"Left Unity" results in social democracy

[Yet_Another_Boring_Marxist]

From an article by the North Star:

http://www.thenorthstar.info/?p=11445


Based on the votes, I would estimate that somewhat over 400 people gathered in Bloomsbury on Saturday to launch the new left party first suggested by Ken Loach some months ago. The attendees were disproportionately veterans of the Left, older and white, but there were a lot of them.



There were few real surprises. The ‘platforms’ debate was settled—although only a fool would say ‘finally’. Putting it schematically, the debate was between those who favoured a ‘broad left’ party and those who wanted a more traditional hard Left organisation based on a programme redolent—to my eyes—of the sort of ‘where we stand’ programme that Trotskyist organisations sometimes publish.

The Left Party Platform, representing the ‘broad left’ option, passed overwhelmingly with some positive but relatively minor amendments. It gained about three quarters of the votes. Approximately another quarter aligned with alternatives such as the Socialist Platform. This reflected what one would have thought was the balance of opinion in Left Unity.


Don't read the rest, it's just a bunch of nonsense about the internal affairs of Britain's newest bourgeois party. The only thing note worthy is the underlined section, the fact that the new party adopted the "Left Unity" platform.

So what is the left party platform?

Left Party Platform statement

Since the near-collapse of the global financial system in 2008, capitalism has plunged deeper and deeper into crisis. Governments, led by the Troika of European institutions, have pursued austerity policies, ostensibly to reduce government deficits. In reality these policies have been designed to destroy the social and economic gains working people have made over many decades, reducing wages and obliterating welfare states. The economic crisis has increasingly become a social and political crisis as people face poverty, hunger and even death, as a result of the catastrophic and government-imposed failure of health systems and social services. The environmental crisis driven particularly by climate change caused by the unending search for profit is wreaking devastation too, particularly in the Global South

People are fighting back – in the streets and squares, workplaces, social and political institutions – striking, occupying and refusing to collaborate with state brutality and repression. In Greece, France, Germany and elsewhere, new political parties have developed, drawing together a range of left forces, posing political, social and economic alternatives. They are anti-capitalist parties that stand against neo-liberalism and the destruction of welfare states – whether at the hands of the right or of social democracy – and fight for alternative social, economic and political policies. Here in Britain we face the savage onslaught of the coalition government, destroying our hard-won gains, but the Labour Party backs the cuts, accepts the coalition’s narrative of attack on the most oppressed in society, and refuses to pose an economic alternative or represent the interests and needs of ordinary people.

As yet we have no viable political alternative to the left of Labour, yet we urgently need a new political party which rejects austerity and war, which will defend and restore the gains of the past, fighting to take back into public ownership those industries and utilities privatised over the last three decades, but will also move forward with a vision of a transformed society: a party which advocates and fights for the democratisation of our society, economy, state and political institutions, transforming these arenas in the interests of the majority.

Many agree that we need a new left party which will present an alternative set of values of equality and justice: socialist, feminist, environmentalist and against all forms of discrimination. Its politics and policies will stand against capitalism, imperialism, war, racism and fascism. Its immediate tasks will be to oppose austerity and the scapegoating which accompanies it, defend the welfare state and those worst affected by the onslaught, fight to restore workers’ rights and advance alternative social and economic policies, redistributing wealth to the working class.

Its political practice will be democratic, diverse and inclusive, organising amongst working class communities with no interests apart from theirs, committed to open dialogue and new ways of working; to the mutual respect and tolerance of differences of analysis; to the rejection of the corruption of conventional political structures and their reproduction of the gender domination of capitalist society. It will recognise that economic transformation does not automatically bring an end to discrimination and injustice and that these sites of struggle must be developed and won, openly and together.

It will recognise that international solidarity is fundamental to the success of any resistance and the achievement of any political progress; that the problems we face in Britain are systemic problems that cannot be resolved in Britain alone and which require an international response and an international alternative. A new left party will work with other left organisations and movements in Europe and internationally such as Syriza and Front de Gauche, to build coordination, strategic links and common actions to advance that struggle. The rise of the far right across Europe is a stark warning of what may come to pass if the left in Europe fails to be effective and combat the barbarism of capitalism and fascism.

This Left Party Platform seeks support to found and build a new left party on this basis.

Now if you notice, there is really no mention of the revolutionary overthrow of capitalism and the establishment of a Communist society. Even if the presence or non presence exact word "Communism" or "Revolution" isn't particularly important, what this programme fails to do is establish a clear definition of what socialism is, the methods of achieving it, the tactics of a revolutionary party and other relevant information. All that's there is some anti-austerity rhetoric there to appeal towards the anti-cuts activist crew but little towards anything that looks like what could be used to build a real communist organization. In absence of these things it seems that what we have here is a number of ostentatiously "revolutionary" groups merge to form a larger watered down group to promote a vision of "socialism" that, outside of the context of the revolutionary programme, is little more than window dressing for social democracy. There is some praise for other social democratic groups. Kinda ironic that they appeal to anti-fascism when Syriza is in bed with ultra-nationalists:

http://www.wsws.org/en/articles/2013/04/04/srza-a04.html

Of course not included in this paulty list of left groups are any parties with the abolition of capitalism in mind, probably because that'd offend someones sensibilities.

