A springboard out of nightmare
Stuart Watkins from Leamington Spa Left Unity argues for a party that is willing to learn from Occupy and modern forms of movements.
Once upon a time, I was a member of a small socialist party that had a ‘platform’ indistinguishable (except to those trained in socialist scholasticism) from the ‘Socialist Platform’, currently the subject of debate within Left Unity. I expect many members of Left Unity were once – or still are – members of such groups (although if the situation in my local Left Unity group is representative of the national situation, they will be in a minority). I left that party a few years ago and have no intention of joining another similar one. Here I will briefly explain why, as I hope it will throw light on why I believe Left Unity members should reject the “Socialist Platform”, and its near cousins, and instead support the “Left Party Platform”.
Occupy explodes
The experience of the Occupy movement was instructive and decisive. When a small demo on Wall Street exploded into a national, then an international movement, back in 2011, I was still a member of my little party. The Occupy movement thrilled me and on more than one occasion literally moved me to tears of joy. For the whole of my political life I’d been arguing that working-class people needed to get together and organise democratically to discuss the issues that affect them, the ideas that unite and divide them, the institutions and structures that oppress and impoverish them, and to act together to change all this in their own interests, and ultimately that of the whole human race and the planet we live on.
I’d been arguing for this and reading about those people in history who had made valiant efforts in this direction for over a decade, but, if the dreadful truth of my heart be told, I’d pretty much given up hope of ever seeing its like in my lifetime. I had also argued that even when things seem most hopeless, mass movements can explode out of nowhere (not really out of nowhere of course, but seeming to in the consciousness of those not paying attention or doing the work). But the global triumph of neoliberalism seemed to mark the end of hope. Perhaps, after all, we really had seen ‘the end of history’.
That was how things seemed one day. The next day, Occupy was born. I followed its development in the US avidly from my Twitter feed and on Youtube. I could hardly believe my eyes when small camps were violently broken up by the police, only to re-form on an ever larger scale the next day. I could hardly believe my ears when the ideas peculiar to small groups of socialists and anarchists suddenly became part of the national conversation – in America in particular, but globally too. One day, it was a matter of plain common sense that everyone in America had given up on class as an outdated notion and that it wasn’t coming back. The next day, a majority in the country agreed it was the defining issue of the times.
Closer to home, I went along to Occupy camps in Birmingham and London, and contributed to both in small ways. While there, for the first time in my life I heard urgent political debate going on, not just among the ‘usual suspects’, but among ordinary people, many of whom were involved in something political for the first time in their lives, and had not yet found their own voice, or a language adequate for what they wanted to express. But that didn’t matter because what they were trying to express was, in all essentials, already radical and working-class and socialist. I felt with relief that maybe my efforts in politics hadn’t been a complete waste of time after all. I think I might have cried again then too. There was hope.
The socialist reaction
The reaction of the comrades in my socialist party to this exciting new development was, however, quite extraordinary, at least to me. With just a few noble exceptions, nearly everyone I talked to in the party was cynical about Occupy, if I could get them interested in it at all, which was a struggle. It was assumed, without investigation, to be a boring middle-class thing, dominated by students and their professors, that would soon fizzle out. And anyway, they’d got it all wrong, they had the wrong beliefs, were motivated by false theories. It was all doomed to failure. These reactions were perhaps a peculiarity of the particular political tradition I had fallen into, and so can be dismissed as the total rubbish they are. However, the arguments that really pissed me off could be heard emanating more generally, from all similar socialist groups. This was the idea that, given that Occupy exists, and we must reluctantly admit that it does, then the main task for “socialists” was to get down there and try to win them over to socialist ideas – by which was meant, get them to accept the particular doctrines peculiar to whichever small group you were in. Not to turn up to help and offer solidarity and support. Not to listen and learn and contribute to open-ended discussions and debates. But to tell them where they were going wrong. Tell them how they should start to do things differently. Explain where they were mistaken theoretically, what ideas they should have, and which they should abandon.
Along comes a political movement in the West, springing up first in the most powerful country in the world, inspired and informed by uprisings and upheavals in the Middle East and Africa, that completely changes the whole political landscape, makes possible new political conversations, opens up new possibilities – organised by ordinary working class people from around the world, with incredible amounts of energy, creativity and bravery on display – and what do the clapped-out old dysfunctional sects of the world with their discredited ideas try to do? Give them advice!
The extraordinary arrogance and stupidity of this attitude still blows my mind today. The experience of all the socialist sects – and of the broader historical experience and analyses that inspire them – has been one of dismal and sometimes horrendous failure. Punctuated by many inspiring successes, of course. But given that we do not actually live in socialist societies and are right at the present moment facing the terrible consequences of at least three decades of defeat, failure it must surely be judged. And, if we’re serious, they are failures all socialists must take at least some responsibility for.
When Occupy turned up, so did I – not with a leaflet or a newspaper, but with an open mind, my ears and eyes firmly open, eager to learn what I could learn, to see what I could see, and to offer support and help whenever and wherever it was possible.
Left Unity
How does all this relate to Left Unity? Well, I had and have hopes that this new organisation can achieve something similar to the Occupy movement, but on the more explicitly political field. And my hopes have not been dashed so far. I have not yet quite been moved to tears – which will be a relief to my less sentimental comrades sitting next to me no doubt – but the whole atmosphere of the project has an Occupy flavour. There is a widespread and dominant view that we must do things differently, must include the excluded, must learn from past mistakes, must organise democratically and openly, be open-minded in debate, inclusive in our practices, reach out to those not yet politically active, help and support those who are, try to open up possibilities by building mass support in working class communities for radical change, to bring people together in commonly agreed actions rather than divide them according to their beliefs or ideas or what “theory” they subscribe to.
For the first time in my political life, I tell people about my political activity and affiliations without a secret sense of embarrassment, without feeling that what I’m saying and doing is remote from the concerns of everyday life. I hand people a leaflet, and instead of sighing and flinging it in the bin, they stop and ask when the next meeting is, discuss the political situation, their own increasingly desperate personal situation, agree passionately with what Left Unity is trying to do. The question facing us in this platform debate is essentially this – do we slam the door in the faces of these people because they do not subscribe to a generally discredited and ridiculed ideology? Or do we welcome them in, stand with them, build solidarity with them, act with them, discuss with them, listen and learn from them – and decide together a way forward, a way forward for us now in 21st century Britain, not for Russians living in a semi-feudal society of a century ago?
Contrary to accusation, I am not interested in hiding my revolutionary socialist views in order to build a broad party of the left so that we’ve got a pool of new recruits or converts to work on. I don’t at all want to win people to the revolutionary socialist point of view, as it is fossilised in old texts and platform statements, because it is, as expressed, so totally obsolete. As Mike Marqusee so brilliantly put it, what’s needed is a “collective springboard” – not “abstract or verbal declarations of fealty to socialism”, but “a collective effort to give socialism meaning and efficacy in contemporary conditions”. What socialism is going to mean in the future, if it has a future, is something to be determined as we act together, not something to be defined in advance – like a recipe for a future cookshop, as someone once put it.
My experience in Left Unity, both locally and nationally, has been a hugely positive and uplifting one – without for one second underestimating the very serious difficulties we still face. It looks like we will very soon be bigger than all the other small left parties combined, we have improvised a democracy as we go along (in much the same way as I envision broader changes, including socialist changes, being agreed and improvised as we go along), we are staying for the most part good humoured and open while debating the way forward, and are continuing with the great work being done in local struggles and campaigns, and bringing new people in.
It looks to me like that springboard into a more socialist future is being built, and it could well prove to have just the amount of spring we need to move forwards. The Left Party Platform is an essential foundation for that springboard. To be fair, the Socialist Platform, and its near cousins, represent the very best of the past socialist traditions. But, to paraphrase the great man, they continue to weigh like a nightmare on the brains of the living.
68 comments
68 responses to “A springboard out of nightmare”
Left Unity is active in movements and campaigns across the left, working to create an alternative to the main political parties.
About Left Unity
Read our manifesto
Left Unity is a member of the European Left Party. 
