[Cartertonian]

Maybe it was humour that I didn't get.

This.



I was deliberately parodying the style of the Mail...although I've never lowered my standards sufficiently to ever read a copy cover to cover and you should see the arguments I have with a hard-right muppet on PoFoUK who begins every single post with a quote from the Daily Wail!

@JohnSmith

I never lost any faith in Marx because I never had any to lose and now (in fact, for the last six years I've been coming to this 'virtual place') I've been looking for someone to evangelise to me. Sadly, though many friends on here have tried, it always seems to boil down to an attitude of, 'if it isn't obvious why it's right, then maybe it isn't for you'.

In contrast, my argument is that if you can't clearly and succinctly articulate why socialism is a superior system, maybe you don't really know...which makes it an article of faith and I'm firmly agnostic when it comes to all matters of 'faith' - whether secular or spiritual.

[Decky]

In the UK, we are obviously talking of so-called New Labour here. Many of it’s adherents – and I have encountered more lowly examples of them on other forums

I doubt that very much. There are no other political forums on the internet.

As for the rest of your post, what do you expect? When Labour stood on a plaform of imptoving the country they were unelectable. When they morphed into Tories in all bu name under Tony B'liar they won with a landslide and stayed in for 13 years despite doing sweet fuck all for the working class.

The British public have to accept responibility, if you only vote for right wing parties then you will get right wing policies.

[JohnSmith]

I doubt that very much. There are no other political forums on the internet.

Well I certainly won't be taking any lessons from you on how to make frinds and influence people. Because above you manage to simultaneously insult me by questioning my honesty whilst also revealing your own ignorance! Of course there are other politics forums out there! I am an active member of two of them and used to be a member of a third, all of them in addition to this one! And on two of them I have encountered low level arch-Blairites with an over-inflated idea of their own importance whose views are exactly as I have described.

As for the people voting for right wing parties, have you not noticed that fewer and fewer of them are bothering to vote at all, because of a lack of viable alternatives? And believe me, may of us who still do so are forced by the straitjacket of our current electoral system in Britain often to vote for the lesser evil just to keep the biggest nightmare out if we want to have any impact at all! The media and the politicians of course are being bought by the rich elites, and unfortunately not everyone is independent-minded and thoughtful enough to be immune from their hate propaganda.

Fact is, though, Labour didn't have to sell it's soul to Thatcherite New Labour collaborators. Even Neil Kinnock's Labour would have won handsomely in 1997. By then the electorate had woken up to the fact that voting for what you actually believed in no matter what, when the leftwing vote was divided, simply guaranteed Tory victory. Tactical voting began to be employed on a massive scale, and has never quite disappeared. The fact that it was Blair who reaped the benefits that a genuine party of the left could have, is Britain's tragedy.

And before you take the 1983 election and every subsequent one as evidence of massive right wing majorities, consider this. Even in 1983 the parties of the left gained more votes than those of the right by a substantial margin. But under FPTP, because their votes were divided amongst at least two competing parties who also stood against each other, whilst the voters of the right were united behind the Tories, Thatcher won massive landslides with the support of a minority, the majority on the left who were against her being left powerless. It is not the people who are to blame so much as a corrupt system and corrupt politicians and media organs.

Incidentally, now - after propping up a far right Tory government and backing many of it's cruel and vindictive assaults upon the most vulnerable - the LibDems are seen as political traitors by many of their erstwhile supporters, who are itching to flock behind Labour in a way that they haven't done since the 1970s. Now also, it is the right wing vote that is becoming increasingly divided due to the growing electoral attraction of UKIP to far right reactionaries amongst former Tory supporters. And opinion polls do show large numbers of the electorate to be well to the left on a whole range of issues, and all the more so since the banking collapse revealed the dystopian neo-liberal economic agenda to be the confidence trick upon the more gullible amongst the masses that it always was! Labour now, in the UK at any rate, has a golden opportunity to shift the terms of the debate leftwards. Problem is, the aggrieved Blairites, ideologically committed to Tory values as they are, are seriously kicking against that, and they need to be kept as quiet as possible. They are the real enemy within who have the power to destroy Labour's electoral chances.

