My hopes for left unity

I have had various comments about my views towards left unity I seem more for it than a lot of my socialist party comrades maybe they have been through things more with the socialist alliance and seen it all before but for me maybe I’m being naive I think this is new and different and lets be honest exciting. The thought we could have a new left party is something is what we have needed for a long-time. I do hope at some point sooner rather than later TUSC and Left unity could have a proper comradely discussion and an agreement to work together be that a merger or a common mutual agreement to not tread on each others toes. After all surely there is more common ground between the two projects than disagreement? The question for me though is what sort of party it will be. We all know us in the socialist party campaign for a new workers party and TUSC is some sort of start towards that. But never mind my misgivings over TUSC I think left unity could fill that vacuum that labour has abandoned in pursuit of the market and big business. There is room for a new party of the left and I’d argue it should be a new workers party. I don’t buy into the idea the time isn’t right, When will it be right? Not just when the bureaucrats have given up on labour surely if that is the time then we will be waiting a very very long time maybe forever. I think a workers party can start to take shape today even if just in an early stage. But as Nick Wrack of The independent Socialist network wrote http://www.independentsocialistnetwork.org/?p=2148 “Will it be a explicit socialist party, as Ken Loach clearly wants it to be, setting out its aim to create a new form of society based on the democratic, collective ownership of the wealth, natural resources and the means of production – factories, machinery, technology, transport? Or will it be some more vaguely defined ‘party of the left’, a social democratic party that limits its goals to fighting austerity and neo-liberalism but not fundamentally challenging capitalism, as others appear to want? Will it accept the private ownership of the means of production, with production for profit, or will it fight for a society in which we can all participate in drawing up a democratic plan of production for need? Now begins a serious period of debate and discussion, which is exactly what Ken Loach called for. So far, over 8,000 have responded to that call. Such a debate, carried out in a rigorous but comradely manner would show those watching that we are serious about challenging the political status quo. A serious debate on the nature of our society and how we want to change it would draw in many who are fed up with the existing way of things. Pointing the way forward to a society without exploitation, without rich and poor, in other words, without classes, could attract all those who want to fight for something different. What is the party for? Our new party cannot just be against things: against the cuts, against unemployment, against the destruction of the NHS, against tuition fees. It is very difficult to inspire people with a negative. It has to be for something. A new party starts out with inevitable difficulties. It is small, weak, unknown. It has no purchase in the minds of the nation’s citizens. To begin to change that, the new party will have to be bold and confident in its ideas. In the first instance it will have to organise those who want to build a party against the odds; those with a vision that this new party can become a mass party, with the adherence of millions. To inspire the pioneers, the party must have some clear guiding principles. Firstly, it must see its task as assisting the working-class in resisting the unprecedented attacks we see on every front. No other party is prepared to do this. Secondly, it must link the daily battles to the overall struggle for a new society, where there is no longer the need for such never-ending defensive battles. The need for a new party that fights on behalf of and alongside working-class people, who face attacks on every front, is obvious. None of the existing parties represent the interests of the working class. Labour has abandoned any attempt to defend its traditional supporters. The working class is ignored, forgotten or taken for granted. Perhaps the second point – the struggle for a new society – is less obvious. But so long as we have capitalism – the rule of the minority owning class – we will have exploitation and class division; we will have rich and poor, them and us. So long as we have capitalism we will have to defend what we have previously won. We will have to labour for others’ profit. That struggle will go on until we are able to change things fundamentally. So, those of us who have taken up the challenge have our work cut out. Our goal is nothing less than the transformation of the way the world is run. It will not be easy or quick. It will take patience and hard work. But the rewards will be wonderful. There is no short-term quick-fix. Our ideas may be a minority at the moment, but with confidence we can persuade a majority. By being involved in every aspect of working-class life and struggle – at work, in the community, at college, in retirement, in culture and sports – we can show that our party is worthy of support. Linking that daily struggle to the cause of socialism can only strengthen its appeal.” Lastly democracy must be at the heart of everything we do. Fighting for the most extreme form of democracy you may say not allowing things to be decided without the participation of all involved nothing less will do. We cannot create socialism within capitalism but we can start to uphold some important principles and tat is a basic grounding in workers democracy. Democracy as Trotsky once said is the oxygen of socialism without democracy socialism would die.