Read the European Left Manifesto
ACTIVIST CALENDAR
Events and protests from around the movement, and local Left Unity meetings.
Saturday 21st June: End the Genocide – national march for Palestine
Join us to tell the government to end the genocide; stop arming Israel; and stop starving Gaza!
More details here
Summer University, 11-13 July, in Paris
Peace, planet, people: our common struggle
The EL’s annual summer university is taking place in Paris.
More events »
GET UPDATES
Sign up to the Left Unity email newsletter.
CAMPAIGNING MATERIALS
Get the latest Left Unity resources.
Great post Stuart !
Great post Stuart.
Your words almost brought me to tears…and will send the link to some colleagues who are ‘a bit down’, not surprisingly, on how LU is functioning here.
With work and a changed approach, I am confident we can do better.
Thank you Stuart. I was beginning to think Left Unity wasn’t for me. I spent 30 years of my working life as an employer, a capitalist. I operated more on a co-operative level often going without wages myself in order to pay my staff for “a fair day’s work”. I paid as much as I could afford. I couldn’t have slept knowing I had impoverished those in my employ. I still haven’t seen any recognition for people like me in Left Unity but believe that my ethical approach will have a place somewhere. The Socialist Platform made me afraid. Now I feel less alone in wanting greater equality and a more equal society.
Thank you
Annie,
Hopefully we will be able to convince you that a more equal society is not a possibility under capitalism. See http://leftunity.org/why-capitalism-cannot-be-reformed/
The problem is as an employer you have an emotional connection to capitalism – you employ labour to work for you.
This is why we definitely do not want too many employers in LU.
I agree Annie.
I can’t see much wrong with people running small private businesses, if that is what they want to do. If people want to be butchers, florists, hairdressers or any of the other small trades and businesses, then I can’t see why they shouldn’t do it.
It doesn’t need elaborate democratic structures to organise it because people themselves will decide if they want haircuts, flowers, their boiler fixed etc and it is easier to contact the person down the road, rather than the ministry of floristry.
On the other hand, there has to be high tax on profits so that these people cannot accumulate wealth and power to the point where their interests can dominate democracy.
Democratic control of businesses and industries must concentrate on the utilities, the extractors of resources, the monopolies in all sectors etc, not the currently existing small business sector, in my opinion.
Its great to see an employer coming forward to join Left Unity. Bring in a few bankers and I think we will really be getting somewhere!
Stuart,
I think you make the point very well that socialists, including the revolutionary ones, need to welcome others who regard themselves as anti-capitalists, such as the ones who went to Occupy.
I too found Occupy inspirational.
The trouble is party politics won’t appeal to very many Occupy activists & LU seems a bit too obsessed with elections. Occupy activists may find the Peoples’ Assemblies a better vehicle, especially the day of disobedience on the 5th November.
So as a revolutionary I’m comfortable with the Socialist Platform, but I realise it will appear out-dated & dogmatic to many if we are trying to build something that can actually shift the political spectrum to the left.
But I don’t think the LPP is anti-capitalist enough & therefore risks the creation of a social democratic party.
Neither, to my mind, seem right for the task at hand.
We need a participatory, anti-capitalist platform.
i would say one reason why it was so successful in America is they are not obsessed about class in the same way that we are. i would say the way we are obsessed about class in this country is unhealthy and militates against some people understanding the true situation and any sympathy that goes with it. i think some people are almost fetishising the working class i say this coming from a wholly working class background at least my parents and their immediate families. i cant begin to synthesize my own confusion over the term working class and the great varieties of meanings that is as once you reject a strictly scientific view of i. it. Clearly sometimes it doesnt help in trying to make political progress. It can seem annoying to me some of the attitudes on view especially from university educated people whose background is a professional one. i am pretty sure the reason some working class people reject socialism or any radical view is because they see us as being judgemental or possessing superior attitudes. This might be a result of our education? It might be a misunderstanding too if our communication skills are not brilliant.
ANyway i saw much to commend in that article though i personally dont have any history or background in revolutionary socialism and i am not a marxist. THe socialist platform completely bypasses me though i can agree with the left platform. My thinking at home trying to come up with solutions will be completely wasted if all we do is reiterate traditional views of class struggle. i will find it difficult to campaign if we dont have a more positive strategy than the usual class war bullshit i simple cant do it i need to have a series of arguments and positive strategies and solutions pointing forward. As i have said i feel the class struggle approach is counterproductive wherehas i think we can learn things from Occupy and their alternative way of doing things and open minded approach is refreshing. my main reason for doing left unity is not because i am a socialist its because i am shocked with the way things are going in this country particularly the suffering of the vulnerable and sick.
tony walker
Fantastic post! Thank you. I think we should aim for maximum tears.
As a supporter of the Socialist Platform I largely sympathise with the sentiments that Stuart puts forward here. Before the platform debate started one of the constant themes I have argued is that a combination of the Occupy movement and the rise of social networking has transformed expectations of organisations in terms of participation and democracy. I think the model of organisation where debates essentially take place in secret on a Central committee and the “party line” thus generated is then to be obediently followed by the foot-soldiers without question – those days have had it and good riddance to them! Democracy has to be central to what we do and any failings on that will not be tolerated!
The only part I disagree with is this “The question facing us in this platform debate is essentially this – do we slam the door in the faces of these people because they do not subscribe to a generally discredited and ridiculed ideology?”. I think what is discredited is the old organisational forms not the idea of socialism. At our public meeting to launch Exeter Left Unity a large proportion of the audience had been involved in Occupy Exeter and as far as I could tell they were almost all arguing for socialism in one form or another.
Ultimately we need to give a political alternative and that alternative is socialism. For that reason we should fight for our ideas even if they are not as popular as they once were. However, I do agree that the way we do it needs to fit the conditions of today and that has to be inclusive and democratic. I would also add that I agree – sometimes it is right to get involved just out of basic solidarity not as an opportunity to “sell something”. However, I think we are confusing two different issues here – the behaviour of the sects that can give socialism a bad name and the really liberating, inspiring and visionary ideas of socialism as the basis for the self-organisation and liberation of the working class. I think we are in danger of throwing out the baby with the bath water.
Dave do you agree theres not been much debate about what socialism is? i consider the Left Platform to be socialist, it was necessary to highlight in it how we came to be here to frame any debate.
i would consider measures to bring into public ownership various natural monopolies and utilities as very socialist because they come under democratic control. Equally various community banking and social enterprises and cooperatives that are non profit and free to determine their own destiny and run by committee and workers.
Historically great thinkers and writers on socialism tend to be very vague and not keen on specifics but its these that really matter.
i have said elsewhere that i am not very keen on the class struggle well this is because a class war waged by the likes of the SWP is very divisive and counterproductive we need to come up positive democratic alternatives that work.
i would like to see the new party embrace everyone with progressive views who are not self interested in terms of needing to make unfair profits at the expense of the community. THe debate about social democratic being bad and revolutionaries being good is like something out of Animal Farm. Theres no reality check or connection between their idea of social democratic and the hopelessly reactionary Social democratic party run by David Owen in the 1980’s – try to be more careful about use of terminology.
I dont feel part of a great tradition i am new to active participation in left politics i am left wing but not explicity socialist in the marxist mould. i have the privilege of having studied a lot of these things in the past but i find some of the debate bewildering and sectarian some of it loses coherence by not sticking to some kind of formula for debate if thats possible to do. WHen i listen to some of the debates it feels like nothing much as changed since the last time i was a student in the late 70’s. That is the broad left front versus trotskyism and its adherents. i heard of criticism about the origins of New Labourism through ideas expressed in Marxist Today but it was only a magazine and what were the rest of the Left doing? i believe the culprits were the trade unions who for selfish reasons allowed a takeover of the party because of their obsession with winning elections and god knows its important but they allowed a clique to take over and dominate – the tories didnt do this it was an internal coup. We have seen the long term effect of this and the way it as enthused the right to behave the way it does – it feels strong that there is no opposition to it. i could go on. why are the current government so right wing its no accident and its not just down to them.
