For an anti-capitalist and socialist party
How should a new mass party of the left define itself? Tim Lessells of Leicester Left Unity argues that it should be an anti-capitalist party, and that we should not be afraid to use the word ‘socialism’.
I believe that a new party of the left should, from the very start, stand openly and unashamedly against capitalism and for the socialist transformation of society.
Especially at a time of capitalist crisis such as now, in a period that has seen revolutionary upheavals and huge levels of resistance by workers and the poor in many parts of the world, it would be seriously amiss if we were not to clearly argue that the capitalist system itself is to blame for this crisis and that it needs replacing. We should state that capitalism, and class society in general, is the root cause of the global recession, war, racism, unemployment, sexism, environmental destruction and other ills in our society. Many people, especially sections of youth, have already drawn this conclusion themselves. The term capitalism in wide usage in the media, especially after the anti-capitalist protests of the late 1990s, and we should be bold in stating that we are an anti-capitalist party.
Austerity is a response of the capitalist political class to the economic crisis – they want to make workers and the poor pay for a crisis they did not cause. We must actively oppose the policies of austerity, oppose cuts in public services, attacks on benefit claimants, privatisations and so on. But we should not limit ourselves to just being an `anti-austerity’ party. Instead we should link the crisis and all these attacks on the working class and oppressed directly to the nature of the capitalist system itself. We should explain why capitalism is an inherently unjust and exploitative system of minority rule. We should take the opportunity to explain why we oppose it, and what type of society we would like to replace it with.
A `nicer’ or `fairer’ capitalism is not possible. This is utopian. Yes we must fight against every attack on workers and the oppressed in the here and now, and yes we must fight for every reform we can win that will benefit the lives of ordinary people. We should recognise that any victories or reforms we win will be temporary – and that the capitalist class will always try to take them back from us. We should not sew illusions in the capitalist system – we should unequivocally oppose it and advocate its total replacement.
Only the total reorganisation of society in Britain and internationally along socialist lines, based on common ownership and democratic control and planning, could tackle the massive problems that blight our world, to end poverty, end unemployment, stop climate change and environmental destruction, end imperialist wars and so on.
Arguments used against using the `s’ word
`Socialist consciousness is too low and so we must not use the `s’ word’
This argument is nonsensical and self-defeating. The only way to raise socialist consciousness is to explain our ideas and win support for them.
This will take skill and not be easy. Undoubtedly a key part in this will be proving in practice, in the many campaigns and battles being fought, that socialists are the most determined fighters, that we are not like all the other capitalist parties with their self-serving careerist politicians, and that we stand squarely behind the working class, poor and oppressed in society at every juncture.
‘The `s’ word is off-putting to normal people’
Should we ditch the ‘s’ word for short term electoral success? Whilst undoubtedly there is confusion and different interpretations of socialism, most people do still understand it in a basic sense to mean a fairer and more equal society. People do still self identify as socialists, especially in families that were always staunch Labour supporters. We can’t get in a time machine and undo the damage that Stalinism and social democracy have done to the reputation of socialism. We can only try to explain these betrayals and put forward our version of a democratic socialism. Interestingly in a poll carried out in the United States 49% of young adults (18-29) had a favourable opinion of socialism! (Link to article in Huffington Post) An unexpected result. I’m not suggesting socialism is really popular, I wish it were, I’m just pointing out that it is not as off-putting as some imagine it to be.
The idea that socialists can’t win elections is also false. Where the candidate and party is well respected for their record of campaigning locally they can win, even under a socialist label. Socialists have won council seats in Preston, Coventry, Lewisham, Maltby and elsewhere in the past. There are socialists elected to the Irish Parliament and there were socialists elected in the Scottish Parliament. The word `left’ is no more or less popular (or understood) than the word `socialist’.
The key point about electoral success is that it takes consistent long-term work in an area, and a record of campaigning alongside the local community and workers’ movement. This factor is actually far more critical in terms of success at the polls than the electoral title or the programme that any candidate stands under – not that these are unimportant issues.
Also, it must be said, electoral success is all well and good, and I hope any new party on the left achieves this, but we need to ask ourselves, to what end? Electoral success is only a help to us if those elected use their positions to support struggles outside parliament, and to raise support generally in society for socialist policies and socialism itself.
The overall aim we set ourselves should be socialism – not just a few left MPs or councillors. Elected representatives can be really important spokespeople for us, but they only help us in as much as they help the wider struggle.
Elected representatives, as visible figureheads for our movement, can also damage and discredit the struggle for socialism through their actions – and so they must be held accountable by the party membership at all times.
To differentiate themselves from the capitalist politicians and to ensure they stay in touch with the realities that face ordinary people, I would also argue that they should only take the average wage of a skilled worker in the area they represent, and donate the rest back to the party or to other workers’ and socialist movement campaigns.
`Socialism on paper is no guarantee against future sell outs and betrayals’
Absolutely correct. Self described socialists and socialist parties have sold out many times over, not least over World War One which led to millions of working people being slaughtered. Unfortunately there is no guarantee against sell outs and betrayals happening again, although we can hope not on this scale. The best we can do is to create an active and alert membership, who have learnt as much as possible from the history of our movement, good and bad, and are ready to challenge and replace any leadership that takes this path again. None of this is an argument to not argue openly for socialism in the first place however!
