YOUR PARTY, NOT ENTIRELY.

21 Responses to YOUR PARTY, NOT ENTIRELY.

1. barovsky says:

   October 21, 2025 at 5:32 pm

   It’s exactly what I expected, the Labour Party reborn, writ small, designed to replace the expended and redundant existing Labour Party. End of story and several million even more pissed off people. As I’ve said elsewhere,’Your Party’ [sic] was designed to fail.

   Reply
   • ucanbpolitical says:

     October 21, 2025 at 5:34 pm

     Too early to write it off let’s see what happens at conference

     Reply
     • barovsky says:

       October 21, 2025 at 6:47 pm

       You say this yet everything you highlight in your critique points to it being a rigged deal, with control concentrated in the hands of 7 individuals. It looks to be a technocratic version of the Labour Party, with the trappings of Assemblies stuck on (that’s the XR bit, championed by Schneider). Worse still, everything Sultana says she’s for, doesn’t exist, so where does that leave her? It’s a farce! I repeat; it’s deliberate, it neutralises all those grassroots forces.
     • barovsky says:

       October 21, 2025 at 9:25 pm

       And another thing that’s missing from the ‘plan’ that goes to the heart of a party having genuine, internal democracy, an absolute necessity if it’s to talk about democracy for everybody else, is the necessity of seperating policy making (the programme) from administrative functions, as it’s through controlling administrative functions that the leadership control policy. They have to be entirely seperate.
     • ucanbpolitical says:

       October 21, 2025 at 9:55 pm

       I agree, I wrote to Sultana saying the first conference should be purely functional so sortition was acceptable the second one, the policy one, three months later, had to be delegate based with documents discussed and amended in advance
     • barovsky says:

       October 21, 2025 at 10:01 pm

       Did she respond?
     • ucanbpolitical says:

       October 21, 2025 at 10:14 pm

       No alas. Did you read my earlier article on Your Party where I set it all out.
     • barovsky says:

       October 21, 2025 at 10:42 pm

       Yes, the idea of splitting the foundation process into two parts but I get the feeling that there’s us, ‘out here’ trying to think creatively about how to bring about real transformation to the political process and there’s ‘them’, manouvering, conspiring, plotting, the usual conniving bullshit as to who will come out on top, in other words, the same old BS, frozen in time. This is not politics, it’s power plays and career building. I really despair. I’ve been involved in left politics my entire life, I’m a 3rd gen Red and I think our politics are fucked and the bullshit around ‘Our Party’ just confirmed my thoughts. What a waste. What a betrayal.
2. antoniojesima says:

   October 22, 2025 at 7:28 pm

   If you think your opinion of this Your Party is excessively pessimistic, I’ll confirm it. And I can tell you that your pessimism is even a bit lacking. ALL parliamentary Left parties, across the planet, since the 1980s have entered a regressive phase. From Mitterrand, Blair, Felipe González, and so on, to Syriza, Podemos, and Mélenchon, they are merely social democracies that have regressed from their pre-1980s reform policies that favored the working class. This is the regressive and reactionary phase of the socialist ER (Revolutionary Economic Cycle) of 1917. At the turning point of the early 1980s, the global capitalist class rolled back the Russian revolutionary impulse. And everything that favored workers has retreated. In the economy: growth, the state, and workers’ income (real wages, % wages/GDP), and in politics: the progressive phase of reforms until the 1980s became a phase of counter-reforms. The regression will only stop outside parliament. With a revolution. It will happen between 2030 and 2040. The above is the science of socialist political economy, and I hope to publish a book about it soon. Best regards.

   Reply
   • ucanbpolitical says:

     October 22, 2025 at 7:34 pm

     How is the current book going,?

     Reply
     • barovsky says:

       October 22, 2025 at 7:51 pm

       Prometheus have published (kindof) seven texts on Your Party as an email to those signed up to Prometheus:

       “In the run-up to the founding conference of Your Party, several groupings and campaigns have developed and emerged. At The World Transformed, seven of these groupings came together to present a minimum unity declaration. At Prometheus, we have interviewed these groups to provide a guide for people to understand them and their political differences more. 

       “These groups are The Democratic Bloc, Democratic Socialists, Eco-Socialist Horizon, Greater Manchester Left Caucus, Organising for Popular Power, Trans Liberation Group and The People’s Front.”

