It needs proof reading.
Here is the work so far: https://docs.google.com/document/d/131WIWHysVz80Mk-UCCIn6AekCQ5et4N0pEJKwfGYCVc/edit?usp=sharing
Here is the edited version so far:
In defence of the Left
Unity project
The Left Unity conference on 21 November will take a critical
decision about the survival of the whole party project. Motion 48 is for us to
continue, though reviewing our electoral strategy. Motion 23 is about becoming
a network as opposed to a party: http://leftunity.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/10/motions-for-ballot.pdf.
This contribution is a defence of our party project at this
time, albeit with a changed strategy.
The Corbynista change
The election of Jeremy Corbyn as leader of the Labour party is
an historic game changer. It places the Labour leadership in almost the same political
position and space we aimed to occupy but, critically, not entirely. Consequently
this will have huge implications for our political strategy and practice, but,
in that hackneyed phrase, ‘we should be careful not to throw the baby out with
the bathwater’. We have achieved a great deal as Left Unity in a very short
period of time. These achievements should be recognised and built upon whilst
coming to terms with a dynamic and fast moving political context.
Such an argument depends on there being a membership in the
first place, If large numbers leave and we are left with say, a hundred or so
enthusiasts, then a party structure becomes questionable: we should not become
the sect that some fear. Based upon my experience in Wales and what I believe
is the current UK membership position I would suggest we are not yet down to
this rock bottom situation.
One final caveat, this contribution will suggest that as Left
Unity we have actually taken forward socialist political practice in a way that
remains relevant beyond the life of our current structures. At this moment we
do not sufficiently recognise this and should take it into account.
The achievements of Left
Unity so far
Socialist vision -
our founding statements, agreed in November 2013, emphasised the importance and
interconnection between the major challenges to our society and the need for
socialism. This represents an important advance for the left in the UK as these
challenges are not seen as ‘add ons’ but central to the project of
international social transformation: http://leftunity.org/founding-conference-decisions-1/
Constitution and
democracy - as will be argued later, despite its faults it is possibly
unique among socialist organisations in the UK in its openness to all and its
internal processes of democracy and accountability: http://leftunity.org/left-unity-constitution-final-agreed-30-november-founding-conference/
Policy and manifesto -
the detailed policies agreed in 2014 and their translation into a manifesto was
another major achievement for a new socialist organisation in the UK,
especially one drawing upon a wide range of left traditions. The manifesto
remains as a major campaigning document in the new period but needs Left Unity
to continue as a party to be effectively updated: http://leftunity.org/manifesto/
Working alliance of left
traditions - as has been alluded to, it is nothing short of a political
miracle that Left Unity has produced, in practice, unity across the left as an
organisation. The left - possibly as all political movements do - find it
difficult to work together effectively. It has been an historical achievement
for Left Unity to survive and develop whilst drawing upon a rich history of UK
radical and socialist politics. We should be very wary of failing to recognise
and sustain this achievement.
Over 2000 members,
supporters and genuine contacts - not bad going in just two years. Although
we hoped for more, given the circumstances and left movements in other parties,
we’ve done well to arrive at this point, with branches in most of the main
urban areas. Clearly, whether people stay as members is critical. It is argued
here that they should as the best way of taking forward our socialist vision
and practice. Based upon our social network support and local email connections
it is clear that we have around another 4-5000 people who wish to keep in
touch.
How this is relevant to
the new situation.
We have an agreed position on many of Corbyn's aspirations and
policies. We know what areas we can support but can also consequently and
constructively propose priorities and additions that take the agenda of a
socialist alternative forward. We have a democracy in place not just to discuss
and suggest but also take decisions on how demands, actions, policy and
strategy should develop.
We can intervene locally and nationally in political debates in
all these areas without being members of the Labour Party as well as working
across the left. Momentum could be one organisational model and the People’s
Assembly provides another example. In Wales we have related to these debates
through a critique of Welsh Labour’s draft manifesto http://chwithunedigcymru.blogspot.co.uk/2015/10/wales-labour-ignores-corbyns-politics.html.
Being able to intervene independently and across the organisational boundaries
and bureaucratic conventions of the Labour Party without fear of future
expulsion has many benefits.
Being able to relate across the left will require building
trust and confidence in engagement and relationships and our current electoral
policy will get in the way. It is essential at this stage of Corbyn's
leadership that focus should be on defending his policies and actions where they
overlap with ours; proposing and arguing for others when we think they take the
case of the socialist and anti austerity case forward; working with those many
new and old members of the Labour Party who wish to challenge the policies and
actions of the right who tend to dominate the party machine. It is important
that this challenge is not about seizing positions by ‘good eggs’ but a policy
challenge, such as defying cuts budgets at all levels and opposing new wars.
Remaining as a party enables us to act independently and
collectively. Our constitution provides an agreed way of working together
supporting debate and decision making so that coordinated action can take
place. It is not clear what the network proposal means in this regard but it
will mean a step back from linking decisions with action, particularly as the
constitution is effectively wound up.
