I didn’t choose the Socialist Platform – the Socialist Platform chose me
In this post Robert Eagleton of Preston Left Unity explains why he is pledging support to the Socialist Platform, and what he believes the Socialist Platform offers which the other platforms do not.
I came into Left Unity, as I suspect many of us did, with being let down by the reformist parties and feeling disillusioned with the various sects amongst the far left. I joined the Green Party when I was fifteen (in 2011), and at the age of sixteen I became the youngest member to chair a local Green Party and the youngest member to be elected to the Young Greens National Executive Committee. Unfortunately the electoralist, and I believe opportunist nature, of all social democratic parties means that both party and individual are willing to renege on key principles in the search for power. The straw that broke the Camel’s back with regards to Social Democracy for me was when the Green Party in Bristol accepted two seats on the Bristol city cabinet. This move by the Bristol Greens saw both Green councillors accepting a 300% pay rise from £11,000 per year to £33,000 per year, whilst simultaneously passing £35,000,000 worth of cuts (despite the fact the local party claimed to be Anti-Cuts on their website). It was at this point I recognised that electoralism was intrinsically corrupting in nature, and we can see with that parties (such as the Labour Party) are willing to sacrifice a lot of their integrity and key values in a bid to become elected. I could no longer justify myself being in a party who was Anti-Cuts in rhetoric whilst being Pro-Cuts in practice; thus at the age of seventeen I left the party and began getting involved with Left Unity.
In the period running up to my departure from the Greens I had been reading a lot of Lenin and Marx, and I knew a few months before I left that I was a revolutionary Socialist. I genuinely believe that revolution is the only road which leads to Socialism. The only way we will ever implement Socialist policies in our society is through a working class revolution, not through presenting a manifesto every five years to a public which is controlled by the media cartel that is the Murdoch Empire and will be distorted beyond recognition. It is blatantly clear that we do not have Democracy in the UK, we have a head of state who is unelected, over half of our legislature is unelected (the House of Lords), and the other chamber (the House of Commons) is elected once every five years under a grossly unfair First Past the Post electoral system where not a single government has polled over 50% of the popular vote since the end of World War Two. The current “Democracy” we have in this country is weighted against us, and we must use extra parliamentary tactics to implement Socialism; hence why I completely agree with bullet point nine of the Socialist Platform’s statement of principles which calls for the use of “both parliamentary and extra parliamentary means to build support for its” [Left Unity’s] “ultimate goal – the socialist transformation of society”. We do not live in a Democracy, and the idea which should unreservedly submit to and fetishise a system where the oppressors of the working class play such an influential role in deciding the outcome of how our society is governed is not a strategy that will produce tangible Socialism anytime soon.
Another reason why I back the Socialist Platform is their uncompromising stance on the overthrowing of Capitalism. Bullet point one states- “The [Left Unity] Party is a socialist party. Its aim is to bring about the end of capitalism and its replacement by socialism”. Capitalism is the primary cause of environmental depletion. Capitalism inherently encourages consumerism by measuring a Country’s economy by its Gross Domestic Product (GDP), the amount of goods and services it can produce. Therefore a growth in GDP inevitably means a greater strain on natural resources, as more commodities are being produced for the Capitalist by the alienated proletariat. It doesn’t take a genius to suss out that indefinite GDP growth cannot exist in a world of finite resources. Under the current system of Commodity Production in our society we can see that Capitalism has an unquenchable thirst for growth, and the constant consumption it demands is tantamount to Ecocide. The Socialist Platform shares my view in bullet point two of its statement of principles with the sentence – “Under Capitalism production is carried out solely to make a profit for the few, regardless of the needs of society or damage to the environment”.
