Left Unity Principles as a Guide for Policy and Practice
Mike Wayne is a founding member of Left Unity and a member of the Southwark group. This is his contribution to thinking about the principles that might guide Left Unity policy making and practice. The document comes in two parts. An opening explanatory preamble and then a list of 21 principles which identify some of the key principles that need to underpin a left project engaged in the transformation of society away from capitalism.
This document was written in response to the rush towards setting up the policy commissions, which seems to me problematic when Left Unity are still discussing the principles which would provide the framework within which policies could be developed. Those policies could address the principles set out below across a spectrum. At the minimalist end of the spectrum, many policies could be developed that would fit at least some of these principles, but which would hardly be an existential threat to capitalism. At the other end of the spectrum, policies, which sought the maximum realization of these principles, would certainly be threatening to capital and could be expected to draw very hostile responses. But the principles would allow tactical flexibility in terms of policies while also identifying where we would like to be going. The principles imagine a point in time that is somewhere between where we are now and where we would eventually like to be, namely a socialist society. It imagines a transitional period where there is still capital, there is still the state, but we are working towards developing new social and economic relations that break with capital and its institutional structures. There are a number of advantages in forming principles around this hoped for transitional period. Firstly it stresses that a revolution is a process, not a one off event (the ‘seizure of power’) and it is an invitation to people to join in the process. Second it does not foreclose on important questions such as the role of market exchanges, the need to develop a diversity of common-ownership models or the ambivalent and contradictory role of the state. Thirdly, it avoids being merely defensive, focusing on protecting what we have against the current onslaught, but neither is it pitched so far into the future that it sounds abstract or doctrinaire.
The list of principles begins with two principles central to socialism: co-operation and participation, before then offering principles that place the human being as central to a new economy that fosters a sustainable relationship with nature. Principle 5 assumes the continuing existence of capital and assumes that the process of change involves reconverting capital into socially owned wealth. Principle 6 identifies the core of the current capitalist system: the market in wage-labour which allows big capital to accumulate wealth and power. If principles 7 through to 12 were implemented at somewhere near the maximum end of the spectrum, then we would be on our way to dismantling the material basis of that capital-labour relationship. For example principle 10, to expand leisure time without detriment to the standard of living, could only be done by dismantling capital’s appropriation of labour-time, as Marx himself made clear. The subsequent principles reflect my own background as an educationalist, with their stress on the cultural, educational, critical, creative and informational basis for a society liberated from the tutelage of capital. Principle 14 for example is motivated by the crisis today in our ability to put knowledge and research to reasoned use because it contradicts the needs of capital. We know for example that prison does not work – it is a massive and costly institutional failure, but it exists to support the irrational needs of capitalism. Likewise with renewable energy, we know what needs to be done there, but capital investments in fossil fuels are blocking our capacity to use reason to address the environmental crisis. To really change society we would need an immense, collective project of self-change, to realize the principles of solidarity, critical thinking, and the social individual which underpin principles 13 through to 18. Principle 19 recognises that something like these principles have to be internationalized if they are to survive and flourish. Principle 20 may sound bland but again it acknowledges the damage and degradation that capitalism is doing to principles that have always been, in one form or another, part of human life. Finally principle 21 insists that the principles for a better society must be embodied in the way the party and indeed all organizations work. The separation of means and ends is typical of capitalism and it has unfortunately been quite typical of many left projects.
**********
Left Unity Principles Aim:
1. To make co-operation rather than competition a central value system.
2. To develop the active participation of all people in the decision making processes that effect their lives.
3. To develop an economy that serves human beings, rather than producing human beings, that serve the economy.
4. To reconfigure the economy so that it is sustainable and does not destroy the natural basis on which human life depends.
5. To convert existing surpluses of capital back into socially useful initiatives
that meet the diverse needs of the majority of people.
6. To dismantle the coercion and disciplining of labour by its dependence on the
market trade in labour power.
7. To enlarge common ownership, co-operative models and public sector provision and diversify their forms.
8. To democratize the management and resource allocation mechanisms in the co-operative and public sectors for the benefit of both producers and consumers.
9. To help small businesses work for local communities and protect them against predatory big capital.
10. To progressively reduce the working day and expand leisure time for all without detriment to the standard of living.
11. To de-commodify access to social and cultural resources.
12. To develop democratic and accountable structures and practices within state institutions in preparation for diminishing the role of the state in society.
13. To dismantle the values, the concepts, the perspectives and the dogmas associated with legitimizing capitalism.
14. To develop society’s capacities to use reason to address social problems.
15. To strengthen the bonds of solidarity (social, intergenerational, across cultural and other differences).
16. To develop the critical capacities amongst all individuals necessary to bring
about genuine freedom and liberation by challenging sexist, racist, homophobic and other value systems (accumulated over centuries) associated with oppression.
