“Socialist” Party of Great Britain

[alanjjohnstone]

From the Left Unity website “If we’re going to demand that people agree with us before they can even join, then what is the point of having a new party at all?” Stuart replies to this –  “Well, that’s that argument nailed, for me anyway.” He also comments:-  “The Left Party platform was criticised because it was something everyone who thinks of themselves as basically left or socialist can agree with. Well, exactly, that’s the whole point! It can therefore be a basis for uniting, not just the small left groups (a pointless exercise), but all those who already are or who could easily be won to a left outlook (an exercise that couldn’t be more urgent). If we could achieve that (a big ask), well, then we might be in a position to get somewhere. Maybe, who knows, even to socialism!”  In another comment he explains what socialism means to him:-  “I think this is a good statement and I support it. What is it saying in a nutshell? That, in the very near term, we oppose austerity, the attacks on the working class, and the destruction of the welfare state, and will support efforts to halt or ameliorate or reverse these. In the medium term, we stand for the reversal of the privatisation of essential services and utilities, and to bring them back into public ownership. In the medium to long term, we stand for the democratisation of all the social, political and economic institutions of society. Is it, and are we, socialist? Well, all that is exactly what socialism means as far as I’m concerned, whether you choose to call it that or not.”  I wish him and  them the best of luck because we all want an effective resistance to the capitalist class and who knows, perhaps, their  route  to socialism is the way, even if i am still to be convinced of their road-map. 

[ALB]

But that's the programme of the Green Party ! See this. So why don't these Left Unifiers join them instead of splitting the anti-austerity, pro-welfare state, take-back-the-utilities into public ownership section of the population?

[rodmanlewis]

jondwhite wrote:

rodmanlewis wrote:

Why should a non-member be concerned about who we do and do not expel?

Because the SPGB have a unique responsibility to the working-class as evidenced by policies including our completely open meetings policy. Why else should the working-class support the Socialist Party?

That's true, but if someone chooses not to be a member, we can assume he doesn't agree with SPGB's stand on everything. In other words, he's waiting for us to change our principles and practices until they suit him."When the party decides to do this, that and the other, then I'll (re-)join you."

[alanjjohnstone]

Call me a cynic if you want but i agree with you, Adam. There is no way that the Greens will dissolve and the best the LU will do is have an electoral pact dividing up which seats they both will contest without splitting the vote. I also note the TUSC and LU are in talks of reaching some agreement of sorts. Again to be totally sceptical,  Stuart cautions against the multitude of Left parties but ignores the fact that LU has already been entered by SWP breakaways who appear to wish to apply the Stop the War Campaign strategies to it. While the STWC can claim some measure of success, its tactics can scarcely be transferred to a political party. If TUSC become involved then it also comes with the full baggage of SPEW and SWP. Something that Stuart is rightly wary of but how can it be avoided.  The existence of the alternative platform , the "Socialist" Platform demonstrate, that as a unified party it will always be divided and once up and going just how much energy will be spent on internal rivalry than reaching out. to the non-partisan that Stuart appears to wish it to do.  The last time we had real serious unity discussions was 1920 with the formation of the Communist Party and back then we had the elephant in the room of Moscow's vested interests and Comintern directing its development, at least, this is not the case now…There is a feel of LU being a more organic growth than an artificial one. I genuinely hope it does manage to overcome what i suggest are unsurmountable challenges since we are as workers in need of a more determined and aggressive trade union response, supported by a more intransigient principled mass "workers" party, which the Labour Party isn't . It won't bring us socialism but it may bring us off our knees…. But again the Doubting Thomas in me is too strong….

[Ed]

alanjjohnstone wrote:

I genuinely hope it does manage to overcome what i suggest are unsurmountable challenges since we are as workers in need of a more determined and aggressive trade union response, supported by a more intransigient principled mass "workers" party, which the Labour Party isn't .

It's taken almost 100 years for the labour party to become discredited in workers eyes. The last thing I would want is for labour 2.0 to be successful. It could set us back another 100 years. I genuinely hope these left unity phonies fall flat on their arses and in doing so bring us one step closer to seeing the last nail being driven into the coffin of social democracy. If reforms to capitalism is what they want they would be better off taking the same position as us. As the ruling class will only pass reforms which are harmful to profits if they think the only alternative is revolution.As old Oscar said "the worst slave owners were those who were kind their slaves", that would make left unity the worst kind of masters if they ever got into power. And as old Goethe said "None are more hoplessly enslaved than those who falsely belive they are free.". The sooner the left are completely discredited, disowned and destroyed forever the sooner we can get on with this revolution I've been hearing so much about.So, yeah, no sympathy for class enemies from me.

[Author]

Posts