Anti-capitalist or Not?
There seem to be two broad approaches emerging in discussions within Left Unity: some who want to create an overtly socialist party and some who want a social democratic party, says John Keeley from Folkestone Left Unity.
What would be better a socialist or a social democratic party?
Firstly, let’s understand that social democracy is capitalism. It is a mixed economy that includes a market and so commodity production and wages. It can include the nationalisation of the utilities, the railways, the public provision of healthcare and education and a welfare state that provides pensions and unemployment benefit. It is a fairer capitalism that we have today, but still capitalism.
Can this be achieved? Many seem to think so. After all, there’s more wealth today than there was half a century ago. However, I think this fails to understand the difference between wealth & value in a profit system. Capitalism today cannot afford social democracy. Please read my article http://leftunity.org/why-capitalism-cannot-be-reformed/ for more detail.
To advocate social democracy as a goal is to be lost in history. The Labour Party is lost, why create another party that can’t relate to the needs of people today?
This is why I think it is vitally important that the new party is anti-capitalist in terms of its objective. That’s not to say we don’t advocate reforms that benefit our class in the current struggle. We need to defend our class from the neo-liberal attacks, but also expose the class nature of the system by, among other things, putting forward policies that make the rich pay for the crisis, not the workers. These are transitory demands but with the clearly stated goal to overthrow capitalism. Now as far as I can see the only alternative to the means of production being privately owned, is for them to be socially/commonly owned/controlled, that is socialism. However, I wouldn’t wish to exclude those who regard themselves as anti-capitalist but not socialist, probably because of the history of the 20th century. I have worked with some very good people in IOPS, some of whom react like bulls to any red flags. Yet the participatory economic model proposed by Michael Albert is socialism in all but name. Hence I think we need an anti-capitalist platform.
This platform would avoid the pitfall of social democracy, which I think is the real risk of the Left Party Platform, but would be less dogmatic-sounding (to voters rather than me) and more inclusive than the Socialist Platform. In many respects in the spirit of the Class Struggle Platform, but more focused of the values we can agree to and leaving the specific policy decisions and campaigns, which will change over time, to be expressed by other documents.
It also needs to be relatively short and easy to read. Something like:
We are anti-capitalists.
We are against a world that produces for profit.
We are for a society that produces to meet human needs.
We are against the few controlling the labour of the many.
We are for people sharing out the mundane tasks any society requires to be done.
We are against the ecological destruction of our planet.
We are for a way of life that lives in harmony with our natural world.
We are against any groups discriminating against others.
We are for humanity living together in solidarity and respecting diversity.
We are against an elite making decisions for the rest.
We are for equality in decision-making.
We want humanity to be free.
31 comments
31 responses to “Anti-capitalist or Not?”
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 18th January: National March for Palestine
End the Genocide – Stop Arming Israel
Hands Off Lebanon – Don’t Attack Iran
Assemble 12 noon – BBC, central London
More details here
More events »
GET UPDATES
Sign up to the Left Unity email newsletter.
CAMPAIGNING MATERIALS
Get the latest Left Unity resources.
Possibly.
I’m a mutualist (free market anti-capitalist), and I see nothing there I disagree with, but I’m unsure if it needs a separate platform to the left platform.
I am NOT interested in social-democracy. It’s had its day and served its purpose, but neither exist in the present. There is a home for those that think otherwise-namely in the Labour Party with its illusion that this system is amenable to reform. Capitalism is the central problem here,and I don’t believe it can be usefully reformed through some waffle about ‘people-centred models of business’.It needs to be overthrown=-and I see no peaceful way of doing that. I would agree with those who say that this may not be sufficient to rid the world of sexism and racism, but I am absolutely certain that they will not disappear until some other means of producing,gathering and distributing the world’s resources is found.
Dear Andrew, could you please define what you mean by a “Free Market”?
It’s a difficult discussion to have, since the same list of objectives could be used to describe the aims of social capitalism which has already taken a stand on human need ahead of profit and planetary destruction. It’s a step beyond mutualism, though what I read recently from the International Cooperative Association indicates they are shifting toward this people-centered model of business.
Social capitalism or any type of capitalism cannot take “a stand on human need ahead of profit”.
Capitalism is the quest for profit. That is its genesis. There is no such thing as a ‘people-centred model of business’. At some point in the line someone is getting f***ked over.
Capitalism steals the value created by the labour of the multitude and uses it to perpetuate itself and contribute to the continuation of the same greedy practises.
Any notion that capitalism can be reformed is either naive or malicious.
I’m sorry, but look at the true nature of capitalism immanent in the world every day. It is greed and exploitation and violence and a bloody s**t!
