Kate Hudson: The New left, Europe and Left Unity
Andy Smith from Leeds Left Unity gives a report of their latest public meeting
Kate Hudson spoke at the second Leeds Left Unity public meeting last Wednesaday. Again there were many new faces with around 28 people in attendance. The discussion section was started off with an appeal from the Leeds Pathology labs strike, where their representative spoke about their plight and delivered the shocking news that often on a night in Leeds General Infirmary, St James’ hospital and Bradford Royal Infirmary, there is often only one member of staff in pathology on a night due to cuts. This is obviously not only dangerous but stops highly dedicated NHS workers from delivering the excellent service they strive to provide. The meeting responded well and we hope their strike went well today. Many members of Left Unity said they were planning to head to the picket lines to support today (1.8.13).
The discussion began with a summary of the various Left parties that have formed in Europe in the recent years including Syriza, Die Linke, Front de Gauche etc., how and why they were formed and interestingly how each situation is different to the political situation in England. Front de Gauche for example came about as a co-operation of parties that have been developing and building since the fall of the wall and the triumphal heralding of the fall of communism. If nothing else, the success and persistence of organisations within Front de Gauche highlight how fallacious the fall of the left really was. However, England is a different situation. Labour, as being formed from the trade union movement, Kate Hudson suggests has maintained a hope that it can return to its left roots and turn back the tide of the savage attacks on conditions hard won after WWII. So, England finds itself seeing Labour heading further and further right, while not having maintained organisations significant enough to form into the new left formations developing across Europe, which is why Left Unity has been called. Kate Hudson, as a founding member of Left Unity and present at the 14th of November meeting knows as well as any the need for this to happen and happen fast.
The left in England has divided and divided with the last significant organisation probably being the CPGB [dissolved in 1991], which when it fell apart took tens of thousands of members with it. Militant had almost these numbers during their peak but as with everyone else, suffered heavy losses during the 90s and in their split into the Socialist Party and Socialist Appeal. Each of the projects that have either maintained or come into existence since this time have new opportunities to develop however outside of the yolk of the Soviet Union. Some organisations have sought to become more pluralistic, some more dogmatic and some simply obscure. Especially during the decline of communism and Socialism in Britain and Europe in the 80s and 90s, new thinkers began to talk about the potential benefits of the era, where it would be necessary to consider that perhaps one theorist was not entirely right and that it was time to put aside the arguments about whether Trotsky was entirely accurate or Lenin, Gramsci or Mao, Proudhon or Marx. It was a time where new formations could and did develop in Europe which has resulted in the parties that are continuing to fight in Europe today.
This led on to perspectives about what Left Unity could represent today and what it should represent today. Left Unity was formed to be a broad left party, to the left of Labour that can seek to represent people in this time crisis and beyond and fight for things like the NHS, properly funded welfare, employment, union rights and equality. It is possible to learn lessons from where the new left parties in Europe have taken their policies, with some coalitions already facing problems through reverting to social democracy and as such, it is important that Left Unity forms clearly with left principles. Another point well made by Kate Hudson was that it is also possible, in creating a new left party, to attempt to live as if social change had already taken place. Left Unity can be a vessel for people to discuss and test theories relating to emancipation with the support of people from all over the left. This is perhaps one of the most essential points raised. With threats of far right development either being encouraged by the racist Tory party or ignored by their coalition partners the Lib Dems or silently encouraged by Labour, equality is not common place in any real way in the current political discourse. In Left Unity people will be able to live and develop treating each other with respect while fighting for public services and economic change that will make such a difference to so many.
The discussion was lively and initially focussed on whether or when Left Unity should start to stand in elections. If we are to do this, it is necessary to understand what principles we are to adopt before hitting the doorstep but everyone in Leeds seemed particularly eager to get going and start talking to people. As the discussion developed, the inevitable discussion about what Left Unity represents to each person brought about some interesting insights and agreements. Though as ever, disagreement points out how far there is to go even on a local level with Left Unity. If you are interested in any of the issues discussed above, then please get in touch via the contact page or home page or come along to our next organising meeting.