What does this prove? That the end result of all of this effort towards uniting the left, towards building an alternative to the political establishment and paving the way for the self emancipation of the proletariat, resulted in the creation of a left that is palpably worse than the left which existed before hand. But more significantly, it shows the fact that British Trotskyism and the rest of the British Communism Movement is and shall always be a dead end, and that the only progress shall come when the left is finally destroyed so it can be born anew.

So at the end of the day I suppose the result of Left Unity was a tremendous success for the working class. Now that the left has finally destroyed itself and completed the merger with social democracy, maybe we can finally stop caring about it and move on to bigger and better things for the Communist Movement. Perhaps we can finally learn from those wise words of the Signalfire collective about the worthlessness of the "left" project. http://www.signalfire.org/?p=13188

[blake 3:17]

^^^Try reading.

From the Left Party Platform statement you quoted: "Many agree that we need a new left party which will present an alternative set of values of equality and justice: socialist, feminist, environmentalist and against all forms of discrimination."


WSW is an anti-worker cult & signalfire seems to be what??? steal iphones and support Red India???

whatever-- I'd be glad to join Left Unity

[blake 3:17]

From a pretty smart post on the Left Unity site from this past May. Link to the full post is at the bottom.


Socialist
Socialism means different things to different people. Ed Miliband, Ken Loach and Stalin have all said they’re socialists. Two of them are lying. Which one depends on your personal definition of Socialism. At a Left Unity meeting we had a debate about the word socialist. It was said that we have to be honest with people but if I tell a stranger I’m a socialist, and they think that socialism is the same as supporting the Soviet Union, am I really being honest with them? One time I was chatting pleasantly away with a Czech woman in a café in Sheffield, I mentioned that I was a socialist and she stormed away saying the socialists had killed her grandparents. A friend of mine, knowing that I’m a socialist, said I should write a blog, sincerely adding “they’ll love it in China and Russia”. You only get one chance to make a first impression. Let’s explain what socialism is before we call ourselves socialist.

http://leftunity.org/saying-revolutionary-less-wont-make-us-less-revolutionary/

[Yet_Another_Boring_Marxist]

From the Left Party Platform statement you quoted: "Many agree that we need a new left party which will present an alternative set of values of equality and justice: socialist, feminist, environmentalist and against all forms of discrimination."


Actually in all fairness I read it once and I pressed control F to make sure I wasn't missing anything, I guess for whatever reason it didn't work. I'll re-adjust my critique accordingly.


WSW is an anti-worker cult


Doesn't change the fact that the accusations within the article are true. Or more importantly that Left Unity views a social democratic party as a model rather than as an enemy.


& signalfire seems to be what??? steal iphones and support Red India???


Actually the signalfire collective is involved with prison solidarity work and puts out its fair share of polemics. It's also involved in an effort to build a new Communist party in the US.

And the point of the article is that the Left and the working class are completely alien to eachother, and that the interests of the left are the anti-thesis of the interests of the working class.

The point still stands that the left just united on a social democratic platform despite the fact that the word socialism is there. I'll re-write the OP, kinda unfortunate that between now and the time that it takes to do that I'm sure a slew of comments will appear pointing at the mistake.


From a pretty smart post on the Left Unity site from this past May. Link to the full post is at the bottom.



http://leftunity.org/saying-revolutionary-less-wont-make-us-less-revolutionary/

From that article:



Reformist/ Revolutionary
What is a revolution if it’s not a series of radical reforms? For me, this whole distinction is a way for “revolutionaries” to smear “reformists” by which they mean anyone who doesn’t already identify themselves with an explicitly revolutionary ideology like that of “Trotskyism”, “Leninism” or “Anarchism”. This definition of revolutionary excludes the vast majority of actual revolutionaries. The Egyptians, Venezuelans and Cubans are all out as is Alexis Tsipiras and his Greek Syriza party. All these groups were inspired, not by the ideas of dead Russians, but by the desire to radically change (reform) their material conditions.

A revolution in the context of revolutionary communism is the overthrow of all present conditions. The struggle for reforms may be involved in this process as may some reforms, and all of this is an important discussion to have in the formulation of the communist programme, however "radical reforms" are meaningless. When social democrats are included in a list of "actual revolutionaries" then obviously the definition being used is not the one shared by Communists


There is another thing worth engaging on here.


