling was that the new party had to be based on individual membership, rather than a federation of the existing groups.
I have argued this position in many articles. I am in favour of the party being based on individual membership. At the same time, whilst understanding the reservations expressed by some about the involvement of the existing left groups, I believe that we should welcome their involvement. They should join as individuals, however, just like everyone else. They should have, like everyone else, the right to caucus, to organise platforms and to try to win support for their positions. What they can’t expect is special treatment and seats on leadership bodies just because they are an existing left-wing group. Their contribution to building the new party through their activity and constructive criticism will be the yardstick by how they are measured, just like every other member.
No votes
There have been quite a few reports of the meeting in which the details of the day’s events have been described. Suffice it say, here, that the procedural motion from me and Simon Hardy that no votes be taken on political statements, resolutions or amendments was passed by an absolute majority: 51 in favour, 36 against and 12 abstentions.
This reflected a very healthy attitude to the democratic process. It was unclear exactly who was at the meeting. Some were elected representatives of local groups. Others were simply individuals, representing only themselves at this stage. Even the temporary coordinating committee, of which I was a member, did not really have a democratic mandate, having been proposed at a meeting of about thirty people in London which was not very widely advertised.
The meeting asserted itself in this very decisive way, recognising the weak mandate of those in attendance, and decided to postpone any decision on the political documents until there has been a thorough democratic process of debate and discussion in every group, and involving as many of the 8,000 signatories as possible. In overturning the proposal to move prematurely to votes the meeting took ownership of the meeting, and began the important process of changing the Left Unity project from the property of a few individuals into something owned by all those who have signed up.
The other problem that the meeting acknowledged in taking this decision was that most of the documents were only made available to people when they got to the meeting. Only Kate Hudson’s statement had been sent out well in advance. My own statement and resolution were posted on the google list for local group organisers on Wednesday 8 May. This meant that no group had been able to discuss all of the documents; most had not discussed any.
The problem was compounded by the decision of the coordinating committee at its meeting of Thursday 9 May to oppose, by eight votes to six with one abstention, my proposal that all the resolutions, statements and amendments should be posted on the Left Unity website so that everyone would have at least some advance notice of what was proposed for discussion. We really do have to live up to the calls for transparency and openness.
In the debate on the procedural motion, there was some complaint that it had only been sent out at half past midnight on the morning of the meeting. Whilst correct, this missed the point that this still gave everyone present more notice of its existence than they had of the 22 political statements and amendments that they received when they arrived just before midday. We had to write it without having the benefit of knowing what was in the documents that individuals and groups had submitted, as these were not made available in advance.
In motivating the procedural motion I made it clear that we were not trying to prevent any discussion. Rather, we were in favour of beginning the debate at the meeting, with people moving their proposals and then, without taking votes, taking the documents back to the local groups for full consideration by everyone.
It was disappointing that some on the outgoing coordinating committee tried to insist on votes being taken, as this would have produced an even more chaotic meeting, with few being able to follow debates on documents they had had no time to consider in advance. It would have been impossible for all the documents to have been discussed properly, with due regard paid to each of them.
Elections
There was then a debate on the method of electing a new coordinating committee. The proposal for local groups with at least five members to elect one representative each, together with the election of ten members directly from the meeting, proved relatively uncontroversial. Terry Conway, from the chair, clarified that those newly elected to the coordinating committee would be in place until the next national meeting in September.
There was a short debate on a third clause to the proposal, that ‘those 10 to comprise at least 50% women’. I voted against this for the reasons outlined in the debate by Soraya Lawrence from Southwark. We are all conscious of the oppression of women in society and their underrepresentation in leadership positions in labour movement organisations. But quotas do not begin to address the reasons for this underrepresentation and can be counter-productive. Being elected onto a committee simply by reason of being a woman can undermine one’s credibility and is patronizing, she argued. There are plenty of capable women who don’t require quotas to get elected. If quotas for women, why not also for black members or other groups? The requirement could mean that in some circumstances a young working-class black male activist, for example, could lose out to a middle-class white woman. It would require a constitution of baroque complexity to do justice to all with this approach.