17. To encourage the initiative, the capacities and talents of individuals rather than the egotism and acquisitiveness of individualism.
18 To democratize through mass participation all means of education, information, communication and cultural provision as well as artistic expression in order to provide the best possible resources of consciousness, to consciousness, for progressive change.
19. To work with others to develop an international framework for the cross border implementation of these values and practices and to support the struggles of people in other parts of the world against the damaging consequences of capitalism.
20. To encourage our capacity for compassion and hope.
And
21. The party must embody the principles it wants to encourage more generally,
means and ends must be united.
32 comments
32 responses to “Left Unity Principles as a Guide for Policy and Practice”
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 17th May: National Demonstration: Nakba 77
Free Palestine: End the Genocide
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.
This seems to me a very useful contribution. A few random points:
i) Once stated, it seems obvious that a set of principles should indeed go before working out detailed policy. So I can see your point. However, practically, people rarely deduce policies logically from a set of principles. They have a rough idea of the sorts of policies that should be pursued, and a rough sense of the principles they embody, which they may distil. I think the two (working on policies, and on guiding principles) can occur simultaneously, informing each other.
ii) It strikes me that a document of principles like this could be a great way of getting agreement among the different Platforms. Despite some real differences, a substantial amount of similarity in the Platforms is hidden by superficial differences of wording, tone, emphasis, authorial personality, etc – in my eyes.
iii) I think that up the top, besides ‘cooperation’ and ‘participation’ as central principles of socialism, must be ‘equality’. This has always been a (probably *the*) defining value of socialism throughout its history. And real rather than formal/liberal equality must be stressed. Something like:
– To secure equality among all citizens with respect to all basic necessities of a decent life; and ensure equality of access for all citizens to the resources necessary for the pursuit of the life they have reason to value.
iv) Another principle for the ‘7 through 12 category’, i.e. principles which would effectively dismantle capitalism, is:
– To secure for every worker the full value of their work.
It is possible to calculate the quantity of labour contributed and the quantity of surplus ‘legally stolen’ from a given worker today, fairly easily – so it is an empirical matter, and a robust one (see the work of Paul Cockshott and co-workers). Again, this has been a central part of the socialist tradition.
v) I very much like the later principles and their emphasis on the “cultural, educational, critical, creative and informational basis for a society liberated from the tutelage of capital”. In fact I think this sort of stuff is the basis for a genuinely distinctive 21st century socialism, given that our civilization now actually has the means to deliver this to all.
I too think that Mike Wayne’s idea of a set of basic principles is a useful philosophical starting point or foundation for Left Unity – and as others have said, these are principles which should serve as a unifying bridge between the considerable politico-tactical gulf separating the “revolutioneries” and the “reformists” in the broad Left Unity project.
I also agree with Alex that the issue of pursuing much greater “equality” in resource allocation as between citizens is a pretty fundamental tenet of socialism – in the context of “from each according to his/her ability, to each according to his/her needs”.
Just on a perhaps rather hair-splitting technical point, Alex, I don’t think anyone , at least from the broadly “Marxist” school of economic analysis would accept at all that it is:
“possible to calculate the quantity of labour contributed and the quantity of surplus ‘legally stolen’ from a given worker today, fairly easily ”
In fact it is absolutely IMPOSSIBLE to accurately (rather than superficially) calculate the real quantity of surplus value contributed by, or stolen from, an individual worker, or even a huge group or sector of workers . The complex market/price mechanism at a system level actually causes such huge divergences between prices and underlying real “values”, and transfers real underlying surplus value on a huge scale between different capitalist sectors, and different national economies depending on their historically determined military/political/economic power, or lack of power, within global capitalism ,that it is totally impossible to work out an individual workers actual “rate of exploitation”. eg,The “superprofits” (essentially “fictitious profits” )made in the parasitic and unproductive Financial sector being an extreme example. A speculative trader in the City may think he has really personally “generated” umpteen millions in profits for his bank – against his comparatively “modest” (!) salary and bonuses – but of course the banking activity has actually “produced” nothing – just “stolen” surplus value through the complex mechanisms of the World Market from the actually productive sectors of the capitalist system.
Seems a bit of a pedantic point – but important, because the idea that INDIVIDUAL workers can be rewarded “with the full value of their labours” is actually “small craftsman petty bourgeois utopian socialism”. Only the ENTIRE working class , on a world scale, can through a world-wide socialist system, be rewarded , as a global class, with the full fruits of its collective labour power.
Thanks Alex, all good points. Although I didn’t say it, I was hoping, as you suggest, that this would help provide a bit of mediation between the different Platforms.