Socialism should not just be seen as a `goal for the distant future` or something we only pay lip service to, but the aim of transforming society should be central to our very existence as a party and inform our strategy and programme. We are in politics to fundamentally change society – not to try and have a career as an MP, not to try (and fail) to manage capitalism `better`, or just to tinker round the edges of a thoroughly rotten system.
How we achieve socialism and exactly how a socialist society could organise itself are subjects for much greater discussion and debate! As a final thought though, even the Labour Party, through it`s `Clause 4′ adopted in 1918, had an official aim of socialism. Not that the leadership ever believed in this. Surely we can do better than `Clause 4`? Surely we can start our new party on an ideological basis equal to, or hopefully better than, old Labour?
I fully agree with Ken Loach when he said that “the core idea that I hope sits at the heart of this party is the fact that we need a planned economy to get out of this mess. Of course, you can’t plan what you don’t control, so it needs to be an economy held in common, a democratically controlled economy. And we call that socialism” (Ken Loach address to Left Unity Meeting, 11th May 2013).
Left Unity contains socialists of different stripes and from many different backgrounds, clearly we won’t agree on everything, and more discussion, debate and joint learning through experience are needed over the coming months and years. However, I do think we should all be able to agree on a common goal for our new party – the goal of creating a democratic socialist society.
47 comments
47 responses to “For an anti-capitalist and socialist party”
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.
This is a really welcome piece. A new anticapitalist party would be the most exciting development on the left for decades! Some in LU (kate hudson etc.) seem to want LU to be ‘old labour part 2’ or whatever. The question of reform or revolution is one that can’t be ignored and one we’d have to face if we ever faced the prospect of joining a coalition govt with labour or controlling a council etc.
Totally agree!
We need a simple platform that gets this anti-capitalist message across.
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 & 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.
I really like this. Simple, profound, almost unarguable. we just need to write our policies in a way which will spell out how we would acheive this.
I could agree with much of what Tim says. Given that I’m also from the Leicester group I imagine we’ll find a chance to discuss this further. I was particularly pleased that Tim emphasised the importance of proving “in practice” that socialists are the most determined fighters. I think we need to go further and begin to paint a picture of the socialist democracy we are struggling for. It should not descend into some far-fetched fantasy world; rather, the political practice of a new left party would help to demonstrate, in real life, what that future could amount to. It is a theme I have often raised in posts published on the Storyboard4 site.
Really good article. Sums up the views of many I expect.
Lee – Sheffield Left Unity
Go for it! No point in aiming low. It’s not just the current state of affairs that needs a radical fix – climate change and resource shortages are looming ever larger, and capitalism sure as hell won’t help us organise to tackle those sorts of problems, if the last 20 years’ experience is anything to go by.
Good article. The issues raised here all feed seamlesssly into the important developing discussion on the Left Unity Policy Commission thread , just before this one. As does John Keeley’s contribution. Hope you’ll all have a go at a “Basic What We Stand For” Statement on that thread.
Just a comment on usage of language, particularly “socialism” and “capitalism”. I, like you, don’t think we should hide Left Unity’s fundamental socialist philosophical bedrock , or our critique of capitalism, from the public in any way. However, as has been discussed many, many, times on this discussion forum, we have to make every effort to always express ourselves in everyday language – taking up issues that chime with everyday key issues and experiences of ordinary working people. The everyday struggles against the multi-headed hydra that is the Austerity Offensive should therefore predominate in both our actions and campaigning deeds. We must avoid like the plague the “special language codes” and over-detailed endless dissections/historical obsessions around 1917 and its aftermath, which for most people will mark us down as an obscurantist sect – rather than a dynamic radical Left party attempting to deal with the all too real problems faced by ordinary people NOW.
Must agree with the section that states: “The key point about electoral success is that it takes consistent long-term work in an area, and a record of campaigning alongside the local community and workers’ movement. This factor is actually far more critical in terms of success at the polls than the electoral title or the programme that any candidate stands under – not that these are unimportant issues.”
Before we include the word socialist in our title and abandon the broader inclusive term ‘left’ let’s just remind ourselves which are the few current political forces on the left that have elected members. Respect in Bradford and Tower Hamlets. The Walsall Democratic Labour Party have Pete Smith. Although not left, recently the Kiddiminster Health Concern recently won yet another seat.
We need to set out our position that we are for a socialist re-organisation of society in our constitution, organisation and actions but if we only seek to speak to socialists and trade unionists then we will get 1-2% of popular support in our communities. This is why TUSC is getting such terrible votes, 14 votes recently in the last election they contested.
If we describe ourselves in our title as worker, Marxist, or socialist we are going to remain on the political margins.
My local party in Lewisham, People Before Profit have deliberately chosen not to descibed ourselves as socialist but from our campaigns, actions and policies we are viewed and seen as a party of the left, on the side of workers in struggle, for the NHS and against austerity and on the side of the oppressed and poor. This is why we have been gaining creditable votes.
The name Left Party should be stuck with. Votes are important. A run of piss poor TUSC type votes is going to depress and demoralise everyone and could be the kiss of death.
I agree totally with Nick Long. Also John’s point about language is vital if we are to appeal to a wider and younger range of people – as far as I am aware no one has called for ditching the words ‘socialist’ or ‘capitalist’ entirely, but as many have previously said, it is folly to automatically assume that many ordinary people will assume they have the same meaning established left activists give to them.