A new party is a chance to update, a chance to look at the past and improve on it in terms of parties wanting operate in a political arena. i hope it will not make the mistakes of past left wing start ups. i hope it will remain broad and have widespread effective influence and gain power sufficient to make its plans reality.i think electoral reform while being not radical for some is important.
tony walker
Again, if you insist on that, then you’re excluding, from day one, the majority of those who might be interested in an alternative. Throwing away the chance of change for ideological correctness has been done dozens of times before.
I am not a socialist. I will not be a socialist. I want LU to work for the left.
(I am a mutualist, for reference)
Thank you Stuart. Absolutely spot-on about the communist sects’ air of world-weary condescension in response to Occupy. You have given me encouragement.
I really would like to know the identity of this ‘small socialist party’ with a platform ‘very similar to the Socialist Platform’ that was so terrible as to not agree with the person who wrote this article, and not consider socialism to be a ‘discredited ideology’. It sounds suspiciously like a shaggy-dog story to me.
It’s also profoundly patronising to the participants in Occupy, as well as to the working class of the Middle East.
Its really quite remarkable that the the writer just cheers for what happened in Egypt, and is so scathing about anyone who tried to fight for views that might be unpopular at a given time among those who are involved in ‘spontaneous’ movements. In the light of what has just happened there, there needed to be more political consciousness and less ‘tailing’ of whatever happens to be popular at the time.
We have seen large numbers of people, many of whom are or were ‘on the left’, getting swept along by a popular movement, and turning out to vote for … the Muslim Brotherhood … in an election not much more than a year ago. Now what did we see recently? Many of the same semi-radicalised people, going on the streets in July, expressing their anger at the perfidy of the people they voted for, to the point that they actually welcomed the military coup that set up the current ‘interim government’ that has now showed its true colours by shooting down those defending the elected government the opportunist coup-welcoming types voted for! They are not cheering for the army now.
The perils of tailing spontaneous movements could not be illustrated more sharply if someone had thrust it directly in our faces. History has done just that.
The bottom line is that what Egypt needed was more conscious revolutionary socialism, not less. It needed a socialist organisation that would firmly tell those inclined to vote for the Muslim Brotherhood that they were wrong to do so, that for all its ‘radical’ anti-imperialist rhetoric it is a pro-capitalist organisation that would govern in an oppressive manner. There should have been an organisation with the bottle to counterpose socialism to Islamic radicalism and its welfare-ist illusions.
But such an organisation should have been just as firm against those desperate people, many of who opportunistically voted for Morsi who, disillusioned with him and the Brotherhood, begged the army to intervene, and should have stood with the elected government against an anti-democratic imperialist-inspired coup.
Both these ‘spontaneous’ positions, of voting for Morsi, and then backing a movement against him that openly called for military intervention, were completely wrong and indeed, politically suicidal.
Occupy was a different phenomenon, it did not do anything particularly harmful in the way much of the ‘spontaneous’ Egyptian left have done, but nor did it have the political solidity to survive a determined counter-thrust by the ruling class on both sides of the Atlantic.
It had very positive features in terms of its attempts to address quite a few class issues and it had some real flair.
But don’t fool yourself that its rapid demise was not the result of its political weaknesses, in particular its lack of a working class strategy and a set of coherent socialist ideas that could keep it going when the ruling class struck back and trumped its particular tactical innovations with brutal police power. It had no answer to that, and was effectively dispersed and defeated.
Its a bit strange to counterpose a movement that recently failed because of its own weaknesses, to people seeking to build something more solid, lasting and principled. Better to have popular movements based on something more coherent in the future to ones that flare up spectacularly but disappear like will o’the wisp when the state cracks down on them.
I’m not impressed by the guilt trip in this article. It actually reads not that differently, with some changes of terminology but not really of substance, from something that could have been written by the SWP. They are notorious for arguing against supposed ‘ultra-lefts’ while putting their members under discipline to vote against views they claim to believe in (e.g. in the Socialist Alliance, in Respect, etc).
What this contribution is arguing is very similar, that socialists should vote and argue against socialism. It does not sound good when it comes from the SWP, and really it sounds no better with this spin placed on it.
Ian
Well I have read and re-read this post and it is as clear as the nose on my face that Stuart does not think ‘socialism’ is a ‘discredited ideology’, merely the brand of it that has been represented by revolutionary left parties for many decades, which is echoed in the ‘Socialist Paltform’. He refers to the socialist future quite explicitly in his post. As Dave Parks says, it is not socialism that is discredited, just he behaviour of the left parties, in spite of, as Stuart makes clear, their occasional ‘inspiring successes’.
There is an issue about how prominent we make the WORD ‘socialist’, given its many negative associations with Labourism and Stalinism and some of the sillier left parties over the decades, but that is a different discussion.
Great post Stuart.
Nothing wrong with being soppy. I went through the rev party thing (possibly the same one as you by the sound of it!) and also have been through 15 years of cynical, selfish, despairing but angry inactivity. Left Unity has woken me up and turned my life around in many ways, and I love it. I am desperate for it to grow and succeed in finally representing those people who have not bought in to the Tory/Labour creed of so-called ‘aspiration’, selfishness and hostility to the ‘other’.
I am glad that very many capital R Revolutionaries have joined LU, most as independents and some as members of small left groups. They have a vital role to play in the development of LU, and some are part of the Left Party platform. I went to a meeting on the NHS a couple of nights ago with over a hundred people in a community centre in Walthamstow, on a Monday night, in mid-August. Can you believe that people were standing at the back and in the lobby, and (I can barely believe it myself) standing outside and listening to the speakers through open windows!It was fantastic and LU leaflets got a good reception, but I would be dishonest if I didn’t confess that the meeeting was built largely by SP and SWP members, who should be congratulated.
There are loads of good people in these parties, even though I could never join one again. There is a wealth of good experience as well as bad. The great majority of the supporters of the Socialist platform are great, sincere experienced campaigners, I am sure, but they just don’t seem able to let go of the absolute certainties, the scary absence of doubt or the archaic language of the tradition from which they come. Loads of members of Left Unity in general are refugees from the revoluntionary left parties but many have travelled further from such orthodoxy, and are more willing to ‘learn on the job’, or listen to and learn from new people or ideas they have not come across before, to reconsider and rethink and try something new.
I would love to be able to join with the LPP although, frankly, I wish the whole damn platform thing had not started at all, as it risks setting up fixed divisions between people instead of allowing a thoughtful reconsidering and compromise, and joint understanding that I saw signs of before the platforms were formed.
My problem with the LPP is, as john Keeley says, above that it risks the formation of just another, bit better Labourist party – not because most LPP supporters have that view but simply because of a lack of clarity, a too-blurred line between our great, and exciting new adventure and the disgusting betrayals of the Labour Party, not just under Blair or Kinnock but throughout its history. I would like to suggest an amendment to the LP Platform –
“Labour governments have always tried to operate within the present unfair and anti-democratic economic system and to try to gradually reform it. This has, in practice, limited them to only doing what the rich and powerful want or allow. A Left Unity government, however, would only govern in the interests of the majority of ordinary working people and would rely on their support to fundamentally challenge and bring to an end the domination of these vested interests which have an undemocratic hold over the economy and society.”
What do you think???
“Labour governments have always tried to operate within the present unfair and anti-democratic economic system and to try to gradually reform it. This has, in practice, limited them to only doing what the rich and powerful want or allow. A Left Unity government, however, would only govern in the interests of the majority of ordinary working people and would rely on their support to fundamentally challenge and bring to an end the domination of these vested interests which have an undemocratic hold over the economy and society.”
This amendment begs a couple of simple questions:
How would it “bring to an end the domination of these vested interests which have an undemocratic hold over the economy and society”?
In particular, would it be a parliamentary government, or one based on mass organisations of the working class that would replace “the state and institutions” with “ones that act in the interests of the majority”?
Its all very well to criticise the economic system, but the state is the “special bodies of armed men” (and women) set up to defend it. Without dealing with that, you won’t be able to lay a finger on the capitalist system.
