Internal Democracy and Constitutional Commission | Strand 1 Basic Priniples
Strand 1 – Basic principles
- What should be the aims of the party?
- Who can be a member and what would members be expected to commit to?
- Should LU be a one member one vote party? (Affiliations and factions to be discussed in later stands.)
Some discussion has already taken place. On the basis of this we propose the following draft of these sections (please note they are numbered and lettered as the plan is to merge them into a working draft constitution and this will make it easier to suggest amendments).
Richard Murgatroyd and James Youd
Co-convenors
1) Name. The name of the party shall be (The Left Party?)….
2) Aims 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; groups 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 and that the way we organise today is a pointer to the kind of society we want to see in the future
3) Membership.
a) Membership of Left Unity shall be open to any individual without regards to disability, ethnicity, gender or sexual orientation who:
- commits to further the aims of Left Unity
- abides by the democratically decided rules and constitution of Left Unity
- pay any subscription agreed by the Annual Conference
- support Left Unity candidates in elections
40 comments
40 responses to “Internal Democracy and Constitutional Commission | Strand 1 Basic Priniples”
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 30th November: National March for Palestine
End the Genocide – Stop Arming Israel
Hands Off Lebanon – Don’t Attack Iran
Assemble 12 noon – central London
More details here
More events »
GET UPDATES
Sign up to the Left Unity email newsletter.
CAMPAIGNING MATERIALS
Get the latest Left Unity resources.
A suggested minor amendment to paragraph (c)
c) to above all promote grass roots democracy in the understanding that fundamental and radical change can only come with the support and active involvement of the majority of people and that the way we organise today is a pointer to the kind of society we want to see in the future
General agreement with this change in emphasis. I was suggesting in relation to ‘c’:
include words like “to above all promote practical participatory democracy” or perhaps ‘bottom up’ if ‘participatory’ is too big a word.
But in general I do think it is really important to get over the idea that ‘our’ democracy is not the usual sham. It should incorporate participation, which as SeanT notes, relates directly to the society we are working to help create.
Do we want to exclude members of other political parties? This migt be implied in clause iv. but perhaps might need to be explicit?
This is looking good! Not sure about the name – from a wider presentational point of view, maybe something like the Left Progressive Party, perhaps? We need to be aware how others will see us, as well as coming up with a name we like.
Also, we need to be careful about the use of the word “citizens”, which excludes refugees, asylum-seekers and other immigrants. Sorry to be picky, but this is the time to get everything just right!
Cheers, Mike
Re PART NAME issue: this is a BIG issue with lots of politics contained in an apparently simple choice. I think Conference will have to be simply presented with a list of possibilities. I could live with “The Left Party”, but would actually prefer something broader, like “The People’s Alliance.
I think your AIMS proposal is fine as a broad, straightforward, basic “Mission Statement” outlining our intended general “line of march”. SeanT’s small amendment to para c looks fine too.
As I’ve also suggested though on the other Policy Commission thread, I think there is also a really urgent need for a more detailed, slightly more policy specific “What We Stand FOR” statement, along the lines I have suggested earlier , or the excellent earlier Huddersfield LU proposal.
If this particular Policy Commission working group is only tasked to do the basic “Mission Statement” , there does appear to be a significant need for a more detailed “What we Stand For” working group too – otherwise when umpteen groups whip their versions into November Conference as competing motions, there could be such an unrelated set of proposals as to challenge even the most able compositing committee ! A Conference needs proposals in reasonably structured formats, around already agreed key issues. A prepared , and well circulated, proposal on “What we Stand For” Key policy areas would provide this focus – and hopefully save some TIME
!
I massively prefer “the People’s Alliance” as well. I think John is right here though- this one is going to need a list of options for people to vote on.
I’m sorry to say this, but this is the usual waffle presented by the left that just doesn’t connect with the people wanting change.
It needs to be short & sharp, with easy to read sentences.
The last time I’ll post this, I promise:
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 can certainly see the logic of your version of the “Mission Statement”, John Keeley. Some might say that it’s very vague – but then it isn’t intended as a Party Manifesto – but as an inspiring brief statement of overarching aims. I would add to your list though , “We are for a Welfare State for all citizens from the cradle to the grave”.
On the version offered by the Commission facilitators – after a wee ponder I have doubts about paragraph b) in AIMS : The bit saying,
“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;”
Unless we are saying that we will not countenance ANY privately owned businesses – except workers co-ops and community enterprises , and this would be a very “Command Economy” – soviet style economic model indeed , we have to recognise that , for a long time anyway, the UK economy would continue to have a significant proportion of privately owned businesses alongside the nationalised “Commanding Heights Natural Monopolies”. Indeed a thriving small and medium sized business sector, within a framework of progressive taxation and a national planning , and worker participation, could well be an essential means of achieving production innovation and flexibility.
I therefore think Paragraph b) from “an economy….” should read:
” an economy that is environmentally sustainable , with the natural monopolies under public ownership, and all business activity, privately and publicly or community-owned, or workers cooperatives, operating within a democratically determined national planning and progressive taxation and legislative framework aimed at maximising public benefit – not the maximising of profit for the minority.” then continues with ” an inclusive Welfare Society….”
Are we tasked with providing the misson statement of the new party? – No, not as I understand it. This will be decided by the November conference with statements put forward by either local groups or platforms within the founding membership – as decided at the last NCG meeting…
This OK, and can have a place in presentation of material. But equally I feel that a narrative i.e. ‘a story’ is also necessary. And by that I don’t mean a lot of words, but the feel of what is presented. The above feels hard. Richards original draft/ tone is more appealing. But there is a definate place for a ‘list’, it is an issue of different functions and purposes.
In relation to Section 2a
Whould add in after “including worker’s organisations and trade unions; people and…”
something like “people living in their communities.”
Having immediately after the list of social groups facing discrimination before mentioning ‘ordinary’ communities gives the feeling that we are for ‘special groups’ and not Mr and Mrs Jo Average. I know that is not the case, but it is how something reads.
