Left Unity: a movement of the people
Ben McCall, of Doncaster, argues that Left Unity should develop as a movement for long term change, not a new party. It should have a set of simple principles, as suggested here. The Introduction below is an internal explanation of some of the thinking behind this approach and in part uses ‘our’ language – responding to the Left Party Platform statement – but is not intended to be used after this, as it is important not to prescribe, or limit the detail, at the start of a new dialogue with people not involved in politics at present.
Principles
Peace achieved by active solidarity, through non-violence, non-intervention and assertive diplomacy
Environmentally sustainable social, economic and cultural development
Equality of all humanity, in harmony with the natural world
Meeting the needs of children and helping them achieve their potential
Public ownership of all natural physical resources and collective ownership of almost everything else
To each according to need, from each according to ability.
Introduction
After the near-collapse of the global financial system in 2008, capitalism has proved to be tough as old boots. Neoliberal parties have won elections across Europe.
More importantly they have won the battle of ideas: the current ‘deficit’ is not the fault of capitalism but of incompetent regulators (bankers are ‘naturally’ greedy) inept and/or corrupt politicians; growth and consumerism remains the answer to most problems. Neoliberal capitalist ‘common sense’ is deeply rooted in the popular consciousness, even among the outright ‘losers’.
Organisations and parties to the left of Labour in England, rather than reaping the rewards of “I told you so”, have continued to be largely irrelevant to the working class they so desperately want to ‘lead’. Our most oppressed and excluded sisters and brothers have been among the least likely to respond to the left’s organisations, parties, campaigns and ‘offers of support and solidarity’ – and who can blame them? The ‘British’ left fails even to convince itself that its political practice is up to the challenge.
Across Europe, governments from centre-right to centre left and technocratic (equals centre-right) have pursued austerity policies, to attempt to reduce deficits. This has successfully reduced the public sector workforce, wages in all sectors and the scope of welfare. The shadow of poverty, hunger and early death, that many people have always faced in Europe, has fallen across the lives of many more citizens. At the same time, the super-rich’s incomes have soared, as has their tendency to hoard.
The environmental crisis is not a priority for most people. It should be – as should the attempts to monopolise global food production by huge companies like Monsanto – but the left in general still thinks, talks and acts as if this is a peripheral issue; whereas it provides the main evidence of the impossibility that global free-market competition can offer a future for humanity.
Most of the left still talk in the old clichés of “people fighting back” etc. – trying to lay a proxy claim to the uprisings in the streets and squares, workplaces, social and political institutions – striking, occupying, opposing state brutality and repression. Mainly involving new forms of organising and spontaneous informal alliances between diverse social and cultural groups, they have erupted in similar ways in different countries and continents. These unpredictable phenomena mark a new era in responses to situations in which, up to then, it has been difficult to imagine change.
Across Europe, new political parties have developed, drawing together a range of left groups: standing against neo-liberalism, posing political, social, cultural and economic alternatives. But even in a country as crisis-ridden as Greece, they have been unable to either get elected to government, or to lead more revolutionary change. At present, people do not support left ideas in large enough numbers anywhere in Europe, to effect a transformation in the economy, society or culture.
Many people find it easier to imagine the end of the world than the end of capitalism; with its values of ‘free’ markets, competition in all things and that violence, greed and selfishness are ‘human nature’. In order to even begin to move in a leftwards direction economically, capitalist common sense needs to be challenged and progressively defeated, socially and culturally.
What is needed is a movement of the people – not a party, initially at least – aiming for long term revolutionary change. A future world needs to be, must be and can be, profoundly different and better than this one. It will welcome members of all existing parties and none, who share our values.
In the short term, we need to learn deeply from past defeats of left ideas and practice, to inform the immediate defence of welfare, wages and the environment; but we must not burn ourselves out by ineffective activism. We need to patiently build for long term change and ‘start as we mean to go on’ by developing the kind of culture and communities that we want to see in the future. It will put the needs of children at its heart, in ways that do not restrain but strengthen the movement.
There is a huge gap between organised and unorganised labour, unpaid and not in paid work. Despite a lot of great work representing members, trade unions in the UK are a pale shadow of what they could be. Unions are failing to recruit three quarters of workers, despite nearly half being in unionised workplaces. A major challenge is to transform unions into being really representative, participatory and inclusive.
Movement of the people’s values include equality, co-operation and justice; environmentalist, internationalist and against all forms of discrimination. Our politics stand against war, oppression and exploitation. It will seek to gradually define – in theory and practice, in dialogue with people – what a future society could be like (that is very unlikely to be described in a single word: eg. ‘socialism’). It will seek to win-over all people to its values, but will initially prioritise those who currently do not vote, have ‘given up on politics’ or feel it is nothing to do with them and powerless to change things. In the poorest areas in England this is up to 90% of the population.