A very good contribution.
Just #9 needs to be deleted in my opinion.
I don’t see any advantage is supporting capitalists, even small capitalists.
The way we need to divide the capitalists is to focus the attack on finance capital.
Take a look at your high street. Hopefully you will find a few shops run by local people, family firms, maybe 2-3 employees. These people are not the enemy and any concerns socialists have about guaranteeing workers rights here could easily be met. Regulation plus an expanding sector of common ownership models which will provide other options for workers, will guarantee workers rights. Small businesses are not corrupting the political process and are not responsible for the madness of finance capital. Most small businesses stay small – they are not driven by an accumulation imperative. The advantage of separating small business from big capital is to rob big capital of a potential ally.
Mike, In response to how you describe the policy commissions I’d just like to say that whatever frustration people may feel about the forums – and certainly not everyone is comfortable technically with online message boards – they do offer at least some space for cooperation and working together and that is what I believe was intended and agreed upon earlier.
I’ve noticed that a few contributers don’t seem to have read the Guidelines (had to read and re-read them myself) which explain how the commission are supposed to work, e.g. the present task is fairly limited and is only to draft a short document to support discussion in September. I don’t think this is a rushed approach to policy- making. It is however, the most inclusive approach that is practicable at this early stage.
This might seem limited or too staged for some, but fundamentally there has to be some ‘process’ to enable everyone to feed in who wants to.
I think the Platforms appearing has been unsettling in some ways but the issues the platforms address are legitimate and at base will not go away or be resolved that easily.
What I would like to see is all Platform discussion conducted on the forum in a designated space separate from the policy commissions rather than posted as articles in the main section of the website.
Ultimately I’m more concerned by how few women are participating in the forums and think this really needs more immediate attention.
Mike, would like to hear your thoughts about what you think might be putting them off?
Hi Eleanor,
I hear what you are saying about the policy commissions and appreciate that it is a difficult balance to strike between democratic inclusiveness and moving forward. I didn’t know myself that there were guidelines about the policy making process so will need to check that out. As long as the commissions do limit themselves to some sort of short outline around which further discussion can continue into 2014 then I guess that is ok – sometimes though I fear we are being rushed according to some electoral timetable which we should definitely resist. I really could not say why more women are not participating in the forums but obviously it is crucial that the party is not male dominated. However it will also be crucial that the party open itself up to the strata of working class people who have become completely disconnected from politics for a variety of complex reasons.
Some very refreshing,interesting,stimulating and valid points which can help to enliven and enrich the on going debate and discussion about the principles on which Left unity is founded.
How they can and could be applied is not so clear. I think we need to gather together, as this post attempts to do, some of the best workable and most viable ideas. I personally think that the focus on the ‘collective’,’creative’ and ‘critical’ thinking are crucial to a renewal of Left unity’s fortunes.
We do, however, need to take account of the history of much of the British Left’s 57 varieties,it’s often dyfunctional working practices and structures,it’s personal abuses of power and influences,it’s lack of internal and external democracy, it’s dgmatic refusal to allow for new ideas through genuine far reaching discussion, debate and participation and of course it’s ongoing, appallingly self defeating and outright stupid competiveness and rancorous sectarian hatreds both within and without which forms alot of the baggage which many of those experienced in the ways of The Left will bring, not to say the very negative perception of The Left many alienated and disenfanchised people out there have of The Left.
The marginalisation of The Left in Britain over the last 20-30 years due to the Left’s own ineptness, lack of unity as well as the dominance of right wing neo liberal ideas eg selfish individualism and brutal and violent competitivess permeating every level of Society means that there is very little awareness of The Left, socialist ideas even where there is a very rich history around the principles for example of collective and cooperation action and self organisation.
Left Unity can provide a beacon of hope to the many alienated and disenfanchised people, sick to death with the present deeply rotten corrupt political system and the much hated unprincipled self serving politicians of all the mainstream neo liberal capitalist parties, as it is already growing, moreso than any other section of The Left.Inorder for Left Unity to maintain that growth, ar present precious and quite fragile, it is vital that it is founded on sound principles of UNITY which can engender trust,solidarity, committment, consistency and most of all credibility.