33 comments
33 responses to “Kate Hudson: The New left, Europe and Left Unity”
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.
In short: ditch Marxism, our only real weapon, in favour of an unprincipled `broadness’ and an utopian/christian notion of socialism based on being the change we want to see? It’s a plan.
Come on we need to get serious. Milliband is being excoriated for being a political vacuum with no policies and we are making a virtue of being a programless propaganda sect based on an alternative life style. We need a manifesto for principled Left Unity and the transition to working class power and socialism if we are to save the young, the class, the economy, society and the environment all of which are facing a growing existential crisis the likes of which we have never seen before.
That “weapon” has been used loads of times. Guess what? It appeals to the same few people. There are still plenty of parties using it…time for something different.
What is principled about assuming an authority to decide on behalf of an entire class? What is principled about seeking to determine a narrative before the class have had the opportunity to participate in the discussions around it? What is principled about accusing anyone who seeks to offer a platform for all people of all left political spectrums a place to develop and test their ideas, of selling out? What is principled about assuming that only one way is the right way and anyone who disagrees or dares to question, is selling out the class, progress, the economy and the environment? In short, nothing. Your rigidity and unthinking authoritarian attitude to discourse is archaic and the attitude you adopt in discourse is entirely obstructive and unfraternal. In short, you make good socialists sound like narrow minded soap-box warriors who are as afraid of change as neo-cons.
It is totally unacceptable that people are assuming that anyone who dares to think outside the box or to comment without committing explicitly to one political doctrine or another is substandard. It is also ridiculously arrogant of Marxists to assume that they have the only answer. If Marxists had the only answer, it might have done something in the last 150 years but it hasn’t. Unless you count Stalinism. So, maybe you might want to step off your pious horse and consider the fact that there are people who can think for themselves, who do not need your snide and unhelpful dogmatism. There are even people who are clever enough to admit that they do not feel comfortable with any one label who are going to learn, in the movement to develop their own ideas without requiring a pre-determined and abused label to please small minded dogmatists whose only tangible effect on the movement in the last 20 years is to turn it into a cliquey and weird island of nothingness.
Nice one Andy, totally agree and with what you write below.
Seconded.
If Left Unity is to develop into a mass socialist party, it will need to continually struggle to give the correct interpretation of world events, to inform all the party’s strategies, tactics and actions, so that it can lead the working class to socialism.
It will not be possible to correctly describe the current historical epoch if the arguments around the demise of the greatest achievement of the working class in world history – the Soviet Union – are “put aside” (or by presenting the working class with a fait accomplis to all discussions as the Socialist Platform and potential Revolutionary Platform want to do, by denying that the SU was socialist).
Capitalist propaganda and education is continuously telling the working class that it was all a failure and that there is no solution to capitalism’s crisis other than yet more capitalism; and so all attempts at describing the world in a revolutionary way with a view to changing it are treated with suspicion, ridicule and contempt. All the more reason to talk about it – to distinguish fact from fiction.
No matter how difficult and intractable the differences seem to be, these questions need to be argued to a conclusion that is as close to reality as possible before the working class can “move on”.
This is not about “point scoring” or arguing over who is “100% right”, it’s about arguing for a party that gives freedom such discussions to take place in front of the working class (rather than in suggested “historical commissions” that keeps discussions away from the working class).
A Marxist interpretation of the world has to be argued for and will only draw in a wider pool of people if it’s analysis rings true. It cannot be imposed through votes for particular “platforms” (potential factions which I hope will be disbanded once the November conference takes place).
Left Unity already brings up the past with little complaint when Ken Loach’s “Spirit of 45” is promoted. We are not being asked to “put aside” discussions around the Welfare State, why should we be asked to “move on” from a struggle to understand the Soviet Union?
`What is principled about assuming an authority to decide on behalf of an entire class?’
Don’t think you’ve quite grasped this political party thing have you?