Its political practice will be democratic, diverse and inclusive; listening and learning, committed to open dialogue and new ways of working. It rejects the tedium and time-wasting of conventional political structures and their continuance of current dominations (gender, race and class, etc.). It will develop a political method that builds unity, acknowledging difference; rejecting the crude democracy of adversarial battles and voting, working through disagreements to achieve consensus. It will not sell papers, or give out leaflets; in fact a ‘paperless political movement’ is an inspiring prospect.
Motp will not stand in elections, until it has decided whether or not to become a party. In the meantime it will encourage its ‘members’ to campaign and vote for the candidate best placed to defeat Conservatism and parties of the right. Sometimes this will mean our members campaigning and voting for different parties. It will campaign for a full proportional representation voting system.
Economic transformation does not automatically bring an end to discrimination and injustice. These sites of struggle must be developed and won, openly and together. International solidarity is crucial to the success of any local or national movement and the achievement of any political progress. The problems we face in the UK are systemic problems that cannot be resolved in Britain alone, but require an international response and an international alternative, informed by local practice.
26 comments
26 responses to “Left Unity: a movement of the people”
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 21st June: End the Genocide – national march for Palestine
Join us to tell the government to end the genocide; stop arming Israel; and stop starving Gaza!
More details here
Summer University, 11-13 July, in Paris
Peace, planet, people: our common struggle
The EL’s annual summer university is taking place in Paris.
More events »
GET UPDATES
Sign up to the Left Unity email newsletter.
CAMPAIGNING MATERIALS
Get the latest Left Unity resources.
Overall, there’s a lot of this I agree with. I’ll mainly concentrate on the issues of dispute though.
On the practical scale, what’s the difference between what you’re proposing and a party? It almost comes across to me that the only difference is whether we call ourselves a party or not. I’m sure there must be more to it than that.
Absolutely no commitment to “non-violence” in the principles. Even if you’re only proposing it as a foreign policy, it will be used as a stick to beat us. If something like the poll tax riot was to happen again, we shouldn’t force ourselves into a position where we have to condemn it. It’s also going to alienate every single one of us from the direct action tradition of anti-fascism. (There’s a reason you don’t get a lot of pacifists involved in anti-fascist activity. It’s because pacifism has nothing to say when faced with an enemy that doesn’t play by the rules).
You’re absolutely right to point to the gap between the left and the working class. There hasn’t been an organic link between the left and the class for decades. However, we need to be honest. That is also the case for the hard anarchists and the ‘direct action movement’. Occupy, at best, achieved nothing but publicity in the UK. At worst, it degenerated into a haven for conspiracy theorists and people most of us would cross the road to avoid. It’s easy enough to point the finger at the trad left. It’s a lot harder to accept that most of the same criticisms apply to ourselves. But it’s necessary, if we’re going to escape from the lifestylist swamp.
At the moment, we really aren’t in a position to talk about long term revolutionary change seriously. We’re facing a situation where the working class has been repeatedly defeated, certainly since the 70’s. And we’re seeing further attacks. The immediate priority has to be to defend ourselves from that and then to try and reverse those attacks. Social transformation is great, but it’s not where we are. (We also need to show ourselves, through action, to be the best fighters on those issues. Without that, not only will the class not take us seriously, they’d be quite right not to).
I’m not in favour of standing in elections where we don’t have a good base of support already. However, that doesn’t mean we should just campaign for a vote to get the Tories out. That’s one of the leftist canards that needs discarding. First, you “Vote Labour to get the Tories out”, then it’s “Vote Labour to keep the Tories out”. It’s an absolute deadend. I don’t want to reinforce Labour. I want to challenge and even replace them.
As is consensus as a model for decision making. It’s alien to most people and can simply lead to stagnation as a small minority place a block on all meaningful action. When I talked about facing the fact that the direct action movement has also failed, this is precisely the kind of thing I mean. Other stuff that needs discarding: progressive stacks, drum circles and that stupid hand thing to signify agreement. Let’s start from a position that we should try to avoid looking like some kind of weird cult to outsiders.
What’s the point in banning leaflets/a paper? I’m not saying they’re all we need, but they’re as good a way of communicating as any. Admittedly, left papers are generally incredibly dull, but that’s a different issue.
Isn’t the movement already started the People’s Assembly? What about the programme of the People’s Charter? This is backed, albeit at this stage passively, by the TUC.
Britain does not at this stage, in my opinion, need another left party…
Ever heard of controlled opposition ?
?
Whilst being absolutely against the narrowing of Left Unity to an ‘almost revolutionary socialist’ position; which I think is the greater danger in the current discussion about how Left Unity should organise itself; I do feel that Ben’s statement takes things quite a bit too far in the opposite direction.
Some specifics being; what exactly is the ‘ineffective activism’ that threatens to ‘burn us out’? My knowledge of Doncaster is that activism has been on the contrary very effective in building a sustained anti-cuts current.
Voting for the anti-Conservative party. Well no. I’m not doing the ‘Vote Labour with No Illusions’ thing again. I will campaign for TUSC or a Left Green but not neoliberal Labour.
