[Cartertonian]

The perennial problem in the politics of a place like the UK, which seeks actively to perpetuate the two-party system, is that no matter how worthy and credible alternatives might be, it can take years to gain recognition and translate that recognition into real influence. UKIP are the closest we've had in many, many years to a new start-up party that has begun to give the established mainstream a run for its money.

There have been calls from the left-of-centre media for a 'UKIP of the Left' and the best of the bunch, it seems, is Left Unity.

Now, despite my drift leftward during my time at PoFo, if I were going to pursue any sort of elected office in future I would still, probably, go with the Lib Dems. Their having got into bed with the Tories for this current coalition hasn't pleased me, but I fear the Labour party is becoming too divided to be coherent - other than as a co-competitor for the middle ground - and my views would be better tolerated in the broad church of the Lib Dems. But what about Left Unity? Is it a horse worth backing? I'm sure when UKIP started out, many were asking precisely that sort of question. Has anyone got any experience or knowledge of Left Unity, beyond what I can read for myself on their website?

[SolarCross]

Representative democracy is an ugly, misshapen blending of feudalism and the market. Votes are a kind currency the placing of which signals demand, though weakly compared with a real market. Ukip are offering what people want and are not getting from other parties, namely a way out of the eu and less government in general and that is why their market share is growing. For any other small party that is the way to go, find out what desires people have that are not being satisfied and offer that to them and only then worry about whether it is left or right or whatever. Don't tell people what you think they should want. Ask them what they do want.

[Goldberk]

I'm not sure why you haven't considered the greens, they have a lot more electoral representation than ukip.

Left unity in my experience are a pointless party doomed to sectarian strife and spouting dogma decades out of date

[Cartertonian]

I'm not sure why you haven't considered the greens, they have a lot more electoral representation than ukip.

Left unity in my experience are a pointless party doomed to sectarian strife and spouting dogma decades out of date

Re: Left Unity, I did wonder whether the 'unity' bit might be a misnomer.

The problem with the Greens is that, apart from the fact that we're rural folk and have an interest in wildlife conservation, I'm not all that Green. I drive a Landrover Discovery and ride a high-powered sportsbike, FFS! I agree that from where I plot on the Political Compass my closest 'match' is the Greens, but I don't hug trees, so what's a boy to do?

find out what desires people have that are not being satisfied and offer that to them

Many decades of capitalism have been spent creating those desires and finding more and more lucrative ways of satisfying them. I am more interested in meeting needs than satisfying desires. Think Maslow: when people are no longer in need of food and shelter then, perhaps, we can start pandering to the 'wants' over the 'needs'.

[Goldberk]

Driving a four by four and over consumption aren't just green issues though, they're economic that any decent socialist group would reject.

It strikes me and no offence is meant, that you may be to individualistic for a serious left grouping, to subscribed to hegemonic liberal values, in that sense I can see your draw to the lib dems, the orange bookers are the future of electoral capitalism.

Both labour and Tories are splintering between interest groups because the tribes an values they once represented no longer exist.

[SolarCross]

Many decades of capitalism have been spent creating those desires and finding more and more lucrative ways of satisfying them. I am more interested in meeting needs than satisfying desires. Think Maslow: when people are no longer in need of food and shelter then, perhaps, we can start pandering to the 'wants' over the 'needs'.

You should be farmer then or a house builder.
Politicians don't create anything they just make productive people unproductive and unproductive people more so.

[Cartertonian]

Driving a four by four and over consumption aren't just green issues though, they're economic that any decent socialist group would reject.

Socialist groups aren't 'broad churches' then??

[Technology]

Is there not an industrialist left, and a green left, as part of a little appreciated axis within an axis?

[Cartertonian]

Good question. I don't think Scargill et al gave a fuck about the environment.

What does one have to do to 'be' a socialist then? I don't own a donkey jacket, I'm white, male, heterosexual, meat-eating and enjoy hunting and fishing (hence the landrover, btw)

So that's me out, then, is it?

[SolarCross]

Good question. I don't think Scargill et al gave a fuck about the environment.