The best way to deal with this complex issue is to take practical steps to ensure that everyone is able to participate in meetings and is encouraged to stand for positions. A membership that recognises the obstacles placed in the way of women activists is a pre-requisite. As it transpired, six of the ten elected were women, making the clause somewhat redundant.
The debate illustrated that there are many issues that we have to discuss. And not all of them have easy answers. They need to be discussed and debated in a comradely fashion. I hope that we can continue to debate this particular issue without accusations of sexism or of ignoring the issue of women’s oppression being leveled.
Individual membership
There was then a proposal from Huddersfield that ‘significant decisions regarding the structure and policy of a new party should be made by party members on a one member one vote basis’. Essentially, this was seen by the meeting of encapsulating the principle of individual membership and it was overwhelmingly carried.
I am in favour of individual membership. However, because the formulation was ambiguous I spoke and voted against it. I agree with much of the motivation behind the motion, as contained in the written documents. But it also seemed to be arguing for a referendum or plebiscite of all members to be carried out through the post or internet. This would undermine any collective discussion and decision making, which should take place in meetings where all views can be put forward. Again, the debate showed the importance of having time to discuss crucial issues like this fully.
The founding conference
Finally, there was a vote on when the founding conference should be held. The fact that no-one opposed the idea of a founding conference was important. The meeting appeared unanimous in the belief that we need to set up a new party.
There had been agreement at the outgoing coordinating committee to propose that the founding conference should be held in 2014, to give sufficient time for the necessary debates and pre-conference process – statements, resolutions and amendments – to unfold.
Unfortunately, when called upon to motivate this proposal Andrew Burgin spoke to the content of Kate Hudson’s statement, which was not now going to be voted on, rather than explaining the reasons for a conference in 2014. There was no discussion. Without hearing the arguments for the more extended timetable, the understandable impatience for the new party won the day and it was agreed that the founding conference will be held in November this year. Again, the agenda time-table proved to be optimistic, to put it mildly, and an important decision was rushed at the very end of the day. It would have been far better if more time had been allowed for the democratic discussion to develop at a more reasonable pace.
In my opinion, it will be almost impossible to meet this timetable and to include everyone in the pre-conference process. But we’ll now have to ensure that we do.
Our main task now is to find a way to involve all those who have responded to Ken Loach’s call for a discussion about a new party in that very discussion. This means allowing time for the groups to develop. In many places we have no group. In other places they are only just now getting off the ground. This is not surprising. Only nine weeks had passed since Ken’s appeal was posted on 17 March.
With the founding conference now set for November, we have to ensure that the debates in the groups must be as open and democratic as possible, with all opinions given space. A key part of that debate will be about the core values at the heart of the new party.
It is disappointing that the conference documents still do not appear to have been posted on the Left Unity website. Nor have the minutes of the 11 May meeting or of the coordinating committee.
The new coordinating committee, which means both constituent parts – the local group representatives and the ten elected from conference – now have the important responsibility of ensuring that the debate takes place and that it is democratic and transparent. Local groups have to be set up and nurtured. All those who have signed up to join the debate must be involved. It is important that the local groups and individual members take control of the process.
Let’s start the debate.
25 comments
25 responses to “Socialism – or something less”
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.
Saturday 30th November: National March for Palestine
End the Genocide – Stop Arming Israel
Hands Off Lebanon – Don’t Attack Iran
Assemble 12 noon – central London
More details here
More events »
GET UPDATES
Sign up to the Left Unity email newsletter.
CAMPAIGNING MATERIALS
Get the latest Left Unity resources.
http://leeshaker.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/08/Gender-Inequality-in-Deliberative-Participation-APSR-2012.pdf
An interesting piece of research. Participation is affected by proportionate numbers of women, but also by the procedural rules of the debate. Obviously, there have been criticism of consensus decision making eg
http://www.jofreeman.com/joreen/tyranny.html
The experience of decision making in Occupy might be informative
http://stirtoaction.com/everyday-revolutions-marina-sitrin/
An article about Argentina and horizontal decision making
This needs a lot of considered discussion. It is a complex area
To function democratically, a party not only needs procedures that foster democratic participation, but mutual trust between members that others will not trample on their democratic rights.