Hi Patrick
I completely agree with your lament about the self defeating left. The biggest danger for Left Unity is that people come to it with all their old habits and replicate the failures of the past. To me the biggest difficulty is rethinking the old reform vs revolution dichotomy. I think we need to be saying that capitalism is unsustainable and unreformable. The system is so manifestly absurd, so manifestly self- contradictory, that it really ought not to be too difficult to put a convincing case about that. I think it is important to stress that while we can identify immediate reforms and broad principles that need to be developed concretely such as common ownership and alternative political structures, there is no blueprint out there that can be implemented. It is not clear ‘how the principles can be applied’ as you say because the policies would to some extent, have to be discovered along the way, and what is more in a context in which they would be attacked and undermined by the capitalist class. We have to convey the idea that a revolution is an invitation to engage in a long term process that will be a journey of discovery. It is a journey in which the people have to participate actively, not elect representatives who then go off and implement something. It will also be risky – the minority who are the biggest beneficiaries from the current system will not go quietly into the night. The difficulty will be to respond to the threats they pose democratically – by relying on and increasing the power of organised participation in the economy, politics and culture and not increasing state authoritarianism as has happened in the past – that merely falls right into the trap the capitalist class set – i.e. to replicate their systems.
I’m glad you like the stress on the educational dimensions of the principles. I think the left needs to be much more radical in its critique of the current educational systems. Sometimes I get the feeling that because teachers are workers, we limit our critique of the institutions they work in and instead basically accept those institutions as they are and suggest moderate tinkering. We need instead to break the link between instrumental education and the capitalist economy that is churning out drones for it. We need to rethink everything about schooling – its compulsory basis, its structures of power and authority, its streaming, its exams, its content, its aims, its routines, whether and to what extent we want schools instead of say learning resource centres, etc. At the moment they are mini-factories dulling the mind – how do we get away from that in a really radical way that starts to build a non-capitalist culture? That is the scale of the problem in just one area – so obviously there can be no blueprints and no instant solutions, but that is what makes the prospect of change exciting, as well as risky.
I think that this is generally a sensible and plausible list of guiding policy principles, with the exception of point number two. Do we really want to develop the active participation of *all* people in political decision-making processes? What about those who don’t want to participate? Regardless of education, socio-economic background, and other political-economic contingencies, there have always been and will always be (and *should* always be!) people who refuse to be drawn into political decision-making processes. I think we should ensure that our guiding policy principles allow space for that. There is a dangerously ‘totalising’ sentiment behind this principle, and I would not endorse it without significant re-wording. How about “To increase the opportunities for all people to participate in the decision-making processes that effect their lives”? I think that saying we want to “develop” people’s social activity sounds a bit threatening :-)
Fair enough point Ben.
Mike’s contribution poses lots of interesting questions. As a supporter of the Left Party platform I have no problem with Mike’s 21 points. Most of them will be agreed by lots of people who want a radical alternative, who are not committed at this stage to socialism and even less revolution.
But there is an ambiguity in Mike’s reply to Patrick. Surely ‘revolution’ cannot be part of the basis of Left Unity, however we want to explain it? If it can be then why are we fighting for a broad left party and not a ‘socialist party committed to revolution’? I sometimes get the impression that this is what some members of the Socialist Platform want. What we are working out now is the founding basis of a broad party to the left of Labour that can include. This has been explained by Tom Walker like this (On this site btw):
“A broad left party needs to encompass not only socialists, but feminists, greens/environmentalists, anarchists (and people who aren’t particularly anarchist in their practice but say they are anarchists), communists, syndicalists, autonomists, alongside people who might call themselves “mutualists”, or “co-operators”, or supporters of “parecon”, or just “radical”, or “libertarian left”, or any number of other more unusual self-descriptions – situationism, anyone? Not to mention combinations, like “eco-feminist” or “anarcho-communist”, and people who say things like “Well, I don’t label myself” or “I just want to defend the welfare state”. And yes, the dreaded “left reformists” should also be included (though, of course, almost no one uses that term to refer to themselves). I’m sure I’ve missed plenty. These are the people who I “fear will walk away.”
The “I fear will walk away” is a reference to what would happen if we unnecessarily narrow the political basis of LU at its outset. We are dealing with politics here, not formal logic. Logically if you say Mike’s 21 points, then you are saying ‘get rid of capitalism bring in socialism’. But political thought,human consciousness does not proceed this way.That’s why I say – let’s be concrete on what we want and not fetishise labels. Three other points:
1) We have to be very careful we don’t reproduce the ‘self-defeating left’ in our first conference. Open discussion is fine, but an overhead of faction fights is that they can embitter the atmosphere and there is a danger of that happening. We don’t have to decide everything at a first conference.
2) I don’t agree with John Keeley about small businesses. A post-capitalist economy would be sure to have to function with thousands of small businesses as part of an overall national plan.
3)What Mike says on education is absolutely to the point. Both teachers and students have to function within a system which becomes daily more instrumental. I looked at the prospectus of my old university and the Politics courses were now entirely within the framework of preparing ‘administrators’ and ‘decision-makers’ in business, local government etc. What happened to the course on European revolutions 1917-39. Or the comparative studies of Luxemburg, Lenin, Trotsky and Gramsci? In secondary education teachers are made into functionaries to get students good grades in meaningless exams, where content is subservient to ‘skills’ – mainly for business. So far the teaching unions have not been good arenas for dealing with these questions and are unlikely to become such a focus. Left Unity must have lots of teachers and lecturers: we need to elaborate a deeper discussion, although of course there are already some other forums for this, but ones that are politically engaged.
