Avoiding the issues
Nick Wrack, a supporter of the Socialist Platform, invites its critics to engage with what it says.
In his contribution to the debate, “For what it’s worth,” Mike Marqusee uses over eight hundred words to take up the Socialist Platform but fails to deal with its content in any way save one, which he gets wrong.
Instead, what he gives us is a long litany of criticisms of its form – it is “formulaic”, “reads like a catechism”, “deals in abstractions, many of which (which?) beg more questions than they answer” (what are these questions?); it is “sketchily schematic” and “decidedly undialectical” (what does that mean?); “it’s a closed book” “a set of fixed conclusions” and so on, and so on. It’s just name-calling.
Wouldn’t it be more productive for our opponents to explain concretely what they disagree with about its content, and why?
There has been quite a lot of comment on the Left Unity website about the need to define the words we use, especially the word “socialism”. We have set out succinctly in the Socialist Platform what we mean by our use of the word. If people don’t agree, they should say how and why, rather than arguing that we shouldn’t be arguing for it.
Where Mike does engage with the content of the document he is wrong. He asserts that our Statement “contains no commitment to feminism”. More insidiously he ‘suggest(s) that’s not an insignificant or acceptable omission.” Chris S and Edmund Potts scuttle his claim (see comments). But why is it made? I suggest the claim is made to make people think that these ‘dogmatic’ (yes, that old chestnut) socialists have no regard for women’s emancipation. Others have leveled the same accusation on the question of the environment (again, wrongly).
I wonder whether Mike has actually read the Statement (see point 4) or the supporting article ‘Resistance and Socialist Change’ , in which we wrote:
“Against oppression
The new party must stand against oppression and discrimination. Everyone who has signed up to the Left Unity project will be committed to the emancipation of women, LGBT liberation and an ending of racism and all other forms of discrimination. The fuller party programme will have to elaborate in more detail the steps we fight for now and in the future.
We have to combat discrimination and oppression now and always, but without the eradication of class society we believe that there is no chance of ridding society of the oppression of women and all other forms of oppression and discrimination. We are convinced that the ending of capitalism is a necessary step towards ending oppression and discrimination in all its forms. It is a process that we can begin but which others may have to complete. This means that we will be engaged in all campaigns that take up the fight against oppression now, consistently working to strengthen them.”
Now, does Mike take issue with anything we said there? Is it not explicit enough? We anticipate a fuller discussion to elaborate a “fuller party programme”. There is nothing ‘static’ about our approach. Far from seeing our Statement as the end of the debate, we see it as a starting point. It contains a set of principles that most socialists, if not all, could accept. I would be interested to hear from Mike and other opponents of the platform which of the ten points they disagree with and why.
Mike argues that Left Unity should “aim to reach and offer representation to the wide spectrum of people who now find themselves to Labour’s left.” I agree. He goes on to say, “If that could have been achieved by the Socialist Platform approach, it would have happened long before now.” Doesn’t the same reproach apply to the LPP approach?
Mike says that the LPP defines the new party as ‘socialist’. But what others and I want to know is what it means by that, and how it sees socialism being brought into existence. Mike might not like the SP Statement but at least it begins to address these points. Mike wants to see a “process of open, multi-dimensional discussion”. So do I. So let’s debate what we say, rather than the way we say it.
Without apparently recognizing the irony of his own words Mike writes: “Of course, the current argument around the various platforms has already given people cause to write off LU as a another futile left wing adventure, cursed from the outset by factionalism and dogmatism.” One wonders why he bothered to reinforce this alleged perception. One is left with the impression that Mike would prefer we kept our mouths shut. If only it wasn’t for those argumentative sorts who back the Socialist Platform, everything would be alright!
So much for pluralism! Let’s not forget that the Left Party Platform is just that – a platform (faction) and Mike has signed its statement. There’s nothing wrong with either but what’s good for the goose is also good for the gander.
Like others, I believe that debate is good. I want to hear what people have to say about socialism and what it means; about how we should express our ideas; about how we can engage people.
Of course we want to persuade people to agree with our ideas. What’s the point of having ideas if you don’t want to share them? That doesn’t mean we are closed to what others have to say. We are all constantly learning. Political debate is inevitable, even among those who closely agree on things. Debate is healthy; difference and discussion help to clarify ideas. It is a positive thing, not to be feared.