Perhaps we should incorporate the concept of the 99%, in the wording. I like this and it has had a strong resonance, but is a simple but powerful concept.
We should then, be very clear about supporting groups facing discrimination (as per draft).
It does seem that those driving the LU project are intent on it being almost entirely focused on electoral politics.
The danger is we simply become a vehicle for another group of wanna-be politicians who end up making compromises with the capitalist system in the interest of their political careers.
The system needs to be challenged in a clear way.
What’s proposed is just not enough of a challenge.
To answer a few of the questions raised thus far.
1) Are we tasked with providing the misson statement of the new party? Yes, the constitution will have to provide both the principles and outlook of the politics we espouse. It will be called what we decide to call it collectively.
2) Is this purely an electoralist sellout project? No, I would have nothing to do with it if it were. Activism cannot be substituted with petty electoralism, but it exists and we can at least give the massed rack of the disenfranchised a opportunity to be part of something in our interests not that of capital.
3) Are we going to be pro-small business? I suspect we may have to have alternative versions of that and let the membership decide.
4) Language? Nobody wants to use incomprehensible technical terms or phrases, but lets not treat people as idiots and be reasonable about it.
I also agree with Sean’s amendement. Agree we need participation in the wording.
Perhaps, “We represent all those who are under servitude to capital and lack representation, in the community, in workplaces and the inadequate political system.”
Are we tasked with providing the misson statement of the new party? – No, not as I understand it. This will be decided by the November conference with statements put forward by either local groups or platforms within the founding membership – as decided at the last NCG meeting…
This is a contribution from Mark Antony France:
Internal Democracy and Constitutional Commission | Strand 1 Basic Priniples
Our Party is based firmly on Democratic foundations:
1. Democracy
The linguistic roots of the word Democracy comes from two Greek words – Demos, meaning peoples and Kratos meaning power. Therefore our Party not only advocates Peoples Power as a political objective for the whole of society but it functions as a living example of Peoples Power at every organisational level.
2. Votes
The way our Democracy works in practice is based upon the result or outcome of Votes.
Every member of our party is encouraged and will be empowered to actively participate in internal discussions. Every member of our party is encouraged and will be empowered to contribute their thoughts, feelings and ideas as part of a genuine collective.
3. Decisions
At all levels of our Party Decisions shall be made on the basis that a Majority of Votes for any given proposal has been achieved. Once a Decision has been made our Party encourages and will empower all members of our party to take collective ownership of decisions made and to implement them in practice.
4. Action
Our Party seeks to encourage and empower all people is society to become active participants in collective action to make positive changes in our world. All members of our Party are encouraged and will be empowered to act as champions of the oppressed. Together we act and via our action we inspire other to join the struggle for Peoples Power.
5. Disputes
Our Party recognises the fractured, atomised and individualistic culture dominant in capitalist society ferments social conflict. Our Party encourages and will empower all members to resolve conflicts via open democratic discussion. Our Party encourages and will empower all members to respect each other and value cultural diversity. Our Party will establish a Dispute Resolution Committee elected by National Conference. This Dispute Resolution Committee will encourage and empower any member who has a grievance to come forward.
A couple of points on democracy:
Mark Anthony France (and Dave_E in an earlier posting) both rightly emphasise active participation in the democratic process. I think this is particularly important if we will be making decisions via some form of online voting. Although new technology can enable greater numbers of people to take part in decision-making, it can also lead to a situation where people can help influence outcomes by the click of a button, without having to engage with the debates around an issue. I think it’s going to be crucial that we put effort into thinking of ways of encouraging members to take part in the discussion of important matters prior to decisions being made – either face-to-face or online. (Not something to be written into a constitution or statement of principles, but something to be born in mind when discussing how OMOV will work in practice)
On voting I would not want to see important decisions of principle being made on the basis of a simple majority. Unity and commitment will soon dissipate if almost half those participating are overruled by a small majority – and in extremis outcomes could depend on who turns out to vote ‘on the day’. I’m not sure what percentage of votes to suggest – ideally we’d want something close to consensus or a return to the drawing board – but as this isn’t practicable, perhaps a majority of 60% or two thirds for constitutional matters or similar.
Barbara
Hi all – apologies for length of this buts its complicated to compile!
Before commenting on the drafts and putting forward an attempt to incorporate them just wanted to say to Mark and Barbara please hold those thoughts – we will be discussing decision and policy making in a forthcoming strand and what you say is 100% relevant to that.
Sean, dave, James and others re participation – I agree and substituted original with Sean’s suggestion
Duncan – re: membership personally the prospect of having loads of sectarian ‘entrists’ and ‘interveners’ from other left parties fills me with dread but I agree with the general consensus that the alternative of bans, proscriptions etc would be worse. But surely there has to be a bottom line and not standing or actively supporting a candidate opposing an LU candidate does seem reasonable?
Mike – citizens now out
John P, Hoom, Dave, John K’s comments on need for a debate on the name and a rousing ‘What we stand for’ statement for public consumption are right in my opinion. But this document isn’t going to be that – unless ‘The constitution and rules of LU’ become a surprise best seller – it worked for Fifty Shades of Grey! Can’t someone propose this at the forthcoming meeting of the National Co-ordinating Group on 27th – I would but I’m away. there is a meeting of Hudds LU next week though so maybe that will put a proposal forward..?
John P’s comments on the economy are sensible and as we are not proposing a Year Zero revolutionary abolition of all private ownership (or at least I assume that most of us aren’t) then the wording of the aims could do with clarification. But I think Dave is right about brevity – I’ve had a go at incorporating your point John below but its tricky to keep it brief. Hope this captures the essence of your intention.
Have changed emphasis in line with Dave’s point about people in communities by reordering and wording
Finally, sorry to read your comments John K – I think its a bit premature to say that the preamble to a constitutional document will say that much about how radical LU turns out to be. Personally, I think this Policy Commission will have a massive impact on that because the really important thing will not be the ‘aims’ statement in a rule-book but the detailed, nuts and bolts forms of organisation we create. Maximum participation and representation, a truly accountable leadership, bottom-up, innovative and far-reaching forms of decision making (which I know you advocate John). All of us aspire to that.
