Why I as a socialist signed up for a new mass party of the left
Doug Thorpe from Haringey Left Unity reflects on the discussion about the new party.
Some recent contributions to discussions on a variety of topics in the Haringey local group have raised the suggestion that there is a creeping reformist current in Left unity that wants a Left of Labour Party whose highest ambitions are “national reforms” and “managing capitalism”.
I have not seen any posts on the Left Unity website that argue for that limited vision. However, the comments persist, and have echoes of the caricature that some supporters of the Socialist Platform (and others) portray of the Left Party Platform (which I support). Sometimes caricatures, or “straw men” are set up, so they can be knocked down in a debate. And however inaccurate they are, they can leave a lasting impression unless the false premise is refuted.
I actually think there is less of a difference between the politics of the supporters of the various platforms than a lot of the contributions to the internal debate would suggest. Most of us could personally agree with a great deal of what is in every one of the platforms. But I do not think this is the real debate. The main difference that is being argued out is not “what type of Socialists we are” – but “what sort of party do we think is needed?”. Between a party that regroups those who are already avowedly revolutionary socialists; and a broader vision of a party that is socialist, internationalist, and environmentalist – but has space for other strands of the anti-capitalist and wider left who want a party to the left of Labour that will fight the current capitalist, neo-liberal attacks on working people and in fact on the majority of the population.
Does the Left Party Platform restrict itself to “national reforms” and “managing capitalism” – clearly not, as a few quotes from its documents will show:
“…socialist, feminist, environmentalist and against all forms of discrimination. Its politics and policies will stand against capitalism, imperialism,….”
“….advance alternative social and economic policies, redistributing wealth to the working class.”
“…democratic, diverse and inclusive, organising amongst working class communities with no interests apart from theirs”
“…will also move forward with a vision of a transformed society: a party which advocates and fights for the democratisation of our society, economy, state and political institutions, transforming these arenas in the interests of the majority.”
“our vision of society is one where the meeting of human needs is paramount, not one which is driven by the quest for private profit and the enrichment of a few. The natural wealth, productive resources and social means of existence will be owned in common and democratically run by and for the people as a whole, rather than being owned and controlled by a small minority to enrich themselves.”
“There are no national solutions to the problems that humanity faces. Capitalism is an international system, highly organised and globalised and its defeat requires not only international solidarity but the linking up and coordination of struggles across Europe and the world.”
But, while not limiting its aims to reforms, the Left Party Platform also recognises the need for a “new political party which rejects austerity and war, which will defend and restore the gains of the past” which are currently under an immediate and vicious onslaught. We recognise that we are trying to build a party from where we are, not from where we would ideally like to be.
To that end I think the new party should create a home for all those to the left of labour who share a broad set of aims and want to engage in that fight against austerity; “its political practice will be democratic, diverse and inclusive, organising amongst working class communities with no interests apart from theirs, committed to open dialogue and new ways of working; to the mutual respect and tolerance of differences of analysis.”
If I want to see the potential membership of a party that exactly embodies the way I, as an individual, think – I can see it in its entirety when I look in my shaving mirror of a morning. The discussion is not about who I am, or who other existing supporters are, but about what sort of party Left Unity needs to be – and that is about who we want to include – and by extension, who will be excluded.
Revolutionary Marxists, socialists and communists are clearly part of what LU needs to include. I hope so, I am one of them. And regroupment of those forces into a coherent Marxist current would be a step forward in itself, but the question is: is that all who we want to include?
One argument goes – if we plant the flag of Socialism and dust it free of some of the unattractive deviations that have tarnished it in the past, the workers will come to it in their masses. The trouble is, that model is being tried elsewhere this very minute – and shows little sign of success. It seems straightforward to me that the thousands who responded to Ken Loach’s appeal were not clamouring for a Socialist Party or SWP mk II. The mk I versions are out there and anyone who wanted to could join them. And as for decontaminating the flag of its deviations – as soon as that discussion starts, one person’s heresy turns out to be another person’s inviolable truth.