By the way Marxists don’t assume they have the only answer. There are a million different answers but only Marxism bothers to work out the answer scientifically. We cannot impose that understanding on anybody but we do believe that if our programme reflects objective necessity the class will give us the authority we need to pursue it.
You presume to assume that you can shout down anyone who dares to not call themselves Marxist, yet I haven’t understood the politics of Left UNITY?
Also, let me clear up this scientific thing once and for all. I am a philosophy of science post-graduate student (for at least another month anyway). If I wrote an article suggesting that Marxism was a scientific discourse, I would not only fail for being quite silly I would also be wrong. Marxism is not scientifically justified. It is not empirically justified. It is highly thought of as a particular philosophical attempt at a critique of capitalism on a number of levels but if you think that the methodology approached is scientific, you have not read anything scientific since at least the 1950’s. Science, the philosophy of science and scientific discourse has moved on.
Marxism is still regarded as an interesting beginning in many traditions in philosophy. Though I can’t think of a single example of it still existing as the predominant philosophical method of investigation. It is not the predominant scientific methodology in any instance of anything in science. Anywhere. Seeking to suggest that it can come back in some way, would necessitate the revocation of all scientific progress since the 1950’s (at least). So, to assume that you analyse anything scientifically is borne of a complete misunderstanding of what scientific means. It is also borne of an interesting and indicative misunderstanding of the real world after 1920.
Though, I would like to thank you for making my point so completely, viciously and rather naively. The dialogue and terminology you are using is so outdated, that to seek to foist it upon a class struggle that you have failed to notice evolve for the last 100 years, is indicative of exactly why I am having trouble taking the socialist platform seriously. I know some great socialists and honestly, I feel that it would be well worth discussing at length with Phil Waincliffe the pro’s and con’s of his argument and mine. He seems to understand that things must be considered and moved beyond. He is not attacking the other position but simply stating his position and leaving that as a stand alone argument, designed to inform and include people in the discussion.
Your tone, Baton Rouge, on this and other posts is that of a desperate bully, who has gone to such massive lengths to define yourself as a scientific Marxist, that anyone who disagrees with you and therefore threatens the narrow identity you have crafted for your self, is evil and threatens your existence, so you had better minimise their role in the movement and cast them as wrong, stupid, careerist or whatever else, before someone notices your insecurity. I am only responding to your bullying, condescending and authoritarian comments in this way because you are going to be responsible for destroying the ability of decent people to discuss what is best for the party, the movement and the struggle in a fraternal way. You are going to bully, cajole and intimidate people until everyone validates your existence and I find it abhorrent. I believe you have the ability to change but until you can drop the authoritarian nastiness and unhelpful tone, what good are you?
No, Marxism isn’t a proper science but in terms of an ideology it aims to be far more empirical and based on reason than others. The whole term of
Scientific Socialism only came about as a response to 19th century Utopian Socialists. The point about the dialogue and terminology is largely true but as with everything it isn’t either exactly right or completely wrong. Marxism at its best and when more ‘Scientific’ (in the context of Socialism) is when it is updated and while many Marxist ideas require reading and discussion, on a more basic level much can (and is) communicated in ordinary language, at least by those Marxists who are better at winning other people round.
I think Baton Rouge while often having a bit of a point has a poor approach and but Phil Waincliff is right when saying its not about scoring points. Broadness leads to debate and as Marxist he should be like the rest of us ready for a challenge. Much Marxist thought is still relevant and if we Marxists want to help a broad party of the Left, then the best we can do is ensure our critique is carried through, explained at various levels and push for people to question it, challenge it and in some cases adopt it, but allow people to add to our critique as no one has all the answers. At the same time some will be hostile but for the sake of unity it is better to stand together if we broadly agree on the seam things. This approach is more of the type of thing that Marxism as scientific socialism should be adopting a proper critique of the time and moving with the times.
This is, however, a bit of a false conflict as such problems are really distracting as even those who feel that Marxism is either incorrect (or in some cases even hostile to it) which some of the people who argue in this way present as free speech except Marxists as well as the other way around both of which fuel antagonism. Whatever our critiques, and these will be many they will undeniably be influenced by Marxism, how we communicate these ideas is important but how we communicate our overall ideas and actions should be of greater importance.