I agree with the general thrust of this article, in that I believe we need to talk about replacing the current economic ‘capitalist’ system, although I don’t, honestly, think that evdn phrases like ‘we stand squarely behind the working class, poor and oppressed in society at every juncture’ necessarily mean very much to most people out there who are not ALREADY on the left.
Yes – we need to replace capitalism with a fairer, more equal and more democratic society, but the trouble with saying that the goal is ‘socialism’ is that is either means too much, or nothing at all or simply confuses.
In the mouths of Miliband and Blair and co it is simply cant and dishonesty.
However, even in the mouths of the left it is not at all clear what we all mean by it. Does it mean complete control of absolutely all economic enterprises, which I and most working people would actually oppose? If not, then which ones? Does it mean we will all be all completely equal? If not then to what degree? If someone has a good idea for a business, will it be possible under’socialism’ to use their initiative and creativity and see the idea to fruition or are we to be cogs in an stultifying state plan which crushes all individuality and verve? What role does individuality play in ‘socialism’, a vital question given the totalitarian past of this idea?
It is easy to be against the present society, but it is also vital to be FOR something and you have to be clear what that something is. You cannot go out door to door campaigning for ‘socialism’ if you are not crystal clear what ‘socialism’ is, or is not.
Why can’t we just say what our policies are, and what kind of future society we want to see, with some detail, and let others give it a label if they like.
Sorry – I meant complete STATE control of all economic enterprises. And what will be the role of the state as compared to co-operatives, or workers control initiatives? Is it RREALLY true that you can’t control what you don’t own? This is often asserted but never demonstrated. If state power is in the hands of the people, the 99% if you like, then why can’t some companies be controlled by tight regulations, combined with elements of workers’ control?
I accept that banks, energy companies, water, transport and other monopoly services should be under common ownership and control, and I also believe that key, large scale strategic industries will need to be under democratic ownership and/or control. But the prospect of complete state control, even with a truly democratic state frightens me, and most people, including most working people. With democracy must go freedom, and not just collective but INDIVIDUAL freedom.
I would agree with what you say. I think complete state control would frighten many people. Individual freedom is also very important. For some of us, it’s comes before any political allegiance.
Nick,
I think we should be overtly socialists but remember that most people don’t understand what the term means. So we need to reclaim the word socialism by explaining to people that it means the people have common (social) control of the factories, the land, indeed anything needed in production to meet the needs of the people.
That it is more than nationalisation – parliament/Whitehall – taking control. Hence it requires local institutions where the people can have their say, just like people’s assemblies.
Social control requires participation.
Participation is a word we need to use even more than socialism.
It is radical because it directly challenges capitalism & the political elite in Westminster.
Explained properly, consistently & often it will eventually have the support of the workers as they look for an alternative to a collapsing system.
An interesting and well-argued article and I agree entirely.
‘The `s’ word is off-putting to normal people’.
This is true, but not because it has lost meaning. It has been vilified by the Media and its powerfully-established capitalist opponents, since its conception–and conveniently betrayed by insiders at critical moments.
Its democratic adoption would be the greatest danger to those who control finance and public perception. Unfortunately, it is an ideology which depends on good will, fortitude and commitment of people–mostly without monetary armoury.
“Capitalism” is an older term, which has managed through the capture of high-tech to evolve into an international and enslaving power. Greed is its driving force and whole economies and populations its victims.
The prime targets and prime concerns for any democratic socialist party should be the full return to the public taxpayers, of British National Health Service; the Education Service; Public Housing, Care for the Elderly–and an added National Publicly-Owned Bank.
Democratic Socialists MUST BELIEVE IN THEIR RIGHTS to these basic pillars of a civilised society–they were a legacy from those who fought and died in their many thousands not so long ago.
This must be the platform from which many voices herald the resurgence of socialism–a real democratic socialism, to shame and vanquish those “Blairite” imposters of democracy and proclaim the return of their rights to the people.
If the British people cannot find it, in themselves, to defend what was theirs by sacrifice, then tell Ken Loach and all who care about British society, not to bother.
This is an excellent article; a really important contribution to the debate on what sort of party we should create.
We should not be afraid to state what we believe in. There are lots of people who would support a principled socialist party that didn’t hide, compromise or abandon its beliefs in the hope of getting a quick ( and usually personal ) gain. There is little doubt that socialist ideas have been pushed back in society generally. The only way we can make them more popular is to argue for them, making them relevant to people’s every-day problems and aspirations for a better life. This means patient work persuading people.
The aim must be to make socialism popular, not to try to become popular by abandoning it.
Well said Nick, there is nothing more sensible than a system where we all contribute to the work and all share the product of the work decisions made by consensus on what needs doing, what services we need. ownership of the means of production and agreement on distribution should belong to all
Nick Wrack – “compromise or abandon its beliefs in the hope of getting a quick (and usually personal) gain”
I hope you are not suggesting that those of us who feel the word ‘socialist’ should be treated with caution are all somehow on the make or motivated by personal gain??
Even if we are a Socialist Party we still need to define what we mean by that. There are as many socialisms as there are socialists.
Isn’t the point of “Left Unity” to unite the left, ie. socialists? There are indeed many interpretations of socialism, but the fundamentals should be clear. These surely are the principles of state ownership of the means of production under the most democratic control of the working class. That means a workers’state. What is up for debate is how we get there. What may also be up for debate is how the state eventually “withers away”. Another very big concern must be the prevention of “place seekers”, careerists and the evolution of Stalinism within the workers’ state. These are the strategic questions, not the principles.