I agree entirely with what I hope will become the “position” of Left Unity as a party, that it is a very “broad church” of varied ” radical Left” political opinion and standpoints – aiming ,at this stage of the Global capitalist crisis, to pursue essentially “reformist” , rather than innately “revolutionary” demands, eg, Defend the Welfare State/ NHS , No to all privatisation of public services , oppose all the cuts in public services, tax the rich effectively by doing way with tax havens and tax dodging schemes ,Defend workers rights, support trades unionism, and so on.
This is however where the “broad Church” concept can’t be an unlimited sized “tent” – but needs to exclude as well as include. We can’t have in a radical Left party people whose reformist/conformist ideology and politics will lead them to “do a Green Party – Brighton and Bristol style” as soon as any position of “power” is achieved. Wherever one sits on the “reform or revolution” argument, the politics of Left Unity members will have to be uncompromisingly to oppose austerity and attacks on working class living standards – or we will immediately fall into the Green’s current trap of “administering the cuts” in order to “be responsible, appear credible”, etc.
“Broad Church” movement , yes, but unprincipled ramshackle gathering of simply as many people as possible as can be gathered together to pay subs, on some sort of vague generalised “radical” wish list-based agenda ? No thanks – that’s a sure recipe for rampant opportunism and a betrayal of our supporters the first time we need to confront , rather than collaborate with, capitalist austerity implementation demands. In other words I don’t care a hoot what people choose to call themselves or their politics, its what they are willing to do, ie, fight Austerity uncompromisingly, that matters.
Hi Phil,
the word ‘revolution’ comes with a lot of baggage of course and will mean different things to different people. I am sort of surprised by the assumption that anarchists, autonomists, left libertarians or supporters of “parecon” would not see or be happy to think about their ideas as “revolutionary” – as deep profound change that overturns an existing state of affairs, and, on the basis of the active participation of people reclaiming control over their lives. That is something I think that would unite all those different groups you/Tom cites. It also seems to me that a great many of the people who would self-describe themselves as anarchists…etc would be happy to call themselves socialist. These words, ‘revolution’, ‘socialism’ etc I think need to be revivified, not dumped; they need to be made relevant to people, surrounded by a language that strips off the decades of both capitalist propaganda about these terms and the encrustations of dogma where they are parroted by the left as a substitute for real thought. I think we do have to be more ambitious then just defend what we once had, although of course we need to do that as well – but we need to offer a vision of something different. Political consciousness is highly complex and contradictory phenomena – clearly the defeatism which underpins the wariness to even describe what Left Unity is about as a socialist project attaches itself to only one side, one element of the present conjuncture. When you actually talk to people, actually engage with them say in a project of some kind over a period of time, which is what a political party is about, it is clear that many many people are open to a much more radical programme of change than is currently on offer by the mainstream parties – many young people do not even know what the word socialism means – they are not necessarily hostile, but simply do not know what it means. Are we going to abandon the responsibility of providing the basis by which people can understand the world around them and how it does not have to be this way? As an educator I see the scales falling from the eyes of students all the time; that is what a political party interested in real change should be doing. We should not take as our index as to what is possible, the bureaucracies of the trade unions or the Labour Party – the gulf between them and what people feel, what they want and what they need is at least as big as the gulf between where we are now and where we would like to be.
There is much to be enthusiastic about in this piece – thanks Michael/Mike (? slightly confused as to which you prefer!).
I think we need to address the road we must take to make these principles real, too, if they’re not to become high-minded impossibilities. And to my mind, that involves prioritising listening to the voices of those who have been pretty much silenced in recent years. Even in Left Unity, good listening and valuing the less heard voices has not been particularly evident. If we are to learn how to do things differently – and according to these principles, we need to hear how it has been for all those for whom the current system has been dismal. Let’s ask young people, black people, disabled people, those who identify as LGBT and so on, what their visions are for a better society. Let’s listen well to what they say and build from there.
That then implies actively seeking their opinions, not just shrugging our shoulders and carrying on regardless, if things seem to be dominated by white middle class men, for example. And in turn that implies creating the time to do this listening.
But there is certainly conflict about time in my own mind, about the issue of the urgent need to turn around this country’s seeming headlong rush towards fascism. I don’t have the answer to that and I wish I did!
