Towards an Alternative Platform
It is encouraging to see the debate develop over what kind of party is needed on the left. A number of options have been put on the table including the Socialist Platform, the Left Party Platform and the Class Struggle Platform. The following paper, by Steve Freeman, is not a platform but a discussion about the possibility or necessity of developing an alternative to those currently on offer.
Since 1996 with the launch of the Socialist Labour Party there have been a variety of socialist unity and party initiatives, including the Socialist Alliance, the Scottish Socialist Party, Respect, and the Trade Union and Socialist Coalition (TUSC). None of these initiatives has succeeded in uniting the socialist movement or building a real alternative to New Labour. Left Unity must be able to show how and why it has learnt from previous failures and is an improvement on them.
1. The Unity Question
The first question is a clear definition of what left unity means. Having a vague or ambiguous definition may be ‘useful’ but stores up problems for later. People join thinking it means one thing only to find out later it means something different. This will create disillusion and damage the whole project. It is much better to be straightforward from the start.
Radical Unity
Many young activists are “radicals” rather than socialists. They have radical views and want radical change. The Pirate Party, the environmental movement, the Occupy movement, and campaigning organisations such as UK Uncut are examples of radical but not socialist politics. Of course socialists and communists have radical views and solutions. But radical unity stands for broader unity between socialists and (non-socialist) radicals, for example Respect as a coalition between socialists and radical Muslims or TUSC as coalition of socialists and left trade unionists.
Socialist Unity
This should be defined as the unity of all socialists into one organisation or party. Here ‘socialist’ is used as a generic term for democratic socialists (or social democrats) and communists, sometimes referred to as ‘reformists’ and ‘revolutionaries’. This is sometimes called broad left unity. It was the basis of the SLP and the Socialist Alliance. Socialist unity is the unity of all who recognise the class struggle and oppose capitalism, whether by reform or revolution, into one united organisation aiming to be more effective in fighting for working class political interests.
Communist (or Marxist) Unity
This should be defined as the unity of all who hold communist or Marxist views and who today are mainly Trotskyists (represented by the SWP, SP, International Socialist Group, AWL, etc) and the remnants of the old CPGB (represented by CPB (Morning Star), CPGB (Weekly Worker) etc.
None of the existing Platforms openly advocates Left Unity as a revolutionary communist unity project. It is unclear whether the Socialist Platform is really about Socialist Unity or Marxist Unity. It is unclear whether the Left Party platform is about Radical Unity (another Respect or TUSC) or Socialist Unity (another SLP or Socialist Alliance). This needs to be clarified as soon as possible.
2. The Party Question
The Russian revolution defined working class politics from the 1920s. At that time the British Labour movement contained three broad ideological trends – liberalism, democratic socialism and communism. A two party system took shape as the CPGB was formed. Most communists were excluded from the Labour Party which was an alliance of liberals and democratic socialists. This remained until Trotskyists began building a base inside the Labour Party in the 1950s and 1960s.
The Labour-CPGB epoch came to an end with the defeat of the miners, the abolition of the USSR, the liquidation of the CPGB and the emergence of New Labour. New Labour represented the victory of liberalism over democratic socialism, symbolised by the abandonment of clause 4 and the adoption of neo-liberal ideology of market forces, privatisation, competition and flexible labour markets. Democratic socialists were marginalised or excluded. Outside the Labour Party, the CPGB was replaced by a more fragmented Trotskyist movement led by the SWP and the Socialist Party.
The triumph of neo-liberalism over the Tories, Liberal Democrats and the Labour Party marks a new epoch. Defending the social gains of the working class requires a united front of democratic socialists and communists. The time is ripe for breaking the alliance between liberals and democratic socialists and creating a new strategic realignment of democratic socialists and communists into a new party. This is what working class political activists have been trying to create since 1996.