Capitalist/Anti-Capitalist
I’ve heard people at meetings endlessly saying things like “I don’t want to be part of a party that tries to reform Capitalism”, “Capitalism’s rotten to the core, we need to get rid of Capitalism”. What I’ve never heard is someone explain what Capitalism is and what getting rid of it would look like. For me, Capitalism is where businesses aren’t owned by their workers which is a ridiculous and undemocratic arrangement. Does this make me an anti-capitalist? I would say it does, many would say it doesn’t. If we can’t define what Capitalism is then how can we decide what’s the point of even talking about whether we’re an anti-capitalist party, still less falling out over it. Furthermore, the vast majority of British people don’t define themselves as anti-capitalist and so any leaflet from an “anti-capitalist” party will go straight in the bin. A party that says they want workers to control their workplaces on the other hand, re-build the welfare state and re-nationalise the railways and utilities on the other hand sounds good to everyone.

This is half right and half wrong, yes we need to clearly define what capitalism is, and to be quite frank this person seems to be arguing with a straw man since that work was already laid out by Marx and I don't think anyone on the Communist left doesn't know what capitalism is. (you can argue that his critique of capitalism isn't relevant for today if you want, that's fine. but I don't think you can argue that he didn't define it correctly in a way that is still relevant). What is wrong is the idea that we need to appeal to people on the basis of reforms, If we are going to achieve Communism, then it is going to be by doing the hard work of educating the working class about what Communism is, how we get there, and why it is desirable. Of course Communists should always be present in the struggle for reforms but that is because Communists have no interests separate from the working class. However to put Communism to the sidelines because it is too offensive in favor of these demands is to negate the revolutionary nature of the programme. We are winning the working class to socialism, not to a better capitalism, hence our programme shall inherently alienate the vast majority of working people and quite frankly that's a good thing.

Of course there needs to be a discussion of the context which reforms fit into the programme. Personally I think the communist programme at this point should try to advance tactical political reforms that allow the class more breathing room in the struggle (protection of union rights and the indefinite strike, ensuring the legality of wildcat strikes, preventing the repression that comes after a violent act, ect) and that aid the actual process of revolution (ending surveillance, defunding the cops and military, disarming the state as much as possible). Though to be honest I don't think economic demands are useful as a component to a communist programme

[blake 3:17]

don't bother editing the OP unless it seems urgent....

I'm not trying to give you a hard time, just have an honest debate.


Actually the signalfire collective is involved with prison solidarity work and puts out its fair share of polemics. It's also involved in an effort to build a new Communist party in the US.

And the point of the article is that the Left and the working class are completely alien to eachother, and that the interests of the left are the anti-thesis of the interests of the working class.

signalfire could be OK -- just from the post linked to it was really random. I'm all for prisoner solidarity. Polemics? They get tiresome.

I'm pretty interested in what you're saying about the interests of the left and working class being antithetical.

One of the reasons I'd be enthused about joining/participating in Left Unity would be those contradictions seem a little less kookoo than a lot of Left stuff I've participated in. One minute you're working for an extra dollar an hour! Then it's tenant defense! For Iraqi refugees! Then it's an educational about a metal workers strike in Mexico! Then gay and lesbian struggles in Indonesia! Then it's an educational about a health care workers strike in Mexico! Then! Then! & nobody you know knows wtf you talkin bout

[blake 3:17]

shoulda just quoted this from tha article I linked to:


I’ve got a couple of points
I’ve found that when people say this at meetings it means they’ve got a speech prepared in which they’ll attempt to spell out what’s wrong with society and how to fix it. This’ll go on forever and will bore people away from Left Unity for good. Keep it as short as possible, people have short attention spans and are impatient for change.

http://leftunity.org/saying-revolutionary-less-wont-make-us-less-revolutionary/

[Yet_Another_Boring_Marxist]

don't bother editing the OP unless it seems urgent....


Naw it's not about that, the OP was constructing a straw man and you rightfully pointed it out, so it'd be unprincipled to leave it up.


I'm not trying to give you a hard time, just have an honest debate.


Fair enough.



I'm pretty interested in what you're saying about the interests of the left and working class being antithetical.


First of all I think it's important to understand the left in its current historical form. I'm going to point towards the British left as a case study but I think that what I am saying contains both universal and particular elements. Whenever I hear the British Left talk about the working class they always speak of it as a homogenous blob, which contains an "advanced section" that consists of the most politicized members of the class. By this I'm referring to the tendency of the British left to debate their relation towards the Labour Party and the various trade unions as if these groups are what the working class consists of. On that note there exists a tendency to equate Communism with the most advanced section of the working class, however when we have a movement which tails social democracy the opposite is true. The reason why I posted that link is because it demonstrates that this truism, that the broad left, including unions, the labour party, activist groups, and what not, are what the "advanced section", I.E the Communists need to win over, has been turned on its head. What we see in this moment is a left movement that is afraid of the working class in revolt because it is not merged itself with the working class but the enemy of the working class, the bourgeois
. What we see here is that this left is not this thing that's on our side that we need to win over, but that it is on the other side of the fence and that by participating in it, Communists betray the working class.