It would, as I say, rely on the support of the majority of working people to defeat the rich and powerful. I think that is clear enough. The precise organisational forms of that support and the balance between parliamentary action and self-activity of working class people at different stages of the struggle will emerge in the course of the struggle and I don’t feel it is useful to prescribe particular formulas now. I do not have a crystal ball. Those who are confident that there is only one way this support can be addressed, especially those who see 1917 as some timeless blueprint are likely to be surprised by the future reality.
All the platforms stress that LU is a campaigning party, building roots in communities, not simply electoralist. I wanted to draw a clearer line between us and Labourism, but not repeat or invent a rigid formula.
I agree about the platforming… and I like the amendment too. It’s been on my mind too the past few days after all the debating we’ve seen on here – are the platforms up for amendment? Or are they fixed positions? If so, surely, once one platform is decided on, we risk losing all those who supported that platform, which would be a huge loss either way.
Better to reach a single platform through consensus in some way… because in our debates we seem to head to something better than all the platforms offer singly.
Lovely piece by the way Stuart… swell of pride or hope or some similar long-dormant emotion!
Adam – I agree with this. Although for me the Left Party platform offers the most in terms of the kind of organisation I would like to see LU become I think there is much of value in the two other platforms that I would hate to see jettisoned (if the LPP were to be taken forward). I don’t know how practical consensus-building around the platforms would be but I would prefer that to a straightforward vote with one ‘winner’ and two ‘losers.’ A broad basis of unity that takes into account all the brilliant discussions and debates taking place in local groups and on this website would give LU supporters a real sense of involvement and purpose going forward.
Has it been decided yet whether the platforms will be voted on at the 30th November conference? If it has to be this way I’d be in favour of a platform requiring a 75% majority to be adopted unilaterally.
Thanks Stuart, that’s very helpful. I have not come from any other Party into Left Unity, and the Left Party Platform speaks to me because of its breadth.
By its breadth I take it you mean its lack of principles.
Attack on Socialist!
This is the most diversionary article I have read to date. You want to unite the left but your spiting on socialist. You say Socialists only wanted to recruit but that’s what this article is doing.
Left libertarian, Socialist, Communists, Anarchists and Utopians are all Leftest (Socialist) in different degrees of true democratic evolution so who are you uniting? Unions are socialistic in nature so you spit on them too.
Occupy was a strategy for bringing attention to the many causes of the left but It failed to recognize this movement will and should lead to a political vote. Eco-enviromentalists are also missing the buck on this fact to. The Capitalist were smart to pick on “Socialism” because it encompasses all the left. You may not have liked your local group but what is it that you really disagreed with?
I am a Socialist, I am a life long, Proud Canadian Socialist and to this article I say, “Your traders to the cause of freedom of expression and Please take a step back and go fuck yourself.”
I am really, really hoping people like this stay well away from LU.
Stuart you Left Party people are cut from exactly the same cloth as the Socialist Platform people. Which side they are on is purely a matter of chance and next time will probably be opposite. Both these divisive platforms should be withdrawn and conference should be dedicated to a discussion of policy: what to do about banks, unemployment, fascists, public spending, welfare, profiteering, the EU. How will be offer a true socialist alternative to New Labour otherwise join the Greens they are already the kind of party you seek. Has there ever been a more bogus and pointless discussion than the one between the LP and SP sectarians?
“What to do….”? WE can’t “do” anything about squat until we actually attend to the business of building a large, broad party of people people who want to oppose austerity and capitalism, whatever particular definition of socialism they might adhere to. That’s the difference between the two platforms.
Thanks so much everyone for the (mostly) kind and thoughtful words – delighted what I had to say was appreciated. Hope to meet you all at the founding conference in November, if not before. I will ponder carefully the thoughtful criticisms. Cheers
‘something to be determined as we act together, not something to be defined in advance’
^this^
Dave Parks says:
“The only part I disagree with is this “The question facing us in this platform debate is essentially this – do we slam the door in the faces of these people because they do not subscribe to a generally discredited and ridiculed ideology?”. I think what is discredited is the old organisational forms not the idea of socialism. At our public meeting to launch Exeter Left Unity a large proportion of the audience had been involved in Occupy Exeter and as far as I could tell they were almost all arguing for socialism in one form or another.”
For me this is actually the point of the Left Party Platform and why it is important at this juncture. The other point that seems most important to me is what Heather Downs quotes above:
“something to be determined as we act together, not something to be defined in advance” so that the principles of a new party are decided upon collectively and out of discussion and not from these platforms.
Just a couple of comments from another Stuart
“something to be determined as we act together, not something to be defined in advance”
And when exactly is this due to take place? It’s amazing how quickly Left Unity has been colonized by those people whose idea of offering an alternative to New Labour is to not offer an alternative to New Labour but to simply have a sectarian row about a couple of platitudinous statements both equally as sad as each other that the Lib Dems would find difficulty in disagreeing with. Very New Labour.
The Manifesto Group has at least attempted to put forward a programme of policies for principled left unity and the transition to socialism that can be discussed in branches, regionally, etc before the Conference in November rather than participate in this thinly disguised effort to distract the membership from discussing a true alternative to New Labour and then being presented at Conference with an eclectic mess of policies, mad cap ideas and demagoguery they have never seen or heard of before from the Commissions. I will send the policies from the Group’s programme as a series of separate resolutions to this web site later on seeking sponsors for each.
This “Manifesto Group” appears to consist of yourself ,and just possibly one other person, so unless you can recruit a few more subs paying LU members to it there won’t be a “Manifesto Platform” for Conference will there !
After the absolutely comprehensive political drubbing your extraordinarily Dave Spartesque ultraleft “”Manifesto Group statement” has quite rightly received from the overwhelming majority of responding posters on that thread, I’m surprised you haven’t taken the opportunity to reconsider its content ! Including it’s prognosis that capitalism is in its last terminal crisis, and prioritising proposals for the formation of anti fascist militias – over any policy-related mention of rather important matters we need to really fight against in the here and now – like the privatisation of the NHS for instance !
In the 1980s I was a member of a strictly Marxist pacifist political party where I learned a lot – we actually studied and discussed Marx. We were told to shun reformism of any kind: other political parties, of course, and also pressure groups like CND and Greenpeace. If we went along to demos we had to stand on the pavement and hand out or sell Party literature. Our role was an educational one: to inform the workers that they were being exploited by the capitalists, and once enough of them knew this they would rise up and … (what?? we don’t ‘draw up a blueprint for socialism’ – but after the revolution we’d help ourselves to goodies on supermarket shelves and use the stock control systems to replenish them, beer pumps would be turned to face outwards…).
But the workers can’t just take over the farms, factories, mines and oil wells and all will be well: ‘to each and from each according to his/her desires’ and all that. It’s not sustainable. We’ve messed up the planet big time (not just climate change). So the best we can do is get together in local groups, both to protest about cuts and austerity measures, promote ways to mitigate the worst effects on people and planet, also rebuild the community spirit, reconnect with the land, grow food and develop craft skills, be selective and clever about what technologies to keep and what to phase out, invent new ones – and we can do all that; we are the 99% after all. It could even be more laughter than tears.
Exactly, policies/direction can come from process not scripture/texts, etc: a long but worthwhile journey of discussion, robust debate, praxis(Marxist term) community involvement and perhaps most importantly actions…
Hi Stuart,
All the platforms so far proposed in Left Unity clearly express themselves as socialist. Supporters of any of those platforms therefore must surely agree that the problems with all the existing left parties are NOT that they are socialist.
Given the above it is hardly surprising, and certainly not a justified cause for criticism, that the Socialist Platform has a “platform indistinguishable from” one of these existing parties.
For the record, though I hope Left Unity will soon become a place where we can all leave our histories at the door, I left Militant (as the Socialist Party was called at the time) over twenty years ago. In that sense I could claim to have ‘seen the light’ a long time before you did ?