As for your obvious misplaced contempt for the electorate, many of whom have suffered under the Thatcherite hegemony that the majority of them never wanted for decades, what kind of socialist does that make you? One who holds ordinary people in contempt? What do you want? A socialist dictatorship, because the people can't be trusted with democracy? How about reforming our entire democratic system so that it actually reflects the genuine will of the people, rather than holding them all in such misplaced contemt that you'd probably prefer them not to have any say at all!

[Decky]

As for your obvious misplaced contempt for the electorate, many of whom have suffered under the Thatcherite hegemony that the majority of them never wanted for decades, what kind of socialist does that make you? One who holds ordinary people in contempt? What do you want? A socialist dictatorship, because the people can't be trusted with democracy?

I could say something similar to you. The modern Labour party are well to the right of the pre Thatcher Tory party (in economic terms anyway). What kind of socialist votes for the Labour party these days? They have proved in actions as well as words that they have no interest in advancing the position of the international working class. They care more about sending British workers to die killing middle eastern workers than they do about council housing or trade unions or wage inequality or any other issue that a left winger would vote on.

[The Immortal Goon]

Of course there are other politics forums out there! I am an active member of two of them and used to be a member of a third, all of them in addition to this one! And on two of them I have encountered low level arch-Blairites with an over-inflated idea of their own importance whose views are exactly as I have described.

Maybe we should move this post to the Conspiracy Theory section. There are no other forums.



As for the rest of the thread, I wouldn't say that not trusting the system is necessarily "misplaced contempt for the electorate." It is, in essence, a "rational," choice to choose from the two options put in front of you. This does not make it the only choice, nor does taking over a system and running it mean that you have defeated the system.

[Decky]

I thought there were other forums but this was the worlds only political forum? As an aside I have never understood if non political forums that hypothetically had a politics subforum exist or not.

[JohnSmith]

I thought there were other forums but this was the worlds only political forum? As an aside I have never understood if non political forums that hypothetically had a politics subforum exist or not. :?:

I assure you there are other overtly political forums, not just forums with political subforums. I am astonished that you seem to believe this to be the only forum in the world primarily devoted to politics! You need to get out more.

[Cartertonian]

I assure you there are other overtly political forums

Sorry, it's the intentionally Orwellian PoFo site mythology at work.

[Social_Critic]

. 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.

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

You have it spot on. I have observed communists for over 50 years. I talked to them, studied their ideas, listened to them, and sometimes I had to break them down, but 99 % shared that weakness.,.they really didn't know about the gears and inner workings of real labour in a modern society.

[The Clockwork Rat]

No-one on the left gives a flying toss what you think.

[Social_Critic]

:roll:

No-one on the left gives a flying toss what you think.

Former communists I taught to become good neoliberals listened and took notes.

[The Clockwork Rat]

That's nice.

[Social_Critic]

That's nice.

I know. I really enjoyed it when the Soviet Union fell. I volunteered to go in and give seminars on basic economics and project development principles. You should have seen their faces light up when I showed them the fundamental basis for their collapse using math. They were relieved because they thought we were superior. But once I explained hey had fundamental flaws which arose from Marx's sheer stupidity and lack of knowledge they were prepared to learn and move on as good capitalists. They learned some things, but others hey ignored, such as the parts about a quality justice system, anti monopoly law, and avoiding corruption.

[The Clockwork Rat]

That's nice.

[The Immortal Goon]

They were relieved because they thought we were superior. But once I explained hey had fundamental flaws which arose from Marx's sheer stupidity and lack of knowledge they were prepared to learn and move on as good capitalists. They learned some things, but others hey ignored, such as the parts about a quality justice system, anti monopoly law, and avoiding corruption.

Obviously, Russians are barely dogs that slavishly paw at the Westerners and tend to glory in how "superior" we are to the Eastern People. Something that any Russian will freely confess.

They are clearly all idiots that don't know basic math without your help.

It's a wonder that more than half of Russians have positive connotations with communism.

Maybe if you bless them all again with your vast western superiority they will lick your hands and beg you to save them again.

I'm pretty sure this narrative is about right. Why don't you actually tell some Russians that they think Westerners are "superior" and that they can't recognize stupidity when they see it and don't know basic math, and are only in trouble because they have failed to take the lessons the West has tried to teach them.