Anyway, I think we should be standing in elections as Left Unity sooner rather than later. The defining question I thought was posed by Ken Loach….”if I want to vote to defend the NHS who do I vote for”. Left Unity is potentially a very good answer to that question.
I am in favour of a party that does not soley define itself as Socialist but I think Socialism is a good place to start. Some of the traditional language of the left is outdated but actually ‘fighting back’ isn’t. I hear it quite a bit in different contexts; lets hear it more; not as another catechism but meaningfully in the campaigns and activity we are involved in.
As for organisation; yes horizontal, consensus, inclusive etc but we do need democracy, argument and structure too. Ben’s ideas sound ‘fluffy’ but I fear it would create a quagmire when it comes to actually getting anything done.
Absolutely right Ben to challenge some of the ways the left has worked. Why would we want to adopt those models when they are failing and far-left groups are in decline. But some principles do remain. Many of us are Socialists, most of us are activists, the whole point of LU is to create a political and electoral alternative to neo-liberalism.
Yes this is a long term project: if we ever get anywhere near the position that SYRIZA is in in Greece this initiative will have been a fantastic success: but ultimately we do have to discuss how society can be changed, how a majority can be won for that change, the role of the state, reform or revolution etc etc.
This should not however be at the core of our current discussions: we need to build a coherent organisation first; without such a Left Unity organisation these arguments are meaningless and should be left for the left-wing hobbyists and fantasists to ponder.
Creating a broad movement does not require the wholesale abandonment of past methods, organisation or ideas. We can use the bits that are meaningful and work. It is worth looking to the successful Left Parties in Europe: broadly Socialist and at their best active in communities, elections, trades unions and campaigns.
These are decent models for how Left Unity should develop and move forward.
When I read this it sounds to me like a pretty accurate diagnosis of everything that has been wrong with ‘the left’ – no party, no clear direction, scrabbling around voting for people we don’t entirely agree with because they’re the least worst alternative. The only problem is you seem to hold this up as an ideal, whereas I think of it as an intolerable situation we must end ASAP. If you’re looking for your ‘Movement of the people’ it really does seem to me that you are basically just looking for the current left, with all its failures and inadequacies, to just talk to each other a bit more and pretend they can work under a very loose umbrella. Which just doesn’t seem realistic to me.
What I’ll tentatively call the “Paul Mason line” you put forward in relation to the new revolutionary movements is in some ways quite persuasive, but ultimately I think it’s important we don’t shy away from judging it harshly. After all, “spontaneous alliances” are great if it means you can get together quickly and make it impossible for Mubarak or whoever to suppress you. But to see what becomes of spontaneous alliance in the absence of a clear political direction – indeed, a party – just look at the Egyptian presidential elections, where both the former regime minister and the Muslim Brotherhood candidate had former Tahrir protesters voting for them.
I feel proud to believe in a future socialist society, despite having no idea how it will take shape in reality. And part of working towards that goal inevitably involves recognising that we will never win the support of *all* the people as a precondition to effecting the revolution. Am I to persuade those who exploit me and repress me? We must not lose sight of our ideal – if we do it will never be achieved.
Precisely, but therefore why not build what is happening already – the People’s Assemblies? We need to build the movement, a massive movement. This will define the next step; whether we can reclaim Labour/push it leftwards, or whether there is enough impetus to build a new mass Party of Labour. This will come about from people wanting it, not just from a few thousand clicking ‘like’ on Facebook because it’s what they want. I just wanted to join the debate. Thanks.
This is a much toned down version of Ben’s usual Spontaneist extreme Anarchist position, but the underlying lack of realism still runs throughout . The worship of “spontaneity” of “militant action without an organising Party” is a completely bankrupt political strategy to achieve fundamental social change.
As another poster pointed out recently in response to another of Ben’s many anarchist-oriented articles rejecting the organised party form in favour of all sorts of “crowd-sourced” spontaneity, the recent revolutionary events in Egypt have demonstrated yet again the weakness of unorganised radical spontaneity. First the spontaneous activism of the crowds across Egypt overthrew Mubarak – only for the well-organised Muslim Brotherhood to elbow their way into power. Then the disorganised and divided anti Muslim Brotherhood crowds (15 MILLION strong !) took over the streets a few weeks ago to oust the incompetent, authoritarian, socially reactionary, Muslim Brotherhood – and who elbows their way back into power on the back of this spontaneous wave of activism ? The well organised Egyptian military, that’s who !
We, in the UK, as in Egypt, Greece, Spain, Portugal, etc. etc, desperately need well organised, radical, mass PARTIES , now, to link together and organise and cohere, around clear political objectives, the rising tide of anti austerity struggle – into a fight against capitalism itself. Romantic delusions about “crowd-sourced” decision making and unending spontaneity can only build the odd dead-end RIOT, not a long term political movement and fundamental social change.