Couldnt agree more NIck and what if you want to see change and are not a marxist?
Yes, Dave Edwards – that is a very significant point. We do get recognised as the same people on the anti-cuts stalls, on the lobbies of the council, on the marches and in the election.
Good article Tim. Nice to know that you are still around.
Martin
Socialist Party
A very valuable discussion above. It appears to me that all the above contributions have a common similarity (although different emphasis is being made). All support the ‘new’ party as having a clear socialist character (that is, I assume, by having within it’s aims the achievement of a socialist-based society). Indeed there is also a strong argument to have the environment as a central aspects of the party as well. As is a very central aspect – that it is a ‘true’ democratic party – both internally and for a ‘real’ democratic society. The minor differences in emphasis (above) are around the name. I don’t think we need ‘Socialist’ or indeed ‘Green’ or ‘Democratic’ in the title – I always feel that the “need” for this is some type of guilt trip – we must havea certain name in the title or we are not being honest to the creed etc. Rather a name should both embody what you are about, but also be useful for purpose. Also a name is not solid – the meaning of words change and if the party is successful then the name the party has will start to become part of the political landscape and be associated with the party and what it does (and what the media presents it as doing – not of course the same thing!)
I would personally settle of ‘Left Party’, although I would like to have ‘people’ as well, but I’m not sure if that sounds right.
In anycase I am sure we will all spend more time and words on this naming than on some of the policy discussions. But as the discussion above indicates, it is not unimportant.
I totally agree with this article in terms of what we stand for and the article is well written and highly informative. However once again we are not being offered ideas on how to go about this i.e plans, strategies. yes we are anti-capitalist and yes we are socialist but i agree with a lot of what Ray G is saying here. As for Richard Murgatroyd – I am calling for ditching of these words ‘socialist’ and ‘capitalist’. WE NEED TO THINK OUTSIDE OF THE BOX and we need to re-invent and re-claim a lot of the language. that may mean ditching the use of the words socialist and socialism entirely. if ditching the use of the word(s) mentioned above but still being socialist means we can use different language that wins elections and educates voters once they are party members – so be it. i for one am against the use of the word socialist in the title of the party completely. i would rather stick to words such as democracy/democratic, people, peoples, workers, worker, unity/united etc. people will be instantly turned off if we try to ‘educate’ them or tell them “hey let me explain to you the real meaning of socialism” – we have tried this and we have got nowhere – look at the plethora of parties on the left right now from TUSC to the Socialist Party who are failing miserably. we are undoubtedly anti-capitalist and socialist. the party must therefore be two tier. it must be issue based on the surface and engaging, with the ability to open discussions and radicalize members once they are in the party. before anyone calls this decietful or misguided – think again. this is logical because people will become more enagged and educated and radicalized once in the party. then they can be an active part of anti-capitalist and socialist initiatives. Once people become party members we can begin to discuss and engage more indepth with these sentiments of anti-capitalism and socialism. right now – we just need to get people engaged and this means good PR, very good PR, and ‘outside of the box’ marketing. we need to work issue by issue. you will not convert people into socialists overnight. lets go one step at a time and make a party that is actually engaging on subjects that matter. when people agree with our stance on subjects – then we can be more open that these are socialist ideas. i do not advocate denying that we are socialist or anti-capitalist for example in interviews but lets not push that as our main interface. then we can begin to move into this direction slowly. the reason we are creating this party is because we want to try doing this in a way that has never been done before. if we just go around parading anti-capitalist/socialist party we will get nowhere i promise you. good PR, clever use of language, new words to describe Marxist ideas etc is not selling out nor abandoning the cause. you want to enagage with us youth – then you need to be down with the way we think, the way we understand ideas and the education we have had – most of which has villified communism/socialism etc. most people (especially youth) fear socialism for the very reasons outlined above! we need to relay those fears as Ray G said about setting up a business, having access to capital, having freedoms and rights afforded to you and still retaining individuality. you have a very short time span to get someone engaged so we must make peoples first encounter with the party spot on – or else we will loose them i promise you. and then we will be yet another leftist party on the scrap heap of time. i fear then at this rate we are going to have two different ideas for parties emerging. 1. the old school anti-capitalist/we are socialist party on the left 2. a party that is in essence still anti-capitalist and socialist but that is focused more on youth and youth membership, with more innovative language and explanations of ideas and that is more issue based. i am of course of the latter and want to see/be part of creating a party that never used the words anti-capitalist or socialism within its explicit media, including all branding, the website, campaigns everything off the cuff. i want people to be engaged with the ideas of the party and to consider themselves anti-capitalist and socialist because they have reached that conclusion OT because we have invited them to think of themselves in this manner. this is an individual human revolution that must take place within each person. therefore – let use be creative and let us do it DIFFERENTLY this time around!!
Yes Jasmin – Thanks and spot on as usual.
Another torrent of great thought from Jasmin.