In 1996 the Socialist Labour Party (SLP) set up. It was the first experiment in building a new party around an alliance of democratic socialists and communists. Over the next seventeen years we have seen the Socialist Alliance (SA), Respect, and Trade Union and Socialist Coalition (TUSC) before arriving at Left Unity. The SLP and the SA were attempts to build socialist unity parties of democratic socialists and communists. Respect and the TUSC were attempts to build radical parties around coalitions of socialists and non-socialist communities. Experience has given us two alternatives, the Socialist Unity party and the Radical Coalition party. Left Unity will have to choose which strategy to follow.
3. The Disunity Question
We face two major problems. First is how to relate to the Labour left including the Labour Representation Committee. It would be easy to ignore them or write them off. Second, there are different socialist movements in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland. How these two problems are dealt with may ultimately determine the success or failure of the broad party project.
4. The Ideological Question
Today the British socialist movement, especially in England, is dominated by the ideologies of Trotskyism and Labourism. Trotskyism is an ideology based on the Russian revolution and interpretations of its outcome. Whilst the idea of a Broad Left party is supported and promoted by Trotskyist organisations, none of them are proposing this as the ideology for the new party.
Labourism was originally an idea about trade union representation in parliament. With the adoption of clause 4 in 1918 it then became in effect Socialist Labour as the idea of achieving socialism by political action under the existing British constitution. Labourism was the ‘British Road to Socialism’, an idea developed theoretically by the CPGB and its programme of the same name. The 1945-50 Labour government is taken as the best example of this approach in which a Labour majority in parliament brought in a set of radical economic and social reforms which implemented the Beveridge Report on employment, established the welfare state and NHS and expanded the public sector.
The arrival of New Labour meant that Labourism or Socialist Labour became known as Old Labour. All the various new left party projects – the SLP, SA, Respect and TUSC – have based themselves to a greater or lesser extent on the ideology of Labourism, or Old Labour. This was the easy or ‘natural’ option because of a double coincidence of interests. First those alienated from the Labour Party were naturally looking for a new party with ideas with which they were comfortable. Second the Trotskyist organisations were very familiar with Labourism not least because many had been entryists such as the former Militant Tendency. In seeking allies from the left of the Labour party for a Broad Left project then adopting the ideology of Labourism and promoting its ideas and values was the obvious answer.
Socialist Labourism corresponds to a particular epoch in British working class history from the beginning to the end of the USSR. We are living through the long drawn out period of its death. The ideological problem is that a new party needs a new ideology if it is to be a break with the recent past. Without it we merely have a project to resurrect the dead.
This is one reason why the SLP, SA, Respect and TUSC have failed. The working class needs an historic break from the politically limited ideas of Labourism.
“Neither Labourism nor Trostkyism” expresses the idea that a new party needs a new ideology. The new ideology must in a certain sense be a synthesis of some parts of the old ideas. In this sense it will be familiar to supporters from both. If there is a new ideology which can unite democratic socialists and communists then it can be adopted by the left of the Labour Party and by socialists in Northern Ireland, Scotland and Wales. It will be the end of the British Road to Socialism.
5. The Reform versus Revolution Question
Traditionally the core distinction between democratic socialists and communists has been ‘reform’ versus ‘revolution’. This can sometimes be seen as concentrating on ‘bread and butter’ reforms versus revolutionary ‘jam tomorrow’. If democratic socialists and communists can coexist in one party then this will express itself in ‘reformist’ and ‘revolutionary’ tendencies. This is neither unique nor impossible as examples from the Chartists, German Social Democratic Party in the 1890s and the Russian Social Democratic Labour Party show.
A party which does not define itself as ‘reformist’ or ‘revolutionary’ but contains both tendencies must have some common objectives which both tendencies can support. It must have clear and achievable political aims. The RSDLP, the ANC and Sinn Fein were different kinds of parties but they had in common a commitment to fundamentally changing the political laws or constitutions of the countries in which they organised.
6. The Constitutional Question
The British (UK) constitution is the political ‘law of the land’. All the main constitutional parties, Tories, Liberal Democrats and Labour, are loyal to the constitution and agree to abide by it even if they occasionally propose constitutional reforms. Currently the traditional constitution is under pressure from EU law and from Scotland with its forthcoming referendum on independence. UKIP is a relatively new party which has made defending the constitution from the imposition of EU laws its basic rationale. It has shown that it is possible to make the constitution into a popular issue by invoking arguments about democracy and self government.