It is the real differences that should be debated. Behind Mike’s criticism of the SP Statement is, I suspect, a real political difference. I agree with him when he says that, “Labour’s shift to the right is not temporary or superficial…”. But it’s the next bit that is revealing: “that (Labour) cannot be “reclaimed” for social democracy”. Why would anyone want to reclaim it for social democracy, even if that were possible? Social democracy, for me at least, is not socialism. It means accepting the present capitalist system with its class exploitation. It is about managing capitalism, not abolishing it. This is the real debate we need to have.
38 comments
38 responses to “Avoiding the issues”
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.
So wht doesn’t the Socialist Platform write a piece explaining why the Soviet Union, Cuba, etc were/aren’t socialist as you wrongly assert in point 3 of your statement, or is that just ‘avoiding the issue’.
Phil
I am a signed-up supporter of the socialist platform and have been debating your views about the Soviet Union with you in detail over on the thread you started, so don’t pretend we are avoiding this issue when you know the opposite is true!
We obviously don’t need to debate whether we are for “managing capitalism”, because none of the platforms are. But you persist in trying to say that’s what this debate is about. What it’s about is, simply, whether socialists are willing to co-exist in a party alongside non-socialists.
The Socialist Platform and Left Party Platform are both socialist. It is this question of broadness that is the difference between them. You say you want to know “how it [the LPP] sees socialism being brought into existence” – but the Socialist Platform has nothing to say about this!
I’d also like to hear once and for all why you refuse to use the word “feminism”. This is not an accusation that you “have no regard for women’s emancipation” – but you have clearly thought very carefully about the words you use, so why avoid that one?
Hi Tom, there is no reason why we did not use the word feminism we simply expressed the political content (women’s liberation) using different words. I suspect there would be a great deal of debate within Left Unity on what feminism is just like there is a debate on what socialism is. But let’s be clear both platforms are committed to women’s liberation so the constant questioning on why the word “feminism” was not used in the Socialist Platform distracts from the real debate and is used (like in Mike Marqusee’s article) to imply that the Socialist Platform does not take women’s liberation seriously.
Would it be fair for us to ask why the Left Party Platform does not mention oppression based on sexuality, opposition to oppression based on religion (i.e. Islamophobia) or the oppression of disabled people in the same way Mike and others have questioned why the Socialist Platform has not used the word “feminism”? We don’t think it would but clearly there are double standards.
Also, wealth redistribution is about managing capital as opposed to the democratic planning of production which is about abolishing capitalist relations. A clear difference between the two platforms, though I am hopeful things can become clearer over the next couple of months.
It doesn’t “distract from the debate” – it is a key part of the debate. Both platforms are clear that they are opposed to all forms of discrimination. That is not in question. It’s no use saying we’re accusing you of not taking women’s liberation seriously – we’re not making that accusation. The question is: why do you not want to use the word “feminism”? Why will you go to such lengths to avoid it?
You say it’s possible to express the political content using different words. Yet you clearly don’t believe that when it comes to “socialism”! Why is the word “socialism” all over your platform and the word “feminism” nowhere? That is the question.
If you accept that the Socialist Platform is committed to women’s liberation then what is the issue? We have not gone to great lengths to not use the word “feminism” but we have expressed the political content in a different yet clear way. I don’t see that as an issue unless you use raise it to imply that the Socialist Platform does not take women’s liberation seriously as some have done.
What do you think about the point I raised previously about whether “[w]ould it be fair for us to ask why the Left Party Platform does not mention oppression based on sexuality, opposition to oppression based on religion (i.e. Islamophobia) or the oppression of disabled people”?
On your final point the strength of the Socialist Platform is that it expresses principles around which a new party could be built. What is important is the content not how it is written so amendments and re-writes by LU members come conference are certainly welcome.
I should correct you Chris that the Left Party Platform does mention all those forms of discrimination.
“We are opposed to all forms of discrimination, whether on the basis of gender, race, impairment, sexual orientation, gender identity, nationality, religion, age or politics”
http://leftunity.org/towards-a-new-left-party/
Tom if both platforms are socialist then how can the LPP one guarantee that it won’t drive out non socialists? I haven’t signed any platforms yet I think the debate is largely and sadly superficial at this stage, but I don’t see how the LPP advocates intend to actually fight for a socialist change in society? Do we keep socialism for the already initiated? If we are winning people to socialism then when are we going to start that? Is the plan to recruit loads of left Keynesians (where are they?) and then in a few years time sit them down and give them the “hard argument”?