I disagree in part, for example how can anyone totally agree with “capitalism … is the root cause of … sexism, environmental destruction and other ills in our society.” It is not pedantic or splitting hairs to acknowledge that sexism, for example, did not begin with capitalism and – we should be honest enough to say – will not end with socialism. I am a bit too long in the tooth to put up with this kind of rhetoric, Tim and the sad thing is, it might get praise from some on this site, but it is wrong and therefore a flawed foundation to build our new political house on. I actually think it should be a tent, or maybe a boat (it often feels like a balloon!) – but that is another debate …
I also disagree that the word socialism is necessary at all. It may be, but only if our ideas, actions/work and explanation of what we are FOR find a receptive ear and mind with lots of people; and by that time, a single word to sum this up may not be needed. Single words to summarise complex visions – let alone refuting malign interpretations, on the one hand and descriptions of how we are to get there, on the other – are only useful if people understand their general meaning without further explanation. This was arguably still the case in the 1930s, but shaky even then; by 1941 the shared understanding of this single word’s meaning had gone. By 1991 – forget it. The one thing these super-singular words should never be, is a substitute for thought or an end to debate. If that is true of our critique of current common sense interpretations of freedom, democracy, etc. so it should be about socialism and capitalism.
I also disagree we should not use a word or an idea because it puts people off now, but slowly start to introduce it later, etc. According to polls, a depressing majority of people support the monarchy. I don’t think we should keep quiet about our opposition to it, but use this openly as one issue that we want to debate with people and turn the current ‘common sense’ on its head. It is not a big priority, but fundamental to our approach to equality, ownership, etc. There are many similar examples. A much bigger priority would be the absurdity of ‘fighting for peace’, on which the left has a very shaky record.
We certainly SHOULD “be afraid to use the word ‘socialism’”, if it is used in the simplistic way Tim does above and is accompanied by a (not very good) picture of a red flag. If anyone needs further explanation, after reading people like Ray G, Mark P, Jasmin and others on this site, sorry life is too short.
Aye Jas, let us do it DIFFERENTLY – but only if, as you eloquently describe, we make sure it is EFFECTIVE!
There is absolutely no chance of the Left Party being anything other than a socialist, anti-capitalist party – although whether it uses the name ‘socialist’ in its title is another matter. But there is no chance of a Left Party being successfully established without it also being a pluralist arena where different conceptions of socialism can exist. The role of central planning, co-operatives, private companies and the market are all likely to be hotly contested. The party will have to be broad enough to encompass the many thousands of people hostile to neoliberal capitalism, who want alternatives based on equality and social justice, but who are not yet ready to give their affiliation to a particular brand of socialism, or even call their radicalism ‘socialist’ at all. This is particularly applicable to young people whose political formation has taken place in an epoch where socialism appeared off the political map.
Most of all, quite unlike social democratic parties a new left party based on modern socialism has to be open to the aspirations and movements of the specially oppressed, in particular to feminism.
I’m more than a little surprised that Nick Long, coming from Lewisham, argues the lack of appeal of organisations with the word socialist in their title. The Socialist Party had councillors elected as Socialist Alernative candidates in Lewisham and even when they finally lost their seats they were getting substantial numbers of votes (as Nick should know full well).
As for TUSC, well their largely poor votes is nothing to do with having Trade Unionist and Socialist in their official title.
Socialist candidates (explicitly standing as Socialists) get good – and in some cases very good – votes when they’ve put sustained long term work in to build a genuine base in their area.
I have posted the suggestion below as to some wording for the aims of LU, which I wrote as part of the discussion of the Policy Commission on Internal democracy and the drafting of a constitution. We are taking this complicated issue in stages and are thinking about aims and values to inform the constitution at the moment.
I’m not sure whether everyone will have accessed that so have reproduced it here as its relevant to this discussion about the nature of the LU project. The wording is aiming to avoid old-fashioned language, express our support for socialism and anti-capitalism as a basic aim, but also recognise that the contemporary ‘radical left’ is diverse and pluralist, that LU will not simply be a traditional ‘socialist workers party’…
“The aims of Left Unity are:
a) to unite the diverse strands of radical and socialist politics in the UK including worker’s organisations and trade unions; people and communities facing discrimination because of gender, ethnicity, age, disability or sexuality; grass root organisations and co-operatives rooted in our neighbourhoods and communities; environmental and green campaigners; campaigners for freedom and democracy; all those who seek to authentically voice and represent the interests of ordinary working people
b) to win a mandate to govern and introduce radical and fundamental changes in British society based on our belief in the benefits of cooperation and community ownership instead of the chaotic competition of capitalism; universal human rights, internationalism and peace; social, political and economic equality for all in the fullest sense, without which true democracy and mutual respect cannot flourish; an economy that is environmentally sustainable, owned or controlled by the community and produces/distributes goods and services according to the needs of the people and not the profit of a minority; an inclusive welfare society which meets the needs of all citizens and within which each contributes according to their ability
c) to above all promote democracy in the understanding that fundamental and radical change can only come with the consent and support of the majority of people; that the way we organise today is a pointer to the kind of society we want to see in the future”
I would “think outside the box” on the eventual party name to the extent that, as that as long as the party’s manifesto, and all statements and solutions and core analysis offered by the party are firmly, and openly, rooted in broadly socialist analysis and base traditions, it would be better to forgo offering the capitalist mass media the chance to invoke the almost Pavlovian series of negative images that for all too many non-political people the terms “socialist” and “anti-capitalist” conjure up. I would actually go for something pretty unspecific – like “People’s Alliance” . After all the radical credentials and genuine, or fake, “anti-capitalism” of any party is determined by its ACTIONS, not having a really, really, “revolutionary” name.
