Log in

View Full Version : Left Unity: Communist Platform



Die Neue Zeit
10th October 2013, 15:04
Communist Platform (http://www.cpgb.org.uk/home/weekly-worker/981/communist-platform)



Statement of aims and principles: Tina Becker, Ian Donovan, Moshé Machover, Mike Macnair, Peter Manson, Yassamine Mather, Sarah McDonald, Emily Orford, Lee Rock, James Turley.

1 The [Left Unity] party is a socialist party. It seeks to bring about the end of capitalism and its replacement by the rule of the working class. Our ultimate aim is a society based on the principle of ‘From each according to their abilities; to each according to their needs’. A moneyless, classless, stateless society within which each individual can develop their fullest individuality.

2. Under capitalism, production is predominantly carried out in order to make a profit for the few, regardless of the needs of society or damage to the environment. Neither capitalism nor its state apparatus can be made to work in the interests of the mass of the population. The rule of the working class requires a state to defend itself , but a state that is withering away, a semi-state.

3. Socialism means the fullest political, social and economic democracy. It means a society in which the wealth and the means of production are no longer in private hands, but are owned in common. Everyone will have the right to participate in deciding how the wealth of society is used and how production is planned to meet the needs of all and to protect the natural world on which we depend. We reject the idea that the undemocratic regimes that existed in the former Soviet Union and other countries were socialist, or represented either the political rule of the working class or some kind of step on the road to socialism.

4. The [Left Unity] party opposes all oppression and discrimination, whether on the basis of gender, nationality, ethnicity, disability, religion or sexual orientation and aims to create a society in which such oppression and discrimination no longer exist.

5. Socialism has to be international. The interests of the working class are basically the same everywhere The [Left Unity] party opposes all imperialist wars and military interventions. The [Left Unity] party rejects the idea that there is a national solution to the problems of capitalism. It stands for the maximum solidarity and cooperation between the working class in Britain and elsewhere. It will work with others across Europe for the overthrow of the constitution of the European Union and the creation of a united socialist Europe under democratic working class rule.

6. The [Left Unity] party aims to win support from the working class and all those who want to bring about the socialist transformation of society, which can only be accomplished by the working class itself acting democratically as the majority in society. This means that the organisations of the working class must be democratically, not bureaucratically, organised.

7. The [Left Unity] Party aims to win political power to end capitalism, not to manage it. It will not participate in governmental coalitions with capitalist parties at national or local level.

8. As long as the working class is not able to win political power for itself the [Left Unity] party will participate in and seek to lead campaigns to defend and radically extend all past gains: eg, living standards and democratic rights. But it recognises that all gains can only be partial and temporary so long as capitalism survives.

9. The [Left Unity] party will use both parliamentary and extra-parliamentary means to build support for its goals of sweeping away the capitalist state and the socialist transformation of society.

10. All elected representatives will be accountable to the party membership and will receive no payment above the average wage of a skilled worker (the exact level to be determined by the party conference), plus legitimate expenses.

11. All members of the party must accept that these aims and principles form the basis of agreed common actions, though they might have disagreements with particular points.

argeiphontes
10th October 2013, 19:17
Eh, it's a little too traditional for me. If these are their "aims", then they should include more about the society they desire. If they want Left Unity, then they shouldn't ask you to assent to contested points like the dictatorship of the proletariat in paragraph 2. You are also asked to basically agree that SIOC is impossible, in #5.

Why didn't they just copy the more open-ended, inclusive, and modern sounding Principles of the OpenSource Libertarian Socialist Party (http://www.revleft.com/vb/group.php?do=discuss&group=&discussionid=7674)? ;)

Thirsty Crow
10th October 2013, 19:21
Eh, it's a little too traditional for me. If these are their "aims", then they should include more about the society they desire. If they want Left Unity, then they shouldn't ask you to assent to contested points like the dictatorship of the proletariat in paragraph 2. You are also asked to basically agree that SIOC is impossible, in #5.

The contestation is due to a fetish for the historical split within the First International and proclivity towards semantic argument.
Of course excluding the issue of actual advocacy of the fusion between the party and the state, with the latter being the sole bearer of historical interests of the working class (and consequently hostile to and ultimately destructive of other proletarian currents).

The Idler
10th October 2013, 21:18
While it might exclude anarchists who left the First International (many political statements would), it would also exclude impossibilists who left the Second International and is much closer to the Third International.

Tim Cornelis
10th October 2013, 21:28
Is this the same as the Left Unity's Socialist Platform? It's a kind of weak articulation anyway. But nothing much disagreeable about it.

Ah, I just had someone explain to me the SP did not allow amendments so the communist platform split. Which I doubt it'll be successful.

Q
11th October 2013, 09:44
You are also asked to basically agree that SIOC is impossible, in #5.
You're not asked to agree with anything, but to accept this platform as a basis of common action (point 11). Demanding agreement is the basis for the sectarian politics of 'purity'. Acceptance implies that things can be changed, should a democratic majority wish for it.