I have to say that I think your history of the Occupy movement and its impact is a little affected by ‘rose tinted glasses’ to say the least. “One day, it was a matter of plain common sense that everyone in America had given up on class as an outdated notion and that it wasn’t coming back. The next day, a majority in the country agreed it was the defining issue of the times” isn’t quite as I remember it but no matter. Occupy was an inspirational, ground-breaking and influential movement that did indeed involve far more than “the usual suspects”.
Your description of how your Socialist Party branch reacted to Occupy (for that is the party I assume you were a member of) most certainly rings true though, as I say, I haven’t been to one of their meetings for over twenty years. I don’t know if you have any Socialist Party members turning up to your meetings in Leamington Spa but, if you have, I’ve little doubt their attitude to Left Unity is the same as you describe.
Their response reflects two fundamental misunderstandings, in my view. Firstly, the Socialist Party has always been wedded to the idea of “the traditional organisations of the working class” being the route to everything good and, by extension, anything else being the route to everything bad. It is why they stayed in the Labour Party long after they should have left and why they think Left Unity will fail, because it isn’t ‘based in the trade unions’. This is why, I think, they could neither understand nor entirely support Occupy.
The other problem they have is that I think they have entirely misunderstood the writings of Lenin in particular and the kind of party he was trying to build in Russia. I recommend you try and get hold of the writings of Lars T Lih, if you haven’t already come across them. The Socialist Party sees itself as a ‘revolutionary vanguard’ that, like the Seventh Cavalry, will appear on the horizon at some critical point in history and save the rest of us from ourselves. Lenin, it is now clear, was NOT trying to build a revolutionary vanguard but a mass democratic party of hundreds of thousands.
The signatories to the Socialist Platform, including myself, have self-evidently either never subscribed to such views and attitudes or have turned their back on them. We are as determined as you are to build Left Unity into a force that is capable of changing society.
So what exactly are we doing wrong in your eyes? If it is trying to explain a “generally discredited and ridiculed ideology” then we are in good company. Socialism didn’t suddenly become wrong because it was marginalised any more than the Earth stopped revolving the day Galileo was forced to abjure his views before the inquisition. God alone knows how many times Gordon Brown told us he had ended the “boom and bust cycle” but he hadn’t, because Capitalism will always have boom and bust cycles. My final question therefore is simply this, which part of the Socialist Platform exactly is “totally obsolete”? This is a serious question not a glib or trivial one. Which one of the 10 statements is totally obsolete?
Comradely,
Colin
Hi Colin, Thanks for your reply. Will answer these and some of the other points when I get a chance, perhaps tomorrow. Cheers
Hi Colin and everyone,
Rather than try to answer all your quite reasonable and sensible points, and that of some of the other people on here, which would exhaust me, I’ll just make a few concluding comments.
When I wrote and sent this piece, I was quite nervous about it. I have, for various reasons explained in the piece, and for others it would be tedious to go into, something of an inbuilt hostility to (many of the) left groups. That hostility I try to keep restrained, not least because I genuinely really like all the people from these groups (or recent exiles from…) that I have met in Left Unity, and have really appreciated their contributions to debates. I am trying to get over my hostility because I really want Left Unity to work and I know that their contribution will, in many ways, be more decisive and valuable than mine. Also, I have really liked and respect all the people I have met or at least recognise who have signed up to the Socialist Platform. I really really didn’t want to annoy or piss any of them off.
So I was nervous. But, here in this thread, and on my Facebook page, and in personal comments and emails, I have had a huge response to this piece, all of it positive (well, apart from some of the ones on here!), all of it thanking me for giving them new hope in the Left Unity project and for expressing exactly their own views. This is because my experience of left groups, and of the way they tend to treat people, and deal with them in debate, and try to manipulate them in campaigns, and so on, is not a peculiarity of my own, or of my own wee sect (as Ian tries to make out), but is a very, very common experience on the broader left. At our local Left Unity group last night, we had a very interesting and fruitful discussion with a Labour party member, but he looked horrified and almost stormed straight out when he heard there were Trot groups involved in Left Unity. It’s NOT that he’s unradical – doing brilliant work in local campaigns, committed to socialism, admiring of UK Uncut and Occupy and so on. So what can explain his attitude? Well, it’s no mystery is it? You reap what you sow.
So, to conclude, I hope I didn’t offend anyone who is in or has been in these left groups, but I can’t really regret it too much if I did because these attitudes need offending and exposing so we can move on and create something better. Look at Ian’s comment above about Egypt, for example. He’s making my point for me really. Ordinary people come out on the streets, in the face of a horrendous dictatorship, risking beatings and arrest and torture and death, to try and create something new. They make mistakes, there are setbacks. Perhaps things get worse before they get better. But to think that you’ve got some really stunning advice for these people based on a pamphlet you read by Lenin when you were a student… Well, maybe Ian’s advice is right, maybe not. I’m just not that confident, and would feel like a total fraud and a fake if I offered it.
As for the content of the Socialist Platform, many proponents of it understandably keep trying to bring the debate back to this. But to do so is to miss the point. Many of us, especially those of us who have been in these left groups, will more or less agree with much of it, very generally speaking, in the abstract. But the debate isn’t about whether we agree with these statements or not. It’s about whether we want a party where agreement with it is a condition for membership of the party. I don’t and those who do already have plenty of options out there to choose from – I don’t know why they want Left Unity to become another one.
Thanks everyone for reading and for your comments.
All the best
Stuart
I think this thread pretty much sums up why Left Unity is going to get absolutely nowhere. And if you have to ask why I say that, well you’ve just proved my point.
We’ll see won’t we.
But I won’t worry if you are happy in your cynical little bubble doing …….what exactly??
I will continue trying to build a mass party to fight austerity.
See you around, maybe.
This thread tells you precisely nothing except that it looks much like any other thread on the internet – if anything, it is above the usual standard, with a high level of thoughtfulness and reasoned debate, with only a little in the way of invective which, to be fair, my piece was highly likely to provoke from some quarters! I don’t know if my reply proves your point because you don’t deign to tell us what your point is but… ho hum! All the best
I knew there was something fishy about this story. Why so coy about the identity of the ‘small socialist party’ that Stuart Watkins split from?
Google, and a pointer in the right direction from a comrade, provided the answer.
http://www.worldsocialism.org/spgb/author-speaker/stuart-watkins
Its a bit strange to portray yourself as a defector from the far left, fleeing from nasty revolutionary dogmatists who were so terrible in arguing their ultra-left ideas with activists from Occupy or wherever, when in fact you were a member of a tiny and eccentric organisation that has had an acutely hostile attitude to revolutionary socialism for a century or more.
Over the last couple of decades as the (really ancient) Old Guard died out, the very few younger members of the ‘Small Party of Good Boys’, founded in 1904, has begun to soften up and rejoin the normal world somewhat. Some of their people were even soft on Occupy, and did not denounce them as undemocratic thugs as they had many strikers etc. in the past.
I remember in the 1970s and 1980s occasionally receiving leaflets on large demos from the SPGB explaining that they did not support strikes, or riots, any other militant actions of working class and poor people in revolt against the system, but rather that workers should merely get together to vote for the SPGB and socialism would come into existence without any force or struggle – just like that. I don’t think they ever saved a deposit though.
Strange little group led by old men. A gerontocracy that somewhat resembled the similar social milieux of old Stalinists. Few younger people would go near them.
But its not new to be lectured by someone from their stable about how terrible revolutionary ideas are, how dogmatic, how we are all obsessed by the Russian Revolution as a model (when this is actually not true; Russia’s backwardness in many ways made its revolution *less* working class in its nature than would happen today, and not just in advanced countries either.)
The Small Party of Good Boys is indeed a “clapped-out old dysfunctional sect” …with emphasis on the ‘old’. It remained tiny and dysfunctional right through the 1920s, 1930s, 1960s and 1970s, which were all periods when the working class movement in this country was involved in major battles.
For all the faults of the far left today, and the difficulties and problems that have led to the crisis of a a particular, bureaucratic model which itself derives from opportunism – the SWP is one of the worst – the SPGB was far worse.