       I say kindof as the links to the 7 texts are only available via a Prometheus email. I despair.
     • ucanbpolitical says:

       October 22, 2025 at 8:02 pm

       There is an email on my site here. Use it to send me your email and I will provide you with the links
     • barovsky says:

       October 22, 2025 at 8:31 pm

       Brian, I have the email with all the links. My point was, why not publish it as a page on Prometheus?
     • ucanbpolitical says:

       October 22, 2025 at 9:01 pm

       Ah I will submit it
   • barovsky says:

     October 22, 2025 at 7:38 pm

     I would go even further back, to around 1910 when the Labour Party became the other half of the ruling political class to manage capitalism. In a phrase, reform, not revolution and then once again in 1945, ‘capitallism with a socialist face’, otherwise known as the Welfare state, all built on the back of the Empire’s possessions, the Cold War and anti-Communism.

     Reply
     • antoniojesima says:

       October 23, 2025 at 11:32 am

       Sobre el Partido Laborista en 1.910 no tengo datos. Si siguio la tendencia del resto de partidos socialdemocratas europeos, desde 1.917 debio plantear medidas de reformas fovorables a la clase trabajadora. De menos a mas y tal como lo hizo en 1.945 Clement Atllee con su N.H.S. y sus nacionalizaciones de industrias clase. Todas esa reformas, en todo pais, retrocedieron (Tony Blair) desde inicios de los años 80.

       Sobre el libro va algo mas lento de lo esperado porque en los ultimos meses no he podido dedicarle tiempo. Gracias por preguntar.

       Un saludo
3. antoniojesima says:

   October 23, 2025 at 2:09 pm

   Obviously, my previous comment in Spanish wasn’t intended to help you learn the language, but a mistake. One more thing, in case it helps. Since I began studying CERs (revolutionary economic cycles) 10 years ago, I haven’t expected anything positive from the parliamentary left in any country. And the prediction never fails. Except for tiny measures in favor of the working class, they will continue to do nothing. They are very far from, and are moving in the opposite direction (backwards) to, the European social democracy of before the 1980s (Labor, Central Europe, the Nordic countries, even in the USA). What’s still missing is a revolutionary party (like the Bolsheviks) that combines reformist action with revolution. Revolution, ultimately, is the only thing that stops economic and political regression. Not reforms. It will happen because workers’ real incomes have continued to fall, and will continue to fall, since the 1980s. All over the planet. That’s all. The economic structure and its movement determine medium- and long-term policy. Regards.

   Reply
   • ucanbpolitical says:

     October 23, 2025 at 2:15 pm

     My concern is to enable genuine and open debate to take place in Your Party so the clash over ideas and program can take place. It was always to be expected that the first program of the party was going to be reformist but what counts is the last program, similar to, it’s not important who fires the first shot but who fires the last shot.

     Reply
     • antoniojesima says:

       October 23, 2025 at 7:00 pm

       Your goal with Your Party is very laudable. Good luck in achieving it. I’m an economist and have little knowledge of politics and political parties. From the perspective of the CER theory, I can say that Great Britain, like all the G7 countries, is far from being a candidate for the next socialist revolution because its working class, although its real income has also been declining since the 1980s, enjoys a high economic position within the global working class. I repeat: you’re going to need a lot of luck and hard work to make J. Corbyn’s party both reformist and revolutionary. Best regards.
4. antoniojesima says:

   October 23, 2025 at 7:21 pm

   Something I missed and that should be thoroughly clarified. “Capitalism with a human face,” that is, the Welfare States, would not have existed without the socialist revolution. It was a spatial propagation of the impulse of the socialist CER of 1917. It was the threat of revolution (this expression is also used by Daren Acemoglou, to my recent surprise) that the capitalist ruling class feared. And that’s why they allowed the Welfare State and… enjoyed the same Golden Age. Without the productive State (state-owned enterprises and nationalizations), their entry into Health and Education (Welfare State) would not have resulted in that explosion of growth. Greater Production and Consumption (Supply and Demand) are the key to Socialism. An economic key that was propagated in capitalist countries.

   Reply
5. antoniojesima says:

   October 23, 2025 at 8:16 pm

   One last question. In case it’s shocking that I say the Golden Age is a product of Socialism, I’ll briefly provide some facts. ‘Pure’ capitalist growth is that of the 19th century, with states that didn’t reach 10% of GDP in their production. According to Agnus Maddison, that growth was 1.5% annually. However, during the Golden Age, growth under Capitalism reached 4.5%. Triple that. What happened? The same thing happened, but to a lesser extent, than under Socialism. The State became the main producer. From 10%, it reached 70% in the Nordic countries, including large state-owned enterprises. And at almost full employment. More employment and consumption, only because of the state locomotive, which, on the one hand, generated a lot of quality employment and, on the other, pulled capitalist enterprises and their employment with its purchases. Meanwhile, the socialist countries grew at 5/6/7%. As I said, greater production and consumption is the key.

   Reply