A steadier platform to build upon..?
A personal view from Richard Murgatroyd from Huddersfield Left Unity
There is growing concern about the role played by the platforms in LU. This came up at our local group meeting last week, Micheline Mason has written an article calling for ‘caucuses not platforms’ and in reply one supporter commented that while he initially supported the right of factions/platforms to propose motions, he’d changed his mind in the light of recent experience. These concerns seem to be justified as we look towards the formation of our new party in November.
Before explaining why this might be, I would like to stress one crucial point to avoid misunderstandings and mis-representation. Being concerned about factional platforms does not mean that I want a democratic-centralist command-style monolithic party where everyone is expected to toe the leadership line. Nor do I want witch-hunts and expulsions of people. I do not want to prevent minority views getting a fair hearing.
As a socialist I support the right of groups of members to come together to promote particular views and interests. I want an open, pluralist party where people are respected and communicate respectfully. Above all I want an internal political culture that encourages members to unite in a positive and constructive way, concentrating on the great issues of our time and not falling out about some hypothetical revolutionary future. I hope and believe that these views are mainstream among supporters of LU. We shall know for sure in November.
But in the meantime, the way the platform debate has panned out so far potentially contains within it the seeds of our own destruction. Here are a few of the concerns:
The platforms are too divisive
Most of us joined Left Unity on the assumption that it was what it said on the tin: about uniting the diverse, fragmented strands of the socialist and radical left in Britain into a pluralist, democratic party that could challenge austerity and the dominance of the Labour Party. In the longer term to radically transform British society.
Obviously we are never going to agree about everything and have some important decisions to make about what the aims of LU as a party will be. But it is reasonable to expect that a project that is essentially about ‘unity’ is not dominated from the outset by division and argument. The worry is that the competition between the factions/platforms inevitably places more emphasis on what divides, rather than what unites us. They are inherently competitive and exclude supporters who don’t want to be part of them and just want to be ‘ordinary’ individual members of LU.
Yet for all that, I must admit that on one level they are temporarily playing a positive role. At least they are offering some reasonably clear choices about what sort of socialist/left party we want LU to become. At the November conference the Platforms will propose rival motions and their ideas will be contested, debated and then voted on. This will be a defining moment for the LU project. Similarly, their existence will allow us to vote for people in responsible and leadership positions in a more informed way.
But any positive advantages the platform debate may play at the November conference will be more than cancelled out if they continue to play the same role and enjoy the same prominence after.
The platforms are likely to become permanent
Scroll forward a couple of years… If our current direction of travel is followed the existing Platforms (plus some that have yet to be formed) will have been busy politicking away. Over that time, as groups of humans inevitably do when working together, they will have:
· developed a distinct group identity with their own internal hierarchies (and even possibly a ‘guru’ or two!)
· solidified their position as the correct line that ideally everyone else should convert to
· emphasised points of difference with the other factions who will become seen as rivals, perhaps even downright enemies
· produced a constant stream of motions, papers and web posts that dominate the agenda of national meetings and heavily influence the internal life of the party
· sought to turn elections into choices between candidates from rival factions and in all likelihood be presenting slates of candidates
It will be as though there were a number of competing left parties within the party.
Now I can see why this might appeal to some. For example, if you were a member of a small ultra-left Leninist group who has entered Left Unity in order to pick up a few recruits all this is grist to the mill. Similarly, the kinds of personality types who love polemics and arguments, point-scoring, intrigue and ideological purity will love it. Others will feel instinctively comfortable within this political culture, unconsciously reverting to attitudes and forms of behaviour they learnt as past members of wannabe Leninist vanguard parties.
But what about people, hopefully new to left wing politics, who don’t want to ally with a Platform and see LU as primarily about opposing austerity, privatisation and inequality? All of us know in our heart of hearts that a political party dominated by permanent rival platforms/factions will be a massive turn off to these new recruits because the political culture will be so unhealthy.
Permanent platforms will encourage an unhealthy political culture
Debate is a good thing. It allows us to weigh up arguments and options. It creates new ideas. It holds the powerful to account. But as many people involved in the LU project have pointed out, the language and style of communication we use will be an important factor in our success (or failure).