These people have been fighting against evil Bolshevism for over 90 years. Far from having changed in some way, Stuart Watkins is carrying on with the traditions of his reformist sect in fighting for reformism today.
How dishonest to claim to have broken from your old political allegiances and yet not tell people what they actually were! The reason is obvious – his claim to have changed is untrue and he is still as hostile to anyone with revolutionary ideas as when he was in that strange little social club for ancient reformists.
Hear, hear. Engels, they say, grew somewhat fond of parliamentary democracy in his old days and began to ponder whether a revolution would really be necessary in some countries. The SPGB preserved this momentary lapse of foresight, withdrew into a cotton wool world of socialism through parliamentary vote, and remained there ever since. For the prophet had spoken.
It did not take too long until the limitations of political democracy under capitalist rule became painfully obvious. Theorists wrote massive tomes about the state and its institutions. A century passed, battles were fought, revolutions and counter-revolutions came and went. The SPGB remained blissfully unaffected by all of this, ever wary of staining its carefully cultivated purity.
The fact that a former member was eventually moved to tears by a popular movement adds a quaintly humane touch to the saga of this cult.
I’ve heard the SPGB described as many things Ian, but that’s the first time I’ve seen them referred to as reformist! :-)
Let’s face it if you’re going to denounce everyone in Left Unity based upon what organisation they may or may not have been part of in the past, you’re going to be a very busy man. Why not deal with the substance of what Stuart has to say rather than engage in silly ad hominen attacks?
I would have disagreed with him a lot less sharply if he had simply told the truth about where he was coming from politically, and not used a deceptive half-truth as a means to confuse some and attack others. Its a typical dirty political trick – as Elvis Costello sang “I’ll do anything to confuse the enemy”.
That’s pretty unfraternal, there is nothing ad-hominem in saying so. Unless you mean calling out others in politics who mislead is an ‘ad-hominem’ attack?
Demagogy and deception must not go unremarked, if we are to have honest politics.
And yes, the SPGB was reformist to the very marrow of its bones.
Ian, I think your contribution is unfraternal and sectarian. It is a very good example of the sort of attitudes that have bedevilled the Left during my 50 years or so of political activity; attitudes that have helped to isolate us from the real life world of working people and have served to devalue and marginalise socialist ideas. We have been our own worst enemies and I am afraid that your intemperate attack on Stuart shows that you, clinging on to the wreckage of what we all helped to destroy, remain part of the problem and not part of what just might be the solution.
I don’t think so. His attitude is hardly fraternal in itself. He is attacking not ‘sects’ but individual socialists who have views that he objects to – and in effect telling them to shut up. On behalf of a political attitude that historically was just as hostile to the genuine left as some of the worst people on the Labour right.
Why the coyness about which ‘small socialist party’ he was talking about? It wasn’t because he wanted to keep nasty sectarian alphabet soup out of it. It was because he had something to hide, he was attacking the left while pretending to be a disgruntled leftist critical of erroneous methods of operation, when in fact the party he came was in so many ways hostile to the left’s aims themselves, not any mistakes made over functioning.
That’s the problem with those who capitulate to forces to their right. Those on the right can be as provocative, dishonest and even downright abusive as they like, and the squeamish elements who half-agree with them will turn a blind eye, and in effect excuse them. But if someone from the left-wing fights back, and some sharp exchanges take place, the attitude is suddenly very different. “Be quiet, you’re being unfraternal, disruptive, etc.” is the refrain.
Well I’m not going to be subservient to someone who comes on here with a tirade against the left bolstered by a misleading half-truth that as far as I can see was designed to deceive people and make them believe that he was speaking with authority as someone alienated from the far left by its mistakes. Some believed he must have come from the Militant/SP. Not so. In fact he comes from a background that defined the entire far left as the enemy. Why did he not say that from the start? The coyness was designed to mislead.
This “you’re being unfraternal” stuff is just a variant of the “don’t rock the boat” argument heard so often when the left speaks out. I’m not being unfraternal, just telling the truth. If he had openly said he came from the SPGB and expressed his opinions in a fraternal manner, then there could have been a much more fraternal debate. But he chose to use that method of the deceptive half-truth as a shield behind which to attack the socialist wing of this project. The fact that Sean does not see that as an unfraternal act is unfortunate, to say the least.
In fairness, they’ve written some decent articles over the years. I’ve got an SPGB anthology called Socialism Or Your Money Back, parts of which are worth reading with a pinch of salt. The group’s self-inflicted isolation allowed them to develop a sense of calmly critical distance from whatever everybody else was tailing at any given moment.
Not a good idea to fall into the polar opposite, liberating though it may feel.
Ian,
Stuart wrote: “we are staying for the most part good humoured and open while debating the way forward”
With that in mind and my tongue firmly in my cheek I will say: I am not now and nor have I ever been a member of the SPGB!
We [Ian and myself] both disagree with some of Stuart’s conclusions but I don’t think it is helpful to link his current views with his former membership of the SPGB.
Stuart wrote about his former group’s reaction to Occupy:
“These reactions were perhaps a peculiarity of the particular political tradition I had fallen into, and so can be dismissed as the total rubbish they are. However, the arguments that really pissed me off could be heard emanating more generally, from all similar socialist groups.”
I think he makes a very valid point here about his former group as well as most of the other groups on the Left.
Many of us in Left Unity have been active in one or the other of the bigger or smaller groups at one time or another. I think the main thing we all agree on across the platform debate is that the monolithic groups of the past are not the solution. We bring a wide variety of backgrounds with us and that is a good thing.
Incidentally, I quite like this bit of Stuart’s article: “What socialism is going to mean in the future, if it has a future, is something to be determined as we act together, not something to be defined in advance – like a recipe for a future cookshop, as someone once put it.”
Dave:
“We [Ian and myself] both disagree with some of Stuart’s conclusions but I don’t think it is helpful to link his current views with his former membership of the SPGB.”
But if he had stated them openly, I would not have attacked them at all. I’ve got no problem with working with a former SPGBer. We all have political pasts: its only when they become a weapon in the present that they become a legitimate thing to comment on.
It does seem that the supporters of a party (tiny sect) called the Socialist Party of Great Britain are behind the campaign for Left Unity not to be socialist. Go figure.
Hey David. Actually, a lot of socialists in Left Unity are behind the campaign for Left Unity not to be socialist. Most of them are socialists. Go figure.
It’s a repeat of what was happening in the RESPECT coalition, where socialists happily voted down every principle they supposedly ‘stood for’ – including a woman’s right to choose. Old habits die hard.
The reason I didn’t mention what small party I was in was because I dreaded that the conversation would turn to discussing that party. And here we are. I’m not interested in these criticisms of that party, or indeed of any other small group. As I made clear, I was attacking, specifically, not the SPGB or any specific small far-left group, but what all those groups seemed to me to have in common. Well, that’s a generalisation, isn’t it, and it’s bound to take a swipe at some innocent parties, for which I apologise. As for all the talk about the SPGB and what my former membership of it might mean… YAWN. Not going there, not interested. I’m interested in Left Unity – proof enough, if proof were needed, that I am no longer in any sense an SPGBer.
PS And absolutely finally, just in case anyone gave credence to Ian’s claim that I’m trying to hide anything, here is an archive of pretty much everything I’ve written over the past 15 years, all of it mutually contradictory as, believe it or not, some people do change their minds:
http://bigchieftablets.wordpress.com
Stuart wrote:
“The reason I didn’t mention what small party I was in was because I dreaded that the conversation would turn to discussing that party.”
But ironically, by not mentioning it, Stuart certainly ensured it would become the issue. I’m not very interested in the history of his involvement with the SPGB either, and I am not interested in the SPGB. The problem is that he took a swipe at the Socialist Platform purely for its socialist aspirations, accusing it of being in some way of being a ‘sect’ despite the fact that anyone who claims to agree with its positions can sign it, no matter who they are.
If anything, far from being ‘sect’-like, this is too loose and allows virtually anyone claiming to agree with the general socialist principles laid out in the platform to sign it. I think it is correct that some general socialist principles be laid out against those who would try to even hide those in the name of building a party without a clear working class element to its politics, let alone any room for revolutionary socialism. Like all tactics though, this has its dangers also.