This has alot of repercussions for how Communists conceptualize themselves in relation to the working class movement. We aren't on the extreme end of this left-right spectrum, we exist separate and opposed to it. Communism is the real movement that opposes all presently existing conditions. More importantly we are not attempting to build the movement, we are a body of workers that wishes to aid our class in liberating itself. At the present state the Far-Left has a relation to the left, but it does not conceptualize itself within the working class. To be quite frank, we aren't the vanguards, we aren't the leaders, all of this navel gazing over "The Party" be it from Trotskyists, Kaufskyites Bordigists or any other tendency, is nothing but self parody because at the present stage we have no relation to the class
.

Now what is worth pondering is what exactly is the distinction between aiding the working class in its liberation and trying to build the left. As of now I admit that I'm not really presenting a complete treatise, until these ideas are devloped further I admit that right now what I am presenting is semantics. But the point is that I am making is that we need to break from "the left" and really spend some to flesh out that distinction between us and the "left".


One of the reasons I'd be enthused about joining/participating in Left Unity would be those contradictions seem a little less kookoo than a lot of Left stuff I've participated in. One minute you're working for an extra dollar an hour! Then it's tenant defense! For Iraqi refugees! Then it's an educational about a metal workers strike in Mexico! Then gay and lesbian struggles in Indonesia! Then it's an educational about a health care workers strike in Mexico! Then! Then! & nobody you know knows wtf you talkin bout


to be honest I don't know what your talking about, seems a wee bit incoherent.

But what I think you are getting at hear is that what left unity could do is serve as a platform to unite various causes and that in of itself is positive. And I'd just like to say that I'm not in opposition to left unity on the basis that I think its bad. I think its great. I want reforms, I want a better life, I want all of those tings that you mentioned in this paragraph. But what I think what is worth questioning is the value of each of these struggles. If me and some activists go up to do our activist thing and make some protests then what is achieved? I'm going to be perfectly honest, simply because I think honesty might help this debate go better, there are so many other things I can think of that I'd rather do than the whole activist shindig. Why? Because it is all just so egausting and nothing really comes of it. Struggle for the sake of struggle isn't inherently valuable, there lies the core fault in activism. Without engaging it tactically, as a means of either building working class power through working class organization, or as winning a victory for the class, there isn't anything about it which raises "class consciousness" (which by the ways is one of the worse terms that Marx came up with), it's just plain demoralizing and a use of time which alot of people don't have. Not that there is something morally wrong with activism, it that is what you truly enjoy well then I say do as much of it as you want. But we need to conceptualize Communist work in a way that builds counter-power. There's a good critique of activism floating on the web and I'll look for it.

[AmilcarCabral]

Dear brother, humans are not a piece of cake, and leftists are humans, another thing I would like to say of why the whole world left and specially the left of rich nations are in such a mess is something I heard Bob Avakian saying that one of the main problems of USA is the relativist and perspectivist worldview in which there are no clear-cut boundaries and definitions between what is right, and wrong, false and truth. So in this crazy wild way of thinking of nations like USA everybody is entitled to their own version of political theories and even nazis and the ku kus klan's ideology is a well accepted ideology in America. So that's why millions of americans instead of joining political parties to get out of poverty, they get into garage sales, e-bay etc. because of the relativist and perspectivist worldview. So in America anybody can say that they can get out of poverty within capitalism by working hard on e-bay or selling stuff on garage sales or working extra hours. Because if you tell them that Aristotle said that humans are political animals, they won't believe you becsause in USA every thing is right and wrong, every thing can be true and false (What a crazy country)

And maybe that's what happening in many countries of Europe, and in the whole world in which even leftists are entitled to write a book about how we can see a workers-dictatorship and an anarchist-communist system, by voting a socialist party into government power. Without any blood, without assasinations, and without any internal war of the leftists against capitalist oppressors.

The electoralist leftists, the reformist leftists maybe are choose that path because of their rejection against any war, any violent revolution, any real violent revolution like in Egypt and Syria happening in nations that for the last decades have been sedated by hedonist lifestyle like the societies of rich countries of USA, Europe, Japan etc. nations that haven't been acostumed to an easy life without any civil wars in the last decades. Because it's a lot easier to vote in an air conditioned room for a socialist party, than having to fight against capitalist armies


.



From an article by the North Star:

http://www.thenorthstar.info/?p=11445



Don't read the rest, it's just a bunch of nonsense about the internal affairs of Britain's newest bourgeois party. The only thing note worthy is the underlined section, the fact that the new party adopted the "Left Unity" platform.

So what is the left party platform?