Inevitably, some people will have more power than others and will be in a position to take unilateral action. This will apply in particular to those who work full-time for the party in its office. Democracy is never pure and the only means of control is a democratic culture in the party, so that procedures to deal with misdemeanours are never or rarely used.
It also has to be accepted that it possible to change the party and its policies. Otherwise, the democracy of the party will have no meaning.
In the light of this, you have to wonder why Nick Wrack has such a huge hang-up about the statement written by Kate Hudson. It won’t be the ten commandments, set in stone, even if it is adopted. It can be amended by the party as and when it sees the need to do so.
And it isn’t “social democratic”. I’m not sure there is even such a thing as a “social democratic programme”: there is the old maximum-minimum programme that the social democratic parties adopted, but you don’t have to be such a party in order to have the max-min programme.
The essence of social democracy is not its programme. Until 1994, the Labour Party had Clause 4 – a pretty “advanced” statement of objectives – at least compatible with socialism. The point is, they didn’t do anything about their programme. Furthermore, they were structurally incapable of doing anything about it, because they are tied to the trades union bureaucracy, who set up the party, and to capitalist institutions, locally, nationally and internationally. That is what makes a party social democratic, not what it says.
That doesn’t look like a description of the Left Unity, whatever one of the proffered programmes it adopts. So let’s talk about policies. Nick says it isn’t good enough to be against austerity, racism, sexism, etc., as if the left has never had any positive policies to offer in their place. It actually has hundreds of positive policies and these are the things that need to be decided on relatively quickly, as they will inform the public profile and campaigning activity of the party. Proclaiming oneself in favour of socialism, or making the working class the ruling class, which appears to be what Nick advocates as a positive response to austerity etc. (see the section headed “What is the party for”, above) doesn’t really do the job.
I also think that for a “broad party of the left”, there is a real debate to be had about whether it is even right for the party to define itself as socialist. I know there are people, who want the party to have a full revolutionary (socialist) programme, with smashing the capitalist state, soviets and workers’ militias etc. However I think that most LU members think that adopting such positions will be an obstacle to uniting those who want a political party to fight austerity, imperialism, racism, sexism and ecological destruction. For those people, it is at least worth us acknowledging that the word socialism is somewhat discredited and may also be an obstacle for Left Unity.
I’m not decided on that question myself (horror of horrors). I don’t think either side of the debate should assume that “it’s obvious what the right answer is”. They should try to convince and not denounce or caricature.
I want to chip in on the first part of your article, namely, “Will it be an explicit socialist party?” and suggest that no, no it should not, if we want to be a mass movement party.
Why? The brand of “socialism” is toxic outside Latin America. Most people in England wrongly confuse it with communism, and believe they understand it as, that thing that died with the Berlin wall. The very word switches on people’s shields the same way a Jehova’s Witness might. It implies a history lesson, and is laughable.
I believe, simply, that if we want Left Unity to be a mass movement party, we need to create fresh brand that sheds the baggage of the past. That’s why I support the call of the magazine Adbusters for the birth of a new Blue-Green-Black hybrid party. To engage new and different kinds people, make them curious and avoid “oh no not this again” we must shed the red.
I won’t accept anything less than socialism. Anything else is liberalism or something equally as bad.
“I believe, simply, that if we want Left Unity to be a mass movement party, we need to create fresh brand that sheds the baggage of the past”.
In which case, you can forget it. No socialism, no party. You may as well go and join the Pirate Party.
I think Nick was right to propose our not putting ‘the statement’ to the vote or distribute it widely. There was no time to consider and debate it – of course it could be changed subsequently but why issue something when it has not even been seen by the vast majority of the people under the banner on which its written? Just not sensible surely? Or polite? Issuing something on the website puts it in the public domain: let’s debate it in-house first. Good call Nick.
Although I personally agree with David re the dialetic we should adopt, I look forward to the debate about what our principles are and will feel good to see them published to the world when we have ‘agreed’ them.