Not sure if this rates as a principle but I think one addition is needed. Left Unity will engage in community work to help and support people in need. I think this would mark Left Unity out as different from other left wing groups and help develop an electoral base. This community action is to be direct help to individuals and is in addition to other political activities in communities.
totally agree with that Dave.
Nice one Mike, brilliant contribution.
I agree on equality (and there is a growing UK: Equality Trust and international broad movement to promote this, which we should embrace) and how you respond to John K on 9. More complex is Alex’s advocacy of a ‘no Exploitation’ principle, but as well as being a long term aim in an international context, I’m sure we can work out a principle that describes this as a process, that is able to include 9. in the short-medium term, but aim for ‘no E’ in the long, as Mike has done in 12. on the state.
Mike’s observation to Eleanor: “I fear we are being rushed according to some electoral timetable which we should definitely resist” – exactly! (See lots of previous debate)
The most important practical point Mike makes, also in this response, is: “crucial that the party open itself up to the strata of working class people who have become completely disconnected from politics for a variety of complex reasons”, otherwise LU is a top-down, arrogant organisation little different from all the rest.
Phil H: Mike’s response to Patrick is spot on. It is how we conceptualise the possibilities of ‘revolution’ and then how we discuss and implement this with each other and people not yet involved, that is so important, as Mike articulates so well.
The other obvious (just noticed!) thing it misses, is peace and non-violence/intervention.
Mike,
Thanks for your response. I can definitely see your point that because the elections (local, European in 2014, National in 2015) are so soon it’s disrupting the process of building LU as a party overall. But I understood the upcoming elections or at least the European elections were part of the reason LU was started – so we could work /coordinate more effectively with the left parties abroad. Notwithstanding the considerable expense of standing in elections I still think this is worth doing.
Some points here from me. Well done for attempting it.
Point 21 you need to add “the ends should never justify the means” otherwise history could repeat itself!
Simplify point 2 to say “the economy should be based on satisfying the basic needs of humans before other higher needs are satisfied.” I feel that is a better way of putting it. you dont need to state the bit about serving the economy cos that is a fact not a principle! Our role as humans that would be a separate point of principle.
You can see in the way this is written the differences between a marxist writing this and if i wrote it though we would end up at a fairly similiar place!
The person who said we should not have point 9 does seem to see the connection between it and point 1 that cooperation is the core value or the principle value or should be in a fair egalitarian society. A lot of small businesses could be locally owned and run by the community on a non profit basis (they would effectively be cooperatives) but also specialist run mutuals e.g an artists collective providing public art they pay themselves a living wage everyone taking a mutual responsibility ie the business is a mutual and pay the same wage regardless? This might be one model but there could be others be down to the workers. i think that small business growth is good for jobs for local people i am assuming that better welfare, a living wage and participating unions would be a feature of this new economy. i am also assuming that company law as been changed so that business decisions must reflect the communities wishes and not be detrimental to the environment or welfare of local people. By default i am assuming that Left Unity is campaigning to change the world order order of monopoly capitalism by democratic means and this follows onto another point we should have a defence sector that sells weapons to aggressive regimes so initially we are talking about making lots of skilled workers redundant unless we plan for conversion to peaceful production.
Point 13 about dismantling the values of capitalism you can do by practical invention of new structures and open debate otherwise there is a danger you might sound like and develop into the spanish inquisition!
got so much to say always too much to say – tony walker (got to break off)
sorry for the bad grammar and ommissions esp where i should have said we shouldnt have a defence sector – apologies
The list of principles is an encouraging set; showing that you understand the values of a libertarian socialist doctrine.
I have two questions regarding this implementation, however, which may be frowned upon.
1) Were any of these points collected by talking to the centre-right focus groups?
– For twenty years centralised democracy has been managed by the science of focus groups and swing voters. What are their fears? what are their anxieties? what are their selfish, insular, drives? These are then pandered to by the parties, as points amid a rainbow of old party rhetoric.
It is by encouraging ego/ethnocentric drives that the modern parties are able to extrapolate voting tendencies from the swing voters, which leads to winning every valuable seat.
Have you any intention of employing psychologists to run focus groups with Non-left voters, to see what they would actually vote for and if this is worth attempting to emulate, or simply not in the spirit of the movement?
2) What do you intend to do about the currency speculators?
– Our economy is being used to blackmail us. You have many points that discuss the opposition to capitalism, but I fear that with any hint of genuine Leftist/nationalist intentions in our government the speculators will sell swathes of our currency, plummeting it’s value. At such a time we will not be able to afford to import goods, leaving us somewhat dead in the water; at which point everyone calls for the old capitalists “who know how to run an economy” and the left will ironically lose all influence.
The hardest battle is to sustain the country whilst regulation is slowly put in place and as our manufacturing was sold off in the nineteen seventies we don’t have the capacity to exist without imports.