On the important point made by Ray G – as to whether we should be for some sort of “Soviet Command Economy” type 100% state ownership of all business enterprises. Even though I’m an old ex Trot myself, and therefore from a tradition that tended to presuppose the “socialist future”, implied 100% state ownership of all “productive” resources – today I think this crude , reductionist,approach would be a huge mistake. It would be electorally unpopular too – but more importantly it simply isn’t a useful economic model.
As long as the “Commanding Heights” of the economy, as in good old old Clause 4 , particularly the banks, are under direct , democratically accountable,public ownership and control, the ability of a genuinely radical socialist government to use fiscal and monetary policy and an overarching broad brush national economic plan to determine economic behaviour and priorities across the economy, potentially negates the restricting need for total state ownership of businesses. In fact a thriving small business sector , whether as workers co-ops, or individual entrepreneurs, would be important as a source of innovation and flexibility. Progressive taxation policy and comprehensive legislation , and worker participation, protecting employee rights, could prevent the major abuses that scar our current system. Wouldn’t that still be “capitalism” ? Just another variant of traditional Social Democracy’s post war “mixed economy” idea ? at first it would indeed be. My argument would be that , the idea of a cataclysmic “week on the barricades/storming of the centres of power” socialist revolution – followed immediately by the coming of the “full cream” socialist society, is a hopeless fantasy. A radical Left government would be battling to radically transform a capitalist UK, within a global sea of capitalist states, and the global capitalist Market. We have to view this transformation as a lengthy “process” , not a cataclysmic/cathartic “event”. I’m not talking about Fabianism – which intends for the transformation of capitalism to socialism to last – FOREVER. But even a genuinely radically transformative Left government would have to manage that transformation over many years, and exactly what the shape and route of that transformation would be is largely unknown in advance – especially given the complete failure of past Stalinist “communist” regimes to achieve economic success via total state ownership .
In straightforwardly political/tactical terms it is also the case that “leaving economic space” for a thriving innovative small business sector – currently being crushed and exploited by Big Capital , particularly the banks, opens up the potential for at least an element of shared medium term objectives between a radical Left party and sections of the small bourgeois capitalist class. Yeh, yeh, I know that’s all very “British Road to Socialism/Popular Front”. The sort of stuff that as a young Trot I used to sneer at . But these sorts of macro politico/tactical issues are ones we will have to grapple with as we try to pull together a credible mass party with serious electoral credibility. Rather than building yet another tiny radical Leftie sect with an “oh so revolutionary”, but unachievable, programme
John Penney
As one old Trot to another – well said. I agree with every word of what you say, but I would add that the key is a full, grip on real power first, not just a Left Government subject to the whims of economic sabotage or capitalist state repression. You do need to ‘nobble’ the capitalist class politically and then you can take your time developing a pluralistic, democratic, innovative and above all FREE system.
There’s one thing calling for a new Left party, there’s another thing calling for a new Socialist party and then there’s another thing calling for an anti capitalist party.
Most people out there, I would say,in the ‘real’ world are clearly neither anti capitalist nor socialist.
What does it mean to be either ‘Socialist; or ‘anti capitalist’ neither of which are the same or interchangeable ?
I think this thing about not using words like “socialism” and “capitalism” is silly. I don’t think I have ever met anyone who has no idea what capitalism means. Recent polling carried out in the US shows that young people not only know what the words “capitalism” and “socialism” mean but a majority of young people have a favourable view of socialism. See:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/12/29/young-people-socialism_n_1175218.html
Come to think of it I can’t think of anyone I have met who has not had some idea of what socialism is. I have met many who are are against socialist politics but that is a different matter. I wonder whether the real issue here is that some think that socialist politics will put people off. If so let’s have that debate about the politics and not the words. Are we forming a Left party or a socialist party that is a very legitimate debate.
BTW, I am all in favour of using clear and appropriate language for our intended audience and if technical terms have to be used they should be explained.
I also think this passage is crucial: “The key point about electoral success is that it takes consistent long-term work in an area, and a record of campaigning alongside the local community and workers’ movement. This factor is actually far more critical in terms of success at the polls than the electoral title or the programme that any candidate stands under – not that these are unimportant issues”.
I think that is central in terms of elections. We have to prove our worth by long term hard work. There is no magic formula of labels or programme (whether socialist or non-socialist) that will get us great results if we just turn up a couple of weeks before an election and expect people to vote for us.
The failure of previous Left projects is not just down to sectarianism. I think another overlooked aspect is the attempt to find the quick fix that will give overnight success. It took over 20 years for the Green party to get their first MP elected. It took over 40 years and two world wars for the Labour Party to get a majority in parliament. If we are talking about elections then we need to be thinking about a long term strategy stretching ahead for decades. We are not going to by-pass this problem by ditching socialism to become more electable – the first past the post market place is already crowded with long established parties that offer that anyway. The point is to build a movement that poses a political alternative and changes the terms of the political debate. An uphill struggle? There is no getting around that I’m afraid.
Driving away anti-capitalist, non-socialist people like myself…helps how?
Again, ideology is the chosen weapon of the right. We should focus on policy, not least because I doubt we have major disagreements there!