So here goes with draft 2…
2) Aims 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; ordinary people, grass root organisations and co-operatives rooted in our neighbourhoods and communities; individuals and communities facing discrimination because of gender, ethnicity, age, disability or sexuality; environmental and green campaigners; campaigners for freedom and democracy; all those who seek to authentically voice and represent the interests of 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; a democratically planned economy that is environmentally sustainable, within which all enterprises, whether privately owned, cooperatives or under public ownership operate in ways that promote the needs of the people and wider society; an inclusive welfare state which meets the needs of all and within which each contributes according to their ability
c) to above all promote grass roots democracy in the understanding that fundamental and radical change can only come with the support and active involvement of the majority of people and that the way we organise today is a pointer to the kind of society we want to see in the future
Thanks for the starter statement, well done. Id like to ask some questions about what we are saying/positions we are taking.
0. I think we agree the target audience for his constitution document includes the general public who should be able to read it in order to understand what LU is, what its over-arching aims and objectives are and how it differs from other parties like Respect and Labour.
1. NAME
I’d argue there is little point is discussing name until we have discussed and agreed aims.
2. AIMS
2.1 UNITE DIVERSE STRANDS
When you say our aim to “unite the diverse strands of radical and socialist politics in the UK” – I have two questions.
2.1.1 If that’s our aim our major item of work will be actively going out and talking to those groups and working with them to find ways and agreements that enable us to share a platform for the achievement stated in your b) (to win a mandate …), right? We will be seen as the unifying function for all of the existing groups. Is my interpretation of what you are saying here correct? (My personal view on this http://gerrycavander.com/left-unity-notes/)
2.1.2 “The diverse strands of radical and socialist …” Anarchists? Extremists? Emphasis? Do we want to prioritise / promote the idea that this is a party for radicals and not for people who regard themselves as reasonable but NOT radical/ revolutionary? Supporting/developing the NHS for example, is something many people who do not consider themselves “radical” do. We want such people to understand we represent them. I’d like to lead with that message and follow with ‘as well as…’ New mainstream, not fringe. Left activists are already active and we are already working with (previous point)?
2.2 COMMUNITY OWNERSHIP, CONTROL…
“meets the needs of all citizens… each contributes according to their ability”. I, and I think many lay readers of this section, will take away the message = no private ownership… that means communism, therefore this is essentially a communist state party. I tested this on my wife (I’d describe her as middle class liberal!) Is this what you intend? The alternative of course is to identify objectives on the near horizon as some would argue more likely to be achievable politically and economically. What is your position re this message?
2.3. COMMUNITY OWNERSHIP, CONTROL…
“meets the needs of all citizens…” You talk about benefits of community control and the distribution to the community of what each needs, but what is LUs policy re what people WANT rather than NEED? Bearing in mind we are addressing the global prevailing consciousness that is essentially romantic, that celebrates individual choice, power and success? Like USA’s “acquiring, possessing, and protecting property… seeking and obtaining their safety and happiness (Dec. Independence, article 1). A huge strength of the right and national socialist parties is/has been the ability to tune into personal and community aspirations to own, to “better” themselves.
What is our approach to individual endeavour, enterprise hard work? You conjure (maybe inadvertently?) the idea of everyone getting an equal share, but what about my higher-than-average effort, skills and ability – what’s LUs attitude to me and others in the upwardly-mobile working and middle class? Is your party for people like me? I think the answer is a fundamental ingredient of our principles.
2.4. DEMOCRACY
“to above all promote democracy in the understanding that fundamental and radical change”
2.4.1. “above all”? Do you really mean this or is it rhetorical? For example would we give top priority to campaigning v elected government reneging on its election promises. Accuracy – is it ‘above all’ or something like ‘very important’?
2.4.2 The section about democracy: to a political laymen this will seem either odd (‘why is he saying this – we have democracy in the UK don’t we’) or prosaic statement (‘they all say that sort of stuff, I’ll skip that para’). I can guess your motivation for including (all those sect experiences / parties reneging on promises) but the implication that democracy isn’t working (one other commentators says we are a long way from REAL democracy) remains only an implication. I’d like to make it more concrete by also stating what we are opposed to/ why it’s an issue or just leave out / shorten.
ATB, Gerry
Thanks for the starter statement, well done. Id like to ask some questions about what we are saying/positions we are taking.
0. I think we agree the target audience for his constitution document includes the general public who should be able to read it in order to understand what LU is, what its over-arching aims and objectives are and how it differs from other parties like Respect and Labour.
1. NAME
I’d argue there is little point is discussing name until we have discussed and agreed aims.
2. AIMS
2.1 UNITE DIVERSE STRANDS
When you say our aim to “unite the diverse strands of radical and socialist politics in the UK” – I have two questions.
2.1.1 If that’s our aim our major item of work will be actively going out and talking to those groups and working with them to find ways and agreements that enable us to share a platform for the achievement stated in your b) (to win a mandate …), right? We will be seen as the unifying function for all of the existing groups. Is my interpretation of what you are saying here correct? (My personal view on this http://gerrycavander.com/left-unity-notes/)
2.1.2 “The diverse strands of radical and socialist …” Anarchists? Extremists? Emphasis? Do we want to prioritise / promote the idea that this is a party for radicals and not for people who regard themselves as reasonable but NOT radical/ revolutionary? Supporting/developing the NHS for example, is something many people who do not consider themselves “radical” do. We want such people to understand we represent them. I’d like to lead with that message and follow with ‘as well as…’ New mainstream, not fringe. Left activists are already active and we are already working with (previous point)?
2.2 COMMUNITY OWNERSHIP, CONTROL…
“meets the needs of all citizens… each contributes according to their ability”. Phrases in this section are well chosen e.g. “benefits of community and cooperation” etc. Nevertheless I, and I think many lay readers of this section, will take away the overall message = no private ownership… that means communism, therefore this is essentially a communist state party. I tested this on my wife (I’d describe her as middle class liberal!) Is this what you intend? The alternative of course is to identify objectives on the near horizon as some would argue more likely to be achievable politically and economically. What is your position re this message?