I welcome Ben McCall’s contribution and also feel that one of the potentially refreshing developments in Left Unity is that people associated with different radical traditions are able to put their ideas forward… Left Unity does engage and involve people who identify with Anarchism, Marxism and a wide variety of other theoretical perspectives.
I would argue that Ben’s movement approach is exactly what we should be encouraging to develop as a component part of the People’s Assemblies –
I still feel that we do need to develop a party structure but that this too should be broad, open and inviting enough to continue to draw into active engagement people from a wide variety of perspectives. That is why I am attempting to launch a Platform around the name “People United”
which people can view on the Worcestershire Left Unity facebook page
https://www.facebook.com/notes/left-unity-worcestershire/people-united-platform-statement/362995620492767
The trick if we can pull it off in the coming months is to see if we can gain some agreement a our founding conference on a way forward that builds on what we all hold in common and not to fracture our tentative unity by concentrating on our differences.
John Penney’s analysis of the recent history of Eygpt’s mass movement may be valid… but the difficulty we face in this country is the absence of a mass movement – I look forward to the day when John can advise 15 million on the Streets of England on “the dangers of unorganised spontaneity”
The pressing problem we have is the fearful, suppressed, atomised and cynical disengagement of ordinary working class people… How to empower them to act is the question we face.
John – please pay attention.
You have confused Ben McCall from Doncaster with Ben from Kettering, the rather arrogant ‘internet domocracy’ bloke you have often crossed swords with on the blog.
Ben McCall is a different person entirely. You have made this mistake before.
Um, JohnP, you have your Ben’s mixed up… (You’re thinking of Ben Timberley’s articles).
Quite right Hoom, I did confuse the Bens – and not surprising at all because both Ben’s are arguing at root the same anti partyist – ” let’s just have an unstructured mass movement against austerity” strategy. We already have that – it’s happening all over the UK in large and small pockets of activity. But, as Marcr has already said to the crucial point made by Ken Loach:
….”if I want to vote to defend the NHS who do I vote for ?”.
To Abu Jamal’, complete non sequitur of ;
” I look forward to the day when John can advise 15 million on the Streets of England on “the dangers of unorganised spontaneity”
Well, Abu Jamal, whilst I agree it would be a nice problem to have to face in the UK ! The fact is that just as in Egypt, if millions of people in the UK did come out on the streets to express a generalised dissatisfaction with Austerity, without a radical Left party to channel that outrage, it will either lead to nothing at all concrete happening (like the Stop the War Movement), or will be channelled and used by unscrupulous alternative ORGANISED political forces like New Labour – or even the BNP !
a loose movement leaves that vital area of potential political power to New Labour or the Greens – or SNP or Plaid I think we need a more coherent and principled radical Left socialisdt party than asny of them.
John glad you took my comment about Egypt in the ‘humorous’ spirit it was intended but I am not sure it stands as a ‘complete non sequitur’- ie an irrelevance or a logical fallacy…
The number one issue we face is how to create from a very low base a mass movement in opposition to Austerity and of course you would agree that for this to happen we did to maximise the potential for Unity… initiatives like the Peoples Assembly seem the best way forward in this area. As is encouraging the self organisation of sections of the community hit hardest by the Ruling Class Offensive via promoting groups like DPAC, BARAC and encouraging the development of Community Unionism via initiatives like Unite’s new Community Membership structure.
The thorny problem does resolve around how to create a new Party – or in the case of this discussion thread whether we need a ‘Party’ or a ‘Movement’.
On the question of the need to form a ‘Party’ I am with you and in disagreement over Ben McCalls proposal for a Left Unity ‘Movement'[in the sense that I would imagine we all want a Movement and are doing our best to try to contribute to that] I feel we do need a ‘party’ to confront the issues of ‘political power’. How we proceed with this is the difficult problem.
Ben McCalls approach made me think about the experience in Italy in the aftermath of the wave of student rebellions and strikes of 1968/69… A huge new ‘movement’ arose which gravitated around the organisational focus of Lotta Continua… Here we were talking of an organised movement of 10,000s of people – Challenging the moribund Italian Communist Party to its Left – Lotta Continua was to implode in just a few short years and its activists scattered into many atoms. Some of them regrouped to form the nucleus of various Armed groups – the most famous of which were the Red Brigades. The failure of this extra parliamentary revolutionary movement supportive of autonomous and spontaneous action to make any ‘electoral’ challenges to the Status Quo using the limited ‘democratic’ openings provided in Italy contributed to the break up and demoralisation of many tens of thousands of good activists.
For Left Unity in the far less fertile ground of this country in the Twenty First Century to attempt to mimic Lotta Continua would be a mistake.
But it would perhaps be an even bigger mistake for Left Unity to seek to form a Party on the Basis of some sort of ‘Maximum’ programme that seek to foresee everything and have an analysis of everything. We need to avoid the formation of a pseudo revolutionary ‘marxist’ propaganda group as we have had plenty of them in the past 40 years which have only served to demoralise and atomise the thousands of people who have passed through their ranks.