Michael Albert’s proposal is effectively post-industrial socialism and is a good model to work from. I would like to look upon social-democracy as a preliminary stage, i.e. what can be achieved within the current system until an adequate basis for radical change has been formed. Because of the way the word Socialism has been defamed by both the Soviet Union and the United States it’s probably best avoided for now – existing socialists will recognise it as such anyway.
As far as capitalism goes, the main problem we have is the dominance of corporations in the current system. This is a tactical battle we need to fight in the short term in order to remove special interests from politics.
Ideologically, it’s going to be a very difficult concept to articulate what a Participatory Economy means for people who have been indoctrinated to believe a job is something they grind out day to day in order to have a scant amount of free time with whatever pittance they have left after paying their bills. But that is exactly what we have to do, there is a more humane way to live and that is what we are striving for.
Daniel,
Social democracy, something like what we had in the post-war period before the onslaught from neo-liberalism, is obviously desirable as an interim to until we can get something that is anti-capitalist, say Parecon or a more orthodox centrally-planned socialism. But there are two big issues.
Firstly, some seem to see social democracy as the goal, not as a stepping stone. In otherwords they are for keeping capitalism.
Secondly, social democracy is not a realistic possibility, as I’ve tried to explain in my more detailed article on why capitalism cannot be reformed.
Therefore, a new party that attempts some kind of Keynesian, social democracy is only going to disappoint & let the people down.
Much better to argue for a new system to replace capitalism. This has to be stated clearly in the new party’s platform.
We need to be radical, but use language that people can relate to.
Albert’s idea of participatory democracy is half-hearted, apolitical socialism. He’s been talking about for how many decades, and his little more to show for it than a few books.
There is strength in socialism. Find it.
@Ben
Why is Parecon apolitical? Albert’s methodology – for better or worse – is to parsimoniously value organisational structures from a set of basic values (something to the effect, if I recall, of: ecological responsibility; self-management; kinship (i.e. identity deconstruction / recognition and inclusion / solidarity); and equality) – I don’t see anything apolitical in this, or of the economics structures ethically predicated on these values.
Secondly, to disregard all those whose writings have found minimal direct practical realisation would, obviously and stupidly, be to ignore the overwhelming majority of brilliant writings in existence. What the hell are you expecting?
I am new to this website and to these discussions (having just seen the Left Unity letter in today’s Guardian). Maybe I should not intrude on what appears to be a highly theological debate, but if Left Unity means what it says, then the left needs to unite on a broad platform to defeat the forces of neoliberalism, not waste time discussing how many angels can dance on the head of a pin.
This is a matter of urgency. I am a socialist (of some sort!) and want to see the recent destruction and privatisation of the public realm rolled back as soon as humanly possible, just as I presume you do. But there is little time remaining because I understand that once the current EU/US negotiations on a free trade agreement are concluded, any such rolling-back will be rendered totally impossible. This is happening now and will become a fait accompli next year. The implications of this agreement are not, apparently, subject to public discussion or consultation but will simply be foisted upon us all.
Please, please tell me I am wrong about this. But if not, all thinking people of the left must get together as a matter of ugency and sink any minor differences in the face of such a threat.
Peter Wilkinson
A big problem is the age old dilemma of “where do we stop?”. To analogise from historic and contemporary struggles: Do we seek better wages, or do we smash the wage system?
That is the essence of the debate here. I’m very glad that the author of the original post is veering towards capitalism because, as many fauxcialist parties around the world has shown via their no doubt genuine but nonetheless failed attempts, capitalism cannot be reformed.
Thus, its all well and good to call for a united front, but this is a hell of a splitting point. This is the sort of debate that divides Labour Party candidates from black bloc anarchists.
Still though, I do appreciate and, to an extent, share you sentiment that there are immediate battles to be fought.
Dare I make a Russian analogy: Perhaps the Trotskyists and Mensheviks should join together to fight the immediate battle. However, to comprimise on anti-capitalism would be unforgivable.
Bah, I meant:
‘I’m very glad the author of the original post is veering towards anti-capitalism because….’
Pretty vital omission there.
Peter,
We have the People’s Assemblies as a united front to fight austerity & therefore neo-liberalism.
Should we have a new political party that is founded upon being just being against the neo-liberal version of capitalism & therefore can include other pro-capitalist visions?
Because the new political party could be around in decades to come, because social democracy isn’t a realistic possibility & because people are looking for something that is radically anti-system, I think we should be overtly anti-capitalist.
It’s selling this message in language that people can relate to & which feels forward-looking.
