updated 7 January 2025 with proposed amendment
Proposed by Lauren Wilson & Seconded by Peter Ford
The common parlance in British politics is to refer to parties, policies and people as either ‘right wing’ or ‘left wing’. It serves the interests of the ruling class and its media apparatus to frame political issues (and their proposed solutions) as right wing i.e., Brexit, free speech, immigration or left wing ie. identity politics.
The ruling class and the media use the concept of left and right to divide workers and further entrench them in opposition to each other, to a point where people treat their political affiliation like a football team. It means that people will support ideas even if they privately disagree with them if they see it as being part of their team for example support for medical gender transition for children has been adopted as a left wing position that is hard to defend, but if you see yourself as ‘left wing’ you are likely to defend these policies through ignorance or fear of being ostracised from your in-group.
The Workers Party, in fighting for the economic, social and political interests of the working class of Britain will at times support policies that can be viewed as right wing or left wing, depending on the conditions we find ourselves in. For example the Party supported Brexit, viewed by most as a right wing idea, and our support for the abolition of the monarchy is traditionally viewed as left wing.
It does not serve our Party to be pigeon holed as being on the left or right. The left is often given the moniker loony lefties, while the right often painted as fascists or nazis. We reject this binary view, we fight for the working class and its interests no matter which ‘side’ the media may paint any issue. It is our role to appeal to workers who view themselves as left or right wing and show them that only socialism can emancipate the working class.
Congress endorses the notion that the Workers Party of Britain is not a ‘left wing’ or ‘right wing’ party. The Workers Party of Britain is a socialist party fighting for the economic, social and political interests of the working class of Britain. That is, common-sense socialism.
Amendment to Motion 4
submitted by Gwydion Williams
Replace “the Workers Party of Britain is not a ‘left wing’ or ‘right wing’ party”.
Substitute it with “the Workers Party of Britain is broadly ‘left wing’, but is not obliged to accept all policies currently classed as leftist. Nor to reject any called ‘right wing’, when these seem correct. Immigration and attitudes to the police are cases in point. We should not protest without having a clear idea of what we could feasibly replace things with. ‘If you can’t fix it, don’t break it’.”
General Secretary’s note:
If the amendment above is adopted the final paragraph of this motion will then read:
Congress endorses the notion that the Workers Party of Britain is broadly ‘left wing’, but is not obliged to accept all policies currently classed as leftist. Nor to reject any called ‘right wing’, when these seem correct. Immigration and attitudes to the police are cases in point. We should not protest without having a clear idea of what we could feasibly replace things with. ‘If you can’t fix it, don’t break it’. The Workers Party of Britain is a socialist party fighting for the economic, social and political interests of the working class of Britain. That is, common-sense socialism.
This is an unusual and thoughtful motion that describes our current situation brilliantly. It defines the WPB by what it is at heart and not through the categories of an inherited past framed by elites and manipulative media ‘intellectuals’. I hope those members who can attend Congress will support it unreservedly.
Replace “the Workers Party of Britain is not a ‘left wing’ or ‘right wing’ party”.
Substitute “the Workers Party of Britain is broadly ‘left wing’, but is not obliged to accept all policies currently classed as leftist. Nor to reject any called ‘right wing’, when these seem correct. Immigration and attitudes to the police are cases in point. We should not protest without having a clear idea of what we could feasibly replace things with. ‘If you can’t fix it, don’t break it’.”
I think that transforms the motion into a complicated word salad when the original motion is clear enough as it is.
The general idea is excellent. I just want clearer wording.
We need to abandon all middle class liberal notions of ‘Left wing v Right wing’. ‘Working class socialism’ is what we are and should state proudly. ‘Left wing, centre ground, Right wing’ is just media nonsense here to shackle us.
Excellent thought provoking subject matter for a motion.
The working class is neither left wing or right wing. It is the progressive wealth and value creating class that determines history. Asserting the interests of our class is much more profound than the superficiality of sociological terms like left and right wing.