We do need something new. A political home that can safely accommodate Ben McCall, John Penny myself and hopefully Tens of Thousands of other people.
The issue of standing in Elections needs to be taken very seriously. Elections are usually won by Party Machines hard work by Party drones and Dirty Trick, Lies and Bullshit.
We have had experiences in recent years of different sort of campaigns that have led to some spectacular breakthroughs [Like George Galloway’s triumph in Bradford West]
We have seen the steady growth of the Green Party via adopting particular targeting strategies especially in the West Midlands.
We have seen the appallingly tiny votes that TUSC Candidates usually get when they stand.
Developing an Electoral Strategy is really hard work and I can understand why some like Ben McCall would prefer us not to bother.
We also have the new situation provoked by the ‘Falkirk’ fiasco – where the historic relationship between the Trade Unions and the Labour Party is going through a seismic shift…. How Left Unity relates to these developments will be key to the future.
Next year 2014 there are the European Elections. I have already stated elsewhere that I do not feel that our er movement/party will be in a position to field candidates without risking a humiliating wipe out. I feel we should actively support Green Party Euro slates as a way to attempt to hold back the UKIP Juggernaut.
The reality is that despite Ed Milibands failures and weaknesses Labour is still on course to form a government in 2015 due to the historic decline of the Tory Party [no speeded up by UKIP’s rise]. We can raise our new Banner in 2015 and prepare for the struggle to resist Labour’s Austerity in the years to come.
The road will be hard but if people can remain united we will never be defeated.
JP
I actually agree with your general position, but you still owe Ben Mc an apology for attributing to him opinions which he clearly does not hold.
Peace achieved through internationalism and non-cooperation with/sabotage of the war machine & military-industrial complex – direct action, militant agitation for diversification in military-related workplaces, undermining of military recruitment efforts and resistance within the military
Exactly Allie and a lot of pacts and positive acts of solidarity internationally.
Ben
Interesting and thought provoking as always. I agree with much of your paper, but not everything.
The failure of the left over the last few decades to properly engage with ordinary, non-activist, people and to live in a self-sustaining bubble is understandable given its isolation but has been made worse by strange language and strange, authoritarian, exclusivist party structures.
As someone who has been in, and out of, the Green Party I appreciate your putting the contradiction between capitalism and the planet as a central concern.
The spontaneous street actions have shown a fresh, invigorating approach which we need to learn from, of course, but I am wary, like many comments above, about the long term future of such movements, and their capacity to involve wider layers of the population who have to inhabit the more mundane world of getting the kids to school every morning and getting food on the table. The actions are beautiful butterflies but tend to have a similar lifespan. Such diffuse movements are also open to becoming vehicles for strong personalities or those with more time on their hands and can degenerate into divisive quarrels.
You rightly stress the need for patient work and not jumping around doing everything. In a situation where the left is very weak, ie now, it is tempting to make up for lack of mass support by just doing it all yourself, like an obsessed manager who has not learned to delegate. Substituting yourself for the people/masses/working class/the 99% just wears you out and burns you up and leaves most people uninvolved.
However, an absolute commitment to pacifism is, I believe, suicidal. The enemy are not pacifists, and we will quickly find that out if we start to seriously challenge their rule.
We DO need to be a movement that does stuff, and builds and alternative commmon sense challenge to their dominant ideology in all areas of daily life and culture, sport etc., but I do not see why we can’t be a party at the same time. It does not imply standing everywhere all at once and trying to be UKIP overnight. The Greens have taken 40 years to get to their position.
We should stand in areas where the ‘movement’ is significant and needs, and demands, that we stand. A few candidates against famous villains, on a symbolic level may be OK. We shoudl be very careful about splitting the Left vote just for a lark, where we have not earned the right to stand and ask to represent working people.
What do you mean by collectivisation of ‘everything else’. That sounds like a totalitarian nightmare to me.
We absolutely need to prioritise organising amoung private sector workers and building the basic ideology that Trade Unions are a good thing.
Consensus is a great principle to work towards, rather than pushing home the tactical advantage of a majority of one in a meeting when people are absent, but there always comes a time when minorities just have to acknowledge that they are in a minority and we all agree to get on and do stuff.
Hope you find these comments useful.
Ray
`Consensus is a great principle to work towards’
A far more worthy end is principles and that is what we should be building towards not consensus or broadness. What is being proposed here is not an alternative to New Labour but an alternative to the Lib Dems.
LU needs to shout its socialism from the rooftops. Celebrate its working class political consciousness that New Labour are trying to destroy.
But of course there is no point being a socialist if you don’t have a clue how to get there. LU must have a manifesto/programme for principled unity and the transition to socialism.
1. Banks: end the bail out. State bank lending at base rate and facilitating social investment in accordance with a democratic plan.