Peter,
If social democracy was a realistic possibility & most recognised it as a step to a new post-capitalist system, then we could extending the definition of left-wing to those who want to keep capitalism in a more egalitarian form.
But that is not a realistic option, in my opinion, if you understand the nature of the current crisis & where capitalism is at this moment in history.
If we end up with a party that things it can reform capitalism & re-establish some kind of social democracy & then legislate, at a future date, socialism in being, then it is deluding itself.
Anti-capitalist or go home.
Capitalism is violence.
Capitalism cannot be reformed.
Capitalism relies on the exploitation of the many by the few. Pure and simple.
Don’t compromise. Destroy.
The contributions illustrate the problems about having a discussion of programme in the abstract, rather than looking at concrete political conditions and devising a response to those.
No-one in LU is advocating social democracy – which is a specific phenomenon, arising out of the first world war, where a mass party of the workers is integrated into the state and often with the trades union bureaucrats as well.
What I think needs to be understood is the LU will evolve as political conditions change. It programme is likely to become more advanced, closer to socialism, and not not be seen as the Ten Commandments, never able to change.
Under current conditions, LU’s commitment needs to be pretty basic, in order to unite in struggle and provide a political voice for all those who want to fight austerity and oppression etc. (This distinguishes from the People’s Assembly, which necessarily – and rightly – includes Labour Party members who want to fight austerity).
9,000 people have signed up to LU. Most of them are unlikely to (yet) support socialist revolution.
You have absolutely hit the proverbial nail on the head, PhilW ! This attempt to constantly set up “straw men” fixed absolute positions re “Social democracy” versus “Socialism” is to argue in meaningless abstracts – independent of the real struggle against the worldwide capitalist crisis, and it’s specifically UK Austerity programme subset TODAY.
We need to build a broad radical political party which brings together everyone prepared to fight the multi-headed hydra of Austerity, within a party which is undoubtedly progressive and in the broad socialist tradition in its philosophy and policies. We do not, at this stage however need to create artificial distinctions between “revolutioneries ” versus the “reformists”. We are simply not in anything approaching a revolutionerty stage of the Global Capitalist crisis in the UK today. (In Greece they ARE nearing this point – but NOT in the UK in the near or medium term future).
A party which leads the fight against the capitalist Austerity Offensive , will soon enough , if it pursues an unbendingly principled “No To Any Cuts” , “No to any worsening of working class living standards and working conditions” agenda, find itself coming up against the limitations of a limited “reformist” political perspective. Our strategy has to be a “Transitional ” one, ie, build the struggle on a basic “anti-Austerity Resistance” basis – with and alongside huge numbers of newly politicised people who today are in no way even committed socialists , never mind “revolutioneries”. The heat of the struggle itself – if pursued by Left Unity without “Green Party-style Brighton Council ” compromises and sellouts, will transform our party and members from “reformists” to “revolutionaries” as the nature of capitalism and the capitalist state becomes manifestly clear during that rising tide of struggle. Which is why TODAY, the politically and tactically astute role for the true socialist revolutionary is to be the most committed and most militant “reformist” within the broad radical Left party that we need to build.
@John Penney
While I agree a comprehensive political and ethical platform is not necessary, and is, indeed, animus to unity, some basic but exceedingly important decisions on strategy and organisational form must take place.
While you ostensibly might want to forego theoretical arguments into the relative worth of ‘socialism’ and reformism’ for Left Unity, you already stake a decisive position within that debate by consistently referring to an organisational form: a party.
i.e. I don’t want Left Unity to organise as a party.
PhilW,
I’m not asking for a platform that commits people to socialist revolution. What I think needs to be said more strongly is we are against capitalism.
That allows people who think socialism can be brought about by parliamentary means & revolutionaries to work together. In practice this will mean demanding reforms that benefit our class & hurt the ruling class.
The party platform shouldn’t extend to Keynesian types who want to keep capitalism in a more egalitarian form. They can go & join the Liberal & Labour parties.
The author is misunderstanding the debate in Left Unity. All of the platforms are against capitalism, and the Left Party Platform explicitly says “against capitalism” and “socialist”. No-one I have come across in LU is proposing a social democratic party; one which argues actively that capitalism can be reformed into socialism. The debate is about this: is the primary need of LU for detailed doctrine, about the need for revolution and opposition to Stalinism etc, or should our focus be on campaigns that fill the space to the left of Labour. I think LU needs to be open, not only so so-called “reformists” or so-called “Stalinists” can join (as if anyone really self-defines themselves this way) but so that people can join who just have not got an opinion on those things yet, but who will take part in a party that’s campaigning for socialism demands. It’s our campaigning contribution, not our doctrine, which should be our priority.
