I also support the Socialist Platform of Left Unity

[Steve Wallis]

As well as putting out my call for a Revolutionary Platform, I have also signed up to the Socialist Platform of Left Unity, as outlined in http://leftunity.org/socialist-platform-statement-of-aims-and-principles/ and as justified in http://leftunity.org/resistance-and-socialist-change-an-article-in-support-of-the-socialist-platform/.

I do not support it 100%, but my only significant disagreement is the emphasis on "working class". At most, around 60% of the UK population regard themselves as working class (http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2013/jan/13/britons-working-class-fear-tory-voters in January 2013), but it has been as little as 24% (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-14721315 referring to http://britainthinks.com/sites/default/files/WorkingAboutTheWorkers-print.pdf in August 2011). It is partly a matter of how the question is posed - one poll includes "upper working class", which many socialists would regard as skilled workers and the other includes "lower middle", "middle" and "upper middle". However, either way, Left Unity should get away from the old Marxist way of doing things - appealing just to workers. I prefer the 99% versus the 1% as expressed by the Occupy movement, or talking about "ordinary people" or perhaps "working and middle class people". I am happy to refer to "the ruling class" or "big business" though. Whereas this is the same thing as the Marxist term "the bourgeoisie", I always avoid such convoluted language nowadays.

But it is not just the question of who we appeal to in the here and now, but what sort of society we want to create after a socialist revolution. Do we want a society just controlled by workers (the old Marxist terminology for that is "the dictatorship of the proletariat" although sensible Marxists avoid this phrase nowadays!) or do we want a society in which everyone is in control? I argue for a government elected by proportional representation and some form of direct democracy (involving everyone in decision making on the basis of one member one vote), as proposed in my Very Democratic Socialism Facebook group.

I recognise, however, that most members of the Socialist Platform come from a Marxist background (and some are still in a Marxist organisation), so I think putting forward an amendment (probably from a branch rather than the Revolutionary Platform even if we reach 10 members so can do so) to the Socialist Platform statement (and other proposals fixated on the working class) would be the best way of influencing Left Unity policy on this.

Some people have commented that the Socialist Platform is "revolutionary", even "Trotskyist". According to the Weekly Worker (http://www.cpgb.org.uk/assets/files/wwpdf/ww973.pdf), Nick Wrack, who is a Trotskyist (he was the member of the Executive Committee of the Militant Tendency with resposibility for my region, Manchester/Lancashire, when I joined in 1990 and for some years afterwards), launched the Socialist Platform, but it was probably a joint effort (he and six others signed the Resistance and Socialist Change justification) and both documents tactically avoid specifying how capitalism is to be replaced by socialism.

I want Left Unity to be a broad socialist organisation - my motivation for building a Revolutionary Platform is to unite as many genuine revolutionary socialists as possible within LU in a single platform, to try to overcome the problem which occurred with other broad socialist organisations (including the Scottish Socialist Party) of rival revolutionary organisations competing with each other within it rather than cooperating around shared goals.

The other distinct point about the Revolutionary Platform is predicting some sort of new financial crisis in the near future - point 8 in the Call for a Revolutionary Platform of Left Unity:

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.

This is justified by two postings in this group: "The biggest financial bubble in British history is about to burst" and Barclays' problems & possibility of a second credit crunch. Although it is impossible to predict when this will happen, or how events will unfold, revolutionary socialists should not be passive bystanders this time and we will be much stronger united than divided.

[Steve Wallis]

To clarify, I am in favour of some degree of workers' control of industry - but also with a say to users/consumers and a government elected by PR, and direct democracy (perhaps via internet referenda). I think that nowadays the idea that a non-proportional voting system (and "soviets" as implemented in the USSR and the misnamed first-past-the-post system we have in Britain today are certainly not proportional) are unfair, and we would stand little chance of coming to power if we advocated a similar proposal to soviets (sometimes called "workers' democracy").

I do think that the decision of the Bolsheviks to abolish the Constituent Assembly in Russia in 1917 after the October revolution was a big mistake that has led to socialism and particularly communism being regarded as undemocratic ever since. The argument Marxists put forward is that there would have been a lot of repression of the Bolsheviks if they hadn't done so, but there had been two revolutions that year, so surely workers could have defended them and launched another revolution when the Assembly started betraying their hopes and aspirations.

The Assembly elections were won by a peasant-based party, the Socialist Revolutionaries (or in some translations Social Revolutionaries, perhaps used to imply they weren't revolutionary socialists!) The majority of the SR seats in the Assembly were won by large landowners because they were better educated and organised - the so-called Right SRs - and the Left SRs continued to support the Bolsheviks.

It is easy to say in hindsight, but my view is that the Bolsheviks should have gone into the countryside to build a united revolutionary socialist party, in conjunction with revolutionary peasants, before the Assembly elections took place.

Anyway, all the above are my personal views, rather than those I intend to impose on the Revolutionary Platform. I want Marxists to feel free to join the Platform without being put off by such differences. These views are no different to those I held when in a Marxist organisation (the Militant Tendency/Militant Labour/the Socialist Party) from 1990-98. Of course, those who want to debate them are free to do so!