I don’t like the SPP platform statement, it is too abstract, not rooted enough in the conjuncture of struggles and the dynamics of the movement. In short I don’t think it is suited to the task it sets itself. However the strength of the approach is that it avoids the contradiction you seem to be in that you defend the LPP statement as “socialist” then claim it will also allow non socialists to be on LU.
^ Tom Walker’s point is correct. We need a broad party of the left – it’s the most effective way of bringing socialist ideas to the biggest audiences.
Tom (and everyone else),
I signed the Socialist Platform and I’m a feminist, does that satisfy you? Of course it doesn’t because I haven’t told you anything about myself you didn’t already know, it’s just a word.
The reason the word socialism is “all over [the] platform” however is because the entire platform statement is an attempt to define socialism and, contrary to your claim, say how it will come about.
Nick is quite right, the LPP statement doesn’t mention islamaphobia but it would be ridiculous and offensive to try and suggest its authors had an issue with islam.
Colin
“Socialism” is also “just a word”. It can mean a world of different things to different people. The definition in the platform is vague at best, and I do not see any statement of how socialism will come about at all (I don’t mean just saying “the working class” – I mean the mechanism for getting from capitalism to socialism). Where is it?
I don’t in fact think our founding statement should be so specific on such matters, but the Socialist Platform seems to me to consistently claim it includes a lot more specifics than it does.
Isn’t the most efficient and effective way of winning people to socialism by building a socialist party and then fighting alongside non socialists in united fronts? How can we influence a wider audience if we consciously limit the political strategy and range of LU to accommodate to some left Keynesians?
The debate hasn’t been about the content of the platforms because, er, that’s not what the debate has been about. Most people agree with the broad content of all the platforms, as far as Ive been able to see, and as illustrated by Felicity Dowling’s piece, the differences are minor. The debate is about whether we want:
A. A socialist party, strictly defined in narrow terms, that will organise socialists for socialism.
B. A socialist party, broadly defined (because no one is in a position to convincingly define it narrowly), that will organise working people of all descriptions, against austerity in the short term, and for socialist change in the long.
There’s nothing necessarily wrong with a. Some of us have been in them before. But why make a new one when there’s already 57 varieties to choose from? I believe that most people who signed up for Left Unity did so because they want b and were actually rather tired of the failure of the first approach.
Cheers, Stuart
Couldn’t agree more.
I’m 21 and I appear to have learnt from the past failures far quicker than some of the people vindicating the socialist platform. The mind boggles, it really does.
And we’re going to explain all this on the doorsteps? Socialism is a tainted word to most, anachronistic to many, and too vague in reality. Left Unity should accept that Left is the direction of travel, but the destination cannot be definined in advance (and being Democratic, the voters will decide when to stop travelling left!).
Indeed. I’m wary of socialism, as are a lot of people, for varying reasons (the history of Socialist parties here, for me, to be clear).
I don’t think calling the party socialist is useful.
I agree with Stuart….he hits a nail on the head.
I suggest a new strand to this debate. Appoint yourself as a Left Unity Community Worker. Get out in your community and do something constructive for a person who needs help. With recent trends in UK society it should be easy to find someone.
Do this a few times and then reconsider the political debates circulating within Left Unity. How relevant are these debates to the needs of people in the UK? Which is more likely to develop an electoral base for Left Unity – community action or political debate?
On “social democracy”, it’s worth remembering that, not so very long ago, all socialists considered themselves and were members of parties that called themselves “social democratic”, even the Bolsheviks. Now, of course, the meaning of the word has narrowed to refer to specific historical practices that no one wants to repeat. But then, the same applies to such words as “socialism” and “communism”. As good a reason as any for keeping our options open, our membership open, our minds open, while we create the space for something new. Which means, of course, voting for the LPP, whether you regard yourself as a socialist, a communist or a social democrat (I regard myself as all three).
As an someone who signed the Socialist Platform I obviously give it my support. Do I agree with every word of formulation? No. But I will argue in Left Unity, of which I was an early signature member, for the platform. Shoul it not form the central ideas of Left Unity or should Left Unity adopt the LPP positions will I abandon Left Unity or the Socialist Platform. In doing this I will of course get the support of every member of Left Unity that supports a broad party and pluralism.