2. Full employment immediately by sharing the available productive work. All school and college leavers and unemployed who cannot find their own jobs to be bought into the workforce with each paid the minimum of a trade union living wage.
3. Defend all necessary and desirable public services and welfare spending by collecting sufficient tax for the task.
4. Fight all forms of social oppression and inequality. Build anti-fascist militias to defend minority communities, demonstrations, picket lines, meetings, etc.
5. Socialise and democratise the cash-hoarding, profiteering monopolies and their enormous surpluses. Make them public property and subject their managers to election by their workforces as opposed to them being imposed by absentee bottom-line share holders or the Old School Tie Network and political patronage that treats UK plc as its own personal trough.
6. For a federation of sovereign British nations and the renegotiation of the founding treaties of the EU in accordance with socialist principles as opposed to the neo-liberal ones ripping it apart.
7. For a global commonwealth of nations and against imperialism.
Thanks for these contributions, in brief answer to some:
Hoom: have you ever had a fight? Or hurt someone badly? If not, it is too abstract to conclude as you do. I am from the ‘direct action tradition of anti-fascism’ and also of supporting armed struggle. Comrades Ho, Che, Fanon, Cabral, Slovo et al – inspiring, but where did it actually get them, humanity or the left? This needs a lot of thinking through in the context of C21st. To be frank anyone who can seriously advocate violence after the last ten years, after Ireland – I’ll stop there for brevity, but you catch my drift? Kids get hurt and killed when violence is used – that cannot be justified.
On the Poll Tax riots, we would not have to condemn anyone – why would we? Just because Motp would advocate non-violence, it does not stop some of our members agreeing, taking part, refusing to condemn massively uneven clashes between state and opposition groups, etc. You’re writing as if we have to have a ‘clear line’ on everything: top down.
I can hear Ray G in my ear, so: yes, one of the lessons of Chile was their lack of preparedness; but the cold war was a particularly venal time and there is more than one way to fight a coup – and preparing for it: politically, physically, mentally, socially. For a coup or a coercive state to be defeated non-violently would be truly revolutionary.
Actually pacifism has everything to say when faced with an enemy that doesn’t play by the rules. I’ll let you look this up … We could debate even Nazism and the possible options there, but let’s not waste time. As I started, anyone who has actually been involved in violence knows, on relfection, that it is worse than futile and the benefits are short-lived, if at all; victories pyrrhic. Much as I love him, Fanon was wrong, there is nothing cleansing about violence. A politics starting from the needs of children, which is what I advocate in Motp, must completely rethink how we do politics and what we justify in our practice. That will ‘strengthen’ it immeasurably.
In answer at the John Penney Memorial Anarchist Trials (held in 2022, two years after the landslide election victory for the Left United Party, a short and eventful nine years after its founding conference in November 2013; JP, LUP’s former Head of Political Education, had been assassinated by my chums in 2021) I would answer in all honesty: “I am not and never have been an anarchist (despite an enduring affection for John Lydon) but some of my newest friends and comrades are and I value much of their thought and action.” I am actually a communist, but it really does not matter – the point is what we do about it.
Yes, Occupy, Leninists, trad left, us – no one has all the answers, but that’s the point: the left is in the shite, we need to fully understand why and change accordingly. I’m not saying that should disable us, or slow us down, just that simply doing what the LPP does and not get to grips with this at all, will disable us more than anything, as we will continue to be tragically irrelevant.
I agree about not simply voting tactically, but it does actually matter.
Neoliberal Labour is better than the Coalition – do we forget so easily 13 years of Thatcherism and the desperation that ushered in the cult of Blair? Yes, of course the point is to go beyond this in a leftwards direction, but that will take patience, determination and a very different strategy and tactics than the left have used before.
Consensus needs to be understood before it is condemned. This needs a separate article. As for going paperless, that was my feeble attempt at provocation, but it seems to have worked.
Marcr: “Doncaster … very effective in building a sustained anti-cuts current” – if well meaning and committed people meeting fortnightly and having a stall on the high street of a Saturday, is what we’re after, then yes. As I said, you’d be welcome to campaign for whoever you wanted to in Motp, but TUSC “ain’t gonna make it with anyone anyhow”, as my fur-coated compatriot once sang. The people know it and that’s why they don’t vote for them.
The trouble is “fighting back” is a catechism, as expressed by LPP. Of course “we do need democracy, argument and structure too” but when and how; and why does it have to get so boring so early on? I’m not anti-socialist, just anti-socialist sectarianism and actually, any ‘grand narrative’ words, except Peace and Equality.
Personally I don’t want to be in SYRIZA’s position: so many people suffering and not enough vote for them to be able to do much about it. Yes, of course it is worth looking at left parties in Europe and elsewhere (S America comes to mind) but we have not been “successful” and faced with the failure of capitalism, we just cannot play down how remarkably successful parties supporting neoliberalism have been, even in countries in meltdown like Greece. Pan-European unions, movements and I am sure eventually parties, are an inspiring prospect.
edmundpotts: even Paul Mason does not say that the new (I don’t call them revolutionary by the way) movements are an end or enough in themselves; he actually says that the organised working class are a crucial element to effect change. If you are as proud to be a socialist as you say, you will know that we do not need to persuade everyone, a simple majority will do; but we are sadly far from that now.