The Socialist Platform is currently the only platform I believe which is streamed lined and is as unambiguous as possible with its demands. Both the Class Struggle Platform and the Towards a New Party of the Left platform are very vague with their language, presumably so they appease rather than alienate the moderates and the radicals within Left Unity. While it is important that a party like Left Unity does appeal to the wider left, it is important that we are not afraid to debate our differences as differences will inevitably occur in such a broad party. Whilst I agree with the Towards a New Party of the Left platform when it calls for defending the post-war settlement and “transforming society, which is moving from the brutality of capitalism to a society based on socialist principles”, I soon see that there isn’t much depth to this generic statement of replacing Capitalism. The Platform fails to explain how this would be achieved; instead they give us an example of how other, more successful, left reformist coalitions such as SYRIZA in Greece are seeking to form “a workers’ government”. When they say “workers’ government” what do they actually mean? Because if they mean a government ran by the proletariat, free of Capitalism, then they are kidding themselves if they believe the Capitalists will simply roll over and accept such a government. History has shown us that the Capitalists are not afraid to use military force to secure their own interests and the interests of Global Capitalism as a whole; as was shown by Winston Churchill’s desire for Bolshevism to be “strangled in its cradle”, and his subsequent military commitment to the counter revolutionary forces in the Russian civil war from 1918-1921. The creation of any true workers’ state will be born out of the hellfire of a revolution, with the state apparatus (such as the army) being overthrown with the government, not through the ballot box. In bullet point two of the Socialist Platform’s statement of principles it goes on to say “Capitalism does not and cannot be made to work in the interests of the majority. Its state and institutions will have to be replaced by ones that act in the interests of the majority”. It is the Socialist Platform can foresee and has anticipated the problems we will face when we try to replace Capitalism.
The Class Struggle platform (Workers’ Power) claims the Socialist Platform is too “abstract” in its terminology that it cannot relate to “day to day battles the working class are carrying out”. If they mean by this that the Socialist Platform is the only platform where the founding ten or more members have not dictated to their supporter’s exactly how they must think, then yes they are “Abstract”. Is it such a crime that the Socialist Platform would rather flesh out its principles by inviting its supporters to meet in London on the 14th of September, for a comradely debate, rather than simply hand potential supporters an ultimatum of having to support their reams and reams of text in order to be admitted to the platform or face exclusion? The Socialist Platform is unambiguous with its statement of principles, whilst also encouraging active debate within the platform by not simply handing down paragraphs of text, thought up by an elite committee, about what the Party should try to achieve and how.
It is clear to me that the Socialist Platform is best platform to join. Their uncompromising and unambiguous stance on the abolition of Capitalism, along with their impeccable analysis of the consequences of Capitalism (whether they be social or environmental) puts them on the best footing of all the platforms to facilitate a discussion around how an Anti-Capitalist Party would work in practice . Couple this with their reluctance to prescribe pages of text to their potential supporters, and their commitment to an inclusive debate around the central parameters of their statement of principles in London it is clear that the Socialist Platform is the way forward. And with this I can safely say- “I didn’t choose the Socialist Platform, the Socialist Platform chose me”. I am not sectarian, and I will happily work alongside comrades in both the Towards a New Party of the Left platform and the Class Struggle platform. However we should have the courage to state our differences and not merely try to appeal to the widest possible cross section of the Left Unity membership with vague statements of intent. Yes it means putting your head above the parapet; yes it means lots of internal disagreements. But if Left Unity is going to change the face of British politics, as I believe it can, and if Left Unity is going to bring about the replacement of Capitalism as all three platforms support one way or another, than we cannot shy away from internal debate and we must not forget our differences.
23 comments
23 responses to “I didn’t choose the Socialist Platform – the Socialist Platform chose me”
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.
The “Socialist” Platform does preclude debate.
It categorically “rejects the idea that the undemocratic regimes that existed in the former Soviet Union and other countries were socialist” but in none of the statements issued in support of the Platform is this poisonous assertion explained. So no debate possible over this most crucial question facing the working class.
Why would Churchill commit to a “counter-revolutionary force against Bolshevism”, as you say, if the Soviet Union had nothing to do with socialism? There wouldn’t be any point to it. And if a “counter-revolution” took place some time after that, then what happened in 1989? What do you say about Cuba – is that not socialist too?
The statement is ambiguous. It doesn’t even mention the world “revolution” and yet you claim that this is what it is arguing for. Why not be clear about it if that’s what we are supposed to read into it, and explain how you are going to defend this revolution? Instead, it has the usual vague notions of “socialist transformations of society”. Labour’s Clause 4 wasn’t much different.
Despite what you say, the Platform does want to keep debate behind closed doors – the usual “internal” discussions for Platform supporters only (and you would have to accept that the Soviet Union, was “not socialist” to take part), not in front of the working class, who needs to hear the arguments and learn from them, in order to develop their own understanding of what happened and needs to be done.
If the Socialist Platform is accepted, then Left Unity would be finished because it is not possible to progress from this.
These “platforms” seem to be crystallizing into factions and I hope they are disbanded by the time the November conference takes place.