The worry about the way the current style of Platform led debate is going is that it will inevitably encourage a certain kind of political culture that is:
· adversarial and polemical – so for example, in order to win a point people may falsely attribute views to a rival, distort their position etc
· uses ‘special language codes’ that confuse and exclude the non-initiated – this can often be infuriatingly patronising
· accusatory, personal and often downright rude to people who disagree
· be inward looking, concentrating on internal party affairs, personalities and positions
Again, this will put off most ordinary people.
Caucuses not platforms?
These concerns are real ones. They arise from what has already started to happen and what is likely to happen. I’m sure that there are people in LU from most of the existing platforms who share some or all of them. Certainly many of the posts from the various factions have been expressed in a positive and inclusive way and my concern is not to point the finger at this or that platform, but instead question the wider effect of their existence on the culture of our embryonic party.
The challenge is to balance the democratic rights of individuals and groups within LU to come together, formulate and promote their ideas, with the wider needs of the party. I don’t think there are any easy answers to this, but one way of balancing these competing demands raised by Micheline Mason is to promote ‘caucuses not platforms’.
How might this work?
The dominant political culture of the party would be one which welcomed caucuses and sections to promote specific political or such as the environment, disability rights, anything that people feel is important. BUT these caucuses and sections would have different sorts of aims, lead to different sorts of outcomes and operate in a more positive way than the current style of platforms. This is easier to see in the form of a table:
|
Current style of platforms |
Caucuses |
Sections |
|
Wide remit: highly ideological and promoting a ‘big’ vision type of political debate.
Seeking to define the overall purpose and character – the ‘soul’ – of the party in very broad terms
Inherently adversarial – tending to adopt an all or nothing approach to debates
Promoting rival leaderships, (probably?) standing slates of candidates in elections
Likely to become either a permanent leadership or opposition faction
|
Narrower remit: focussed on specific areas of policy and practice
Geared to encouraging debate about particular issues with a view to persuading LU to adopt particular policies
While strongly, even passionately espousing a view, more likely to use consensual methods and compromise as a way of securing specific goals
While possibly supporting individual candidates, won’t promote slates of candidates
Not aiming to take leadership. Activities more contingent on circumstances and therefore more likely to be temporary
|
Narrower remit: focussed on representing sectional oppressed groups or interests, containing a wide range of ideological opinion
Promoting representation and particular relevant policies
While strongly, even passionately espousing a view, more likely to use consensual methods and compromise as a way of securing specific goals
While possibly supporting individual candidates, won’t promote slates of candidates
Not aiming to take the leadership but semi-permanent, depending on the sectional interest (eg LGBT, disabled members etc) |
So caucuses should be usually seen as reasonably temporary formations coming together to address particular issues. Sections would have a more permanent character but be more concerned with representation.
The overwhelming assumption within LU would be that permanent rival factions that seek to dominate the party are not healthy. This should be written into the party’s constitution, not as a pretext for expulsions and disciplinary action, but to show clearly how the majority of party members expect members of caucuses to behave. A sort of ethical and political bench-mark that people could reasonably be expected to stick to .
It will also be necessary to ensure that caucuses have no special rights to propose motions – although this has to be balanced with the need to ensure minorities have a voice. You might reasonably expect at least one branch to propose a motion drafted by a caucus if it had a chance of success. But if not, a solution here would be to write into the constitution the right to propose a motion if a certain number of people sign up to it. The current working draft of the constitution available on the website puts this figure as 20 members, but perhaps this is lowering the bar too much..?
At present the website seems at times to be dominated by various articles and posts from members of the different platforms. Yet this is the main access point to LU. After November, as we will have broadly agreed on the aims of LU and be developing our policies, the website will presumably change in character. It will primarily be about attracting new people and setting out our stall. But there should still be a way members could log in to a ‘members only’ section and access material from the caucuses if they want to. So a forum will still exist to raise ideas, encourage debate and discussion, without dominating the external image or the internal life of the party.
Finally, in the end a healthy political culture requires people to act positively and respectfully within clear democratic structures. There are no easy answers but given the massive potential of LU we clearly have to get the whole issue of platforms, caucuses and sections right. If we manage it, the many debates and discussions that will rightly arise in future years will unite rather than divide us.
