Left Unity.org / People’s Assembly

[Ed]

stuartw2112 wrote:

Ed: Your method is faintly ludicrous and complicated by the fact that we're dealing with translations from different languages. You can Google "planned economy" all you like, but it doesn't change the fact, denied by no one but you it seems, and spelled out clearly by themselves, that Marx and Engels saw the alternative to capitalism, the anarchy of the markets, as being socialism, which involved planning. In fact, even more problematic for your method, is the undeniable fact that Engels (and presumably Marx too), saw the centralisation of production in the hands of the state, including nationalising the banks and credit, as being a preliminary and necessary step towards socialist transformation. 

So resorting to strawmen arguments already are you? I'm not saying that socialism is unplanned quite the opposite. What I'm objecting to is your advocating of state capitalism, which is what a planned economy means. I've proven unquestionably, that the phrase planned economy means a system where the workers are not in control of what they produce but are commanded by a government. You do understand phrase right? That's more than one word put together to represent a unique concept. It's not finding the two words in a sentence unrelated to the concept being discussed. Your claims to Marx and Engels using the phrase is demonstrably proven to be false. Yes the communist manifesto and other early writings plan meager reforms as a step towards socialism. But as they later recanted those and admitted that they had prematurely thought the capture of the state was imminent and were making suggestions at the time based on the current level of production they can perhaps be forgiven for being so foolish. What's you excuse?

[stuartw2112]

The fact that that's where you see the dividing line tells us everything and backs up my earlier comment: that you and the left sects you despise are basically exactly the same. OK, so you and the three blokes who write Libcom agree. That's lovely. You want to get into a room together and discuss what socialism will be like (no one knows), or just when exactly the Russian Revolution went wrong (no one cares). Fine! Get in your room together! We know how many people will be there. 30 max!But what's been exciting and interesting about Occupy and Left Unity is that we're seeing new people come into politics with new ideas, new enthusiasms. They don't want to hear your speeches, or what the difference is between you and Workers Power. They want to organise democratically, they want to do things, change things, right now, not after the revolution, and they want to have genuinely free and open discussions. Free and open doesn't mean that both you (or LibCom) and Workers Power come along and get equal time to bore everyone to tears. It means that people who have never been involved in politics before come along and discuss their experiences and their hopes and fears and what they want to do. It means learning lessons from the people who are actually doing things – the people you lot sneer at as "reformists", but are actually heroes because they're the only reason the world isn't a shittier place than it already is. It means conclusions are reached at the end of the discussion, not the beginning.These things are actually happening. A new generation and a new politics is in formation. I can already hear you sneering – you lot are actually proud of your cynicism! Shameful! What's happening is exciting, but you lot will never get to see it because all you see is fault. You turn up with all the answers sewn up, and don't seem to notice that the people with the questions aren't impressed with your answers and never will be. The only thing you'll ever see, and what you're so ludicrously proud of having seen, is what exactly "socialism" – in your hands, an ideal construct, with no existence in reality – is like. Again, no one cares! You made it up! It doesn't exist!Come out into the light, comrades. It's confusing and confused and baffling and chaotic out here. But it's where the life is.OK, that's it from me. Sorry for ranting. No doubt it'll amuse you more than offend you anyway. Speak to you all again in about six months or so if past form is any guide!All the bestStuart

[Young Master Smeet]

But an important part of any discussion is being clear where you're coming from.  It would be inconceivable for someone turning up to a biology conference to be attacked for thinking they know the answers.  Now, fundamental premises are divisive, but they need to be sought out early, rather than eluded and hidden.  That's one reason why I abhor consensus systems.  I have no objection to Left unity or Occupy, save to state the simple fact that to get what they want they will need to use political action to abolish market relations: it's our job to say that.  We won't try and join and demand faction rights, observer status, affiliate status (etc.) we just say we have our opinion: it is different from yours.  Hopefully, if I can find a contact in North London, my branch will try and hold a debate with Left Unity, and say that.