I thought like you Duncan but take a look at the recent piece from Adam Roden, an LPP signatory. I am sure he argues from absolutely the best intentions, and I have admired other stuff, but he argues EXPLICITLY for reforming capitalism into socialism, and he is supported by a few comments, some who are LPP signatories.
I could only support the LPP if they tightened up this point.
I agree totally that we should concentrate on campaigns right now against austerity and the rest, but we are, whether we like it or not, in the middle of writing a constitution for a new party and deciding on our aims. These points cannot, therefore, be dodged.
Woah, Ray, I’m not arguing EXPLICITLY for reform as the only way of doing things – I’m arguing that at the present time there’s no way Capitalism can simply be ‘overthrown’, and that we need to focus on immediate real-life problems of immediate real-life people. Yeah, in an ideal world I want Capitalism gone. In an ideal world I’d like something with federations of autonomous communities and groups working together in workshops to reach consensus. But at this minute, right now, ideology is just a word… and so many people are having their lives taken away from them, and so many people don’t even realise that there are other ways of doing things.
We have to start somewhere, and that somewhere has to be broad and, more importantly, relevant to what’s happening in the real world. Otherwise all of this is just some theoretical exercise, a sideshow for a bunch of the disenfranchised for a year or so. That’s not what Left Unity promised us, and it’s not what caused 9,000 people signed up to do…
I completely agree with the fact that as a community of people who oppose the capitalist system, it is paramount not fight over terminology and ideologies which have a lot in common.
I agree with the short description of what Left Unity should stand for – we should perhaps insist on the fact that the party should work on a transition from a capitalist economy to a humane one. This is the bigger picture and the ultimate aspiration towards on our party should always focus, both nationally and across the globe with other platforms.
We must unite and accept the fact that we will not agree on everything but will on most stuff. We all hold parts of the solution and our future success.
Dear all. I am just a plain man who voted labour all his life. What can I say that has meaning to the likes of me.
Firstly. What the heavens are you all waffling on about. A man walked into a job centre took his own life did not care about capitalism verses socialism. He was a man who had no power or hope. These intellectual dogmas have no bearing or meaning to the poor or destitute who rely now on food banks and the premiere inn as homes. Are you seriously believing the mumbo jumbo you are all talking matters to men and woman up and down this once great country care about this when they work on zero hour contracts? Or whilst the other working class pay taxes when the rich keep their money hidden away in havens. Do you think that I care when my house has five adults and two children squeezed into a three bed semi that I will never afford to pay the mortgage off.
Dear all. Please for all our sakes live in the present and deal with the future now whilst we still can, instead of looking back over ones shoulder at the past. We want change I want change and is why I joined and others will. Only if you stop talking garbage and push for policies you can all agree on and move forward with a united vision instead of twaddle that will not unite but split views and have people like me scratching our heads in bemusement and horror. Strength comes from unity.
Paul is absolutely right. Strength comes from unity not from spouting political dogma that those in power will just laugh at – and rightly so. We need a new system to replace capitalism and in order to achieve this we need a new kind of politics. Such a system would not be anti-capitalist but it would be set up in such a way that profit would be sought in order to promote the common good not individual greed. The efforts of an individual, or a group, would be rewarded with a realistic wage based on merit. Some people would still earn more than others but this would be managed in such a way that common good is not subservient to avarice. The destructive obscenity of disproportionate wealth, of which the bonus culture is just one example, would be replaced by the old fashioned maxim of a fair day’s pay for a fair day’s work.
To instigate and develop such a system in the face of capitalism’s predatory nature would require a radical restructuring of our political system. I am not at all confident that this could be achieved given the generally conservative nature of the British public and the inertia of our main political parties. Put simply, Labour needs a jolly good kick up the backside. It was established to represent the rights and aspirations of the people and in recent years it has failed miserably to do this. What we once owned, as tax payers, has been sold off to parasitical organisations who saw these assets as opportunities to pander to the self interest of unscrupulous individuals who had no interest in the common good. These assets have been sold off leaving the former public utilities to function as cash cows for the rich at the expense of public money. And what is Labour doing about this? Absolutely nothing.
Yet we cannot abandon Labour. A mish-mash of left wing groups, each pursuing their own agenda, would only play into the hands of those who currently hold the power. If Left Unity is to achieve anything then it will be achieved by putting massive pressure on those people currently in the Labour party -and on those who aspire to be in it – in order to persuade them of the desperate need to change a political system which no longer works to one that is fit for purpose. This can only be done by coordinating the efforts of the various disparate groups who make up the left and getting them to agree a common agenda: one that they would support come what may. No personal agendas; no bickering or back sliding; no outdated dogma or political sloganeering – but a calm, sensible and balanced approach to trying to securing a future for our children.