A new Left party must stand against the UK constitution. It should be the Anti-UK constitution Internationalist Party (or Anti-UKIP). It must set out to change the political relationship between Crown, Parliament and People – the sovereignty question. Under this general heading come particular issues such as the power of the Executive, the role of the Commons and Lords, relations with the EU and between England, Northern Ireland, Scotland and Wales etc. The implication is a party thinking strategically about the future of democracy and internationalism and not simply responding to events as they unfold.
Trade unions operate within a legal framework of anti-union laws which greatly restricts and hampers their effectiveness. Ignoring the legal-political side means accepting these laws as a given and adapting to the position of powerlessness designed and allotted to them. Trade unionism which limits itself to ‘bread and butter’ reformism and does not challenge the legal framework within which it is imprisoned is ineffective trade unionism. The UK constitution is for the people what the anti-union laws are for the trade union movement.
It is not sufficient to be against the UK constitution, a party must have an alternative not least because people will ask what the new party is for. It must identify itself as the New Constitution Party of the Left. This question boils down to what kind of constitution the new party is for and what priority should this be given to this.
7. The Timing Question
Experiments in launching a new party began in 1996 in recognition of changed circumstances in working class politics. The Iraq war was another milestone. The economic crisis of 2008 has added a new twist. The need for a new party is overripe and reflects a felt and growing need amongst socialists. We are in a new political epoch and haven’t yet caught up with it.
At the same time in trying to catch up with new realities we can go too quickly and fail to win the arguments in the wider movement. Building a real party is a process over a few years and not an event driven by election timetables. The example of Respect is a warning. Whole sections of the left were unconvinced about the project and a longer process before launching might have had a different outcome. There was a perceived arrogance from Galloway and the SWP which they could simply ride over objections from the rest of the left. In the race for a new party, the tortoise might be faster than the hare!
8. The Name of the Party Question
The name of the party is important because it carries a political message. The Left Unity Party does little except tell the electorate that the Left is uniting. It could sound like a party of the left for the left. Do people really care if the Left unites with itself or will they think it deserves to be left to itself? The apparent name of the party indicates that it is not ready to become a real political force and simply reflects the internal dynamics of the left.
The Anti-Constitutional Left Party or the New Constitution Left Party are hardly snappy names but they do imply a party that intends to change the politics of the country rather than being self obsessed with itself. These are not proposals for a name but rather an appeal for thinking seriously about the politics of the party name.
Conclusion – Neither Labourism nor Trotskyism but….
Since the 1980s there have been significant changes in the world economy and UK politics. The rise of neo-liberalism, the weakening of the trade union movement, end of the USSR, the liquidation of the CPGB and the arrival of New Labour have created new conditions for working people. In addition the ‘Peace Process’ in Northern Ireland and devolution in Scotland and Wales have changed the pace and direction of politics across the UK.
During this period the socialist movement has been severely weakened inside and outside the Labour Party becoming marginalised within it and fragmented outside. There have been a number of projects to launch new left parties in England. None of these has succeeded. The most successful was the Scottish Socialist Party before it too broke up and its influence shrank.
The dismantling of the post war ‘Social Monarchy’, and the triumph of liberal or free market capitalist ideology and policies, has been matched by the failure of the old socialist movement to create a real alternative either inside or outside the Labour Party. This situation reflected in the growing disparity of income and wealth, both demands and requires a new direction.
There must be an historic break with the old model in which democratic socialists and communists organised in separate and rival parties dedicated to ‘reform’ or ‘revolution’. The new party cannot be built by repeating or resurrecting the ideas or ideology of Old Labour and the British Road to socialism. Such a strategy would simply reinforce the divisions between socialists inside and outside the Labour Party and between socialists in England, Scotland, Ireland and Wales.