For 50 years in the TU and Labour Movement I have been told in the interest of unity we must agree this programme or that programme and failure to do so was disruptive or disloyal. Because I argued for a socialist alternative and did not accept their programme I was rocking the boat. Never once have I experienced the position of those I have disagreed with ever consider giving up their ideas. The idea of a broad & pluralistic party requires discussion and debate. I believe a democratic socialist society requires such debate and discussion.
At the risk of getting flak from all directions, may I suggest that our main problem could be with the concept of ‘left’ rather than that of ‘socialism’. The difficulty we face is that a group of organisations and individuals – which one might label conveniently as the ‘establishment’ – has arrogated power and an inordinate percentage of wealth to themselves. This is nothing new of course, and dealing with this problem has been a ‘running to stand still’ exercise for centuries. What might be different today is that it is now a global issue – there is no new world to escape to any more. To that extent we really are all in it together.
If the above is a reasonable picture, then surely the simplest representation is not of left and right, but centre – ie the establishment – and periphery – ie the rest of us, whatever our persuasion as regards moral issues, etc, etc. What unites the non-establishment, non-privileged (including refuseniks of all shades) is that we regard the centre as having hijacked our life opportunities and exploited them for its own benefit. Whatever invisible hand (in the spirit that Adam Smith intended) as there ever was in the background to limit the logical enormities of capitalism is now enfeebled to the point of uselessness.
John Tummon’s excellent article (“What is Socialism…”) brings together a very wide spectrum of aspirations and policies aimed at redressing the imbalance between the establishment and the rest of us. The driving force is fairness for all – an elusive goal but one that we must continue to strive for. Neither his article nor the majority of other comments that I have read on this website is seriously suggesting that the current establishment should be replaced with a centralised power structure embodying the characteristics of wealth accumulation and monopoly on power such as resulted in the Soviet empire. On the contrary, the common theme is public ownership with a strong participative democracy at all levels. Hence the simplest label for us might be ‘levellers’ (where have I heard that before?).
I like the idea of calling ourselves ‘levellers’! Strange coincidence as I was just reading Rebecca Solnit’s ‘Hope in the Dark’ before I came on here, and she echoes what you’ve said – that there are many many people who would support a leftist platform and all it represents, but they would baulk at the term ‘left’ or ‘socialist’ because of the associated baggage… we don’t live in a binary world, and I think many people are a little fed up of either/or choices. Why not just focus on the dispersal and equalisation of power to individuals, groups and communities?. Levellers… gets my vote!
I have ploughed through the nitpicking, hairsplitting, and incredibly puerile objections to the Socialist platform and have learnt one thing and one thing only : these pedantic, holier-than-thou wordsmiths are exactly the sort of people that any new Socialist Party can do without.
What it does need is practical people, inspired by the Socialist ideas of Marx, Englels, Lenin, Trotsky, Luxembourg, Liebknecht, Connolly, and other great teachers, who want to do the day-to-day work of building a Socialist Party, and, through so doing, transform the political landscape of this capitalist madhouse we are all forced to live in. More heroes of the deed and fewer heroes of the word.
A major political breakthrough of this sort is bound to throw up dust, debris, and detritis, and there will be many so-called spokesmen and spokeswomen who will be hoping the new Party is stillborn as they act, either consciously or unconsciously, on behalf of the enemy – the ruling class and its agents.
Many of the ” commentators” I have read on this website would be better employed compiling Dictionaries, or screening people for Sexually Transmitted Diseases.
Fighting to change society needs fighters, not desk-bound academics, agonising over this word or that. Every person living under capitalism carries the birthmarks of that society, with all its contradictions, imperfections, ugly scars, and prejudices.
The Labour and Trade Union movement is a school for educating the new kind of man and woman that will flourish in a Socialist society. But the lion’s share of that work of education and self-education can only begin when we actually achieve a Socialist society, and abolish poverty, class divisions, inequality, war, and ignorance once and for all.
In the meantime, we have to make do with the human resources that are available to us, and stop expecting people to be prototypes of a model Socialist citizen.
But most important of all is to get the new Socialist Party up and running, intervening in strikes, supporting workers in struggle, contesting Elections where this is financially and politically feasible, producing a newspaper, and raising the red flag of revolt in working class areas the length and breadth of the country so that seething discontent and anger can find a Socialist outlet, and not fall prey to fascist and racist bigots who also flourish like maggots at a time of capitalist crisis.