18 comments
18 responses to “A steadier platform to build upon..?”
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.
Wednesday 17th September: Trump not Welcome
National Demonstration against Trump’s state visit
More events »
GET UPDATES
Sign up to the Left Unity email newsletter.
CAMPAIGNING MATERIALS
Get the latest Left Unity resources.
I am not in favour of restrictions in the party; when it comes down to it, there could be a lot of subjective interpretation between what in political practice is defined as a platform or a caucuse. And in anycase it is always a sign of a problem if you have to legislate to solve it.
My own feeling is that the critical element is a willingness of people to see the current platforms as temporary – leading up to the conference. The very nature of attempting to define the party is likely to make these platforms more ideological, than the situation should be afterwards. Whatever platform is decided upon, there is quite frankly lots and lots in common and should be a basis to work together. Adopting one or another will not be the end of the world… IF WE HAVE THE RIGHT ATTITUDE.
Buckling down to individual policies should create a series of caususes, which if the party is healthy, will have people flowing from one to another on different issues, as Richard defines them.
Of course, as Richard expresses it, it could all go pear-shaped, if people get on their high horses and see success of one platform as the ‘crime of the centrury’. But that only says that we have not matured and learnt from the past. And will be doomed to repeat it.
At the moment we are trying to define what LU is.
For those of us who took the ‘left’ to being socialism, it’s a bit worrying some of the types we are attracting, e.g. pro-capitalists who just want a bit more equality. I hope that LU will become the British part of a European, even worldwide anti-capitalist movement. I certainly hope it doesn’t end up collaborating with the ruling class by taking part in any governments that don’t seek to end capitalism.
The LPP leaves the door open for pro-capitalists by not being strongly anti-capitalist. It’s that that has led to the socialist & class struggle platforms.
If LU becomes a social democratic party, i.e. includes a significant number who just want to reform capitalism as an end goal, then it will be good that we have a permanent socialist faction; I’d be the first to sign up.
But whatever platform we end up with, we will have to accept it as the will of the majority & ensure we move forward together. The more we can embed participatory democracy the more we can live with decisions that we don’t support.
This is a perfect example of what is wrong with the platform debate
That’s rather the point, John, your entire definition of the left naturally excludes people like me who are mutualist, not socialist. I am strongly, strongly anti-capitalist, but according to your initial sentence I am not a left winger!
“All of us know in our heart of hearts that a political party dominated by permanent rival platforms/factions will be a massive turn off to these new recruits because the political culture will be so unhealthy.”
Every real party of the working class has had numerous platforms both temporary and permanent. It was never a barrier for people to join before and it is unlikely to be so again. Members must be able to form platforms for however long they think is necessary.
I agree that the Platforms should be withdrawn on the grounds that they are both sectarian but if their sponsors will not do that then clearly they will have to be argued against at conference. To propose only caucuses and the administrative prohibition of platforms as the answer is to make the leadership the only legal faction in the organisation a la SWP. No, unity, or a worthwhile unity, can only be achieved on the basis of a programme that reflects objective necessity, is inwardly coherent and has been thoroughly discussed and voted on by the membership as a whole. It is the thing that unites leadership and membership and keeps both honest and it is the thing that will unite Left Unity with the working class in the end. It is the thing that will make LU the genuine alternative to New Labour that it claims to want to be.
“As a socialist I support the right of groups of members to come together to promote particular views and interests. I want an open, pluralist party where people are respected and communicate respectfully. Above all I want an internal political culture that encourages members to unite in a positive and constructive way, concentrating on the great issues of our time and not falling out about some hypothetical revolutionary future. I hope and believe that these views are mainstream among supporters of LU. We shall know for sure in November.”
Hear, hear, really liked this piece (and Dave Edwards comment above), and I hope people will read it and understand that, in most local groups (from what I hear and have experienced) and for most of the time at national meetings (ditto), debate is going on along these lines, and not along the lines of what gets on the internet, and creates such a false and poisonous picture.
Whatever happens at the November conference, the notion that platforms could then be dispensed with is about as realistic as preventing everyone from thinking about a blue donkey.