I would ask the question about the way we are going to progress to agreement of the statement, but I expect the new exec will get to that. Could I just suggest that a ‘skills and free time’ inventory be called? There must, for example, be professional project managers in our ranks who could help the exec formulate and publish a task schedule / roadmap. We all get the benefits of specialism, the efficiency you tend to get when you’ve done a thing many times before and added assurance for all involved, that things will be done well / are well resourced. Our own civil service? Economists? Chairpeople? Marketing / Communications, Charity sector specialists, housing, environmental experts…
ATB, Gerry
It would be helpful when posting links to give some insight into their content and how it relates to the thread in which they are posted. Out of the three links above, one refers to yet more links and one is not available. In my view it is pointless and lazy simply to refer readers to the words of others – what I want is to read what YOU have to say about the topic, and then maybe the use of links to reinforce or develop your argument is more palatable.
I am not comfortable with the requirement for the Co-ordinating Committee to comprise at least 50% women, for the simple reason that it’s a dangerous precedent to single out one demographic group for pre-selection, thus opening up the possibility of pressure in the future to select on other grounds.
I fully support the principle of one member one vote and I hope this will include members of other political organisations, always assuming said organisations will allow their members to two-time them on a temporary basis. It’s early days and I understand that many people, including political newbies like myself, will want or need to be circumspect in their approach to LU and it will be up to the other members to help them to feel that LU is the right conduit for their political expression.
David Stoker wants to shed the red? He wants Left Unity to be an amalgamation of the green and the blue? That is interesting.
Call me old fashioned, but I don’t think there is anything left about dumping socialism and lowering the scarlet standard in order to adopt the non-socialist world of the greens and the explicitly anti-socialist colour of right-wing conservatives.
As for David’s call for a mass movement that opposes socialism…. Hitler and Mussolini said the exact same thing. Left Unity is by definition a socialist organisation. That is what Ken Loach called for and if that cornerstone of Left Unity is to be dropped, then the 8,000 signatories to Ken’s statement have been conned, and they will have to look elsewhere. Maybe TUSC could be refounded to give them a home.
Within the left there is room for considerable disagreement as to what we mean by socialism. I don’t have a problem with that. FYI, David Stoker, your contrasting of socialism is wrong, or misleading. In the Critique of the Gotha Programme (upon which Lenin leant heavily in State and Revolution and elsewhere), Marx referred to socialism as the lower stage of communism. The Stalinist states that went by the name of communism were monstrosities. Left Unity needs to embrace those who adopt a variety of positions on what was and was not positive in the states, because while they are not what socialists want, liberal democracies are far from being the wonderful alternative that the right-wing of Left Unity and Tony Blair think they are.
I do not believe there is a substantial difference between the positions of the Socialist Party and the SWP on the question of the Stalinist states, although most if not all members of both organisations would probably take issue with me on that. The SWP and SP employ the different terms when referring to these states: state capitalism and degenerated/deformed workers states. The best of both positions can be found in Trotsky. If many Left Unity comrades are deaf to the ideas of Trotsky, or other Marxists, that is fine. Good luck to them. But that won’t stop others defending his ideas along with the ideas of Marx, Engels, Luxemburg, Lenin, Gramsci and a long list of others.
Those who share the politics of the centrists (Karl Kautsky, for example), the centrists who were polemically savaged by Luxemburg, Gramsci et al should be free to make their case inside Left Unity. Marxists could not stop them doing that even if we wanted to. What these centrists cannot be allowed to do is to gag Marxists, or to expel us. Unfortunately, many of them insist on their right to do precisely that.
In addition to the Kautsky type centrists, we also have those who are far to the right of the centrists: Left Unity’s Bernstein wing. These comrades post here all the time demanding that Left Unity rejects unity. They also say it should not be anti-capitalist. A few of them want to abandon the idea that Left Unity is even part of the left. And some of those want to attack the very word ‘socialist’, enthusiastically embracing the deep blue colours of conservatives and even the far right. Any ‘mass movement’ based on what these people want will be a thoroughly negative force in politics.