>>It categorically “rejects the idea that the undemocratic regimes that existed in the former Soviet Union and other countries were socialist” but in none of the statements issued in support of the Platform is this poisonous assertion explained. So no debate possible over this most crucial question facing the working class.<<
Excellent response. This is the one bit that really grates on me, too, and should be removed to make it even close to acceptable.
Let’s also be clear: in referring to “other countries”, the Socialist Platform rejects Cuba as socialist as well.
So anyone who gives unconditional support to the Cuban revolution has no place in Left Unity according to the Socialist Platform? I think such an exclusion is ludicrously sectarian. There are plenty of good socialists who support the Cuban Revolution and should be welcome in Left Unity.
It is important for socialists to make clear that what happened in the Soviet Union and elsewhere was not socialism or anything worth aspiring to. I think this is a pretty common position both inside and outside of our movement. So instead of bemoaning the fact that the Socialist Platform reflects a common view why not try and convince us that the Soviet Union was socialism in anything more than name.
Disregard the USSR and whatever you think of it you fail to learn the lessons from it.
It is also worth remembering that while it existed it was evidence of the possibility of change not just accepting the system. For all its (many) faults it still stood in its own way as an alternative. It is something that should be learned from, improved and properly understood. Not an ideological unconditional support or total dismissal.
Lots of working class and workers who are part of the middle (social) class but are still ultimately workers while not wishing to replicate in the past (and present) wanted to draw inspiration from it or any other attempt at building socialism even if it was or wasn’t a socialist state.
Surely we can agree to be objective and move on. Lets forget the internal politics of the USSR that divided the far-left for so long.
If its such “common knowledge” and such a statement of truth that no country anywhere has ever been socialist that it hardly needs talking about, then why bother having it on your Platform statement at all?
And it’s not just that section, the whole of the Platform statement reeks of anti-Sovietism.
You made the statement, so you should be prepared to argue for it and not hide behind some reactionary “common view” founded on decades of anti-communist propaganda.
” So no debate possible over this most crucial question facing the working class. ”
We have a government engaging in class war against the working class and what people think of the ex Soviet Union is a “most crucial question”? Seriously?
The Soviet Union is dead, Phil. She’s not coming back. You need to move on and find someone new.
Phil,
I understand what you are saying and you rise some very valid points. I’m not arguing that the Socialist Platform is the be all and end all, and it can certainly be improved. I absolutely agree with you that if we are arguing for revolution, as I know we are, we must include the word in our statement. However when you look at the groups and individuals involved with this platform, The Communist Party of Great Britain, members of the International Socialist Network…etc, I very much believe we want revolution, which is why I will be agitating for the word “revolution” to be included in the statement on the 14th of September when we meet up in London. When we look at the supporters of the Left Party Platform however, like Kate Hudson, we see that many of them are left wing Social Democrats who have come from the RESPECT and Unity Coalition and it is questionable as to whether they really support revolution. Nonetheless I agree with you, if we are arguing for revolution then we need to explicitly state this.
After the 1917 revolution the Bolsheviks formed the Russian Soviet Federative Socialist Republic (RSFSR), which lasted until 1922 with the creation of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics (USSR). Now I don’t think any Socialist would disagree with the claim that Lenin’s Russia was socialist. The Bolsheviks and the Left Socialist Revolutionaries made sweeping reforms which were clearly Socialist such as, Land Reform, withdrawal from World War Two, the creation of soviets, and many more. I think the majority of Socialists would also agree that the RSFSR was as Democratic as possible given the fact the country was dogged by both a counter revolution and a World war. The RSFSR (1918-1922) was certainly Socialist; there is no doubt in my mind about that, so when Churchill called for Bolshevism to be “Strangled in its cradle” in 1919 he was calling for a counter revolution against a Socialist state, or at the very least, a state heading towards Socialism.
Now we all know that Lenin began disappearing from the forefront of Russian politics in 1922 due to his deteriorating health which resulted in his death in 1924. In 1922 Stalin was elected as General Secretary of the Communist Party, and from that point onwards the party became riddled with corruption as it fell into a leadership power struggle. The power struggle that lasted from 1922-1927 saw Party congresses being gerrymandered, the bribing of Soviet officials, and purges, whilst much of this was internal to the Party the fact that the Party was so entwined with the working class and State apparatus it had a profound impact on State and Party life. By 1927 Stalin was the undisputed leader of the USSR, and the dictatorship which followed was by no stretch of the imagination a dictatorship of the proletariat or a Socialist government. The purges, the oppression of women and homosexuals, the re-introduction of a state church, and the foundation of Gosplan can, in my mind, never be portrayed as Socialist. So whilst you may argue the USSR WAS Socialist from 1922-1927, and I think you’d have a hard time getting people to concur with your argument, from 1927-1991 it was certainly not Socialist and the Socialist Platform is absolutely right to reject the USSR as being Socialist. I am happy the Socialist Platform does not embrace Stalinism, and I also welcome the fact the platform does not lazily label it as “State Capitalist”. There is a need to debate what the USSR actually was, however I don’t think it was Socialist.