It is right to say that it is an essential part of the role of the party to preserve the lessons of past struggles in a hostile ideological environment, but it is also its role to incorporate today’s struggles and experiences and develop those lessons in today’s context learning new lessons and developing that theory – and only mass membership (not just a few thousand unevenly distributed militants) can provide the real breadth of experience to do that, and test it out. Too many groups concentrate solely on preserving the flame handed down, to the exclusion of all else.
I am a socialist and would not want to be in a party that did not embrace the word and the history it represents. We must not throw out the baby with the bathwater. But nor do I want to be in one that forces those that share a similar vision of the world they want, but who presently do not identify with that label, to swallow it three times before breakfast each day before they can join.
It is noticeable that those manifestly Socialist class-strugglers who believe a party cannot be socialist if it doesn’t emblazon each paragraph of a statement with the word SOCIALISM, are probably also communists in the sense of the historic divide between Social Democracy and Communism. But I don’t hear many insisting we call Left Unity a Communist Party.
The words we adopt as the party’s aims at the founding conference will not themselves stop betrayals. Perhaps, we could put in our founding statement the aim “To secure for the workers by hand or by brain the full fruits of their industry and the most equitable distribution thereof that may be possible upon the basis of the common ownership of the means of production, distribution and exchange, and the best obtainable system of popular administration and control of each industry or service.” Then we’d be safe! I think not.
The easiest way to avoid the danger of a sell-out is to never get to a position where difficult decisions need to be taken. I remember a time in the not-too-distant past where SWP stewards in my trade union branch would not stand for branch officer positions, “because the Branch officers always sell-out”. But that is abdication of responsibility.
More important in guarding against betrayals will be our internal democracy and methods of accountability, our ability to debate different ideas without fracturing over small differences, our confidence to translate those ideas into real policy and practice, and then to hold our representatives to them.
Arguing for a broader, more inclusive party is not a matter of not being confident about being socialists. What is often portrayed as the confidence to loudly declare faith in Socialism – the need to trumpet the word in everything we say – seems to me a lack of confidence that Socialists can win the strategic and tactical arguments within a pluralist, anti-capitalist, anti-austerity party.
I’ll be honest, I have been in and around revolutionary socialist groups for a long time, so long that I no longer see the point of going round and round the same treadmill, arguing small points of difference to distinguish myself from people who agree 95% with me about what needed to be done.
What I saw in Ken Loach’s appeal, and the response to it, was the possibility of a serious attempt to respond to the crying need for a party to the left of Labour that would draw in, and become the platform for all those that wanted to resist the neo-liberal offensive and fight for social and economic justice for the majority of society.
I believe that a socialist current can give the best answers and leadership within that broad party, but I also know that there are many who may not call themselves socialists, who share the same broad objectives and who have a wealth of innovative and different ideas and experiences that can develop and enhance the policies, experience, and theory of that party.
For me the Left Party Platform contains the essentials of what we have to say to describe the aims of such a party, but allow the breathing space it needs to have a chance of creating a living mass party. That may still only be a small chance, but I’d hate to strangle even that small chance by being too prescriptive from the outset.
I hope that people will not stand back and hope that someone else resolves this debate for them. I would urge everyone who was enthused by Ken Loach’s original appeal to sign up as founder members, register for the November conference, and play a part, in deciding the basis for our nascent party.
Doug Thorpe
Haringey Left Unity (personal viewpoint)
16 comments
16 responses to “Why I as a socialist signed up for a new mass party of the left”
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
More events »
GET UPDATES
Sign up to the Left Unity email newsletter.
CAMPAIGNING MATERIALS
Get the latest Left Unity resources.
I’m a reformist until the revolution arrives, then I’ll be a revolutionary.
That’s the same for all of us, so there’s no real distinction between ‘reformist’ and ‘revolutionary’ given the prevailing material reality. It is an abstract, idealist distinction not worth wasting time on.
I agree with mikems sentiments. The differences being argued over endlessly in the LU debates going on are based on theoretical disagreements. The time being expended on these lengthy theoretical debates, which seem often to be hair splitting differentiations, is enormous. If the equivalent amount of time and effort was directed towards practical work amongst the communities we live in we would be learning what needs to be done (to use an old phrase).