Why didn't they just copy the more open-ended, inclusive, and modern sounding Principles of the OpenSource Libertarian Socialist Party (http://www.revleft.com/vb/group.php?do=discuss&group=&discussionid=7674)? ;)
It's based on the Socialist Platform, which despite having a majority standing for most of the amendments banned actually carrying out the amendments.


Ah, I just had someone explain to me the SP did not allow amendments so the communist platform split. Which I doubt'll be successful.
I agree that this will split the opposition against the Left Party Platform, but as Mark Fischer makes the point (http://cpgb.org.uk/home/weekly-worker/981/left-unity-communist-platform-formed), it at least makes Marxist politics being discussed at conference. So I think it is a principled stance against anti-democratic and opportunist moves.

The Idler
11th October 2013, 18:36
Did the SP ban amendments or just postpone them until signatories had been consulted?

Die Neue Zeit
12th October 2013, 23:30
You're not asked to agree with anything, but to accept this platform as a basis of common action (point 11). Demanding agreement is the basis for the sectarian politics of 'purity'. Acceptance implies that things can be changed, should a democratic majority wish for it.

It's based on the Socialist Platform, which despite having a majority standing for most of the amendments banned actually carrying out the amendments.

I agree that this will split the opposition against the Left Party Platform, but as Mark Fischer makes the point (http://cpgb.org.uk/home/weekly-worker/981/left-unity-communist-platform-formed), it at least makes Marxist politics being discussed at conference. So I think it is a principled stance against anti-democratic and opportunist moves.

I think the moves against amending the Socialist Platform were to safeguard from any future "Clause Four" moments. However, since this is a fundamental statement of principles and not a program, I do agree that agreement and not acceptance should be the expectation.

I think a page should be borrowed from the old SFIO, which had a rule that disallowed watering down the program but OK'd hardening it.

argeiphontes
13th October 2013, 00:06
I do agree that agreement and not acceptance should be the expectation.

Call me naive, but I'm not sure how I would accept something I didn't agree with. Or vice versa (how I would agree with something I don't accept). Maybe the principles aren't sufficiently vague.

The Idler
13th February 2014, 17:23
Why are supporters of the Communist Platform opposed to open meetings?

Illegalitarian
14th February 2014, 05:04
I don't know, man. They seem like lame October Roadists to me

blake 3:17
14th February 2014, 06:28
Latest version of the Communist Platform for LU: http://www.cpgb.org.uk/home/weekly-worker/997/communist-platform

Statement on revolutionary unity from Socialist Resistance: http://socialistresistance.org/5914/the-way-forward-for-revolutionary-unity

Die Neue Zeit
15th February 2014, 07:14
^^^ Governmental power

Left Unity aims to win political power to end capitalism, not to manage it. It will not participate in governmental coalitions with capitalist parties at national or local level. Nor will it aim to administer the existing capitalist state alone or in coalition with reformists, in the manner of either old or New Labour.

The elevation of Left Unity to government either alone or as part of a working class bloc must be generally understood as heralding the abolition of the core of the capitalist state - centrally the police, the officer caste of the armed forces, the capitalist judiciary and prison system, and the command structure of the civil service, etc. The creation of such a workers’ government must therefore be accompanied by the existence of independent, armed working class organisations, capable of successfully defending the government and its working class base against the disintegrating capitalist state forces.

It must be clearly understood that without such conditions being in place, no working class government can be formed.

bad ideas actualised by alcohol
17th February 2014, 13:28
Interesting how the wording has changed from accept to agree.
"8. All members of Left Unity who agree with these aims and principles are urged to join the Communist Platform."

I assume this is because now they are now a faction within Left Unity.

Brotto Rühle
17th February 2014, 13:36
You hear that proletariat? It's all good, Left Unity will abolish capitalism and take power for you.

The Idler
17th February 2014, 15:56
Interesting how the wording has changed from accept to agree.
"8. All members of Left Unity who agree with these aims and principles are urged to join the Communist Platform."

I assume this is because now they are now a faction within Left Unity.
In normal parlance, accept and agree are used interchangeably.

Q
18th February 2014, 13:31
In normal parlance, accept and agree are used interchangeably.
Not in CPGB parlance though, where there is an explicit difference emphasised between the two, like for example here (http://www.cpgb.org.uk/home/about-the-cpgb/faq):


Other groups, past and present, have couched their identity in distinctive theoretical lines, from the Russian question to the nature of dialectical materialism. This is a recipe for building delusional sects and obedience cults, not parties. What is needed is political unity; theoretical debate, at the end of the day, is a precondition of the scientific method, and thus of relating to the real world in any practical meaningful way. Enforced theoretical agreement simply produces wishful thinking and brown-nosing. CPGB members are required to accept our Draft Programme as a guide to practice; they are not required to agree with everything in it, or even pretend they do in public.

The Idler
19th February 2014, 10:33
But the CPGB have also used 'disagreement' as a reason to not 'accept' positions of other groups. Wouldn't be simpler to drop this distinction? And not 'accept' positions they 'disagree' with?