Challenging ingrained sectarianism on the British Left

I’m a member of the socialist party of England Wales myself and up till now I haven’t really experienced too much sectarian behaviour on the left. I joined after the disasters of the Socialist Alliance, respect and now I’m involved with TUSC via the socialist party. With the addition of Left unity now I’m starting to see what all the fuss is about when people told me the left is riddled with sectarian behaviour. I’ve tried to challenge some obit to a extent online the best I can by offering a comradely open approach to both projects of TUSC and Left unity as do believe the only way we can get anywhere in this country on the left is by working together where we can. We are far too small and insignificant on our own to do it all ourselves. The old phrase United we fight divided we fall is quite apt for the present time. I also wasn’t quite a member by the time the anti cuts groups were setting up and today to have about 3 or 4 now is just silly all looking to do more or less the same thing. Of course I think all cuts should be opposed whether they are labour, Tories or lib dem or green that should be our starting point. But in terms of political representation we could either try reclaiming the labour party which I’m sure reads of this blog know of my views on that anyhow it is a dead end strategy at this point. Not to say it always will be but for now it is. So that leaves us with trying to build an alternative to labour and the debate currently going on on the left is how we do that and what sort of party do we want. Clearly, when over 8,000 people sign a petition in favour of a new leftwing initiative, and the most active set up dozens of local groups across the country, this is something that should be welcomed by Marxists. So far my involvement in TUSC has been mainly around election time effectively TUSC shuts down in between elections as far as I can see it. TUSC receives a fair amount of coverage in our paper of course due to the large amount of by elections of late but you wonder if this would be the case if by elections didn’t keep popping up? In the socialist party we organise meetings under our own names the socialist party branch of … and so on. TUSC is mentioned often in meetings don’t get me wrong and this is to be welcomed but going further and involving local c community groups or other outside forces is not elaborated on as far as I’ve seen. I’ve been criticised publicly and in private on social media platforms such as Facebook for daring to question our party’s direction with TUSC. I’m told I must raise these concerns internally or keep quiet. I don’t think that is quite the comradeliest friendly tone I’ve heard. In fact I’ve received some quite sharp rebuffs for voicing my concerns over TUSC and trying to involve the non aligned socialists we have around us. Each time I’m asked well what would you suggest could we do better? Like it’s all down to me to com up with the magic formula or something. I’m simply stating a fact that we are 3 years into a project a electoral front if you like and yet I’m none more clearer where we want TUSC to go is it a party in the making , is it simply a electoral front for our party or will it be part of a bigger project one day ? All questions I’m struggling to find answers to at present. Maybe it’s more of that wait and sees idea we put out a lot. Don’t get me wrong I fully support TUSC and its key principles of standing anti cuts candidates against the pro cuts parties it is important as Marxist we do provide an alternative for workers. It’s just our methods and practices I’m still unconvinced about and have had for some t time but have kept quiet about. What is sad though is the ingrained sectarianism the left neither the Socialist party nor the SWP the two largest trotskyist groups on the left covered what happened at the recent Left Unity national conference last weekend. (Of course, neither ‘reporters’ nor observers were permitted to attend, but you might have thought that both the socialist party and the SWP would have found a way to inform their readers on the proceedings) as there were some of their members there I do believe. The fact that neither the SP nor the SWP do not lead the left unity project at this stage may have something to do with the lack of coverage who knows. But it should have been reported on even if briefly as it could be a major turning point for the left in this country, equally it may not be but to simply ignore it is a big shame in my view. I’ve also been told the left unity project is riddled with reformists and so called middle class intellectuals. Well wasn’t the labour party full of reformists when the Militant now the socialist party was in it yet we still tried to win over the best workers out there to a Marxist point of view. It sometimes feels to me that the organised left today are not interested in joining something they neither lead nor have a bit of influence in. We all have to start somewhere surely hence we’re starting to organise in unions we have little influence in today too. The problem is that formations like LU do not set out to lead comrades “from reformism to revolutionary positions” at all. They appeal to disillusioned old Labour supporters as they are and as a corollary restrict any “radicalising forces” that join to the reformist milieu. They are designed from the beginning as forums that say, “This far and no further”. Clearly we need to go further than our own parties and our own view of the left. We are a party moving through the class trying to find the best militants but as do the other groups out there claim to be doing so. The key with any new party or grouping of the left needs to be rooted in the Marxists ideas that this system can no longer work for the many and that no amount of tinkering and fiddling with capitalism will work for the 99% and that a truly mass Marxist party with the guidance to take society toward a more advanced society based on the common ownership of the means of production is needed in the here and now and in the coming years and battles to come.