Left Unity does have to be debate how to meet our potential voters half way. Doing that requires moving from beyond principles (anti-capitalism, genuine unity of our class) to the terrain of strategy and tactics. Socialism cannot be imposed on the majority. So, do most workers want the lower or higher stage of communism? Even if they wanted they higher stage that is not on offer for several generations after we reach the first, so that is a meaningless question. Do the majority of workers want the lower stage of communism: socialism? Absolutely not. Must Left Unity bar everyone who is opposed to socialism? It is too late to keep them out. The best of such people want left unity with those who do fight for socialism. Camaraderie between us all enables us to debate these questions fraternally. I am up for that if they are.
But many of the non-socialists are not up for any kind of rational debate. They want to purge all those of us committed to socialism. Such a policy would would keep Ken Loach out. Good luck with that plan, ‘comrades’.
However, Left Unity can unite those who remain agnostic towards the possibility of socialism (that subsection of non-socialists who adopt a non-sectarian attitude towards socialists) with the rest of us. Together we must all draw up a platform that will pile on votes. We can do this by relating to what a significant section of our class thinks is both possible, desirable and entirely justified in the short to medium term. Such a set of policies will set us apart from Ed Miliband, Alex Salmond, not to mention the Tories, Lib Dems and UKIP.
The demands I believe Left Unity must present to the voters are those modeled on what Trotsky called the transitional method. Such demands provide socialists with a bridge between the consciousnesses of the majority of the exploited and oppressed today and the socialist consciousness of tomorrow.
We can all debate what exactly those demands should be. We will not all agree. We will all lose votes on this. However, Left Unity can only go forward by means of majority votes that impose limits on what the minority can do. Those who reject this democratic approach are by definition opposed to genuine Left Unity.
“FYI, David Stoker, your contrasting of socialism is wrong, or misleading. In the Critique of the Gotha Programme (upon which Lenin leant heavily in State and Revolution and elsewhere), Marx referred to socialism as the lower stage of communism. The Stalinist states that went by the name of communism were monstrosities. ”
I refer back to my point, that the word Socialism implies a history lesson, which you’ve demonstrated wonderfully. It’s not a question of the history being wrong, it’s just excess baggage… which just like at the airport is expensive, but instead of expensive in money, it’s expensive in goodwill. We need to recognise the branding problem that socialism has if we are going to bring new people onto a new left project.
Mark’s point makes great sense to me:
“Mainstream politics has moved so far rightwards that a party of the Left that proposed a simple social-democratic programme with a populist appeal could well enjoy considerable success. An explicitly socialist anti-capitalist party won’t.”
On a related point, this article in the Independent is sobering. It suggests that 56 per cent think benefits are too high and stop people looking for work. http://www.independent.co.uk/voices/comment/austerity-has-hardened-the-nations-heart-8622568.html Does that sound like a country ready for socialism?
“Does that sound like a country ready for socialism?”
The whole point must be to make the country ready for socialism. This has never been achieved, but sooner or later we need to move on from capitalism, which is a quite recent phenomenon in the history of humanity.
It’s about having principles and convincing people, not about passively moving to the right until the upper class is satisfied.
Nick Wrack wants our new Left Party to be as left-wing as possible. Some of his co-thinkers are more explicit, they see the ‘reformism’ of a Left Party as simply a stepping stone towards a revolutionary party, aka the ‘United Front’ (their jargon, not mine).
I will be absolutely honest.
The first I see as a recipe for absolutely minimal success based on the experience of all the other attempts towards this, each of which Nick Wrack has been centrally involved in incidentally.
The second, again based on past experiences, results in a thoroughly parasitical presence. Some of these ‘revolutionaries’ (sic) may have changed the way they operate for the better battered by the experience of being in a Leninoid party, yet the rest of us are entirely justified to remain suspicious, the proof will be in the practice.