Actually, I am pretty hostile to unprincipled sects, particularly when the sizeable membership of the SWP was mobilised in the Socialist Alliance to vote down demands like opposition to immigration controls, despite the fact that one of their key demands that attracted many to them … opposition to all immigration controls.
I don’t mind a cohesive socialist organisation that votes according to its principles in a consistent way, but I’m not so keen on that kind of behaviour. I am not so keen on the actions of some of the sects who support the Left Unity Platform either, such as Socialist Resistance and some of the recent splinters from the SWP, who are trying to do to Left Unity what the SWP did to the Socialist Alliance – make sure it was firmly ‘Old Labour’ in its politics.
I don’t have a ‘sectarian’ attitude to Old Labour reformism; I am just not keen on opportunist leftists who really consider themselves (in private) to be revolutionaries pretending to be ‘Old Labour’ in the belief that such a deception will gain them mass support. That is unprincipled behaviour and does not even work.
But if there is a revolt against the right-wing evolution of the labour movement by people who genuinely are ‘Old Labour’ I am quite happy to give them very outspoken support, without hiding political differences, and even to give them a degree of support and defence against misguided criticism that purports to come from the ‘left’.
I was a firm and outspoken defender of George Galloway when he spoke out against the criminal war in Iraq and was expelled from Labour for doing so, and I played a very enthusiastic role in Respect and in fighting for victories for the working class like the defeat of Oona King in Bethnal Green and Bow in 2005.
I am proud of that aspect of my political history, and indeed I was also one of those who supported George Galloway when he later led a rebellion in Respect against the SWP’s sectarian bureaucratism, which stunted the political development and growth of Respect when the opportunities were greatest. If you wish to portray me as some kind of a ‘sectarian’ you might be surprised to learn that I was the London-wide election agent for Respect in its London-wide list campaign for the GLA in 2008. A bit unusual for a ‘sectarian’.
I am quite self-critical for not fighting more for overtly Marxist politics in this period, but on the other hand there was a genuinely radical edge to Respect’s politics over Iraq and the Middle East, which gained a real mass base among oppressed Muslim immigrant communities. This was actually generated by Galloway’s maverick, outspoken anti-imperialist radicalism, which despite his reformist politics is out of step with the pro-imperialist tradition of the Labour Party.
I have no regrets about all-out involvement in that, even if it did not end well because of Galloway’s own political weaknesses and reformist politics.
I might add that I am pretty upset at the obviously destructive entryism now being practised by a real malevolent sect, the Alliance for Workers Liberty, against the Socialist Platform in having a number of its people sign its statement in the last couple of days.
One of the weaknesses of the Platform is that no-one has the power to stop others from signing it if they want to even if they think their motives for doing so are destructive and their real politics abhorrent. This is something that must change. I will be moving a resolution to correct this problem as soon as the opportunity arises.
I don’t think it is right for supporters of ethnic cleansing of Arabs from Palestine to be involved in a socialist platform. Or hard-line supporters of witch-hunts waged by US, British and Israeli imperialism against outspoken ex-Labour/anti-imperialist rebels like George Galloway. I resent their presence among the list of signatories – they are not comrades, they are cuckoos in the nest.
So much for the Socialist Platform being a ‘sect’. It is the opposite, too loose in fact. Though this is difficult to avoid when trying to present a socialist case in the early stages of a new movement. It needs more consistency and more cohesion, that’s for sure. And both it and Left Unity need a decent policy on the Middle East, among many other questions, not one that leaves loopholes for supporters of imperialism and oppression to sneak in in a disloyal manner.
Oh for heaven’s sake David, there is no campaign for the new party not to be socialist and there is no plot by former SPGB members – or anyone else for that matter – to undermine the attempt to build a mass popular party of the left. There are, of course, disagreements on how best to do this, but the debates that has been taking place between proponents of the LeftParty Platform (of which I am one) and supporters of the Socialist Platform have overwhelmingly been positive, good natured discussions between comrades – exactly the sort of healthy debate that must be the lifeblood of a democratic socialist movement.
Let’s discuss our ideas – and, yes, our disagreements – robustly perhaps but based on mutual respect for each other as fellow socialists (with apologies to Andrew Crystall!) with common goals. The Left has poisoned itself over the years with attitudes such as your’s – if you can’t leave all that behind then we’d be better off without you.
Occupy achieved nothing it was a complete farce . A disparate bunch of people who took weeks to even make a statement . In the end they had no idea why they were there beyond a vague antipathy towards Capitalism . Thats the reason it collapsed and evaporated into nothing. It did not engage the average member of the public in any way . But this is what protest has been diluted down to : ” It made me cry ” …. Its all about generating feelings of narcissistic pleasure as opposed to changing anything in society. Its a measure of how far the left has fallen that some of you can praise this article rather then condem it
Such arrogance, Micky ! The worldwide “Occupy ” movement was a rather more interesting phenomenon than your dismissive sniffiness suggests , Micky D. Certainly the politics of the participants was all over the place. But why is this a surprise ? Or a reason to be so dismissive ?
It was a spontaneous cry of rage by millions of people worldwide at the catastrophic greed of capitalism, as demonstrated by the 2007/8 Great Banking Crash and its dire consequences. It’s quite true that the unfocussed rage of millions of people was doomed to evaporate and disperse without overthrowing the state . But the worldwide occupations and demonstrations were actually a small but important part of a much, much, longer political process – to start breaking up the monolithic neoliberal capitalist ideological consensus of the last 30 years. That the capitalist state recognised the IDEOLOGICAL power and danger of the “Occupy” movements is easily seen by the brutal way the US authorities turned their riot police goon squads on what were in the main a bunch of peaceful middle class types in city after city in the US. And the ideological “problems” the Occupy Movement caused the St Paul’s Cathedral’s Establishment hypocrites – before they too agreed to the riot police going in – to clear the temple FOR the moneylenders !
Your attitude of condescending contempt for people trying to react in an activist but politically limited way to the oppression of capitalism, is actually akin to a know all bunch of textbook Marxists visiting a workers picket line during a dispute and patronisingly pointing out the political limitation of their struggle for higher wages, “when in fact the wages system itself is the enemy comrades – and you should be fighting to abolish the capitalist mode of production itself – not waste your time with this reformist stuff !” But you wouldn’t say that to a group of striking workers would you ? So why show your smug elitist contempt for the sincere but often politically confused participants in the Occupy events ?
I for one hope we can eventually recruit many of those tens of thousands of people in the UK who were inspired at a very basic gut level of revulsion at the greed and madness of capitalism, by the spontaneous anti capitalist sentiments of the “Occupy Movement” , to the ranks of our new party – and of course channel that initial unfocussed basic rage into long term anti Austerity campaigning and socialist political work
I agree with much of this. Occupy was an important movement, and while it was always necessary to criticise its weaknesses, the question of tone is very important when dealing with considerable numbers of people who are just being drawn into political activity. To dismiss it as a waste of time from the very beginning is to miss the point that everyone has to start from somewhere, and no one is born with all the answers. Indeed developing answers is a long-drawn out process that is never complete.
What is in dispute in this discussion is not what tone to adopt to movements like Occupy and whether there should be a patient dialogue – not a monologue – with them. The question we are rather arguing about is rather the content that our movement should be arguing for in such a dialogue – whether we should just echo the existing, spontaneous ideas of those involved or try to deepen their critique of the existing order.
But no-one disputes the need for dialogue and a fraternal tone aimed at encouraging people, not discouraging them. To dismiss it as a waste of time right from the beginning is completely wrong.