On Your final point I think you are wrong to ask for any platform to disband itself. As a Revolutionary Socialist I am glad that Left Unity allows for myself and fellow comrades to organise and form platforms within the party. Platforms allow us to come together with like minded people and feel represented. I didn’t officially join Left Unity (paying subs) until I saw that the Socialist Platform had come into existence, as I knew the platform would allow my voice to be heard and not drowned out by Social Democrats. I do not think Left Unity is at fault for allowing fraternal, Democratic, comradely debate, and I do not believe allowing platforms will damage Left Unity one bit. Rather if we do not have such debate, allowing for minorities to form platforms, then we will go down the road the SWP is currently travelling which will lead to splits and paralysis.
fraternally,
Robert.
I am sorry to disappoint you Robert but there are plenty of people who do not believe that Lenin’s Russia was socialist – me, for example.
There was a revolution in February 1917 and another one, combined with a military seizure of power in October, but I am afraid the working class lost power to the iron grip of the Bolshevik/Communist Party and independent working class action in the Soviets was either snuffed out or bloodily suppressed by the new ‘workers’ government’ within about 18 months (depending on the area) of October 1917. Equally the peasants’ revolution in the countryside was real and bottom up but again was crushed by the Bolsheviks with astonishing violence under the guise of the civil war, where peasants trying to make their own real revolution were crushed by both Reds and Whites. All this happened under Lenin and Trotsky. After the suppression of the Kronstadt sailors, the banning of the Workers’ Opposition and the banning of factions (all in 1921) the game was up. Then Lenin died and by the time Trotsky found that he was a democrat he had already colluded in the suppression of anyone who could have supported him.
“Questionable whether some people in LU support revolution”? I should darn well hope so! If we cannot appeal to a layer of people who are not willing, at this stage, to support “revolution” (whatever you suppose that to mean), we might as well pack up and leave things to TUSC, the SWP and the SP. It still genuinely bemuses me that some people think that defining Left Unity on such a narrow basis as described in the Socialist Platform is (a) the way to build LU as a mass organisation, and (b) even worth doing when we already have the aforementioned groups already doing it.
The rather dismissive references to “people coming from Respect” are strange. Firstly in view of the political histories of some of the people supporting the Socialist Platform! But more importantly, you say it as though it’s a bad thing! Shouldn’t we be glad that we’re drawing good people from Respect into LU??
Socialist Platform is the sectarian mirror image of the opportunism of the Left Party grouping.
The Manifesto Group attempts to unite LU in a principled way around a programme of six or seven key transitional demands which address the most pressing issues facing the working class that it can use in elections but also for intervention into the more important and wider class struggle. Coming soon.
Socialism cannot come through any electoral system anywhere in the world as they stand today. They are all weighed against such an event.
It is correct however, to prepare for a transition because inevitably, there will be one, indeed we are currently in it. Who knows how long it will be before working people gain the consciousness and confidence to rise in favour of themselves? I have been working and waiting for it to pass for the past forty years, my father before me, the previous forty years and his before him going all the way back to the early 1900s.
The Manifesto group may well have transitional points to make, I have been making them all my life, as have my forefathers and I am ready to sign up to them yet again but, there is absolutely no sense in floating them on sand, they like all of the previous will just sink out of sight and out of mind. There must be a solid foundation on which to build the transitional policies.
As has been mentioned, the Labour party had Clause 4, they ignored it pretty much for the best part of my life and then sacrificed it on the altar of electoral success. The Socialist Platform argues for Socialist aims and objectives. It rejects the notion that the Soviet Union was not a Socialist governance, because it wasn’t, in the same way that China isn’t now. Those of you that wish to trade on this misnomer in favour of Social Democracy (ergo managing Capitalism) then I challenge you to show in what way these were Socialist.