With reference to another comment; there is a little debate about small businesses, which seems to confuse it’s self. There’s nothing in socialism or nature which prohibits small business. The core principles are that we do away with the relationship of “The employer and employee” as an institutional certainty. The oldest ideal of the Labour movement (circa 1790) is that the people who work in the mills should own them. By doing away with local-trade you resign the government to the illegitimate authoritarian power that everyone wants to avoid.
People need to repeat until it makes scene, that local-trade is not the enemy of people, it is wage slavery.
Despite being a Left Party Platform signee (albeit with some reservations) I think this and the following comments are excellent and do a lot to move the debate forward. All too rare to see some serious thought given to the meaning of ‘revolutionary’!
The ‘small business’ idea is interesting and well argued. I’d hazard a guess that many small business owners are also driven as much by enthusiasm for their work area as by the drive to accumulate capital (and status). Good stuff!
Great discussion so far – talking about actual principles around which we can unite rather than rallying to this or that relatively exclusive platform.
Mike Wayne – I liked your article in general. I think there is some mileage in the minimum-maximum programme idea, but the trouble is that reformists always tend to love the minimum and quietly forget about the maximum. This is not so terrible in an economic or geo-political situation when concessions can be extracted from the ruling class (oh yes it does exist!) but when capitalism’s core economic interests or the polictical control of the ruling class are fundamentally challeged, reformists ACTIVELY betray our side to keep capitalism going and the maximum progrtamme goes down the toilet. Reformism, then, is not just a question of people who have a different perspective of socialism, it is their about acting as a fifth column to actually PREVENT socialism.
Phil Hearse
The above is why I feel you take the “broad church” stuff a bit far. This is deeply ironic because in our local LU group YOU are the revolutionary Trotskyist and I am the ex-, non- Trotskyist looking for a different model to achieve socialism. We are in the odd situation that if I wanted to really annoy you, which I really do not want to do – love you, man ;) – I would propose and vote for your own genuine political ideas and dare you to vote against it in the interests of the broad church and new approach that I DO in fact actually support!!
I do not agree with the particular expression of the revolutionary path, the language used or the assumptions made in the ‘Socialist Platform’ for reasons I have outlined at length elsewhere. I desperately want a party that can unite all the disparate strands of the LEFT, without insisting on blueprints, purity or bogus claims to ‘know’ the true path to socialism. There is room for a wide-ranging discussion from policies to basic principles and assumptions. However, I do believe that, as John Penney suggests, a line in the sand needs to be drawn to demonstrate why we don’t all just join/stay in the Labour Party. If we are not NOT LABOUR then what is the point of us. That line consists of these two dangerous ideas :
1) that ‘socialism (or whatever you call it) can be achieved by voting in a great bunch of Left Unity MP’s who will, because Britain is a democracy after all, implement said socialism and all the national and internatinal capitalist class will just melt away and hand over their wealth and power with no need for mass action by US, everyone else to ensure that the power and wealth is taken from them. We are as important in the process, in fact more so, than the MP’s or the left government will be. This does not have to be called a ‘revolution’, and the strategy and tactics can be creative and fluid for a new century, learning from past mistakes as the situation develops, but in our basic aims it cannot be fudged. To be fair the Left Party Platform does make this clear. Now, of course, we are currently not even in the same universe as this scenario, so even talking about it can appear absurd. Of course, it should not be first item in our press release after the founding conference but it must not be lost sight of or abandoned.
2) that the Labour Party was once a socialist party red in tooth and claw, until Tony Blair, or maybe Neil Kinnock, ruined it by accepting neo-liberalism. What we, therefore, have to do is go back to the policies of Michael Foot, Jim Callaghan, Harold Wilson, Hugh Gaitskell and Clement Atlee, instead of being committed to a break from capitalism – That would involve LU in acceptance of attacks on trade unions and working class commmunities and a complete acceptance of the principle that the most we can hope for is what capitalism will allow us to have, and if that is less than now or nothing at all, then ordinary people will need to suffer and to be attacked if they resist, using the forces of the state. By its emphasis on recapturing the ‘gains of the past’ and by being rather studiously and carefully vague about what ‘socialism’ might consist of, the Left Party Platform opens a crack of the door to these ideas, which most signatories and least of all you, Phil, do not actually share. I don’t want to see a LEFT government running capitalism and having to follow its inexorable and brutal logic. Mike Wayne’s answer to you re revoultion and process and education are well put, I feel.