Forward to a new Socialist Party confidently proclaiming a Socialist alternative to the madness, waste, poverty, and wars of Capitalism in its death throes.
The Party’s Socialist programme and perspectives will emerge in the process of debate and argument up to and probably after the November 30th Founding Conference. More importantly, however, it will crystallise and develop in the course of class struggle, and under the impact of events, as the capitalist class intensifies its relentless onslaught on the working class and unemployed in a ruthless bid to remove any restraints on the pursuit of profit and the blind, unplanned workings of the market.
It is the duty of Socialists to implacably oppose the class enemy, and offer the toilers, at home and abroad, a way out of the never-ending nightmare that capitalism means for the vast majority of humanity.
A new British Socialist Party is a step along this road. All those with fire in their bellies and a desire to make a difference in their local communities will enthusiastically welcome its arrival, and will work to make it a success.
We can happily leave the chattering classes to their chat, and get on with this historic task.
Jimmy Roberts.
Blacklisted Socialist.
The debate of ideas is a healthy expression that those involved in Left Unity are striving to create a substantial force to change society. It is, therefore, essential that the tone of the debate should at all times be comradely, with no hint of intimidation.
The Socialist Platform has been criticised for not referring to “feminism”. Tom Walker even demands to know why the word has not been used. The hectoring tone of his contribution is particularly ironic in the context of championing the struggle of working-class women. We must do our utmost to encourage the participation of those who may be less confident in voicing opinion.
Surely we should be discussing what we propose to advocate in combatting gender discrimination rather than nitpicking over words. Below are some suggestions for the beginning of this debate.
Left Unity should be challenging all gender discrimination with concrete proposals.
Capitalism is quite happy to have a discriminatory system that divides workers and where women still receive lower salaries than men almost 40 years after the 1970 Equal Pay Act came into force. Hourly pay rates for women across Europe are on average 16% lower than for men doing the same job and 19.5% lower in the UK. Women need to work an extra 59 days a year to earn “equal” pay. The reduction in the pay gap in recent years resulted from a decline in men’s earnings rather than an increase for women. Women aged from 50-59 endure the widest gender pay gap.
The increase in the number of working women has not been matched with a change in how the family or childcare have been organized – most low paid workers are reliant on grandparents and other relatives.
Britain has the highest childcare costs in Europe and it is estimated that parents meet over 90% of those costs. As a consequence, some women still cannot afford to work.
For capitalism to grant equal pay or socialised childcare would hit profits so it is not an option they want to consider. The family is still the cheapest way to care for a generation of workers and to produce the next generation. Left Unity should demand equal pay and a free national childcare service.
We should campaign to reduce the working week.
There is a need to campaign to change attitudes in society that lead to discrimination. This is a complex issue that cannot be resolved by platitudes or claiming special privileges. There is a much more complicated struggle to overcome sexist attitudes and behaviour towards women.
The ever-increasing objectification and sexualisation of women and girls, encouraged by the advertising industry and the media must be confronted. This society, in which appearance is all, leads to low self-esteem, eating disorders and unnecessary surgical treatment.
Left Unity should begin to discuss these and other questions, many of which do not have simple solutions. For example prostitution and the sex trade are issues that cannot be resolved merely by legislation. The same is true for the issues of rape and domestic violence. The underlying ideology needs to be challenged. But attitudes have their roots in material conditions. Ultimately, the conditions that give rise to sexist attitudes have to be confronted.
There is still a battle to be fought to ensure that women have control of their own bodies and reproduction.
Working-class women are amongst the most exploited in capitalist society.
We must explain that the root of women’s oppression lies in social conditions not biology. Real equality can only be achieved by economic and social change.
Within the labour movement we must actively encourage more women to get involved and take leadership positions, confronting any obstacles. My own view is that measures such as positive discrimination or women-only shortlists will not effect this change and may even create the illusion that they are sufficient to achieve an end to discrimination.
On a practical level, we must find the resources to organise crèches and child care to ensure that more women with children can participate in Left Unity.
As for not using the word “feminism”? I am a socialist with more than 30 years’ activity in championing workers’ and women’s rights. I have never defined myself as a feminist. There are many different types of feminism, with a broad spectrum ranging from one extreme of those who consider men to be the problem to those who are socialists. I find it patronizing and arrogant for Tom Walker to think he can dictate what word I use to describe myself.
My choice – my words!