British socialism has accepted and worked within the legal framework of the British constitution, most obviously in the case of the Labour Party and its socialist left wing. Neither has British Trotskyism challenged this, tending to suggest it will be all resolved by the revolution at some time in the distant future. The new party must mark out an historic break with Labourism and Trotskyism and the politics of constitutional conservatism.
The argument here points to an Anti-Constitutional Socialist Party or a New Constitution Socialist Party. Such a party will defend the rights and social welfare of the working class and its allies. However, it would attack and expose the present political system as undemocratic which cannot therefore serve the interests of the majority or secure social justice. Thus the struggle for a new democracy is not a distant goal which can be left for the future to resolve but an urgent priority for the present involving everyone who wants to change the political and economic direction of the country.
27 comments
27 responses to “Towards an Alternative Platform”
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.
I’m not sure what that was all about, but can I suggest that you focus on policy issues and things that matter? That way you might find normal human beings read past the first few lines.
Don’t bother Patrick, join the Labour party instead. That’s what I have had to do, even if holding my nose. Why does this organisation get peoples hopes up, and then starts talking about Lenin, why ?? whyyy ?????
So Patrick,
You are representing the normal people are you? Do please tell us what normals are concerned with. Which platform are they supporting? Are normals the same as what used to be called the man on the clapham omnibus. Some more info about normals would be helpful.
Regards
Steve
Steve,
The title of your piece is ‘an alternative platform’ – thus your potential readership will turn to this page looking for ideas on how to make a better society. Instead, there is a discussion about ‘unity’ by slagging off all other political parties than have gone before, and a detailed use of 1950’s terminology instead of fresh new ideas.
I haven’t written an article yet, so I’m happy to take backseat driver criticism. Likewise I think we all need critique to make ourselves better. And I’m sorry to say your article really did not add anything useful to the debate.
Patrick,
The title is “towards” an alternative platform and as it says it is not an alternative platform. Indeed it is set as a series of questions which Left Unity needs to answer if it is to be successful (in my humble opinion ). So my question back is which question can be safely ignored for example defining unity, the national question, reform v revolution, the need for a new ideology etc of course opportunist thinking says ignore everything that gets in the way only to be tripped up later and fall flat on your face. Lets identify all the pitfalls and elephant traps and steer round them!
Regards
Steve
Patrick,
A quick summary for you and the normals you feel you are representing.
1. The two main platforms on offer LPP and SP are not satisfactory and so we need to consider or think about an alternative.
2. Whilst conditions demand we get a move on we should not rush and get it wrong – act in haste and repent at leisure
3. There have been 15 years getting it wrong with previous attempts. We cannot do another failure. We need to learn from mistakes
4. We need to be clear about what kind of left unity we are talking about – radical unity, socialist unity or Marxist unity
5. A new party needs a new ideology which is neither Labourism nor Trotskyism – the 1945 party versus the 1917 party
6. A new party must deal seriously with the Labour left and the national question
7. Its time to end the British road to socialism
8. A new party must address the failure or crisis of democracy
9. We need a better name than Lefty Party
Hope that helps
Steve
On the Unity Question: we need Radical Unity, but that means Anti-Capitalist Unity, not unity with those who want a more equal capitalism as a goal, i.e. social democrats. Yes to those who think there’s a parliamentary road to socialism, yes to those who are against capitalism but don’t consider themselves socialists, but no to those who want to keep capitalism.
That’s why an Anti-Capitalist Platform is needed.
Or at least an amendment to the LPP to make it overtly & strongly anti-capitalist.
Steve
We can’t be talking about stuff that happened in the past. This is NOW. We can’t be using words to say things normal people don’t say. Like ‘Russia’ and ‘class’. We need to talk about stuff that matters. Like OUR post office.
Dear Maciej,
Of course we have to talk about the past to find out where we went wrong. There is a tendency for younger comrades to think history is bunk. It is like just discovering something new called sex without realising its been going on for millennium. It is about learning from our ancestors and respecting their struggles and achievements and thinking we are not so clever to think we know it all and they have nothing to teach. Of course it leads to arguments about what in the past can help us today. Revolutions are great teachers which is why we look at them in amazement and remember that things can change quite radically.