But for the record think that Marxism is right but that the current set of Marxist parties need some reforms (but not of basic principles) to make them more successful and useful in the anti-capitalist movement as separate entities than Left Unity which would operate more like a Labour type party (but probably a bit more radical).
When I said Baton Rouge’often had a bit of a point’ I meant sometimes vaguely stumbles around the truth which is rarely correct but underneath it their is a degree of truth. Other times he just rants, but its seems everyone does occasionally…
Marxism is scientific. It is of no surprise that a capitalist education system and capitalist universities would spend millions denigrating Marxism as a proper science, but that doesn’t make it correct. You would have to start by saying what science is and why you think Marxism isn’t a science.
There have been no major groundbreaking developments theoretical physics for the last 30 years, as far as I know. The quest to discover a theory that unifies quantum mechanics with Einstein’s theories of relativity has, for the last 25 years, been dominated by string theory; a theory (or theories) which is claimed to unify all particles and forces of nature, but has yet have proved that its claims are anything more than conjecture and mysticism (“dark energy” and “dark matter” are other seemingly mystical explanations that have yet to be proven). Bourgeois science is limited by its empiricism and does not know how to move beyond the cul-de-sac its in.
As far as I understand things, university education is still unquestioningly pumping out Popperism – a consciously anti-communist approach which itself leads to a mystical explanation of the world because it says a theory that cannot be falsified cannot be a theory – so nothing can be proven or true.
The evidence for the truth of evolution, for example, is overwhelming, and truth cannot be falsified because of the very fact that it is true. Popperism is a confused muddle because it is an attempt to deny that the the truth is knowable. Its “falsification theory” (a theory which itself cannot be falsified!) is merely a form of Kant’s unknowable “thing-in-itself” given a veneer modern scientific materialism.
Marxist dialectical materialist philosophy is the only one that predicted the 2008 crisis as the most catastrophic crisis in world history. Thousands upon thousands of graduates trained in bourgeois economics were denying that Marxism had anything to say about economics up and until the point of the crash.
So which is more scientific, the bourgeois educated economists who were saying that capitalism had solved all its problems, or Marxism, which argued all a long that catastrophic slump was inevitable?
A Smith
I am sorry that you feel the need to reply to Baton Rouge in these terms but really, I understand your frustrations, and frankly he had it coming because of the appalling, arrogant TONE of his posts, rather than simply their content.
The thing about Marxism, or any other philosophy which influences the left, is that LU does not need to have a position on it. Parties do not need to officially pass a motion endorsing a philosopical position. Can you imagine the complexity of any such resolution! We need to adopt a position on what we stand for and what we want to do, not what we think.
Discussions are useful, of course, but it is vital that they are based on the CONTENT of any theory, not on calling for loyalty to its name. Any ideas stand or fall on their merits, not their label. It is not reasonable to say someone is wrong because they are not a Marxist; you have to demonstrate that what they are saying is untrue.
As one of the early statements of LU put it, we need a new left party informed by Marxism but not dominated by it.
I think I muddled my point but Marxism is the only Scientific ideology and is based on empiricism and in theoretical thought from such evidence. It is an effective method that covers many fields and its success, especially in the past has been its holistic approach to the world not just economic or psychological. It can’t explain everything (as some in the USSR tried to use it for) but as with all science other points must be considered (I’m saying this as a convinced Marxist). I was just trying to create common ground. Its the outcome of Marxism, ie how to change things that other people disagree with.
Anyway Ray G has got it exactly right in what he says.
If giving the Egyptian military carte blanche to gun down pro-democracy protesters is “reflecting objective reality” (as you suggest elsewhere), then I hope you don’t get “the authority” ever to do anything!
Baton Rouge, I mean.
“By the way Marxists don’t assume they have the only answer. There are a million different answers but only Marxism bothers to work out the answer *scientifically*.”
