We don’t pretend to be neutral in intra-left debates. We locate ourselves on what we sometimes like to call the new New Left, which is:

Anti-authoritarian: Committed to extensive democratic structures for both society and the movement itself. We’re committed to democracy as a matter of principle and because we think it’s the best way to keep our movement grounded in what really matters to people, keep people engaged and enthusiastic, cultivate new leaders and hold movement leaders to account, such as when they’re pressured to compromise with our enemies.

Intersectional: Contemporary injustice is not just about the rich unjustly dominating the poor; it’s also about men dominating women, white people dominating non-white people and white western countries dominating the rest of the world. These forms of injustice overlap in complex ways. 

Socially liberal: For example, we are strongly committed to feminism and LGBTQ+ liberation, to a wide range of family structures, multi-culturalism and the end of drug prohibition.

Our position on the new New Left shapes how we think about the challenges for the left that we raise here. We’re inclined towards maximally democratic organisations, broad coalitions and the importance of changing our culture as well as changing laws. We’re keen on the idea of transforming society by way of initially relatively small changes that build the left’s power and allow it to push for bigger changes down the road. We’re not, we hope, overly dogmatic and we want to be part of and encourage an internally diverse, vibrant  left. 

We’re not sure yet how exactly this will play out as this project continues. For example, how should we relate to illiberal, “anti-woke” and more culturally traditional leftists or what seem to us like unhelpfully dogmatic factions and groups? 

One of the questions we want to think through concerns the boundaries of the left. To what extent and in what way should the new New Left compromise with those who do not share these commitments?