2.3. COMMUNITY OWNERSHIP, CONTROL…
“meets the needs of all citizens…” You talk about benefits of community control and the distribution to the community of what each needs, but what is LUs policy re what people WANT rather than NEED? Bearing in mind we are addressing the global prevailing consciousness that is essentially romantic, that celebrates individual choice, power and success? Like USA’s “acquiring, possessing, and protecting property… seeking and obtaining their safety and happiness (Dec. Independence, article 1). A huge strength of the right and national socialist parties is/has been the ability to tune into personal and community aspirations to own, to “better” themselves.
What is our approach to individual endeavour, enterprise hard work? You conjure (maybe inadvertently?) the idea of everyone getting an equal share, but what about my higher-than-average effort, skills and ability – what’s LUs attitude to me and others in the upwardly-mobile working and middle class? Is your party for people like me? I think the answer is a fundamental ingredient of our principles.
2.4. DEMOCRACY
“to above all promote democracy in the understanding that fundamental and radical change”
2.4.1. “above all”? Do you really mean this or is it rhetorical? For example would we give top priority to campaigning v elected government reneging on its election promises. Accuracy – is it ‘above all’ or something like ‘very important’?
2.4.2 The section about democracy: to a political laymen this will seem either odd (‘why is he saying this – we have democracy in the UK don’t we’) or prosaic statement (‘they all say that sort of stuff, I’ll skip that para’). I can guess your motivation for including (all those sect experiences / parties reneging on promises) but the implication that democracy isn’t working (one other commentators says we are a long way from REAL democracy) remains only an implication. I’d like to make it more concrete by also stating what we are opposed to/ why it’s an issue or just leave out / shorten.
ATB, Gerry
Hi Gerry
Sorry about delay and I will have to be brief as I have to feed the kids soon, but I thought all your questions were important.
a) I don’t think this document will be a particularly public one as the November conference is going to agree a more rousing mission statement/declaration. This is more along the lines of a preamble to the rules. this version has been designed to be as inclusive as possible so there is only a broad brush attempt to define what we mean by the ‘radical left’ which is of course a subjective term
b) the issue of private enterprise and ownership has been raised by other contributors and draft 2 of the aims, while still emphasising the essentially socialist approach based on planning and cooperation hopefully clarifies that we are not calling for the immediate abolition of all private property.
I would say the questions you raise about the individual etc can only really be properly met by the detailed policies and a shorter ‘what we stand for’ type statement rather than this short ‘aims’ style part of a rule book.
c) The section on democracy emphasises its importance, because as you say, there is a crisis of democracy not just within the way much of the left has and does continue to operate, but also wider society.
So to sum up Gerry, I think the issues you raise – all of which are important ones, can’t really be resolved by this particular Policy Commission which is very specialised in purpose – to create a democratic constitution. But they can and will addressed by both the wider process of policy making and our forthcoming meeting in November which will no doubt debate and agree our founding principles.
Hope that is helpful
Best
Richard
As far as the nature of our membership is concerned, it seems to me that there is a consensus on the principle that we have to be a bottom up party based on individual members rather than a ‘coalition’ or federation of groups on the Socialist Alliance, Respect or TUSC models.
However, I don’t think that there need be a conflict between being an individual membership organisation and allowing for the possibility of affiliation by Trades Councils and trade union branches. The only organisation in recent times for which this hasn’t been an academic issue was the poor old Scottish Socialist Party, to which the RMT in Glasgow affiliated at one point. The SSP’s constitution said ‘Trade union bodies – including trade union branches, shop steward committees and district, regional or national level trade union organisations – can affiliate to the SSP. Affiliated organisations have the right of representation to Regional Councils and National Council. All representatives from affiliates must also be individual SSP members.’ Of course, the issue isn’t likely to become a live one for us for some time (we wish!) so perhaps we should leave it to one side at the moment rather than risk arguments about something that isn’t about to happen – but we shouldn’t, at this point, exclude any possibility of union affiliation in the future.
I think you have to be careful about how some left groups such as the SWP operate: for instance, here they will send their people to meetings from the Trades Union Council, National Union Of Journalists, Media Workers Against the war, etc, not mentioning their political affinity. You get the picture, by virtue of their involvement with unions, etc, and their front groups, they can be massively over-represented on committees, etc.
I think the current revised draft is fine, Richard.
A lot of subsequent posters have brought up “issues arising” which I too think are important to address, but at a Manifesto and general policy level, rather than in this very broad “Mission Statement ” overview.
For instance I think your revision of the para. b) statement on the democratically planned economy does now capture the obvious reality that an economy in which a potential future Left Unity government had any sway would be one with a large private business sector. We can’t wish it away – and I actually think even a fully “socialised ” economy would need some room for a significant “artificial market structure ” in areas of economic activity to maintain innovation and flexibility . Some of the (obviously in the very different context of authoritarian Titoist Stalinism) 60’s/70’s Yugoslavian experiments in internal competitive markets to drive factory efficiency, still have relevance for a democratic socialist future.
The other issue is a political/tactical one. Given that we know that small businesspeople are always part of the historical support base of fascism; why alienate that large social grouping unnecessarily , as the world and UK poltico/economic crisis deepens ? It may well be that a radical Left party can create alliances with some elements of a national petit bourgeois business sector, currently undoubtedly being crucified by the banks and the power of the multinationals. As I’ve said elsewhere, I know this is all very “progressive bloc of classes popular front/British road to Socialism” stuff – but that doesn’t mean that, today, it might not have “traction”” for a new radical Left party.
But the point is that all that stuff is for “another day”, in the development and fine tuning of Left Unity Policy and Manifesto commitments. First; Establish a new party with a broad enough political “reach” to have mass membership potential – but with politics and a structure radical enough to prevent it becoming yet another collaborationist sell out as soon as political office looms – like the Greens quickly became I’m afraid.