What does one have to do to 'be' a socialist then? I don't own a donkey jacket, I'm white, male, heterosexual, meat-eating and enjoy hunting and fishing (hence the landrover, btw)

So that's me out, then, is it?

Yes the left hate you for all those things; you are the living symbol of all that is oppressive. If you want to be accepted you will have to dark up, get a sex change then become a lesbian vegan cyclist and definitely no shooting cute little animals.

[Technology]

Good question. I don't think Scargill et al gave a fuck about the environment.

What does one have to do to 'be' a socialist then? I don't own a donkey jacket, I'm white, male, heterosexual, meat-eating and enjoy hunting and fishing (hence the landrover, btw)

So that's me out, then, is it?

A few of the guys at my rifle club express socialistic views, or describe themselves as such. These guys like beer, low culture, and shooting things.

It's often said that the working class isn't socialist enough, but I think the problem for the intellectual vanguard is that the working class isn't "socialist" enough.

[Cartertonian]

I think the problem for the intellectual vanguard is that the working class isn't "socialist" enough.

I suspect you may be right. The impression I've developed from five+ years on PoFo is that the 'intellectual vanguard' are pretty out of touch with the proletariat they purport to champion.

Furthermore, as I've often noted, there is a palpable rural/urban split to be considered here. If you live in a city then it's perfectly possible to conduct your affairs in a manner consistent with an eco-trendy socialist stereotype, but if you live out in the boonies like me there are certain practicalities of real life that mitigate against slavish compliance with the stereotype.

Besides, as you might be able to tell, I have always had a good deal of contempt for those who 'act' according to an ideologically motivated template.

[Goldberk]

I'm not sure how someone can be a socialist but not be interested in sustainability, you are right to point out that the working class isn't socialist, of course it isn't they have internalized the prevailing ideology, that of the ruling class. The point of socialism is not to represent the views of the proletariat but their interests.

It is also possible to live sustainably in a rural setting, but not without altering ones lifestyle considerably from the most desired type.

[Technology]

On the other hand, maybe socialism as a term just means too many different things by this point. Everyone from Hitler to Tony Blair has called themselves a socialist.

Marxist socialism can be reduced to a reasonably precise definition as an umbrella category; the myriad philosophies based of the teachings of Karl Marx, which aim to collectivize the means of production and put the proletariat in power to pave the way to an international classless society (per the Marxist definition of class). Of course, how you go about that and what other beliefs you also hold can be enormously various, which is why there are so many different groups claiming to be the one true disciples of political Jesus.

Marxists also think they are the only real socialists, though social democrats and progressives will also use that term. The vaguer sense of socialism on the left is simply the desire for an egalitarian society. You may hold this desire, but believe green policies go too far. Sustainability may be desired, but it doesn't follow that you accept that particular sets of policies are desirable or necessary for that goal. What counts as sustainable is still hotly debated.

[Cartertonian]

I'm not sure how someone can be a socialist but not be interested in sustainability, you are right to point out that the working class isn't socialist, of course it isn't they have internalized the prevailing ideology, that of the ruling class. The point of socialism is not to represent the views of the proletariat but their interests.

It is also possible to live sustainably in a rural setting, but not without altering ones lifestyle considerably from the most desired type.

You're right, of course.

But all of this is steering us away from the central issue. I'm still not convinced that it would be a bad thing to throw my lot in with Left Unity and see where it led. The problem as intimated in the OP is that the current British political system effectively railroads anyone interested in making a contribution into a very poor fit in one of the mainstream parties. I'm way, way too anti-capitalist to even contemplate the left of the Tory party, can't see the point in supporting Labour since a: they aren't socialist anymore and b: they haven't got a snowflake's chance in Hell of electoral success in my neck of the woods and the Lib Dems are (unfairly, in my view) going to suffer for a decade or more as a result of their involvement in the ConDems. As noted, I'm not Green enough to be a Green and UKIP Are a bunch of Far-Right wankers in sheep's clothing.

(Not for nothing, perhaps, does it say 'political agnostic' underneath my avatar!)

[The Immortal Goon]

The Socialist Party of England and Wales (as opposed to the Socialist Party of Great Britain) is, I think, a better fit for you thank Left Unity.