‘Scientific’ Marxism!!! So it must of course be the correct, or at least the most truthful answer and all the other ‘answers’ therefore are inferior or at best pale reflections of ‘the truth’. Our resident self-defined Marxists are still living in the early-mid 20th Century and wanting the certitudes of imitating the hard natural sciences so that they can cloak themselves with its authority and be its high priesthood.
These sectarians may not want to ever change but LU must if it wants to develop an analysis, a vision, and a language for these times and ordinary people.
Neil,
This is just fatuous. It’s nonsense to say that someone is being “sectarian” just because they are arguing for a particular position you don’t agree with.
So how do propose to develop your analysis then? How are you going to test it, if you don’t think there is a scientific way of understanding the world?
Before you do that, you want a new language to describe the world. Where is that going to come from, on what scientific basis, and how are you going to get the entire planet to understand it and use it?
You can have all the visions you want, but if they don’t have any basis in truth, they won’t ever amount to anything.
`You presume to assume that you can shout down anyone who dares to not call themselves Marxist, yet I haven’t understood the politics of Left UNITY?’
I most certainly do not which is why I have opposed sectarian statements and platforms (have you actually read anything I’ve written or you making it up) and argued for programme first as only programme can be the basis for the unity of party and class. But when somebody openly attacks Marxism I will call them on it. If they can dish it out they should be able to take it. Now my basic argument is that Marxism with its scientific insight can provide a superior and principled programme than one that is opportunistically cobbled together in the name of broadness. I don’t think it’s worth destroying the unity of the class albeit behind an opportunist New Labour leadership just for that and for the benefit of the political careers of a handful of people. I certainly don’t insist on anybody being a marxist but if they attack Marxism then I have the right to defend it and I am more than happy for the manifesto to compete with all the others. As for bullying I’d say your rant comes close.
How is this “principled programme” to come about if you don’t take seriously the arguments raised? How is this “transition to socialism” supposed to take place? And why even talk about “programmes” if we don’t even have an agreed perspective on the world to base it on?
Marxism a science, the only scientific way to fully understand all developments, I’d argue. I’m happy to debate that with Andy, but all this posturing around “Marxism under attack” is a parody.
Also, what is this class unity around Labour (or around anything for that matter)? I don’t see it and, if there was, I’d be all for destroying it and building unity around a struggle for socialism instead.
I’d like to see where I’ve given the Egyptian Army carte blanche to gun down pro democracy protesters but I suppose a little character assassination is to be expected when you put your head above the parapet.
You say you’d debate Andy over his attack on Marxism or the one in the original piece but here you are attacking me and backing him up. Go figure. Must be one of them opportoonists. As for your final point, the working class vast majority have been politically united behind the labour party for years. That is not news except to a …
In your comments where you accused me of being a “silly old stalininst” and of writing “blether” – so much for character assassination and wanting debate!
So what did you mean by this then?
“So the counter revolutionary Morsi regime failed to take adequate steps against the counter revolutionary generals? Big deal. The question for us is how to take the democratic revolution forward not bewail the fate of Islamists who would have imposed a Tehran-style counter-revolutionary regime on the Egyptian people had they not come out in their millions against it.”
The Molsem Brotherhood have illusions in democracy and were protesting for it when Morsi was overthrown.
There is nothing opportunistic about wanting to expose your posturing.
It’s quite ironic actually that Phil W should be accusing me of supporting the shooting down of democracy protestors in Egypt when in actual fact he is a full blown supporter of the Butcher Assad. My position on Syria is to support the Syrian National Democratic Revolution against the murdering Assad. I believe the rebels have the right to acquire arms to defend themselves but of course they are subjet to an arms embargo whilst Assad is armed by Putin and the Islamists by the Gulf states. On Egypt it was my contention that it was the intervention of the people that had broken the Morsi/Military counter revolutionary government and that we should shed no tears for it and its corrupt, anti-democratic efforts to establish an authoritarian Islamist regime a la Iran with the help of the generals. On the other hand I was clear that the masses could not trust the Military either to defend it against disgruntled Islamists or not to try to snatch their victory and consolidate their own power. Unconditional support for the Arab Spring. Down with Assad. For an immediate timetable for Constituent Assembly elections in Egypt.