Sorry rather late to the game, but I’d be interested to know what people think of this:
2) Aims The aims of Left Unity are:
a) To provide whatever encouragement and assistance we may to the people of this country and of all countries on this earth, in order that they are able to first challenge and then bring down the oppressive system by which we are currently ruled, namely Capitalism;
b) to replace that all-encompassing system of profit-seeking, predation and wastage – both economic and human – with an alternative society based on the common ownership and control of all the resources and useful industry available to humanity, and in so doing reclaim both the moral and material wealth of human society which is our common heritage;
c) to unite within that struggle all the diverse strands of those who are currently oppressed in different ways by common enemies, including worker’s organisations and trade unions; groups 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.
d) to wrest social, economic and political control from our present ruling class in order that the people shall govern in their place, and thereby promote a worldwide shift towards:
– 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;
– a global economy that is environmentally sustainable, collectively owned and controlled, producing and distributing 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
A couple of things:
First, I think we could propose a mission statement – but I think the idea is that platforms and local groups will be submitting statements to go to the November conference – I know for sure of at least one and it will most likely be a few that will be voted on in November.
Second, I think it could be beneficial to consider what sort of membership structure we’d like to see – not necessarily following the standard party membership model. It may be worthwhile – particularly with the current trade union situation – to consider a structure with a dual affiliate/member structure:
-affiliation: free, no voting rights, (may donate to campaigns?)
-membership: costed on sliding scale, voting rights, may donate top-up contributions to campaigns
In particular I think affiliation will help us recruit – getting people involved with the party – people that may at first be unsure but may become open to being full members over time – also will help us analyze geographical support to put candidates forward for elections etc
Hi Guy (and all)
Before commenting on some of the above please could I ask people to say whether they are member of another political group other than left unity as this transparency will help us better understand where people are coming from.
First, regarding the aims (or mission statement)we have seen a range of opinions so far which can be summarised as falling between the classic debate between ‘reform and revolution’. Or to put it more fully, whether LU should be a diverse pluralist party that seeks to unite the contemporary socialist and radical left or a traditional revolutionary socialist workers party calling for world proletarian revolution (as defined by Edmund above). This is of course a vital issue that will be determined at the November conference. That vote will decide not just the future of LU’s direction but also whether individuals will wish to stay involved at all. From the opinions so far it does seem as though, with the inevitable reservations about this or that wording, the basic aims document presented by James and myself, as amended, have enough traction to move forward as it was deliberately worded to be inclusive.
Anyway, our task here is to at least attempt to draft a basic rule book by September. It is standard practice to have an aims section of any rulebook as a necessary preamble that sets out the very basic principles that will guide the following rules and organisational structures LU (or whatever we end up being called). However, the real meat of the rules and constitution are of course the key issues which James and myself have called ‘strands’ and are available another section of the website.
I would therefore like to thank Guy who in my opinion has raised an important and positive suggestion regarding membership. In effect he is – and please correct me if I’ve misunderstood it Guy – saying that we should have two sorts of members.
– ‘friends of LU’ who don’t have to pay an annual subscription fee but are associate members, who in return for a one-off donation will be kept informed and receive national and local mailings, are invited to, can attend and speak at meetings, but have no voting rights
– full individual members with full rights as defined in ‘3. Membership’
If so I personally think its a great idea. It is the system we are operating in the Food Growers Co-operative in our village in West Yorks and as you say Guy, its a great bridge to connect supporters and committed sub-paying members.
Guy, as its your suggestion please could you have a go at drafting an amendment to Rule 3 as set out above. Or if you want me to I’m happy to try.
Best
Richard
Absolutely agree with having ‘a friends of LU model’, it can act as a bridge for the undecided, give LU more heft, and bring in resources, its a win win.
Cheers Richard – I will have a think about wording along with the other strands and everyone’s discussion and make a more thought-out contribution over the weekend.
Incidentally for transparency I’m not in any political organisation but am active in the left and can often be found at SR/ACI/ISN things
I agree that Guy’s suggestion is a good one.With the addition of a form of words to cover it, I think we have the membership section sorted.
As far as the draft aims are concerned, while we could probably all write slightly different versions of the same thing or spend weeks and weeks discussing endless tweaks, it seems to me that the existing wording does the job perfectly adequately (I’m having to resist the temptation to add ‘except for such and such a phrase in paragraph a or the second half of such and such a sentence in paragraph b). So I’m all for moving on to the next strand.
However, Richard makes a good point that the draft aims very clearly opt for the ‘broad party’ model. Some comrades (despite being a revolutionary socialist, I’m not one of them) will, perfectly validly, want to propose a more traditional, some might say narrower, statement of aims of a more explicitly revolutionary character. Perhaps, if we can get broad agreement on the current draft, or a version of it, within the next day or two we could publish it more widely on the website and invite comrades who want to propose a different model to produce an alternative draft, so that the two approaches could be properly debated.
Oh, and on the full disclosure front, I am, for the time being, a member of the Green Party and the ecosocialist tendency within it, Green Left. However, I will be resigning from the Greens Party after its Conference in early September.
Sean
To come to the full disclosure thing a bit late, the only group I’m actively involved in is Antifa, who aren’t a membership organisation. Background is athe direct action movement- I was involved in Reclaim the Streets etc. The main group I was involved in was Anti Fascist Action however.
Hey Richard, do you have time to answer the few questions I put to you above? Let me know if you want me to echo. ATB, GerryC
Hey Richard, do you have time to answer the few questions I put to you above? Let me know if you want me to echo. ATB, GerryC
PS I’m not a member of any political party but I do pay a monthly sub for LU.
Have replied above Gerry just under your original post
Richard
This is a contribution from Stephen Hall and Wigan Left Unity
The type of Party we need:
In my view what we need is a new
i) broad, democratic, pluralist,
ii) egalitarian,
iii) environmentally conscious,
iv) internationalist
v) anti-Capitalist,
vi) bottom-up driven party, which is representative of the working class, the especially oppressed, and the mass of ordinary people across England, and elsewhere in the World.