Left Party Platform statement

Since the near-collapse of the global financial system in 2008, capitalism has plunged deeper and deeper into crisis. Governments, led by the Troika of European institutions, have pursued austerity policies, ostensibly to reduce government deficits. In reality these policies have been designed to destroy the social and economic gains working people have made over many decades, reducing wages and obliterating welfare states. The economic crisis has increasingly become a social and political crisis as people face poverty, hunger and even death, as a result of the catastrophic and government-imposed failure of health systems and social services. The environmental crisis driven particularly by climate change caused by the unending search for profit is wreaking devastation too, particularly in the Global South

People are fighting back – in the streets and squares, workplaces, social and political institutions – striking, occupying and refusing to collaborate with state brutality and repression. In Greece, France, Germany and elsewhere, new political parties have developed, drawing together a range of left forces, posing political, social and economic alternatives. They are anti-capitalist parties that stand against neo-liberalism and the destruction of welfare states – whether at the hands of the right or of social democracy – and fight for alternative social, economic and political policies. Here in Britain we face the savage onslaught of the coalition government, destroying our hard-won gains, but the Labour Party backs the cuts, accepts the coalition’s narrative of attack on the most oppressed in society, and refuses to pose an economic alternative or represent the interests and needs of ordinary people.

As yet we have no viable political alternative to the left of Labour, yet we urgently need a new political party which rejects austerity and war, which will defend and restore the gains of the past, fighting to take back into public ownership those industries and utilities privatised over the last three decades, but will also move forward with a vision of a transformed society: a party which advocates and fights for the democratisation of our society, economy, state and political institutions, transforming these arenas in the interests of the majority.

Many agree that we need a new left party which will present an alternative set of values of equality and justice: socialist, feminist, environmentalist and against all forms of discrimination. Its politics and policies will stand against capitalism, imperialism, war, racism and fascism. Its immediate tasks will be to oppose austerity and the scapegoating which accompanies it, defend the welfare state and those worst affected by the onslaught, fight to restore workers’ rights and advance alternative social and economic policies, redistributing wealth to the working class.

Its political practice will be democratic, diverse and inclusive, organising amongst working class communities with no interests apart from theirs, committed to open dialogue and new ways of working; to the mutual respect and tolerance of differences of analysis; to the rejection of the corruption of conventional political structures and their reproduction of the gender domination of capitalist society. It will recognise that economic transformation does not automatically bring an end to discrimination and injustice and that these sites of struggle must be developed and won, openly and together.

It will recognise that international solidarity is fundamental to the success of any resistance and the achievement of any political progress; that the problems we face in Britain are systemic problems that cannot be resolved in Britain alone and which require an international response and an international alternative. A new left party will work with other left organisations and movements in Europe and internationally such as Syriza and Front de Gauche, to build coordination, strategic links and common actions to advance that struggle. The rise of the far right across Europe is a stark warning of what may come to pass if the left in Europe fails to be effective and combat the barbarism of capitalism and fascism.

This Left Party Platform seeks support to found and build a new left party on this basis.

Now if you notice, there is really no mention of the revolutionary overthrow of capitalism and the establishment of a Communist society. Even if the presence or non presence exact word "Communism" or "Revolution" isn't particularly important, what this programme fails to do is establish a clear definition of what socialism is, the methods of achieving it, the tactics of a revolutionary party and other relevant information. All that's there is some anti-austerity rhetoric there to appeal towards the anti-cuts activist crew but little towards anything that looks like what could be used to build a real communist organization. In absence of these things it seems that what we have here is a number of ostentatiously "revolutionary" groups merge to form a larger watered down group to promote a vision of "socialism" that, outside of the context of the revolutionary programme, is little more than window dressing for social democracy. There is some praise for other social democratic groups. Kinda ironic that they appeal to anti-fascism when Syriza is in bed with ultra-nationalists:

http://www.wsws.org/en/articles/2013/04/04/srza-a04.html

Of course not included in this paulty list of left groups are any parties with the abolition of capitalism in mind, probably because that'd offend someones sensibilities.

What does this prove? That the end result of all of this effort towards uniting the left, towards building an alternative to the political establishment and paving the way for the self emancipation of the proletariat, resulted in the creation of a left that is palpably worse than the left which existed before hand. But more significantly, it shows the fact that British Trotskyism and the rest of the British Communism Movement is and shall always be a dead end, and that the only progress shall come when the left is finally destroyed so it can be born anew.

So at the end of the day I suppose the result of Left Unity was a tremendous success for the working class. Now that the left has finally destroyed itself and completed the merger with social democracy, maybe we can finally stop caring about it and move on to bigger and better things for the Communist Movement. Perhaps we can finally learn from those wise words of the Signalfire collective about the worthlessness of the "left" project. http://www.signalfire.org/?p=13188

[blake 3:17]

to be honest I don't know what your talking about, seems a wee bit incoherent.