Mainstream politics has moved so far rightwards that a party of the Left that proposed a simple social-democratic programme with a populist appeal could well enjoy considerable success. An explicitly socialist anti-capitalist party won’t. At the same time people are thoroughly fed up with the political class, including on the Left our own version, the Leninoids and centralisers. Our ways of working should be fundamentally shaped by this, one member one vote, not delegates and blocs, maximum participation, organisation around horizontal not vertical structures.
These are key choices, there’s no pint at all ducking them.
Mark P
The whole point must be to make the country ready for socialism. This has never been achieved, but sooner or later we need to move on from capitalism, which is a quite recent phenomenon in the history of humanity.
It’s about having principles and convincing people, not about passively moving to the right until the upper class is satisfied.
“At the same time people are thoroughly fed up with the political class, including on the Left our own version, the Leninoids and centralisers. Our ways of working should be fundamentally shaped by this, one member one vote, not delegates and blocs, maximum participation, organisation around horizontal not vertical structures.
These are key choices, there’s no pint at all ducking them.”
Absolutely, the spirit of the age is for democratic horizontal organisation and decision making, this has been the keystone of all the new social meovements of the last twenty years, and young people especially would not(in my experience) accept anything less. Even a simple change in how a meeting is organised, a circle instead of a top table, a more inclusive format is often challenged by the old far left groups while many new to politics find it much more accessible. *Seeds for Change have a lot of material on this, though most is based on consensus decision making. Going by posts on LU(it may be different in the branches it seems that much of the 19th C left(descriptive term) really don’t want to move on and that L/U is just another vehicle for their teleological goal of a revolutionary party based on a model the rest of the world has rejected.*http://www.seedsforchange.org.uk/
Anti-capitalism or socialism is an evident part of striving for democratic horizontal organisation, since socialism is about being against the pyramid society.
really needs an edit button, even if just for five minutes like Socialist Unity’s blog.
Nick
The trouble with the word ‘socialism’ is that it can mean too much or alternatively, nothing at all.
In the mouth of Ed Miliband it is a mere confidence trick, as it has been for all the other Labour leaders elected from the ‘left’ but rapidly veering to the right, including Harold Wilson, and Neil Kinnock.
If, by socialism, you mean a system where the entire economy – ‘the means of production’ – is in the hands of a central state authority (even a democratic one) then I am not sure I agree with you. I am not even sure, by the way, that even Lenin would agree with you, not that I use him as my role model.
I AM sure that in order to achieve justice and equality for everyone, equality of opportunity and substantially greater equality of outcome (real incomes etc), we, the mass of the population have to take control of the economy from the small elite who run it in their own selfish, destructive interests now. Democratic control of the main levers of economic power, and of state, armed, power is desperately needed, both in Britain and in other countries around the world, to pursue the policies that can guarantee justice for the majority. Of course, there are dozens of other policies which we can campaign for on doorsteps, in workplaces, and in community campaigns that in themselves are worth fighting for and will be huge advances and improvements to people’s daily lives. I won’t list them here but we urgently need to start discussing and listing them as a party. But in the end it will come to taking power from the wealthy and powerful and democratising it. There is no other way, in my opinion.
However, I don’t think that requires the complete abandonment of basic market mechanisms in the distribution of goods. No central state plan can be devised to run the whole economy efficiently. Not only that, it would put TOO MUCH power in the hands of the state. I do not believe, either, that such a call could ever win over the mass of the population or even of the more narrowly defined ‘working class’. It just sounds authoritarian, if not totalitarian, and heavy and, frankly, dull.
We can support the ideas I have expressed and call them socialism if you wish, but it is not necessary for the word ‘socialism’ to be central to our name, or our constitution, emblazoned on a red flag with a fist, or a hammer. There is more than one way to skin a cat, as the saying goes.
My friend Tom, in his comments above, demonstrates very well how a party that wants to transform society in the future, and instill hope and idealism, can nonetheless sound stuck in a barely comprehensible cliched time warp that just makes most people’s eyes glaze over. It’s not that I disagree with everything he says at all. Quite the contrary, but the style is just so heavy handed, talking to a group of other lefts who know the jargon. It just sounds a bit comic really.
Still – its good to get on to what we stand for rather than discussing how we vote and who can join!