…and that reply should be up on the website as an article in its own right. Soraya’s spot on, and I especially identify with the idea of reducing the working week. I’m a househusband, and we want to grow our own food – caring for our own children and providing (even a little) for ourselves reduces the strain on society, the state and the environment enormously, but we can only do this by working less, and at the minute we simply don’t have the time outside of working, which in itself only provides just enough for basic living. More practical things like this!
I’m not sure where the “hectoring”, “intimidation” etc was in my comment. Perhaps you could point me to it? Let’s remember we’re commenting below an article by Nick Wrack that hardly pulls its punches in the tone it takes towards Mike Marqusee.
Of course I fully agree with your specific policy proposals (excepting your opposition to ensuring gender balance on leadership bodies). Nor am I attempting to “dictate” what word you use to describe yourself, obviously. What I am questioning is *why* the platform you have signed does not wish to include it. It is not an accusation or a demand – it is a question.
I am in favour of a party can be inclusive of people who use all sorts of different terms to describe themselves and their ideologies within the left. The Socialist Platform is not: it simply says all must sign up to “socialism”. Who is doing the “dictating” here?
It is unfortunate that this debate has failed to progress beyond this level; it is widely recognised that women are particularly badly affected by the Condems’ austerity agenda, losing jobs, services and benefits and being expected to fill in the gaps at home, unpaid and isolated. Meanwhile, women who dare voice an opinion on social media are threatened with rape, mutilation and death. That was for wanting one picture of one woman on one bank note. The fall out from the Saville case continues accompanied by much commentary from those who are clearly ignorant of the dynamics and repercussions of sexual abuse. Within the workers’ movement, the fate of the SWP and to lesser extent the SP and the RMT has been an unedifying sight which has convinced many women the Left regards them as dispensable cheerleaders.
In this climate, any mention of women’s equality at all is likely to make you quite unpopular quite fast, whether you talk about oppression, patriarchy, emancipation, liberation, feminism or any similar phrase.
I am more interested in developing effective policies than debating terminology. Soraya’s suggestion of a campaign to reduce the working week is intresting and more useful than an exclusive emphasis on maternity leave, childcare and flexible working for women/mothers. A new definition of what a job is would have wider implications for all workers whether parents or not, potentially a progressive demand in an era of high unemployment
But we must also pay more than lip service to equality in our own organisation. Encouraging women to confront obstacles will not create an environment where women feel comfortable. The current environment is the problem, not the behaviour of people currently effectively excluded from it. As socialists we believe our problems are structural, not the consequence of personal failings and solutions are to be found collectively, both in our own organisations and in wider society.
Tom, the problem with making the word ‘feminism’ a sticking point is: what the hell is feminism? What exactly are we supposed to be signing up to? Andrea Dworkin or Naomi Wolf? Pro-sex or antiporn? Decriminalisation of prostitution or the ‘Swedish model’? Feminists are divided on almost every conceivable issue. There are even pro-life feminists, for crying out loud.
You yourself are on record – in Socialist Worker and subsequently – calling for Julian Assange to go to Sweden to face the music…which puts you at odds with Wolf and Women Against Rape, at the very least. You were an SWP member when the SWP called for a vote for the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt, a position you have not so far as I know criticised, and which would presumably irritate a whole range of feminists – being that the MB are staunch defenders of the right of men to obtain sex from their wives regardless of consent, among other delightful views on the topic.
I’m happy to argue about all this stuff until the cows come home, as (presumably) would be any member of the Socialist Platform. But getting tormented by the F word in itself is simply a fatuous demand for a politically empty confession of faith, which I – like Soraya – am not happy to make.
In other words, avoiding the issues!
The problem with making the word ‘socialism’ a sticking point is: what the hell is socialism? What exactly are we supposed to be signing up to? Lenin or Nye Bevan? Scientific or utopian? Insurrection or the ‘Swedish model’? Socialists are divided on almost every conceivable issue. There are even pro-North Korea socialists, for crying out loud.
Getting tormented by the S word in itself is simply a fatuous demand for a politically empty confession of faith, which I am not happy to make.
On the left, ‘feminism’ tends to be used interchangeably with ‘women’s liberation’ – or just a special commitment to achieve gender equality as far as possible in our organisations now. If this were all that the word meant, I’m positive no signatory or supporter of the Socialist Platform would have the slightest problem with it.