I do not mention the people of Scotland and Wales because I believe they should decide what kind of party they need and want themselves and the relationship they might want to have with a party, such as I am outlining for England. Ideally, however, that might be one of a close working relationship voluntarily entered into by all concerned.
What is meant by broad?
What is meant by a broad party is one open to all shades of opinion within the working class movement, amongst the especially oppressed and the mass of ordinary people as a whole, provided that such opinion upholds the interests of the entire movement as a whole, rather than a particular section of it, i.e. is anti-racist, internationalist, egalitarian, secular, non-sexist, is against ageism, discrimination against gays, lesbians, transsexuals, and which does not advance the interests of any particular section of the same above those of another. A party which is not based on any specific ideological doctrine or particular philosophical outlook, but simply on the common interests of all the exploited and oppressed within society.
What is meant by democratic?
Fundamentally it means equal participation of everyone in the party’s decision making processes i.e one person one vote. It means every member having an equal say, and if a general consensus is not possible, after an open and full debate amongst the membership, the rule of the majority being applied in terms of practical policy.
What is meant by pluralist?
Pluralism is closely related to the above, however, it also includes a recognition that everyone will not necessarily agree on everything. That such differences can co-exist and that minority views should have the right to be heard, to be represented, and to be able to convince the majority that they may be wrong.
It also recognises, that authority within any new party needs to be shared and not monopolised even by the majority, that party membership is voluntary thing, and its ‘discipline’ as such cannot be imposed on anyone but ultimately needs to be politically won and voluntarily accepted.
What is meant by egalitarian?
It means everyone within the party should be treated equally as well as the party as a whole having a similar outlook and attitude to society in general. However, as the society we currently live in is patently unequal, this will inevitably necessitate, for a period at least, certain exceptional provisions within the party’s rules to address this present lack of equality arising historically from society. These measures would include the right of those historically especially oppressed sections of society such as women, gays, minority ethnic groups, etc being allowed to organize their own caucuses as and when required to ensure their special oppression is properly addressed both within the party, and society in general. By doing this we will be able to demonstrate how the party as a whole are the real champions and promoters of equality both in our own ranks and society at large, from a current position of inequality.
What is meant by environmentally conscious?
In its simplest terms we need to be a green party. We need to champion the defence of our environment, our air, water, wild life and climate all of which are slowly being destroyed at the altar of profit, and which threatens a global calamity in the not too distant future if not urgently addressed. There is no contradiction between the defence of ordinary people’s living standards, public services, civil rights and conditions at work, etc and the defence of the environment and fight to prevent the possibility of irreversible and catastrophic climate change. This is because there are much more environmentally friendly and sustainable options available to us, which, if they were combined with wealth redistribution (most of the World’s wealth is currently monopolized by a tiny parasitic minority), could ensure a decent life for everyone on the planet.
What is meant by Internationalist?
The interests of ordinary people in our own country is no different to those of other countries and the party we need, should make that absolutely clear at the outset. It should state that if we have anything in common with the past then it is that we continue to subscribe to the motto: “Workers of the World Unite”. That we are against the policy of war by our own Government, and the occupation of other countries by British troops and those of Britain’s so-called allies in NATO, as well as other foreign powers, so long as society is dominated by a tiny parasitic minority and their political representatives, including Labour within our own country, rather than those of the mass of the population.
What is meant by anti-Capitalist?
The Capitalist system based on the private ownership of the means of production, distribution and exchange and the profit motive, are ultimately the root of all evil in society today both nationally and internationally. The party we need, whilst being supportive of all reforms of the Capitalist system which would in the short term, improve the lot of the mass of the people both here and overseas, should however, be unequivocally committed to the abolition of this system at the earliest possible opportunity, and its replacement by one based on the common ownership of the means of production, distribution and exchange, the principle that the Earth was made a common treasury for all irrespective of person, and the introduction of the most popular system of administration of each industry, service and society in general It should on this basis, make a clear commitment that if were to gain ‘political power’, that it would seek to mobilise its entire base of support within society towards that objective, its most immediate task being the nationalisation of the Banks and all other financial institutions and the full statisation of the credit system, along with a range of other decisive measures to break the power of Capital within society, as agreed by the party as a whole.
What is meant by a bottom-up rather than top-down organisation
A “bottom-up” approach to organisation is one that primarily works from the grassroots upwards. A larger number of people working together, causing a decision to arise from their joint involvement and participation which is then disseminated upwards under their collective authority in the organisational structure to the higher levels, who are then to a greater or lesser extent bound by them.
A decision by a number of grassroots activists to undertake a certain specific action is a “bottom-up” decision. A bottom-up approach allows for more experimentation and a better feeling for what is needed at the bottom, and ensures ultimate decision making powers at the bottom of any organizational structure, rather than at the top.
This approach contrasts with “top-down” organisation, where decisions are primarily, and in many cases wholly made by fewer people or even a single individual at the top of an organisational structure. Decisions are then disseminated under their authority to lower levels in the organizational structure/hierarchy, who are, to a greater or lesser extent, then bound by them.
In terms of the organisational needs of any new party claiming to represent the majority of the people, there needs to be a clear understanding and agreement concerning the connection between the two methods or organisation, with primacy being given to the bottom-up approach, and decisions being made by larger numbers of people at the bottom of whatever organisational structure is agreed on, rather than vice versa.
At the same time, if ‘higher’ bodies are genuinely representative of the grassroots membership, there can be certain positive aspects to a top-down approach in terms of their ability to make quick decisions, as and when such may be required, and as a result of their (theoretically) better overview of the whole organisation and its membership as a whole. However, due to the development of communication technology it is now possible to extend any such decision making to almost every level of any organisational structure including the grassroots membership, In so far as this is so, this principle should be applied as far as possible.