But what I think you are getting at hear is that what left unity could do is serve as a platform to unite various causes and that in of itself is positive. And I'd just like to say that I'm not in opposition to left unity on the basis that I think its bad. I think its great. I want reforms, I want a better life, I want all of those tings that you mentioned in this paragraph. But what I think what is worth questioning is the value of each of these struggles. If me and some activists go up to do our activist thing and make some protests then what is achieved? I'm going to be perfectly honest, simply because I think honesty might help this debate go better, there are so many other things I can think of that I'd rather do than the whole activist shindig. Why? Because it is all just so egausting and nothing really comes of it. Struggle for the sake of struggle isn't inherently valuable, there lies the core fault in activism. Without engaging it tactically, as a means of either building working class power through working class organization, or as winning a victory for the class, there isn't anything about it which raises "class consciousness" (which by the ways is one of the worse terms that Marx came up with), it's just plain demoralizing and a use of time which alot of people don't have. Not that there is something morally wrong with activism, it that is what you truly enjoy well then I say do as much of it as you want. But we need to conceptualize Communist work in a way that builds counter-power. There's a good critique of activism floating on the web and I'll look for it.

No I was actually making some weird stupid "joke" about the hyper activism of some small left groups. I've been part of a number of regroupment projects which have not been very successful, but were worth doing. Part of the idea is to bring lots of different struggles together, but not be acting like chickens with our heads cut off.

I've become a bit more skeptical of some these attempts over time, partly out of frustration, but this particular project I think has certain possibilities, or at least lacks problems that others have had. There's no single group controlling it, debate appears to be very open -- the other platforms are right on the website, and the highest profile figure is Ken Loach, who's fucking cool.

** Just to be clear -- I also wouldn't suggest, and maybe this is where some criticism is coming from, that all parts of the Left need to be part of a left unity / regroupment / coaltion /new party / whatever. That's just another sectarianism, one which I've been embarrassed by many times... **

[ed miliband]

^^^Try reading.

From the Left Party Platform statement you quoted: "Many agree that we need a new left party which will present an alternative set of values of equality and justice: socialist, feminist, environmentalist and against all forms of discrimination."


WSW is an anti-worker cult & signalfire seems to be what??? steal iphones and support Red India???

whatever-- I'd be glad to join Left Unity

the weekly worker described the left party platform as eurocommunist / marxism today inspired, reading that they seem about right.

[blake 3:17]

I don't object to the CPGB's platform either -- http://www.cpgb.org.uk/home/weekly-worker/981/communist-platform -- but it's so orthdox it's painful.

1. OK. 2. OK, at least there's a reference to the environment. 3. Why bring up the Soviet Union? Fuck that. 4. OK. 5. OK -- utopian. 6. OK - stupid utopian. How's this to be enforced??? 7. Good luck. 8. Yeah. 9. Hopefully. 10. Good. 11. ????!!????????dealbreaker??!!

[Die Neue Zeit]

Of course there needs to be a discussion of the context which reforms fit into the programme. Personally I think the communist programme at this point should try to advance tactical political reforms that allow the class more breathing room in the struggle (protection of union rights and the indefinite strike, ensuring the legality of wildcat strikes, preventing the repression that comes after a violent act, ect) and that aid the actual process of revolution (ending surveillance, defunding the cops and military, disarming the state as much as possible). Though to be honest I don't think economic demands are useful as a component to a communist programme

Yes and no, I think.

What you mentioned as examples on "more breathing room in the struggle" are in fact economic demands, not political, except the anti-repression demand. Major media reform is very much a breathing room measure. What about recallability and median professional workers' compensation and standard for living for all in public office?

You should read DeLeon, who too rejected economic demands but favoured "tactical political reforms."


I don't object to the CPGB's platform either -- http://www.cpgb.org.uk/home/weekly-worker/981/communist-platform -- but it's so orthdox it's painful.

1. OK. 2. OK, at least there's a reference to the environment. 3. Why bring up the Soviet Union? Fuck that. 4. OK. 5. OK -- utopian. 6. OK - stupid utopian. How's this to be enforced??? 7. Good luck. 8. Yeah. 9. Hopefully. 10. Good. 11. ????!!????????dealbreaker??!!

If you're being sarcastic on #7, Blake, it is crucial to maintaining class independence. How many times has entering into a coalition with the bigger bourgeois parties burned the "realistic" left parties that haven't in the process achieved much policymaking and have even, economistically speaking, made cuts?

[Die Neue Zeit]

And now, a more balanced assessment of Left Unity:

http://www.cpgb.org.uk/home/weekly-worker/989/left-unity-making-a-safe-space-for-left-ideas


Despite the adoption of the eclectic Left Party Platform as the official aims of the new party, an important principle was established with the acceptance of an amendment stating that there should be no participation in capitalist governments (not that we expect LU to be offered such an opportunity any time soon).