John P, you really tickle me, please continue; as well as getting Ben’s mixed up again, you’ve called me names too, you rotter. Yes, ‘Abu’, I hope John is ‘man’ enough to personally berate the multitudes. Lucky for John, he is assassinated (see above) before that happens. I wouldn’t be nearly as optimistic about the Peoples’ Ass as you, as I’ve said elsewhere.
Our Ken seems to have a touching faith in parliament saving the NHS and the welfare state. By the time we have (i) formed a new left party, (ii) built it enough to win MPs and (iii) have enough MPs to vote the right way in the palace, the NHS will be run by Lord Branson. 38 degrees has much more of a chance!
Abu, I don’t like thinking about Italy, as if they can’t do it, what hope have we? But once I’ve used mental floss to remove that stubborn thought, I think that England – or all the most unlikely places – may have a few punk-ish surprises in store. However, it won’t be at the ballot box in the foreseeable future and to form a party on the mistaken thought that we could stand in 2015, let alone 2014, is daft. “Political power” as you say, will – if it is ever to be expressed in votes for a left party – be earned by persistent hard work with people, as I’m sure you agree. A movement that can draw in people from other parties and none, can begin this hard work in an open and welcoming way and develop over the long term – via a series of effective and successful campaigns – to maybe form a party, in this organic way, rather than the ‘top down’ manner it is proposed now by self-appointed ‘activists’.
Ray, your ‘obsessed manager’ analogy is what I now think of as pure ‘G’ (geezer, gold, glam)! We’ll have to agree to dis- on violence. If we had to fight for it, I’d batter you anyway. Come on Ray, I’ve done martial arts for decades, have many other people in LU? And fired a gun, know how to make and use improvised/real weapons? Oh, not us – well who will do the fighting then? How many people are you prepared to wound or kill until you realise that it is not the way to achieve change, as the Provos did, thank their God, in the end? And how many kids will die in the crossfire? It’s a non-starter as soon as you start to think it through. No, the alternative is a very practical one, not utopian or optimistic.
Totally agree, as you know, with all you say about standing in elections; but we could do that without ourselves becoming a party (and all that entails, of which we’ve only just scratched the boring surface with the current Policy Commissions; old habits die very very hard).
Collectivisation was another attempt at a feeble provocation, as I usually get called a stalinist – I’m enjoying the novelty of JP’s anarchist slurs! The serious point is that many people are questioning ‘ownership’ such as house/flat, car, etc. and can easily imagine living in co-operative housing, if they don’t already; also being in a car club, etc. The ‘mutual’ solution is often preferable to the ‘public’ ownership one, for many reasons.
Agree about consensus. The notion that a minority could make everything grind to a halt is ludicrous to anyone who has seriously worked with consensus. My contribution of Motp was intended to start debate about alternatives to what I consider the dull option that LPP has offered. Thanks again to all. Ben
Here’s a draft statement I am bringing along to tomorrow’s meeting – any suggestions?
I am not sure where to post this to have it discussed and voted on
Throughout most of the world governments are at various stages of a war against their own citizens. Even ‘left’ parties offer no protection. All the ‘respectable’ political parties are prepared to attack their own and foreign populations in order to safeguard corporate profits. To their people, everywhere they spread the lie that there is no money.
Capitalism has been going for some 200 years. What became of all the wealth? Today the 7 richest people in the world sit on more money than 567 million of the poorest. Nearly 10 million people a year die of starvation or malnutrition. And inequality is growing by the day. In the UK the richest 1000 could pay off the national deficit without touching their bank accounts. Every morning they wake up £100 million richer.
It is not only a question of monstrous injustice. All this is a sign that the market system is not functioning – even on its own terms. In Britain, for example, £770 billion is lying unused in the banks simply clogging up the works.
A recent study revealed that a core of just 1318 companies with interlocking ownerships appeared to collectively own through their shares the majority of the world’s large blue chip and manufacturing firms – the “real” economy – representing a further 60 per cent of global revenues.
When the team further untangled the web of ownership, it found much of it tracked back to a “super-entity” of 147 even more tightly knit companies….. Most were financial institutions. The top 20 included Barclays Bank, JPMorgan Chase & Co, and The Goldman Sachs Group.
Not only have they bought political parties and governments. They have their own special institutions for exploiting whole populations: the IMF, the World Bank, the OECD, etc.
The days when individual entrepreneurs came up with grand ideas – borrowed the money and transformed the world are gone. Today, profits from productive investment are hard to come by. Capitalism is no longer fit for purpose. The great technological innovations of recent years have come despite not because of capitalism.