Learning the lessons from the socialist alliance

Just last week we had a excellent discussion at eastern region regional committee on the socialist alliance and the lessons we need to reinforce today in light of what developed at the last TUSC conference. I was not about during the days of the SA but those who were have clearly not learnt from the lessons of history still. The Socialist alliance was set up in the mid 90’s as a reaction to a growing feeling that the left needed to unite. We at the time were swept along by this and the old phrase aimed at socialists all the time is why you don’t all just get together. It’s not as simple as that and I’ll try to explain why here. In the socialist alliance which at first was made up of socialist party members and a few other independents on the left looked to contest elections on a federal structure initially. Until 1998 this was fine but when the SWP got involved seriously for the first time things changed. While I respect many in the SWP their general manner and approach to working with others on the left is a lot different to ours unfortunately. The SWP felt that a situation that we need demands a party and put forward calls for the SA to move to a more party based structure featuring a one member one vote set up. This was forced through eventually and this enabled the SWP along with a few other groups on the left involved at that stage including socialist resistance to pack the meetings and get their agenda through in affect putting them in control of the organisation. While one member one vote sounds democratic it really isn’t and we should not be afraid to stand up and say this. This move was the start of the end for the SA as it enabled factions in the SA with larger numbers to dominate. With TUSC we are still at an early stage with a federal structure with an elected steering committee with all having a vote and a veto. We do not feel at this stage moving towards a membership system will solve all our problems. For a start is it really fair giving a small left group with about 80 member’s equal weight in terms of voting as a trade union like the RMT who represent 80 thousand odd members and were democratically elected by their NEC to represent their members at the TUSC conference? At this stage we need to be taking the argument into the trade unions and setting up TUSC supporters groups inside the unions to get the name out there this coupled with standing TUSC candidates as widely as we possibly can next may in the county council elections will start to draw more workers in our direction. I don’t accept the argument that getting poor results at this stage is a sign we have failed. We will get some better results and some not so good. As we know as Marxists things do not progress in a straight line and there will be set backs but also times we can make big steps forward. The significance of the RMT fully supporting TUSC now financially and politically is key. But we must look to get more trade union support individual members and official structures involved. TUSC is not the final product it’s a working progress. But one we must be careful with and look to build where we can. If we look back in history the early labour party was a set up of federal partners from the co op to the trade unions Fabians society etc they didn’t go to a full membership system for a long time not until 1918 Individuals had to join via one of the affiliated organisations - yet are people really saying it wasn't a 'party'? On electoral activity, in fact, the early Labour Party had the approach that the affiliated organisations were to be "left free to select their own candidates without hindrance, the one condition being that, when returned to parliament, the candidate should agree to form one of the Labour Group there". We want to participate in an alliance of equals, with the right to conduct our own activity with our own ideas and methods, while working in common where we can. We believe that the new forces that will emerge to fill the vacuum created by the crisis of working class political representation - community campaigners, trade unionists fighting austerity and privatisation etc - will also wish to preserve their autonomy, while working with others. But that means we need an Alliance, with a federal constitution, and not a structure that allows the domination of any one organisation. While the SA was a step forward in one sense it also tech’s us some important lessons that simply uniting the left will not do it may make some of the smaller left groups feel warmer being in a bigger organisation but does it really help us advance the need for political representation for working people towards a new mass workers party anymore? I don’t think it does. While the trade unions are not perfect their members are rank-and-file working class people who we need to be attracting in this coming period not worrying about membership cards or whether we have a vote or not.