They are traditionally based among working class cities, most famously Manchester. They stood up to Maggie Thatcher and improved the lives of their citizens. I was associated with a parallel organization in Ireland, and it was not so much them telling the working people what they needed as much as the other way around. This never ended up in ideological issues, but was often localized tough-slogs. Like reducing bin taxes in poor neighborhoods and whatnot.

But I would reccomend looking into the sp, despite a few reservations.

[Goldberk]

As noted, I'm not Green enough to be a Green

One of your problems is that your anti-green position contradicts your anti-capitalist one.

But I would reccomend looking into the sp,

If you joined you'd double their membership.

Have you considered the SWP, they look socialist but aren't really, so might suit your needs

[Cartertonian]

I'm not anti-green...

...I'm just not pro-green enough!

[The Clockwork Rat]

I suspect you may be right. The impression I've developed from five+ years on PoFo is that the 'intellectual vanguard' are pretty out of touch with the proletariat they purport to champion.

Furthermore, as I've often noted, there is a palpable rural/urban split to be considered here. If you live in a city then it's perfectly possible to conduct your affairs in a manner consistent with an eco-trendy socialist stereotype, but if you live out in the boonies like me there are certain practicalities of real life that mitigate against slavish compliance with the stereotype.

Besides, as you might be able to tell, I have always had a good deal of contempt for those who 'act' according to an ideologically motivated template.

To an extent, I agree. Whilst, as has been pointed out, the purpose of socialists is to "represent the interests" of the proletariat rather than to represent their views, if one is too far divorced from the working class then the attempt to bridge the gap becomes increasingly strained. A mate of mine is intellectually brilliant and will likely become a leading academic in whatever field he eventually sticks to, but admits that he is pretty disconnected from the proletariat. I'm not going to even guess a percentage, but there will be a significant number of lefties who live almost within an echo-chamber.

As for the issue of ruralism - which I can relate to, living in the Highlands - it's not so much eco-trends as identity politics which are going to be a greater challenge to unity. Though the carbon footprint per capita is higher in rural areas, there are far less of us. However, racism and all manner of sexual/gendered prejudices are highly prevalent and almost entirely beyond the cultural influence of metropolitan centres and universities. Whilst my co-workers may not be entirely opposed to some organisational principles of socialism, their attitudes to LGBT would, and do, make their potential metropolitan comrades balk.

You can see this in the reaction to Russell Brand (I know, he has been discussed to death and back but is useful for making points) calling some Cambridge students "poofs". To my colleagues, that's a perfectly acceptable term for a gay bloke; to Brand it was merely an insult that he is unlikely to use in reference to gay men; to a fair number of lefties it was a signal to abandon him as a lost cause.

Left unity is a tricky issue to solve, but in my own opinion there is something to be said for the theoreticians and career socialists just getting their hands dirty - so to say - and actually demonstrate and discuss within the workplace what socialist ideas will mean, after building up a bit of respect as a hard worker

[Cartertonian]

Good post, TCR, thanks.

Left unity is a tricky issue to solve, but in my own opinion there is something to be said for the theoreticians and career socialists just getting their hands dirty - so to say - and actually demonstrate and discuss within the workplace what socialist ideas will mean, after building up a bit of respect as a hard worker

In general I think you're right. The historical Left were largely composed of people with bona fide experience that underpinned their political convictions, but these days the elected 'Left' is lacking the grass-roots trade-unionists, workers and dedicated activists upon which Labour was built. That said, in today's political environment I would see the hand-dirtying of theoreticians and career socialists as gesture politics rather than any sincere attempt for them, to actually understand what it is they stand for.

That's why, from my point of view, an initative like Left Unity might work, if its core aim was to bring together all of the disparate elements of the Left and rally them around some core belief structure. Clearly I was being facetious in earler posts but yet there does seem to be a uniform 'template' to which many on the Left feel you must adhere. Perhaps it's a sign of my advancing years, but I'm getting to the stage where I want to be me, not someone or something that somebody else tells me I should be. I want to support the Left, but I'll be damned if I'm going to have to pretend to be someone or something I'm not to do it. That, I suppose, is why Left Unity appealed in principle.