[jondwhite]

Funny thing is I'm not sure that a line divides the objects of the SPGB, SolFed/Libcom, William Morris, the Zeitgeist Movement on one side and Occupy and the reformist rest on the other.Rather perhaps the class politics of SPGB and Occupy (the 99% class analysis, horizontalism, anti-substitutionism, no future cookbook, holistic societal perspective) on one side andSolFed/Libcom, the Zeitgeist Movement and the reformist rest with their wrong class analysis, hierarchical (structured or not), moralistic cookbooks and single issue campaigning on the other?

[ALB]

I was merely suggesting that we were not alone in not liking to describe socialism as an "economy". In fact, anyone who has understood and agrees with the point Marx was trying to make in the famous chapter in Capital on "the fetishism of commodities" must take up this position.As to Occupy, it turned out to be a big disappointment and was more important for what it was perceived to be ("anticapitalist") than for what it actually was. Many of those prominent at the St Pauls site refused to consider themselves anti-capitalist (and were instrumental in getting a banner criticising capitalism taken down) being rather monetary and banking reformers. In fact, sadly, a revival of currency crankism and funny money theories seems to have been its main legacy, at least in Britain.The divide in the discussion here seems to be between breathless enthusiasm for anything that moves (until something else moves) and alleged kneejerk rejection as reformism of anything that moves. Both of these positions are no doubt caricatures but the difference is that we don't live up to ours.

[steve colborn]

I have to agree with Adam. I also, do not consider Socialism/Communism to be an "economy". Economy, as far as I am concerned is merely a way of organising, that's a laugh, a monetary, or more properly stated, an exchange economy, the society we envisage will be neither. Steve.

[ALB]

Here's another report on that meeting, this time from the "Independent Socialist Network" (not to be confused with the "International Socialist Network" of ex-SWPers).http://www.independentsocialistnetwork.org/?p=2134And here's Ken Loach's speech (which gave rise to some discussion here):http://www.independentsocialistnetwork.org/?p=2138What is interesting is that this ISN is still formally part of TUSC but seems to be in the process of switching to the new Left Unity party.Apparently the new party is to  be founded in November but hasn't yet decided whether it is to be explicitly "anti-capitalist" and "socialist" or even whether or not to be a party in the sense of contesting elections.

[alanjjohnstone]

A new international project by Michael Albert and Z-Net plus others – FaceLefthttp://www.iopsociety.org/blog/iops-host-iopssocialhttp://www.zsocial.org/users/sign_upThe Lefty facebook"Suppose there is a revolution in some part of the world. Suppose the people use the phone system, … Do we then give credit to the corporations that provide those tools? Of course activists seek to make good use of certain tools, … But that doesn’t cause us to praise the phone system, …Facebook and Twitter are corporations. Changing the world for the better not only isn't a part of their agenda, it is largely subverted by their agenda."I haven't got a Facebook or Twitter account and pretty much a virgin when it comes to social networking but other members may have views that this FaceLeft being technology neutral might be something we should also subscribe to.I don't think it means that because some reformist organisations are involved it means we also are tarred with the same brush.The technical details are beyond me…someone like Tristan or Darren can explain what getting our own sub-system means.Perhaps it maybe to our advantage to be an early player rather than our usual cyber johnny comes late? 

[ALB]

Are the Parecomics going to join Left Uniy as well? If so it's going to be a real what the French call "panier des crabes".

[ALB]

Just realised that Kate Hudson, who is the registered Leader of the Left Party and one of the prime movers behind Left Unity, is the secretary-general of CND. So no wonder that the registered address of her party is Houseman's Bookship. She is also a former member of the Communist Party of Britain. At least she's not a Trotskyist.

[jpodcaster]