It is far, far too early to narrow the focus along the lines of any single one of the existing platforms, and to take a vote at this stage would merely demonstrate how hard it is to depart from old habits.
Surely we should at this stage still be concentrating on confirming what we all have in common. What’s the point in that, you might say? – it’s all obvious stuff, and nothing new. But to the outside world, which has become very cynical about left politics, an actual show of unity of purpose – at the same time as developing the debates on how best to make an impact – could indeed be something new and inspiring.
Richard’s central point, that temporary ‘caucuses’ focussed on debates on particular areas of policy are a very good and useful thing, but that permanent ‘platforms’ concerned with a wide remit, focussed on broad ideological/strategic (and, in effect, unresolvable) differences within the party are problematic, has some weight.
However, there is one really big problem with this – in my long and largely fruitless experience as an activist on the left I have concluded that the potential problems involved in members of a socialist organisation being free to organise as best they see fit to promote their views within it are as nothing to the certain dangers of trying to circumscribe that freedom.
How could one legislate for what is a temporary faction rather than what is a permanent one? How could one rule in advance what sort of issues were appropriate for discussion – ‘encouraging debate about particular issues with a view to persuading LU to adopt particular policies’ – and which should be discouraged?
The fact is, as we all agree, that debate and discussion is the very lifeblood of a socialist organisation. The unavoidable consequence is that a pluralist party that seeks to draw together all the strands of the socialist tradition will have a wide range of platforms and tendencies, most temporary and some permanent, constantly discussing all sorts of issues, from current tactics and policy to longer term strategic questions – and yes, existential debates about the nature of socialism, the universe and everything.
The fact is that any healthy organisation of socialists is going to be – will be – must be – in a constant ferment of debate. Platforms, tendencies, factions, whatever we call them, are bound to exist whether they are allowed, encouraged, discouraged, banned or not. There is no reason why debate about important issues, while necessarily robust at times, should not also be positive and fraternal – as, I think, the important and necessary debates between the LPP and the Socialist Platform has been (mainly) so far. And, as a supporter of the LPP myself, I certainly don’t accept that those two platforms are destined to become two permanent rival camps with entirely different and entrenched world views.
The price we have to pay for the internal regime of open and active debate on anything and everything between comrades is that we will always have to tolerate the ranting – some of it embarrassing, boring and downright unpleasant – of a small handful tin pot sectarians from one or other of the socialist versions of the Sealed Knot Society. It’s a small price to pay.
People need to chill a bit on this. It’s getting to the point where the denunciations of the platforms for being divisive are as divisive as the platforms are.
I start from the following position. All the platforms are genuine, good intentioned attempts to influence LU in a way they believe would be beneficial for the organisation. Any disagreements I have with them are not personal, either way. Whichever platform gets adopted at conference, I’m going to still be in LU and all the signatories to the various platforms are still my comrades.
I’m still not completely sure on what you’re proposing. I certainly don’t think that banning people who have similar views from forming ‘platforms’ of like minded individuals is either feasible or desirable.
If you attempt to ban platforms like that, you generally get one of two things happening in my experience. Either you end up with a similar unofficial ‘leadership faction’. Or you end with decisions being made in small friendship groups.
My preferred solution is simply to end any special privileges (be that for factions, sections or caucuses) and stick firmly to the principle of OMOV. (Moving foward on the Internet democracy issue would aid this process massively).
A solution here would be to write into the constitution the right to propose a motion if a certain number of people sign up to it. The current working draft of the constitution available on the website puts this figure as 20 members, but perhaps this is lowering the bar too much..?
As I’m sure you know, that’s been my preference all along. And I think 20 members is fine, certainly at this stage.
I’d like to think the current factional position won’t become permanent as Sean says but as some of the comments above suggest, this seems at this point very unlikely.
I totally agree with him though that expulsions, bans etc are a worse option, but as a socialist I believe that ethical and clearly affirmed moral imperatives and shared values are powerful ways of encouraging positive behaviour. (In fact without that its hard to see how an alternative society to capitalism would operate in the long run without dictatorship).
