AntiCapitalist Resistance welcomed the announcement by Zarah Sultana of a new left party involving herself and Jeremy Corbyn. When 800,000 people signed up to the mailing list it confirmed a huge appetite for a left voice at elections but also in our communities and workplaces.
The events of the last few days however have been chaotic and exposed deep splits in the organising group of Your Party. The regular leaks to the capitalist press had already shown there were divisions but the membership launch fiasco and the threats to call in lawyers and the Information Commissioners office is hugely damaging.
Whilst we appreciate Sultana’s concerns about the lack of transparency and democracy, launching an unofficial membership portal has caused confusion. We needed proper accountability and democracy so people can know what is going on and have more of a say.
But it is quite clear that there is a grouping at the heart of Your Party that is reluctant to have a properly democratic party and are instead focussing on the existing MPs, Corbyn, Sultana and the Independent Alliance, as well as a scattering of councillors to run things.
This entire approach is wrong and is only replicating the problems of Labourism when the Labour Party was set up in 1918 and MPs got a privileged position of power over the membership.
The two sides need a mediated meeting with someone from the movement that is neutral but commands some credibility. Corbyn must drop his threat of legal action.
We need a national conference based on delegates to decide these issues and launch the party properly on a firm, socialist basis. We must demand unity from the leadership, at least to get the party set up.
Importantly we need to keep building local groups – if the leadership cannot get their act together then we do this from the base, starting in the communities and workplaces.These meetings need to be advertised to all – not just those in our own address books – and in an inclusive way eg through hybrid meetings. The centre needs to advertise them to everyone who has signed up in that geographical areas.
This squabbling behind the scenes over who controls members’ data is pathetic when we are facing the dangerous threat of a Reform government, a mass, violent ‘patriotic’ movement and the continued collapse of the climate.
The self appointed leaders of Your Party are squandering a historic opportunity and future generations will not forgive us for wrecking the most credible chance we have at a mass left socialist party.
Was the LP set up in 1918? By then it had already committed the ultimate betrayal of supporting its own imperialism in war. I think itcwascset up in 1900.
It progressed to 1918 via a pact with LiberalsThe 1918 refounding involved commitment to clause 4 nationalisation.Context of reformist proramnes in face Russian Revolutiom and Bolshevism.Partly explains their compromise with bourgeois parties to support offer female franchise only to older women in 1918
1918 was the year the Labour Party moved to enable individual membership and to begin to abandon a totally federalist arrangement from its 1900 formation as the Labour Representation Committee (changing name to Labour Party in 1906 was a move of no constitutional significance).
It’s therefore an important watermark, though primarily known for the Clause IV commitment to ‘common ownership’.
It’s a poor analogy though in this context. One of the main motivations of the Fabians who backed it was to clip the influence of the then Independent Labour Party. The ILP was the main backbone of individual activists within Labour, but had been strongly anti-war during the Great War and had agitated vigorously against conscription with many ILP activists being imprisoned (alongside quakers and pacifists). Labour MPs, however, joined the Liberal-Conservative government and Cabinet (many had been originally elected as Liberals). One trade union called for the expulsion of the ILP at Labour Conference 1917 because of its antiwar stance. To a lesser extent it was also to try to halt the growth of the British Socialist Party (BSP). BSP was the main heir of the marxist SDF, which had helped form the LRC in 1900 but in a stupid fit of sectarian pique walked out in 1903 (SDF changed its name in 1906 and 1911). BSP reaffiliated to Labour in 1916 after the pro war clique leading it was thrown out (the pro war clique also reaffiliated as the National Socialist Party in 1918 changing its name back to SDF in 1919 and having 11 MPs and virtually no members).
The reason it’s important though is because of the debate over whether the new party today should be primarily a federation of existing formations as with Labour 1900-1918, or based on individual membership as with Labour after 1918 (gradually morphing to ‘one member one vote’ today). Pinpointing the membership changes of 1918 as a major negative point that led to MPs dominating Labour rather strengthens the case for federalism over OMOV, and ignores the fact it was actually to reduce left influence among members.
The importance of MPs existed in Labour right from the beginning, with its central aim being to ‘secure parliamentary representation’ and the LRC foundation conference in 1900 being chaired by an MP (who was actually from the Liberal Party). The secret pact made by then LRC secretary Ramsay Macdonald with Gladstone to secure scores of unchallenged Liberal MPs for the 1906 election indicates federalism was no obstacle to undemocratic processes and manipulation around parliamentary manoeuvres.
This isn’t politics as usual!
However, electoral commission rules, data privacy laws and legal constraints still take priority over personal preferences.
If Sultana risks breaching any of those through lack of experience over enthusiasm, that too will damage the party!
Trust Corbyn, he brought the many with him!!
I am now retired and have been a TU Rep/campaigning leftie since my teens. Just try to imagine the things I have seen in those 70 plus years. I still recall the night Thatcher was first elected as if it was yesterday. In all that time I have never been in the LP or joined any leftie Party. Here is the reason why……
One of the many consistencies in all that time is for the left to excel at splitting a human hair more times in ever more infinite ways. I have lost count of the so many names (most forgotten) factions of the left gave themselves over 50 years. To name just a few. From Militant to Socialist Worker. From CPGB to Scargill’s Socialist Party, Tony Benns Peoples Assembly and the heinous Galloways Respect. All without exception hated and fought each other far more than the Capitalists and Fascists…..
–
You may now have some idea how I laughed when Corbyn/Sultana proposed another Nirvana for us all. I thought Corbyn was long enough in the tooth to know better now. I opposed his idea on other leftie sites and expected to be called a class and traitor. Sure enough I was. See what I mean.
However they have taken this hair splitting to whole new AI level. Its a first to split even before the party has a name or organisation. Whatever the problems Corbyn rushing to the lawyers is disgusting and hypercritical.
Summing up. If there is one thing I have learned in my years its we will never but ever change the system that is designed to keep the bxxxxx in power. By fighting inside it and playing by its rules. Which any new minority party does. Until Westminster and the FPTP voting system are replaced by some form of PR……forming a new parliamentary party is just more pxxxxx in the wind.
First priority above else. Form an unstoppable alliance with all who support PR. Excluding Reform of course. Why do we think the Tories and right wing Labour oppose it. They know they they would never win a majority again.
Thank you comrades