Arguments for Left Unity and a Revolutionary Platform (on Facebook)

[Steve Wallis]

Some arguments I've been making on the Facebook group "I bet I can find a million people who DON'T want David Cameron as our PM" in this post:

David Kent said: "alll it will do is succeed in splitting the left and ensure a tory majority". That's not true because we will probably only stand in "safe" Labour seats (e.g. like George Galloway did in Bradford) where the Tories don't stand a chance of getting voted in anyway. If we stand in the European elections, they are conducted via proportional representation, so voters can put us 1 and Labour 2 (with BNP last or not voted for at all) - and I will personally try to ensure we point this out in our election leaflets (cutting across those who say they're voting Labour to keep the BNP out).

Besides, now that Ed Miliband and Ed Balls have said they will carry on with ConDem austerity, what is the point of voting Labour anyway? The lack of difference between the mainstream parties is largely what is driving the growth in support for UKIP, and without us acting as an antidote to their vile far right views I dread to think what the future of this country (and indeed the world) would be like!

Glen Shaky Shakespeare said "deliberately taking seats from Labour will ensure a Tory outright majority". This is quite simply wrong. An outright majority (as opposed to being the biggest party) means that the Tories would have over half the seats in the House of Commons, and some of the left-wing seats changing from Labour to Left Unity would have no effect on that.

Furthermore, there could be a minority government, such as in the Scottish parliament from 2007-11, which in my opinion would be better than a coalition where 8 bigwigs (all men in the case of the Tories and Lib Dems) cobble together some sort of dreadful compromise and MPs are expected to vote according to such a "coalition agreement", rather than according to their own views or those of their constituents.

I agree with Deborah Rushton when she says "I have no wish to live in a totalitarian state of soviet proportions" but disagree that a revolution needs to be violent (if you consider the revolutions that brought down the "soviet" regimes in the USSR and Eastern Europe, some were, some weren't).

If you read the text of my "Call for a Revolutionary Platform of Left Unity" ... you will see that I specifically argue that a revolution should preferably be non-violent, such as via a general strike. You will also see that democracy is vital and that the USSR wasn't socialist (and this is not just my view but that of the vast majority of the far left in Britain today).

To answer these points, I've included below paragraphs from the Call:

1. "By revolutionary, we mean sudden thorough change, preferably through peaceful means like a general strike. Gradual reformist (e.g. Keynesian) change won’t lead to socialism because gains that can be won during a boom are taken back in a slump or recession."

6. Socialism must be democratic – we reject the idea that the regimes in the USSR, Eastern Europe and China were socialist, but we believe in unity between revolutionaries who called such regimes “deformed workers’ states”, “state capitalist”, “bureaucratic collectivist” or simply “Stalinist”.

7. Socialism has to be international, particularly in this globalised world. We reject the idea that there is a national solution to the problems of capitalism.

8. A second credit crunch, which this time would mean that capitalist governments would be literally unable to bail out the banks even if they wanted to, could happen at any time, and we need to be more prepared than at the time of the first credit crunch and use such an opportunity to seize power via an international socialist revolution.

I agree with the use of elections (as I've said above), but a heavily flawed electoral system that discriminates against small parties is deeply flawed - I'm a long time advocate of proportional representation but am not imposing that on my Platform before it even gets started! Also, one vote every 5 years is not exactly democratic. What if an economic crisis, such as a second credit crunch mentioned in point 8, happens at a time when elections are long off? I argue strongly for elections soon after the masses take power, to legitimise the revolution.

Point 1 above answers Deborah Rushton's argument that "REAL change is not only possible, but also desired by the public" - staying under the confines of capitalism makes REAL change impossible, hence Miliband and Balls embracing austerity. I would hope this could be overturned at Labour's September conference, but even if a vote is won against it, the leadership would simply ignore it judging by past experience.

The combination of a globalised world and a second credit crunch causing economic chaos everywhere would put the prospect of world socialist revolution firmly on the agenda. However much the generals may wish to use the army to put down revolt on the streets, they would risk mutiny from the rank-and-file, many of whom come from working class backgrounds. I strongly agree with Deborah's argument about using the internet, and I personally do this a lot, during the present non-revolutionary times. Imagine the effect of simultaneous uprisings across the world, including in many Western countries where revolutions aren't supposed to happen (or so we're told).

From Wikipedia, I have found out that when Deborah Rushton said "There were many who thought that the police and army would not back Churchill against the miners. They did!" she was referring to the Tonypandy Riots in 1910/11. Since this was before even the Russian Revolutions in 1917, it was difficult to direct the ill feeling held by working class people in Wales resulting from that in a positive direction (towards socialist revolution in particular).

Socialists generally recognise that the police are more middle class than the army, and much less likely to revolt against orders given by their leaders (so I don't know why people wouldn't expect the police to be used against the mid-80s miners' strike).

Decisions on whether to deploy the army and/or police against workers (and whether to actually shoot them) are made on tactical grounds and the leaders of the state who make such decisions weigh up the pros and cons. There have been historical examples of workers fraternising with rank-and-file soldiers and winning them over, which has the added advantage that the workers get weapons. I am not saying this to argue that this is my preferred solution, since I am a very peaceful person, just that this is something they will weigh up. There is also the issue of who started the violence - and the BBC reversing the coverage at Orgreave so it seemed that the miners charged at the police before the police charged at them, when the opposite was actually the case, was obviously deliberately taken to influence public opinion (now that activists film such events for themselves and put them on the internet such blatant falsification is much less easy to get away with).

Rather than blaming the far left for the problems under the Labour government in the 1970s, shouldn't she blame the Labour leadership and the economic problems that were caused due to staying within the confines of capitalism?

I do understand worries that the far left would try to impose a dictatorship of some sort, such as denying middle class people a say (or much of a say); hence my proposal for a government elected by proportional representation and some form of direct democracy (perhaps involving internet voting on laws) as well as some degree of workers' control of industry - see https://www.facebook.com/groups/verydemocraticsocialism.

But anyway, there is substantial evidence that a financial bubble is about to burst (a sort of second crunch), which would make the prospects for revolution much stronger and render arguments for simply electing the ConDems out of power redundant. I have posted such evidence [on this group].