Someone on one of the other threads said, that our Platform is aspirational, well of course it is aspirational, of course we aspire to a Socialist society, of course we aspire to the emancipation of all. Is there something wrong with these aspirations..? Any Platform that is put forward, can only be aspirational at this stage, a set of core, long term goals solidly founded within the working-class. Out of this foundation will spring a democratically discussed and actioned set of policies, both parliamentary and extra-parliamentary in order to carry the more immediate fire-fights that will be occurring now and for the next ‘x’ amount of years as the transition trundles along to it’s inevitable conclusion. It will however, take the time that it takes us (the working-class) to become conscious and to take our heads from up our own rear ends, open our eyes to see the beckoning sustentation that will break the shackles of Capitalism forever….
It is a great pleasure Robert, to see one so young be so clear in his aspiration. I can only hope that the Revolution happens within your lifetime. Sadly for me, the opportunities are slipping away but I will keep on working alongside your ilk in the hope that future generations beginning with yours, will be able to live in a world that is generous in it’s giving to the peoples resident, and in a society that embraces peace and stability, where the weak are cosseted and the strong are gentle but steadfast, where hatred is banished from thought and deed, where all things required and wanted are produced such that the planet itself smiles upon its children and bursts forth with sustainable produce in reward for our stewardship of its resource… Vive La Revolution!!!
Thank you Ally,
I look forward to meeting you at the meeting in London on the 14th of September or at either the policy or foundation conference.
How is The Socialist Platform sectarian? I reject the claim I am a sectarian, as I’m sure all the seventy plus supporters of the platform would as well. Your claim is unfounded and lazy. The Socialist Platform offers the best opportunity for Revolutionary Socialists to come together under one banner.
Robert
I, along with the overwhelming majority of Left Unity “members” agree with you in rejecting electoralism, defined as only expecting or trying to achieve political demands through elections and playing the Parliamentary game without putting your trust in US, the people, to ensure that those with wealth and power are dispossessed.
All the platforms make clear that the aim is a socialist society to REPLACE capitalism. The idea that a Labour Government, or a bit more Left government could simply work inside the capitalist system to make life better for workers without challenging that system in a fundamental way can only lead to that government adapting itself to what the ruling class decide is possible: that is becoming another sell-out Labour Party, attacking ordinary people to keep capitalism going. But I genuinely don’t believe the LPP document states this or even suggests it.
I want to see thorough-going democracy, justice, and equality, delivered by taking wealth and power from those who currently have it, but would rather put this in terms which unite and not divide. I am sorry, but the old revolutionary cliches that pepper the socialist platform have been around for a long time and have not, to say the very least, achieved inpressive results. Also, anyone who says at this time that they know how socialism is going to replace capitalism is fooling themselves or just striking a pose.
I think there is a range of opinions in LU that these new platforms are attempting to squash into two competing factions, and I find this very sad and disappointing and I do not intend to join any of them. I want a genuine, open friendly debate involving all the members, not separate cliques fighting for sectional advantage.
Ray,
The groups involved with this Platform are not sectarian and they are not “fighting for sectional advantage”. Many of the individuals are from the International Socialist Network, they know all too well what it means to be subject to repression in a bureaucratic clique, a group that split from the SWP following the ham-fisted way in which the Party dealt with the Comrade Delta case and the way it employed tactics such as purges, and Bureaucratic Centralism to regain control of the Party.
The other backer behind this Platform is the Communist Party of Great Britain (CPGB). The CPGB has been a long time advocate of far left unity and they deplore the bunker mentality of the confessional far left sects who all believe that their party is the vanguard party. The CPGB has been involved with RESPECT, the Socialist Alliance, there were discussions of a merge with the Alliance for Workers’ Liberty and the CPGB ran a campaign from 2006-2008 in the hope of trying unite the far left under one banner. Their paper the Weekly Worker is the most open and realistic paper on the far, in the sense that anyone can get a letter published and when you read it you do are not going to get the impression the World is on the brink of World revolution, as you could be forgiven for thinking if you picked up the Socialist Worker.
Now I’m only 17, so perhaps I am somewhat naive to how sectarian the far left really is! But surely we should wait and see whether Left Unity does fall into sectarianism before we consign it to the rubbish bin? I am optimistic about what Left Unity can achieve, and I would urge you to reconsider your reluctance to support the Platform.
Thanks Robert,
I still think that the vast majority of signatories of BOTH LPP and SP agree on all fundamentals and that the main questions are those of style, rhetoric and, in the case of SP a desire for purity and a certain dogma and an unwillingness to update ideas and language to match different, modern conditions. I am totally not 17 :) and I can assure you that the left’s potential for sectarianism is unbounded and legendary – which is why I want to stop unnecesary taking of fixed stands and factional positions now, before we have hardly started. Either way I have absolutely no intention of consigning LU to the rubbish bin, regardless of which platform, or none, prevails. For me the stakes and the bigger picture are too important and too inspiring to simply bow out.