Regards
Steve
Hi Steve –
I fully agree. I was just doing an ironic impersonation of a frequently heard complaint. Sorry about that! :)
By the way, you’ve really put me off by saying revolution. This is NOW.
Taking the mickey out of uk voters and their concerns?
Maciej,
Fair enough irony doesn’t come over in writing and I just took your comment at face value. Smiley face back!
Onwards and upwards to the Now Revolution
Steve
An Excellent and thought provoking contribution to the debate from Steve… particularly loved the idea of Anti UKIP ! and the Stress on the importance of Constitutional matters… This is why I have previously contributed on the importance of breaking from the imperialist prison that the UK represents… LU should organise on a national basis. Separate parties in Wales Scotland and England the name I have proposed for the new English Party – Peoples United – In July I did this rough draft of a platform statement that has gained the support of no one… but which I think manages to be radical and populist in tone while making an appeal to historical Left Labour traditions and posing the issues of working class self defence against the state… and mentions the word socialist once.
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.
Aims 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 exploited, oppressed, alienated and marginalised by the reality of life under capitalism
II.
To Work with those in the neighbouring countries of 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. “THE PEOPLE UNITED WILL NEVER BE DEFEATED”
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. 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. The Dispute 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.
6. Defence
Our Party recognises that the British State and Monarchy are violent institutions and their various agencies will seek to undermine the establishment of Peoples Power in any territory over which it claims sovereignty.
Therefore our Party encourages and will empower members to defend themselves and the communities in which we live from any abuses of power by agents of the crown. We aim to create units of volunteers who will act to protect and defend our members and our communities from any threat that may be directed at us by the British State.
Mark Anthony France
PEOPLE UNITED – fairness, justice, respect
Dear Mark,
What you argue has definetly something going for it. I am sure there is some common ground here which might enable us to have further discussion about an Alternative Platform which is neither the politics of Labourism nor Trotskyism.
Regards
Steve
Left Unity needs to get focused on polices which could appeal to UK voters expressed in everyday language. Decent homes, work,access to high quality education and healthcare for all uk residents. Social ownership of healthcare, education,utility companies, railways and banks. A clear pathway to social ownership of trade,industry and commerce and to a participative democracy. Couple good polices with a commitment to community work with individuals experiencing problems now and Left Unity will succeed. This needs a new kind of activist committed to work in their local community. There is a need for this community action now.
Debate between various marxist groups is interesting and important but has potential for an oozlum outcome for Left Unity.
David,
All good down to earth policies which every man and women would want like a decent home. The problem there is no means of getting this. Are we going to win a majority in parliament and then pass the Decent Homes Law? Are we going to ignore parliament set up community house building coops ourselves. Don’t forget Labour will also propose a Decent Homes policy. Ends sound like good jam tomorrow but what are the means? How will our policy of Good Stuff for All have any credibility?
Regards
Steve
Two good suggestions for action on these policies – win an election and take direct action now. Left Unity can build electoral support in communities with actions which support individuals experiencing difficulties. Community housing coops would be great. Some student groups are already doing this I think.
I have worked in the same factory for six years and there is no union. Each of us are on different pay rates but do the same work, few of us talk of pay and conditions let alone talk of joining a union. The reasons are many, but it boils down to fear, a fear of each other. The management find out everything that goes on the shop floor, because the shop floor is policed by those on the best pay rates, they rat on their work mates to management. This can occur because the company is privately owned, not a plc or the public sector.
What I am trying to say is there is no solidarity especially amongst the younger workers, this basic lack of solidarity amongst the working class is the real problem that Left Unity has to address before it can get anywhere with the vast bulk of the working class. Left Unity has to concentrate on the things on things that matter to the working class , jobs that pay a living wage, free child care, affordable social housing, keeping the NHS public, welfare provision. Left Unity must at the same time educate the working class that the bullshit that is individualism, just looking after your own individual interests doesn’t work.