Correct not to allow the party to be defined by media/ establishment categories
I regard this resolution as a first step on establishing the foundational principles of the Workers Party. This is a matter of fundamental significance that cannot be addressed in a rushed manner during a Congress. Instead, it should act as a launching point for articulating the Party’s identity, to be further developed in a subsequent Congress specifically focussed on this objective. The critical issue at stake is the definition of socialism, which serves as a safeguard against its potential degeneration in the future. In my perspective, socialism embodies a societal structure where commodity production is replaced by social production, providing the necessary abolition of exploitation of one class by another.
Tushar Sarkar
The amendment is pure nonsense. We are a socialist party. That speaks for itself. Drop all this middle class liberal nonsense of ‘left and right’.
The Workers Party of Britain are a socialist party…
if some people need a dictionary to know what that means I can provide one… the younger members may use google
Failing to call ourselves ‘left’ would ignore the normal language of politics.
“Left-wing politics describes the range of political ideologies that support and seek to achieve social equality and egalitarianism, often in opposition to social hierarchy as a whole[1][2][3][4] or certain social hierarchies.[5] Left-wing politics typically involve a concern for those in society whom its adherents perceive as disadvantaged relative to others as well as a belief that there are unjustified inequalities that need to be reduced or abolished[1] through radical means that change the nature of the society they are implemented in….
“Within the left–right political spectrum, Left and Right were coined during the French Revolution, referring to the seating arrangement in the French National Assembly. Those who sat on the left generally opposed the ancien régime and the Bourbon monarchy and supported the Revolution, the creation of a democratic republic and the secularisation of society[7] while those on the right were supportive of the traditional institutions of the Ancien Régime. ”
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Left-wing_politics
Almost any summary of politics would say the same.
The media swamps perception of ‘left’ as left-liberal. But why conceed?
I’m a socialist with a lot of right wing views – or views perceived as such – I joined the Workers Party precisely because it breaks from the left and isn’t run by lefties. The actions and messaging from the self-identified left has brought the working class movement into total disrepute. I’m afraid this motion would set a worrying precedent for our party to fall into the realm of wokism and the green agenda.
I’m with Paul Moor.
Drawing upon decades of my political involvement, I am acutely aware of the numerous confused stance as well as betrayals by organizations that claimed to champion socialism. I do not need a dictionary or Google to remind my fellow comrades of these distressing and perilous experiences. The Labour Party and its antiquated Clause 4 stand as a pertinent example for our consideration.
Socialism has evolved into a concept rooted in scientific theories and practical application, and it must be treated with the seriousness it deserves. While I recognize the good intentions of those who envision the WPB as a socialist party, it is essential to seek clarification on their specific interpretation of socialism that they are advocating for.
I have long thought that the use of a unidimensional “right to left” map of politics is outmoded, especially so in the present time when the formerly “left” social democrats and greens sometimes espouse policies more injurious to the working class, nationally and internationally, than those of the traditional “right”. In their grotesque dance of death, the factions of the ruling class spin round each other and orientation by “Left vs Right” has lost all meaning. The word “socialism” is clearly free of these taints.
Politically, this Motion may be important to consider on three grounds.
First, it adds to our differentiation from the bankrupt liberal Left in Britain.
Second, it separates the general principles (socialism, anti-imperialism and working class), which are not up for discussion and which became wobbly in the Labour Party to the point of non-existence, from intelligent flexibility in dealing with specific policies that can change with external conditions but which must always be centred within those principles.
After all, this is at the root of Chinese success: its core ideology is absolute but its specific policies are measured against actual long term outcomes rather than short term sentiments. It plays a long game and so should we.
Third, it allows a tactical approach to positions to be taken when the centrists and right wing populists come into conflict. These are now the two dominant forces in Western democratic politics. The ‘real’ Left (despite the excitement over Corbyn) died as a dynamic political force in the UK many decades ago to all intents and purposes. It is performative, a ‘movement’ that comes and goes and slides uselessly between emotive single issues and campaigns without party discipline.