Next we had none other than Ken Loach, whose appearance on BBC TV’s Question time back in March started the LU ball rolling. Speaking on behalf of Camden branch, he said that, while he agreed with the LPP “general statement” (just as he agreed with most of what was in the other platforms too), he felt it needed strengthening through the addition of “fundamental socialist principles”. The most important of these amendments was the statement: “We will not participate in governmental coalitions with capitalist parties at a local or national level.”

I'm very skeptical of "broad party" left politics, but this is an underrated step forward. Too many past broad unity projects skirted around this issue!

I have said it before and will say it again: anti-sectarian left unity is one that is willing to work with anti-coalitions reformists, especially those who understand and support a political DOTP but prefer little more than economic reforms!

[Sea]

Left Unity's definition of capitalism is horrid, and reduces the struggle against it to a struggle for Titoite 'self-management' where capitalist relations remain. Also note the subjectivist bullshit. The welfare- and nationalization-mongering really cements these nuts as treacherous social-democrats. It's as if they want to forget about educating the working class, and instead want to take its "trade-union consciousnesses" as good enough:

Capitalist/Anti-Capitalist
I’ve heard people at meetings endlessly saying things like “I don’t want to be part of a party that tries to reform Capitalism”, “Capitalism’s rotten to the core, we need to get rid of Capitalism”. What I’ve never heard is someone explain what Capitalism is and what getting rid of it would look like. For me, Capitalism is where businesses aren’t owned by their workers which is a ridiculous and undemocratic arrangement. Does this make me an anti-capitalist? I would say it does, many would say it doesn’t. If we can’t define what Capitalism is then how can we decide what’s the point of even talking about whether we’re an anti-capitalist party, still less falling out over it. Furthermore, the vast majority of British people don’t define themselves as anti-capitalist and so any leaflet from an “anti-capitalist” party will go straight in the bin. A party that says they want workers to control their workplaces on the other hand, re-build the welfare state and re-nationalise the railways and utilities on the other hand sounds good to everyone.This is also utterly ridiculous, and avoids the critical distinction of working "within the system" versus smashing it:

Reformist/ Revolutionary
What is a revolution if it’s not a series of radical reforms? For me, this whole distinction is a way for “revolutionaries” to smear “reformists” by which they mean anyone who doesn’t already identify themselves with an explicitly revolutionary ideology like that of “Trotskyism”, “Leninism” or “Anarchism”. This definition of revolutionary excludes the vast majority of actual revolutionaries. The Egyptians, Venezuelans and Cubans are all out as is Alexis Tsipiras and his Greek Syriza party. All these groups were inspired, not by the ideas of dead Russians, but by the desire to radically change (reform) their material conditions.This is also curious insofar as it has no political content and seems to just be telling people the author doesn't like (Leninists) to shut up:

Trotskyist/Leninist/Bolshevik
This isn’t an attack on those ideologies themselves but what do people think of when they hear them? I know my friends think back to dimly-recalled GCSE Russian history lessons. Older people probably think of the Soviet Union they grew up hearing horror stories about. OK, so maybe people have got the wrong impression. Maybe we need to re-educate them and recover the good name of these glorious leaders but it’s not going to happen. Are we a Russian history discussion club or a political party? Do we want to debate the legacy of Lenin or transform modern Britain?Honestly, I'd rather associate with people who uphold Stalin than people who uphold 'Left Unity'.

One out of two things can happen with this "Left Unity" group, should it gain mass appeal and build itself up as a serious movement, and it is critical to keep this in mind:

1. The group will not allow us to break free from capitalism. It will degenerate into, if it is not already, a bourgeois party no better than Labour or the Greens.
2. The group will be slandered and libeled and have mud flung at it just as has happened to Marx, Engels, Lenin, Stalin, Mao, Trotsky, Luxemburg, or whoever else you happen to favor.

If the first one does not happen, and the group ends up cementing itself as a steeled and consistent revolutionary proletarian force, the second one will happen. That is the political role of the newspapers, the television and radio, and all capitalist media. That is the political role of right-wing historians. This fact is absolutely detrimental to their "re-branding" campaign, for it renders it moot. And, because of this fact, "Left Unity" is either being unrealistic and utopian in their "re-branding" campaign, or they are left-wing-of-capital shills. There are no other options.

[Vladimir Innit Lenin]

SPEW 2.0. Bullshit.

[blake 3:17]

No wonder I like it! It's got Dr Strangelove references on it's home page: http://leftunity.org/how-i-learned-to-stop-worrying-and-love-left-unity/

Edited to add: On a more serious note, not that I don't take Dr. Strangelove seriously (it's how I welcomed Y2K! (and the only movie I endured on laser disc)), I think it's great that they're having having very wide discussion. I've been part of several regroupments in Canada since mid 90s and there was nowhere near this level of wide ranging discussion. Part of it was technological and expenses related, but another part was Topics Were Taboo!!! I see the implosion of the SWP as one of the best things to have happened on the Left -- that Shit Is Over. Stallinicos is over.