Transitional demands and
actions
Consciously or not much of our manifesto can be seen as a
transitional programme for the current context.
The debate around transitional demands has a fraught and
ossified history on the left, see Trotsky: https://www.marxists.org/archive/trotsky/1938/tp/tp-text.htm#mt.
What is proposed here is the key importance of placing an emphasis on the
process of developing transitional demands that relate to the changing contexts
and balance of class forces, not particular demands as proposed by people such
as Trotsky in entirely different historical situations. This process, of course
also relates back to the importance of being able to make collective decisions
constitutionally, as mentioned above.
Agreeing transitional demands as a political process was one of
the outcomes of the third and fourth conferences of the third international https://www.marxists.org/archive/thalheimer/works/strategy.htm
and https://www.marxists.org/history/etol/document/transprog/wa01.htm.
The initial post WW1 revolutionary potential was seen to be waning yet taking
state power internationally remained central to the socialist and communist
project. It was recognised that state power could not be taken without the
active and democratic support of the majority of the working class. In the
interim the problem to be addressed was how to bridge the gap between the
revolutionary step of taking state power and the current situation where this
may not be possible. Delegates to the conferences were also aware of the chance
of slipping back into reformism, when the third international was a clear break
from that second international tradition that had failed so miserably to act
internationally and challenge the start of WW1.
Transitional demands were seen as a way of winning workers to
the parties of the third international. First, by relating to the issues of
most concern by showing how these were, at source, derived from the attempts of
capital to save themselves at the cost of workers, and second, developing
demands that workers could accept were legitimate, yet at the same time
directly challenged the aims of capital. Thus, by so doing, start to lay the
foundation of the need to take state power directly challenging the way capital
works through a socialist programme.
It can be seen that many of the policies we have developed can
be seen as transitional demands within this tradition. So, for example, our
opposition to austerity is legitimately about social justice and inequality but
also about challenging the attempt of capital to solve the problems of their
financial crisis at the expense of workers’ social and real wages. The demand
that councillors and members of devolved governments vote against cuts budgets
is about defending gains already made, whilst at the same time challenging
state power. Moreover, arguing for such a challenge opens up meaningfully, in
terms of daily experience, a political challenge to the neo-liberal rationale
behind austerity that, in turn, poses the question of an alternative. This we
would argue has to be socialist and requires the state taking back control over
key parts of the economy such as essential public services and utilities.
It feels that this is a statement of the bleeding obvious:
isn't this just what has happened with the People’s Assembly and now the
election of Corbyn? Well it is a good demonstration of how the process works -
in part. The critical issue is to engage with the process of developing
transitional demands consciously as a political party; developing them in a way
that is rooted in legitimate problems and grievances and, at the same time,
ensuring that the demands challenge the aims of capital, pointing to the need
for a socialist alternative. Hence, the People's Assembly is limited by
emphasising opposition to austerity by just saying ‘no’ and, whilst much in our
manifesto points to an alternative society that overlaps with Corbyn’s vision,
we make the argument that a real challenge to the power of capital is required,
if the problems are to be solved not just patched up: so our demands, quite
defensibly go further.
Perhaps the most contentious area is the idea of ‘transitional
actions’. It will not be possible to find references to this in the literature
as it is a term I’ve developed myself! Basically the intention was to further
develop the idea of ‘building the future in the present’ into the political
practice of challenging capital and developing a socialist alternative: more
technically known as, I believe, ‘prefigurative’ politics. It is about
demonstrating that socialism is possible by recognising that elements of it do
exist in our society currently and this experience can be built upon. Of course
the argument that they are ‘islands in a sea of capitalism’ and will inevitably
fail, is usually thrown up and this is not really the place to go into a
detailed defence.
However, as Left Unity, I would argue we have started to
develop transitional actions. First, our constitution, despite all its
problems, is at core about being completely open to the world and internally
democratically accountable; thus attempting to demonstrate that it is possible
to come to decisions and coordinate actions on the basis of debate and
democracy: one of the key pillars of what a socialist society is about. Second,
we have started to raise the question of alternative ownership and control through
cooperatives in our policy discussions and manifesto. This is a small start but
recognising transitional actions as part of our political practice could lay
the foundation for further development.
Conclusion
Left Unity has achieved much in terms of socialist vision,
demands, action, campaigning and organisationally in a remarkably short period
of time. We should be very careful about losing these achievements. As an
independent organisation it leaves us free to continue to act. Of course if
members vote with their feet - there is little left to organise!
Corbyn’s election is a game changer for socialists in the UK
and we have to both defend and help take forward this success. We can engage in
this process without being members of the Labour Party in many ways and at all
levels, such as through Momentum or as we have done in Wales. An overlap of
members and supporters is also one of the ways as well as not standing in
elections at the current time. However, if we retreat to a loose network based
around a discussion journal with members joining the Labour Party, action or
campaigning will inevitably be restricted by Labour Party processes endangering
all that we have achieved.
Finally, it is not clear what the outcome of the tensions
within the Labour Party will be and an organisation like Left Unity may still
be very much needed.
No comments:
Post a Comment