I DO now accept that the LPP can, deliberately or more likely through bad drafting, allow some people to envisage a Left Party in government running capitalism or a ‘reformed’ capitalism for a period, a la 1945. I hope this issue can be clarified and tightened up before any votes are taken. I really also hope that sensible people from all platforms can get together and write a better statement than all the rather inadequate competing platforms, and that our founding conference can call out to ordinary people in a clear united voice.
“So anyone who gives unconditional support to the Cuban revolution has no place in Left Unity according to the Socialist Platform?”
Why are people adopting this language? Do people imagine that anyone who disagrees with any point which the new party might adopt is going to “have no place” in it? Is that going to be the case for people who disagree with any of the positions of the Left Party Platform, should they be adopted as policy?
Isn’t the whole point of a democratic party that the party takes positions on things but that individual members are free to have their disagreements? Why are people assuming that members who have disagreements are going to be hounded out? It doesn’t bode well.
And no, Cuba isn’t socialist.
One or two people ought to reacquaint themselves (if they ever knew them in the first place)with some Bolshevik basics.
Firstly, every single current/group/sect etc, in the UK today would have been in the RSDLP. an organisation that had a far wider breadth of opinion than the minuscule differences keeping todays sects walled-off from each other (not to mention the class!).
Secondly, on the question of the USSR and reactions above. Again, try a Bolshevik approach. Membership of Russia’s workers’ party was predicated on *acceptance* of the program (not that we have one yet; this is merely a ‘statement of aims and objectives) *not* agreement with every jot and comma, FFS!
Personally, I don’t care for our formulation regarding the USSR but I’m quite happy to argue for its change while supporting the broader platform.
The only people such a formulation, however poor it may be, would exclude are people who have consciously decided to exclude *themselves* because the platform doesn’t instantly replicate all their fave shibboleths.
Sorry, comrades; that won’t cut it. We need to grow up, move on and try some genuine Bolshevism for a change.
Harry,
No-one is arguing that membership of Left Unity is predicated on “acceptance” of a programme. The Socialist Platform isn’t a party. It’s a platform! Though it is sounding more like a faction every day.
I notice not one of these “Bolshevik” defenders of the Socialist Platform want to explain why they don’t think the Soviet Union was socialist (or what’s wrong with it in your case), or Cuba, or China. That’s not very Bolshevik!!
One has to ask the question, if a country has a dictator as its leader, then how can It be a socialist Government? The revolutions may well have had lofty ideals and many who were in them may well have truly believed in the emancipation offered. All of the countries mentioned, Soviet Union, China, Cuba all have dictatorships and all embrace Capital punishment. Those two counts alone, make them all without doubt, non-Socialist. In my opinion of course….
Ally
The language of class struggle is not helpful to establishing a new left wing presence in the UK. Similarly with Marxist theorising – it is just that theorising and has very little relevance to changing the UK to a democratic, cooperative and egalitarian society in which all UK citizens have a share. Left Unity needs to offer a vision of society which gives hope to the majority, policies which have a broad appeal and solid community work to help and support people with their current problems. The community work can start now – no need to wait for elections or for resolution of the various debates within Left Unity. Assuming Left Unity is aiming to make changes via the electoral process this is the way to go forward. Endless debate and discussion between the many left wing groups will achieve nothing if it is focussed at the theoretical level ie to put it crudely which of the many competing ideologies/theories is the correct one.
What is needed now is action in communities to develop an appreciation and an understanding of the needs of people in the UK. This will offer a guide to appropriate policies for an electoral manifesto and also begin the development of an electoral base for Left Unity.
Discussion of competing theories is interesting and valuable but should not be allowed to get in the way of community action. From views expressed in the various Left Unity platforms it does seem that there are people for whom theory has has become reality. The theory hss become dominant and exclusive. Work in communities will soon correct mistaken ideas and should be undertaken urgently by all supporters of Left Unity who seek an alternative future for the UK.
I agree with your sentiment David. The Party cannot spend all its time arguing over who has the purest theory and who has the best formula for achieving revolution. Yet at the same time the party cannot curtail debate as we have seen in the SWP, and we cannot allow ourselves to fall into the trap of mindless activism/General Strikeism.