Executive action versus elite leadership and ‘Leaders’
All elected bodies of the membership, whether these be local (as in a local authority area as opposed to smaller town, village or ward branches which may only require a Chair, Secretary & Treasurer), regional or national, should be seen as of an executive nature. i.e existing for the purpose of faithfully executing the decisions of the broader membership. Such that the word leadership might have any relevance in any new party then this should be to describe only the role of such bodies in formallly ‘leading the party’s practical work’ in the broader political arena, rather than of them standing above the membership and representing any kind of elite ‘leadership’ group.
In terms of the practical execution of tasks, a degree of flexibility obviously needs to be provided for, which allows for initiative and executive decisions to be taken without constant reference to the entire membership especially when they are of a minor nature. However, all executive bodies, or individual members of them, need to be fully accountable to the membership as a whole for the decisions they may make, and subject to sanction, should those decisions be deemed not to be in the best interest of the membership if this is so decided by those members responsible for electing them.
The role of all elected bodies in addition to the execution of agreed policy above, along with the role of members of the party as a whole, should be seen as facilitators of the wider working class movement to emancipate itself from its own exploitation and oppression rather than doing it for them or on their behalf; to develop its own self activity, to promote the involvement of ever wider layers including in particular the especially oppressed including women, youth, lgbts, people from black minority ethnic backgrounds, etc, etc.
A maximum length of term in office for all individuals in any post needs to also be established, to promote the regular rotation of members serving as office holders, and on local, regional and national executive bodies. Five years in any particular post or body, based on the annual election of all posts, on any account would seem to be more than sufficient for anyone to occupy any post in either a political party or civil life in general.
All executive bodies elected by the membership should also guarantee equal representation for women (unless this is not practically possible) as well as for at least two places for young members (U21), two places for lgbt, and two places for bme members, and generally consist of no more than say 30 members, so as to allow everyone a full opportunity to speak/contribute to the discussion and to avoid a monopolisation of any meeting by the most vocal/able individuals
We need a truly national rather than a London/South East centric organisation
One of the biggest problems on the existing ‘Left’ and with existing ‘Left’ parties and campaigns for many decades is a de facto domination not only by generally more ‘able’, articulate, affluent, educated, white males with a greater than average amount of ‘free time’ at their disposal, but also by those in particular who live or find it relatively easy to travel to London for national meetings of almost ALL so-called ‘national’ campaign bodies and political organisations/groups, which in the main are almost always held in London, rather than across the country as whole.
This leads to the development not of a truly national, geographically broad and pluralistic, or nationally representative, democratic, bottom-up and egalitarian organisation representative of the working class, the especially oppressed and the mass of ordinary people across the whole of England (or Britain as a whole) or of national campaigns which claim to be of a similar nature, but rather ones with a considerable London/South East of England centric bias, which are geographically and politically narrower, less pluralistic, less representative, less democratic and egalitarian, and which in so far as they are intrinsically dominated by those who live in, or alternatively find it relatively easy to travel to meetings in London, organisations/campaigns which are considerably more top down than they are bottom up in nature in terms of the country as a whole.
This results in those from the ‘Provinces’ including those who are least advantaged, being more or less consistently compelled to get up earlier and spend considerably more of their time travelling to and from any national meetings. It means they are also generally deprived of the ability to participate in the discussions and decision making of nationally elected officers or national executive bodies which formally (or informally) meet and decide on things on a day to day basis during the week in London, which prepare and set national agendas, decide on who will lead off this or that discussion/debate, write particular ‘line’ documents, and who will chair meetings, etc, amongst themselves.
It also fosters a political culture amongst those who due simply to their proximity or residence in the capital where national political power nominally rests (in the case of the House of Commons – a nationally elected geographically representative assembly) and who find it much easier access to the aforementioned meetings, rather than those having a genuine political ‘base’ in a community anywhere elsewhere in the country (even within London and the South East) of consciously or unconsciously regarding themselves de facto as THE almost permanent national ‘leaders’ of the same organisations or campaigns, whatever their formal claims to the contrary.
It is in my view, no coincidence that virtually ALL the so-called ‘leaders’ of all of Britain’s ‘Left’ political groups reside in London (or find it easy to get there), and have generally remained the ‘leaders’ of those groups for many decades. It is no coincidence that the apparatus of all of them is based in London, that the organized Left is dominated by London based people or people who find London easy to get to, that few people outside this generally London based ‘elite’ have much ‘national’ influence, and all the more so in the case of the less advantaged who live farthest away from London.
We need to not only ‘feminise’ any new party and make it a welcome environment for all the especially oppressed, we also need to ‘nationalise’ it i.e. make it a truly national party and remove its current London centricity by better enfrachising and empowering those members of any new party living in the North, South West and Midlands, whatever their background.
We can do this by positively discriminating in favour of those areas: moving national meetings around the country so that only one in five meetings at most takes place in London, and the others take place, in cities like Birmingham, Bristol, Leeds/Sheffield, Manchester/Liverpool, Newcastle, Leicester. By situating any national office in Birmingham and by various other measures commonly. Also, by using Skype/video conferencing so as to negate the possibility of the domination of any possible London (or other big city) ‘elite’.
Hello Folks — due to a technical problem my access to this Internal Democracy thread was blocked for the past week
Below is a Document I drafted last week and posted on Worcestershire Left Unity Facebook page.
Left Unity has begun the process of establishing a framework of basic principles via an Internal Democracy and Constitutional Commission. This is my rough draft of a contribution to that discussion.
Name:
The Name of Our Party is “PEOPLE UNITED”.
Our party campaigns for Fairness, fights for Justice and demands Respect.
Membership:
Any individual whose normal place of residence is in the Country of England and who shares the aims and objectives of PEOPLE UNITED can become a member. Any group of 5 or more members in a geographical area can form a branch of PEOPLE UNITED. Our goal is the establishment of branches that mirror Parliamentary Constituencies.
Aim and Objectives:
Our Primary Aim is:
To win popular mass support for the creation of a Green and Pleasant Socialist Republic in England.
Our Primary Objectives are:
I.
To Encourage and respect the self organisation and empowerment of all sections of society in England who are oppressed, alienated and marginalised in society
II.
To Work with those in the neighbouring countries of Cornwall, Wales, Scotland and Ireland who are struggling for social and environmental justice.