But this casual usage of the word is incorrect. Feminism is an umbrella term for a variety of rather specific strategies that aim to achieve women’s liberation, women’s equality, or women’s empowerment. Even if one found a lot of feminist literature to be interesting and insightful, it would still be perfectly legitimate to say that none of these strategies can achieve their stated objective (women’s liberation). Some currents may even be counterproductive to our broader goal of general human liberation.
Tom Walker sneers that socialism is an equally vague term. In a sense, that is true – which is why the Left Party Platform can cite it as happily as the back of my old Labour Party membership card. But the Socialist Platform statement of principles at least gives an outline of what kind of socialism we want, and I don’t think it’s possible to conclude the Swedish model, North Korea, or some Fourierist utopia from it.
I cannot say the same about Tom Walker’s advocacy of feminism. Neither does the Left Party Platform specify which ‘feminist values’ it means, nor does Tom find it necessary to elaborate on it in any of his supporting articles. Instead, he rather dramatically dedicates an entire paragraph to one sentence: “It (the Socialist Platform) does not mention feminism.” No explanation, no elaboration, no nothing.
One may be tempted to conclude that comrade Walker hasn’t really read a lot about feminism – he may just be throwing the term about to a) gain support with minimal effort and b) darkly imply that the Socialist Platform signatories is some sexist boys’ club. But as a positive thinking person, I’m confident he is yet to introduce us to his particular school of feminism.
Now on to the Muslim Brotherhood?
Very good. But truly is this really won. Agree to disagree and let’s fix rather than split.
While Nick’s reply to Mike Marqusee makes some good points it is very problematic when he says “Let’s not forget that the Left Party Platform is just that – a platform (faction)”. I don’t think anyone should be forming “factions” in Left Unity when we are at the early stage of discussing what we stand for.
Indeed the term “platform”, taken from the Scottish Socialist Party, is unfortunate. When we discussed the platforms in Lambeth Left Unity we took these documents as resolutions to be debated and amended at conference, NOT as factional platforms, aimed at recruiting people to them. Developed in this way it could only be harmful to Left Unity at our current stage of organization.
Many people have pointed out that there are points of agreement as well as difference in the various documents that are effectively a “where we stand” for a potential party. Far from forming “factions” around them we should be trying to see what we have in common and isolating the differences so we can discuss and vote on these. For that maybe we need a drafting commission, made up of representatives of the differing platforms. Then the conference could be presented with a composite and a series of amendments where no agreement could be reached. It could also composite where possible overlapping amendments from branches.
It could also separate out “fighting policies”, as in the Workers Power’s Class Struggle platform, for separate voting/amendment as a Where we Stand that will be largely a set of principles.
But we should not pretend there aren’t two political perspectives being put forward here, on the type of party we want. The Socialist Platform, rightly in my view, wants a party that is explicitly socialist and anticapitalist, one that openly says it is for the overthrow of the capitalist system and for its replacement with a society where the means of production are taken out of private hands and owned and controlled by working people. The Left Party Platform by contrast is deliberately unclear or vague on this question because it thinks such a Where we Stand would frighten off reformist workers and people who are not socialists.
Tom Walker makes this point. He clearly thinks that if we adopt an anticapitalist and socialist Where we Stand we are against having reformists and non-socialists in the party. That’s just not true. Workers join you because of what you do, what you fight for, only rarely because they have read your programme. They join as fighters and then listen and learn about your politics. We want fighting militants to join us, worked out socialists or not, but unlike Tom we don’t think being against capitalism, fighting for its overthrow, will “put them off”.
Put the other way, the Left Party Platform comrades think you have to have be a reformist party, or at best fudge the question of reform/revolution, to recruit the masses. It is the Respect tactic all over again and its no surprise many of the signatures to the Left Party platform are people who were part and parcel of that disastrous episode.
Except for the little fact that Socialism is both a loaded gun for criticism, and it has a very poor history in terms of cooperating with the rest of the left in this country. At this stage, I can only see the word as being exclusionary rather then inclusionary.
Plus, as I’ve said before, it’s the right who are using ideology as a weapon. We should be using policy.
It’s true that the term socialism has to be reclaimed, explained and made relevant today (in terms of policy as well). I’m not willing to throw the baby out because of these difficulties, and it’s not as if it won’t be difficult to build any sort of left of Labour party in the UK at the moment.