I think the debate misses the real point. The use of the word socialism is not a problem. The problem is that there are core of people in LU or around it who have very little experience of organising in anything other than small sects/parties and their political instincts and practices are tainted by this. Some of them remain members of these small groups. The biggest problem i think s that they cannot envisage a mass radical left party outside of the existing leninist/trotskyist sect model Implicit in the article is the suggestion that there are people trying to make LU non-socialist. The first contributor suggests Kate Hudson wants it as Labour Mark 2???! I think this is plain wrong. This side of the revolution revolutionaries are in the minority and some of the people who call themselves revolutionaries are well……..welcome to continue with the paper sales and endless debates over 1917. Left Unity should be something different and I see nothing in the current trajectory of LU that des not place it as a radical left wing party with socialist principles that wants to change the way society is organised. Some of the organised or previously organised far left around LU need to chill out and let left unity coalesce before second guessing its development.
Apart from the necessity of the word socialism, I agree with you marc; but I think the problem is far deeper.
For many middle-aged mainly manly men (but some young fogies too, gawd help em) the thought of life without the red flag, the clenched fist and all that boring tripe, is unbearable.
They TALK [would rather not write in capitals but italics don’t work here] and/or write as if a Clause 4 type situation was a real possibility in the foreseeable future, but they KNOW it isn’t; and the sad thing is, the more they do this the further away it gets – on and on in a downward spiral of irrelevance.
Now, as many on the site and I suspect you advocate, is the time for new thinking and a different kind of action.
One of the key messages LU needs to get out is that we are for the people having power not the career politicians & their corporate friends.
So if we need party names that are ‘outside the box’, how about ‘People Against Politicians’?
It has a bit more bite to it than just ‘People’s Alliance’ as the people are more motivated to be against the political elite than to be for something.
Having written as long comment late last night which then got lost in the ether I will now confine myself to a few brief points – and sometime soon write a longer piece for this site on left unity and the S word.
1. Having read through all the comments so far I am seriously impressed with their depth and diversity. This is a debate we need to have without acrimony or gratuitous comments and only the first pseudonymous contributor fails in that respect. But it is that diversity as noted in Richard’s second comment ( number 20) which is not adequately recognised in Tim’s own piece. The left tradition is much broader than just invoking the word ‘socialist’ indicates – and Richard’s point a under aims captures that very well.
2. I agree with everything that Tim writes about capitalism in his first three paragraphs. I have been a self-professed Marxist for over forty years and at the age of 62 I want to insist now more than ever that we have to name the enemy and not “sew illusions in the capitalist system”. But to be anti-capitalist and recognising the systemic and global character of the latest economic crisis is not the same as proclaiming that we have a blueprint for an alternative society.
3. Nick Wrack can produce an excellent turn of phrase (as befits a former editor of Militant)and I agree that we need to reclaim the word socialism and the best of that tradition of ‘socialism from below’ to which I have long adhered. But like the old Militant tendency Nick and Tim’s formulations tend to obscure that critical division between as Hal Draper put it in a memorable pamphlet the two traditions of socialism from above and from below. Referring to democratic control and planning is fine and I’d vote for it but what does that mean in practice? The BBC is supposedly under the democratic control of Parliament but look at the pay-offs its top managers have just received. The question of who does the planning is critical and we need a very different vision of a future society to the one many people associate with ‘socialism’. On this I broadly agree with John Penney.
4. The problem with just using the S word is not just down to the media and Tim at least recognises the damage done by the legacy of Stalinism and social democracy – but he underestimates the negative impression also conveyed by the practice of self-styled ‘socialist parties’ in Britain (including the SSP and SWP of course)which at the very least means we need a name such as the Left Party which does not beg too many questions.
5. Tim and NIck and others tend to assume that the only people who question how we use the term ‘socialism’ are those who want to dilute our politics to the point of abandoning any reference to an alternative society. But there is also a critique from leftfield – from those like myself who don’t want to replicate an authoritarian state capitalist or command economy (the precise label for the USSR or pre1989 Eastern Europe matters less than a recognition of their deeply oppressive and militarised character)
6. We need to be honest – we don’t have a model of an ideal society we can point to and say that’s what we want. WE have a legacy of reforms won through struggle by the labour movement and all the other movements against women’s oppression, environmental destruction etc which are now under threat and which we need to defend. That’s what we unite around. The debate over the future society we want to see needs to be at the heart of what we do – and I think John Keeley’s summary manifesto is very well put by the way – but we must not let our disagreements on those questions dominate the founding conference of a new party. That’s just a recipe for more bitterness and another failure.
Non-socialist anti-capitalists? Feudalists?
LU needs to be an explicitly socialist party of the working class and it needs to democratically adopt a unified programme or manifesto for the transition to working class power and socialism that offers a way out of the collapse of capitalism for the whole of society or it will very quickly degenerate either into an ideological, anti-political, self-serving sect or a group of more obvious opportunists using it as a career stepping stone.
I would suggest the following: 1. End the bail out of the banks – take the estates, staff and deposits of the bankrupts into administration to form a national bank with a monopoly of credit to prevent private financiers ever robbing us again. This bank to lend to small business at base rate and to facilitate social investment in accordance with a democratic plan. 2. Full employment immediately by sharing the available productive work. All school and college leavers and unemployed workers who cannot find their own job must be bought into the workforce with each paid the minimum of a trade union living wage. Down with unemployment and expensive Keynesian job creation scams. 3. Defend all necessary and desirable public spending and collective sufficient income tax to pay for them. 4. Socialise and democratise the profiteering, cash-hoarding, asset-stripping monopolies and their gargantuan surpluses. Monopoly profits are sucking the life out of the economy and must be made the property of all to be disposed of as society sees fit. In the meantime the Old School Tie Network, sharholder appointed and political patronage managements who see British industry and services as nothing more than a personal trough must be replaced by worker-elected managers. 5. Support for, and promotion of, all socially progressive democratic rights. 6. For a federation of sovereign British nations to replace the imperial union and for the renegotiation of the founding treaties of the neo-libera EU in accordance with socialist principles such as EU-wide Living Wage and full employment.