When I use the term “community” I dont just mean it in the residential sense…..we all are part of multiple communities – residential communities where we live, work communities (“companies” are communities, not commodities to be traded on stock exchanges), sports communities (football club supporters groups are communities too for example)…..and so on.
I am part if a local community group hoping to develop a renewable energy project for the benefit of the
community, by lowering our carbon footprint and generating revenue we can reinvest in other projects for the benefit of the local people. Already we are learning of the challenges and the changes that need to be made through political action to realise this vision. The investment system needs to be changed, the laws relating to social enterprises reformed….these are just a couple of examples. None of us knew this until we started to work on our ideas.
The focus must be on practical work and less theorising and navel gazing. Yes, of course, there must be theory, but it must develop out of practice and from practical experience It is time for LU’s debates to focus on practical work…..the political program and policy priorities will emerge from this.
Excellent post Doug. I may not believe in the viability of a reformist party, but much much more than that, I don’t want any non socialist to feel alienated by a revolutionary LU platform when we want to work on exactly the same things.
Doug;
I definitely agree. I’m a mutualist, but in most of my policies there’s very little difference between the actual practical policies I support and those the socialists locally support, and indeed some of the things I’ve suggested to them have caught their attention, things they’ve never considered themselves but could be useful (in particular, a local currency).
Ideology is the chosen weapon of the right. We should use policy.
Well put Doug. I joined left unity subscribed and then joined left party platform. Purely because I want something different for my kids. However, not understanding the language left me confused. But gradually as a visitor in a foreign land became used to some terms of reference. I do not believe left unity should be scared of describing itself as socialistic in nature, but then the slight differences between the various groups within the left structure and their differences seemed more important than the points that bind them all to one voice. I myself have been condescending and critical to things that I strongly disagreed, but left unity I think is more important than the small but wide gaps between these views and groups. Although I strongly disagree with the more harder core view of the manifesto platform and others, should never mean that we should not welcome the views of these groups. Debate is and always will lead to understanding clarification and eventually to new ways and ideas in which can be used to move forward. We can and should debate argue and agree to disagree. But not to the detriment of left unity and its broad and inclusive base.
Great read that highlights, to me at least, the importance of ‘unity’ that is needed within the party. Can only agree with others that have said the splitting of hairs on minute differences is only going to act as a hindrance, putting people off instead of welcoming others that share the same goals and wishes for the political direction we need.
It seems odd that a group with the goal of creating an unbiased environment in terms of race, gender and sexuality has so much segregation amongst those looking to contribute and strive towards and new left.
Please excuse the poor use of English/spelling errors. Phone and fat thumbs :/
Doug
I agree with much of the sentiment of your article. In terms of most LU supporters of either platform, there is much less difference than there looks (although some of the outlying comments on this blog are sometimes pretty dreadful!). Sorry to disappoint all the skeptics on the left who have been regularly predicting our division and demise. The LPP is currently the best of the platforms, and I, like you oppose the attempt to force on LU a kind of socialist catechism.
But the road to hell is paved with good intentions. As the article on Syriza on this site makes clear, even before they are anywhere near taking office, they are sliding towards simply wanting to manage the existing economic system, which will inevitably mean joining in with attacks on the poor and working people. There is intense pressure on all Left parties to ‘be realistic’, to settle for what you can get, to be the humane face of austerity.
We need to make it absolutely clear NOW, that Left Unity is not interested in ever being such a government, and that if elected we would immediately challenge the right of the rich and powerful to rule the economy, society and the state.
Agreed Ray, the need to clearly state the intention of the party to challenge and oppose the ways in which the bourgeoisie are dominating the masses is imperative.
I agree with one of Doug’s main points that the current platform debate is being driven round in circles by largely sectarian hair-splitting. I daresay we will hear more of it before it runs out of steam. If I was to suggest one thing that I think would most clarify and unify the future party as it is formed and afterwards I would have to point to what I want to join myself: a mass democratic party of the social democratic welfare state. That’s a short phrase for a grand project but it’s what I’d like to see, and reading this website has made think it’s worth making the effort to see if Left Unity can deliver that vision.
From reading the debates on the website I think LU is in danger of an Oozlum bird outcome –
The oozlum bird is such a rare bird so that even ornithologists are quite unaware of it. This bird must not turn left when flying. If it does, then it flies around in ever decreasing circles until it disappears completely in its own a—hole in a puff of blue air. These flight characteristics explain its rarity.