Left Unity will get nowhere without bringing the working class with it, without first helping the working class find class solidarity, because without working class solidarity the Left will achieve what it has achieved up until now, disunity.
Nice summary of all that is wrong with freemarket economics and the greedy individualism at the root of it all. left Unity could take action to support workers now. No need to wait for an election.
Dear Streetwise
Thanks for your comment. This is why “unity” is so important and as you say “solidarity” so connected to it. You link reality of life in work with this as a political project. We have to make the connection between politics and real life – the politics of unity and a life in which solidarity is normal. Perhaps democracy is the way into the problem.
Regards
Steve
Great post, absolutely, instead its Syria, Islamaphobia/EDL, etc, the Environment, all laudable concerns, but we have a economic crisis now which is destroying lives now, including the suicide of a man in Crawley this week over benefit cuts/harrassment
Thanks for the article Steve – sensible and useful to have such a clear calm piece at this stage in the debate. I agree with all the points you make and the way you frame the alternatives helped me get a better perspective.
I don’t want to ignore the point re learning why the rush work on Respect, for example, ultimately undermined its successes with a socialist agenda – we must make a part with a strong durable undercarriage.
I do think that the unity part should come about initially by all accepting a broad composition of members views (we are all some kind of socialist) but uniting on A) a core new contemporary philosophy / ideology (there have been many significant thoughts and new ideas since Marx right) and B) a NOW set of progressive policies which deal with the worst problems and move us forward because they can be supported by enough people to win power and be implemented (Bradford West +).
Picking up where you leave off Id like to know what you think of the following sketch of such a progressive agenda as follows:
*** PHILOSOPHY ***
The Progressive Community Party will use the best old and the best new ideas and techniques to create and maintain a caring sharing community that strives toward a happy/fulfilling life for current and future generations – people and planet.
Community and democracy centric, supporting individual liberty, effort and enterprise while recognising that no man is an island, totally responsible for her or his own actions, successes or failures. Striving toward a secure and sustainable material habitat that enables a decent life for all, whatever gifts they inherit, without threat or harm from others. Let us make no war on anyone for material gain. Let us not suffer to know others suffer without making every effort to help and to remove the cause of that suffering.
*** POLICIES ***
1. Maximum earnings differential 10 (min wage 18K max wage 180K p.a.)
2. Community provision of universal services:
– housing
– health
– education
– travel
– energy
– research.
3. Employment for all – using all of the following when and if necessary:
– state investment / intervention in selected industries
– part-time work (work sharing without differential loss)
– state invested research and development.
4. Contribution-based welfare ensuring basic standard of living for all, as follows:
– ‘unable to work’ fully supported
– ‘prefer to work less’ supported with low end differential
– ‘prefer to work more’ supported with higher differential
– success in generating efficiencies/advances supported with higher differential
– elderly prefer to work /not work, full supported.
5. Personal Liberty
– Freedom of speech/expression fully supported
– Freedom of action supported except actions agreed by the community to be harmful to others/the planet
– Private ownership supported
– Private capital accumulations supported with appropriate tax rules that mandate reinvestment of company earnings into the business, cap non-business accumulation / offshore banking / financial tools used.
6. Constitutional reform
-Business funding of political parties illegal.
-Personal funding of political parties capped to % of earnings.
– MPs and candidates paid by the community only (as MPs are today)
ATB, GerryC
My view is that Steve’s article is the sort of carefully thought-out piece that we need in the run-up to November 30th. It asks most of the necessary and important questions and has a good stab at pointing the way forward. In very largely supporting Steve’s aims and conclusion, I should like to offer the following, I hope helpful, comments :
on “2. The Party Question” paragraph 3 : There is not necessarily a clear dividing line between democratic socialists and communists. As a member of the CPGB from 1966 to being a delegate at the final Congress in 1991, I came to understand that advancing democracy was, in British conditions, effectively synonymous with developing a strategy for achieving what we called a socialist society. Steve more-or-less says as much in the final sentence of his article.