Bit late to the party on Left Unity (excuse the pun) but I've been reading a few online reports of its initial meeting. My immediate reaction is if that if the likes of SW are involved then it must have something going for it beyond the (re)-construction of yet another failed attempt to unite the left? A few observations/questions:(a) Why 'Left Unity' when by its own admission the ISN are officially excluding organisations of the left from participating? Or perhaps they are not – maybe they are excluding organisations but not the individuals who comprise them? In which case how do they stop LU becoming yet another front for one of the Trot sects?(b) The language that Ken Loach used in his speech is interesting to me. He talks about the need to replace capitalism with an economy held in common (which he calls socialism). He also talks in vague terms about socialism being about looking out for each other, caring for the sick/elderly. At some point LU are surely need to get more specific on what they are organising for (as opposed to against). This could go one of two ways I suppose. My bet would be on a variant of state-controlled market 'socialism' where an 'economy held in common' is equated with state ownership/control. Or, if DW is correct and LU is attracting a whole new generation of radicals untainted by traditional left politics, then could it be pushed in a more radical direction towards common ownership/democratic control?(c) How on earth did 80 LU locals spring up practically overnight? Are they drawing on existing structures or is it genuinely a new network? (d) How are they differentiated from the Green Party? To my mind the GP is now to the left of the Labour Party and has many of the same policies as I'd imagine LU will end up supporting. Plus it has local and national representation and a growing membership base. I wonder what the attitude of prominant GP-ers such as Derek Wall and Peter Tatchell will be towards LU?(e) LU seems to be desiring a fully democratic structure – one person one vote, control residing in local groups, delegates, open publication of meeting minutes etc. Perhaps they have learnt something from the SPGB … Jools

[ALB]

jpodcaster wrote:

How are they differentiated from the Green Party? To my mind the GP is now to the left of the Labour Party and has many of the same policies as I'd imagine LU will end up supporting. Plus it has local and national representation and a growing membership base. I wonder what the attitude of prominant GP-ers such as Derek Wall and Peter Tatchell will be towards LU?(

That thought had occurred to me too. I can't see the policies they are likely to adopt being much different from those outlined in this Green Party election broadcast for the local elections in England earlier this month:http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=4BcCi7Xr06MAnectodotal evidence suggests that many of those who might be attracted to the Left Unity project already vote for the Greens when there is no non-Labour Left candidate. For instance, in the London elections last year a prominent SWPer living in Lambeth said he had voted for the Greens (not us) while a TUSC supporter in Wandsworth said he had done the same.Apart from undermining a LU party by boring from within it, the Trotskyist groups are likely to try to orient it towards concentrating on seeking the support of public sector trade unionists and workers living on council or housing association estates, so excluding a large section of potential supporters..

[Ed]

jpodcaster wrote:

(e) LU seems to be desiring a fully democratic structure – one person one vote, control residing in local groups, delegates, open publication of meeting minutes etc. Perhaps they have learnt something from the SPGB … Jools

I doubt they learned it from us, or would ever admit to it. It seems more likely that they have adopted that position for the reasons that the original SPGBers did. That is to say having tired of undemocratic leadership and seeing it for the dead end path it is they've decided on a more directly democratic method of organization. Which is obviously great news. Perhaps after a few years in a broad united left party there will be some who also develop ideas along the same lines as the founding members did while members of the left unity party of the day the SDF. If history keeps repeating we can at least hope that similar positives come out of it. But I'm probably being overly optimistic.,

[ALB]

Here's how Nick Wrack, of the "Independent Socialist Network" (not to be confused with the "International Socialist Network of ex-SWPers), has described the statement prepared by by Kate Hudson for the 11 May Left Unity meeting:

Quote:

In so far as the politics of the statement can be understood, it is a call for the formation of a social democratic party, which seeks to reform capitalism. This is a wholly inadequate and ultimately futile objective.

As if there weren't enough reformist parties already (including TUSC of which Wrack is a member).

[ALB]

Looks as if they are already split into 3 factions and the party's not even been set up yet (30 November is the big day):http://links.org.au/node/3473The "socialist platform" seems the least reformist, but is probably drafted by some Trotskyist (and so doesn't mean what it appears to say) and has no chance of being adopted.The "class struggle platform" seems to be another Trotskyist one. I recognise the name of Jeremy Drinkall (who stood against us in Vauxhall at the last general election for Workers Power).See also comment by Hannah:

Quote:

Yeah it’s started. Another divided left party. I can’t believe there are more platforms. Honestly don’t know whether to laugh or cry. This is what puts people off joining. I literally thought the debate was shall we be specifically a socialist party or include everyone left of labour, didn’t realise there would be many groups all trying to take over. A broad left would include most of these points raised on this platform anyway, other than the obvious Workers Power ones. I also thought class struggle was already assumed by both sides…

The other Trotskyist entryists haven't shown their hand yet.

[Author]

Posts