Looking forward to many fruitful and friendly debates.
When do I get to vote for Ray G to head our Politburo – and what about that hug?!
Ben
Not sure. I am thinking/trying to work out whether I can get to Doncaster for the next meeting as an observer, but I am not the actual delegate from Waltham Forest, let alone ‘politburo’ material!
“My friend Tom, in his comments above, demonstrates very well how a party that wants to transform society in the future, and instill hope and idealism, can nonetheless sound stuck in a barely comprehensible cliched time warp that just makes most people’s eyes glaze over. It’s not that I disagree with everything he says at all. Quite the contrary, but the style is just so heavy handed, talking to a group of other lefts who know the jargon. It just sounds a bit comic really.”
Could not agree more.
Tom I stuck with your piece and was rewarded this time.
“The demands I believe Left Unity must present to the voters are those modeled on what Trotsky called the transitional method. Such demands provide socialists with a bridge between the consciousnesses of the majority of the exploited and oppressed today and the socialist consciousness of tomorrow. We can all debate what exactly those demands should be. We will not all agree. We will all lose votes on this. However, Left Unity can only go forward by means of majority votes that impose limits on what the minority can do. Those who reject this democratic approach are by definition opposed to genuine Left Unity”
Right on and well said. The way I’ve always thought of this concept is the road to socialism: the metaphor poses a journey but there has not been enough focus on the first junctions – the ones in sight and the actions need to reach those – while there has been too much emphasis on the distant vista (some would say never-never land).
I see that you, David and Mark actually agree the point you seem to have at stake: David’s suggestions, as I understand it, are about the appropriate **dialectic** (he is not saying we are not socialists/communists) and are aimed at exactly what you propose – a bridging of the near achievable future and current consciousness with the distant future many can’t currently believe in / see as consistent with their thinking because they are understandably limited by contemporaneous consciousness. It’s a contemporary vocabulary addressing near distance, recognisable and achievable aims. No?
I’m thinking Bloch and his ‘Saxons without forests’. He clearly documents how the right and the facists used/exploited/motivated/empathised with peoples (cross class) aspirations for the future. ‘I’m a poor urban sod (lower middle or working) and I long for my own Brunhilde and tract of Forest – magic horns good to!’ Absurd but effective, because the underlying dream of betterment, paradise, secure habitat is not absurd. We need to talk to the aspirations – we can’t afford to be dogmatic. Bloch also documents how the communist party was partly responsible for being on shift and letting this happen through their failure to even recognise the ground on which the battle was being fought. Lets not make that mistake again.
We need to tap into contemporary consciousness and find the narrative and terminology that motivates to build the bridge you remind us of. I’m convinced we will find here basic urges to secure habitat, to see fairness, to let everyone into Glastonbury. We – probably everyone on this thread right? – born in the generous years after the Spirit of 45 and its subsequent benefits, are generous not revengeful, we see that things need to be better but don’t all feel we are “oppressed and exploited” – it’s more subtle than that isn’t it? We are all implicated – after all we have a vote, most of us in the UK/West are not starving. It needs work. I’m hoping to get a team of experienced communicators together to consider this issue and come up with some proposals for consideration/vote.
ATB, Gerry
Nick Wrack has focussed on the most meaningful Big Debate–not quite out in the open throughout LU– the 2 elephants in the room: A socialist organisation or something ‘more popular and easy to explain’? I thought a socialist organisation had to be created because no one is representing the interests of the working class today ( i.e. those who depend on selling their labour in order to live… that includes pensioners, students, unemployed, disabled, housewives all connected to dependence on wage-labour, directly or indirectly). I have never been in a Lefty organisation but I really thought that the above was the reason LU was created. And this central debate MUST come out in the open or, I fear, we have already started spinning off in all directions, bedroom tax here, environmental fight there etc… all ‘good’ campaigns but simply duplicating and adding to what already exists. We saw from the first national meeting, that a meeting/conference is only as good as its preparation and I would hope that debates between the ‘two white elephants’ can take place in locals so that the Founding Conference in November will not be a confused minestrone but that the locals would have thoroughly wrestled through the Fors and Againsts of the two sides, so that we know where to focus our research, our educationals and our actions. I welcome the the lively summaries on this site of the discussions in the towns and its also important ( by now!) to have the summary of the National meeting on the site and also the Motions and amendments we didnt have time to read on the day… and the resumee of ongoing provisional organising committee discussions. Thanks for reading!