So by redesignating ‘platforms’ as ‘caucuses’; reaffirming their right to exist; putting into the constitution a statement outlining what the majority of members consider to be their proper role and responsibilities; giving them no more privileges than those enjoyed by non-platform members; all this would help ‘detoxify’ the image of platforms and create a healthier internal culture moving forward.
Best
Richard
Internal debate must never be circumscribed, but once policy frameworks are agreed, we all need to buckle down to working together to take them as far as they will go and learn together about what works and what doesn’t.
My suggestion for conference, which I am repeating on various threads, is that each Platform agrees beforehand on the aspects of the other that it finds broadly compatible to be incorporated into its own. So if the Socialist Platform wins a majority, significant chunks of the LPP automatically become part of the agreed framework of policy, and vice-versa.
To me, this is much better than circumscribing internal debate. Politics, to some extent, is the art of compromise, so long as we also know the limits of compromise. When compromise strengthens us, we should encourage and allow for it.
Now I have no idea at all what number of people have so far become “Founder Members” of LU by paying regular subs. So I have no idea how many people we can expect to turn up to November’s Founding Conference to debate and vote on the critically important issues which will dictate what the “line of political march” will be in the first phase of our new Party’s life. However if the May meeting of supporter delegates in London still proves to be a reasonable indicator of the balance of opinion in November, the Left Party Platform position will overwhelmingly win the day. I support the LPP myself ( grudgingly – as I think it is very sparse on essential radical policy detail), so I think we will set out on the tactically correct “broad, open, non-revolutionary, party of the radical SOCIALIST Left” route of political struggle at the outset.
I actually very much doubt that either the Class Struggle Platform, or the Socialist Platform, really expect to win a majority to their view in November. I see these rather contextually “ultraleft” statements as really just “billboard advertising” by the “hard Left” to the rest of us as to their existence – and provide an opportunity to start raising the usual Far Left “agendas” amongst the wider membership.
I actually have no real problem with this, There is no chance whatsoever that the various Far Left Groups can be prevented from operating as permanent factions. I have no problem with them doing so, if done in a sensible and LU growth oriented manner, because we will have a countervailing “factional problem” throughout the life of Left Unity – from opportunist, careerist , collaborationist reformists, to which the constant “nudging Leftwards” from our revolutionary socialist comrades will provide an essential counterweight.
The issue is whether the impossible to avoid ,(via either proscriptions or banning of permanent factions), coexistence of far Left factions bogs us down so deeply into permanent sterile factionalising, as to frighten off the huge numbers of new members we need to attract from the ranks of ordinary working people. The jury is out – until tested in practice. I experienced the worst features of the destructive “split the party – expose the leadership” obsessions of entrist factions during the 1970’s in the International Socialists/SWP – when for years the wider political work of that party was practically incapacitated by the deliberately disruptive antics of wave after wave of absolutely tiny entrist sects – into a political “party” ( OK, group) which was hardly much bigger than they were ! My then branch of the IS, in Stockport, basically wasted the whole of 1972 (or thereabouts) fighting off the attempts by an entire extended family of entrists to turn the branch into a “red base” for their daft little sectlet ! When the smoke of political infighting finally cleared , and we had expelled the lot of them, our large ,previously heavily industrial working class branch was in ruins !
I have nevertheless been very cheered by the very sensible statements and analysis about the tactical role of Left Unity and the place of revolutionary socialists within it, produced by the Independent Socialists, the ISN, and workers Liberty, and others. The Revolutionary Left who are currently involved in LU do seem to understand that tactically , today, to start the fightback against the Austerity Offensive, the first order of the day is to build a broad radical ,nominally “reformist” party, within which the role of the revolutionary Left is to serve as the hard political core – arguing for uncompromising resistance, and seeking to develop the ideological and struggle-based “bridge” between the immediate ,defensive, reformist, struggle, and the longer term potentially revolutionary one. In my view, if the political maturity of that current Far Left tactical analysis translates into actual political practice, we may yet succeed in encompassing fruitfully both the reformist and revolutionary currents of the socialist tradition into one dynamic Party – for a while anyway.
Let everyone have a Platform. OPOV. Solved.