This is a monstrous lie and a deliberate provocation; and I’m not going to respond to it except to quote a part of what I actually said and let people judge for themselves:
“Rather than re-assess their mistakes and analyse how they got things so badly wrong, the fake-‘lefts’ have been tying themselves up in verbal knots in their attempt to cover up their errors; just as they have been doing over Syria and Libya, where some have been equally caught in the act of oiling the wheels of imperialist warmongering, and others philosophically trapped by their support for various anti-Marxist bourgeois nationalist or Islamist movements.
“Had there been a revolutionary party on the ground in Egypt dedicated to building a theoretical understanding of the world that provides clarity, then it is possible that those who had good reason to distrust and oppose Morsi would not have been misled into joining the counter-revolutionary protests.”
The Muslim Brotherhood have no illusions in democracy nor any desire to allow it to thrive. They were stitching up an Islamist semi-feudal theocracy with the army until the masses stepped in.
This was my reply to you last time. I notice you didn’t respond:
“The idea that there are two types of counter-revolution is barmy and not Marxist. If the Moslem Brotherhood is “counter-revolutionary”, why would the a counter-revolutionary army want to overthrow it??? It would make more sense if they started shooting down the protesters who opposed Morsi in order to defend their “counter-revolution”, especially since this “counter-revolution” was elected and so would give legitimacy in the eyes of those taken in by capitalism’s “democracy” pretences.
“If it looks, smells, feels and acts like a fascist coup, then it is most probably a fascist coup. The reason the coup would take place is that there is something about the Moslem Brotherhood that imperialism doesn’t like.
“Yes, it’s complex. US imperialism probably thought they were going to engineer an Indonesian post-Suharto style solution which would give the impression that things had changed, whilst the old generals, gangsters and murderers continue to call the shots (as can be seen in the excellent “Act of Killing” documentary, and as the former Islamicist president, Abdurrahman Wahid found out when he stepped out of line and ruffled too many Suharto-era feathers).
“Although Morsi compromised with the IMF, the IMF continued to withhold its loans because he was not restructuring far enough and fast enough for their liking. He’d also opened up the borders to Gaza, and there were signs that he was making closer contacts with Iran, which has a stronger anti-imperialist instinct than Morsi. He’d also made moves against the judiciary and amend the constitution to break up the powers of the old order. All of which is likely to have stirred up a counter-revolutionary reaction.
“This does not mean that any support should be given to any of this non-progressive anti-imperialism, but to go down the line that it is reactionary and no better than the Mubaraks, Suhartos or Shahs and so “deserves all it gets” only plays into the hands of imperialism’s warmongering agenda because it sets the scene for the next bloodbath.
“Just because the Islamists may have it in their heads that there intention is to set up some sort of caliphate, that does not mean that, objectively, this is the way history is heading. Far from it. The English Civil War was fought over religious tenets; in reality, it amounted to the overthrow of the old feudal order. The Irish nationalist struggle was anti-colonialist in essence, not a conflict between religions. The rise of Islamism in the Third World reflects a desire to get imperialism off their backs in the absence of a revolutionary Leninist movement for the overthrow of capitalism.
“Rather than take sides, crucial point is to call for a defeat for imperialism because this is the cause of all the problems and unrest in the world; and to build a revolutionary Marxist movement that struggles for a better understanding of the world in order to lead the working class to the overthrow of capitalism and the construction of socialism.”
In Ken Loach’s film “Spirit of ’45” The comment made by, I think it was Tudor Hart “Capitalism is in crisis, but the IDEA of it is very strong” How do we turn this on around in our favour?
Excuse me for intruding but in the real world people don’t talk like this.
I think the idea of a Left Unity Party is a great idea because it can bring together all the people who are fed up with the Labour Party and have become disillusioned with the Tories.