[JohnSmith]

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?

Addressing this actual OP for a moment. The problem with a UKIP of the left is that it would divide the left wing vote even more, the kind of phenomenon which in the 80s and for much of the 90s guaranteed Tory hegemony. Our electoral system seriously punishes divided political wings. I would rather see a left wing resurgence within the Labour party itself.

But you acknowledge also how long it takes for any new party to gain traction in our system. One solidly left wing party that has already been around for a while, is quite a way down the road in terms of gaining traction and already has it's first Westminster MP is the Greens. If anyone wants a UKIP of the left, are they not a much better bet? Especially since climatic issues are also likely to become increasingly important?

As well as having a toehold in Westminster which UKIP has yet to achieve, the Greens have many more local councillors than UKIP. So in many ways they are already a fully functioning UKIP of the left, and further advanced down the road to power than UKIP is! Hopefully, if their support grows, tactical voting combined with other left wing parties more seriously embracing a green agenda, will minimise the divided vote problem.

[JohnSmith]

Former communists I taught to become good neoliberals listened and took notes.

Which no doubt goes a very long way towards explaining the state that many of their countries are in.

[Social_Critic]

As I said, they didn't learn all their lessons. They took the front end and forgot little details like a quality justice system, avoiding corruption, strong anti monopoly laws and so on. But the key was to destroy the communist system and make sure it would stay buried. It worked.

Russia's situation was a bit different than say China. The Chinese decided to abandon communism when they realized it was a failure and are shifting gradually to fascism. That's not exactly what I suggest to those who want to destroy communism.

The Russians just didn't have the training or the culture to switch intelligently. But they do realize communism is a dead end, it leads to absolute dictatorship, human right abuses and grinding poverty for the bulk of the pulation. Communism is one of the most inhumane and destructive systems a society can use.

[Rei Murasame]

Having looked at Left Unity, and having thought about what they've done, and then having read what the ICFI thinks of it, I have to say that this article is pretty interesting:

Left Unity held its founding conference in London on November 30.

Advanced as a party “to the left of Labour,” what united the motley assortment of 400-plus aging cynics in attendance was a determination that any such party would not be revolutionary in its programme and intent.

Left Unity has nothing to do with an attempt to build a socialist party. It is a political manoeuvre led by Alan Thornett’s Socialist Resistance group, the British section of the Pabloite United Secretariat of the Fourth International. It is seeking to emulate what it calls “broad left” party initiatives in other countries, particularly the Left Party of Jean-Luc Mélenchon in France, Syriza in Greece, and Die Linke in Germany.

All three of these are led by factions of the old Stalinist and social democratic bureaucracies, advancing a minimal programme of reforms as a means of blocking a more fundamental shift to the left by the millions of workers who have grown to hate and despise their parent bodies. All are staffed by a middle class layer of careerists, who have operated for years on the periphery of the old parties and in the trade unions and who now offer their services as propagandists of new bureaucratic and anti-socialist formations.

The aim of Left Unity is the same, but they have an added difficulty in that the Labour Party—easily the most right-wing among such formations—has suffered no significant defection by the supposed “left” in its ranks. This rump of a few dozen individuals is far too comfortable to strike out in a new vehicle, and is happy to reconcile itself to Labour’s ever more pronounced rightward lurch.

For this reason, Left Unity was formed by amalgamating the Thornett group with a split-off from the Socialist Workers Party, the International Socialist Network, as a core. Then come the various ex-members of pseudo-left outfits, who invariably portray their own tawdry life experiences as proof that “Marxism,” “Leninism” and “Trotskyism” are a “sectarian” diversion for which the workers have no time. To this must be added the leaven of a handful of highly vocal Stalinist die-hards, disenchanted Greens, feminists and other advocates of identity politics. The party is fronted by film director Ken Loach, a long-time political ally of Thornett.

In addition, there are the factions sent in to Left Unity by its left competitors, such as the Socialist Party and the Communist Party of Great Britain/ Weekly Worker, who are there in case Left Unity takes off or to win some of the discontented from an expected shipwreck.