The world’s rulers have mostly taken to gambling. Up to $3 or 4 trillion a day changes hands 24/7 in London’s city foreign exchange trading centres. In the ‘real’ economy’, the need to turn populations into customers pushes millions into ruinous debt, causes ever new frauds and ways to cheat their staff, their customers and one another.
They are depleting the soil, ruining the oceans, destroying the forests, poisoning the air. They are in perpetual readiness for new oil wars and ever prepared to maintain the means to destroy continents for cheap labour and new markets.
They could not survive a day without raids on public property. They have the land [and get subsidies off us to so nothing to it]: they have grabbed gas, coal, steel, water, telecommunications, transport and they are in the process of seizing education, social care and the health service itself.
Our fight to save hospitals, old people’s homes and libraries is the fight for another way of running society – nurses, teachers and librarians work for people and not for profit. There is no reason why a whole society cannot be run that way. It is a fight for the future of human society.
LEFT UNITY [or whatever it is to be called] is first and foremost a body of activists. Wherever we are, we are part and parcel of a wonderfully varied and contradictory global fight-back movement – and nothing more. On the streets, in the workplace, and also in the town hall and in parliament – wherever the struggle takes us, we will be there fighting for real victories.
But we also know there can be no lasting victory – no solution without removing the cause. There are countless millions un- or under-employed. Fully one quarter of europe’s youth is without a future under capitalism. But there is a tremendous surfeit of resources and wealth. We have the people, the technology, the expertise and the motivation to use it. Once we have access to and possession of our collective heritage we will be able to run our affairs without the need for a decrepit, corrupt, vicious and unnecessary class.
Great post…
@ Ben
Yes. My support for the physical force tradition of anti-fascism is not simply a theoretical one. I hope you’ll understand why I’m being a bit vague here?
And, I would argue, it’s been repeatedly effective at stopping the fascists from controlling the streets, from the BUF to C18. (To the best of my knowledge, not a single kid was killed).
I’d argue we’d have to condemn the poll tax rioters to be consistent, if taking non-violence as a unbending “principle”. Principles are a bit stronger then a simple line- it states categorically “this is what we’re for” and, by definition, anything outside that is unprincipled.
I can’t help thinking we’re talking about two somewhat different things here. You seem to be conflating the issue of political violence with that of armed struggle. They aren’t the same thing. (I’d be highly wary of anybody suggesting the latter in modern Britain). I hope it goes without saying, but neither am I suggesting that we should reject non-violence in every situation. I’m merely stating that it should be a tactic, not an ideological principle.
On another issue, my distrust of consensus as a model comes from too much experience of it, not too little…
OK fair enough Hoom. Problem is that a tactic an become a habit, but I take your point.
On consensus I think we need to explore the methodology much more than has been doen to date – tends to have been implemented in ill-thought-out ways, etc. I tend to find that the default of taking votes is just wrong and sets-up division from the start; you can tell this partly from the rabid response by some on this site (not you) and elsewhere to the very suggestion.
I think we can manage a happy medium. Votes should be seen as a way of concluding a full discussion. The problem arises when they’re seen as a start or even a replacement for that. (And, obviously, the right of a minority to dissent needs to be recognised).
Do you fancy dropping me an email at abiezerDELETETHISBIT.coppe@gmail.com? I think it’s probably about time that those of us with similar ideas on things like internal democracy started communicating a bit more closely.
Apols Ben, for the lateness of this post but respect to ya as out of nearly all sections of these debates,your posting goes to the crux. A movement, participatory,spontaneous, improvised ,fluid and horizontal or ‘party’ building, puritanical,static,immobile,withering under the crushing weight of hierarchy and sovereign commands.Crucially, over the last fifty years or so ,’movements’ have been hugely successful in mobilising around issues of civil rights, human rights,women,sexuality, disability, ethnicity etc: all time being way ahead of the curve with Leftist/Marxist,Trotskyist, left trailing in their wake.New generations from Istanbul to Egypt and Greece to Bolivia and Argentina,have not cared about the obscure and pedantic divisions between Marxism,Leninism and Maoism: those joining protests today are more concerned with the environment,human rights,the right not to be spied upon, the rights to public space and the total financialisation of everyday life.I find it startling that postings/issuing of manifestos, statements,platforms within the debates,contain the same language unchanged from the late sixties and beyond with at its core the historical mission of a global proletariat………..yet a proletariat today, who more often tyan not will be a female nurse/ carer.Productive work and production capital are both being removed due to technology and robotics and financial capital.What about the break up of Britain(Nairns theory) Should we not be looking at a reconfiguration of England.I personally would be happy for North of england to become part of trading block of Celtic………freed forever from English bank of England
Ben, next time you are in New York fella, we will have a place for you in Zuccotti Park !
Hey ID, sorry I missed your until now too: place for you in deepest Yorkshire too – obv fellow travellers. Aye, breakup of England – essential!
Contact me at ben.mccaDELETETHISBIT@gmail.com if you want.