Ideological power of Occupy ? Dont make me laugh …. Dangerous ? Lol about as dangerous as the C of E ….More tea Vicar ? : )
You can kid yourself all you want about spontaneous combustions but lets be clear , there were not tens of thousands in the UK , more like a handful of disparate people , latterly swelled by the ranks of the homeless and the mentally ill ….Occupy achieved nothing and no amount of wishful thinking or typing in caps is going to alter that fact . We need to start from the reality that though there are significant economic problems around , the left has not benefited from that , Occupy didnt have the wherewithall ideas wise to challenge the neoliberal consensus . We need a body of ideas that promotes a progressive and poditive future for the mass of people . Simply erecting a tent and whining like a 5 year old about nasty capitalism doesnt cut it and doesnt deserve to cut it
Gosh ,you REALLY hate the Romans, MickyD !
What i really hate is people latching on desperately to things they think have some sort of kudos when in fact they dont ….
One more point is this. Stuart Watkins wrote:
” Look at Ian’s comment above about Egypt, for example. He’s making my point for me really. Ordinary people come out on the streets, in the face of a horrendous dictatorship, risking beatings and arrest and torture and death, to try and create something new. They make mistakes, there are setbacks. Perhaps things get worse before they get better. But to think that you’ve got some really stunning advice for these people based on a pamphlet you read by Lenin when you were a student… Well, maybe Ian’s advice is right, maybe not. I’m just not that confident, and would feel like a total fraud and a fake if I offered it.”
This is a terrible position. “Perhaps things get worse before they get better.”, says Stuart. Who says things are going to get better? They can, and probably will, get a great deal worse now that the old Mubarak dictatorship has pretty well been restored to power.
In case you haven’t noticed, Mubarak has just been released, the elected president is in jail, one of the old dictator’s cronies is the new dictator, and supporters of the elected president have been shot down like dogs. And Stuart’s attitude is “so what?” – it would still be “sectarian” to tell those who supported the coup, or earlier voted for the party they were ended up protesting against, that they were wrong about any of this.
Presumably we should have gone up to them, shook them warmly by the hand, and joined in and endorsed whatever they wanted to do. That is what Stuart is arguing. But of course, Stuart and his ilk don’t face death – they don’t face being shot down like dogs in the street, they don’t face torture or having their families wiped out.
They can console themselves that at least they did not commit the cardinal sin of learning anything from any pamphlet by Lenin. Which is not even factually accurate, as Lenin never lived long enough to come across the Muslim Brotherhood and never wrote one single word about them. He did, however, manage to lead resistance to an actual reactionary coup (in Russia) – by a would-be dictator named Kornilov – which was routed by a properly organised working class resistance, laying the basis for the working class to take power against the rotten regime they temporarily defended against the coup attempt. He did, in other words, offer an approach to these situations and how to deal with them.
Maybe if the Egyptian left had followed this approach the dictator Al-Sisi would now be in a similar position to Kornilov, and those he massacred would still be alive and in a position to do better things – even socialist things. But Stuart prefers defeat and massacre to any hint of evil Bolshevism and telling the truth to the masses about what is necessary – which is what any decent workers party would do.
Stuart says he would ‘feel like a fraud’ to say any such thing. That’s because he, and people like him, are frauds. He does not face the consequences of these politics, but Egyptians facing a hard, new dictatorship, which could quite conceivably last for a very long time, are not so lucky. This blase approach to other people’s mistakes, that led to many deaths and suffering, is terrible and a form of chauvinism really. Better to let people die than challenge their illusions, that’s what Stuart is saying.
There’s nothing fraternal about that. Nothing fraternal about letting people go to be slaughtered without warning them of the dangers they face.
I’m sure the people of Egypt are relieved to have people like Ian on their side. What would they do without his advice?
Gentlemen, please try to keep on track. Left Unity is to be a democratic, egalitarian party with social ownership of the means of production, distribution and exchange at its heart. Policies will include social ownership of the railways, utility companies and banks. Decent housing, work,access to high quality education and healthcare for all. Lots of things unsaid and needing discussion in there so please get on with it!
Irrespective of his political origins and lack of candour about them, Stuart presented a thoughtful, though flawed, piece and the central stress of it was to celebrate “a widespread and dominant view that we must do things differently, must include the excluded, must learn from past mistakes, must organise democratically and openly, be open-minded in debate, inclusive in our practices, reach out to those not yet politically active, help and support those who are, try to open up possibilities by building mass support in working class communities for radical change, to bring people together in commonly agreed actions rather than divide them according to their beliefs or ideas or what “theory” they subscribe to”.
I think we should celbreate that.
What he said about the Socialist Platform was that it “represents the very best of the past socialist traditions” but, yes, he also said some uncomplimentary things and seemed quite confused.
I have signed up for the socialist platform because I think it is the better of the two main ones (the Manifesto One seems a bit of a sect), but we do need a process after a vote on this to secure amendments which take into account the other, because otherwise we cannot take enough people along the same road to be able to form a broad party with the potential to become politically significant.
I refer to my political origins in my first sentence and sign both this article and all my previous ones with my own name – a strange ploy for someone with something to hide! But thanks for your comment, I appreciate it. You’re right that I am confused – I harbour something of a suspicion for all those who have achieved or claim to be on the road to “clarity”. Cheers
Other than getting slightly less media coverage than Cheryl Coles tattoo, could someone state something that Occupy achieved in regards slowing neo-liberalism.
Other than debate what they want LU to finally achieve, could someone state any initial action to decelerate the UK shift to the Right, and transition into moving Left. Davids 8.33am post, like too many, fails to recognise the world as it now is. “Means of production”? Exactly WHAT is produced now, and how can you account for it? A phone app – how will you control the means of its production? 150 year old language and historical beliefs need casting aside and remade for NOW.
Your question about Occupy is too vague to answer, but this might do it:
http://www.quora.com/Occupy-Movement/What-did-the-Occupy-movement-do-right/answer/Andrew-Ross-Long?ref=fb
OK, it’s like this, Lloyd :
in any minority class-dominated society (ie, all but the most primitive society) it is the domination of the set of ideas which support and reinforce the rule and social system of that particular ruling class which has as much to do with the maintenance of that social set up, as the physical force represented by armies, police forces, gulags, etc.
The 30 year triumph of neoliberalism was partly due to the physical defeat of key trades unions in the UK, USA, and elsewhere, and restructurings of the work process, taxation rules, and legal frameworks. But also it was an ideological victory by the capitalist class – using their ownership and control of the mass media to reshape the “mental mind map” people had about the role of the state, the role of state welfare provision, the role of trades unions, the right of the rich to be richer still, etc. The Great 2007/8 Banking Crash was a vivid wake up call to masses of people hurt by the impact of the Crash that all the neoliberal promises of “prosperity for all” were actually bullshit .
The “Occupy” protests , confused and limited in scope as they were – were an early physical and ideological resistance act by millions of people across the globe. The movements of course fizzled out – helped by plenty of baton charges by riot police here and there – sent in by a capitalist class only too well aware that the threat of the “Occupy” movement was ideological, not physical. Your juvenile sneering at the long term impact of the Occupy protests simply reveals your failure to understand the importance of ideological struggles in fracturing the hegemony of capitalist ideology – a struggle which can last decades.
In the world historic uprisings of the current “Arab Spring” events across the Arab World – still with a long, long way to go before a decisive leap forward, or a catastrophic defeat, brings an end to its “story arc”, many of the early participants have stated that it was actually taking on board the idea that the vicious dictatorships “could” actually be challenged that was the hardest part of the process . After masses of people grasped that possibility , the revolts achieved their own forward momentum.
On your final point. Do you seriously think the development of phone apps invalidates the reality of the essential need for the working class to take ownership of the means of production if a better, more equal, rational, society is to be built ? you seem to think the creation of a phone app somehow makes this requirement, “just so 20th century”. Certainly, a phone app can be created by a 14 year old in his/her bedroom. The creation of the phone, the computer, the network which carries/transmits all this data though ? We are talking Big Capital – highly complex factories and highly complex internationally coordinated production processes. Every physical product in our society is produced using means of production – which at present are mostly owned and controlled by the superrich and their agents. If you seriously think that the “digital age” has somehow moved “beyond” this stark reality, you need to get out of your bedroom more often and have a good hard look at the real world out there, Lloyd. Socialism is as relevant today as the only route forward for humanity as it was in 1848. Only the technology has changed.