“3. The Disunity Question” : Just as we cannot write off the Labour Left, we also cannot write off the Green Party. As a Labour member and councillor ( the latter from 1999 to 2011 ), I found myself having more affinity with the Green 2010 Manifesto than with Labour’s, although I did find parts of it naive and ill-thought-out ( for example on education ). Shoule LU stand candidates where the Greens are strong ? Should LU stand a candidate where doing so would, under First-Past-the-Post (FP for future reference), probably split the anti-Tory vote and so contribute to another dose of this vicious government ?
Does that matter ?
“4. The Ideological Question” paragraph 1 : While supporting the general thrust, many Trotskyists would probably dispute Steve’s definition. And I would argue that the real essence of Trotskyism is the concept of “transitional demands”. At the end of paragraph 6, Steve says, “It will be the end of the British Road to Socialism (BRS)”. As an old CPGB-er, I would argue that we can still learn from at least some of the ideas in THE “British Road to Socialism”, the CPGB’s programme, especially the concept of the Broad Democratic Alliance. Rather than “the end of the BRS, I think we need a NEW BRS.
“5. The Reform versus Revolution Question” . I don’t like the word “versus” here, because I don’t think that reform and revolution are incompatible. My definition of “revolution” is a fundamental transformation of society by whatever means : In Britain, the revolution which turned Feudalism into Capitalism took a few hundred years ( Around the turn of the 20th Century, my grandmother was part of an essentially feudal set-up on Lord Falmouth’s estate in Cornwall ). I would, in this context, recommend that LU supporters ensure that they have got to grips with Antonio Gramsci’s concepts of hegemony and counter-hegemony : Gramsci was writing in the 1920s – I think he was about 90 years ahead of his time !
“6. The Constitutional Question”. To Steve’s list of constitutional issues, I would like to add the FP electoral system – because I am convinced that replacing FP by a preferential and broadly-proportional system ( preferably STV as is used in local elections in Scotland and Northern Ireland ) would radically change the whole political climate – indeed, that is why the Tories and many in Labour implacably want to keep FP.
Finally, I want to strongly support Steve’s statement, in the 4th paragraph of his Conclusion : “There must be an historic break with the old model in which democratic socialists and communists (are) organised in separate and rival parties….”
Geoff Gay
Hi Geoff,
Thanks for your comments. I am going to make another contribution and incorporate some points you and others have made. I agree about the British Road which was very significant for the whole left. But it captured the liberal- social democrat versus communist model. The British Road still operates implicitly. We need to break from that and have instead a Different British Road or a New British Road which may not be British so just a New Road.
I agree not to set reform versus revolution but this is what much of the current left does. We need to break from that. On Gramsci I have not referenced him but this could be an interpretation of his approach to root the struggle for democracy in our own history not primarily in Russian history.
Regards
Steve
Thanking some thoughtful comments. But I am about to go away and not able to answer. Hope to be able to respond when I am back to more interesting points. I am not ignoring comments from Geoff and Gerry and hope others will continue discussion to which I will respond when back.
Regards
Steve
Thanks for a very thoughtful and helpful article. I was particularly struck by the definition of ‘radical unity’ – I must admit I thought that this was what Left Unity was intended to be but clearly some of the platforms do not envisage this. In particular I thought there was an intention to involve anarchists or those with anarcho tendencies (who by the way are not necessarily younger!). In this regard the anti-constitution stance is of special importance.
I am rather suspicious of some of these claims/assertions about ‘bread and butter issues’. Of course these are important but they can sometimes may read as if issues such as women’s rights, free speech, personal liberty, imperialism and its wars, homophobia, racism, the (in)justice system, even the class system itself are of secondary importance or ‘can wait’. Even if this is not intended (and I am sure it is not) any Left Party needs to put issues like these at the head of its agenda along with the ‘bread and butter’ issues or it does risk becoming a Left Labour project.
In summary I am arguing for the broadest possible theoretical appeal along with highly principled specifics – however difficult this may be to achieve.