This means (and this is important) that ‘being Left’ should no longer be used automatically to buttress Centrism out of fear of the Populist Right but should allow us the courage to consider the Centrist as no longer some lesser evil that takes the Left for granted but as sometimes the greater evil to be crushed. Sometimes, in accord with our core principles, it is the populist Right that is closest to our core principles. In other words our core is Left (ends) but the way we may behave may is ‘beyond Left or Right’ (means).
This is why, in some respects, the Biden Administration was the lesser evil to the Trump challenge even if the latter might be regarded as evil. The destruction of the Clinton-Obama-Biden line of Centrism has opened the door to a struggle for change on the American Left that could not exist so long as the Left were taken for granted by triangulating manipulators. Trump is in power because significant parts of the American Left put principle first (over Gaza). Starmer is in power because most of the British liberal left regarded him as the lesser evil when he clearly was not.
In order to effect this radical strategic change, we have to come back to the first ground – differentiation from the middle class liberal left which is what ‘Left’ means to most working households outside the unionised public sector.
‘Left’ has a global meaning. And an historic meaning. It would just confuse people, to deny we were part of it.
We can sensibly accuse the current liberal-left of having abandoned the core of left-wing beliefs, the drive to control the rich and promote equality.
But if we are not left, and also not right or centrist, just what are we? How would you try to explain this to outsiders?
Saying ‘left, but an alternative sort of left’ would make immediate sense.
Part of ‘the left’s global meaning’ today is that you can cut off Mr Tinkle Winkle and become a chick… that green and blue hair dye is the core principle… that they stand on the border/coastline handing imported criminals mobile phones… and that they use abortion as their preferred method of birth control… OK that’s mainly Americanisation but it has spread throughout the English speaking world which is US establishment dominated and where most westerners think the global conscience lies… so they are the core attacks on the left of GB NEWS and REFORM UK. Leftism is middle class personal liberalism and has been for at least 20 years. Leftism, centrism, the right was what was thrown at us during the EU Referendum…. Only old right wing stupid racists want to leave the EU… academic leftists and the middle class centre (which the media portrayed as the only alternative) clearly see the enormous benefits of the EU…. The word ‘Left’ has taken on whatever the establishment and media have wanted to attach to it for the last 20 years. Transgenders will gladly proclaim the freedom of leftism without having a clue about ‘social and economic’ socialism that puts the working class family at the heart of what it stands for… these ‘leftists’ see the core family as part of the problem, they see working class men as the enemy and working class women as controlled sheep, but controlled by working class men, not the establishment. Leftism has become ‘individual freedom’ to exist in a capitalist society where Socialism is the collective strength to oppose the capitalist society. But here we are dancing on the head of a pin about ‘leftism’ and ‘socialism’ when to some they mean the same thing and to others they are vice versa. For me Socialism hasn’t picked up the personal shit of the last twenty years on its wheels as leftism has.
Here, here. Well said Paul!
Why surrender to a false definition of leftism? On the matter of gender, China as the biggest global force for leftist economic ideas only decriminalised homosexuality in the 1990s. China is very unlikely to recognise gay marriage, which I assume most members see as valid or even a human right, since no one has spoke against it. And it has recently cracked down on young men looking effeminate, while celebrating its nice-looking female soldiers. Leftism is inherently broad, and people should not let their dislike of liberal leftism push them into a stand which would confuse the public.
Lenin thought ‘the left’ were an ‘infantile disorder’… I’m with Lenin
It would be nice to define (or at lease outline) what “socialism” means. There are many European parties which claim to be “socialist” but in fact support genocide in Gaza, US imperialist policies, neo-Nazi Ukrainian regime and neo-liberal economic policies. It is probably a long story but I think some theoretical work on what is “socialism”, what is not, what must be economical, political, social and other foundations of socialism and how to separate from neo-liberal pro-Nazi European pseudo-“socialist” parties is required.