[Fourth Internationalist]

Not only do left unity attempts lead to social democracy, left unity itself is almost always called for by social democrats. Simply uniting the left doesn't help revolutionary cause at all. In fact, it most certainly hinders it, favouring activity related to uniting the entire left (as if that will somehow help) rather than focusing on principled action. That, however, does not mean sectarianism is good. Left groups, I think, should still work together on common issues without giving up their principles. No principled Marxist, for example, could ever share a common programme with non-Marxist 'revolutionaries'. Asking for Marxists (or even tendencies within Marxism) to give up principles for the sake of 'unity' is incredibly harmful (you can't simply have a principled Marxist or [insert tendency] programme while being with other non-Marxists or non-[insert tendency] ).

[blake 3:17]

No principled Marxist, for example, could ever share a common programme with non-Marxist 'revolutionaries'.

I think this exactly why I've given up on being a Marxist.

[Fourth Internationalist]

I think this exactly why I've given up on being a Marxist.

What is the advantage of sharing a programme (rather than, say, cooperating with other left groups for a number of reasons while keeping one's group's own principles) with people who have a different worldview and different strategy to socialism than you (a non-Marxist view if you're a Marxist)? How does that make Marxism wrong (as you say, you no longer identity as one, so I assume you disagree with it)?

[Sea]

I think this exactly why I've given up on being a Marxist.Well, at least you're honest about being an opportunist.

[blake 3:17]

Well, at least you're honest about being an opportunist.


What's the opportunity??????????

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jZOrkPIZ1JU

[blake 3:17]

What is the advantage of sharing a programme (rather than, say, cooperating with other left groups for a number of reasons while keeping one's group's own principles) with people who have a different worldview and different strategy to socialism than you (a non-Marxist view if you're a Marxist)? How does that make Marxism wrong (as you say, you no longer identity as one, so I assume you disagree with it)?

I don't think Marx or many Marxists were wrong in particulars -- particularly around the capitalist mode of production, labour exploitation, certain views of the state.

I just finished reading Panitch and Gindin's The Making of Global Capitalism, in some senses an extremely Marxist reading of what's going on, and you can accept it, and not be a Marxist. That's a funny cognitive dissonance.

I am finding a certain hilarity in being an 'opportunist' for saying 'I'm not a Marxist' --- In Toronto being a Marxist is an opportunist thing to say on certain career paths not that I have one -- Most of this makes me think I should I quit the revleft

[Fourth Internationalist]

I don't think Marx or many Marxists were wrong in particulars -- particularly around the capitalist mode of production, labour exploitation, certain views of the state.

I just finished reading Panitch and Gindin's The Making of Global Capitalism, in some senses an extremely Marxist reading of what's going on, and you can accept it, and not be a Marxist. That's a funny cognitive dissonance.

I am finding a certain hilarity in being an 'opportunist' for saying 'I'm not a Marxist' --- In Toronto being a Marxist is an opportunist thing to say on certain career paths not that I have one -- Most of this makes me think I should I quit the revleft

What is it about not sharing a common programme with non-Marxists that makes you not want to identify as a Marxist? What's the advantage to this shared programme with those who have different principles than you? Why does what I said earlier cause you to not want to identify as a Marxist?

[blake 3:17]

What is it about not sharing a common programme with non-Marxists that makes you not want to identify as a Marxist? What's the advantage to this shared programme with those who have different principles than you? Why does what I said earlier cause you to not want to identify as a Marxist?

It becomes a Who Cares question. Nearly all of the practical work I've done in recent years has been with anarchists, and the stuff with Marxists has been with Marxists from so many different currents and parties, the question becomes kind of irrelevant. We're all socialists or communists and that's fine with me.

[Fourth Internationalist]

It becomes a Who Cares question. Nearly all of the practical work I've done in recent years has been with anarchists, and the stuff with Marxists has been with Marxists from so many different currents and parties, the question becomes kind of irrelevant. We're all socialists or communists and that's fine with me.

Working with other revolutionary leftists is different from sharing a common programme with them, which is "left unity". To my original post, you replied to it saying that this is why you're no longer identifying as a Marxist, because if you were principled, you wouldn't be able to give up those principles for "unity". I don't really see how it makes sense, as you've only continued to state how much you agree with Marxism and work with other far leftists, which the latter doesn't contradict simply not sharing a common programme. Since that is the reason you don't identify as a Marxist, I'm trying to understand why a common programme is so important to you to be able to identity with Marxism, despite largely agreeing with Marxism's ideas.