Ben McCall – Good basically, mate, but there is that pacifism again. I don’t want to fight the ruling class on an individual or terroristic or even a guerilla basis, but mass action is part of the process of getting what we all want and I am not happy about signing up to a principle of non-violence, rather than simply a preference for it. On elections, I agree. I feel we can’t have more than a token presence in 2015. Before we ask people to vote for us we need to prove ourselves to them day by day in local campaigning. This follows on from the rejection of empty electoralism in point 1) above. Without a proven record at the sharp end we would be seen, correctly, as just another cynical vote gathering exercise, telling working people to ‘vote for us and we will save you’
On small business – I don’t want to live in a society that does not allow someone with a good idea and a bit of flair to open and run a business, provided that fundamental rights are preserved for any employees and that the main strategic levers of economic power and the banks are under democratic control and ownership. Nor do I have any problem with a certain role for market forces in the distribution and production of goods. Overall organisation of the economy to ensure fairness, efficiency, environmental sustainability, and justice – OK. Totalitarian micro-management of every aspect of daily life and a disregard of personal liberty – NO.
Sorry for all that – onwards to a united, non-Labour, inclusive left party! Can’t wait!! :)
Mike’s basic proposal is absolutely spot on……it is essential to build a political program and policies on the foundations of a set of principles…. to use an analogy, they are like the DNA of a new species of society. Mike has made a very thoughtful attempt to set out what those principles could be….I think they could be reduced to a shorter set but that is for a debate to sort out. Well done Mike…I hope this now becomes the main focus of the debate inside LU.
On the matter of language……I know a bunch of people whose mission is to create what they call “sustainable capitalism”….but do you know what?…..when you look at what they think it might look like it looks rather like what I would describe as “socialism”.Maybe there is a bigger coalition for social change out there than we sometimes think….perhaps we shouldnt get too hung up on language…..its the underlying principles that matter,
To begin with this is NOT a criticism of the SWP : however, I read an account of one of their schools (on their website) where a young worker asked ‘SO what will a socialist or communist society actually be like?’ and the comrade leading the session was honest enough to say that they did not know and that it was ‘beyond our imagination’ at this time. WHo ever you are Mike and whatever your background, I feel that your piece and some of the contributions above really give a good idea of how / what things could and WILL be different. We spend all our energy fighting the system that we have and perhaps we have forgotten to think of what the alternative actually looks like, perhaps thats one of the reasons behind the decline of the left in this country over the years. The right have made many of their not so obvious ideas seem the norm but they can be countered and your piece is really important in focusing us all.
Like many contributors above, I agree that the inclusion of education and culture is welcome – the current education system stigmatises many children, their families and their communities ; the cultural offering for the mass of people is deliberately crass and designed to stop them questioning many of the assumptions that the system work.
Well done Mike, I hope the principles are debated, developed and lived by everyone in LU.
PS If anyone wants to read a description of a communist society look at the last chapters in trotskys ‘Literature and Revolution’.
John refers to what a communist society will look like….that is an interesting question…..what a lot of contributors to various debates on LU seem to have forgotten is that socialism is a transitional stage on the road to a communist society and therefore it contains features and characteristics inherited from capitalist society as well as embryonic forms of the emerging communist society. Nobody knows how long that transition will take or exactly how the journey will unfold (‘cos nobody has been there yet) so the process has to be driven by a vision of the future without getting dogmatic about how the destination will be reached…..we will just have to explore the way ahead….that calls for open mindedness…..but also for clear leadership at the forks in the road along the way.
Formulating the right set of basic principles at the start will help frame the vision of where we are going so Mike’s piece which started this debate thread makes the correct point.
Very taken with this, as everyone else seems to be. I hope it will be presented to a future conference? Cheers
Enormously heartened by this, after some of the frankly horrific stuff that’s elsewhere on the LU site. Some need to remember that the purpose of LU is not to be yet another communist sect. You don’t have to be all that left wing nowadays to be well to the left of the current Labour leaders and want an alternative.
I would like to propose that Left Unity divides into two. One section for debate about interesting political theories. All shades of left wing opinion welcome here. The debate should continue for several years I think.
Left Unity section 2 is for people who want to get on with action now to help people in need in the UK and from this develop a coherent vision and policies for an electoral challenge in the UK. This section to be focussed on action in the real world, expressed in everyday language which people can understand and use to develop common purpose.
Every year or two section 2 can meet with section 1 to find out how the debate is progressing.
David
Tee hee. But it really is too easy to say “just do stuff”. We are not a single issue campaign – we want to be a party. It is essential that we know what we stand for in broad terms or we will be blown off course in the first difficult situation we find oursleves in. What good is an electoral challenge if we don’t know what we stand for! how can we have policies with no vision of a stategy or idea of what kind of future society we want to see.
Also, you shouuld never assume that people who are engaged with these debates are not the same people engaged with day to day practical struggles. I generally find the opposite to be the case.