Do we need a new socialist party? No, we need a citizens movement

Deep breath. Here we go. I've been a socialist for over 50 years. In that time, I've seen all the same old arguments go around in circles without us making any real progress. In the old days, they used to talk about the 57 varieties of Trotskyism, as left Trot parties went through split after split caused by the same old rubbish - personality clashes, leadership ambitions and quibbles about political purity. Factionalism has always been the curse of the left. Get a bunch of 'socialists' in a room, and they'll spend more time arguing than agreeing.

So, what do we do? We need to consider a new path. Instead of trying to build a left party, how about building a citizen's movement instead. All the members would be independents who come together with shared views for change. There would be no leaders. I'll explain why later.

Most people in the UK, and Europe, and the USA are sick of neoliberal government and austerity. They are angry and fed up. Most have stopped voting altogether. Yet most agree that we need real change. We need decent public services that are accessible for all - rail, healthcare, decent jobs, postal, energy, housing, water - out of the hands of corporations. 

For a change, we need to have a laser focus on the things we can all agree about and ditch the petty arguments. If this means working with other who don't hold all our political views, so be it. There are plenty of decent people who agree with us on key issues but wouldn't call themselves socialists. 

Most people are not political. They don't read manifestos, Their votes are an emotional, not a political response.  Yet, if you look at the polls, all the things I mentioned above, rail, energy etc. are hugely popular. 

Can we think wider than socialism, and involve more people in a national movement for change? I think so. These are desperate times. We are stuck with Mandelson's Nu Labour for another five years, and we have to bring as much pressure to bear on the government as possible.

Here's another view that will be unpopular with many. Make decisions by consensus. It's not as daft or difficult as you think. Yes, it takes more time, but it avoids division and ridiculous 51/49 splits. David Graeber wrote about this in his excellent book The Democracy Project, which is a must-read. 

As David wrote, real democracy is direct democracy, not representative democracy. We need collective decision-making, not leaders holding power and telling us what to do. A movement can have 'leaders' in the sense that they are spokespeople who can engage and inspire others, but not a hierarchy telling us what to do.

This is from the Seeds of Change, Link above:

"Consensus decision making is a creative and dynamic way of reaching agreement in a group. Instead of simply voting for an item and having the majority getting their way, a consensus group is committed to finding solutions that everyone actively supports – or at least can live with."

Is all that a bit too anarchist for you? I can hear the hisses coming from the back of the room, but time is running out. If we want to bring about real change, we need to think outside the box.