Left Unity’s own supporters verify such a description of its make-up and purpose. On its web site, Dan Milligan writes a piece entitled “Cuddling up for warmth…or striking out in a new direction?” He speaks of a “dismal scene composed mostly of forty something white men, three or four people of colour, and maybe thirty or forty women,” a meeting “saturated with a wary, and certainly weary scepticism from a mass of people who have seen it all before. Stalwarts and survivors from a raft of other attempts to unify the British left….”

He describes the “strategy implicit in Left Unity’s activity” as “establishing practical links with existing left groups and parties…in the hope that the leaderships of far left and revolutionary groups will eventually opt to come into Left Unity.”

Loach was blunter in an interview with Huffington Post ’s Salma Shaheen, who stressed that the director is “keen to ensure that whoever is leading the project, all shades of opinion are represented, ‘so that everyone’s inside the tent pissing out, no one’s outside the tent pissing in.’ ”

Proceedings at the conference were extraordinary. This must be the first occasion where a party has been founded with virtually no specified policies and little or no discussion on programme. Instead, the day’s events were dominated by nominating a pre-selected leadership, rejecting the platforms advanced by various factions, and adopting a constitution.

A statement of aims was adopted, expressing only a “belief in the benefits of cooperation and community ownership” and “a democratically planned economy…within which all enterprises, whether privately owned, cooperatives, or under public ownership, operate in ways that promote the needs of the people”—i.e., a capitalist economy with some state ownership and regulation, no different to that which existed in Britain for decades in the aftermath of World War II.

Rather than speaking of the liberation of the working class, the aims specified only uniting “individuals and communities facing poverty and social oppression because of gender, ethnicity, age, disability, sexuality, employment or under-employment.”

This is now complemented by the fact that the “Left Platform,” led by Thornett, was alone in winning enough support to be accepted—meaning that its policies become de facto those of Left Unity. The “Socialist Platform,” the “Class Struggle Platform,” the “Republican Socialist Platform” and “Communist Platform” were by turn rejected by conference.

The debate was undemocratic, with speakers supposedly chosen “prioritising women, black and ethnic minorities, and disabled.” Aside from the movers of the various platforms, all eight speakers initially called by chair Liz Davies supported the Left Platform. She was then reluctantly forced to allow three additional delegates to speak in favour of the rest.

The advantage of the Left Platform, as far as most delegates were concerned, is that it says nothing that might alienate the Labour Party and trade union bureaucrats they hope to win. The statement speaks in the vaguest terms of “alternative social, economic and political policies” and the “democratisation of our society, economy, state and political institutions, transforming these arenas in the interests of the majority,” based upon “an alternative set of values of equality and justice: socialist, feminist, environmentalist and against all forms of discrimination.” Only then does it speak politely of “redistributing wealth to the working class.”

Internationalism is defined as working “with other left organisations and movements in Europe and internationally such as Syriza and Front de Gauche [an electoral coalition of the French Communist Party and the Left Party]” in “common actions.”

Loach moved that some of the formulations employed in other platforms be incorporated into a founding statement—published six days later—meaning that the party now references the working class and states that it is socialist and internationalist more prominently.

Opposition platform supporters were in general a picture of humility and contrition, with one stressing, “I’m a revolutionary, but I’m happy to work with people who don’t agree with me or believe in revolution.”

The discussion on the platforms took proceedings up to the lunch break. The bulk of the afternoon session (three-and-a-half hours) was occupied with discussions on the constitution. A half hour of spare time was dedicated to agreeing to support a victimised trade unionist.

Only the most politically corrupt would have accepted such an agenda without demur. But for the most part, only the most politically corrupt were in attendance. They were not there to build a “party” in any commonly understood sense of the term, but to lay down the organisational framework, conditions and requirements for collaboration in facing a common political enemy.

Ultimately, the intention of bringing everyone under one roof is to oppose the only force that cannot and will not be incorporated into such a filthy opportunist block—the Socialist Equality Party and the International Committee of the Fourth International, which represent the Trotskyism so often employed as a term of abuse by supporters of Left Unity.

Is this basically how it went?

[Cartertonian]

*waits for a resurgence of the People's Front of Judea gags*