I hope the Left Unity Founding Conference in November produces an avowedly Socialist Party, which embraces all those who seriously want to end capitalism, and want to build a new Socialist society based on meeting human needs and abolishing class divisions.
We definitely do not want a pinker version of the Labour Party, which has been an openly pro-capitalist Party, mirroring the Tories on every single issue, since Blair became leader, deleted Clause IV from the Constitution, and abolished internal Party democracy. 13 years of “New Labour” Government saw the continuation of Thatcherite policies in the NHS, and throughout the public sector. It also saw the abolition of free further and higher education for working class youth. The low point of this windbag’s regime was, of course, the launching of wars for oil and gas in Iraq and Afghanistan, with Britain playing sycophant in chief to American imperialism.
I hope too that the new Party does not turn into a clone of the ultra-left SWP, which has been the fate of previous attempts to forge a Socialist alternative to the tweedledum, tweedledee nature of British politics. Only time, and political struggle and the clash of ideas, will tell.
Those arguing against “Platforms” are really arguing against politics, and the Left Unity project is a political project, aimed at transforming the political landscape in this country on behalf of the working class, the unemployed, the sick and disabled, the super-exploited, in short, all those oppressed by a diseased and dying cpaitalist system.
Let the “platforms” contend for supremacy. Everything will be put to a vote at the Founding Conference. The “losers” can continue to work for their ideas in the hope of becoming the majority at a later date, whilst also being loyal to the new organisation and its Socialist objectives.
The need and scope for a Left alternative has seldom been more obvious, compelling, and necessary. The capitalist class and its agents in the media and elsewhere are desperate to keep Socialism off the public agenda so that the current system of pro-capitalist musical chairs can continue indefinitely.
Socialists must smash this capitalist “consensus,” and give a political voice to millions of downtrodden, poverty stricken workers and unemployed, who are turning their backs on all mainstream parties because they rightly condemn them as being “all the same,” i.e., wedded to the same big business agenda, and focused on feathering their own very comfortable Parliamentary and local Government nests at the expense of the masses.
To echo the words of a very famous and still relevant Socialist pioneer, the workers have nothing to lose but their chains. They have a world to win. The same applies to people of a Socialist persuasion, who should focus firmly on this historic task of building a viable Socialist alternative to the madness, waste, wars, and chaos of unbridled capitalism, instead of becoming myopically obsessed with sectarian bickering, point scoring, and arcane intellectualising.
Socialism IS the only solution to the manifold problems facing mankind all over the world. I see no other solution.
So I unreservedly endorse the Socialist Platform and hope it wins majority support in November.
Hi Jimmy You say that ‘Those arguing against “Platforms” are really arguing against politics’. Wouldn’t it be fairer to say that they are arguing against a certain kind of politics? This is not to say that people are right or wrong when criticising platforms, but their misgivings need to be address? LU is not an attempt just to bring together the fragments of the traditional left, but also those whose political experience has been elsewhere – in community activism, single issue campaigns and so on (as well as people with no expereince at all). I’m not sure that anyone quite knows what this will look like. But there might well be something to learn from different approaches to politics – which is not just about the ‘clash of ideas’ but also (as you say) about giving people a political voice? The worry is that in recreating the antagonistic culture of the traditional left, people are effectively denied that voice. Cheers
Hi Jimmy You say that ‘Those arguing against “Platforms” are really arguing against politics’. Wouldn’t it be fairer to say that they are arguing against a certain kind of politics? This is not to say that people are right or wrong when criticising platforms, but their misgivings need to be addressed. LU is not an attempt just to bring together the fragments of the traditional left, but also those whose political experience has been elsewhere – in community activism, single issue campaigns and so on (as well as people with no expereince at all). I’m not sure that anyone quite knows what this will look like. But there might well be something to learn from different approaches to politics – which is not just about the ‘clash of ideas’ but also (as you say) about giving people a political voice? The worry is that in recreating the antagonistic culture of the traditional left, people are effectively denied that voice. Cheers
I am gobsmacked. JT & JP virtually agreeing, there is hope. I still hope that the platforms will use all opinions relevant that contribute to building a new party. Then the real work can begin which the LPP can implement and move forward with. OPOV.