III.
To Work with those across Europe and Internationally who are struggling for social and environmental justice.
IV.
To Establish the common ownership of the means of production, distribution and exchange, and the best obtainable system of popular administration and control of each industry or service.
V.
To Participate in Local and Parliamentary Elections in order to popularise the Aims and Objectives of PEOPLE UNITED.
VI.
To Ensure that members of PEOPLE UNITED who win elected office are accountable to their electorate via developing new forms of direct participatory democracy including the right of recall.
VII.
To Secure by reform of existing institutions of or via the creation of new structures a new society based upon PEOPLE’S POWER.
Basic Principles
1. Democracy
The linguistic roots of the word Democracy comes from two Greek words – Demos, meaning peoples and Kratos meaning power. Therefore our Party not only advocates Peoples Power as a political objective for the whole of society but it functions as a living example of Peoples Power at every organisational level.
2. Votes
The way our Democracy works in practice is based upon the result or outcome of Votes.
Every member of our party is encouraged and will be empowered to actively participate in internal discussions. Every member of our party is encouraged and will be empowered to contribute their thoughts, feelings and ideas as part of a genuine collective.
3. Decisions
At all levels of our Party Decisions shall be made on the basis that a Majority of Votes for any given proposal has been achieved. Once a Decision has been made our Party encourages and will empower all members of our party to take collective ownership of decisions made and to implement them in practice.
4. Action
Our Party seeks to encourage and empower all people in society to become active participants in collective action to make positive changes in our world. All members of our Party are encouraged and will be empowered to act as champions of the oppressed. Together we act and via our action we inspire other to join the struggle for Peoples Power.
5. Conflict
Our Party recognises the fractured, atomised and individualistic culture dominant in capitalist society ferments social conflict. Our Party encourages and will empower all members to resolve conflicts via open democratic discussion. Our Party encourages and will empower all members to respect each other and value cultural diversity. Our Party will establish a Conflict Resolution Committee elected by National Conference. The Conflict Resolution Committee will encourage and empower any member who has a grievance to come forward, seeking to resolve any dispute via an open fair and transparent process.
Worcestershire Left Unity
PEOPLE UNITED – fairness, justice, respect
Is there consensus? Is aims section essential or unimportant preamble? I need to know before inputting further.
How to keep up with all the sub-threads? I agree a meeting would be useful but think we should also progress the online debate further with online voting.
VOTING FORM: please look at this and consider if you’d be happy to use it?
http://communityvote.wufoo.com/forms/the-aims-section-progress-voting/
ATB, Ged Cavander
I wish to challenge this formulation because it presents a dangerous ambiguity:
“….groups and communities facing discrimination because of gender, ethnicity, age, disability or sexuality”
The notion of ‘discrimination because of disability’ is problematic. What is the meaning of “disability” here, especially when placed alongside age and ethnicity, because in my view it panders to the oppressive definition of disability found within the Equality Act 2010.
As a disabled person, I was born with cerebral palsy, this is my impairment. As a person with cerebral palsy I’m subjected to unequal and differential treatment arising from the nature of capitalist social relations. Using a historical materialist analysis I identify existing capitalist social relations as creating “disability” – in jargon free language; disability is imposed on top of our impairments by the existence of social arrangements that marginalise or exclude us. In this analysis discrimination flows from the existence of disability e.g. social restrictions.
It is necessary to challenge the discrimination faced by disabled people; but this alone is an inadequate (reformist) response to disability. Discrimination is not the same as social oppression. I would caution against talking of ‘disability discrimination’ because it is misleading.
I would expand this sentence in order to acknowledge disability as a social situation, thus:
“….groups and communities facing discrimination and social oppression because of gender, ethnicity, age, disability or sexuality”
Thanks Baggiebob – you are right in my opinion. We are in the process of posting a working document with a draft of the rules/constitution on a new thread and this should be up on the website tomorrow. Unfortunately we didn’t see this in time to incorporate it – please could you repost your comment under the new thread on the Working document when it appears.
Please also comment and suggest concrete amendments/wordings on any other issues you feel are relevant.For example, you may have some suggestions on the issue of sections..?
Look forward to your hearing your thoughts.
Best
Richard
Co-convenor
I largely like the draft, but here’s my contributions/suggestions
1. Name to be Democratic Voice
2.a) To provide a democratic voice for those on the political left who are unrepresented in mainstream UK politics. To unite… (wording then as original, although I’m not 100% comortable with the radical/socialist line – there are people who share our aims who possibly wouldn’t be comfortable with either label – but I can’t think of a better way of putting it)
b) I’d replace “democratically planned economy” with “democratic economy”. Planned implies Soviet style state control, although the subsequent text contextualises the term, so it’s not a big issue for me.
3.i) change to “supports the aims of Left Unity”. Commitment to further aims could be seen as committing to much more than a standing order and participating in the internal democracy of the party.
Having said all that, I’d gladly sign up to the statement in its current form. I think it gives a good summary of what we are about. Well done.
Still puzzled as to how this is going to look to the broad mass of potential supporters, ie not just the committed left, but also those who are turned off politics by the feeling that there is no longer any point in voting, since the current lot have it all sewn up. If we subjected all of the above deliberations and drafts to an assessment on a scale running from ‘there they go again…’ to ‘wow, that’s more like it!’, how would it score?
I’m not meaning to belittle the hard work that has gone into developing consensus in a notoriously difficult area, but without some really fresh vision as well, it is hard to see a new outcome. I wish that I had something coherent to offer right here and now – but one of the main reasons I signed up to LU was the hope of joining a discussion that would help us to find such a vision by sharing our hopes, fears, dreams and aspirations. Unfortunately this bit of the process seems to have been overtaken by ardent, expert, but otherwise very familiar, party-building activity. It may be a beautiful machine, but the phrase ‘all dressed up and nowhere to go’ springs to mind too easily.
I recommend http://www.tomdispatch.com/post/175728/tomgram%3A_ira_chernus%2C_i_have%28n%27t%29_a_dream/#more