Gary, I appreciate for your thoughtful bridge-building. Your point (copied below) is correct.
Thanks, DS.
“I see that you, David and Mark actually agree the point you seem to have at stake: David’s suggestions, as I understand it, are about the appropriate **dialectic** (he is not saying we are not socialists/communists) and are aimed at exactly what you propose – a bridging of the near achievable future and current consciousness with the distant future many can’t currently believe in / see as consistent with their thinking because they are understandably limited by contemporaneous consciousness. It’s a contemporary vocabulary addressing near distance, recognisable and achievable aims. No?”
A lot of people defending ancient ideas thet would have happened already if they found merit, I think. Like the Tories have continual internal strife – bui move towards where they want to be, the left has had continual stife and got nowhere. Some posts suggest the answer is to be more strident and fundemental. Wow!
“Some posts suggest the answer is to be more strident and fundamental.”
Don’t know about that, but we don’t need yet another party without principles corrupted by capitalism.
Those who speak about “a social democratic party that limits its goals to fighting austerity and neo-liberalism but not fundamentally challenging capitalism” must indeed be very strident and fundamental to believe it would work this time around.
BROKEN BRITISH POLITICS – BRITAIN IS A BROKEN DAM
Todays Britain is similar to a Cracked Dam in numerous places with successive Governments just using sticking plasters to stop the total collapse .The dam should have been fortified years ago but instead the easiest way out was to throw money at the problem .Osborne’s Austerity Measures proves that with the exception of Benefits which in real terms have gone backwards and will not save anything .£11.7 Billion is to be saved by Whitehall cuts – will we see a difference NO so why were they getting the money in the first place .The Americanisation of Britain began with Thatcher and Regan’s Special Relationship and has been implemented by American Criminals Unum and Fascist Smith .Government tries to portray Britain as a major player on the World Stage to us the Public but we are nothing but a Third World Country having virtually the same public standards.
http://brokenbritishpolitics.simplesite.com
I’d like to say something about women issue.
“There was a short debate on a third clause to the proposal, that ‘those 10 to comprise at least 50% women’. I voted against this for the reasons outlined in the debate by Soraya Lawrence from Southwark. We are all conscious of the oppression of women in society and their underrepresentation in leadership positions in labour movement organisations. But quotas do not begin to address the reasons for this underrepresentation and can be counter-productive.”
In fact quotas do not address the reasons of women underrepresentation, but at least address the results of these reasons. can be counter-productive? and if it is productive? To be conscious it’s not enough, we have to act! With this argument the working class shouldn’t have fought for the 8 working hours law as it doesn’t address the reasons of its exploitation!
“Being elected onto a committee simply by reason of being a woman can undermine one’s credibility and is patronizing, she argued. There are plenty of capable women who don’t require quotas to get elected. If quotas for women, why not also for black members or other groups?”
Women are not a group, they are an oppressed Majority, like the working class. So, to avoid the terrible risk that some women can be patronised, we prefer to continue men to be patronised by capitalism!!! Better to be patronised by capitalism than by comrades.
This anti-capitalism is very weak.
“The requirement could mean that in some circumstances a young working-class black male activist, for example, could lose out to a middle-class white woman. It would require a constitution of baroque complexity to do justice to all with this approach.”
There are very particular circumstances: you use positive adjective for the man: he is young, working-class black activist, and the woman is middle-class (which is an offence, of course), white and not activist. this is pure sexism and a very much capitalist kind of stereotype! What persons are you talking about? a sociologic description? this is pure ideology and of the worst kind.
“The best way to deal with this complex issue is to take practical steps to ensure that everyone is able to participate in meetings and is encouraged to stand for positions.”
I totally agree, in fact we have taken a practical step indeed.