The word politics comes from the Greek meaning: ‘of the people’. The present generation of politicians seem largely to have forgotten what being a politician means. A pressure group such as Left Unity needs to constantly remind them and pressure is only effective if concentrated and sustained.
The clue is in the name – Left Unity.
I will sign up to this campaign but only if I can be convinced that it has a sensible and reasoned approach that is worth supporting.
Surely LU aims to be an election-based party and will need to have support at elections.
If we say ‘there is nothing that can be done to ameliorate your working and living conditions, to make life better for you, until we have defeated global capitalism’ then we will go nowhere fast.
We shouldn’t have illusions in parliament or the permanence of reforms, but I would say the best approach we’ve had so far to square this apparent circle is the one listing principles and practices, long-term aims and political demands to match how far along that road we are : ‘Left Unity Principles as a Guide for Policy and Practice’ by Mike Wayne.
In order to absolutely change things the mass of people have to be motivated for change, and for that, we need a gradualist, electoral approach at the moment.
I think we should spend very little time on questions of revolution v. reform and cocentrate on building the labour movement and mass opposition and thereby empowering many more people.
Mikems
Of course we don’t want to go into elections saying there is nothing we can do until we get socialism. That is an absurd caricature. Left unity should be involved in every campaign in every estate, workplace and community who are fighting back.
We should try to get as many MPs as possible to represent the unrepresented majority of ordinary working people, of all kinds, shapes and sizes. This could have a galvanising effect on the wider campaigns to resist the attacks of the wealthy and powerful elite on the rest of us. We should be a wide, non-dogmatic party of the left.
But we have to be honest. If we actually WIN an election we will either be forced to obey the brutal logic of capitalism and attack the interests of the poor and ordinary people in general, or we will be forced to take on the powerful vested interests. If we opt for the latter we will need the extra-parliamentary action of all those we were campaigning with before we were in government to ensure that our side prevails.
WOW. All this and not a single mention of doing anything. Unless someone has recruited DR Who to the cause, we have to move Left from where we are. The destintion will change. Absolute priority actions – recognise human physiology at all times. Campaign for complete, universal disclosure of income and taxes paid. Education to become Education, not selection or manipulation system.
Without a narrative, LU will not progress – it is the way the human brain generally works – Neo-liberals published theirs in 1983 and are still working on it.
Time to move on…being “anti capitalist” is no use, it hasn’t lead to the defeat of capitalism yet despite being around for decades…..time to be pro communist…..to have a vision of what a communist society might be and then set about creating it. That means creating a new agenda and refocussing away from opposition…..an opposition always allows whatever it is opposing to set the agenda….it is reactive and revolution requires pro-activity not reactivity. Remember too that socialism is a transitional stage on the road to communism….socialism is not actually the goal.
Unless LU becomes a democratic centralist party, which no-one appears to want, especially me, then we will have constant debate but need to work together on the basis of what we have already agreed until we agree changes. That applies to an overall vision of the alternative to capitalism, so that we can take the cynicism away from all those who don’t think it is worth fighting back without having something to fight for and it also applies to practical campaigns.
At the moment there are a lot of posts on the threads on the main LU page but if you go to the discussions page of LU, where more single-issue stuff is supposed to be discussed, next to no-one is contributing.
Instead of invading a thread about a basic position with complaints that we aren’t talking enough about the immediate changes that are needed, why don’t people who think this get on the discussion boards. There are loads of topics there but very little discussion.
Understanding of the present crisis is dependent on the quality of the theoretical model and the tools available for analysis. In the case of Marxism these are highly suspect and have repeatedly lead to over optimistic assertions about the state of capitalism, class struggle and the way forward to create a better more democratic and equal society. Marxist analysis is interesting for enthusiasts but has little or no relevance for everyday life in the UK. To fill up the Left Unity website with this kind of analysis is not helpful. It would be more useful to concentrate on a simple vision for Left Unity and some policies to match. Also I think it would be helpful to develop an action oriented strand to Left Unity debate ie get out on the street now and offer help and support to people in need. No need for Marxists to go away – just drop the language of class struggle and the history lessons and put forward some straightforward ideas for Left Unity to work with.
I think this might be hardfor some because it involves losing the credibility of apparently complex theories and historical analysis and getting down to street level with what people need now. Street level analysis and action also gets in the way of the idea that political theorists have superior knowledge which has to be imposed through education on the electorate to achieve any kind of success.