I agree with your list – which did not mention socialism once ;)
I can see where Tim is coming from and that it will speak to those who have been in left parties before. I’d like people who share our values (at the moment as per the website) but who do not define themselves as ‘left’ or ‘socialist’ to join us. These words carry connotations and meanings that have history and are not always clear.
While I don’t need convincing we need to show people why the current system that relies on capitalism doesn’t work and isn’t compatible with the world we’d like to see.
We need to bring forward policies that show how our world can be managed so that everyone’s need is seen to before people start getting extras
Good article Tim. Lets talk about policies not patronise , as some of the comments here have. Why would we start out thinking we must adjust to what ‘ordinary people’ MAY think. Are we not all ordinary people, sharers of the human race? I don’t want to be defined by the past, we are in a different age and unless we capture that and treat each other as equals ( women, the ordinary, young, elderly, disabled and learning disabled, whatever race culture age and sexual preference) left unity, unifying the left, encapsulates this, recognising that capitalism does not work and that we need to adopt fairer ways of transacting with each other….
I’ve been involved in the disability rights movement and the main thing I have learned is how annoying it is to be told (and even more pointless) to wait, for ‘people to be ready’. As long as there is ongoing access to education and gaining knowledge and skills and decent fair leadership then the time to act is now. Friere knew the power of experiential learning – most activity is essentially political. We don’t need people telling us we are not able to understand or that we are not ready. We need a broad tolerance within socialism, and clear policies. If people see policies set out that sound fair and achievable, why would they not be interested?
Left Unity Party would be a perfectly servicable name and have the advantage of not being easily confused with the SP, SWP, SSP, SLP etc. However, we should certainly not be scared of identifying ourselves as Socialist, if that is what we clearly are. If we’re going to succeed then it’s vital to be open, honest, and straightforward about what we stand for and what our aims are. If we’re advocating equality, etc, we’re going to get called Socialists anyway. We shouldn’t act as if it’s something we’re ashamed of, or it will be used a stick to hit us with.
The important thing is to explain what we mean by “Left”, “Socialist”, etc and to demonstrate it in practice.
Regarding TUSC, it didn’t fail because it was “Trade Union & Socialist” but because it was an electoral “Coalition” and nothing more. The work wasn’t done between elections that would have gained it recognition and support. Leafleting for TUSC, most people literally knew nothing about it. You can’t really expect people to vote for an organisation they’ve never heard of, that has never done anything for them, that is unlikely to win, and doesn’t even substantively exist most of the time. The way TUSC operated was basically the opposite of how a new Left party should be built.
Talking about socialism at work, I am alarmed at how many working class people under 30 have no idea what it is. We have a duty to redefine Socialism. Whether such a coalition should be referred to as a “party” I’m not convinced, but I would prefer the clarity of “Socialist” in place of the nebulous “Left” label. Our starting point has to be to explain what we mean by socialism. Desperate times call for radical measures. Are we aiming this at the masses or just the converted?
Following the simple language idea, without too much concern for how it might look on a ballot paper, most of the above could fit quite neatly within names such as “The Other Lot”, “There Must Be A Better Way”, or just “Fed Up”.
Seriously, I think that Marc put his finger on it above with ‘need to chill out and let left unity coalesce before second guessing its development’. There seems little chance that the majority of potential supporters of broad LU aims will join up with an organisation which goes by a name that needs to be explained first in the language of politics. The first requirement therefore would be a name that promotes that coalescence. The language used to discuss policy is a separate issue.
I’m comfortable with democratic socialism -the early socialists didn’t use the democratic bit because it was taken for granted but then we had Stalinism. As well as EQUALITY the other key words should be DEMOCRACY & FREEDOM – working people having a say in the workplace, publicly owned banks, utilities but we don’t need to publicly own everything and we should welcome diversity as long people have a decent income and time outside of work to enjoy life as well as enjoying work plus we should encourage more small cooperative businesses and encourage creativity.
We could also have different models of public ownership such as staff electing the boards of publicly owned rail which breaks even and the community has a say. The utilities and some banks again could have boards elected by staff with communities having a say but they could also pay a community dividend like the old Coop Divi. We could kick the private sector out of the NHS and again staff and communities have a say – we are talking about economic democracy and an end to the dominance of Neo-liberalism. Some big business could still be allowed to extract surplus value but we take much of this back with windfall taxes -‘”There are more ways than one to skin a cat”. So our real democratic socialism reconfigures economic power in the interests of working people and our human socialism will mean people having a greater say and MORE DEMOCRACY and MORE FREEDOM TO INFLUENCE POLICY & PRACTICES – I have always believed that the Left has always had the best tunes but some may have forgot how to play them and others may think only one instrument is needed. REAL SOCIALISM should liberate humanity.
After study a few of the blog posts on your site now, and I truly such as your way of writing a blog. I saved it for you to my book mark website checklist and will be looking at back before long. Pls check out my web site as well as well as let me know what you believe.