I agree with Ray and Oliver that we need to guard against a slide towards becoming a party that would adapt to managing a capitalist economy in order to gain power. But my point in quoting the old Labour Party clause 4 is that whatever words we adopt as aims now will not prevent that. More important at this stage is grounding ourselves in the genuine extraparliamentary struggles against austerity and adopting constitutional arrangements that allow members to hold any elected representatives accountable and mitigate against careerist. To that end the discussion about the constitution goes hand in hand with this discussion about the political basis for the party.
I like Doug’s article, which does make me question my decision to join the Socialist Platform. The key problem for me, though, remains the section of the Left Platform advocating the aspiration to “restore the gains of the past”. To me, this implies a vision of an alternative society indistinguishable from the hayday of Old Labour – the mixed economy, top-down nationalisation, NHS and welfare state set up under the Atlee government.
I am one of those who has argued on these pages that it is impossible to return to the conditions which made this possible, that it represented a tactical readjustment by Capitalism rather than a victory for workers, and, above all, that it is not and was not an alternative which brought anything more than an improved security and material progress to the lives of millions.
Reading the other extracts Doug gives from the Left Platform, ‘restoring the gains of the past’ is also inconsistent with them.
I think one way forward for uniting the membership behind the Left Platform would be to drop this phrase. It gives the wrong signal to lots of us.
Yes, Well said john and alleluia that you are reconsidering your initial support for the SP, whose supporters I in no way condemn or wish to exclude but who cannot agree with.
I am suggesting this amendment to part of the LPP at my LU group tonight – trying to reach some common ground for LPP supporters who want to guard against a drift into open reformism. What do you think?
“People are fighting back – in the streets and squares, workplaces, social and political institutions – striking, occupying and refusing to collaborate with state brutality and repression. In Greece, France, Germany and elsewhere, new political parties have developed, drawing together a range of left forces, posing political, social and economic alternatives. They are anti-capitalist parties that stand against neo-liberalism and the destruction of welfare states – whether at the hands of the right or of social democracy – and fight for alternative social, economic and political policies. Here in Britain we face the savage onslaught of the coalition government, destroying our hard-won gains, but the Labour Party backs the cuts and accepts the coalition’s narrative of attack on the most oppressed in society. It refuses to pose an economic alternative or represent the interests and needs of ordinary people, preferring, instead, to limit itself to what the current economic system will allow.
As yet we have no viable political alternative to the left of Labour, yet we urgently need a new political party which rejects austerity and war, and which will defend and restore the gains of the past, fighting to take back into public ownership those industries and utilities privatised over the last three decades, but will also move forward to challenge and to end the control of the rich and powerful minority over the economy, the state and political institutions, in favour of the most democratic system of ownership or control by the majority of the population. “
Sorry, Ray G, but my point stands about ‘restoring the gains of the past’. Why base a forward strategy on taking into public ownership just those areas of the economy which the Atlee government and the ensuing 13 years of Tory governments accepted could become and remain nationalised? The modern economy is so changed from that of the postwar boom that re-nationalisig the coal mines, steel industry and so on is fairly meaningless, as they are just the rump of what once existed; they are no longer the commanding heights of the economy.
This line of argument seems to have a sub-text that LU will be like Old Labour.
Why not just use the last bit of the second paragrpah – that LU will “move forward to challenge and to end the control of the rich and powerful minority over the economy, the state and political institutions, in favour of the most democratic system of ownership or control by the majority of the population”, taking into public ownership every aspect of the economy that is currently carried out to make profits for the few rather than provide a better life for the many?
Fair point, but in the interests of unity and inclusiveness, I don’t particularly object to reclaiming the gains of the past – ie the free health service, state education,public ownership of utilities etc, provided that this is linked to a more explicit commitment to not try to run capitalism without breaking the power of the ruling class by taking over the ‘commanding heights’ (for want of a better phrase).
incidentally, I do not actually support public ownership of EVERY present capitalist enterprise. I see a role for small and medium businesses and a limited controlled use of market mechanisms.