I’ve always been in favour of a founding statement somewhere between the Left Party Platform and Socialist Platform statements and the idea of compositing seems a sensible way forward. Surely there must be others in LU that accept there are both good and bad aspects to the three platforms – Socialist, Left Party and Class Struggle?
FWIW and briefly, the LPP is right that LU must aspire (however difficult it is going to be) to becoming a party of significant size and influence but contains a huge hostage to fortune in the failure of other similar projects (and Respect, despite the differences, is one) that have made too many compromises with capitalism. On the other hand, the SP is good in it’s explicit socialism but is abstract in the sense that there is little feel for the political and economic situation we face in the UK today. It is also too close to previous attempts of the far Left that have met with limited success at best. Neither model is adequate.
For too long, too many on the Left (including ironically those that are declaring themselves the pluralists) has been unable to look beyond their own entrenched positions. A good start to doing things in a different way would be to present a composite statement to conference with amendments to vote on. An unwillingness to compromise is for the class struggle, not debate amongst ourselves – well, unless you want to call people class traitors.
Graham – I am very interested in amendment,maybe send me an email to thisissimonhardy at gmail.com and we can discuss?
Left Unity debates are a little like fine dining – completely irrelevant to most people. Get real, get down to the greasy spoon.
I have to say that I find the so called Socialist platform position fairly in penetrable and would love to see these people trying to explain it to people on East st market as the eggs fly.
It is full of meaningless abstractions as Mike M points out very clearly in his post…….demanding the end of capitalism…….what does that mean exactly ?
While a targetted and as yet growing but disorganised minority of people are increasingly struggling under the austerity cuts cosh ,many working class people out there are doing very nicely thank you, benefitting from the capitalist system and dont see anything wrong with it.
If you were working as a small self employer business person, a market stall holder, a corner shop keeper OR a trades person as many ‘hardworking’ people are, such as hairdressers,beauticians, electricians, plumbers and were earning £800 minimum per week………..then why should you come to question capitalism ? You will more than likely vote for tax cuts to maximise your ‘hard won’ earnings based on the fact that you might not being paying any tax anyway or could well be fiddling your tax returns (easily done) to avoid paying tax (which you resent paying) in the first place
Substantial sections of the British Left still have this bizarre idea that working class people dont vote for capitalism, dont vote tory , didnt vote for Thatcher and can somehow be united in the ultimate overthrow of the British state and ending capitalism !!! Historically, there has always been a working class tory vote. IF It is significant and is relevant to any Left discussion of the condition of the working class then why is it so little discussed ?
To take a very clear and obvious case of the ‘much loved’ British football,perhaps a microcosm/mirror image of the capitalist system, the centre of predominantly male working class culture,the long established and deeply rooted historic creation of working class division and rule through team/regionally rivalries and hatreds
I dont see how if people, for example,substantial numbers of ‘hard working’ working class men (and increasingly women), think nothing of paying £1000’s per seasons to support eg a top flight premier league football team,through season tickets ,kits, travel and alcohol, food, accommodation etc etc to regularly watch a bunch of working class multi millionaires lads made good, kicking a ball about and not getting out of bed for less than £200 thousand PER WEEK!!! (According to press tittle tattle Rooney would earn 300 thpusand a week !!! if he moved to Chelsea) then how in hells name are they ever likely to come to question the nature of capitalism when they fully embrace it in extreme !!!!
What will ULTIMATELY bring about the end of capitalism and human life and existence on the planet earth is CLIMATE CHANGE AND CHAOS and The SOCIALIST PLATFORM doesnt even mention CLIMATE CHANGE by name but simply refers to the environmental damage caused by capitalism which is in my mind a totally inadequate response to the global ecological crisis human beings face living on the planet earth.
If the Socialist platform wants to be at all relevant then it needs to urgently face up to and acknowledge the enormity of scale of the problem and develop very practical but radical solutions which actually deal with cutting carbon emissions in the here and now and which can win popular support eg through cutting trident nuclear weapons systems,phasing out nuclear power and ending it’s obscene sunbsidy, taxing the rich, creating a national climate jobs scheme, through a practical programme of carbon cuts as against austerity cuts, developing renewable energy, building, insulating, improving and making energy efficient millions of council houses, developing a publically owned subsided integrated and sustainable public transport system/infrastructure to wean millions of people out of their carbon emitting and polluting cars/lorries/vehicles otherwise it can kiss good bye to any idea of a Socialist future !