Most people on the left are liberals, not socialist, so I think everyone has to accept that that is the way we have to go if there is to be an alternative to the two main parties. That’s just a fact, whether you like it or not.
If you won’t accept that fact you just put yourself in a position that separates you from people; and that is why you still talk to yourselves, never growing, never having influence. You have to put yourself in a position that allows interested people to connect with you; in that sense politics is like finding a partner: you have to give someone a chance to talk with you. It’s not difficult, is it?
The last thing we need is all this programme and socialism/class talk. It turns off the only people who might be interested in the substance of what you have to say. As i said, most left people are not socialists but liberals: that’s why more people read the Guardian rather the Morning Star. That’s where Britain is today, not talking socialism at the bus stop.
A Left Unity Party must never talk about socialism and class until that’s the way people talk at the bus stop. And we are decades away from that happening.
Spot on Anya
That’s not to say LU should just be a liberal party – far from it (in fact i’d say the label ‘liberal’ in this country signifies leftism rather than liberalism) but it should include all those on the left – those who consider themselves liberals, socialists and anyone else that opposes austerity.
Anya,
People at the bus stop will never talk about socialism unless people talk to them about it.
No-one is stopping you from saying whatever it is you want to say. Saying that I should stop talking about the things I want discussed because it turns you off is censorship.
Left Unity will never get anywhere if people don’t have the freedom to talk about these revolutionary questions. This is all I’m arguing for.
I don’t think any of us were planning to use such language when engaging with everyone we ever meet, it just happens that this was the discussion on this particular page and as such in a discussion between us we can use this language if we understand it. If anyone needs it explained or wants to disagree that’s fine.
Yes there are a lot of left liberals, but also a lot of socialist and liberals/socialists. There is always overlap. As for your point of not taking class/socialism until its spoken at bus stops – how else are people going to here about. Political parties when successful set ideas in the public domain not just react to those existing but must as well since it is a discussion.
Also I’m trying to remember the last time I heard anyone talk about politics as if it mattered at a bus stop let alone liberal theories of the social contract…
This whole process is about setting up a party that does allow discussion challenges existing ideas and is a home to a wide range too.
The left is also bigger than you make out the Mirror (not the most left wing paper but then neither is the Guardian) has a far bigger circulation so we should defer to that to set the agenda by your logic. Obviously I don’t think this but I’m trying to say something about agenda setting.
It probably also worth noting that when Labour was formed until its 1918 manifesto it was not explicitly socialist as they were worried about how this might affect their electoral results and that the main stream parties of the time would refuse to work with them. That said many of their most popular figures were socialists and they were called out of touch by many despite getting huge support.
To sum it up it doesn’t matter the specific as long as we agree overall – but we can still have internal debate surely?
*Point about agenda setting – don’t have to be the biggest just part of a wider movement
Agree about the language Anya but not about liberal versus socialist. We need to find interesting and new and fresh to talk about our politics but we cannot just adapt to the most pupular view for fear of people not agreeing with us. That kind of stuff led us to exactly where we are now – a Guardian-reading sell-out Labour Party cheering on atttacks on the poor.
I got halfway thorough the comments then gave up.
The language and the aggression completely puts me off.
I’m a bog-standard, ordinary leftie, appalled by the Labour Party, I usually vote Green.
I wanted to get involved with Left Unity because I think a ‘radical’ new socialism is necessary to counteract the toxic spread of Capitalism, but… if getting involved with Left Unity involves negotiating the constant arguments that have always been the bane of the Left (I experienced this in the Feminist Movement of the 70s & early 80s), then I don’t think I can bear to do it again.
Is there much point harping on about theories that don’t seem to work?
Beyond/behind all the theory, what is actually being practiced in the community? What actions are actually having a positive effect, either by improving the lot of ordinary people or by promoting a socialist worldview that is accepted by the ordinary person in the street?
I came to this page as a ‘newbie’, I agree that debate is good, but seeing it take this form, as my first taste of Left Unity, is very dispiriting.